19 Aug 2007 12:17:57
Reef Fish
A New One on the International Security FARCE

When I was at the Princess Cruise Ship Dock (Pier) in Southampton,
outside of London, waiting to board the ship, my name was called on
the loudspeaker to see the Brit Security Agents for the cruise ship.

To make a long Reality Farce short, the X-ray screening machine on
my checked luggage detected a KNIFE which was illegal by British
security standards. It wasn't anything LARGE, or even potentially
dangerous, and the blade was no longer than that of a DINNER knife.

But it was a Scubapro DIVE KNIFE which I had NEVER encountered
any security check or scrutiny before -- about 1/4-inch thick when
folded as carried and about 3 1/2 inch long, but when the blade
opened,
it was LOCKED in the open position (sensible for a dive knife) until
the
lock is depressed to fold the blade back. But THAT was what made
it illegal in the British security system, a "locked knife" or
"lockable
knife" to be treated in the same class as a switch blade.

I carried that knife to ALL cruises, to be used as a cutting knife for
fruits, strings, and opening some plastic packages, and never used
it as the DIVE knife as intended by Scubapro.

The Princess security officer took my ID and carefully explained that
he will be holding the knife during the cruise and will make sure that
I get it back before I leave the ship.

I am sure the entire ship of 1950 passengers and the crew of 800 or
more will be sleeping much better during the next two weeks if they
only knew that my Scubapro "lock knife" had been detected and
held in the custody of the ship security officer's dungeon.

There are many INSANE things at the UK besides this kind of
security farce. One piece of a tiny shrimp tampura (which cost
$1 in Atlanta) is priced at 3 British Pounds (BP), the equivalent of
about $9 USD. A 12-oz bottle of any kind of softdrink costs a
minumum of nearly $3 USD at any store or softdrink stand in
London. The worthless of the USD was quite apparent on this
trip.

-- Reef Fish Bob.



19 Aug 2007 16:58:02
Jer
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish wrote:
> When I was at the Princess Cruise Ship Dock (Pier) in Southampton,
> outside of London, waiting to board the ship, my name was called on
> the loudspeaker to see the Brit Security Agents for the cruise ship.
>
> To make a long Reality Farce short, the X-ray screening machine on
> my checked luggage detected a KNIFE which was illegal by British
> security standards. It wasn't anything LARGE, or even potentially
> dangerous, and the blade was no longer than that of a DINNER knife.
>
> But it was a Scubapro DIVE KNIFE which I had NEVER encountered
> any security check or scrutiny before -- about 1/4-inch thick when
> folded as carried and about 3 1/2 inch long, but when the blade
> opened,
> it was LOCKED in the open position (sensible for a dive knife) until
> the
> lock is depressed to fold the blade back. But THAT was what made
> it illegal in the British security system, a "locked knife" or
> "lockable
> knife" to be treated in the same class as a switch blade.
>
> I carried that knife to ALL cruises, to be used as a cutting knife for
> fruits, strings, and opening some plastic packages, and never used
> it as the DIVE knife as intended by Scubapro.
>
> The Princess security officer took my ID and carefully explained that
> he will be holding the knife during the cruise and will make sure that
> I get it back before I leave the ship.
>
> I am sure the entire ship of 1950 passengers and the crew of 800 or
> more will be sleeping much better during the next two weeks if they
> only knew that my Scubapro "lock knife" had been detected and
> held in the custody of the ship security officer's dungeon.
>
> There are many INSANE things at the UK besides this kind of
> security farce. One piece of a tiny shrimp tampura (which cost
> $1 in Atlanta) is priced at 3 British Pounds (BP), the equivalent of
> about $9 USD. A 12-oz bottle of any kind of softdrink costs a
> minumum of nearly $3 USD at any store or softdrink stand in
> London. The worthless of the USD was quite apparent on this
> trip.
>
> -- Reef Fish Bob.
>


Just more reasons why I won't be wasting my time or dinero as a captive
on any cruise crap.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'


20 Aug 2007 04:35:21
-hh
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Jer <gd...@airmail.ten > wrote:
> Bob Ling 'Reef Fish' wrote:
> > To make a long Reality Farce short, the X-ray screening machine on
> > my checked luggage detected a KNIFE which was illegal by British
> > security standards. It wasn't anything LARGE, or even potentially
> > dangerous, and the blade was no longer than that of a DINNER knife.
> > ... [it was] about 3 1/2 inch long,

A good catch on the part of the security team, since 3.5" exceeds
legal length in UK:

"Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits the possession
in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply
pointed (including a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its
blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches). <Archbold, 24.125 >"

- http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_c.html


> > ...but when the blade opened, it was LOCKED in the
> > open position (sensible for a dive knife) until the lock is
> > depressed to fold the blade back. But THAT was what made it
> > illegal in the British security system, a "locked knife" or
> > "lockable knife" to be treated in the same class as a switch blade.

Sort of. The UK Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act of 1959 is what
banned 'switchblades', as well as the classes of gravity and 'flick'
knives, none of which probably should apply to a Scubapro knife. Had
it not already been banned by being over length, they might have been
amenable to have had let their interpretation slide.


> > The Princess security officer took my ID and carefully explained that
> > he will be holding the knife during the cruise and will make sure that
> > I get it back before I leave the ship.


Princess is claiming that at the cruise's conclusion that they're
going to return to its owner an item that's they told the cusomter is
illegal in that country. Interesting, particularly since it looks
like that knife is for sale in UK:

http://shop.divebooty.co.uk/265.html


> Just more reasons why I won't be wasting my time or dinero as a captive
> on any cruise crap.

Its merely the tip of the iceburg in terms of what the big cruise
lines are doing in their efforts to squeeze out a bit more revenue
through control their 'cattle class' customers. It is perhaps poetic
justice, as their customer base is frequently very willing to loudly
squeal at the relative expense of taking a bus vs taxi, elimination of
previously 'free' amenities that had gotten abused, disallowances of
BYOB, or if their grazing at the buffet line is delayed by a mere 5
minutes, etc, etc.

There are ways to do it right...for example, a recent trip I was on
concluded in Boston, we tied up directly on Long Wharf in the heart of
downtown, right next to Legal Sea Foods:

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2007/nantucket/long_wharf(IMG_6254)c.jpg



-hh



20 Aug 2007 07:42:42
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Aug 20, 4:35 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com > wrote:
> Jer <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote:
> > Bob Ling 'Reef Fish' wrote:
> > > To make a long Reality Farce short, the X-ray screening machine on
> > > my checked luggage detected a KNIFE which was illegal by British
> > > security standards. It wasn't anything LARGE, or even potentially
> > > dangerous, and the blade was no longer than that of a DINNER knife.
> > > ... [it was] about 3 1/2 inch long,

I said it was "about". I can measure it when I get it back, but I
think it was far LESS than 3" in the blade.
>
> -http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_c.html
>
> > > ...but when the blade opened, it was LOCKED in the
> > > open position (sensible for a dive knife) until the lock is
> > > depressed to fold the blade back. But THAT was what made it
> > > illegal in the British security system, a "locked knife" or
> > > "lockable knife" to be treated in the same class as a switch blade.
>
> Sort of. The UK Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act of 1959 is what
> banned 'switchblades', as well as the classes of gravity and 'flick'
> knives, none of which probably should apply to a Scubapro knife. Had
> it not already been banned by being over length, they might have been
> amenable to have had let their interpretation slide.
>
> > > The Princess security officer took my ID and carefully explained that
> > > he will be holding the knife during the cruise and will make sure that
> > > I get it back before I leave the ship.
>
> Princess is claiming that at the cruise's conclusion that they're
> going to return to its owner an item that's they told the cusomter is
> illegal in that country. Interesting, particularly since it looks
> like that knife is for sale in UK:
>
> http://shop.divebooty.co.uk/265.html

It was NONE of those cheapie K2, K3, K4, and K5 knives shown.
I don't want to spend the time to find a pic of MY Scubapro knife
which I've had for many years, which is much more compact and
streamlined than those ugly knifes shown.
>
> -hh

Find you some pics of the AMERICAN Scubapro knives of the
locking folding type, and then you'll begin to appreciate the FARCE
which is all around us in the name of "security" regarding
recreational travels.

-- Reef Fish Bob.




20 Aug 2007 16:03:33
-hh
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish <large_nassua_grou...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > > Bob Ling 'Reef Fish' wrote:
> > > > ... It wasn't anything LARGE, or even potentially
> > > > dangerous, and the blade was no longer than that of a DINNER knife.
> > > > ... [it was] about 3 1/2 inch long,
>
> I said it was "about". I can measure it when I get it back, but I
> think it was far LESS than 3" in the blade.


Understood. Merely by your description of "no longer than of a dinner
knife", I'd not be too surprised if its 4" to 5".

In any event, the law in UK is 3", regardless of how much sense it may
or may not make. Not unlike the USA, the UK's 1959 law banning
switchblades was a political kneejerk from something to do with street
gang violence. How common it is to have a Septuagenarian gangmember
simply isn't part of the equasion :-)


> >http://shop.divebooty.co.uk/265.html
>
> It was NONE of those cheapie K2, K3, K4, and K5 knives shown.

Understood & agreed. That's why the above is of the "ScubaPro Folding
Jack- Knife". Don't know if it is the only one that ScubaPro has ever
made or even if it is your particular model, but with a 9cm (~3.5")
blade, it certainly would appear to be a very close fit with your
original description, and as per the previously provided, would be
banned.


> Find you some pics of the AMERICAN Scubapro knives of the
> locking folding type, and then you'll begin to appreciate the FARCE
> which is all around us in the name of "security" regarding
> recreational travels.

Source doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned; I merely found
it ironic that a knife of supposedly banned characteristics would
still be so clearly available for sale in the country in question.


-hh




22 Aug 2007 23:25:21
Lee Bell
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish wrote

>> > > ... [it was] about 3 1/2 inch long,

> I said it was "about". I can measure it when I get it back, but I
> think it was far LESS than 3" in the blade.

Didn't take long for about 3.5 inches to turn into far less than 3 inches.

The law is silly, but you appear to have violated it. Lucky for you everyone
was so understanding.




22 Aug 2007 23:32:53
Jer
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish wrote:
> On Aug 20, 4:35 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> Jer <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>> Bob Ling 'Reef Fish' wrote:
>>>> To make a long Reality Farce short, the X-ray screening machine on
>>>> my checked luggage detected a KNIFE which was illegal by British
>>>> security standards. It wasn't anything LARGE, or even potentially
>>>> dangerous, and the blade was no longer than that of a DINNER knife.
>>>> ... [it was] about 3 1/2 inch long,
>
> I said it was "about". I can measure it when I get it back, but I
> think it was far LESS than 3" in the blade.


Why wait til you get back? You've got a 3 1/2 inch measuring device
already - just remember to zip up after using it.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'


23 Aug 2007 08:14:35
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Aug 19, 2:58 pm, Jer <gd...@airmail.ten > wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
> > When I was at the Princess Cruise Ship Dock (Pier) in Southampton,
> > outside of London, waiting to board the ship, my name was called on
> > the loudspeaker to see the Brit Security Agents for the cruise ship.
>
> > To make a long Reality Farce short, the X-ray screening machine on
> > my checked luggage detected a KNIFE which was illegal by British
> > security standards. It wasn't anything LARGE, or even potentially
> > dangerous, and the blade was no longer than that of a DINNER knife.
>
> > But it was a Scubapro DIVE KNIFE which I had NEVER encountered
> > any security check or scrutiny before -- about 1/4-inch thick when
> > folded as carried and about 3 1/2 inch long, but when the blade
> > opened,
> > it was LOCKED in the open position (sensible for a dive knife) until
> > the
> > lock is depressed to fold the blade back. But THAT was what made
> > it illegal in the British security system, a "locked knife" or
> > "lockable
> > knife" to be treated in the same class as a switch blade.
>
> > I carried that knife to ALL cruises, to be used as a cutting knife for
> > fruits, strings, and opening some plastic packages, and never used
> > it as the DIVE knife as intended by Scubapro.
>
> > The Princess security officer took my ID and carefully explained that
> > he will be holding the knife during the cruise and will make sure that
> > I get it back before I leave the ship.
>
> Just more reasons why I won't be wasting my time or dinero as a captive
> on any cruise crap.
>
> --
> jer

Just one more reason "jer" is a moron and a JERK.

The episode has NOTHING to do with cruising. It has to do with the
silly BRITISH law regarding a Scubapro DIVE KNIFE in the name of
security, in the same silly fashion the finger nail snipper USED to be
against the law in another one of the THOUSANDS of security
FARCES..

Jer the JERK, you're really a non-diving, and non-contributing
IDIOT of this newsgroup.

Grow up or go back to play in your sand box.

This is a group for ADULT scuba divers.

This is ALL the time you'll get from me on this episode. So, save
your worthless bark for others on other topics. JERK!!

-- Reef Fish Bob.



23 Aug 2007 13:26:48
Lee Bell
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish wrote

> Just one more reason "jer" is a moron and a JERK.

He's not the one that broke the law.




23 Aug 2007 13:15:38
Geoff
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:14:35 -0700, Reef Fish
<large_nassua_grouper@yahoo.com > wrote:

>On Aug 19, 2:58 pm, Jer <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote:
>> Reef Fish wrote:
>> > When I was at the Princess Cruise Ship Dock (Pier) in Southampton,
>> > outside of London, waiting to board the ship, my name was called on
>> > the loudspeaker to see the Brit Security Agents for the cruise ship.
>>
>> > To make a long Reality Farce short, the X-ray screening machine on
>> > my checked luggage detected a KNIFE which was illegal by British
>> > security standards. It wasn't anything LARGE, or even potentially
>> > dangerous, and the blade was no longer than that of a DINNER knife.
>>
>> > But it was a Scubapro DIVE KNIFE which I had NEVER encountered
>> > any security check or scrutiny before -- about 1/4-inch thick when
>> > folded as carried and about 3 1/2 inch long, but when the blade
>> > opened,
>> > it was LOCKED in the open position (sensible for a dive knife) until
>> > the
>> > lock is depressed to fold the blade back. But THAT was what made
>> > it illegal in the British security system, a "locked knife" or
>> > "lockable
>> > knife" to be treated in the same class as a switch blade.
>>
>> > I carried that knife to ALL cruises, to be used as a cutting knife for
>> > fruits, strings, and opening some plastic packages, and never used
>> > it as the DIVE knife as intended by Scubapro.
>>
>> > The Princess security officer took my ID and carefully explained that
>> > he will be holding the knife during the cruise and will make sure that
>> > I get it back before I leave the ship.
>>
>> Just more reasons why I won't be wasting my time or dinero as a captive
>> on any cruise crap.
>>
>> --
>> jer
>
>Just one more reason "jer" is a moron and a JERK.
>
>The episode has NOTHING to do with cruising. It has to do with the
>silly BRITISH law regarding a Scubapro DIVE KNIFE in the name of
>security, in the same silly fashion the finger nail snipper USED to be
>against the law in another one of the THOUSANDS of security
>FARCES..
>
>Jer the JERK, you're really a non-diving, and non-contributing
>IDIOT of this newsgroup.
>
>Grow up or go back to play in your sand box.
>
>This is a group for ADULT scuba divers.
>
>This is ALL the time you'll get from me on this episode. So, save
>your worthless bark for others on other topics. JERK!!
>
>-- Reef Fish Bob.

Let me get this straight... you were getting on a CRUISE SHIP and your
bags were inspected and you were in possession of an (allegedly)
illegal knife but it has nothing to do with cruising? DUH!

I get your point about the fallacies that warrantless searches of
civilian travelers makes travel safer. It has nothing to do with
"security" since the system is so inconsistent and so full of holes
that it has degenerated into a completely unnecessary hassle of
"innocent" passengers in all its manifestations but why does it make
"jer" a jerk for exercising HIS right to choose not to cruise under
those rules? He seemed to be agreeing with you that it was a farce so
your flammage was unwarranted and makes you look pretty foolish.


24 Aug 2007 07:33:28
Steve Kramer
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish wrote:

> Grow up or go back to play in your sand box.
>
> This is a group for ADULT scuba divers.

When will they arrive?

Steve Kramer
"PhotoEnvisions" Photography
Chiang Mai, Thailand
http://www.photoenvisions.com


25 Aug 2007 22:47:40
Lee Bell
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Steve Kramer wrote

> Reef Fish wrote:
>
>> Grow up or go back to play in your sand box.
>>
>> This is a group for ADULT scuba divers.
>
> When will they arrive?

One point for Steve.




26 Aug 2007 17:34:21
Curtis
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE


"Reef Fish" wrote

-- about 1/4-inch thick when
> folded as carried and about 3 1/2 inch long, but when the blade
> opened,
> it was LOCKED in the open position (sensible for a dive knife) until
> the
> lock is depressed to fold the blade back. But THAT was what made
> it illegal in the British security system, a "locked knife" or
> "lockable
> knife" to be treated in the same class as a switch blade.

Hell, guess there's some mis-readings going on again.

"about 1/4-inch thick when folded as carried and about 3 1/2 inch long"

So, since the folded size is about 3 1/2", guess the blade could easily
be less than 3".

I agree with Bob about the silliness of the rules, just note it was
presented in a typical Bob style.

Curtis




28 Aug 2007 05:07:19
-hh
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Aug 23, 4:15 pm, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid > wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:14:35 -0700, Reef Fish
> <large_nassua_grou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >The episode has NOTHING to do with cruising.

It also had nothing to do with scuba diving. :-)


> >This is ALL the time you'll get from me on this episode...

But tune in next week for a NEW episode of "Fish's Foibles"!


> Let me get this straight... you were getting on a CRUISE SHIP and your
> bags were inspected and you were in possession of an (allegedly)
> illegal knife but it has nothing to do with cruising? DUH!

It has much more to do with being simply YA classical "hit and run"
once Robert F. Ling PhD has gotten his ass handed to him...again.


> I get your point about the fallacies that warrantless searches of
> civilian travelers makes travel safer. It has nothing to do with
> "security" since the system is so inconsistent and so full of holes
> that it has degenerated into a completely unnecessary hassle of
> "innocent" passengers in all its manifestations...

His charades invariably appear reasonable at first glance, but only
because this happens to be an example of charades.

It will become evident later that his real complaint is that he wasn't
given special treatment, but merely as just some ordinary mortal.
IIRC, he was fairly recently nearly arrested by the LAPD on another
cruise because of another security violation screw-up that was also of
his own making, plus I vaguely recall something similar happening with
Customs and luggage claim somewhere awhile back. As such, his
underlying complaint is that he doesn't get special accomodation to be
exempt from the rules of law.



> ... but why does it make
> "jer" a jerk for exercising HIS right to choose not to cruise under
> those rules? He seemed to be agreeing with you that it was a farce so
> your flammage was unwarranted and makes you look pretty foolish.

Its not that Bob merely *looks* foolish.

Awhile back, Bob loudly claimed on "...a matter of PRINCIPLE!" that he
would never use Princess Cruise line again due to a change in their
Internet access fees, but his current IP address is that of the
Internet portal of Princess Cruise Lines (and he has admitted to being
onboard another cruise), so he has compromised his own principles.

With an individual demonstrating such a shortcoming in his priciple
and ethics, it should hardl be surprising that they would lash out
with no good reason, even including those that are agreeing with
them.


-hh



28 Aug 2007 11:07:59
Lee Bell
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

-hh wrote

> Awhile back, Bob loudly claimed on "...a matter of PRINCIPLE!" that he
> would never use Princess Cruise line again due to a change in their
> Internet access fees, but his current IP address is that of the
> Internet portal of Princess Cruise Lines (and he has admitted to being
> onboard another cruise), so he has compromised his own principles.

He has primciples?




28 Aug 2007 17:17:23
-hh
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

"Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>
> He has primciples?

Mostly guided by the Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #266.
Problem is that he forgets about #60 :-)


-hh



28 Aug 2007 13:46:11
Lee Bell
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

-hh wrote

>> He has primciples?

> Mostly guided by the Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #266.

And 109.

> Problem is that he forgets about #60 :-)




29 Aug 2007 03:16:19
-hh
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Aug 23, 4:15 pm, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid > wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:14:35 -0700, Reef Fish
>
>
>
> <large_nassua_grou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 19, 2:58 pm, Jer <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote:
> >> Reef Fish wrote:
> >> > When I was at the Princess Cruise Ship Dock (Pier) in Southampton,
> >> > outside of London, waiting to board the ship, my name was called on
> >> > the loudspeaker to see the Brit Security Agents for the cruise ship.
>
> >> > To make a long Reality Farce short, the X-ray screening machine on
> >> > my checked luggage detected a KNIFE which was illegal by British
> >> > security standards. It wasn't anything LARGE, or even potentially
> >> > dangerous, and the blade was no longer than that of a DINNER knife.
>
> >> > But it was a Scubapro DIVE KNIFE which I had NEVER encountered
> >> > any security check or scrutiny before -- about 1/4-inch thick when
> >> > folded as carried and about 3 1/2 inch long, but when the blade
> >> > opened,
> >> > it was LOCKED in the open position (sensible for a dive knife) until
> >> > the
> >> > lock is depressed to fold the blade back. But THAT was what made
> >> > it illegal in the British security system, a "locked knife" or
> >> > "lockable
> >> > knife" to be treated in the same class as a switch blade.
>
> >> > I carried that knife to ALL cruises, to be used as a cutting knife for
> >> > fruits, strings, and opening some plastic packages, and never used
> >> > it as the DIVE knife as intended by Scubapro.
>
> >> > The Princess security officer took my ID and carefully explained that
> >> > he will be holding the knife during the cruise and will make sure that
> >> > I get it back before I leave the ship.
>
> >> Just more reasons why I won't be wasting my time or dinero as a captive
> >> on any cruise crap.
>
> >> --
> >> jer
>
> >Just one more reason "jer" is a moron and a JERK.
>
> >The episode has NOTHING to do with cruising. It has to do with the
> >silly BRITISH law regarding a Scubapro DIVE KNIFE in the name of
> >security, in the same silly fashion the finger nail snipper USED to be
> >against the law in another one of the THOUSANDS of security
> >FARCES..
>
> >Jer the JERK, you're really a non-diving, and non-contributing
> >IDIOT of this newsgroup.
>
> >Grow up or go back to play in your sand box.
>
> >This is a group for ADULT scuba divers.
>
> >This is ALL the time you'll get from me on this episode. So, save
> >your worthless bark for others on other topics. JERK!!
>
> >-- Reef Fish Bob.
>
> Let me get this straight... you were getting on a CRUISE SHIP and your
> bags were inspected and you were in possession of an (allegedly)
> illegal knife but it has nothing to do with cruising? DUH!
>
> I get your point about the fallacies that warrantless searches of
> civilian travelers makes travel safer. It has nothing to do with
> "security" since the system is so inconsistent and so full of holes
> that it has degenerated into a completely unnecessary hassle of
> "innocent" passengers in all its manifestations but why does it make
> "jer" a jerk for exercising HIS right to choose not to cruise under
> those rules? He seemed to be agreeing with you that it was a farce so
> your flammage was unwarranted and makes you look pretty foolish.


Actually, what's foolish is that he has used five (5) different Google
accounts to give you all "1 Star" votes, even though your X-No-Archive
would have otherwise made your critism disappear from Google. This is
statistical proof that "Old Reefy" here is playing a sockpuppet game
and stuffing ballot boxes.



-hh



29 Aug 2007 03:26:43
-hh
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

"Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net > wrote:
> -hh wrote
>
> >> He has principles?
> > Mostly guided by the Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #266.
>
> And 109.


We'll have to wait for the Ferengi RoA to get caught up on shills and
sockpuppets, as the Google votes on this thread make it very obvious
that Bob has at least five sockpuppets running to give himself good
votes on Google Groups (and similarly, multiple bad votes for others),
in his lame attempts to stuff the ballot box.

Now where have we heard that before? Oh gosh - just that "RATE YOUR
PROFESSOR" scandal at Clemson U.

The irony is that C. Ryan Pinckney, the undergrad who Robert F Ling
PhD picked on, wasn't some "loser" like was insinuated at the time,
but was not only a member of the National Honor Fraternity Phi Sigma
Pi, but also graduated magna cum laude from Clemson in 2002. It would
appear that 'Dear Old Bob' really made an impression, as Ryan then
went on to graduate from Harvard Law School in 2006 and is an
associate practicing law at Jonesday.


Of course, the Bobby Sockpuppet brigade will be along shortly to try
to bury this post in lots of "1 Star" ratings. These last few posts
have gathered zero votes to date for the simple reason that Bob hasn't
been online to cause his usual lame form of trollish mischief. Gotta
really start to feel sorry for what Bob's descendants are going to
think when they do their genealogical research online and discover
just what an utter flaming asshole idiot their grandfather was.


-hh



01 Sep 2007 04:55:24
-hh
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

-hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com > wrote:
>
> Of course, the Bobby Sockpuppet brigade will be along shortly to try
> to bury this post in lots of "1 Star" ratings. These last few posts
> have gathered zero votes to date for the simple reason that Bob hasn't
> been online to cause his usual lame form of trollish mischief.


Ah, there we go.: a 'one star' vote has been registered. We all know
that Bob is so utterly owned that he can't help resist himself in
trying in some obtuse fashion to get in 'the last word'. Thank you
Bob :-)


-hh



02 Sep 2007 21:56:41
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Aug 26, 1:34 pm, "Curtis" <cavey_curtis@$$ yahoo.com > wrote:
> "Reef Fish" wrote
>
> -- about 1/4-inch thick when
>
> > folded as carried and about 3 1/2 inch long, but when the blade
> > opened,
> > it was LOCKED in the open position (sensible for a dive knife) until
> > the
> > lock is depressed to fold the blade back. But THAT was what made
> > it illegal in the British security system, a "locked knife" or
> > "lockable
> > knife" to be treated in the same class as a switch blade.
>
> Hell, guess there's some mis-readings going on again.

Typical of the IDIOTS and disfunctional posters in this group:

hh (the hideous Huntzinger), Jer (the JERK), and (the well-known)
DING-DONG Bell whose scuba errors in the scuba groups could
fill a 100 volume easily.

Just go to the "Advanced groups search" section of Google
Groups and search for the keywords: "Supreme Hypocrites"
and you'll find PLENTY of documentary for both hh (Hugh
Huntzinger) and Lee Bell (Ding-Dong) for FACTUAL
documentations of their hypocritical acts.

>
> "about 1/4-inch thick when folded as carried and about 3 1/2 inch long"
>
> So, since the folded size is about 3 1/2", guess the blade could easily
> be less than 3".

You got THAT right -- the only one in this thread of 19 posts in
which
14 of them were by the three IDIOTS (hh, Jer, and Lee).

The thickness of the folded blade is actually almost exactly 1/8",
rather than the 1/4" I estimated.

The folded length of the knife is 4 1/4 inches rather than the
3 1/2" I estimated.

But the CRUICIAL measurement of the length of the BLADE
itself (that which is governed by the security LAWS in the UK)
is about 1/16" LESS than 3 inches.

Now, hh, Ding-Dong, and the JerK can drool over those
factual figures.

As for the rest of the hh's latest drooling, he was the one
who dug up a campus newspaper from 10 years before
and thought he had found some "dirt" on me. He had
his face rubbed in that piece of paper -- which could not
have supported ME (by the newspaper editor) better if
I had to find some evidence myself. What I posted is
in the Google archives, I am sure.

As for hh's drooling about sockpuppets, HE was the one
who practiced FORGING posts and email (because he
was blackmailed by one of Mike Cochran's (of
Cochran Dive Computer Shame) Shills. There was
nothing improper about faking his posting ID, posting
time, to avert the BACKMAILER who threatened to
report Hugh to his supervisors for posting during his
working hours as most working folks do.

When I mentioned that FACT about Hugh's forgery,
that was when he (the little man of little sense of
moral and justice) declared a few years later that was
when he had a PERMANENT GRUDGE against me
(circa 1996) which explained ALL his hypocritical
acts in rec.scuba and rec.scuba.locations, and his
worthless DIRT digging on academic matters that
had absolutely NOTHING to do with my scuba posting.

As for ballot stuffing my own votes: the Honor
Fraternity webpage was a JOKE. Of my hundreds
of students, I had a "straight 1" (on a scale of 1 to 5.
1 the worst) from about 10 students whom I flunked.
When one of my graduate student who said he
submitted a vote, and I didn't see it appear, that was
when I confronted the EDITOR of that Kangaroo
Voting Webpage, and the editor admitted that he
discarded the favorable votes on me because he
THOUGHT i submitted it.

THAT fact was reported in the newspaper article,
and the guilty editor had "no comment" and the
webpage was shorted BARRED thereafter until
it surfaced against some years later.

In any event Hugh Huntzinger's digging of
inappropriate information for SCUBA posting,
and his deliberate distortion AND twisting of
facts is a good example of his lack of moral
character and a tabloid type of SCUM.

This is all I have to say on this thread in which
hh first raised some valid points and then quickly
sand into his cesspool of posting behabior when
he was supported by his stooges Jer and Lee
Bell.

-- Reef Fish Bob.



>
> I agree with Bob about the silliness of the rules, just note it was
> presented in a typical Bob style.
>
> Curtis




03 Sep 2007 17:23:57
Steve Kramer
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish wrote:
[SNIP]

> This is all I have to say on this thread in which
> hh first raised some valid points and then quickly
> sand into his cesspool of posting behabior when
> he was supported by his stooges Jer and Lee
> Bell.
>
> -- Reef Fish Bob.


........ still waiting.....


Steve Kramer
"PhotoEnvisions" Photography
Chiang Mai, Thailand
http://www.photoenvisions.com


03 Sep 2007 07:07:31
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Sep 3, 6:23 am, Steve Kramer <st...@seatraveler.com > wrote:

> ........ still waiting.....
>
> Steve Kramer
> Chiang Mai, Thailandhttp://www.photoenvisions.com

This group used to have a poster who was ALMOST an
adult when he retired from teaching in 1/31/2001. He used
to plagarize a passage by Henry Thoreau in his sig,

> I wish to live my life deliberately, to front the essential facts
> of life; to suck the very marrow of life and see if I can learn what
> it has to teach, and not, when it comes my time to die, discover that
> I have not lived.

as if he had written it himself. He was also suficiently juvenile
to have a program count the number of cigarrettes he did
NOT smoke since he quit smoking, but obviously hopelessly
hooked mentally to his habit.

Yes, he *** was *** ALMOST an adult posting in this group.

He obviously is a pointless babbling baby again now.

Do you know that mental midget, by chance? I wonder
what happened to his cigarette-counting fatish?


There was ONE adult poster in this thread (besides
Reef Fish). He used to be one of the members of
the Dysfunctional Gang, who disgusted and drove away
nearly all of the adulot divers and posters in rec.scuba.locations.

He USED to flock with the birds of the same feather,
(hh, DING-DONG, and others), posting by the name
Magilla, as if people couldn't tell his postings were
written by a midless monkey.

He is posting by the posting name of "Curtis" now.

and, at least in his ONE post in this thread, seemed to
have outgrown his juvenile, dysfunctional days, to have
actually spoken AGAINST those IDIOTS (hh, Lee Bell,
el al) who used to dwell in his same cage.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE adult posters in this group,
though most of them had disappeared from posting
here by now.

-- Reef Fish Bob.




03 Sep 2007 21:27:43
Steve Kramer
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish wrote:
> On Sep 3, 6:23 am, Steve Kramer <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote:
>
>> ........ still waiting.....
>>
>> Steve Kramer
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand http://www.photoenvisions.com
>
> This group used to have a poster who was ALMOST an
> adult when he retired from teaching in 1/31/2001. He used
> to plagarize a passage by Henry Thoreau in his sig,

Had you actually read the book that the sig was from, you'd know that in
fact it was a paraphrase from it, not a quote to be plagerized. But as
an academician of your standing has no need to actually read anything,
you never knew that. You're tenured, right?
'The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the ocean searching for a
suitable rock or hunk of coral to cling to and make its home for life.
When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn't need its brain any
more...so it eats it. It's rather like getting tenure.' - Michael Scriven


> He was also suficiently juvenile
> to have a program count the number of cigarrettes he did
> NOT smoke since he quit smoking, but obviously hopelessly
> hooked mentally to his habit.

No question about it. I'm an addict. One day at a time. But being an
addict isn't something 'juvenile.' I would have thought someone with all
your degrees would know that. It's a behavioral disorder listed in the
DSM IV. I thought you were a scientist? I guess not.
Nine years, one week, six days, 15 hours, 19 minutes and 1 second. 99019
cigarettes not smoked, saving $24,754.79.
One day at a time.

> There was ONE adult poster in this thread

Lord knows, you ain't him.

> Yes, Virginia, there ARE adult posters in this group,
> though most of them had disappeared from posting
> here by now.

Actually, we had a lot of posters in rec.scuba.locations as long a you
kept your fighting with everyone confined to rec.scuba. But as soon as
you began cross posting and brought it in here, most of us left. We
don't want to hear your ravings.

On the bright side, I now use Thunderbird to read the news groups and it
has wonderful filters that are easy to use. So on that note... bye. :o)

Steve Kramer
"PhotoEnvisions" Photography
Chiang Mai, Thailand
http://www.photoenvisions.com


03 Sep 2007 10:00:35
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Sep 3, 10:27 am, Steve Kramer <st...@seatraveler.com > wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 6:23 am, Steve Kramer <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote:
>
> >> ........ still waiting.....
>
> >> Steve Kramer
> >> Chiang Mai, Thailandhttp://www.photoenvisions.com
>
> > This group used to have a poster who was ALMOST an
> > adult when he retired from teaching in 1/31/2001. He used
> > to plagarize a passage by Henry Thoreau in his sig,
>
> Had you actually read the book that the sig was from, you'd know that in
> fact it was a paraphrase from it, not a quote to be plagerized. But as
> an academician of your standing has no need to actually read anything,
> you never knew that. You're tenured, right?

I was a tenured Full Professor at a major Ph.D. granting USA
university since 1997, 7-years after my Yale Ph.D. degree
in 1990. I have also taught as Full Professor at the
graduate level (Master and Ph.D) at Harvard
University, University of Chicago, Vanderbilt Univerisity
and elsewhere that would not even admit you as a
student, given your background.

What you've done was/is plagiarism, in the eacademic AND any
other sense. The correct attribution is to indicate that it was a
passage by Henry Thoreau, whether it was a paraphrased
version or not. It DOES NOT matter where you got the message
from -- you NEVER hinted or attributed the passage you used to
Henry Thoreau. Anyone not familiar with the passage by Thoreau
would have assumed (rightfully) that was YOUR own writing.

That was PLAGIARISM.

You taught grade or high school (in Thailand or Japan) -- how would
YOU know anything about the universally accepted/expected
attribution when you are citing or quoting someone else?

BTW, anyone can check the Google arhives to see that EVERY
time you postedd, you were flamed by a large number of
regular posters -- EXCEPT the Reef Fish. I actually had
spoken a time or two favorably about your posting, and
NEVER flamed you as the others did, in several different
newsgroups. You were, as one may say, the universally
disliked/discredited posters in USENET newsgroups.


> 'The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the ocean searching for a
> suitable rock or hunk of coral to cling to and make its home for life.
> When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn't need its brain any
> more...so it eats it. It's rather like getting tenure.' - Michael Scriven

That's better. Scriven was quoted, WITHOUT having to cite the
exact source from which the quote was taken.

>
> > He was also suficiently juvenile
> > to have a program count the number of cigarrettes he did
> > NOT smoke since he quit smoking, but obviously hopelessly
> > hooked mentally to his habit.
>
> No question about it. I'm an addict. One day at a time. But being an
> addict isn't something 'juvenile.' I would have thought someone with all
> your degrees would know that. It's a behavioral disorder listed in the
> DSM IV. I thought you were a scientist? I guess not.

You guessed wrong on all counts. So you have a mental disorder
in your cigarrette addiction. The computer program count was just
your JUVENILE way of wasting bandwidth on your addiction.

Your condition must have improved somewhat to have now
foregone your juvenile behavior in posting your sig with that
piece of irrelevance and impertinence.

> Nine years, one week, six days, 15 hours, 19 minutes and 1 second. 99019
> cigarettes not smoked, saving $24,754.79.
> One day at a time.

Go tell that to YOURSELF and your shrink/psychiatrist for your
addictive mental disorder.

I was a heavy smoker for over 30 years until I quit (for
social rather than medical reasons) in 1992. Addiction
(in cigarrettes) is a mental disorder rather than a
physical addiction (such as opium and other hard
drugs) that one cannot quit without any withdrawal
symptoms (if one could quit at all).

I quit cig smoking "cold turkey" without any discomfort.
NEVER missed it once, or thought about smoking a
single time. I have posted this numerous times in
newsgroups. It has now been 15 years, and I never
missed it a bit, NEVER had any physical/lung/other
problems as a result of 30+ years of heavy smoking.

The "studies" that produced the WARNING on
cigarette packs now were based on the slimest
evidence on RATS. There was NEVER a single
"controlled scientific study" on smoking in which
HUMANS were used in the design of the experiment
which is NECESSARY to draw the conclusion about
humans.

That is my personal and professional stand on the
invalid conclusion about smoking that were foisted
upon laymen by the medical profession based on
invalidly carried out experiments and invalid results.

I am a professional statistician, and elected
Fellow of the American Statistical Association
in 1984.

Steve, your ignorance underwhelmed me. <:-o)
>
> > There was ONE adult poster in this thread
>
> Lord knows, you ain't him.
>
> > Yes, Virginia, there ARE adult posters in this group,
> > though most of them had disappeared from posting
> > here by now.
>
> Actually, we had a lot of posters in rec.scuba.locations as long a you
> kept your fighting with everyone confined to rec.scuba. But as soon as
> you began cross posting and brought it in here, most of us left. We
> don't want to hear your ravings.
>
> On the bright side, I now use Thunderbird to read the news groups and it
> has wonderful filters that are easy to use. So on that note... bye. :o)

Congratulations! After all these years of posting in newsgroups,
and 6 years after you retired from teaching, you've finally found the
toy (favorite one by newsgroup OSTRICHES) of using a filter.

Lee Bell is the well-known ostrich. Unfortunately, he also manage
to find snipets of what OTHERS cited from my posts to make a
full of himself in his posting comments.

"Ask him about the EPERB" was his bait -- he posted that
three times to give the impression that HE knew what an
EPERB was while I didn't.

Look up the archives -- I produced the posting records that
showed that HE was the one who made all the errors,
that I got the facts from Wayne Hasson (President of the
Aggressor) himself, and Lee, having learned the fact
from me, then sent to rec.UK to post MY factual postings
as if it was what he knew before learning it from me.

It's ALL in the Google archives.

Lee posted that bait, WITHOUT reading my follow-up,
3 times, before he was tipped by someone (who read
my response) that he was made a complete FOOL for
his misdirected question and bait.

In short, he shot his foot THREE times in quick
succession, while having the other foot dangling in
his mouth for using his "blocked sender's list" ot
"filter".

Only a damned fool in newsgroup needs to have a
filter to know what/who to read and whom to ignore
or read enough to know what the person had posted
BEFORE inserting foot in mouth.
>
> Steve Kramer
> "PhotoEnvisions" Photography
> Chiang Mai, Thailandhttp://www.photoenvisions.com

A better sig line, given your autobiographical info in
this post would be this:

Steve Kramer
Retired (1/31/2001) high school teacher
having a mental/behavioral disorder of cigarrette
addiction.

-- Reef Fish Bob.
Read my posts from http://groups.google.comand
my profile in Google:by clicking "view profle":

Robert F. (Bob) Ling

Title: Professor & Fellow of the ASA
Quote: To retrieve any of my USENET postings since 1992,
use the "Advanced Groups Search" option, then specificy
author = "Reef Fish", and any other keywords of specifications
for the search.

IDIOTS like Hugh Huntzingers, his sockpuppets and other
flamers always mention my Real Name (given in the
profile) even though I NEVER post with that name but
with "Reef Fish", and I am the only Reef Fish (except for
a few forged posts by Mudshrimp and others) in all the
Google archived posts since 1981.

Those IDIOTS thought I used the posting name Reef Fish
because I was trying ot hide my identiity -- when you can
find enough about my identity and biographical facts about
myself to fill a 100-page volume of my professional
credentials and facts.

-- The one-and-only REAL "Reef Fish" in USENET.







03 Sep 2007 10:09:38
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Sep 3, 1:00 pm, Reef Fish <large_nassua_grou...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 10:27 am, Steve Kramer <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote:

This is an ERRATUM on my post to correct some errors in DATES:
>
> > Reef Fish wrote:

> I was a tenured Full Professor at a major Ph.D. granting USA
> university since 1997, 7-years after my Yale Ph.D. degree
> in 1990.

Tenured Full Professor in 1977, after my Ph.D degree at
Yale in (1970). That was 2 years before Bill Clinton got
his LL.D. degree at Yale.
>
> I am a professional statistician, and elected
> Fellow of the American Statistical Association
> in 1984.

The 1984 date was correct as stated.
>
>
> -- Reef Fish Bob.
> Read my posts fromhttp://groups.google.comand
> my profile in Google:by clicking "view profle":
>
> Robert F. (Bob) Ling
>
> Title: Professor & Fellow of the ASA
> Quote: To retrieve any of my USENET postings since 1992,
> use the "Advanced Groups Search" option, then specificy
> author = "Reef Fish", and any other keywords of specifications
> for the search.



03 Sep 2007 13:18:14
Lee Bell
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish wrote

> and (the well-known) DING-DONG Bell whose scuba errors in the scuba groups
> could
> fill a 100 volume easily.

Yet seem not to have been proven wrong by Bob, the Boob even once.

None of us were detained for violating the law. You were.




03 Sep 2007 13:20:48
Lee Bell
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish wrote:

> This is all I have to say on this thread in which
> hh first raised some valid points and then quickly
> sand into his cesspool of posting behabior when
> he was supported by his stooges Jer and Lee
> Bell.

Funny, I could swear Bob said more since. Oh yeah, just another lie. I
should have known.

By the way, how to you "sand" into a cesspool, what's "behabior" and what in
gods creation makes you think that either Jer or I would stooge for anyone?

That's our Bob. Never lets reality get in the way of his fantasy.




03 Sep 2007 12:12:07
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Sep 3, 1:20 pm, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net > wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
> > This is all I have to say on this thread in which
> > hh first raised some valid points and then quickly
> > sand into his cesspool of posting behabior when
> > he was supported by his stooges Jer and Lee
> > Bell.
>
> Funny, I could swear Bob said more since. Oh yeah, just another lie. I
> should have known.

This thread is about the dive knife in the "international
security farce". Nothing more needed to have been
said since the first post except for IDIOTS like yourself.

I say anything I want about Ding-Dong, hh, and Jer, and
Steve Kramer or anyone else who wants to make a fool
of themselves, just like what Lee DING-DONG Bell
is doing, by his inability to understand English, because
of his lack of education and intelligence.
>
> By the way, how to you "sand" into a cesspool, what's "behabior" and what in
> gods creation makes you think that either Jer or I would stooge for anyone?

look up the Google archives on MANY posts on the subject of

"A Treatese on key MISSPELLINGS and inconsequential TYPOS" by Reef
Fish

Only dysfunctional mental midgets like DING-DONG pick on such
obvious typos that even a 3-grader would know what they were
meant to be.

I pity you for what is euphemistically called an "education" you
received from the swamps of Florida. Pity. <-:))


> That's our Bob. Never lets reality get in the way of his fantasy.

Lee, refresh your memory on the answers to

Rec.scuba CELEBRITY Trivia Quiz

about what well-known SCUBA personalities/master
instructors of PADI, NAUI, and other agencies were


saying about DING-DONG Lee Bell:

Here are just a few examples:

Discussant C.

If you read all of what this idiot wrote, you can see how totally
full of shit he really is. He does make an extreme effort to make
idiocy sound reasonable, but via his normal method: bullshit, lies,
fabrications, and twisted "facts".


Discussant D.

Lee once again went for a Nobel Prize in physics by attempting to
prove a range of immutable laws wrong :-)


Discussant E.

Rather than bastardizing the gas laws, and continuing your
intellectual strip-tease show, may I suggest that you adhere
instead to Denis Healey's First Law of Holes: "When you find
yourself in one, stop digging!"


Discussant F.

And that is exactly why those of us who actually know what we
are talking about will pounce every single time he rolls out
the bullshit cannon, because the stuff he puts out there is
often outright dangerous.


Discussant G.

I really wish you would take a seat and shut the fuck up. I am
so sick of your huge efforts to make totally ridiculous things
appear to be "clever". Like everything else you say, this is
pure crap.


Of course NONE of the verbatim quoted posters was
me (Reef Fish), but I couldn't have said better about Lee
than what they said, and have said the same (in MY
way) about hundreds of times.

Lee Bell is the well-known rec.scuba, techdiver, scuba-L,
and other scuba discussion forums' KING or ERRORS!

-- Reef Fish Bob.

P.S. Lee, the Google archives have hundreds of factual
documents about the ERRORS you made and what
reputable and famous discussions/instructors/divers
have said about your errors. You are living in a
VERY transparent GLASS HOUSE you build yourself,
preserved by Google.

The bricks you threw are on your own glass house.
LOL!


Discussant C was a name EVERY scuba diver knows:

I said almost the same thing about Lee BEFORE
this discussant said about Lee:
Discussant C.

* > If you read all of what this idiot wrote, you can see how totally
* > full of shit he really is. He does make an extreme effort to make
* > idiocy sound reasonable, but via his normal method: bullshit,
lies,
* > fabrications, and twisted "facts".

Your foot is shot by yourself AGAIN, Lee. :-))))))))

-- Reef Fish Bob.




03 Sep 2007 13:00:45
Jeeze_Louise
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:12:07 -0700, Reef Fish
<large_nassua_grouper@yahoo.com > wrote:

[nothing of any consequence]

What's really amazing is that you started this thread for some strange
reason in order to satisfy your need to disgorge yourself of your
anger and disdain over being detained for having an illegal weapon
aboard ship. You posted to a group you know to be filled with
individuals you seem to have "issues" with and you lash out at every
turn. You are so full of anger that you can't even type fast enough or
accurately enough and you end up correcting your own posts when you
can't even type your own biographic info accurately.

I wonder if your "retirement" from teaching was for psychological
reasons. You certainly don't seem old enough to be retired, since a
mature, tenured professor and an adult human being would be in better
control of himself in a public forum but I suppose it's excusable
since this is Usenet after all, and self control and courtesy is not a
feature here. If you exhibited these traits in your writing or in your
classrooms and I was on the board of your university I would have you
removed from your position. Your conduct here does not reflect well on
you, your state of mind, or the university that employed you or the
ones you supposedly graduated from.


03 Sep 2007 14:48:50
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Sep 3, 4:00 pm, Jeeze_Louise <w...@invalid.net > wrote:

Why did you request Google to remove your post in 6 days if it is of
any value whatsoever? Ashamed of others finding out later about
your stupity?

You have also no posting history, a good bet that your are a
CLUELESS NEWBIE or some oldie creating a posting ID as
your sockpuppet.

In any event, I'll tell you why your comments are completely
off the wall and useless.

> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:12:07 -0700, Reef Fish
>
> <large_nassua_grou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [nothing of any consequence]


>
> What's really amazing is that you started this thread for some strange
> reason in order to satisfy your need to disgorge yourself of your
> anger and disdain over being detained for having an illegal weapon
> aboard ship.

It was an INFORMATION item about the "security farce" on
SCUBA DIVE knifes, posted for the benefit for scuba divers
who may carry their dive knifes to the UK.

> You posted to a group you know to be filled with
> individuals you seem to have "issues" with and you lash out at every
> turn.

I did NOT post for the IDIOTS who responded: hh, Jer,
Lee. They post NOISE on everything I post.


> You are so full of anger that you can't even type fast enough or
> accurately enough and you end up correcting your own posts when you
> can't even type your own biographic info accurately.

My biographical infor was in response to Steve Kramer, the "public
enemy No. 1" in many newsgroups over his worthless post
questioning my educational background. If he knew ANYTHING
about the use of Google archives, he could have found everything
I post this time (and plenty more) in the Google archives.

As for "full of anger" -- you mean by pointing out the seccurity
FARCE? You bet. I am full of anger on George Bush for
his sticking of his nose into another country's business and
got the US so deep in shit that he could not get his feet out
after all security of all countries (and the UN) failed to find any
truth in the excuse Bush drummed up for HIS WAR -- which
he declared the US won long ago, and there were more
deaths of US soldiers in Iraq after the victory.

The UK security is just another example of the farce of
confiscating fingernail clippers. Confiscating any little
bottles of liquid over 3 ozs., etc.

It's stupidity to placate those who think the airport security
agents are making flying any safer than if they didn't have
all those stupid rules, which they keep changing and
discarding.

THAT's the purpose of my original post, which labeled
it as my "editorial".

If you don't like it, just don't read it. STOOPID!

> I wonder if your "retirement" from teaching was for psychological
> reasons.

It's for my disdain of the failure of the US educational system, in
which MOST college students now expect to get As and Bs
for not mastering anything in any course they take.

I was the ONLY professor who still held on certain MINIMAL
standards and not give in to the ABUSE by other professors
who handed out undeserved grades just so students don't
rate them badly and get their fired -- I had TENURE and I
did not yield to the grade inflation and erosion of standards.
Almost 50% of my undergrad students taking required
courses got grades of F for failing to learn the material.

I gave 10 times more Fs in one section of a large
section course than the total Fs in a dozen other
sections taught by grad students and non-statisticians
who were there just to make a living by hold a job,
not caring anything the students learning anything.

Read the National Scandal about the University of
Georgia had a course for atheletes which gave
ALL A's to the students enrolled? The example
questions were so laughable that the coaching
teaching the course got fired and so did many of
the people running the University.

A multiple choice question for the atheletes
would be like (this is an ACTUAL example):

How many quarters are their in a football
game?

The other questions are no more "difficult"
that even Lee Bell could pass the course
with an "A" if he didn't attend any of the
lectures.

That is how bad the current educational
system in the USA is. You obviously are
oblivious to such facts and truths. All you
know is to post the kind of nonsense you
posted, without ANY factual basis, full of
your own speculations and libelous
conjectures.

Get it?


> You certainly don't seem old enough to be retired,

That only proved your pointless stupidity as you have shown in
the rest of your post.

Go back to the sandbox from which you came and play with
the other children there.

-- Reef Fish Bob.



03 Sep 2007 17:02:58
Jer
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish wrote:
> On Sep 3, 4:00 pm, Jeeze_Louise <w...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> Why did you request Google to remove your post in 6 days if it is of
> any value whatsoever? Ashamed of others finding out later about
> your stupity?
>
> You have also no posting history, a good bet that your are a
> CLUELESS NEWBIE or some oldie creating a posting ID as
> your sockpuppet.
>
> In any event, I'll tell you why your comments are completely
> off the wall and useless.
>


Bob... just shut up - nobody cares.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'


03 Sep 2007 23:56:44
Jason
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:14:35 -0700, Reef Fish wrote:

> The episode has NOTHING to do with cruising. It has to do with the silly
> BRITISH law regarding a Scubapro DIVE KNIFE in the name of security, in
> the same silly fashion the finger nail snipper USED to be against the law
> in another one of the THOUSANDS of security FARCES..

Err, which law? It's not illegal to carry a dive knife even if the blade
is over 3 inches as long as you have a reason for carrying it in public,
i.e. you're going diving. It's not against the airlines luggage rules to
have it in your checked in luggage either.

It just seems it's against the rules of the particular cruise ship you
went on.

Jason

--
See http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/for UK diving reports and the UK
Underwater Visibility Database. View the database or add your own report



03 Sep 2007 17:44:47
Jeeze_Louise
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:48:50 -0700, Reef Fish
<large_nassua_grouper@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Why did you request Google to remove your post in 6 days if it is of
>any value whatsoever? Ashamed of others finding out later about
>your stupity?

Wow, you really do need some kind of medication don't you? I suggest
seeking professional help in this regard. Don't let them put you on
Prozac or other anti-depressants as they seem to be associated with
homicidal/suicidal tendencies. We wouldn't want to pull out that
illegal knife and start slashing cruise ship pursers now, would we?

To address your point above:
I think you are referring to X-No Archive: no

In this case, that is the default setting of my news client and it is
a double negative and NO is supposed to mean _archive_ it. I changed
it to YES, let's see what happens now. Thank you for pointing that
out. I know the whole world is waiting for every word I might type and
it would be a shame to let such wisdom fade from the sight of
posterity. I didn't deliberately ask for no retention on Google, as if
it mattered. The only person proving himself stoopid[sic] is you.

BTW, did anyone notice the longer his post gets the shorter the lines
in his paragraphs get? Anyone care to make a bet about how long the
post has to get before his paragraphs consist of one character per
line? If he gets any more apoplectic he might just vanish into a
singularity. Or blow a gasket and have a nice stroke.

It's really too bad looking back on your career gives you so little
satisfaction. I can't say as I blame you as it seems the older I get
the less satisfied I have become with the direction this country his
headed. Not that I am in a position to do anything about it. I am not
a retired professor who had an opportunity to mold the minds of young
impressionable Americans at Clemson U. and blew it.

As for the point of security being a farce? No argument from me. I
travel every week and it's a hassle and a farce. I am no more secure
now than before 9-11, the only difference is the uniforms and the TSA
personnel are a LITTLE bit more courteous to travelers than the
pre-911 private security grumble butts the airlines and airports had
to hire.


03 Sep 2007 21:02:59
Lee Bell
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish wrote

> This thread is about the dive knife in the "international
> security farce". Nothing more needed to have been
> said since the first post except for IDIOTS like yourself.

I could not agree more, but you had to introduce name calling and personal
attacks. Just could not resist. Typical.

A lot of further personal attacks, none of which involved Bob's ever proving
me wrong, deleted as irrelevant . . . as usual.

Lee




03 Sep 2007 21:10:33
Lee Bell
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Jason wrote . . .

Please do not confuse Bob with facts. He does not deal with them well. He's
much happier in his fantasy world, the one where someone actually cares what
he has to say.




04 Sep 2007 10:47:03
Steve Kramer
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Lee Bell wrote:
> Jason wrote . . .
>
> Please do not confuse Bob with facts. He does not deal with them well. He's
> much happier in his fantasy world, the one where someone actually cares what
> he has to say.

Folks, please take this back to rec.scuba.
At least leave us one scuba group that isn't full of garbage.
Thanks.

Steve Kramer
"PhotoEnvisions" Photography
Chiang Mai, Thailand
http://www.photoenvisions.com


04 Sep 2007 04:18:39
Curtis
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

"Reef Fish" wrote

> There was ONE adult poster in this thread (besides
> Reef Fish). He used to be one of the members of
> the Dysfunctional Gang, who disgusted and drove away
> nearly all of the adulot divers and posters in rec.scuba.locations.
>
> He USED to flock with the birds of the same feather,
> (hh, DING-DONG, and others), posting by the name
> Magilla, as if people couldn't tell his postings were
> written by a midless monkey.
>
> He is posting by the posting name of "Curtis" now.

If you're going to ID me, then I've used the name "Curtis" since my
appearence on rec. scuba summer of '98. That's been my main ID, with a
brief usage of "Grizzly Adams" and a few months of "Magilla".

> and, at least in his ONE post in this thread, seemed to
> have outgrown his juvenile, dysfunctional days, to have
> actually spoken AGAINST those IDIOTS (hh, Lee Bell,
> el al) who used to dwell in his same cage.

Aye, I did point out a discrepency I noticed, before you even used it.

Had no reason from your original post to give you any grief, so was no
accident I stayed out, and only posted when I saw the discrepency.

So, if you'll kindly allow me to bow out gracefully at this point, you
"may" continue to play not so nicely with the others.

Curtis





04 Sep 2007 02:13:16
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Sep 3, 8:44 pm, Jeeze_Louise <w...@invalid.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:48:50 -0700, Reef Fish
>

< snipped much irrelevant and impertinent comments on the
issue of Educational standards in the USA >

> It's really too bad looking back on your career gives you so little
> satisfaction. I can't say as I blame you as it seems the older I get
> the less satisfied I have become with the direction this country his
> headed. Not that I am in a position to do anything about it. I am not
> a retired professor who had an opportunity to mold the minds of young
> impressionable Americans at Clemson U. and blew it.

If you are really interested in the issue of the present ILLS of the
educational system in colleges in the USA (all of the exception of
a handful of top 10 universities), there is a LENGTHY thread,
initiated by me, in the sci.stat.math newsgroups (whose discussants
are mostly statistists professionals, including professors and
students and statisticians who work in the government and
industries). The thread was only a PART of the theme of the
ILLS in the USA educational system.

The thread lasted two months and contained 285 posts in the
thread,

Newsgroups: sci.stat.math, sci.stat.edu
From: "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grou...@Yahoo.com >
Date: 12 May 2005 11:36:02 -0700
Local: Thurs, May 12 2005 2:36 pm
Subject: Educators or Salesmen Who Sold Their Souls to the Devil?

in which the main them was a subthread, titled

* > Re: Educators or Salesmen Who Sold Their Souls to the Devil?

in which I characterized many of the so-called "educators and
administrators" in MAJOR universities in the USA (Top 100 in
Tier 1 <ph.d. granting >) are nothing but people who "SOLD
THEIR SOULS TO THE DEVIL" by handing out grades to
appease and get "good rating" from students (to keep their job
and popularity) rather than upholding even the MINIMUM
standards of course content in the college and graduate level
courses.


There was another thread of 216 postsNewsgroups: sci.stat.math,
sci.stat.edu
From: "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grou...@Yahoo.com >
Date: 11 May 2005 20:54:42 -0700
Local: Wed, May 11 2005 11:54 pm
Subject: My Editorial on Exams, Grades, and (Statistical) Education


Here's something I posted, not only in the sci.stat.* groups but
also in rec.scuba, about the satire of the present educational
system in the USA:

=========== begin excerpt

I am reading a fascinating book about Paul Erdos (the eccentric
mathematician) now, in which there is a cartoon from Doonsbury about
this "grade inflation" phenomenon.


I can't reproduce the cartoon here, but will describe it so you'll
get the idea:

Frame 1: Professor thinking, "seems logical ..."

Frame 2: Professor thinking, "But is it politically tenable?"

Frame 3: Chairman of Department talking to Professor, "Jules,
I've been meaning to talk to you about that B+ you
handed out last month."

Frame 4: "As Chairman of the Math Department, I think I was
entitled to some warning. You must have known it
would provoke a firestorm."

Frame 5: Professor, "Actually Tom, I didn't. I thought it was
still possible to assign a grade based on performance
and merit."

Frame 6: Chairman, "That's a bit naive, Jules. This is a new
generation of students. They insist on a decent comfort
level."

Frame 7: Chairman, "It doesn't matter if you have a kid who believes
1 + 1 = 3. From now on, work AROUND it!"

Frame 8: Professor, "Work around it?"
Chairman, "Jules, you have to make math ACCESSIBLE."

============ end excerpt


Ob scuba:

This is the kind of educational system that produced COLLEGE
graduates (such as Lee Bell) who did not even know what a
"linear function" is in mathematics, and went on for weeks
trying to make me explain why Pressure and Volume in
Boyles's Law is NOT a LINEAR function of each other!

Any High School student in mathematic should know that
in P*V = constant,

the relation between P and V is a NON-linear mathematic
function.

That's also the kind of mentality that made Hugh Huntzinger seek
out those students whom I rightfully FAILED (by not selling my
soul to the Devil) and they chose to use the anonymous webpage
of "rate your professor" for their revenge, and use that to flame
ME, the only professor in the newspaper interview who spoke out
against those student ABUSING the rating system, the and
Honor Fraternity Editor who ABUSED his role by discarding
ratings and comments from students who rated me TOPS.

END of my OFF TOPIC comments in this thread in response
to the posts of Jeeze Louise and the cesspool posts and
comments by the Supreme Hypocrite Hugh Huntzinger!

Read the threads in sci.stat.math (thousand of posts there
during my participation, hundreds from me) during 2005 and
2006 about the ills and failures of the USA educational system.

-- Reef Fish Bob.



>
> As for the point of security being a farce? No argument from me. I
> travel every week and it's a hassle and a farce. I am no more secure
> now than before 9-11, the only difference is the uniforms and the TSA

Then we see eye-to-eye about the TSA, and Security FARCE
resulted from the events of 9/11.




04 Sep 2007 02:16:42
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Sep 3, 6:56 pm, Jason <jason.news.nos...@ntlworld.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:14:35 -0700, Reef Fish wrote:
> > The episode has NOTHING to do with cruising. It has to do with the silly
> > BRITISH law regarding a Scubapro DIVE KNIFE in the name of security, in
> > the same silly fashion the finger nail snipper USED to be against the law
> > in another one of the THOUSANDS of security FARCES..
>
> Err, which law? It's not illegal to carry a dive knife even if the blade
> is over 3 inches as long as you have a reason for carrying it in public,

Excellent comment (as part of this Discussion). hh (Hugh Huntzinger)
was the person (Aug 20, 3rd post in the Google thread) who brought up
the point and cited what he said was the applicable British LAW.

See:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scuba.locations/msg/
c2483d2632374895

in which he wrote:

A good catch on the part of the security team, since 3.5" exceeds
legal length in UK:

hh >"Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits the
possession
hh >in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply
hh >pointed (including a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of
its
hh >blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches). <Archbold, 24.125>"

hh > - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_c.html

hh was also the one who brought up the 3" issue, which was NOT
mentioned by the Security Officers of the cruise ship who merely
stated to me that it was against UK LAW to have the scubapro
dive knife in my CHECKED luggage. I wasn't even carrying it
in public.

I was merely REPORTING (for the benefit of scuba divers who
may be affected by this "law" when they travel to the UK) for any
discussion.

My editorial was about the :"security FARCE" in my first hand
encounter.

On the questions you raised, I turn this over to hh (Hugh
Huntzinger, a low-level person in the Army of the USA, in
New Jersey).

Hugh was the one who then went OFF TOPIC into his
customary ad hominem attacks unrelated to my post, and
made a big deal of the "3 inch" being the legal limit.

I posted yesterday, after carefully measuring the length of
the blade of my knife, and found it to be slightly LESS than
3", by about 1/16 of an inch.

So, hh was WRONG, even if there is a 3" limit stated in
the laws of the UK about knives.

I did NOT make an issue of this with the cruise ship
Security Officers since: (1) My possession of the knife
on the ship was a matter of convenience, for cutting
fruits, etc in my private cabin --better than the dull dinner
knives or plastic knifes freely available on the ship;
(2) I was assured that the knife was NOT confiscated,
but only detained while I was on the ship, and I was
assured that it would be returned to me when I
disembark -- which they did.

That was the FULL extent of MY report.

I'll be very pleased to read (for my FUTURE travel to
the UK) the TRUTHS behind this issue, between
you and hh, and anyone ELSE who has any FACTUAL
information about the LAW or the legal CODE, as
Hugh appeared to think that HE KNEW.

Welcome to this thread and the information content
of your post. I have had many discussions with
more than one "Jason" in the UK in scuba-L and
rec.scuba in the 1990s. They both seemed quite
knowledgeable about SCUBA and SCUBA related
matter, unlike most of the posters from the USA,
such as Lee Bell and others who were WRONG in
almost every factual aspects about dive physics,
dive physiology, dive computers, and dive
techniques!!!

I look forward to reading this ON TOPIC discussion,
to lift the thread out of the cesspool brought out by
Hugh Huntzinger, Lee Bell, Steve Kramer, Jer, et al.

The question can now be sharpened to this form:

IS there, or ISN'T there any LAWS in the UK
governing the possession OR carrying of scuba
dive knives of certain characteristics, such as
the "locked blade" or length of the knife or blade (cited
by the Princess Cruiseship Security Officer while
I was in Southampton; and cited by Hugh Huntzinger
when he entered into this thread twice on August 20
before he fell into the cesspool of irrelevance and
noisy flames a week later -- August 28 and following).

-- Reef Fish Bob.

P.S. Kudos to Curtis (alias Magilla) on his posts of
August 26 and September 4, staying ON TOPIC, while
pointing out the MISREADING of my post by Hugh
Huntzinger and Lee Bell.

> i.e. you're going diving. It's not against the airlines luggage rules to
> have it in your checked in luggage either.

That is correct, as I mentioned, that I had the scubapro dive knife
in my checked luggage in hundreds of thousands of miles of air
travel since 9/11, without any incident.

I few at least 100,000 miles each year since 9/11 until 2006,

> Jason
>
> --
> Seehttp://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/forUK diving reports and the UK
> Underwater Visibility Database. View the database or add your own report

-- Reef Fish Bob.




04 Sep 2007 05:28:59
Tim
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish,

You fell foul of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act Section 139 (http://
www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880033_en_14).
It isn't the size of the blade that is the problem but the fact that
the blade can be locked. It doesn't matter how small the blade is, if
it can be locked then it is covered by the act.
You may have been able to carry the knife if you were going to use it
on a dive (as part of a sporting activity) but carrying it around for
days before hand is not allowed.

I hope that this help,

Tim


On Sep 4, 10:16 am, Reef Fish <large_nassua_grou...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 6:56 pm, Jason <jason.news.nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:14:35 -0700, Reef Fish wrote:
> > > The episode has NOTHING to do with cruising. It has to do with the silly
> > > BRITISH law regarding a Scubapro DIVE KNIFE in the name of security, in
> > > the same silly fashion the finger nail snipper USED to be against the law
> > > in another one of the THOUSANDS of security FARCES..
>
> > Err, which law? It's not illegal to carry a dive knife even if the blade
> > is over 3 inches as long as you have a reason for carrying it in public,
>
> Excellent comment (as part of this Discussion). hh (Hugh Huntzinger)
> was the person (Aug 20, 3rd post in the Google thread) who brought up
> the point and cited what he said was the applicable British LAW.
>
> See:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scuba.locations/msg/
> c2483d2632374895
>
> in which he wrote:
>
> A good catch on the part of the security team, since 3.5" exceeds
> legal length in UK:
>
> hh>"Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits the
> possession
> hh>in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply
> hh>pointed (including a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of
> its
> hh>blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches). <Archbold, 24.125>"
>
> hh> -http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_c.html
>
> hh was also the one who brought up the 3" issue, which was NOT
> mentioned by the Security Officers of the cruise ship who merely
> stated to me that it was against UK LAW to have the scubapro
> dive knife in my CHECKED luggage. I wasn't even carrying it
> in public.
>
> I was merely REPORTING (for the benefit of scuba divers who
> may be affected by this "law" when they travel to the UK) for any
> discussion.
>
> My editorial was about the :"security FARCE" in my first hand
> encounter.
>
> On the questions you raised, I turn this over to hh (Hugh
> Huntzinger, a low-level person in the Army of the USA, in
> New Jersey).
>
> Hugh was the one who then went OFF TOPIC into his
> customary ad hominem attacks unrelated to my post, and
> made a big deal of the "3 inch" being the legal limit.
>
> I posted yesterday, after carefully measuring the length of
> the blade of my knife, and found it to be slightly LESS than
> 3", by about 1/16 of an inch.
>
> So, hh was WRONG, even if there is a 3" limit stated in
> the laws of the UK about knives.
>
> I did NOT make an issue of this with the cruise ship
> Security Officers since: (1) My possession of the knife
> on the ship was a matter of convenience, for cutting
> fruits, etc in my private cabin --better than the dull dinner
> knives or plastic knifes freely available on the ship;
> (2) I was assured that the knife was NOT confiscated,
> but only detained while I was on the ship, and I was
> assured that it would be returned to me when I
> disembark -- which they did.
>
> That was the FULL extent of MY report.
>
> I'll be very pleased to read (for my FUTURE travel to
> the UK) the TRUTHS behind this issue, between
> you and hh, and anyone ELSE who has any FACTUAL
> information about the LAW or the legal CODE, as
> Hugh appeared to think that HE KNEW.
>
> Welcome to this thread and the information content
> of your post. I have had many discussions with
> more than one "Jason" in the UK in scuba-L and
> rec.scuba in the 1990s. They both seemed quite
> knowledgeable about SCUBA and SCUBA related
> matter, unlike most of the posters from the USA,
> such as Lee Bell and others who were WRONG in
> almost every factual aspects about dive physics,
> dive physiology, dive computers, and dive
> techniques!!!
>
> I look forward to reading this ON TOPIC discussion,
> to lift the thread out of the cesspool brought out by
> Hugh Huntzinger, Lee Bell, Steve Kramer, Jer, et al.
>
> The question can now be sharpened to this form:
>
> IS there, or ISN'T there any LAWS in the UK
> governing the possession OR carrying of scuba
> dive knives of certain characteristics, such as
> the "locked blade" or length of the knife or blade (cited
> by the Princess Cruiseship Security Officer while
> I was in Southampton; and cited by Hugh Huntzinger
> when he entered into this thread twice on August 20
> before he fell into the cesspool of irrelevance and
> noisy flames a week later -- August 28 and following).
>
> -- Reef Fish Bob.
>
> P.S. Kudos to Curtis (alias Magilla) on his posts of
> August 26 and September 4, staying ON TOPIC, while
> pointing out the MISREADING of my post by Hugh
> Huntzinger and Lee Bell.
>
> > i.e. you're going diving. It's not against the airlines luggage rules to
> > have it in your checked in luggage either.
>
> That is correct, as I mentioned, that I had the scubapro dive knife
> in my checked luggage in hundreds of thousands of miles of air
> travel since 9/11, without any incident.
>
> I few at least 100,000 miles each year since 9/11 until 2006,
>
> > Jason
>
> > --
> > Seehttp://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/forUKdiving reports and the UK
> > Underwater Visibility Database. View the database or add your own report
>
> -- Reef Fish Bob.




04 Sep 2007 09:50:44
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Sep 4, 8:28 am, Tim <dog_of_the_h...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Reef Fish,
>
> You fell foul of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act Section 139 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880033_en_14).
> It isn't the size of the blade that is the problem but the fact that
> the blade can be locked. It doesn't matter how small the blade is, if
> it can be locked then it is covered by the act.

Jason, you misidentified the poster who "fell foul of the 1988
Criminal Justice Act" you cited. -- It was hh (Hugh Huntzinger,
who made the errors). I merely responded to HIM about the
size of my dive knife blade.

In any event, your newsfeed must be slow because your
post (#23 currently in the Google threadappeared ) appeared
3 hours 12 mintes after MY post (#22. reply to Jason) appeared.

You should read THAT post, which should have clarified the
situation for you.

Newsgroups: rec.scuba.locations
From: Reef Fish <large_nassua_grou...@yahoo.com >
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 02:16:42 -0700
Local: Tues, Sep 4 2007 5:16 am
Subject: Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE


> You may have been able to carry the knife if you were going to use it
> on a dive (as part of a sporting activity) but carrying it around for
> days before hand is not allowed.
>
> I hope that this help,
>
> Tim

Thanks for your ON TOPIC comment, as was Jason's.

I hope hh (Hugh Huntzinger) will now correct all the errors he made
in his posts about the dive knife and specific UK law!

-- Reef Fish Bob.



04 Sep 2007 09:55:58
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Sep 4, 12:50 pm, Reef Fish <large_nassua_grou...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 4, 8:28 am, Tim <dog_of_the_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Reef Fish,
>
> > You fell foul of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act Section 139 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880033_en_14).
> > It isn't the size of the blade that is the problem but the fact that
> > the blade can be locked. It doesn't matter how small the blade is, if
> > it can be locked then it is covered by the act.
>
> Jason, you misidentified the poster who "fell foul of the 1988
> Criminal Justice Act" you cited. -- It was hh (Hugh Huntzinger,
> who made the errors). I merely responded to HIM about the
> size of my dive knife blade.

My apologies for the calling "Tim" Jason in the paragraph
above.
>
> In any event, your newsfeed must be slow because your
> post (#23 currently in the Google threadappeared ) appeared
> 3 hours 12 mintes after MY post (#22. reply to Jason) appeared.
>
> You should read THAT post, which should have clarified the
> situation for you.
>
> Newsgroups: rec.scuba.locations
> From: Reef Fish <large_nassua_grou...@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 02:16:42 -0700
> Local: Tues, Sep 4 2007 5:16 am
> Subject: Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Jason's post in question was/is post #19 in this Google thread.

-- Reef Fish Bob.



04 Sep 2007 23:50:11
Jason
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 05:28:59 -0700, Tim wrote:

> You fell foul of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act Section 139 (http://
> www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880033_en_14). It isn't the size of
> the blade that is the problem but the fact that the blade can be locked.
> It doesn't matter how small the blade is, if it can be locked then it is
> covered by the act. You may have been able to carry the knife if you were
> going to use it on a dive (as part of a sporting activity) but carrying it
> around for days before hand is not allowed.

Except that that only applies to carrying it in a public place. Keeping it
in your cabin is not a public place. Transporting it to and from his cabin
would also be permissible otherwise you'd never be able to buy a kitchen
knife in the supermarket.

Jason

--
See http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/for UK diving reports and the UK
Underwater Visibility Database. View the database or add your own report



05 Sep 2007 04:59:12
-hh
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE


Tim wrote:
> Reef Fish,
>
> You fell foul of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act Section 139...


As per his original claims, he was in violation of two portions of
Code.

Not that it really matters: the real point is that he never was going
to let it lie - - ie:


"Fish On!"


-hh. In Brussels, having just finished 3 days of Level 2 meetings at
NATO HQ and extremely humored at hearing at how I'm such a 'peon'.

Begian Beer festival was this past weekend -Highly recommended.



05 Sep 2007 07:05:01
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Sep 5, 7:59 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com > wrote:
> Tim wrote:
> > Reef Fish,
>
> > You fell foul of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act Section 139...
>
> As per his original claims, he was in violation of two portions of
> Code.

Notice how long hh's original posts were about his ERRORS of
citing UK laws, and how brief it is in EVADING the issue of his
own errors.

There was nothing in my posts, original or following that indicated
I was in violation of ANY UK Law, at least according to Jason,
and in part Tim (who also apparently made errors his own way
about the length of blades).

>
> Not that it really matters: the real point is that he never was going
> to let it lie - - ie:

Very lame excuse on evading the ON TOPIC discussion brought
out by Jason and Tim. I wasn't the one who challenged Hugh
Huntzinger's statements (errors) about the UK LAWS governing
weapons and dive knives.
>
> "Fish On!"
>
> -hh. In Brussels, having just finished 3 days of Level 2 meetings at
> NATO HQ and extremely humored at hearing at how I'm such a 'peon'.
>

hh always a BIG HEAD, completely out of proportion of his
body size!

I said he is an "Army peon in New Jersey".

Let me draw this very approximate analogy between academic
ranks (since he was the one who brought that out) and Army
ranks.

I would equate an Army GENERAL to an academic PROFESSOR,
and all ranks below that of a 1-star General would correspond to
academic teaching with ranks lower than that of a professor, such
as Instructor, Lecturers, Grateduate Assistants, etc.

I would classify anyone in academic with a rank below that of a
Professor an academic peon. In that respect/analogy, any
army officer below that of a 1-star General is an Army peon.

Hugh Huntzinger, with his army rank is not even a high class
peon!

A 1-star General may be equated to an Assistant Professor
A 2-star General may be equated to an Associate Professor
A 3-star General may be equated to a Full Professor

Hugh the Army peon said he was "extremely humored" by
being called an Army peon because he was attending
some army conference. Now THAT is LAUGHABLY
hilarious!

And he was ridiculing a Full Professor of a Tier-1 University
who had been a tenured Full Professor in one of the
Top Tier-1 Unversities in the USA since 1977.

In the analogy, a low-ranking Army peon was ridiculing
an Army General who had been 3-star or 4-star since
1977.

Hugh, why don't you respond to Curtis's post that you
MISREAD my post; and respond to the comments of
Jason and Tim that you made ERRORS in your
claims about Laws in the UK regarding knifes!

Stay ON TOPIC and quit trying to slip away with lame
and laugable excuses.

-- Reef Fish Bob.




05 Sep 2007 13:34:46
-hh
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Funny Bob Ling 'Reef Fish' wrote:
>
> There was nothing in my posts,...

...that was anything close to straight truths. The humor is in how
glaringly that Bob will self-contradict himself ... Bob's a veritable
self-licking ice cream cone.


> > Not that it really matters: the real point is that he never was going
> > to let it lie -

Since Robert lacks the willpower to resist, hence:

> > "Fish On!"

And predictably, much foaming at the mouth and yapping like Paris
Hilton's rat-dog, as insecure little Bobby is sent jumping through the
same old hoops yet again. SSDD.


> I would classify anyone in academic with a rank below that of a
> Professor an academic peon.

Since the rank of "Retired" is lower, this merely means that Bob has
just ID'd himself as a pee-on in his own analogy.

Even lower on the chain than is the "Forced Out" dinosaur relic of
the past.


Sit up Bob!
Roll over Bob!
Play dead, Bob!
Speak Bob, speak!

Good doggy!


So, any Scuba dives in the past 12 months, Bob?


-hh



05 Sep 2007 22:37:06
Michael Wolf
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com > wrote in news:1188993552.373332.277420
@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:


> -hh. In Brussels, having just finished 3 days of Level 2 meetings at
> NATO HQ and extremely humored at hearing at how I'm such a 'peon'.
>
> Begian Beer festival was this past weekend -Highly recommended.
>
>

How long you're still in Belgium?

And more importantly: did you ever go diving in the Oosterschelde and if
not, you want to?

---
Cthulhu for President!
Why settle for the lesser evil?


05 Sep 2007 20:12:27
Lee Bell
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Reef Fish wrote

> Notice how long hh's original posts were about his ERRORS of
> citing UK laws, and how brief it is in EVADING the issue of his
> own errors.

He wasn't detained for violating them. You were.




06 Sep 2007 00:18:09
Reef Fish
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

On Sep 5, 4:34 pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com > wrote:
> Funny Bob Ling 'Reef Fish' wrote:

The Funny part of hh's recent posts was how he TRIED to evade his
own errors posted about UK laws a challenged by Jason and Tim.

Worse, he continued to slip from the ON TOP discussion of LAW
to his usual ad hominem and libelous comments about me.
>
>
This excerpt is from my reply to Jason, clearly indicating that hh
(Hugh Huntzinger) was the one who ran afoul of CITING and
INTERPRETING the UK law (HE cited) about the scubapro knife:

========= begin excerpt of reply to Jason

On Sep 3, 6:56 pm, Jason <jason.news.nos...@ntlworld.com > wrote:


> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:14:35 -0700, Reef Fish wrote:
> > The episode has NOTHING to do with cruising. It has to do with the silly
> > BRITISH law regarding a Scubapro DIVE KNIFE in the name of security, in
> > the same silly fashion the finger nail snipper USED to be against the law
> > in another one of the THOUSANDS of security FARCES..

> Err, which law? It's not illegal to carry a dive knife even if the blade
> is over 3 inches as long as you have a reason for carrying it in public,

Excellent comment (as part of this Discussion). hh (Hugh
Huntzinger)
was the person (Aug 20, 3rd post in the Google thread) who brought up
the point and cited what he said was the applicable British LAW.

See:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scuba.locations/msg/
c2483d2632374895

in which he wrote:

A good catch on the part of the security team, since 3.5" exceeds
legal length in UK:

hh >"Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits the
possession
hh >in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply
hh >pointed (including a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of
its
hh >blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches). <Archbold, 24.125>"


hh > - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_c.html


hh was also the one who brought up the 3" issue, which was NOT
mentioned by the Security Officers of the cruise ship who merely
stated to me that it was against UK LAW to have the scubapro
dive knife in my CHECKED luggage. I wasn't even carrying it
in public.
============= end excerpt of reply to Jason

I deferred the matter of responding to the LAW and the 3" blade
issues to Hugh Huntzinger in view of the above cited FACTS about
his errors.

He has been dancing around the issue ever since.

Hugh's customary AD HOMINEM snide remarks:
>
> ...that was anything close to straight truths. The humor is in how
> glaringly that Bob will self-contradict himself ... Bob's a veritable
> self-licking ice cream cone.
>
More OFF TOPIC ad hominem and libelous remarks by hh:

> And predictably, much foaming at the mouth and yapping like Paris
> Hilton's rat-dog, as insecure little Bobby is sent jumping through the
> same old hoops yet again. SSDD.
>
> > I would classify anyone in academic with a rank below that of a
> > Professor an academic peon.
>
> Since the rank of "Retired" is lower, this merely means that Bob has
> just ID'd himself as a pee-on in his own analogy.

Hugh, you are WRONG even in your OFF TOPIC and gratuitous
attack out of your own ignorance!

My title IS: PROFESSOR Emeritus ! It is "Professor" by anyone's
standard and understanding except an ARMY PEON like Hugh.

> Even lower on the chain than is the "Forced Out" dinosaur relic of
> the past.
>
> Sit up Bob!
> Roll over Bob!
> Play dead, Bob!
> Speak Bob, speak!
>
> Good doggy!
>
> -hh

Why don't you climb out of your cesspool and go back ON TOPIC
and respond to Jason, Tim, and others about what YOU erroneously
stated and interpreted about the UK LAW?

-- Reef Fish Bob (Professor Emeritus since 1999)
-- Tenured Full Professor since 1977




06 Sep 2007 09:36:48
-hh
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE


Michael Wolf wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > Begian Beer festival was this past weekend -Highly recommended.
>
> How long you're still in Belgium?

Sorry, but I left Belgium yesterday - was chauffered in a 5-Series to
Stuttgart; took around 5 hours.


> And more importantly: did you ever go diving in the Oosterschelde and if
> not, you want to?

Its more of the question of schlepping along the gear. I tend to
prefer traveling fast & light, so two bags of stuff for only 1 day
isn't particularly efficient.

But you can always try to tempt me:
what will the diving conditions be like in February?


-hh



06 Sep 2007 10:38:53
-hh
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

Foaming Bob Lung 'Reef Fish' wrote:
>
> The Funny part of hh's recent posts was how he TRIED to evade his
> own errors posted about UK laws a challenged by Jason and Tim.

There's two laws that were in question: blade length and locking
blades. The UK authorities merely nailed you for the second one,
partly because your own report on the blade size was wrong.

That there are the provisions that we're later pointed out would be
relevant if you we're Scuba diving.
Since that's quite on-topic to this group, I'll ask a *second* time:

Were you equipped for Scuba diving, Bob?


> Worse, he continued to slip from the ON TOP discussion of LAW
> to his usual ad hominem and libelous comments about me.

The nasty rants were
started by Robert F Ling, PhD, which is very typical.


> hh was also the one who brought up the 3" issue, which was NOT
> mentioned by the Security Officers of the cruise ship...

Of course not, since we now know that Bob misrepresented the size of
the blade in his post here, so the blade length was never a real
issue.

Nevertheless, Bob tries to blame others for a mistake of his own
making. A Classical Bob Ling Mouth Dance Misdirection Attempt that
Ends In Failure Yet Again.


> I wasn't even carrying it in public.

Yet they still stopped you, not me.

Perhaps next time, bob will ask them to prove the chapter & verse, or
get off his own lazy retired lard ass and Google it himself, instead
of bitching and whining with ignorance.




> More OFF TOPIC ad hominem and libelous remarks by hh:
>
> > And predictably, much foaming at the mouth and yapping like...

Sorry, but that is merely a prediction of your behavior which you have
now validated as truthful and highly accurate.



> > Since the rank of "Retired" is lower, this merely means that Bob has
> > just ID'd himself as a pee-on in his own analogy.
>
> Hugh, you are WRONG ...

Oh?

So what classes are you teaching *this* Semester?

If you're not retired from Clemson, then why aren't you listed as a
staffmember at Clemson anymore?

Or did you finally manage to get a new job somewhere new after being
forced out of Clemson by all of those (by your accusation) naughty
"Grade Inflator" conspiritors? Is your new day job over at Starbucks
U, by any chance?


> Why don't you climb out of your cesspool and go back ON TOPIC...

I did: you merely deleted that part.

To reiterate, I asked where you've dived in the past 12 months.

Afterall, this group is Rec.Scuba.locations, not whine.uk.knife.laws

-hh

> -- Reef Fish Bob (Professor Emeritus since 1999)
> -- Tenured Full Professor since 1977
] -- Retired Nobody since 2001

--



06 Sep 2007 17:59:59
Michael Wolf
Re: A New One on the International Security FARCE

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com > wrote in
news:1189096608.555201.40010@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

>
> Michael Wolf wrote:
>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> > Begian Beer festival was this past weekend -Highly recommended.
>>
>> How long you're still in Belgium?
>
> Sorry, but I left Belgium yesterday - was chauffered in a 5-Series to
> Stuttgart; took around 5 hours.
>
>
>> And more importantly: did you ever go diving in the Oosterschelde and
>> if not, you want to?
>
> Its more of the question of schlepping along the gear. I tend to
> prefer traveling fast & light, so two bags of stuff for only 1 day
> isn't particularly efficient.
>
> But you can always try to tempt me:
> what will the diving conditions be like in February?
>
>
> -hh
>
>

Rather cold, but viz should be good. I can take care of the gear for
you...