>Well Jon you are wrong! When did Ian say it was the Official Position of
>Psubs as an organisation that big subs were not discussed?
I have explained this twice. You are apparently unwilling to accept my
explanation.
>My second point was that if you think that there has not been a negative
>reaction to large subs by some members of this group, you are kidding
>yourself. This includes the Precious one! You were suggesting that Ian's
>point of view was invalid and his perception wrong! I strongly disagree.
>Your stomping on him is going to be a bigger negative that that which he
>described and acts like a form of pier censorship. It is the experience Ian
>has had with members of this group. Others feel the same way. I even
>explained why and stated that was ok if many don't have an interest in
large
>boats. How can I be fairer!
Why do you make comments like "the precious one" insinuating that there's
some collusion to put Jay Jeffries on a pedestal? Do you understand the
disrespect that represents or are you just so angry that you'll say
anything. So what if he said you have to consider the depth of the harbor
for a large sub. So what if he said you have to consider cost and
maintenance for a large sub. I'm at a loss to understand how you expect me
to have sympathy for you, Ian, or anyone else over trivial statements like
that. Are you serious? At the end of December 2007, Ian announced his
concrete sub project to the group. Jay Jeffries did not respond to it. In
February, Jay Jeffries offered an analysis of large vs small subs, and as
far as I can tell the bottom line was that large subs beat out small subs in
every way except transportation. Now maybe Jay just happened to see the
light and came out of darkness on his own, or maybe Jay saw the light when
he found he had an opportunity to procure a large tank that he could develop
into a large sub. Whatever the reason, who cares?! The fact is he is
apparently very much in favor of large subs, now. Continuing to argue about
statements he made a year or more ago seem less valuable to me than taking
advantage of his turn in thinking and using him as an ally to bolster
discussions for the development of private large subs. Whatever Jay
Jeffries said, might have said, or could have said, yesterday, last year, or
three years ago; it didn't rise to the level of disrespect apparent in your
messages. And apparently, the two people who were actively involved in
building large subs when Jay said whatever he said, ignored him and simply
continued on with their projects.
Stop talking to me about Ian and his negative experiences with this group.
If Ian can't speak for himself, then it isn't bothering him enough to care.
Ian attended the convention in Maine and attended more than one "rum
tasting" party hosted by Jay Jeffries, with numerous other people. At least
in my presence, Ian was treated with total respect. Questions were asked
about his concrete sub, and he answered them. Nobody chastised him,
belittled him, or cut his head off and handed it back to him. If anything,
Ian garnered more support for his project after discussing the details of
his plans for the sub than ever before. If Ian is saying anything
different, then shame on him. Jim Kocourek, Andy Goldstein, Ray Keefer, Jay
Jeffries, Lee Nichols, Lynn Darnell, Russ Kinne, Kevin Green, Doug Farrow,
Wayne Russell and Bob Oberto were all there, in the same room, at the same
time. If you don't believe me, then ask the others.
>Just because you state something is incorrect does not make it the case.
Why
>are you so afraid of someone saying ' I had a negative experience' or 'this
>is my perception''. This is very Pat Regan of you Jon. In my own business
if
>someone has a negative experience I WANT to know so I can restore goodwill
>or fix the problem.
As I said earlier, I have clearly explained my response to Ian, to you,
twice.
>As for idle banter I note you yourself on occasions indulge in the same
>practice so throwing crap like that at me in the attempt to claim the high
>moral ground is in itself silly. I would suggest most list members except
>that deodorant would be an essential on a long voyage in a confined space
>and see the funny side of Brent astride the casing rowing a sub back to
>shore. Oh I'm sorry, new rule; don't exercise a sense of humour on p-subs.
>Well at least I didn't mention a home made machine gun.
There's alot of idle chatter on this list, which for the most part we
ignore. Hence my statement previously that the group is very tolerant of
such things. Your statement above is over-dramatic and inflates the context
of my words to something I never said. I don't have to defend a statement I
didn't make and which clearly is not practiced on the mailing list. What
you should have taken from my statement was that people have tolerated 11
nonsense messages between you and Brent, and you should be more tolerant
when others have the audacity to question the relevance of large subs.
>Making the 'us v them' comments just reinforces the very idea that such an
>environment exists when I said nothing of the sort and again this does not
>dismiss the substance of my email. I note you avoided that because my
>assertions are hard to dispute. In fact you have left most of them
>unchallenged and adopted the Ostrich approach. I didn't see my e-mail as
>particularly inflammatory but as supportive of a fellow member so Ian
didn't
>think he was Robinson Caruso as others just like him have had the same
>experience. Just because you can get the majority to agree with you doesn't
>mean you are right.
There is nothing you asserted that is hard to dispute and I did not avoid
your assertions for that reason. I avoided the bulk of your message because
it contained nothing more than insinuations which weren't worth my time
responding to. By the time I responded to you the way I did, I thought it
had been made very clear that discussing large submarines on this list is
patently and unquestionably acceptable. I researched the archives and found
that not only did Jay Jeffries NOT respond to Ian's announcement of his
large 200-ton concrete sub in December 2007 (and therefore could not be
accused of intimidating Ian at that time) but that in February of 2008,
Jeffries was espousing the virtues of large submarines. Additionally, I had
my own personal experience of observing Ian discussing his sub at the
convention, with Jay and the others named above, without any malice or
disrespect. So from my perspective, if there ever had been an issue, it no
longer was one. With Ray responding to Ian separately (and without my
prompting) everyone was on notice, including Jay Jeffries, that discussion
of large subs was not only permissible, but that we've seen sensitivity to
this issue so don't disrupt any such discussions. Apparently, Ian had the
same perspective given his statement of 8/25/2008 at 3:45pm,
"Cool, I'm getting a strong message, bigs subs are acceptable
psubs! Thanks guys. I will think no more of the issue and
get on with what we love, talking about submarines!"
Now with Ian satisfied, there was no point in continuing a discussion about
a problem that no longer existed.
I stand behind my statement that your message sounded like "US vs THEM"
based upon personality conflicts, particularly given your statements such as
"the precious one". Furthermore, I didn't say that psubs was a "cult of the
K250", you did. And further still, you are the one that offered the
description of some participants as "core conventionist". These are labels
that contribute to an "US vs THEM" environment. That is the way I see it.
I did see your email as particularly inflammatory, and ignored the bulk of
it hoping we could avoid any fireworks. Instead of recognizing that, you
retort by accusing me of hiding my head like an ostrich and not challenging
you further. In my opinion, that is indicative of somebody just looking to
argue for the sake of arguing. Your message could have been supportive of
Ian had you taken a different tact and made your point without making
unflattering remarks about Jay Jeffries.
I don't "get the majority" to agree with me. People who agree with me do so
at their own risk. You most assuredly give me too much credit.
>We do have a great group here and if it wasn't for many members mentoring
>and educating my very ignorant thinking back in June 2005 when I discovered
>this list I would not have the knowledge to attempt the project I am about
>to undertake. My experience is very much like that of Joe Perkel. In fact I
>value this group to the point that I have in a small way sponsored a
>convention if you remember which I didn't even attend. In light of this,
>comments about starting wars or promoting disunity offensive. You're the
one
>that over reacted!
We appreciate your sponsorship. However, I find your conduct, your words,
and your insinuations in this thread equally offensive, and in fact,
stunning. Nobody ever wins an argument based upon personalities. Hence my
reference to the Lilliputian wars, or in other words, let's not go down this
road.
>It's like this Jon. If I feel a member is unfairly stomped on by you or
>anyone else I have a natural urge to suggest that it was unfair and reserve
>the right to say so! If that's not acceptable to you Gulliver, kick me off
>the list!!!
No need for name calling.
First, this discussion thread is over. Ian is comfortable knowing he can
discuss large subs if he chooses, and there is nothing left to discuss on
the immediate subject he was concerned about. Do not reply to this, and do
not continue the discussion on the mailing list. If you feel the need to
respond, do it privately, NOT on this list.
Second, when you suggest something is unfair in the future, do so
respectfully and without making childish remarks like "the precious one" or
making veiled attacks on others you have a personal conflict with. I
believe that is a fair request.
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Your email address appears in our database
because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
from our organization.
If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
link below or send a blank email message to:
removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an
automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
our server receiving your request.
PSUBS.ORG
PO Box 53
Weare, NH 03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************