|
Vance, That wasn’t a rum tasting out in Holland, that was a night
until 2 or 4 in the morning (can’t quite remember) having also mixed in
some great Scotch and some other things. Enough for anyone to wobble a
little! J R/Jay Respectfully, Jay K. Jeffries Andros Is., Bahamas Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. - Euripides (484 BC - 406 BC) From:
owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
[mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of vbra676539@aol.com Jon, >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 myexplanation.>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 inlarge>boats. How can I be fairer!Why do you make comments like "the precious one" insinuating that there'ssome collusion to put Jay Jeffries on a pedestal? Do you understand thedisrespect that represents or are you just so angry that you'll sayanything. So what if he said you have to consider the depth of the harborfor a large sub. So what if he said you have to consider cost andmaintenance for a large sub. I'm at a loss to understand how you expect meto have sympathy for you, Ian, or anyone else over trivial statements likethat. Are you serious? At the end of December 2007, Ian announced hisconcrete sub project to the group. Jay Jeffries did not respond to it. InFebruary, Jay Jeffries offered an analysis of large vs small subs, and asfar as I can tell the bottom line was that large subs beat out small subs inevery way except transportation. Now maybe Jay just happened to see thelight and came out of darkness on his own, or maybe Jay saw the light whenhe found he had an opportunity to procure a large tank that he could developinto a large sub. Whatever the reason, who cares?! The fact is he isapparently very much in favor of large subs, now. Continuing to argue aboutstatements he made a year or more ago seem less valuable to me than takingadvantage of his turn in thinking and using him as an ally to bolsterdiscussions for the development of private large subs. Whatever JayJeffries said, might have said, or could have said, yesterday, last year, orthree years ago; it didn't rise to the level of disrespect apparent in yourmessages. And apparently, the two people who were actively involved inbuilding large subs when Jay said whatever he said, ignored him and simplycontinued 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 "rumtasting" party hosted by Jay Jeffries, with numerous other people. At leastin my presence, Ian was treated with total respect. Questions were askedabout 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 ofhis plans for the sub than ever before. If Ian is saying anythingdifferent, then shame on him. Jim Kocourek, Andy Goldstein, Ray Keefer, JayJeffries, Lee Nichols, Lynn Darnell, Russ Kinne, Kevin Green, Doug Farrow,Wayne Russell and Bob Oberto were all there, in the same room, at the sametime. 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 businessif>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 weignore. Hence my statement previously that the group is very tolerant ofsuch things. Your statement above is over-dramatic and inflates the contextof my words to something I never said. I don't have to defend a statement Ididn't make and which clearly is not practiced on the mailing list. Whatyou should have taken from my statement was that people have tolerated 11nonsense messages between you and Brent, and you should be more tolerantwhen 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 Iandidn'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 avoidyour assertions for that reason. I avoided the bulk of your message becauseit contained nothing more than insinuations which weren't worth my timeresponding to. By the time I responded to you the way I did, I thought ithad been made very clear that discussing large submarines on this list ispatently and unquestionably acceptable. I researched the archives and foundthat not only did Jay Jeffries NOT respond to Ian's announcement of hislarge 200-ton concrete sub in December 2007 (and therefore could not beaccused of intimidating Ian at that time) but that in February of 2008,Jeffries was espousing the virtues of large submarines. Additionally, I hadmy own personal experience of observing Ian discussing his sub at theconvention, with Jay and the others named above, without any malice ordisrespect. So from my perspective, if there ever had been an issue, it nolonger was one. With Ray responding to Ian separately (and without myprompting) everyone was on notice, including Jay Jeffries, that discussionof large subs was not only permissible, but that we've seen sensitivity tothis issue so don't disrupt any such discussions. Apparently, Ian had thesame 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 abouta 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 theK250", you did. And further still, you are the one that offered thedescription of some participants as "core conventionist". These are labelsthat 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 ofit hoping we could avoid any fireworks. Instead of recognizing that, youretort by accusing me of hiding my head like an ostrich and not challengingyou further. In my opinion, that is indicative of somebody just looking toargue for the sake of arguing. Your message could have been supportive ofIan had you taken a different tact and made your point without makingunflattering remarks about Jay Jeffries.I don't "get the majority" to agree with me. People who agree with me do soat 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 theone>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 myreference to the Lilliputian wars, or in other words, let's not go down thisroad.>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 candiscuss large subs if he chooses, and there is nothing left to discuss onthe immediate subject he was concerned about. Do not reply to this, and donot continue the discussion on the mailing list. If you feel the need torespond, do it privately, NOT on this list.Second, when you suggest something is unfair in the future, do sorespectfully and without making childish remarks like "the precious one" ormaking veiled attacks on others you have a personal conflict with. Ibelieve that is a fair request.************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US FederalCAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Your email address appears in our databasebecause either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messagesfrom our organization.If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on thelink below or send a blank email message to: removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.orgRemoval of your email address from this mailing list occurs by anautomated process and should be complete within five minutes ofour server receiving your request.PSUBS.ORGPO Box 53Weare, NH 03281603-529-1100************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************Get the MapQuest
Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices & More! |