Walter:
Actually, you did and I see in a later post you've admitted you did and that this post was a mistake on your part. Thank you for going back and reading your previous post then having the integrity to admit to your mistakes.
Your welcome, I believe it's the appropriate thing to do.
Walter:
I didn't consider it editing, but I won't quibble over the term I wouldn't want your head to explode. When I said, "What editing," I had no idea to what you were referring. Now I know. As to the "editing" it was to show the relationship of my question to yours and to show to whom I was directing the question. Understand?
OK. The reason why I mentioned what appeared to be a "dumb act" when you said "what editing?" is because in post #51 you quote half my question. In post #66 I point out that you edited my question by stopping it in mid sentence, and I restate my question in it's entirety. In post #100 I again restate that you cut my question off in mid sentence. In post #143 I do a word for word comparison for you showing the full text of my question and compare it to the "edited" version that you quoted.
Perhaps my choice of words was a bit inappropriate. But after all that, to have you say "what editing?", it doesn't seem that far out of the realm of possibility that you probably know exactly what editing I'm talking about.
Walter:
I resent you saying I'm , "playing dumb." I resent the fact you are calling me "sneaky." I have not been sneaky and I have not been playing dumb. I've not been thinking good thoughts about your inability to understand, but I've kept those thought to myself. I think you've stepped over the line.
Again, perhaps my choice of words was somewhat inappropriate for a public forum.
Walter:
Don't be silly. I know you weren't been underhanded when you brought up NAUI even though Catherine's statement didn't mention NAUI. I was obviously being sarcastic when I asked if you were being underhanded. More than once you said I was underhanded when I asked you if PADI's text had a section about the panic cycle when I knew YMCA's text did, but didn't know if NAUI's did or not (I still don't know - does anyone?) and you asked specifically about NAUI. If I was being underhanded, then by the same logic you were as well when you dragged NAUI into the discussion. Of course you weren't being underhanded. You were curious and asked a question. Neither was I when I asked my question. I think we need to back off on the insults, we both want to avoid a meeting at Weehawken.
I have no way to know when you are being sarcastic, and must take you to mean what you say. To clarify again. I have said that the editing of someones statement in order to have it make your post seem relevent to it is underhanded. Your question, and your point about what the YMCA includes in it's course is fine. I believe I have been extreemely clear that I believe it is underhanded to edit my question in order to accomodate your question, not the question itself. As you stated above "As to the "editing" it was to show the relationship of my question to yours". I understand that, and have conteded all along that if you need to edit it in order to show the relationship, the relationship is not very strong.
And it would appear that we are now in agreement that Catherine did in fact bring up NAUI, and I did not "drag NAUI into the disscusion". So now the question would seem to be weather or not it was underhanded of me to ask her to discuss the PADI and NAUI manual specificly while quoting her #42 post in which she says "The coursework is not rigorous, the books have very little substantive material, I believe." Since her post was a responce to my original post, which intern was a direct responce to her post #20 where she mentions NAUI by name, as well as talks about the inadequecy of the PADI manual, I don't feel this is an unfair request, or should be considered underhanded. On the contrary, it would appear to be nothing more than the natural progresion of the conversation. The fact that you are were unaware of the #20 post when both I and the person whom I was addressing were, does not constitute "streching it" on my part.
I asked her specificly about NAUI as I have some (all be it limited) knowledge of NAUI, and am under the impression that the manuals are not dramaticly different. (I conceed that there are some differences) GUE I have absolutely no knowledge of, so didn't want to debate something I have no idea about.
Walter:
Sorry, I was wrong, you were being underhanded. You just waited to do so. In post 50, you quote Catherine's post 42 and ask her to tell you something about the NAUI text. When you made a big deal about my question to you that did not have anything to do with NAUI, I mentioned the same applied to your question to Catherine when you brought NAUI into the discussion. Now you show where she did mention NAUI 20 posts earlier. Geeze, that's really stretching it. OK, let's stretch it back tp post 22, that quote was, "but I have had the impression PADI courses are relatively weak, compared to NAUI, GUE, and a few others." So even by your twisted sense of logic, my question was within the scope of yours.
The fact that my question to Catherine may have been more limited in scope than her original statement, I will conceed. I believe I have addressed (above) my reason for doing this. But I disagree that your rescent revelation that this previous post exists somehow makes your question any more relevent to the scope of the question that I asked. I believe it will be hard for you to contend that the wider scope of her original statement is what made you feel your question was relevent, as you apparently did not not know of it's existance. So I again contend that based on the question you were aware of, your question was nothing more than a new direction with very limited relevence to mine. Thus as I have contended all along, you felt the need to edit my question to make it seem more relevent.
That's all. I generally try to be carefull of the point of the questions that I ask, and don't like someone changing my words and then posting them as mine. I don't see that as being acceptable in any forum.
Thanks
