Ron Lee's Personal Rules for Diving in Cozumel

[vladimir]

I am sorry, while you are correct, watching is different from monitoring, it isn't commonly defined as you choose to define it. You are now redefining 'monitor' make it match an improper, in my opinion, use of 'paternalism.' Monitoring is systematic watching, as I said and you ignored. Is it still passive. Think UN Monitors. Do nothing. You can't in fairness use your definitions to define his meaning. The writer can not be held liable for the reader choosing definitions outside of the dictionary. Choosing more inflammatory meaning for words is quite common today in the attempt to generate outrage, so perhaps you are in the majority on this, but I must still disagree.

And whether the old guy can take it or not, doesn't make it nice or polite. You want to make fun of his socks too? (Ok, maybe I do too, but I DON'T...)

Quero gave you the first relevant dictionary definition of monitor:

to oversee, supervise, or regulate: to monitor the administering of a test

 

[cvchief]

So readers are obliged to read your mind as well as what you write? We are at fault when you fail to know the meanings of the words you use?

---------- Post added January 21st, 2013 at 06:31 AM ----------

You may feel you need to disagree, but your grasp of language is full of holes. In your example for "monitor" you cite "UN monitor." That's a noun. Ron used it as a verb. Think about what UN monitors do. They observe and supervise compliance to truces and other regulations. This is far from passive. "Monitor" when used as a verb most commonly has exactly the definition I gave. I have not chosen definitions outside the dictionary nor outside of normal interpretation. The fact that so many of us reacted in exactly the same way to this word choice is evidence of that. My definitions are not inflammatory. But what has actually inflamed the whole discussion right from the start is this "rule" of Ron's that women divers always need monitoring and watching over. I find the original gaffe much more rude than calling him out on it is.

Well, no not actually. Monitor watch, as in the UN seldom does anything but watch. Hence the definition of monitor:Observe and check the progress or quality of (something) over a period of time; keep under systematic review.

Now supervise: Observe and direct the execution of (a task, project, or activity). is different. Word matter. (Who said that? I mean besides me...)

As you have now redefine monitor to be equal to supervise, I would say your grasp of definitions could be considered imprecise. You use the said imprecision to accuse Ron of paternalism which, in my opinion, a bridge to far. (A movie with few women in it as I recall...) Now if you could go with him simply being condescending, I would let it be.

Further, Ron's rule didn't state that women always need monitoring, just that he always does that. Lots of people do things absent the need to do them. Of course if you said he implied that, I might not argue that point.

On the other hand, if I ever get to your part of the world, I would love to dive with you. I bet you are a hoot as a dive buddy!

---------- Post added January 20th, 2013 at 06:51 PM ----------

Quero gave you the first relevant dictionary definition of monitor:

Interesting. Merriam-Webster says: to watch, keep track of, or check usually for a special purpose

Now as a noun, MW says it is a student appointed by a teacher. But then we are discussing verbs.

---------- Post added January 20th, 2013 at 06:53 PM ----------

"The Aldora pier is only LEFT of the ferry pier if you are on land and face the ocean or are female. It is SOUTH of the ferry pier.".....Ron Lee 1/4/13

Ok, now that is clearly paternalistic. Special rules for a special group. Sorry Ron.... (Thanks for providing a clear example of the difference!)

 

[Quero]

On the other hand, if I ever get to your part of the world, I would love to dive with you. I bet you are a hoot as a dive buddy!

It would be my great pleasure to welcome you to Thailand and to do a few dives with you. I always have a good time on the boat and in the water so I'm sure we'd have fun.

(I can tell you, though, that you'll never be able to best me in a debate about the English language. I am a recognized specialist in the area, having written and published three dozen or so books on the subject.)

 

[lsorenson]

You lose!

A heterosexual male?? (I swear IM kidding)

 

[cvchief]

It would be my great pleasure to welcome you to Thailand and to do a few dives with you. I always have a good time on the boat and in the water so I'm sure we'd have fun.

(I can tell you, though, that you'll never be able to best me in a debate about the English language. I am a recognized specialist in the area, having written and published three dozen or so books on the subject.)

Only a few dives? I'm not that bad....

Of course after a few dives, you might reconsider my ability to best you in English. At least in the area of specific definitions and generalization. Expertise sometimes leads to overconfidence. That or the beer would run out....:cool2:

 

[Quero]

Now about the title (this is all I'll say about it, and let me be clear that I did not perform this moderation or I wouldn't be in the thread at all)--
1) There were post reports wanting to take the thread out of the Cozumel forum, suggesting Whine and Cheeze, and suggesting Humor as places to move it to.
2) As we often do, the moderators discussed the options. It was felt that Ron's friends are in the Coz forum and that's why he put his thread here. So we wanted to find a way to leave it here.
3) The original title was a single word that did nothing to link the topic to the forum, and furthermore, in an SEO sense was so vague as to be meaningless.
4) So a straightforward descriptive title, one that actually says what the thread is about and that links it to the forum, was created. This kills two birds with one stone: it fixes the SEO failing of the original title and it allows the thread to remain in the Cozumel forum where Ron wanted it.

So you see, those of you who are conspiracy theorists are just going to have to be disappointed this time.

---------- Post added January 21st, 2013 at 07:22 AM ----------

Only a few dives?

Well, I didn't want to presume....

 

[MMM]

And to amplify Quero's post above, and again since I was in the thread, declined to be part of the moderation decisions, there is no requirement for permission by the OP for a moderator to change a thread title if they think it necessary. A courtesy to advise but not a necessity. So again, conspiracy theorists need to chill.

Now about the title (this is all I'll say about it, and let me be clear that I did not perform this moderation or I wouldn't be in the thread at all)--
1) There were post reports wanting to take the thread out of the Cozumel forum, suggesting Whine and Cheeze, and suggesting Humor as places to move it to.
2) As we often do, the moderators discussed the options. It was felt that Ron's friends are in the Coz forum and that's why he put his thread here. So we wanted to find a way to leave it here.
3) The original title was a single word that did nothing to link the topic to the forum, and furthermore, in an SEO sense was so vague as to be meaningless.
4) So a straightforward descriptive title, one that actually says what the thread is about and that links it to the forum, was created. This kills two birds with one stone: it fixes the SEO failing of the original title and it allows the thread to remain in the Cozumel forum where Ron wanted it.

So you see, those of you who are conspiracy theorists are just going to have to be disappointed this time.

---------- Post added January 21st, 2013 at 07:22 AM ----------

Well, I didn't want to presume....

 

[cvchief]

Now about the title (this is all I'll say about it, and let me be clear that I did not perform this moderation or I wouldn't be in the thread at all)--
1) There were post reports wanting to take the thread out of the Cozumel forum, suggesting Whine and Cheeze, and suggesting Humor as places to move it to.
2) As we often do, the moderators discussed the options. It was felt that Ron's friends are in the Coz forum and that's why he put his thread here. So we wanted to find a way to leave it here.
3) The original title was a single word that did nothing to link the topic to the forum, and furthermore, in an SEO sense was so vague as to be meaningless.
4) So a straightforward descriptive title, one that actually says what the thread is about and that links it to the forum, was created. This kills two birds with one stone: it fixes the SEO failing of the original title and it allows the thread to remain in the Cozumel forum where Ron wanted it.

So you see, those of you who are conspiracy theorists are just going to have to be disappointed this time.

And as a side note, stuck a stick in Ron's eye, just in case someone missed it. Facinating though how much work went into it.

---------- Post added January 21st, 2013 at 07:22 AM ----------

Well, I didn't want to presume....

I have already started imagining the after dive......

[youtubehq]kQFKtI6gn9Y[/youtubehq]

 

[fred3798]

Mike is always right! That is so frightening.

 

[Quero]

And to amplify Quero's post above, and again since I was in the thread, declined to be part of the moderation decisions, there is no requirement for permission by the OP for a moderator to change a thread title if they think it necessary. A courtesy to advise but not a necessity. So again, conspiracy theorists need to chill.

Correct. We consider it "housekeeping." And it's actually rare for us to advise members about housekeeping moderation actions in regard to their posts. We do so many housekeeping tasks that we wouldn't have time to participate in discussions (like getting into debates about word meanings) if we spent as much time as would be needed to write PMs to everybody about these kinds of things. We're all volunteers with regular lives outside of SB, believe it or not.