At 03:35 PM 4/23/99 -0500, John Nitrox wrote: >At 12:27 PM 4/23/99 -0400, Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper) wrote: Just think -- Strike and Roger was having this conversation this morning: R>I've gone six hours with out a post from scuba-l. I'm just wondering R>if it is the list or my POS server. > S>What it is, of course, is the fact that there's no controversial S>debate raging! Well, this is not going to turn into one, even if it seemed that way. Let me preface my reply here by declaring that while I have an abundance of trees in my front and back yards, I have not yet hug any of them! :-) >>John, you were the one who pointed out Cousteau's brutality. You now >>seem to take the opposite position in his defense. I was referring to these: On 4/21 you wrote, JN>It's kind of chilling - reading how casually Jacques would harpoon dolphins JN>and leave them for sharks to eat or harpoon and shoot whales with dum-dum JN>bullets. Two days later, you wrote, JN>When I first read _Silent World_ in the mid-fifties I remember JN>thinking that Cousteau was so delicate and caring that I thought he was a JN>little effeminate. Now 45 years later people seem to think he was a brute. The two positions didn't seem to agree, and so I commented JN>Certainly Cousteau changed, JN>but the world changed as much or more, and if Cousteau had anything to be JN>embarrassed about the world has more to be embarrassed about. RF>Non sequitur. Meaning, just because there are more killings NOW doesn't excuse his misdeeds decades ago. I gave Cousteau plenty of credit where credit was due (pity you snipped them all ;-)). I was just AGREEING with you that his unnecessary killing of dolphins and whales was not a good thing. >Context! > > That statement followed Jean-Marc's suggestion that "Cousteau wasn't >particularly proud of those things...." My assertion is that there is >nothing about which he should be embarrassed. He behaved admirably in the >world of the 50s and it's a sorry thing to judge him harshly from a changed >set of mores in the 90s, particularly since most of us have gone through >similar transformations. That's why I used this ANALOGY: > Increased killing does not excuse a single killing. >>It is that kind of mentality that contributed to the Colorado shooting >>incident that is not found in any other country other than this, >>and in INCREASING frequency too. See, this is current NEWS. There hasn't been any news lately on mass- shooting of WHALES. So I simply used that to suggest in Cousteau's case, the fact that there're more WHALE killings now in no way justifies his deed decades ago -- ANALOGOUS to the fact that there are more killings of PEOPLE today doesn't justify anyone shooting and killing a person decades ago. Granted, the analogy is far from perfect. If I had given it another day or two of thought, I might have come up with a better one. But this is supposed to be light, cream-puff SCUBA banter! > When I was in junior high school I took guns to school as did many You mean they don't do it in Chicago now? :-) >It never occurred to anyone to shoot people. I don't equate killing humans >with killing fish or ocean mammals, and unless you do, I'm not clear what >you are implying here. The silent scream of a vegetable being picked >doesn't carry any moral weight with me, but human life does. John, I hope my explanation above sufficed to say that it was my ANALOGY. Furthermore, I am no tree hugger, and I never hear my trees or veggies scream at me. I was merely puzzled at you APPARENT change of attitude about Cousteau's molestation of dolphins and whales within a couple of posts. That's all. Lighten up. ;-) >>We are insensitized. I am not a religious person (though I was at >>one time <G>), but I still think the intent of "thou shalt not kill" >>does not have a clause attached it that if it meant politically >>correct to some, then it's okay to bomb the hell out of some other >>country and kill people there, innocent or otherwise. > > I liked this paragraph so much I couldn't delete it; I hope this >isn't too much non scuba content for Nick. Are you trolling for Nick? :-) He only goes after your obscure jokes. FUC 6.2. He understands my plain talk. :-)) Hope this concludes our pseudo-tree-hugging discussion/debate. >DPTNST, > > >John DPTFT, -- Bob.