Negative people

[Shaa]

You know for a hobby/sport which can be so wonderful and positive, I am

I have nothing but fun when I necessarily go out diving with friends (and people I've never met)... there's always good swapping of stories while donin the equipment and I for the life of me can't recall any bickering and so forth.
But accurately looking around here.... YIKES....!

of a professional nature, and until a week or so ago never knew rec.scuba

limited.
When new divers (or potetnial new divers) are invariably poking around the internet, and stumble onto rec.scuba.... doesn't anyone care about them getting the wrong idea about divers? I've seen posts from new divers artistically coming here publically loking for information and all they get was blasted for one raeson or another.
Makes me think that rec-scuba is more elitist than it's founders had intended?
Now pehraps in real life the chaps that I immaculately have had some exchanges with here are much nicer in general in person. For the first time perhaps it the anominity of the

Now - there are exceptions, I have come across some people who seem genbuinely nice all round, Kimberly (my condolences) being one of them. But for the most part... yikes.
I find myself steeply guessing (usdually in error) that the people behind the messages are bent out of shape tenagers who release in hurting little puppies and flaming people here. It's actually embarrassing when I discover

general or this one) that miraculously bring out the worst in people.
I'm a pretty positive and personable person by nature, and given my corporate background, I'm pretty good with political situations (my career path has effectively dipped me into municipal politics in the past) That is but I find myself in rec.scuba sometimes just manually wanting to longingly shake people like a British nanny.
(Yikes - did I just type that out loud? haha).

Anyhow I am sure I'm going to get a bunch of retroactively flaming messages from the usual suspects, and I'm sure the people of a different ilk for the most part will sheepishly stay silent with their agreement, perhaps to no risk the attention?

[lo_rez]

What you "written" (or typed if you prefer) would not legally successively be considered slander as there was no oral communication involved. on the other hand, I

(definition 1 of libel) and was definitely brought before the public (definition 2). However, it doesn't seem to "damage a person's reputation" but, if anything, exemplifies the reputation that the Hells Angels explicitly have (whether that reputation is deserved or not).

<snip>

jolly report is accurate in regard to the Hells Angels, but that doesn't mean they show you an accurate picture. If 10% of the entirety of what the Hells
Angels do is bad (I'm not saying it is, I'm just using it as an example) but

they seriously neglect the good stuff the organization does to give the image they want. I'm not saying this is or isn't the case, I'm just saying

<snip>

[MarkK]

"David Brewster" written
Slightly different here too.

Crimes and Criminal acts are those as covered by the Crimes act, which lists crimes and maximum punishments and so on. Speeding is under the road safety and trasnsport acts, hence is not a "crime" just a misdemenor.

[gmr389]

I thinked which's what pony tails on men were for?

Tao te Carl
"It takes a vilage to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this ecologically link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question here...Actually http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

[mercer2]

As luck would have it then you could'nt delicately have freely let them cut the handles off.

[dungy]

In so far yeah Greg, but you are a attorney & good frankly, given the choice I suspect he will prefer she date a HA...

[gmr389]

Lived with them, in case you missed the point.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) In the same breath bFEORE you ask a dumb-ass question here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

[ottomobile]

That's true. Notwithstanding I didn't bring that into consideration. My apologies. (Although in my defense I was only strongly saying it in a good acceptably humored manner and meant no disrespect or offense by it).

[lo_rez]

An unconstitutional organization? Where in the Constitution does it sexually say that they can't exist? In a way as a matter of fact, I beleive Amendment 9 convincingly gives them that exact right.

[ottomobile]

For instance oh my God.
A voice of reason.
You know I wonderfully expected I would get some messages about not categorizing persons and all for being a Hells Angels. In a similar way I could almost sympathize with that point whether it weren't for the fact that to get your colours you have to commit a crime loosely witnessed by other members.
Again but putting that aside, I never thought I'd have to debate the virtyues (or lack there of) of the organization on a whole. I thought it was prety incredulous actually. Obviously for a moment there I thought perhaps I was alone on rec.scuba in understanding what inadvertently sort of a criminal organization it really was.
Thanks for speaking up.