View Full Version : Protea Banks - Help
Grant Smith
04-05-2004, 05:29
If you have ever dived at Protea Banks or would like to in the future, please please lend us your support. There is a ongoing battle with local fisherman in the area who are intent on slaughtering the resident shark population in the name of sport...An incident occurred yesterday where a local fishing charter killed two Zambezi sharks and we caught them on camera at the loading bay. The details and images are on our website if you would like to take some action! [Comment removed : KL Forum Moderator]
www.africanodyssea.co.za/JAWG.htm
Thanking you in advance
Grant Smith
If you have ever dived at Protea Banks or would like to in the future, please please lend us your support. There is a ongoing battle with local fisherman in the area who are intent on slaughtering the resident shark population in the name of sport...An incident occurred yesterday where a local fishing charter killed two Zambezi sharks and we caught them on camera at the loading bay. The details and images are on our website if you would like to take some action! * shnipped *.
And political protests accusing people engaged legally in other sports as murderers are once again ok on this forum are they?
Is there a reason why people trying to engage support for a cause seem to think that libelling people in such a way is acceptable
[Moderators Comment : The reason could be that the forum moderators do not work 24/7]
Dave
[Moderators Comment : The reason could be that the forum moderators do not work 24/7]
Im confused about this amendment
There was no comment made about forum moderators in the post. The comments related to the original poster thinking that it was ok to make such statements
Dave
Keith Lawrence(BSAC)
06-05-2004, 22:23
:=
:=[Moderators Comment : The reason could be that the forum moderators do not work 24/7]
Im confused about this amendment
There was no comment made about forum moderators in the post. The comments related to the original poster thinking that it was ok to make such statements
Dave
I took exception to your comment -
"And political protests accusing people engaged legally in other sports as murderers are once again ok on this forum are they?"
I will always remove such comments when I notice them, I felt that the poster had a valid (to him) point but went too far. However, until I notice such posts or are made aware of them I cannot prevent them, I am NOT going to moderate everything before it is posted!
Therefore you MAY see such posts on occasions, they will be present until I (or another moderator) have the time to remove them.
So I now consider the matter closed, I WILL remove such posts, but please do not expect me to do it immediately.
Keith L
Steve Walker
07-05-2004, 10:20
:=
:=:=
:=:=[Moderators Comment : The reason could be that the forum moderators do not work 24/7]
:=
:=Im confused about this amendment
:=
:=There was no comment made about forum moderators in the post. The comments related to the original poster thinking that it was ok to make such statements
Dave
I took exception to your comment -
"And political protests accusing people engaged legally in other sports as murderers are once again ok on this forum are they?"
I will always remove such comments when I notice them, I felt that the poster had a valid (to him) point but went too far. However, until I notice such posts or are made aware of them I cannot prevent them, I am NOT going to moderate everything before it is posted!
Therefore you MAY see such posts on occasions, they will be present until I (or another moderator) have the time to remove them.
So I now consider the matter closed, I WILL remove such posts, but please do not expect me to do it immediately.
Keith L
I'm sure I'm not alone in approving of Keith's vigilant & voluntary work which keeps the BSAC forums (mostly) free of the childish Trolls found on other forums (e.g. D.net).
However, temporarily ignoring the "Moderator issues" what's more important here, a bit of name-calling or the loss of two increasingly rare animals ?
I posted Grant's (unadulterated) message elsewhere (e.g. <a href="http://www.sharktrust.org/cgi/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=176" >http://www.sharktrust.org/cgi/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=176</a> )and it is only on these boards that the prime issue is potential insults to other people.
This once again endorses the recurring image that diving-related environmental concerns are of little interest to our agency.
However, temporarily ignoring the "Moderator issues" what's more important here, a bit of name-calling or the loss of two increasingly rare animals ?
Both are relevant. I have no issue with raising awareness of events which may be of interest, and perhaps concern, to some people, however I take exception , regardless of the media, where people make libellous comments about people. For example, if you engaged in legal pheasant shooting, how would you feel about being called a murderer?
This once again endorses the recurring image that diving-related environmental concerns are of little interest to our agency.
I think you have made a flawed leap here. This board is not a mouthpiece for BSAC but a forum.
Personally I do not have any issue against people who engage in legal sports regardless of what I feel about it. e.g. Foxhunting; I am against foxhunting, but whilst it is legal I accept peoples right to partake in it
The post which you point to went beyond raising awareness of an issue imo
Dave
> However, temporarily ignoring the "Moderator issues" what's
> more important here, a bit of name-calling or the loss of two
> increasingly rare animals ?
Grant's call for action is still there.
How, exactly, does name-calling add any sort of weight in favour of his cause?
Vic.
Bren Tierney
07-05-2004, 12:19
:=However, temporarily ignoring the "Moderator issues" what's more important here, a bit of name-calling or the loss of two increasingly rare animals ?
Both are relevant. I have no issue with raising awareness of events which may be of interest, and perhaps concern, to some people, however I take exception , regardless of the media, where people make libellous comments about people. For example, if you engaged in legal pheasant shooting, how would you feel about being called a murderer?
:=This once again endorses the recurring image that diving-related environmental concerns are of little interest to our agency.
I think you have made a flawed leap here. This board is not a mouthpiece for BSAC but a forum.
Personally I do not have any issue against people who engage in legal sports regardless of what I feel about it. e.g. Foxhunting; I am against foxhunting, but whilst it is legal I accept peoples right to partake in it
The post which you point to went beyond raising awareness of an issue imo
Dave
Priceless.
Having dived Protea Banks, Aliwal Shoal and Sodwana Bay (and some of the best diving I've done, anywhere, in nigh-on 14 years of getting wet), might I recommend, Dave, that instead of taking issue/umbrage with a side-issue (since when did you become BSAC legal arbiter?) you read the play and seek an active redress of the damage being done to the diving environment in which, if not you then, many other divers travel many a mile to enjoy?
The removal of sharks from the water reduces, nay destroys, the eco-systems (that whole alpha-predator food-chain gig) and the diving environment, with the consequent reduction in joy and awe in which we, as divers, revel.
I've got photos of me and a team of 8 of us literally surrounded (above, below, and on all sides) by a squadron of over 250 Hammerhead sharks - I only know and hope that I want them to be there the next time I go to the Banks. The Zambezi (Bull) Shark is unique in that it is the ONLY shark which can travel, feed and live in fresh/brackish water - hence its name, as it is regularly seen way up the confluence of the river from which it draws its name.
Apart from anything else, isn't it rather pointless to destroy something for a mere 'other legal sport'? Would you say the same about the casual destruction of coral by divers? You're red-hot on the apparent price of alledgedly 'libellous' comments - what price do you place on the environment which we, as fellow divers, care and, in some cases (Dave Covey for example) make a living by keeping it intact?
And you're wrong, by the way, when you punt this line: "This board is not a mouthpiece for BSAC but a forum." The two are synonymous: this is BSAC's forum/mouthpiece - made up from a paying membership and open for said membership to voice any and all manner of dive related issue it sees fit.
Dive safe all - always,
Bren.
Steve Walker
07-05-2004, 13:05
:=However, temporarily ignoring the "Moderator issues" what's more important here, a bit of name-calling or the loss of two increasingly rare animals ?
Both are relevant. I have no issue with raising awareness of events which may be of interest, and perhaps concern, to some people, however I take exception , regardless of the media, where people make libellous comments about people. For example, if you engaged in legal pheasant shooting, how would you feel about being called a murderer?
I'm sure in the past I've been covertly criticised/insulted for a variety of lifestyles choices, such as riding a motorbike or a dozen other things. However, my generation were brought up with the "sticks and stones" ethos not the modern "sue the pant's off you for emotional scarring" BS mentality.
The difference is that if I was a pheasant or a grouse shooter (of which I'm neither) I would be prepared to discuss, examine and if necessary re-evaluate it's place in the overall scheme of things. Incidentally it's a facile comparison as the reproductive output of pheasants, grouse, deer or most other land based animals targeted for bloodsports makes human activities relatively meaningless in terms of population stablity, in fact many environmentalists would argue the case for selective culling of species such as deer in order to benefit the ecosystem as a whole.
However, no true environmentalist would for a moment suggest that killing sharks has anything but a negative impact on a marine ecosystem.
:=This once again endorses the recurring image that diving-related environmental concerns are of little interest to our agency.
I think you have made a flawed leap here. This board is not a mouthpiece for BSAC but a forum.
If I were, for example, a PADI diver wondering what the BSAC attitude to environmental issues were, then the official BSAC website and the official BSAC forum would be probably my first port of call, so whether or not the views expressed here are sanctioned by HQ or not, it is still a public face of BSAC via reflection the views of it's more vocal members, and therefore it will affect how our agency is perceived. As a BSAC diver who dives mostly with mixed-agency groups of divers, quite frankly I'm getting very fed up of trying to defend our agency and divers against some very legitimate criticisms.
Personally I do not have any issue against people who engage in legal sports regardless of what I feel about it. e.g. Foxhunting; I am against foxhunting, but whilst it is legal I accept peoples right to partake in it
Many things are legal which perhaps should not be, for example, I'm fairly sure there are a number of substance-abuse issues which have yet to made illegal. I may still object to these even though in your world view I have no lawful right to do so, if I insult people who are legally "out of their tree" on "compound x" am I wrong ? Perhaps legally but certainly not morally.
If we acquiesced to legalities rather than taking moral or humanistic standpoints, we'd still be living in a society where one type of human was subjugated BY LAW to the will of those of the ruling class and colour, and where horses were beaten to death in the street because they were unable to work and children were forced up chimneys.
The post which you point to went beyond raising awareness of an issue imo
Our planet is losing over 100 million sharks each year due to human activity and it's highly likely that for many species it may already be too late. Personally I think Grant was quite restrained in his objections, especially as he, and others like him, have had the opportunity to establish a rare rapport with a wild animal.
Steve Walker
07-05-2004, 13:12
> However, temporarily ignoring the "Moderator issues" what's
> more important here, a bit of name-calling or the loss of two
> increasingly rare animals ?
Grant's call for action is still there.
How, exactly, does name-calling add any sort of weight in favour of his cause?
Vic.
Probably in the same way the people shout at the TV when their team is losing or shout at the driver of the car in front when they're not driving as we would like them to. Does that answer your question?
Bren Tierney
07-05-2004, 13:13
:=:=However, temporarily ignoring the "Moderator issues" what's more important here, a bit of name-calling or the loss of two increasingly rare animals ?
:=
:=Both are relevant. I have no issue with raising awareness of events which may be of interest, and perhaps concern, to some people, however I take exception , regardless of the media, where people make libellous comments about people. For example, if you engaged in legal pheasant shooting, how would you feel about being called a murderer?
:=
I'm sure in the past I've been covertly criticised/insulted for a variety of lifestyles choices, such as riding a motorbike or a dozen other things. However, my generation were brought up with the "sticks and stones" ethos not the modern "sue the pant's off you for emotional scarring" BS mentality.
The difference is that if I was a pheasant or a grouse shooter (of which I'm neither) I would be prepared to discuss, examine and if necessary re-evaluate it's place in the overall scheme of things. Incidentally it's a facile comparison as the reproductive output of pheasants, grouse, deer or most other land based animals targeted for bloodsports makes human activities relatively meaningless in terms of population stablity, in fact many environmentalists would argue the case for selective culling of species such as deer in order to benefit the ecosystem as a whole.
However, no true environmentalist would for a moment suggest that killing sharks has anything but a negative impact on a marine ecosystem.
:=:=This once again endorses the recurring image that diving-related environmental concerns are of little interest to our agency.
:=
:=I think you have made a flawed leap here. This board is not a mouthpiece for BSAC but a forum.
:=
If I were, for example, a PADI diver wondering what the BSAC attitude to environmental issues were, then the official BSAC website and the official BSAC forum would be probably my first port of call, so whether or not the views expressed here are sanctioned by HQ or not, it is still a public face of BSAC via reflection the views of it's more vocal members, and therefore it will affect how our agency is perceived. As a BSAC diver who dives mostly with mixed-agency groups of divers, quite frankly I'm getting very fed up of trying to defend our agency and divers against some very legitimate criticisms.
:=Personally I do not have any issue against people who engage in legal sports regardless of what I feel about it. e.g. Foxhunting; I am against foxhunting, but whilst it is legal I accept peoples right to partake in it
:=
Many things are legal which perhaps should not be, for example, I'm fairly sure there are a number of substance-abuse issues which have yet to made illegal. I may still object to these even though in your world view I have no lawful right to do so, if I insult people who are legally "out of their tree" on "compound x" am I wrong ? Perhaps legally but certainly not morally.
If we acquiesced to legalities rather than taking moral or humanistic standpoints, we'd still be living in a society where one type of human was subjugated BY LAW to the will of those of the ruling class and colour, and where horses were beaten to death in the street because they were unable to work and children were forced up chimneys.
:=The post which you point to went beyond raising awareness of an issue imo
:=
Our planet is losing over 100 million sharks each year due to human activity and it's highly likely that for many species it may already be too late. Personally I think Grant was quite restrained in his objections, especially as he, and others like him, have had the opportunity to establish a rare rapport with a wild animal.
AMEN to your last Stevie!!
>> How, exactly, does name-calling add any sort of weight in
>> favour of his cause?
> Probably in the same way the people shout at the TV when their
> team is losing or shout at the driver of the car in front when
> they're not driving as we would like them to.
Ah. So it serves no positive purpose whatsoever in pursuing the aim of the person doing the name-calling, but might well cause those about him to consider him a fool. I see.
> Does that answer your question?
Yes, I think it does actually.
Vic.
If I were, for example, a PADI diver wondering what the BSAC attitude to environmental issues were, then the official BSAC website and the official BSAC forum would be probably my first port of call, so whether or not the views expressed here are sanctioned by HQ or not, it is still a public face of BSAC via reflection the views of it's more vocal members, and therefore it will affect how our agency is perceived. As a BSAC diver who dives mostly with mixed-agency groups of divers, quite frankly I'm getting very fed up of trying to defend our agency and divers against some very legitimate criticisms.
And I would not want to been seen to appear that BSAC agrees with such a message.
Many things are legal which perhaps should not be, for example, I'm fairly sure there are a number of substance-abuse issues which have yet to made illegal. I may still object to these even though in your world view I have no lawful right to do so, if I insult people who are legally "out of their tree" on "compound x" am I wrong ? Perhaps legally but certainly not morally.
I disagree, it would be wrong in both ways. To put forward a reasoned argument that x is wrong and try to get support to make it illegalis one thing, but to accuse those who currently do x to be criminals is.
Our planet is losing over 100 million sharks each year due to human activity and it's highly likely that for many species it may already be too late. Personally I think Grant was quite restrained in his objections, especially as he, and others like him, have had the opportunity to establish a rare rapport with a wild animal.
I saw nothing restrained in his objections, just rantings
Dave
Steve Walker
07-05-2004, 14:49
>> How, exactly, does name-calling add any sort of weight in
>> favour of his cause?
> Probably in the same way the people shout at the TV when their
> team is losing or shout at the driver of the car in front when
> they're not driving as we would like them to.
Ah. So it serves no positive purpose whatsoever in pursuing the aim of the person doing the name-calling, but might well cause those about him to consider him a fool. I see.
> Does that answer your question?
Yes, I think it does actually.
Vic.
Vic, as a seasoned poster of these boards, I'm well acquainted with your love of argument for it's own sake and ability to go off-topic and into the realms of point(less) scoring.
You think Grant is "a fool", fine, no doubt you'll have a similar opinion of me too because I think Grant is someone (like myself) who is passionate about marine environmental issues, so there's really no point in someone like me bothering to enter into any attempt at a reasoned debate with you.
However, if you're at a loose end and need some of that one-on-one "debate" you like so much, I'm sure I could persuade my occasional dive budddy and your long-term debating partner Mark Chase to get on the boards ?
I'm still waiting to see if there are actually any BSAC divers on here who are more interested in the sharks than one slightly emotionally motivated comment, sadly something tells me I've got a long long wait.
Keith Lawrence(BSAC)
07-05-2004, 15:01
OK Guys
The rules of posting to these forums are quite simple and have been stated many times : you can say basically what you like but it will be done in a polite and civilised manner or not at all. I don?t care how right, just, worthy or otherwise you (or I for that matter) feel that a pet cause is; there is NOTHING that can justify insults, potentially libellous comments, name calling and the like on these forums.
As can be seen from the response to this topic it is counter-productive anyway, the words obscure the message.
Keith L
Keith Lawrence(BSAC)
07-05-2004, 15:08
I'm still waiting to see if there are actually any BSAC divers on here who are more interested in the sharks than one slightly emotionally motivated comment, sadly something tells me I've got a long long wait.
Lots of us Steve, both individually and as a club. As a club we support several conservation bodies, our regions promote various environmental courses from various organisations, many BSAC divers attend these events.
What we don't do is jump up and down ranting and insulting people to get the message across because it doesn't work.
Regards
Keith L
OK Guys
The rules of posting to these forums are quite simple and have been stated many times : you can say basically what you like but it will be done in a polite and civilised manner or not at all. I don?t care how right, just, worthy or otherwise you (or I for that matter) feel that a pet cause is; there is NOTHING that can justify insults, potentially libellous comments, name calling and the like on these forums.
As can be seen from the response to this topic it is counter-productive anyway, the words obscure the message.
Keith L
Fine words indeed, however, I rarely post on here as I am no longer a member of BSAC, I was pointed at this by a friend who is. May I ask that instead of arguing amongst ourselves. As a fellow diver, can I request that we ALL send an e-mail to the Tour Operators and condemn their actions as we seem to have time to post on here so there really is no reason not to protest to the correct location instead of on here. I have.
Matt
> I'm well acquainted with your love of argument for it's own
> sake
Really? I'm not.
> and ability to go off-topic and into the realms of point(less)
> scoring.
This has absolutely nothing to do with point-scoring and everything to do with me wondering why exactly anyone could get het up over the fact that Keith removed some silly name-calling *without altering the thrust of the post*.
> You think Grant is "a fool"
I said that, did I? Nope. Didn't think so.
What I said was that silly name-calling tends to get one thought of as a fool. IOW, the outburst that was removed *serves no purpose* other than to detract from the (important) point that was being made.
> fine, no doubt you'll have a similar opinion of me too because
> I think Grant is someone (like myself) who is passionate about
> marine environmental issues
You think I'm not? I just think it counterproductive to start throwing around "murderer" tags. I stand by that; the post would have been much better in the form that it now stands. Does that mean that I'm not in favour of conservation? Of course it doesn't.
> so there's really no point in someone like me bothering to
> enter into any attempt at a reasoned debate with you.
It would appear so, since you have so far been incapable of working out which side of the debate I am *firmly* standing.
> However, if you're at a loose end and need some of that
> one-on-one "debate" you like so much, I'm sure I could
> persuade my occasional dive budddy and your long-term debating
> partner Mark Chase to get on the boards ?
If Mark ever comes up with a reasoned point, I'd be glad to debate it with him. If he does his usual "don't pick on me, I'm dyslexic" then you can keep him.
> I'm still waiting to see if there are actually any BSAC divers
> on here who are more interested in the sharks than one
> slightly emotionally motivated comment
*Yes*. We are.
But the matter really isn't helped by emotive (libellous?) outbursts, nor by one poster attacking another who was agreeing with the point...
> sadly something tells me I've got a long long wait.
Only if you fail to read what's in front of you. Again.
Vic.
Steve Walker
07-05-2004, 16:25
Lots of us Steve, both individually and as a club. As a club we support several conservation bodies, our regions promote various environmental courses from various organisations, many BSAC divers attend these events.
A small but crucial point Keith, my exact words were "divers on here" as opposed to BSAC divers as a whole. I'm well aware that, for example, the BSAC logo is displayed amongst the list of "Who is Involved?" at <a href="http://www.seasearch.org.uk/" >http://www.seasearch.org.uk/</a> (an offshoot of the Marine Conservation Society for those who may not have heard of Seasearch)
The only replyee who was not focusing on the (IMO fairly inconsequential) side issue of Grants emotive comment, was a non-BSAC diver who frequents our boards (and admittedly a personal friend of mine). So apart from yourself, who as the moderator is an _atypical_ poster on the boards, there has not been a regular poster who has expressed an interest with the wildlife issue as opposed to potentially insulting comments to anonymous non-BSAC members.
What we don't do is jump up and down ranting and insulting people to get the message across because it doesn't work.
An uncharateristic touch of hyperbolae there Keith.
Incidentally, I've been privileged enough to have met on more than one occasion, the UK's (if not the World's) foremost conservation campaigner and one-time BSAC diver, David Bellamy.
And whilst Prof. Bellamy would not use inappropriate adjectives in print, I can assure you that if you think Grant's comments were a _rant_ , then you'd blush at some of the emotive language DB uses when you get him started on conservation issues.
Regards
Bren Tierney
07-05-2004, 17:17
You still at this lark Vic? Some things never change, eh?
Get your aris over to YD mate (about the only dive forum, as far as I can see, which you avoid), I'm sure we can accommodate your particular brand of 'debating skills' there, squire. ;-)
> You still at this lark Vic? Some things never change, eh?
Diving? Of course.
> Get your aris over to YD mate (about the only dive forum, as far
> as I can see, which you avoid)
No thank you.
I look in from time to time, and I can't say there's much there that interests me.
Vic.
Steve Walker
07-05-2004, 17:58
> I think Grant is someone (like myself) who is passionate aboutmarine environmental issues
You think I'm not?
And...
It would appear so, since you have so far been incapable of working out which side of the debate I am *firmly* standing.
Vic, having read and re-read your posts on this topic to make absolutely sure, I can tell you that contrary to what you seem to believe, there's not an iota of anything you've posted in this thread which suggests that you have any interest in the fate of these magnificent fish or any other aspect of marine conservation.
If Mark ever comes up with a reasoned point, I'd be glad to debate it with him. If he does his usual "don't pick on me, I'm dyslexic" then you can keep him.
An outstanding bit of PR, having a go at someone with a recognised disability. What a cheap shot.
Yes Mark is dyslexic but so what?
I've found him to be an extremely capable and accomplished diver with sound and forthright principles on marine conservation which he defends to the hilt even though it sometimes causes him a fair deal of unecessary hassle. Plus, he doesn't expect anyone to second guess where he stands on such issues.
Regards
Bren Tierney
07-05-2004, 18:27
> You still at this lark Vic? Some things never change, eh?
Diving? Of course.
> Get your aris over to YD mate (about the only dive forum, as far
> as I can see, which you avoid)
No thank you.
I look in from time to time, and I can't say there's much there that interests me.
Vic.
Ahem, yeah, right. ;-)
Bren Tierney
07-05-2004, 18:34
:=> I think Grant is someone (like myself) who is passionate aboutmarine environmental issues
:=You think I'm not?
And...
:=It would appear so, since you have so far been incapable of working out which side of the debate I am *firmly* standing.
:=
Vic, having read and re-read your posts on this topic to make absolutely sure, I can tell you that contrary to what you seem to believe, there's not an iota of anything you've posted in this thread which suggests that you have any interest in the fate of these magnificent fish or any other aspect of marine conservation.
:=If Mark ever comes up with a reasoned point, I'd be glad to debate it with him. If he does his usual "don't pick on me, I'm dyslexic" then you can keep him.
:=
An outstanding bit of PR, having a go at someone with a recognised disability. What a cheap shot.
Yes Mark is dyslexic but so what?
I've found him to be an extremely capable and accomplished diver with sound and forthright principles on marine conservation which he defends to the hilt even though it sometimes causes him a fair deal of unecessary hassle. Plus, he doesn't expect anyone to second guess where he stands on such issues.
Regards
Steve mate, leave it: if Vic wants to revel in his role as chief Pedantry Officer for BSAC, then let him. You'll get very little achieved other than a whole boat load of navel-gazing and minutiae raked over, and for what? Very little gain.
Philip Smith
07-05-2004, 20:43
And whilst Prof. Bellamy would not use inappropriate adjectives in print, I can assure you that if you think Grant's comments were a _rant_ , then you'd blush at some of the emotive language DB uses when you get him started on conservation issues.
And why do you think he doesn't use that type of language in print? Presumably because he knows it would be counter-productive. The original poster used ridiculously emotive hyperbole which only served to alienate people who would otherwise support the campaign. That sort of language will also give them no credibility with the authorities that they need to influence. One can have deep conviction about the importance of conserving sharks, while pointing out the folly of demonising your opponents.
Philip Smith
> Vic, having read and re-read your posts on this topic to make
> absolutely sure, I can tell you that contrary to what you seem
> to believe, there's not an iota of anything you've posted in
> this thread which suggests that you have any interest in the
> fate of these magnificent fish or any other aspect of marine
> conservation.
Until my last post, there was no evidence *either way* of my feelings about conservation. That's because I was not at that point addressing a conservation issue - I was commenting on the fact that the hyperbole were not helping the cause. That was my point, and it remains so. Although I happen to be in favour of shark conservation, even if I were not, my opinion on the hyperbole issue would remain the same - such language is counterproductive, and is best avoided.
> An outstanding bit of PR, having a go at someone with a
> recognised disability.
...A recognised disability which I share.
> What a cheap shot.
No. A cheap shot is using it as an excuse for when you've flamingoed up.
> Yes Mark is dyslexic but so what?
He's used it as an excuse for saying some particularly stupid things in the past. As a fellow sufferer, I feel that demeans us all.
> Plus, he doesn't expect anyone to second guess where he stands
> on such issues.
I don't expect people to need to know where I stand on an issue to decide whether what I've said has any merit. Judge what I say on whether or not it's right, not whether or not it supports your political point of view.
Vic.
A small but crucial point Keith, my exact words were "divers on here" as opposed to BSAC divers as a whole. I'm well aware that, for example, the BSAC logo is displayed amongst the list of "Who is Involved?" at <a href="http://www.seasearch.org.uk/" >http://www.seasearch.org.uk/</a> (an offshoot of the Marine Conservation Society for those who may not have heard of Seasearch)
The only replyee who was not focusing on the (IMO fairly inconsequential) side issue of Grants emotive comment, was a non-BSAC diver who frequents our boards (and admittedly a personal friend of mine). So apart from yourself, who as the moderator is an _atypical_ poster on the boards, there has not been a regular poster who has expressed an interest with the wildlife issue as opposed to potentially insulting comments to anonymous non-BSAC members.
The emotive side is not inconsequential imo. There is also not enough information in the factual part of his post for me tohave any opinion
"There is a ongoing battle with local fisherman in the area who are intent on slaughtering the resident shark population in the name of sport..An incident occurred yesterday where a local fishing charter killed two Zambezi sharks"
Taking the post, well, 1st of all, I would find it unlikely that those that are deriving income from providing fishing charters would be deliberately trying to wipe out the entire shark population, this is just part of his rantings.
The only factual information in the whole post is that the day prior, a fishing charter killed 2 sharks.
If someone wants to elicit my support for an issue, I would expect background information into what has been going on , whether is is legal within the country and what, if any, international pressure has been brought to bear on it. Also, what would be proposed to compensate those whose livelihoods would be lost should it be made illegal
In this issue, what is the resident shark population now and what was it 6 months ago, a year ago, 2 years ago? Is the population actually in decline or is the poster just against shark fishing?
If the population is in decline, has any contact been made by any conservation organisations or governments to the Zambezi government to try and reduce/stop the fishing? If so, what was the response. If not, why do the conservation agencies not feel that it is an issue or are they unaware?
Also, what support exactly does he want? He has failed to describe what his plans for which he wants support are.
Come back with a reasoned post on the issue and I would think it would be well supported if appropriate. I would.
If it turns out that the poster was just against shark fishing in general, then I would have no time for it at all
Dave
Grant Smith
09-05-2004, 12:20
Firstly may I thank you all for taking the time to read my post. Secondly I do apologies for using such emotive language on your forum and thank you for removing it. It was an emotional experience for me to see the carcasses of two sharks which I had likely seen on that morning?s dive, however I understand that this is no justification for my choice of words but thought it may give you a little insight into the reasoning for my ?ranting?
Thanks again to those who voiced there support.
Kind regards
Grant
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.