Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Mike R.....
Trust me, I believe you are telling the truth and making it right after the
fact is not the point. You also did not recover any artifacts, you really
could care less about them I believe. Now the problem I had, Mike B has
admitted to only telling me on the way out that the wreck was possibly
protected . I did not recover anything and was offered a fecsel lens by
Barnette during the dive and I refused.
The problem is he knew that the possibility existed that this wreck was
protected and chose to still remove artifacts first and check the LAW
later. The photos I have clearly show it was premeditated theft and I was
asked to remain silent. I was sent these photos from another who was on the
dive and had video of it, he named the photos and sent us all copies by
email. While directing me I could not place the ones showing the recovery
of the artifacts on my site. He has his copyright on them.
Really I could care less, the artifacts will just rot down there, really to
deep for very many to see. But I do enjoy showing everyone the true nature
of Mike Barnette. I cannot believe you guys are stupid enough to keep
letting this come out, cause if I did not have the proof and a witness at
the dock I could very well be sued. But I have the photos, I have the
witness. But Mike Barnette is not smart enough to say "No Comment" and then
it becomes an issue I must pursue if I want anything really done to him. To
tell the truth I could care less, I like fucking with him because he is a
dumbass. Now I have answered this as fast I can, if you do not approve your
post I will not this one......Mike R. stay out of this, if I see yours gets
posted I will post this one.
At 06:09 PM 4/8/03 -0400, Mike Rodriguez wrote:
>At 03:48 PM 4/7/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
> > you removing artifacts from the Vitric when you thought it was protected,
>
>JT,
>
>At the time we did those dives it was expressly stated by the captain
>of the boat and it was believed by our entire group that the lower
>boundary of the protected area was 300 FSW. The Vitric lies along
>a deeper contour, and as far as we knew at the time, outside the
>protected area.
>
>When the error was discovered, we immediately informed the proper
>authorities who, in fact, also erroneously told us that the lower
>boundary was at 300 FSW. Eventually, and due to our diligence,
>the actual boundaries were determined to include the Vitric, and our
>group cooperated completely with the authorities. All of this has
>been formally documented and is a matter of public record. Why do
>you refuse to accept this?
>
>Another neophyte...
>
>-Mike Rodriguez
><mikey@mi*.ne*>
>http://www.mikey.net/scuba.html
>Pn(x) = (1/(2^n)n!)[d/dx]^n(x^2 - 1)^n
"You can't learn to dive on the net, sooner or later you have to get in the
water"
Your Guide to Great Wreck Diving along the East Coast & more
Web Site http://www.capt-jt.com/
Email captjt@mi*.co*
--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]