At 07:12 PM 4/8/2003 -0400, you wrote: >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. JT, The "law" as you call it also told us for quite some time after those dives that the Vitric was too deep to be considered inside the boundary. It was only after we pressed the issue and did additional research that the "law" agreed with *us* that the Vitric was inside the protected boundary. None of us, Mike Barnette included, knew the wreck was protected. Even the "law" and the captain of the boat, whose word we counted on, insisted the Vitric was not protected and continued to so insist for some time after those dives took place. It was due in no small part to Mike Barnette's diligence that the wreck was finally established to be protected. >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. Geez, JT, you're a piece of work. What exactly are you threatening here? -Mike Rodriguez <mikey@mi*.ne*> http://www.mikey.net/scuba.html Pn(x) = (1/(2^n)n!)[d/dx]^n(x^2 - 1)^n -- 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]