Diving too carefully?

[X181]

Its also total boll##ks


At 51 I am the youngest diver in our teem. We have two divers over 65

To discribe any one in our group as fit would make me fall about laughing but they regularly do 180min ruun dives in water sometimes 100m+ and work hard down there as well. Youd laugh if you witnessed us straining like mad on a 7 ft crow bar in 70m of water trying to get some bit of tat to the surface

Whilst i have always maintained a conservitive aproach to deco I have had several ocasions where I needed to push it to the limits and beyound and a few deco incidents yet I a fat old unfit smoker have never been bent


Some of the people on the boat havent got the first clue about deco and just have their units on the factory settings they came with

So what does this prove?

Not a lot frankly


Some people get bent some dont or have a strong resistance to it

Then theres the whole PFO thing

We had a pair of divers in the group who had been deep air and deep trimix OC and CCR diving for 20+ years and suddenly one of them starts getting bent and hey presto its a PFO thats the cause?

And this is discoverd long after we start using boats with lifts and long after deep air profiles on BSAC & other laughable by modern standards tables.

PFO fixed and much more conservitive deco now folowed. So whats saved the day. The PFo Fix or the more conservitive deco?


Two things of note.

1: The bends started hapening after switching to CCR. Thats helium in the deco all the way out. WHich buggered me up dive one when I got a unit. I imediatly (after two or three dives feeling crap post dive) switched to 100% o2 for last 20mins of deco and never felt the same symptoms again.

2. They had some strange deco system I cant even remember the name of.


SHould we need to get checked for a PFO before Tec Diving?

IMHO no because if your realy that anal you should have built up gradualy to tec diving and any bend issues would have become aparent long before you put Helium in the tanks.

So IMHO its PFO check before you get your first twinset & deco computer, or don't bother

ATB

Mark

You call my post total boll##ks and then you write that your argument / story proves nothing? Ok.

Is a PFO check the holy grail? No, but we spend weeks for training and diving every year. We dont spend hundreds of USD we spend thousends every year. So 4 hours and maybe 500 USD every 5(?) years or at least once is nothing.

Why dont people check for it? Because of the money? No, because they may not like the result and the consequences.

 

[Mark Chase]

You call my post total boll##ks and then you write that your argument / story proves nothing? Ok.

Is a PFO check the holy grail? No, but we spend weeks for training and diving every year. We dont spend hundreds of USD we spend thousends every year. So 4 hours and maybe 500 USD every 5(?) years or at least once is nothing.

Why dont people check for it? Because of the money? No, because they may not like the result and the consequences.

The total boll##s bit was about young fit divers being bend averse and old unfit divers getting bent.

All our group are old and unfit and hardly a bend to mention dispite some full on diveing with most of them suffering from a night out as well

Frankly it baffels me

ATB

Mark

 

[AdrianSmith]

I'd like to hear a second opinion, because (offense intended), your version can't be trusted. You have shown a consistent tendency, on these forums to deliberately omit details and to over hype things, twist facts to suit your story, and endless amounts of other obfuscation tactics. I just don't believe your "amazing" stories anymore Simon.

What was the one you told us last week? You go on expedition dives and the DCS rate goes up. Conversely you leave the boat and the DCS rate goes back down. Seems we have discovered a source of injury - you Simon. A doctor tooting his own horn.

I don't know either of you (you being Ross or Simon) but from the outside looking in what I've seen in this thread is that Simon has consistently rebutted your posts with references to scientific literature backing his position. You have responded with blanket statements that you later claim you never said, or that they were taken in a different way than you intended. Now you've begun ad hominem attacks. Seriously? "Offense intended"?

Seems to me that you've been backed into a corner. You have no evidence to back up your claims and so you're resorting to character attacks. That's the point at which I stop reading - when a debate reaches the name calling phase that person has lost all credibility in my eyes.

I'll be ignoring your posts from now on.

-Adrian

 

[Igor P]

You call my post total boll##ks and then you write that your argument / story proves nothing? Ok.

Is a PFO check the holy grail? No, but we spend weeks for training and diving every year. We dont spend hundreds of USD we spend thousends every year. So 4 hours and maybe 500 USD every 5(?) years or at least once is nothing.

Why dont people check for it? Because of the money? No, because they may not like the result and the consequences.

I need to agree, I did it and am happy to know I am not one of those in big risk group. So now I know if I get bent I did something wrong, being that activity or only judgement in planning.

If I would be in big risk group I would make a decision to dive the way I do or not and take action. If still diving, sure would try to dive in a way to dive safe as much as I could regarding the state of PFO.

Igor P

Sent from my PAP4500DUO using Tapatalk 2

 

[michael_fisch]

Somehow this discussion reminds me of the rants from George Irvine III on Techdiver/Cavediver.
Never learned anything from the following 15 pages that wasn't covered in the first paragraph,
with the exeception that everybody other than George and his friends were strokes.
Nothing has changed in the last 20 years!

Michael

 

[Simon Mitchell]

In respect of my reporting cases of cardiopulmonary DCS in technical divers who have not violated their decompression algorithms you said:

I'd like to hear a second opinion, because (offense intended), your version can't be trusted. You have shown a consistent tendency, on these forums to deliberately omit details and to over hype things, twist facts to suit your story, and endless amounts of other obfuscation tactics. I just don't believe your "amazing" stories anymore Simon.

These various accusations are simply your rationalisation of what is going on when experts present facts that contradict your preconceptions. But setting that aside, would you accept the Queensland Coroner and the other experts who contributed to his report as reliable witnesses? Try this:

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/86846/cif-broe-sj-20090424.pdf

Pages 24 and 25 are where he makes it clear that this diver died from cardiopulmonary DCS (the last paragraph on page 24 in particular). Elsewhere in the document you will find reference to the fact that the diver completed appropriate decompression. Yes, this diver had some risk factors (obesity, treated hypertension) but he was not that different to many divers in his age group.

What was the one you told us last week? You go on expedition dives and the DCS rate goes up. Conversely you leave the boat and the DCS rate goes back down. Seems we have discovered a source of injury - you Simon. A doctor tooting his own horn.

Can you please reference the exact post where you claim I said this? If I recall correctly I think I was saying that the incidence of DCS in technical diving (albeit with most cases being mild) is higher than often reported, and I based this on personal observation of events on technical diving expeditions. I don't think I said anything about rates changing based on my presence or absence.

My suggestion was for the new divers who want to enter tech (deco) diving, to have testing. Not everyone - that is YOUR suggestion, or attempt to twist my words again.

Ross, OK, everyone who wants to enter tech diving then. The epidemiological evaluation of the testing I cited by Mike Bennett would still apply unless you believe the rate of serious neurological DCS is higher than 1 event in 2000 dives.

You just said before that people can get all the way to tech with out ever knowing about their bypass problem (experience shows other wise of course).

So put the gateway there: pre tech diving. It's a small number of divers. The test will certainly find the worst case / highest risk.

$300 ??? About they same price as a trimix fill with weekend boat dive and a nights accommodation. Not much really.

It will still cost $300,000 to prevent one episode of serious DCS. I was rebutting your claim that the "test was cheaper than the treatment" and I believe it remains rebutted. In fact, I don't completely disagree on the issue of screening tech divers who are on a trajectory toward frequent deep decompression dives, but this is a complex and nuanced issue with pitfalls along the lines of those I previously mentioned. I am certainly not against individual divers making a personal choice to be tested for a PFO, but there are implications that need to be fully explained to them before they do it. Finally, as I have pointed out many times, PFO tests don't eliminate pulmonary shunts as a path for VGE to enter the arterial circulation, and they can happen in virtually anyone.

In respect of me criticising your (apparent) suggestion that some countries test every diver candidate for a PFO, you say:

Didn't say that... Didn't suggest it. That is you fabricating and twisting comment of others. Once again you go to greats effort to make crap up to deliberately imply derogatory things about others, for no valid reason.

OK here are your words from post 117, verbatim:

"Then maybe we should have testing of people wanting to venture into higher risk diving. The test is cheaper than the treatment. It's only a smaller number who venture into deco diving. For those with circulation defects, Stop them before they hurt themselves.

Some countries have compulsory testing for scuba for all divers now. Why not a second and more intense look at the few divers who want to advance into high risk diving?"

People can make up their own minds about what you appeared to be saying. If you were not suggesting that all divers be tested for a PFO, then fine. But you need to write more clearly and less ambiguously.

I wrote that one with "controlled cross checking in its design". Referring to the ..... The DCIEM manual says: Introduction: Page 1-2 Introduction: "Selected profiles were tested extensively using Doppler ultrasound, as an aid to assessing the severity of decompression stress produced by these tables."

It seems your outburst was not called for..... yet again Mitchell uses any opportunity to attack me about nothing.

You have spent the entire thread trying to downplay the importance of venous gas emboli formed after decompression. You have attempted to rebut all the facts presented about their role in the pathophysiology of DCS. Among your arguments you stated something to the effect that no table has every been based on VGE counts. Yet now you try to gloss over the fact that one of the tables you have praised in the past (for its extensive testing) based their entire testing program on VGE counts.

Specifically, we confirmed with Ron Nishi (personally) yesterday that the DCIEM test program rejected profiles if they produced higher than grade 2 VGE during limb movement provocation on more than 50% of occasions.

Now why would they do that Ross? If high VGE grades don't matter, don't cause DCS, are not associated with DCS risk, etc etc as you have insisted, why would they do that? Why not accept grade 3 and 4 VGE as indicators of efficient gas transfer from tissues to lungs as you have suggested? Could it be that the DCIEM actually agree with the version of DCS pathophysiology that I have articulated on this thread? The one that is in all the textbooks. In fact the one that pervades the entire literature on this topic?

Its about time this forum started clamping down on your bad attitude to others Mitchell.

If an aversion to propagation of misinformation about safety-critical topics on the internet is indicative of a "bad attitude" then I apologise.

Simon M

 

[rjack]

So now I know if I get bent I did something wrong, being that activity or only judgement in planning.

Getting bent absolutely does not mean you did something wrong. Doing something wrong can get you bent or killed. You can also have very serious DCS doing everything perfectly right and conservatively. We (as a community) need to stop treating DCS as if it's the fault of the diver. This is pointless blaming and contributes to the high rates of denial and/or delay in treatment.

 

[rossh]

In respect of my reporting cases of cardiopulmonary DCS in technical divers who have not violated their decompression algorithms you said:



These various accusations are simply your rationalisation of what is going on when experts present facts that contradict your preconceptions. But setting that aside, would you accept the Queensland Coroner and the other experts who contributed to his report as reliable witnesses? Try this:

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/86846/cif-broe-sj-20090424.pdf

Pages 24 and 25 are where he makes it clear that this diver died from cardiopulmonary DCS (the last paragraph on page 24 in particular). Elsewhere in the document you will find reference to the fact that the diver completed appropriate decompression. Yes, this diver had some risk factors (obesity, treated hypertension) but he was not that different to many divers in his age group.

Simon M

Thank you for the link. And the "new" Simon without all the insults.


To the report - this is your centerpiece?


The victim was immobile within minutes of surfacing. And by the sounds of it, died pretty quickly.

The last dive needed 25 minutes of ZHL-C deco, or 30 mins of RGBM deco or 35 mins of VPM-B deco. Supposing IF, he blasted to the surface and missed all deco, he would be 30 minutes out of deco. That's enough to send you to the chamber, alive and sick, but not immobile on the spot. However, he did a normal ascent, and walked up the ladder.

The report concludes VGE ... ?

VGE is a surface event, and very little occurs in the water in deco. The VGE start just as you surface. They start slowly and grow to a max volume about 90 minutes + after surfacing, and diminish after that ( numerous studies report this)


So this 120kg hypertensive guy, was immobile within minutes, but without the VGE growth to do it with ???


Doesn't make sense now. He is missing the 60 to 90 minutes needed to make sufficient VGE to do him harm. His ascent was normal, so he is missing the rapid offgass that would create VGE this way. And his dive wasn't big enough to do that kind of serious and instant harm by reason of DCS or VGE growth.

No, not VGE - even if the Dr. say so. It doesn't fit the facts of VGE growth, and his gas load wasn't big enough to do this level of harm.


No, I'm not a doctor - just a guy with facts backed by logic, and sense for sniffing out "tall stories".

 

[rjack]

VGE is a surface event, and very little occurs in the water in deco. The VGE start just as you surface. They start slowly and grow to a max volume about 90 minutes + after surfacing, and diminish after that ( numerous studies report this)

As someone who has been bent upon arriving at the 20ft stop, I can say you are completely wrong here.

Unless you are trying to say that I was symptomatically bent without VGE...

 

[rossh]

As someone who has been bent upon arriving at the 20ft stop, I can say you are completely wrong here.

Unless you are trying to say that I was symptomatically bent without VGE...

And what the type of dive? And the DCS? Stop playing games.... give us the whole story.

This guy didn't have DCS at 20 ft. He was doing intro tech level standard dives.

Look at any study on VGE that graphs them over time... They are a predominantly a surface event.

 

[rjack]

I've had shoulder and elbow pain twice during deco. Once on a long ~90min at 100ft EAN30 nitrox profile (3 years ago). Once on a ~30min 150ft dive using 21/35 and EAN50 (8? years ago). I don't have a download of either profile as at the time I using tables and a gauge. If anything I was doing extra 30-60sec deep stops way too deep in the past GF-low of 5 or even negative 5 to 10. After that neither ascent was particularly memorable. The first was a cave dive, the second coming up a wall. No rapid ascent all stops completed etc. However I was clinically bent at ~30ft, denied it, ascended to 20ft and it promptly got so bad I decided to descend and redo some deco. Descending to ~40ft resolved the symptoms and I doubled the stops from thereon up. I think I tripled the 10ft stop as I had the gas on both dives. Exited without further incident, no symptoms.

The way you have stated VGE being an after the dive phenomenon is mostly correct in my opinion. But DCS (or even AGE) during a dive has happened to me and many others, its just (rather obviously) a subset of all DCS/AGE cases. I.e. AGE occurring without breathhold due to VGE passing a PFO or pulmonary shut.

 

[X181]

In respect of my reporting cases of cardiopulmonary DCS in technical divers who have not violated their decompression algorithms you said:



These various accusations are simply your rationalisation of what is going on when experts present facts that contradict your preconceptions. But setting that aside, would you accept the Queensland Coroner and the other experts who contributed to his report as reliable witnesses? Try this:

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/86846/cif-broe-sj-20090424.pdf

Pages 24 and 25 are where he makes it clear that this diver died from cardiopulmonary DCS (the last paragraph on page 24 in particular). Elsewhere in the document you will find reference to the fact that the diver completed appropriate decompression. Yes, this diver had some risk factors (obesity, treated hypertension) but he was not that different to many divers in his age group.



Can you please reference the exact post where you claim I said this? If I recall correctly I think I was saying that the incidence of DCS in technical diving (albeit with most cases being mild) is higher than often reported, and I based this on personal observation of events on technical diving expeditions. I don't think I said anything about rates changing based on my presence or absence.



Ross, OK, everyone who wants to enter tech diving then. The epidemiological evaluation of the testing I cited by Mike Bennett would still apply unless you believe the rate of serious neurological DCS is higher than 1 event in 2000 dives.



It will still cost $300,000 to prevent one episode of serious DCS. I was rebutting your claim that the "test was cheaper than the treatment" and I believe it remains rebutted. In fact, I don't completely disagree on the issue of screening tech divers who are on a trajectory toward frequent deep decompression dives, but this is a complex and nuanced issue with pitfalls along the lines of those I previously mentioned. I am certainly not against individual divers making a personal choice to be tested for a PFO, but there are implications that need to be fully explained to them before they do it. Finally, as I have pointed out many times, PFO tests don't eliminate pulmonary shunts as a path for VGE to enter the arterial circulation, and they can happen in virtually anyone.

In respect of me criticising your (apparent) suggestion that some countries test every diver candidate for a PFO, you say:



OK here are your words from post 117, verbatim:

"Then maybe we should have testing of people wanting to venture into higher risk diving. The test is cheaper than the treatment. It's only a smaller number who venture into deco diving. For those with circulation defects, Stop them before they hurt themselves.

Some countries have compulsory testing for scuba for all divers now. Why not a second and more intense look at the few divers who want to advance into high risk diving?"

People can make up their own minds about what you appeared to be saying. If you were not suggesting that all divers be tested for a PFO, then fine. But you need to write more clearly and less ambiguously.



You have spent the entire thread trying to downplay the importance of venous gas emboli formed after decompression. You have attempted to rebut all the facts presented about their role in the pathophysiology of DCS. Among your arguments you stated something to the effect that no table has every been based on VGE counts. Yet now you try to gloss over the fact that one of the tables you have praised in the past (for its extensive testing) based their entire testing program on VGE counts.

Specifically, we confirmed with Ron Nishi (personally) yesterday that the DCIEM test program rejected profiles if they produced higher than grade 2 VGE during limb movement provocation on more than 50% of occasions.

Now why would they do that Ross? If high VGE grades don't matter, don't cause DCS, are not associated with DCS risk, etc etc as you have insisted, why would they do that? Why not accept grade 3 and 4 VGE as indicators of efficient gas transfer from tissues to lungs as you have suggested? Could it be that the DCIEM actually agree with the version of DCS pathophysiology that I have articulated on this thread? The one that is in all the textbooks. In fact the one that pervades the entire literature on this topic?



If an aversion to propagation of misinformation about safety-critical topics on the internet is indicative of a "bad attitude" then I apologise.

Simon M

Are you serious? The medical history is just wow. BMI of 34 and the intake of several drugs. What a instructor takes a person like this for a tec class?

 

[GLOC]

Are you serious? The medical history is just wow. BMI of 34 and the intake of several drugs. What a instructor takes a person like this for a tec class?

You want to see some of those on UK dive boats...

Regards

 

[rjack]

The role of the evaluating Dr as a scuba cop is not anymore clear here in the States than it is in Aus/NZ.

Are you serious? The medical history is just wow. BMI of 34 and the intake of several drugs. What a instructor takes a person like this for a tec class?

I know many divers who probably have a similar combination of risk factors. Do you consider max 44m and 20-30min of deco that inherently risky? (I don't) Current and exertion either on the dive or due to all the gear seems to be more relevant risks.

 

[Simon Mitchell]

VGE is a surface event, and very little occurs in the water in deco. The VGE start just as you surface. They start slowly and grow to a max volume about 90 minutes + after surfacing, and diminish after that ( numerous studies report this).

So a consensus of some of the worlds most prominent diving physicians holds that this diver died of fulminant cardiopulmonary DCS minutes after surfacing, and you (without the benefit of any relevant training or clinical experience) decide they are wrong. Once again, when reality challenges your preconceptions you just reinvent reality.

This was classical cardiopulmonary DCS that occurred because of massive VGE formation. It is a well recognised (though thankfully rare) manifestation of DCS that typically onsets early after a dive.

How would you know that VGE don't form during decompression or immediately on surfacing? How many studies can you cite that have looked at VGE in the water during decompression? There are certainly studies that show bubbles present immediately on surfacing from short bounce dives, see: Blogg and Gensser. Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine 2011;41(3)139.

Doesn't make sense now. He is missing the 60 to 90 minutes needed to make sufficient VGE to do him harm. His ascent was normal, so he is missing the rapid offgass that would create VGE this way. And his dive wasn't big enough to do that kind of serious and instant harm by reason of DCS or VGE growth.

This just reflects your lack of knowledge of the subject and your lack of any experience in the clinical field. How plausible is it that 4 expert diving physicians would advise the coroner that he died of cardiopulmonary DCS if it was as unlikely as you suggest. Get real Ross, and just accept that there are clearly large holes in your knowledge of this field.

You wanted a second opinion.... I gave you one - many in fact.

Now, would you care to answer my question about the DCIEM testing? just to remind you....

You have spent the entire thread trying to downplay the importance of venous gas emboli formed after decompression. You have attempted to rebut all the facts presented about their role in the pathophysiology of DCS. Among your arguments you stated something to the effect that no table has every been based on VGE counts. Yet now you try to gloss over the fact that one of the tables you have praised in the past (for its extensive testing) based their entire testing program on VGE counts.

Specifically, we confirmed with Ron Nishi (personally) yesterday that the DCIEM test program rejected profiles if they produced higher than grade 2 VGE during limb movement provocation on more than 50% of occasions.

Now why would they do that Ross? If high VGE grades don't matter, don't cause DCS, are not associated with DCS risk, etc etc as you have insisted, why would they do that? Why not accept grade 3 and 4 VGE as indicators of efficient gas transfer from tissues to lungs as you have suggested? Could it be that the DCIEM actually agree with the version of DCS pathophysiology that I have articulated on this thread? The one that is in all the textbooks. In fact the one that pervades the entire literature on this topic?

Simon M

 

[rossh]

Specifically, we confirmed with Ron Nishi (personally) yesterday that the DCIEM test program rejected profiles if they produced higher than grade 2 VGE during limb movement provocation on more than 50% of occasions.

Now why would they do that Ross?

Simon M

The DCIEM tables are based on version of the Kidd-Stubbs model. That model is a 4 compartment deterministic design that uses time / pressure / gas tracking, and derived SAD ascent limits from this. Then further work in 1983 by DCIEM to fine tune some parameters of the Kidd-Stubbs model, using empirical information, to arrive at the table set we see today. (rubicon-foudataion: download Development of the DCIEM 1983 Decompression Model)

The DCIEM tables is not a VGE based model, but it was used as a secondary measure.

Therefore, the DCIEM tables demonstrate that the existence of a consistent VGE presence, is not an issue for the diving public. Allow me to reiterate: VGE exist in all of us, and are part of everyday diving, and (seemingly) cause no harm.

You do know that the DCIEM table set is quite conservative, which is why they are preferred / approved / required for commercial use in numerous government department approved occupations.

I used to dive these tables (precisely), with repeats and all, as a crazy deep air diver. I was very happy with them and did many deep and long air dives (including the nedu dive depth/times).

 

[Mark Chase]

The DCIEM tables are based on version of the Kidd-Stubbs model. That model is a 4 compartment deterministic design that uses time / pressure / gas tracking, and derived SAD ascent limits from this. Then further work in 1983 by DCIEM to fine tune some parameters of the Kidd-Stubbs model, using empirical information, to arrive at the table set we see today. (rubicon-foudataion: download Development of the DCIEM 1983 Decompression Model)

The DCIEM tables is not a VGE based model, but it was used as a secondary measure.

Therefore, the DCIEM tables demonstrate that the existence of a consistent VGE presence, is not an issue for the diving public. Allow me to reiterate: VGE exist in all of us, and are part of everyday diving, and (seemingly) cause no harm.

You do know that the DCIEM table set is quite conservative, which is why they are preferred / approved / required for commercial use in numerous government department approved occupations.

I used to dive these tables (precisely), with repeats and all, as a crazy deep air diver. I was very happy with them and did many deep and long air dives (including the nedu dive depth/times).

Yes but you dont outline a level for the VGE? Its already been established that Grade 2 VGE was accepted post dive

Are you saying in a profesional capacity that Grade 4 VGE is acceptable post dive and doesn't indicate ANY potential problems in 100% of diving incidance?

Yes I know High VGE post dive only manifest in DCI in 4% of cases, but again we note the something like 95%+ of DCI cases had a high VGI and 95% of people who had low VGI didn't manifest DCI symptoms

I think we all agree that VGE is not a good posative predicting tool (IE high VGE doesent always mean DCI) by any streatch of the imagination, but as a negitave prediction tool (IE Low VGE consistantly meens no DCI) it seems prety good

Your counter argument seems to be OK fine if you want to spend all day in the water to get a low VGI thats up to you

But that doesent adress the issue.

Two dives, matching in water times, so no advantage in exposure between the profiles, and one has a lower post dive VGE than the otehr

Which one is the more eficient profile?

To me it seems obvious its the one with the lower VGE

If you think not the please expand on why, because I am strugly to get my head arround "high VGE is good"



ATB

Mark

 

[Simon Mitchell]

What Mark said (except that the largest series associate grade 4 VGE with a 10% incidence of DCS).

Your arguments are virtually at the level of "the sky is not blue".

Therefore, the DCIEM tables demonstrate that the existence of a consistent VGE presence, is not an issue for the diving public.

A statement from which you conveniently omit the fact that the DCIEM tables were calibrated to avoid producing VGE grades higher than 2. Of course VGE occur after decompression in many cases, but your constant insistence that high levels do not impute increased risk (and therefore that there is no need to avoid high grades as much as possible) flies in the face of virtually everything published on the matter and the practices of scientists you have previously praised for their approach to dive table development.

And all of this to cover for the fact that your commercial product has been shown to result in high VGE grades. Have you no shame, seriously?

Simon M

 

[rossh]

Blah blah blah.

Here we have Simon desperately trying to put words in my mouth and to corner me into saying things. He is trying to antagonize me into an argument.

Simon engages in slurs, slander, libel, innuendo, baseless accusations, irrelevant criticism, groundless denunciations, semantics, and on and on its goes.

 

[erikradstrom]

Blah blah blah.

Here we have Simon desperately trying to put words in my mouth and to corner me into saying things. He is trying to antagonize me into an argument.

Simon engages in slurs, slander, libel, innuendo, baseless accusations, irrelevant criticism, groundless denunciations, semantics, and on and on its goes.

From a readers point of view Simon is the only one making any sense in this. You just keep ducking for questions rossh, and Simon keeps coming up with articles and facts to prove what he says.