The Real Story of the Bahama man Eater!

[Papa Bear]

The Sharks know there will be food, but if you remember they are passive until the chum ball hits the water! They don't care that your in the water and don't associate you with the bait! If you read my posts that was my point, you are not the stimulus, just another thing at the feed! I have never said they don't react to stimuli, just that their is not the connection to humans that people fear! You know after the chum is gone you swim around the area for the rest of the dive! The sharks move on!

[bottlefish]

I never said anything about a "Crate of Bait" I suspected a piece of bait may have drifted in the poor viz near his leg and the shark closes his eyes and reacts!

It's right there in the article Papa, read the quote again...

This was a terrible and tragic accident. However, it was just that – an accident. The shark was biting at a crate of bait, when it accidentally bit Markus Groh on the calf.

[Papa Bear]

We must read! I posted the article! I gave credit to the writer in the opening by line! I repeat I never mentioned a crate of bait I assumed one may have been around, but I wasn't so I can't speak to its proximity to the diver, or his to it since he was a photographer he may have been very close?!!! I stand behind just what I said, otherwise I wouldn't have said it

[bottlefish]

Papa, forgive me for saying this, but you're not making any sense, and also making this a much bigger deal then it needs to be.

The article you posted at the start of this thread does mention a crate of bait. The article states that the diver was bitten by mistake by a shark as it was biting at the crate of bait. I was simply suggesting that the diver would have had to have been very close to the crate to have been bitten by mistake.

There's no argument there, or accusation, just a suggestion. No need for you to defend anything, so rest easy, please

[Papa Bear]

I understand and I am not, you were crediting the statement to me, and I didn't make it! Not complicated at all, one has to wonder why you credited it to me? And then brought it up a second time? Believe me I have no problem, just letting you know I didn't make the statement

[bottlefish]

Jeez Papa, where do you get off on being so argumentative all the time?

I did not, at any time, credit you with that statement, I simple quoted the article from the post you made, to clarify the statement I was making.

Do me a favour, stop, twisting my posts, putting words in my mouth and generally being a rude and grumpy bear with a sore head whenever I have anything to say.

[Papa Bear]

Ditto! Ditto! Ditto! Read your own posts or I can go back and repost them for you? You seem to be the one beating the nail into the board? Why did you even bring the "Crate" up? You did I didn't! Try a little Zen!

[Papa Bear]

#3 & #12 You posted that it was my quote and it wasn't MINE it was in the article and there is a difference! Please quote the writer of the article not me! That's pretty simple because I didn't write anything about a crate as I stated, but it was the author of the story who related what he was told! Now, as photographers we do get close to get the shot! I have been very close to the bait by my choice, even though you are warned to stay well away from the bait! So I hope this puts an end to you nit picking me for something I never said! Simple and to the point with no malaise just forethought!

[bottlefish]

Papa, it is the way the forum works. If you press the quote button under a post, it quotes that post. This can assist other people, let them know what it is you are referrring to. The fact is the snippet came from your post, hence I was quoting from your post. There is nothing incorrect about that. If you don't like the way it is written, then ask someone to reprogram the bulletin board code.

In addition, I even stated in my post #3, I had read the same article, and in post #12, stated again, it's right there in the article.

It was clear to everyone else except you that I was referring to the article referenced in your post. If you don't want information referenced to you as the source, then don't post it.

Besides which, who cares? Who actually stated that has got nothing to do with the question I phrased, that question wasn't directed at you, it wasn't an accusation, it was a general question to all.

It is you that has been nit picking, on a point that is not worth bothering about, and, yet again, the whole thread has now been corrupted to a petty squable between you and I, the rest of the forum has diverted their attention elsewhere and left us to it.

Anyway, I've said enough on this now, you've made me defend myself on something that didn't need defending. PLease, feel free to corrupt the thread further if you wish, however I think the damage on this one, as with so many others of late, has been well and truly done.

[Papa Bear]

You can click on the text between the quote signs and edit text to be more accurate or insert "In the article posted by" it would have clear and easy! No misunderstandings on insinuations, simple and straight forward! We can only judge what your saying by what you post, reading between the lines is not always possible! Given I not sure why you posted those quotes in the first place seeing it wasn't my article and I wasn't there to tell you how close he was to the bait or if the bait pieces drifted close to his leg? So when you post superfluous information one has to wonder to what purpose? If it were not a n exchange forum it would not bother to respond, but feel it is important to address issue of crediting statements to those who made them!