Eric Borneman coral controversy

[sihaya]

I've nothing to add, you make my case for me.

Chuck

Chuck, I assure you that I have done nothing to warrant this reaction from you. If you'd have contacted me via personal email and asked me about these things, you might be able to understand that. But you're completely unwilling to hear my side of things... ironically enough.

Now please, no more of this. These rumors have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand or the hobby. If anyone here is a friend of mine, or wishes to be, and has heard any rumors they absolutely need clarifying, please email or PM me **privately.**

 

[Charlesr1958]

How Ironic isnt it?

"attacking my character and integrity based on rumors "

Shall we go deeper into the bottomless pit of gossip? And why should not motive be "discussed". Any journalist or other poorly done Ralph Nader impersonations would have to be held to the candle, why not you?

Chuck

 

[sihaya]

Shall we go deeper into the bottomless pit of gossip?

I will discuss it to your heart's content **privately**.

And why should not motive be "discussed". Any journalist or other poorly done Ralph Nader impersonations would have to be held to the candle, why not you?

Because motive is not something that exists outside the mind of a person. So how could you ever know it? You can't FOIA my heart or my mind. I've also clearly stated my motive for you. I care about the HUNDREDS of lbs of coral that were taken. If you think I'm being untruthful, well, that's again something to be discussed **privately**.

Chuck - I do believe that if you spent this much time and mental energy reading and thinking about the documents, you might better serve Eric and us all by showing us where we're wrong, rather than by delving into the "bottomless pit of gossip."

 

[Charlesr1958]

"showing us where we're wrong"

I've already pointed that out quite clearly. What you have gathered is but fragmentary and impossible to debate or even possible to discuss without it being and becoming, hearsay and accusations.

"I care about the HUNDREDS of lbs of coral that were taken."

You're breaking my heart. Given your history, I could not take that statement as being credible.

Why is it, that everyone else is open to the public, and having their credibility and motivations questioned is perfectly good fodder for you? Yet when past events are brought up, it is only to be discussed with friends in private emails. Why not get all of your "cards" out onto the table and let public opinion have a go at you as well?

To be honest, it took me days to gather up the courage to speak out, simply out of fear of having your gaze put upon me, but then I realized that I do not have a reputation and could honestly care less what anyone thinks of me. So whats next? A new headlining webpage titled:

Chuck enjoys farm animals
Documentation provided by FOIA requests to the department of agriculture.

BaaaBaaaaa.pdf - personal emails between Chuck and a sheep named Dolly.

PermitApplication.pdf - Formal request by Chuck asking for an exception to the citys zoning laws on farm animals.

Receitpt#1.pdf - Receipt photocopy of sheep feed purchased by Chuck from a local farm cooperative.

This is exactly how redicoulous your website appears.

 

[Charlesr1958]

Sorry, but what is it that should be kept "private" ? Again, why can you bring up fragmentations for a so called "discussion" and not have your motives questioned? This entire thread as well as your website should never have been allowed to see the light of day. You have done nothing of good and continue to fuel a gossip fest with NOTHING to prove your accusations.

Yes, I am pissed. I should have left my point as it was, but knowing the darkness that lurks just beneath what I can only see as "motivation", makes it a subject that your "backers" should be aware of.

When you throw mud, you get your hands dirty too. Care to come clean?

Chuck

 

[phillstone]

OMG get a life people
Eris has done more for your tanks w/ no profit than ya know. Why do we all want to ET on the boards.

You want to think for real. Thanks for real thought Len
I have a sudden and strong impulse to do my best to stop global warming.

Btw Chrispy rocks

 

[Anonymous]

The court of public opinion can be damning really quickly.

Generally without all the evidence and the necessary expertise or jurisdiction. Also often quick to come to judgement and slow to change that judgement if challenged. Which is exactly why I don't find the following curious at all.

I find it curious why Eric has not responded.

What I said earlier. There is no way of knowing what is the truth via a thread like this. IMO, this thread should be closed down.

 

[Charlesr1958]

Amen!

 

[StevenPro]

steven, i just gotta say, your good. i like how everytime you get backed into a corner, you point behind them and say... " what about that?" instead of answering the questions already asked.

I will answer any question put to me to the best of my ability.

the story is there, and all the info is there.

you keep asking what his side of the story is, well. its all there too, and it doenst look real good at all.

No, the story is not all there. I think it is readily apparent that not all the documents are there. For one, have you read Eric certified letter? And, it is my firm belief that some of the documents posted have been altered.

 

[Anonymous]

for the record FOI can and will edit documents of any information that deals with Classified material, Trade Secrets, and anything that could be used in an open docket in a court of law, and they dont have to tell you why, or how much info has been edited if it would possibly interfere with an ongoing investigation or case docket.
from the FOIA:

Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. The amount of information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of the information deleted shall be indicated at the place in the record where such deletion is made.

I deal with FOI on a Daily basis, and I edit papers and dont have to explain why, because they either contain trade secrets, or the info pertains to an active investigation or court case.
The exemptions can be found here:

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;

(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiastat.htm

 

[Anonymous]

Chuck, what do you know that is left out?

 

[Charlesr1958]

That does not matter, simply because of the fact that it was known and stated from the start that any information that she has is tiny fragments, which as I have said a number of times, paints a miguided picture that prevents any debate about it. All that can be done is to make assumptions and accusations based on a glimpse. What she has put together is a really poorly done example of hearsay. Any such attempts to bring anything to light had better have a few unbendable "laws" followed:

1- You had better have ALL the facts and documents, to not do so leads to misunderstandings, false accusations and just plain gossip. If she were a journalist, she would have been fired. Were she a lawyer, she would have gotten laughed out of court and put before a review.

2. - You had better not have any involvement, connection or past history of such actions with those you are trying to "expose". To do so only points to obvious ulterior motives and makes any possible arguements tainted, at best.

Chuck

 

[sihaya]

Chuck - no worries from me, I still think you're a good guy. Someone has whispered nasty things in your ear and you've let it get to you. But maybe in time you'll rethink it all.

These documents are not just "tiny fragments." They may very well be lacking in some information, but they are a LOT MORE information than Mr. Borneman or ANYONE else has EVER offered.

As for me, I'm taking a break from this for a few days (unless something really new and interesting is posted).

 

[Anonymous]

That does not matter, simply because of the fact that it was known and stated from the start that any information that she has is tiny fragments, which as I have said a number of times, paints a miguided picture that prevents any debate about it. All that can be done is to make assumptions and accusations based on a glimpse. What she has put together is a really poorly done example of hearsay. Any such attempts to bring anything to light had better have a few unbendable "laws" followed:

1- You had better have ALL the facts and documents, to not do so leads to misunderstandings, false accusations and just plain gossip. If she were a journalist, she would have been fired. Were she a lawyer, she would have gotten laughed out of court and put before a review.

2. - You had better not have any involvement, connection or past history of such actions with those you are trying to "expose". To do so only points to obvious ulterior motives and makes any possible arguements tainted, at best.

Chuck

Ok, completely impartial observer here.

Aren't you kind of breaking those same laws when you're talking about her? You keep hinting at something in this woman's past and what her motivations are without actually providing any proof, or even explicitly stating what it is you're talking about. I'm a grown up and can read between the lines, but it kind of seems like smearing her to sway opinions without getting mud on your hands. I wouldn't take notice if it wasn't the same thing you're complaining about her doing.

Again, I know nothing of the histories of what's going on here, but that's how it appears from where I'm sitting. If you can clarify your position please do.

 

[Charlesr1958]

"These documents are not just "tiny fragments." "

Yes they are, and you have no idea or way to know if they are or not. I would also not say that what you have is "information". Taken individualy, yes, its information, put together as you have done, and it is nothing worthy of mention, let alone of debate.

The ONLY thing that you have accomplished is to take bits and pieces and fostered and allowed a gossip fest to occur. No debates possible and caused nothing but grief. Period. What you did and continue to do is just plain wrong.

"but they are a LOT MORE information than Mr. Borneman or ANYONE else has EVER offered. "

And what makes you think he or anyone owes you anything at all? Who are you that they must answer to? You seriously believe that you can call out someone and they should have to answer to you or anyone online. Talk about a power trip. And if they were to be so foolish as to give you the time of day, you would only allow what ever was said or provided, to be fodder for even more conspiracy garbage. You need to deal with your past issues as well as getting yourself off of this power trip. Shall we continue? because if so, I believe you have an idea where I can go with this. Its your call.

Go ahead, take a few days off, I will be right here waiting. I have ALLLLL day, every day.

Chuck

 

[Anonymous]

RC Staff, Anemone

The site obviously has an agenda. What that is, I have no idea. But the documents linked on the site do present factual information concerning the project. However, since this conversation has strayed from the factual information presented on the site to attacking each other's opinions about that information, this thread has run its course.

Kevin

 

[chris&barb]

Today's episode of "As the Water Flows" is brought to you by Elements GAC

Will Charles out Sihaya?

Will Sihaya find the missing link?

What will Steven have to say?

Will Eric pull his head out of the sand?

All this and more after this short message from http://www.navy.com/[/url]

 

[fcmatt]

misread something. edited.

no i did not.

---

why all the secrecy? it was a public project that
failed and now no one wishes to talk about it.

that alone is odd. odd enough where threads like
this will appear online.

eric could clean this thread right up, but i guess he
has other projects to do. chuck, you could too, but
you have made a promise to not to. sigh.

protecting eric while not telling us the story. so odd.

are you people always like this in this business?

 

[Charlesr1958]

Hi Matt,

My point, besides the obvious problems of posting incomplete information, is that she has a, shall we just say, a tainted history of going after Eric on other occassions (as well as others). Then claims to have honorable motives. I will leave the details up to her to explain as she is quite aware of what I am hinting at here. I see your point though and would agree with you fully, if not for knowing what I know. And it does deal with motives and history. Out of respect for others privacy and names, I will leave it up to her to explain herself or myself for that matter in her ***private*** emails. She has forced a great many peaple to try and explain her actions, now its her turn.

Chuck

 

[Charlesr1958]

FCMATT,

Do not take this the wrong way, but it is the only way I know how to say it. Its none of anyones business. Not here online at least.

But, I hope I am not overstepping myself here in saying this, and will try to do so carefully and am only doing so in the hopes that it will shut things up and allow it to die as is because it has become long past its due burial date and stinks.

This is very old "news", but yes, at the time, there were some misunderstandings and issues between some parties involved, none of which were Erics fault and he did NOTHING wrong, in fact, if not for Eric, the situation could have gotten worse. Since that time, any misunderstandings have been cleared up, issues resolved and wounds were healed. To drag it out into an online gossip fest would only serve to do one thing. And that is to open old wounds and damage good working realtionships that are in place now. To do so, would serve what purpose here online? I can think of only one reason, and its not nice.

Chuck