After reading your reply above and re-reading mine I can see where you are coming from and sincerely apologize for the miscommunication on my part entirely. I should of seperated the two of you on the first part of that post as you did indeed say what you did and it should of been directed solely at fisherman. You did state that the release gave a mention of credit to SES and I agree that it seemed downplayed to a lesser degree. But the point I was trying to make when I posted my reply was that Mr. Bauval seemed to me, IMO, to explain that the basic courtesy of acknowledgement of Mr. Hancock's efforts should have been given in the initial statement. As Mr. Hancock did indeed do the majority of the push to go ahead with this dive and in not acknowledging his effort they were being very disrespectful no matter what reason is giving for the ommision. But the analogy still fits as giving earlier either of you would expect to be given this courteous show of simple respect! If you did not get it I would not expect you to be quite about it but to also state your dismay at their behavior. Again sorry for the upset, not intentional I assure you. This started on Mr. Bauval's initial post, in which, to me, it was talking about the lack of recognition and no surprise at such, so I followed this in my post about the simple respect that should of been given to Mr. Hancock that was all I was referring to as it seemed to me definitely Fisherman and so-so on you that his point was overlooked or not understood. If not on your part then Sorry!