Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Spoken like a true liberal. I'll bet you have a picture of Bill Clinton taped up in your VW microbus. ---- Steve Gridley, Doing It Right (far right) in Newton, Kansas > >Hi Bill, > >Oh, what the hell. When I wrote you the private, I was late for a >meeting, so I didn't have time to play. The meeting was postponed, and I >have about 15 minutes to kill, so I'll go ahead and bite afterall. > >Let me begin by introducing a new term. Remember when you guys used to >use the term "Annellid-stupid"? As a biologist, I always liked that one. >However, in recent weeks I and my critter-nerd ilk have invented a new >term that represents an even lower form of stupid - the lowest of the low. > >No, it's not "bacteria-stupid" or "virus-stupid" or anything like that. >Rather, it is "Kansas-Board-Of-Education-Stupid", or "KBOE-stupid" for >short. It's not directed only at the Kansas BOE - they just happen to be >the ones in the limelight at the moment. Other states, like Alabama, >Tennessee, and Arizona, among others, all have their versions of it. > >At any rate....what does "KBOE-stupid" have to do with my reply to you? >For those who haven't followed the news lately, the KBOE decided that the >concept of biological Evolution (or "macroevolution", as the call it) >would no longer be part of the State's education standards. They're not >forbidding the teaching of it or anything like that - they're just >removing it from the State standards, which means removing from state >exams. The problem is that local district curricula tend to want to >produce students who do well on the state exams, which means emphasizing >only those topics covered by the exams. > >But the real point of bringing in "KBOE-stupid" is to illustrate the kind >of "stupid" that you are proposing in your message below. The KBOE thing >was a weak attempt to thwart the dissemination of evolutionary theory to >students. Many in the "bible-belt" of this country (note that all other >developed western countries have matured well beyond this silly but >seemingly perpetual problem) view evolutionary theory as a threat to >Christian Faith. If Evolution happened, then not only is the Earth older >than 10,000 or so years, but it also means that God did not spontaneously >create humans in Her* own image (although She may have created Prokaryotes >[not necessarily in Her image], which begot eukaryotes, which later begot >multicellular organisms, which ultimately developed internal skeletons and >notochords, which at some point crawled out of the sea, went through some >funky changes and diversifications, grew hair, and led to [among a vast >multitude of other taxa] the species _Homo sapiens_). In any case, as many >eductaed people have come to realize, there does not need to be any sort >of conflict between religeon and science (or, more specifically, between >American breeds of Christianity and Evolution). Nevertheless, there are >still a disturbingly large number of KBOE-stupid people who see Evolution >as a threat to their faith - and thus something that needs to be fought. > >The parallels between this sort of mentality, and the messages I am >hearing from you and the people who preach the same "gospel" as you (we >all know who I mean), are rather stunning, when you get right down to it. >By way of example, let me review a little history on the Evolution debate: > >The first KBOE-stupid attempt - about 70 years ago, was to ban the >teaching of Evolution outright. A guy named Scopes, in fact, had to fork >over a hundered bucks as fine for attempting to do so. That lasted about >20 years, until the Supreme Court said "Ain't constitutional". The next >real effort was to try to mandate the teaching of "Creation Science" (an >oxymoron of 'biblical' proportions, so to speak) alongside Evolution. >Once again, the Supreme Court steped in and said "Sorry Charlie - Creation >is religion, not science, and we have this thing about separation of >church and state...." > >The KBOE thing is the latest effort - and a new tactic. Rather than >promoting Creation, it's trying to surpress critical thinking. By >omitting the discussion of topics that have been deduced from rational >thought, they apparently hope to hide people from reality. They want to >shelter people from being exposed to what's so obviously going on in the >world around us. The only way to supress Evolution is to promote >misunderstanding of it, which means hiding information, and perpetuating >misinformation. For example, there is a lot of emphasis that "Evolution is >a theory, not a fact". HELLO!!! Welcome to the world of science, where >*everything* is ultimately, at its core, a theory. The notion that matter >is composed of atoms, which are themselves composed of neutrons, protons, >and electrons - that's "just a theory" too. Hell, the very idea that the >Earth revolves around the Sun is ultimately "just a theory". The point >is, Evolution is every-bit as well-supported as these other theories are. >Eventually the evidence becomes so incredibly overwhelming (as in the case >of basic atomic structure, or Evolution), that we just accept it (keeping >in mind that new revelations may ultimately falsify it - but the prospects >for that are close to Nill). > >I hope I've illustrated this point with enough clarity and depth that you >will grasp my meaning when I tell you that your suggestions in your email >to me (below) are a perfect example of "KBOE-stupid". Both you and George >have repeatedly tried to get me to stop sharing my face-value thoughts >with respect to diving with the public at large. You want me to suppress >and distort my real-world information when presented publicly so that, >when it is presented, it conforms to your EXTREMELY MYOPIC view of the >diving world. If some real-world experience of mine conflicts with your >perhaps well-intentioned, but otherwise grossly distorted perception of >diving, then you want me to keep it to myself. You don't want me to >disrupt your efforts to put blinders on people. In short, you don't want >me to encourage critical thinking among divers. > >Sorry guys, but in the past, in the present, and with every intention of >continuing into the future, I call it as I see it. Period. I do not lie, >despite your tireless efforts to accuse me of being a liar. I do not >distort my delivery of information to try to manipulate anyone or to >satisfy any political, egotistical, or other equally trivial agendas. >When I see feces, I call feces. When I feel I have something to offer to >a discussion, I offer it. As a scientist and as a scholar, it's just my >nature to be that way. Sometimes (more often than not, in fact), they way >I see things corresponds very well with the way you guys see things. On >occassion, however, my perspective differs somewhat from yours. This >doesn't surprise me at all, given our different diving histories and >different diving environments. You should have learned by now that all >your ranting and raving about me - publicly or privately - has absolutely >no effect. I continue to call it as I see it. > >On the topic of air at 150 - as I told George in private - my response to >Chris was the most accurate. I normally wouldn't have posted anything, >but I just felt so incredibly....well....violated....that he actually >agreed with me, I had to do *something*. All I did was tell the truth - >if I didn't have my rebreather in a particular situation, *I* wouldn't >bother with helium much deeper than about 150. That's the truth - as >painful as it may be to you. Two weeks ago I was doing a film-shoot on a >sailboat. One night a Manta Ray hooked up one of the surface-supply >cables to a 1000-watt HMI light and dragged it off. I didn't have my >'breather and there was only air on board, so the next morning I started >my search at 150 and worked my way up the slope. Lo and behold, I found >the light and saved the Production crew a lot of money and hassle. I'd do >the same thing again if the same situation presented itself. > >Does this mean I think that all dives to 150 should be done on air? Of >course not! In fact, whenever I dive with the rebreather, which is >99.9999% of the time, the maximum PN2 I subject myself to is about 2.5 atm >(about 70 feet worth of air). Does it mean I think all divers should be >doing dives to this depth on air? Of course not! I know people who >shouldn't be diving at all, and others who should never get below 60 feet. >I also know others who I would trust more as a diving companion while >breathing air at 200 than I would trust probably half the poplulation of >trimix divers at the same depth on trimix. Do I think all diving >environments are equal? Of course not! In cold or dark water I'm >hammered at 90 feet - and can feel it. But I very rarely dive in cold or >dark water, which is why I said that *I* probably wouldn't bother with >helium on most OC dives shallower than about 150 or so. > >On the topic of solo diving, the real-world reality is that I usually >*don't* dive solo. That is, on my more extreme dives of late, I usually >have a true buddy (either Joe Dituri or John Earle). But the bottom line >is that *I* still prefer to be alone on more challenging dives because *I* >feel more comfortable being able to devote 100% of my concentration to my >*own* safety. You can cry about it all you want, but I'm not going to >hide this fact, or be ashamed of it in any way. > >There will always be stupid people out there doing stupid things. I'm not >going to compromise my own safety just to conform to someone else's >perception of what the best way to do a particular dive is - especially >when that someone else understands very little about what I actually do. >Nor am I willing to play the KBOE game of hiding the reality from the >masses - I am always going to be honest and forthright about what I do, >and why I do it. I always have been, and intend to continue to be >equally honest and forthright about when I make mistakes. My record of >doing so speaks for itself. If stupid people misunderstand me or try to >emulate me without understanding their own limitiations (incidentally, the >list of people ending up in chambers after trying to emulate George's deco >philosophy is growing....), then that's what I would call "natural >selection" (another tie-in to the overall Evolution theme). > >I do what I do, the way I do it, because I think it's the best for me in >my situation. Because I'm a nice guy, I'm willing to share with others >specific details about how I do what I do. Trash from you and others like >you will only continue to decrease my willingness to share. > >What is my point to you, Bill? It's the same point I've been making to >George in private. It's simply this: I'm bored of playing these email >games with you guys, and I've got better things to do. So do all the >people on this CC list. I decided the forward it on to the whole list >with the hope they would enjoy some of my musings. To those who found it >a waste of their time, I apologize. To you, Bill, I do not apologize -- >you don't have to be KBOE-stupid. You can grow up, share with us your >experiences of what work in your diving environment, and even question the >practices of others who you think are unsafe. But Please, PLEASE, spare >us the BS crusade crap. It's so unbecoming of you. After this post, I >will *not* help you perpetuate it any more. > >Ciao, >Rich > >*Note: In case anyone is wondering why I apply the female gender pronouns >to the Lord Almighty, it's not because I'm sort of new-age freak or >militant feminist or anything. It is because, as any biologist worth >his/her saline knows, all human beings (and indeed, all mammals) are >fundamentally females. Female is the default gender - we all begin life >as females. If nothing gets screwed up along the developmental pathway, >we would all be born females too. However, about half of us, however >happened to have received a deffective X-chromosome from our daddies at >conception (reduced in size - we call it a "Y"-chromosme. This deffective >chromosome leads to a very slight flaw - only one hydrogen atom out of >place - in the structure of estrogen. This flawed estrogen also goes >under the name "Testosterone". Testosterone is the enzyme which alters >the development of our reproductive organs, inhibits breast development, >and encourages a wide array of aggressive behavior like bar-room brawls, >horn-honking, and tireless efforts to beat one's chest on internet email >lists). Bottom line is; if there is, indeed, a Supreme Being; and if, >indeed, Homo sapiens was created in Its image, than "It" would surely be >the defualt, fundamental, female form. Since the only real purpose of >males is to facilitate the exchange of genetic material among females, it >would seem odd that any sort of Supreme Being would serve such an inane >purpose. > >On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Bill Mee wrote: > >> Subject: RE: DEEP AIR VOTE, was: (RE: Re:IANTD vs 70 m air instruction >> and158m air dives You gotta be kidding) >> >> >> >snip >> > I personally am comfortable breathing >> >air to a maximum depth of about 150 feet (as I said in the post that seems >> >to have garnered so much attention). All the senseless name-calling in the >> >world won't change my feeling on this,....> >> >> >Aloha, >> >Rich >> > >> Richie, >> >> Is this my imagination or are you just joking here? >> >> Diving in the 100 - 150 fsw range on air is a recipe for disaster and we >> don't need double blind studies and scholarly treatises to confirm what >> should long ago have become obvious to anyone serious about so called "tech >> diving". This is the worst sort of treason coming from you, especially >> since you were one of the early people to use mixed gas in the ocean. In >> fact I was cleaning out some magazines last week and lo and behold a dusty >> old Aquacorps Journal with your youthful picture on the back turned up and >> the subject was said same. >> >> Of particular horror is your advocacy of solo diving, a practice which has >> claimed quite a few lives of late. To make matters worse you promote, by >> example, solo diving with rebreathers which is another endeavor with a >> disturbingly morbid track record. The problem is that you are considered the >> leading civiliam expert on computerized electronic ccrs and like Tom Mount, >> everyone wants to emulate you. If Richie Pyle can dodge the bullet why >> can't Joe Shinola? >> >> If Tom Mount can point to you and say "the leading practicing authority of >> solo deep open and closed circuit mixed gas diving endorses intermediate >> deep air" then a lot of people will listen to this lie and the end result is >> some over weighted poor fat bastard will go and get himself killed solo >> diving with an air pony on the Andrea Doria or some such deep junk pile. I >> know, I know, I know you will just disount what I and George say as so much >> threadbare hyperbole, but the freshly minted dead people of this summer were >> very real and had names and families and believed the bs. There is no >> shortage of 12 inch tough guys who want to prove that they are just as tough >> as Tom Mount and you. Like Chris Werner said: >> >> > Hey Richie, how is that you can deal with the deathtrap >> > (Cis-Lunar) that you >> > swear by diving, with all the complications and it hideous fatal track >> > record, but yet you cannot mix the right gas for OC? You are one >> > lucky guy >> > and tougher than nails. >> > >> That's the problem. You are articulate, tough and very lucky. Mount and >> IANTD are on the wrong side of this air thing and resolutely refuse to >> change the standards. Unfortunately, for all involved, the standards will be >> changed, by mandate from the insurance companies, which are choking on the >> endless lawsuits and settlements. I fully expect that it is only a matter of >> time before you will be called as an expert witness (or defendant) in one of >> the many wrongful death lawsuits now pending and you will have to vigorously >> defend your above statement. I surely hope that you have the bona fide >> belief and conviction to do so. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Bill >> >> >> > >Richard Pyle >Ichthyology, Bishop Museum deepreef@bi*.or* >1525 Bernice St. PH: (808) 848-4115 >Honolulu, HI 96817-2704 FAX: (808) 847-8252 > > > > >-- >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aq*.co*'. >Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aq*.co*'. >
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]