Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
>Bumper sticker : "He who dies with the most >toys wins." > > CB's version: The true winner is the *boyfriend of the widow* of the guy >who dies. The boyfriend gets to play with everything (if you know what I >mean) -- and didn't have to pay for any of it! Cool. Brent, in a good attempt at a rebuttal, sez: >Bye the time the asshole "boyfriend of the widow" gets the toys, there old, > worn out and hardly worth playing with ( if YOU know what I mean ). Nope -- the deceased was out playing with his toys all the time, so the (new) widow is ....fine (if YOU know what I mean ). But this is supposed to be about diving, so, a serious question: From what I understand, WKPP can perform its radical, pioneering dives in extremely limited viz. (Hell -- according to Tres, in ZERO viz, no mask, buddy breathing, swimming out a dead scooter and 3 stages, and then finish deco at lucy ho's, and -- whatever ;-) ) I guess the ability to do this (push in poor viz) is good, but it seems an *un-necessary* risk. I'm not placing a value judgement on that -- except for myself (if I can't see the damned place, what the hell would I be there for?) What others do interests me though, so that's why I'm asking how you feel/think about it. Part of my curiosity stems from this: the desire to push in poor viz seems to be more of a desire to smoke someone else, than to have as safe as possible a cave dive. Would this fly in the face of "safety is first" or not? I know WKPP expends every effort to make the dives as safe as possible -- to minimize the risk. And pushing in shitty viz, which is not necessary, seems to contradict that philosophy. As you well know, when Wakulla and the entire WKP is dark, there are clear caves an hour E. and W. of Tally, that could probably be extended by y'all, so there's plenty of exploring and diving that could be done elsewhere, if that is the primary goal. In a book (which I'm still trying to find) by Gerald Wilde, called "Target Risk", he develops a line of reasoning about what is called "risk homeostasis." No, this is not about where gays stay. It's about the effort to minimize risk -- and then "consuming" that new safety margin, under the mistaken impression that perfect safety has now been achieved. Ex: we get air-bags in cars = we're safer; we consume that new margin by driving worse than we did before == not any safer at all. So: is it worth it/is it the "best choice", is it exemplary behavior, to explore in shitty viz, when you don't have to, just so someone can say he's the baddest? Is that a noble/worth-the-risk goal? Again, I'm not judging -- just asking. Thoughts, ideas, impressions, opinions, arguments, jokes? Sincerely, Christopher A. Brown Sci-Graphica PR and DOCENT FILMS The Technical Diving Video Library (TDVL) at http://www.neuro.fsu.edu/dave/docent.htm (N.Am. & Canada): 1-800-373-7222 Outside US:904-942-7222 Fax:904-942-1240 Life is short -- this is not a rehearsal.
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]