Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Sorry , Rich, I am so used to seeing all of these atrocities extolled together as a single style by the same people, that I did not, as you suggest, read the post properly. My mistake. I think the same thing you do about the smaller wings, but see the double bladder risk outweighing any usefullness. Your rebreather is not likely even negative in the first place, so if you have a problem, drop you weightbelt. I do not know what that problem would be, but whatever. When I want to come up I swim up . Rich, some of these guys would have had a tough time diving twenty years ago. There is an article in Professional Diver Magazine about all of the tech divers who can't actually dive, and would never make the cut in a military environment. It asks the questions, "How many students has IANTD failed?". - G On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Richard Pyle <deepreef@bi*.bi*.ha*.or*> wrote: >> Rich, you are giving yourself away with the "not seeing any problem with >> square lights " comment. > >George, you are giving yourself away with the above comment. You >obviously do not read my posts carefully enough. My point was that square >lights and fuses in lights seem to be a FUNDAMENTALLY flawed concept - >i.e., little or no justification in ANY application. I was giving these >as examples to CONTRAST the dual bladder/bondage wings case - which is NOT >a fundamentally flawed concept, but rather a concept whose merit is >dive-context-sensative. Do you get it? Keep re-reading my post until you >do. This isn't the first time I've had to correct your incorrect reading >of my post. > >Rich > > George M. Irvine III DIR WKPP 1400 SE 11 ST Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316 954-493-6655 FAX 6698 Email gmiiii@in*.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]