Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Leon, as I said, this type of analysis has nothing to do with the genesis of this stupidity, and in fact by your analysis, not diving is the correct answer, and I agree with you on that. I agree with you and know you are correct on oxygen exposure, but you don't have a clue what you are talking about in actual practice, since the pp02 that the gas you are suggesting is inteneded to be 1.6 and is in fact 1.5, and then the total expossre to high oxygen is longer, while the deco is less efficient - you just want to argue wtih me and sign "doctor" to the post, which I printed out and pissed on. Let's face it , Leon, you have no practical experience with this, and like most on here, you just don't like me, and I just don't care. I am not interested in what a dillatante thinks, or anyone whose can only see one facet at a time. I do all types of diving, and your efforts to invent or create a scenario that you do not understand and then use it as a defense of an indefensible position by saying that you "have no doubt" there is some place, somewhere , somehow that my thinking does not work with no details or alternative is crap - you just want to argue, and you don't like the facts or my track record, because I am sticking them in your face, to which you have repsonded without thinking (which I love to see in an opponent)and proved yourself a fool with a petty personal attack about my father, whose defense contracting equipment building for the Viet Nam War is where I first learned the trick of Doing It Right or not at all and keeping it simple, as well as the kind of tactical and logistic thinking that puts my analysis in such stark contrast to your blubbering blabbery and out-of-context self-righteous liberal whooey. I have done the homework, the diving, and been responsible for experimantal diving that is beyond your wildest dreams, while you are talking out of your armchair. Next time you attack me, I will stick it right up your stupid nose. Do not waste my time, or anyone elses with your crap - you are just one more resentful stroke who can not see more than one dimension at at time. I made my case, now you need to do better than cry about the fact that I have the experience, the track record and the analysis to back it up, and you have piecemeal bullshit that is attempting to play on the sympathy of the rest of the truly "myopic" one-dimensional thinkers and try to discredit what I am saying with an argument that is implicit in any understanding of this topic. You can't do it, and as such you are not alone, and yoiur only hope in attacking me is to be a hero to the strokes who are out there teaching deep air and other stupidity -pretty work, "doc". I have never seen any of your UHMS presentations ( I doubt , based on the stupidity of your post , that there are any), so maybe you should read mine and learn something. Again, your initial post to techdiver is a mindless personal attack, and a testimonial to what is wrong in diving , "Doc". You second post proves it. Keep it up , and keep proving me right. By the way, your rocketmail story is baloney - you are another frank white phony, or else you are like those guys working in the Seven Elevens who say " In my country, I was doctor". Here, you are a stroke. Leon Elders wrote: > > George, > > The profane crap on this forum passing though my work mail server is > the reason I have been forced to use a free mail service. > > There is a big difference in alveoli damage in frequent users of high > ppO2 users. Autopsy data on non-smoking commercial divers is rather > disturbing. The real problem occurs in repeative day exposures and my > personal experience is there is a world of difference between 1.2 and > 1.5 or 1.6. I have heard many complaints of "finger tip neuritis" > which almost never occur below 1.2, even after daily 4 or 5 hour > exposures. > > George, my real objection to your posts is your self-centered view > that all dive operations should be run the way yours is run. I have no > doubt that you have fine tune it to a fairly safe operation. However > your operational specifics may be a poor choice for other types of > diving and I'm sure ocean wreck diving is one. As I said you are > myopic and a lot of poor newbies take your word for gospel. > > For most operations I have no doubt the 80% is much safer. > Stand up in font of the UHMS and ask which is safer. > You are a safety freak, aren't you? > > Leon > > ---"G. Irvine" <gmirvine@sa*.ne*> wrote: > > > > Leon, a "doctor" with a free email account, and a personal attack for > > his opening post to techdiver? Why don't you set us all straight, and > > tell us about the actual diving that was done to back up what you are > > saying ( which is nothing). I have presented to the UHMS on this > > subject, and I did not see anyone complaining. You are FOS, pal, and > an > > obvious phony. Maybe Frank Winter? Is there something here that is > > striking a point of sensitivity with you , "Doc"? > > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
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]