Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
>> over half a dozen 6 packs with your fat friends. You don't have the "right" >> to ruin our chances to dive where we want to dive. > >That's right, stop messing up Dan's diving plans. He has a right to >dive where he wants, but you don't. That's right. I trained for it, they didn't. I'm going to be relatively safe on a 250 foot dive. The 300 pound slob with no cardio training, will be at an enormous risk----if you can't see the difference here---if you can't make this distinction, then I can't see spending any more time trying to explain this to you. We don't live in a vacuum. Anything that happens to 300 pound fat lazy tech divers, will ABSOLUTELY reflect back on us, as tech divers who have trained long and hard to be able to enjoy the adventure. > >> Even if you are an obese slob, someone out there is family to you, and its >> wrong for you to inflict emotional injury on them, with your untimely >> demise. Some may even be counting on you for their future, and your >> irresponsible entrance into a sport you are unfit for, that will place you >> at exponentially more risk than it will a highly fit diver, is just plain >> wrong. Do you have "the right" to destroy your family???Do you have the >> "right" to make your wife a widow and your kids fatherless??? Stop being so >> damn self absorbed > >So we cannot participate in any "risk" activity because we "owe" it to >everyone ELSE not to have anything happen to us that might upset them? Sure you can take risks. But there are "risks", and there is absolute stupidity. You owe it to your family NOT to do things that are ABSOLUTELY STUPID AND SUICIDAL. This includes the 300 pound diver who is 5 foot, 8 inches tall, and all fat with no cardio----he would be ABSOLUTELY STUPID AND SUICIDAL, if he attempted to go on a 300 foot deep dive for 20 minutes---the very same profile Guys like George Irvine and Bill Mee have done a hundred times without ANY incidents. The RISK is entirely different. The social implications of the activcity are entirely different for the two classes of divers. And they are SEPARATE CLASSES. THEY ARE NOT EQUAL. This has nothing to do with their value as a person--which of course, would be equal. > >who is being self absorbed? I guess I'd rather respect my family >members by letting them choose to live their life and do the things they >want to do, rather than asking them to chain themselves to no-risk >activites just so I won't have to deal with unpleasantness in my life. > Clearly you do not understand differences in ability levels between people, with their attendent safety differences. Kids should be allowed to snow ski and white water kayak---but they should not be allowed to ski down Mount Everst, and they should not be allowed to try to kayak down the Niagra Gorge in the class 7, 30 foot standing waves. While I don't know anyone who could safely ski Everst ( i.e, anyone doing it with normal skiing equipment would be absolutely stupid) , I do know world class kayakers who are fairly safe kayaking the Niagra Gorge ( this is a stretch of white water right after Niagra Falls----the most intense white water I have ever seen, it makes the Colorado River running look like playing in a baby pool). The point here is that for most people, they should not be allowed to kayak the Niagra Gorge, but if they can demonstrate sufficient skill, then they should be allowed to pay a bond ( which would cover their evac in case they expire in their attempt), and take their reasonably good chance that they will survive the rapids. In tech diving, the issue is further complicated by dangers encounterd by anyone attempting a rescue of someone who did not belong there in the first place. And this is just one more reason that a huge fat slob should NOT be allowed to deep dive, until he trains and diets off his liability...and then demonstrates good tech diving aptitude and skills, and successfully passes the class. . > > >So you must be single Dan, with no family, how else can you justify your >dives to the ledges at 200' that you talk about so often? Lotta people >out there who would classify a 200' dive as high on the "risky" scale. >WHY ARE YOU FREE FROM BEING RESTRICTED BY THEIR JUDGEMENT, BUT FEEL >FREE TO TRY TO IMPOSE YOURS ON OTHERS ? I'm as safe on a 200 foot dive, as the average recreational diver at 80 feet. I can say this from the sheer number of deep dives I have done, and the ease with which I do them, and the lengths I go to in training for them. My risk is not the same as some huge fat slob's. > >This isn't about whether activities are risky or not, or if certain >people should do them or not, its about you thinking its ok to impose >your judgement upon them and trying to defend that stance. Mike, your dead wrong. And if people listen to you, some will die. If they listen to me, fewer will die. And again, you're being melodramatic, since I never said "I" would set the rules. I offered several ideas to be considered by "many" in the tech circles, with the idea being, to create a consensus which may help agencies to improve the safety of the current certifications. And I've also said repeatedly that the fat guys can get certified through a lax agency--perhaps TDI, so there will be nothing to really stop them. I just would like a different set of statistics, to be generated by the two entirely different populations of divers, with two entirely different risk factors. Dan > >Mike >-- >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. >Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.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]