Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Mike, I realize that it's hard for you to type with one hand while the other is holding your drool cup, so I appreciate your efforts in keeping this thread alive beyond my wildest imaginings. It is apparent that you don't understand the concept of failure points so I won't go into that anymore. I also gather that you don't understand the benefits of simplicity when you are in a stressful situation, so I will skip that too. I'm afraid that I will have to drop back to Al's more successful technique of turning the tables and asking YOU to prove that OMS wings are NOT dangerous inspite of their showing up on an alarming number of dead divers lately. I also require you to prove that the dual-bladder in one bag concept has saved any lives. I don't want any 3rd person accounts, I want factual proof that OMS bondage wings actually serve a purpose beyond a very successful marketing technique. Al and I are still waiting for someone to take up the challenge. Jim On 7/16/98 8:15 AM Mike Zimmerman wrote: >No Jim, I have simple DR wings. Stop torturing yourself over my motives, >they >are simple. I am sick of pattern of slamming everything and providing NO >good FACTS to back it up. > >You should be happy, I am giving you the perfect chance to calmly, >rationally, FACTUALLY explain why the second bladder in the OMS >wings is bad. You have the opportunity to do this without innuendo >or name-calling. If someone had done this only once, this thread would >not exist. > >Not the bungees, the subject right now is just the back-up bladder. > >I'm not arguing FOR the wings... I am arguing AGAINST slamming them without >adequately justifying it. No one learns anything that way, except that >certain people really really don't like something about product XYZ. > >The hyperbole has crossed the line on this list, its time we got back >to discussing the real merits/demerits of things, not just slamming >them b/c its fun and makes us feel good. > >I only see 2 logical conclusions to this..... > >1 - the OMS back-up bladder is equally dangerous BUT equally beneficial >as a back-up buoyancy device when compared to a drysuit. > >2 - the OMS back-up bladder provides more failure points than a drysuit. >Enough to overcome the additional task loading of a drysuit which would >couple an inflation loss to thermal protection loss as well. > >While I'd love to jump in with the lynch-mob, I can't find anything which >lets >me move from position #1 to position #2. But I'm waiting and listening. > >Just the facts mam. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you haven't proven >(to me and many others) that you are right. > >Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn About Trimix At http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/trimix.html -- 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]