Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
> Actually, that's one of the things I find most comforting about GUE, > George, WKPP, and the Doing It Right concept. First I must say that the DiR system is very good. I have a lot of respect for it, and if you ever see me dive, you'll probably be puzzled (as you seem to be) at the positions I take. You have to understand exactly what positions I am taking though... When you seem to find a contradiction, check your assumptions... > Why does it change? In response to new information. I do have a beef that it seems that only "they" ever come up with ideas... given, they have probably explored most options, but anything "different" aften seems to be dismised out of hand as "wrong", not simply "differnet". that impressions bothers me. > It strikes me that you appear to be taking a position that is exactly 180 > degrees away from that of logic. Not really Jammer, I have simply been insisting that the double-wings be PROVEN bad by LOGIC, not by simply attaching labels and by unfounded speculation that every death with a diver in those wings must be attributable to them even when proof is totally lacking. I am insisting that the gear discussions be "done right". That they be based on facts, not impressions over-blown with invective which has often been the case. > configuration was chosen, and why it works. I haven't questioned them, > and don't claim to know what the reasons are Then Jammer you are being no better than a lemming. If you don't question, if you don't ask, if you don't challenge until you understand, then you are no better off than one of these students that does trust-me dives. Granted your odds are MUCH better doing trust-me's with WKPP, but still (as Dan can attest :-) ) I don't believe in doing something, and certainly not insisting others do it until I understand it myself. > Can the same be said for bondage wings? Growl, pay attention guy, I started that whole thing saying take the bloody bungees off, just arguing the merits of a 2nd bladder.... > off base, that they provide redundant bouyancy, is that all they do? How > do they fit into your system? Why are they chosen instead of Zeagles? Why > bondage wings instead of jacket BCs? What changes in a bondage wing when > you go from doubles to singles? Again remember I am doing this as devil's advocate pushing until they can conclusively prove their claims about the wings. No bondage, or are you being slow like Al everytime I tell him we aren't talking about that :-) > Why carry a backup system for a problem that can be prevented? Maybe it can, maybe it can't. The original point was to debate if the OMS wings were the horrific thing people claimed. I focused on what I figured was the most positive of their unique features, figured ok, maybe they can shoot that down, maybe not, but lets see some logic in there. I agree if you can dive without need for backup buoyancy that would be best. Assume you do need it though, what are your options. Would OMS wings (without the bungees) be a workable options. Why, why not? > Your efforts here, while commendable in spirit, strike me as 15 to 20 > years late. No, don't look at them as challenging the gear system, look at them as challenging the debate/on-line system. These guys are cyber diving with the equivalent of the milk jug BC's from the 60's/70's. They argue with a club, not reason. If they want people to really learn I am challenging to teach, not to get comformity through intimidation. I don't think it's too late for that at all. > I, for one, would be interested in the Baker's dozen reasons of why we > don't use bondage wings, although I can think of reasons one through four > all by myself. No bungees... find me a baker's dozen for the 2nd bladder. > Yes, a fourth. Your wings, your drysuit, and your fins, in that order. A > weightbelt makes it four. Dive in a wetsuit, and you still have two, > three if you have a drysuit. you are making assumptions that that gear config meets everyone;s needs. nix the drysuit, and nix the weightbelt. > 2. The second set of wings never serves any purpose except in an > emergency. um, gee, that's when you'd want them. Or their equivalent in some other form. > 3. A single set of wings cost less than a double set of wings. Invalid according to Al. He says $ is not an issue and that we should all dive dry, even in warm water. > 4. Improper installation of the bungees prevent the full inflation of the > wings. Lest I repeat again, no bungees. not an issue. > I leave it to the real tech divers here to flesh out our dozen, I'm sure > that the reasons are there. although for the isolated issue of just the 2nd bladder I think I can nix 2-3 of those reasons, I am not saying you cannot come up with replacements. I am just trying to insist that they resemble 1-4, stand up to scrutiny, and are not like 5 & 6:-) If great to "do it right" with our gear. It'd be nice if we could "do it right" with the on-line discussions of our gear as well. I for one would learn a hell of a lot more, and I suspect others would as well. regards, Mike -- 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]