Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Message Display

Christna Young wrote:

> Personally, I do not think that this argument has anything to do
> with "technical diving".  I had thought that this forum would be
> about "the science, technology, and procedures of diving beyond the
> normal range of recreational scuba", but maybe I was wrong.

And I think you're wrong about this argument. It seems to me that you
are trying to limit the scope of this group to your personal taste.
IMHO technical diving goes beyond just the mechanics. It is a means to
an end and I would also like to see discussion on what is enabled and
why it was necessary.

One of the reasons I dive beyond recreational limits is to find wrecks
that have not been gutted by divers like yourself. You are diving
beyond those same limits and turning wrecks into the things that I am
seeking to avoid. So people like you are effectively driving people
like me to this style of diving. This is part of my "why it was
necessary" and it has nothing to do with rec.scuba.

You probably think that your diving doesn't really impact other
divers. I am saying that it does, that it is important that you are
made aware of it and that it has an impact on why some people get
involved in this "technical" diving. The fact that it is difficult to
find the wrecks I want to dive within recreational range means that,
among other things, I have to buy extra equipment, pay for more
training and take part in more expensive diving expeditions.

> I think that we should move the philosophical debate to rec.scuba.
> I do monitor it, under the net name "Christi873@ao*.co*" - I
> don't like to do it at work.

So you think because you monitor rec.scuba that I should do so as
well? Perhaps rec.scuba would not take kindly to a discussion on
whether divers should gut wrecks beyond recrational limits the same
way they have done within those limits.

Cave divers are asked not to damage the inside of caves. There would
be an outcry here if I boasted about the fabulous rock formations that
I'd recovered from a cave. I could use many of the same arguments as
you have to justify taking them, but I'd bet no-one would suggest that
such a discussion be removed from here. So why is it that we cannot
have the same discussion on wrecks?

IMO taking artifacts from wrecks should be like taking samples from
caves. If you need to recover pieces to identify a wreck - fine. If
you think you should recover pieces because you think they will be
lost to everyone if you don't - fine. But I think you should be as
careful as possible doing so, not only to protect the artifact, but
also to protect the wreck. I absolutely disagree with removing pieces
as trophies. The problem here is being honest with yourself. Are you
really taking it because it is in the public interest, or do you just
want to have it (even if you do make it available for a few displays)?

I also don't think this is really relevant to rec.scuba because most
of the wrecks that rec.scuba people could have dived have probably
long since been stripped. The question is, are you going to do the
same thing to the wrecks being dived by the people here?

> > Is it true that Christina is an ichthyoligist in her day job?
> 
> Not even close - I'm a wandering epistemologist.

Now that is funny.

Alan
alan@mi*.de*.co*.uk*

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]