Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
In a message dated 11/05/1999 2:05:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbloedorn@ya*.co* writes: << Hank, Stop tip toeing around the subject. What exactly are you trying to say? I thought Sean was pretty clear that for any given mission it is best to use the safest method possible. That's how I interpret the post. of course you do! What type are mission are you referring too? If you have some other point to make then make it. What type of mission are you talking about? What configuration are you talking about? i was not talking of any mission - i'll say it again re read sean post , i think you will see he was the one refering to a "mission". one that he deemed worth taking more of a risk than usual in diving. > you find yourself in a place that does not allow for > "normal" diver > configuration (i.e.. DIR). so you elect at that Where is it that you believe DIR is not appropriate other than perhaps the specific mission mentioned by Sean? did i say that? i think you are the one trying to put words in my mouth -sorry but i was quetioning something entirely different. i'll let you re read things & see if you can figure it out. > configuration (i.e.. DIR). so you elect at that > point to change from the > "standard gear" to (by your definition) a riskier > configutation. your Why would you possible choose a riskier gear configuration? hey matt you are almost there except you are asking me the same question i asked sean. i also went one step further since not only does sean make that choice he also tells others who make similar choices (but with different conclusions) that there choice is not the correct choice. Mat. --- GarlooEnt@ao*.co* wrote: > sean > i can appreciate your thoughts on this; however > think carefully about what > you are saying. > first you are diving in an environment that in & of > itself is dangerous > (i.e., overhead) > you find yourself in a place that does not allow for > "normal" diver > configuration (i.e.. DIR). so you elect at that > point to change from the > "standard gear" to (by your definition) a riskier > configutation. your > justification for this is that you weigh the risk & > chose to dive this way, > based on the task that is before you (i.e., to drag > yourself deeper than > anyone else into a spot no one has been before for > whatever reason you can > use to convince yourself that it is important enough > to do). > *****please don't misunderstand me- > i happen to agree with > your philosophy on this. i am not putting you down > for what you do. i am > merely questioning your attempts to stop others from > having the same thoughts > on doing what they do***** > again i am not trying to say that side mounts are > bad or the ID"s are good. i > am only pointing out that you are the one making the > assumption that you risk > taking is better or wiser than someone else's risk > taking. > hank > In a message dated 11/04/1999 4:05:31 PM Eastern > Standard Time, > ststev@un*.co* writes: > > << Hank, that particular statement was made with the > important implication > that sidemount diving be employed ONLY when > necessary, such as when > back mounted cylinders do not fit into the cave > passage. You quote my > comment out of context. The risks that I will > accept are limited by > the fact that I will use ONLY the safest possible > configuration for the > given environment (short of calling the dive). > When tanks fit on the > back, this means an isolation manifold. To incur a > risk that is > entirely unnecessary is what I cannot accept. > > -Sean >> > -- >> -- 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]