Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Kurt- Lets face it, your hatred of anything and everything DIR has made you irrational. I have to admit this thread an improvement over the usual TDI zealotry in that you have actually picked your battle and plotted a course. The norm for your type is an incomprehensible, invective filled post which offers nothing to no one. I still cannot understand your insistence that saving 5 minutes of deco overrides anything and everything I can come up with. This crap you came up with below leaves me speechless with amazement. I used to be a stroke like you. The only difference between me and you is that instead of digging a trench and bull-headedly taking on all comers I tried the DIR stuff piece by piece. I didn't want to loose my ass on all that dive gear but if you try something and it works, I'm no fool, I'm gonna switch. You anti-DIR zealots are consistent I must say. You steadfastly stick to your ancient backward ways, defending them to the death without even giving DIR precepts a try. Why, I don't know. The only thing I can figure is that you are afraid of being razzed or even rejected by your dumbass stroke friends. Well, Kurt, fuck those assholes. You seem to be a semi-intelligent person (at least you can type), why not give a DIR config a try? Then you can say you tried wings, 50& 100, etc. and then come back and list exactly why you felt you had to put your bondage wings back on. From reading your post I have to say that not much tech diving is done out of Austin Texas, your appalling lack of experience is quite obvious. Some of the statements you have outlined below no doubt has the techdivers on this list rolling on the floor with laughter. The effect on me is to ask why don't you move to the coast and do a few more dives before sticking your foot in your mouth in such a predictable and boringly repetitive fashion. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/ > From: KRussellTX@ao*.co* > Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:56:48 EDT > To: Cobber@ci*.co*, techdiver@aquanaut.com > Subject: Re: 80/20 deco > > Jim, > > I have to admit that I am really looking forward to writing this reply. Your > lack of intelligence and logic is so painfully obvious that it will be fun to > expose it for all to see. And your personality as an unethical individual is > also going to be exposed, so get ready. > > On your comments to #1 & #2, you use the phrase << ... It would require some > real muscle-brained chowderheads in leadership position supported by hordes > of like-minded individuals following zombie-like because they are incapable > of thinking for themselves. >> > > Out of the mouths of babes .... This is the best description of DIR clones > like yourself that I have heard in quite a while. Only I think the > individuals in the DIR leadership roles are actually quite competent. > However referring to the zombies, describes you perfectly. And from your > lack of any logical argument, I guess you must agree that these points say > nothing about why you should not use EAN80 for a deco gas. > > On your really brilliant comment on #3, I guess you never considered the > possibility that all of the divers on a given trip might elect to use EAN36 > and EAN80. Now tell me again of the problems with this choice. > > On your truly insightful comments on #4, am I to interpret you as proposing > that doing a longer required in-water deco is going to help you in making > repetitive dives? Gee, and I thought that surface interval time was helpful. > And I noticed that here again, as is your custom when faced with a logical > argument, you have completely ignored my question of << When was the last > time you carried enough gas and did a dive requiring a deco of more than two > hours? No hogwash about scooters, habitats and bunches of support divers, > just you and a buddy or two swimming in the ocean. >> Am I to assume that you > have NEVER made this kind of a dive? And I'd really like to hear more about > your << 4 back-to-back tech dives >> We must be talking about really serious > dives here. Why don't you tell us more about them? > > On your comments to #5, I'm afraid your logic is non existent. If, as you > say, << ... it's the removal of NITROGEN from the picture is the goal. Kurt, > it's NITROGEN that gets you bent ... >> then please explain to me carefully > why you think that at the 30, 20, & 10 foot stops, a PN2 of 0.95 ATA (from > the EAN50 you'd be using), 0 ATA and 0 ATA is so tremendously better than > 0.38 ATA, 0.32 ATA and 0.26 ATA. I'm willing to bet that you don't have the > foggiest idea of the difference and are simply playing your DIR zombie role > and parroting the DIR bible. And remember now, according to the DIR bible, > you're not allowed to criticize the Decoplanner program which says that the > latter is actually more effective. And I don't hear any comments at all on > << the secret DIR method to deco on a PO2 of 1.91 >>. > > On your comment to #6, this is really insightful and likely to persuade me to > avoid the use of EAN80 for deco. > > On your comments on #7, I need to get this straight. You do not mention > partial pressure blending at all, from which am I to infer that you agree > that the main thrust of #8 is hogwash? And then when considering the > afterthought contained in #8, you say that swimming with two Al 80 cylinders > on one side and none on the other, is the way to go. I think that maybe > you've come up while breathing the wrong tank once too often. > > On your comments on #8, I also don't know why you bother. You have added no > insight to this clear error in the Baker's dozen. I concentrate on the > Decoplanner program because in the past, if anyone dared to challenge the DIR > deco gas selection using a deco program in their analysis, they would be > instantly flamed for using a program that was obviously flawed. In DIR > parlance, "flawed" meant anything that didn't agree with DIR. But according > to your own DIR bible, you can't say this about Decoplanner. Nice "Catch > 22," huh? By the way, I think Decoplanner is a really good program, and in > my opinion definitely one of the best available today. > > On your comments on #9, I think your argument is precious. I show you a way > wherein by using EAN36 and EAN80 you need less total deco gas to do a dive > and can possibly use a smaller deco tank to actually carry more gas as a > safety factor, and you say, in effect, "I don't need no more stinkin' gas." > You do understand the concept of using a smaller tank pumped to 2800 psi to > carry more gas than a somewhat larger tank pumped to 2100 psi to carry less > gas? You do, don't you? Or is this concept just a little too advanced for > your arithmetic equivalency level. > > On your comments on #10, I think your true intelligence level, read the lack > of any branching in your family tree, is beginning to show. The sounds > emanating from your direction are giving you away. When the total overall > deco time is less, it's kind of difficult to support, as #10 states, that the > shorter 20 and 10 ft. stops more than compensate for the longer 30 ft. stop. > I'm sorry, but arithmetic, even at your elementary school level, doesn't bend > to the DIR bible. > > I need to say that your comments on #11 have really contributed a whole lot > of technical expertise to the discussion. As is your usual "modus operandi," > you have ignored completely the logic of the situation and attempted to > change the subject. Perhaps you might try your logic on the Thursday > afternoon sewing group, be please, don't insult anyone who is interested in > learning about technical diving. See the discussion of #5 above to answer > your question. > > On your comments on #12, I'm so glad that you know that << ... real divers > just take along a couple of K cylinders of O2 and attach a hooka rig ... >>. > I've got news for you, but not all diving is done from boats equipped to > carry "a couple of K cylinders." And having the gas mixed and analyzed for > all of the deco for all of the dives before the boat leaves the dock, is > often a much simpler and safer way to go. But of course being so far up in > the hierarchy of technical diving, you wouldn't understand these little > details of dive planning. By the way, doesn't DIR have something to say > about bastardizing your diving configuration to accommodate factors other > than the dive. If The group is using EAN36 and EAN80 for deco, why on earth > would they want a Hooka rig anyway? All you seem to be able to do is to keep > parroting the DIR mantra over and over and over and over ... EAN50 > ___O2___EAN50___O2___EAN50___O2 ... Why don't you wake up and realize that > deco gas is deco gas and safety gas is safety gas? Both need to be > considered. > > Once again, your comments on #13 are really likely to persuade me not to use > EAN36 and EAN80 for deco. Oh, I just can't stand being called a stroke by > the DIR Team (that's DIRT to you, Jim). Oh, please, please, don't call me > that. > > Now that we have dispatched with your "analysis" of the Baker's Dozen and > established that aside from some interesting reading it really has no > significant bearing on technical diving, lets get back to some other > interesting topics. In my last posting to you I said > > << In your first posting to me on this subject you claimed << fact is that > getting out of the water in the least amount of time should not be the > primary objective. >> I answered with << Decoplanner showing your needing > less deco means that everything is in the right direction. The nitrogen is > gone quicker from your body and with no oxygen toxicity worries, so [when > talking about deco - KR] what else is there that's "the primary objective." >>> . As I said previously, your "modus operandi" when faced with a logical > argument, is to ignore the logic and attack your opponent. And you have > definitely measured up true to form in your second posting to me. >> > > And now I ask you again, just exactly what is the "primary objective" that > you're talking about? Everyone on the list can easily see that you've kept > true once again to your tried and true procedure of ignoring the logic of the > argument and attacking the writer of the posting. But it isn't going to work > this time. Answer the question or admit that you were just spouting off at > the mouth (... or keyboard) when you answered my first posting. Blowhards > like you need to be taken down a notch. > > And now for the "Coup de resistance" Mr. Cobb, I accuse you publicly of > changing one of my emails and then using the changed copy in a posting of > your own to this list, I imagine to make some point that you couldn't make > otherwise. Email is a wonderful thing and records are kept of past messages > to prove my assertion. I'm not sure whether that makes you a public liar, or > a counterfeiter, or what. But it certainly makes you an unethical individual > whose every statement needs to be questioned and independently verified. > > And also, by the way, my name is still Karl, not Kurt. I guess that you need > even further remedial reading lessons in helping to sound out the word. I > understand that it may be difficult for you so I'll try to help you out. > Think of it this way, Kurt Russell = Actor, Karl Russell = Diver. Now is > that too complicated for your limited intelligence level? > > Kurt > > -- 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]