Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --MS_Mac_OE_3050666153_5122086_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Guy, you are a pompous ass who talks in circles just like your buddy Kurt Russell. As I said to Kurt, you make my point in ways I never could. Why don't you take your "stimulating discussion," roll it up and shove it up your ass. It is pointless talking to a fucking wall. And yes, I do curse and enjoy cursing. If you don't like it, filter me out, please. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/ From: Guy Morin <xnet@vi*.ca*> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 13:36:06 -0400 To: Jim Cobb <cobber@ci*.co*> Cc: Tech Diver <techdiver@aquanaut.com> Subject: Re: 80/20 deco Hi Jim, Sorry to see you are giving way to the temptation of foul language, too bad. Congratulations on keeping with it though. > So, this model you love so much, what makes you think it is accurate? After checking the posts, I don't think I said that. > Certainly the track record of this model sucks, or we would not have > well-used chambers wherever there's water. You are suggesting some other holy grail? It's hard to see any point to this statement Jim, please be clear. > And do you really think that the WKPP fellows would operate on a flawed > model, doing hundreds of dives a year? You are insane if you believe that. What I think about the WKPP doesn't matter here Jim. It is just as insane to propose that divers do what the WKPP does without knowing what they practice, and why. It really looks like you're making my point for me here, so thank you. > And "You are basically saying that it is ok to blow between 25% and 33% of > your deco, according to what the algorithm specifies" what are you talking > about here? I have no idea. Gee, I'm sorry to hear that your memory, and/or reading skills have deteriorated to this point, do you think it might be the result of those profiles you are promoting? Actually, this might be some of the legendary denial exhibited by many WKPP promoters. It looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it can't be a duck. Duck, what duck, did you say duck? > The gradient model requires that you start your deco earlier, it does not > get you out of the water earlier on typical wreck bounce dives. What is the point? > As I said before, I nor anybody else cares how you care to torment your > body, so don't get your panties in a wad. What? > All I know is that I get out of the water feeling better and ready for the > next dive using gradient deco and 50-100 with air breaks. Since I have > limited my bottom PP02 to 1.1 to 1.2 my lungs don't feel burnt during and > after the dive. I admit to being 43 years old and not very kind to my lungs > over the years, perhaps you young studs can rack up the damage and not feel > it. Glad to hear you are enjoying yourself, really. > You assholes need to try this shit out before you poo-poo it. I have tried > both and made my decision. You need to take the buckets off of your heads, > you bunch of hypocrites. Notwithstanding the fact that most would agree that the poo-poo'ing was initiated by the 50/100 camp, this all relates to the statement that the algorithms proved that 50/100 was better. Are we complaining about the outcome of the point that you folks put out there? Finally Jim, I never said that either was better, I merely pointed out the flawed modeling, the obvious logistical advantages of one over the other. I too hope for better modeling, as do we all, I assume. Ideally maybe some of these elements can be incorporated into the models to make them better. It seems to be a fact that Buhlman doesn't account for the physical reality, and a lot of bright people are digging in to find better ways. The models will get perfected, and who knows where, or how the breakthroughs will come. It is incumbent upon us to analyze every aspect of what we do to help these models along. These stimulating discussions, for better or for worse, are part of that process. By the way, modeling is about detail, and a level of detail that is mind boggling. We are talking about details here, and it matters. The reality is also that it will be hard to discern what works from what doesn't because we always make statistical observations that are complex functions of many factors that have nothing to do with diving. -- Guy --MS_Mac_OE_3050666153_5122086_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: 80/20 deco</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Guy, you are a pompous ass who talks in circles just like your buddy Kurt R= ussell. As I said to Kurt, you make my point in ways I never could.<BR> <BR> Why don't you take your "stimulating discussion," roll it up and = shove it up your ass. It is pointless talking to a fucking wall. <BR> <BR> And yes, I do curse and enjoy cursing. If you don't like it, filter me out,= please.<BR> <BR> -------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> Learn About Trimix at http://www.cisatlantic.com/trimix/<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <B>From: </B>Guy Morin <xnet@vi*.ca*><BR> <B>Date: </B>Fri, 01 Sep 2000 13:36:06 -0400<BR> <B>To: </B>Jim Cobb <cobber@ci*.co*><BR> <B>Cc: </B>Tech Diver <techdiver@aquanaut.com><BR> <B>Subject: </B>Re: 80/20 deco<BR> <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Hi Jim, Sorry to see you are giving way to the temptation of fo= ul language, too bad. Congratulations on keeping with it though. > So, th= is model you love so much, what makes you think it is accurate? After checki= ng the posts, I don't think I said that. > Certainly the track record of = this model sucks, or we would not have<BR> > well-used chambers wherever there's water. You are suggesting some oth= er holy grail? It's hard to see any point to this statement Jim, please be c= lear. > And do you really think that the WKPP fellows would operate on a = flawed<BR> > model, doing hundreds of dives a year? You are insane if you believe t= hat. What I think about the WKPP doesn't matter here Jim. It is just as insa= ne to propose that divers do what the WKPP does without knowing what they pr= actice, and why. It really looks like you're making my point for me here, so= thank you. > And "You are basically saying that it is ok to blow be= tween 25% and 33% of<BR> > your deco, according to what the algorithm specifies" what are yo= u talking<BR> > about here? I have no idea. Gee, I'm sorry to hear that your memory, a= nd/or reading skills have deteriorated to this point, do you think it might = be the result of those profiles you are promoting? Actually, this might be s= ome of the legendary denial exhibited by many WKPP promoters. It looks like = a duck, sounds like a duck, it can't be a duck. Duck, what duck, did you say= duck? > The gradient model requires that you start your deco earlier, it= does not<BR> > get you out of the water earlier on typical wreck bounce dives. What i= s the point?<BR> <BR> > As I said before, I nor anybody else cares how you care to torment you= r<BR> > body, so don't get your panties in a wad. What?<BR> <BR> > All I know is that I get out of the water feeling better and ready for= the<BR> > next dive using gradient deco and 50-100 with air breaks. Since I have= <BR> > limited my bottom PP02 to 1.1 to 1.2 my lungs don't feel burnt during = and<BR> > after the dive. I admit to being 43 years old and not very kind to my = lungs<BR> > over the years, perhaps you young studs can rack up the damage and not= feel<BR> > it. Glad to hear you are enjoying yourself, really. > You assholes = need to try this shit out before you poo-poo it. I have tried<BR> > both and made my decision. You need to take the buckets off of your he= ads,<BR> > you bunch of hypocrites. Notwithstanding the fact that most would agre= e that the poo-poo'ing was initiated by the 50/100 camp, this all relates to= the statement that the algorithms proved that 50/100 was better. Are we com= plaining about the outcome of the point that you folks put out there? Finall= y Jim, I never said that either was better, I merely pointed out the flawed = modeling, the obvious logistical advantages of one over the other. I too hop= e for better modeling, as do we all, I assume. Ideally maybe some of these e= lements can be incorporated into the models to make them better. It seems to= be a fact that Buhlman doesn't account for the physical reality, and a lot = of bright people are digging in to find better ways. The models will get per= fected, and who knows where, or how the breakthroughs will come. It is incum= bent upon us to analyze every aspect of what we do to help these models alon= g. These stimulating discussions, for better or for worse, are part of that = process. By the way, modeling is about detail, and a level of detail that is= mind boggling. We are talking about details here, and it matters. The reali= ty is also that it will be hard to discern what works from what doesn't beca= use we always make statistical observations that are complex functions of ma= ny factors that have nothing to do with diving. -- <BR> Guy <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> </BODY> </HTML> --MS_Mac_OE_3050666153_5122086_MIME_Part-- -- 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]