Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
--Boundary_(ID_WHd4cGQJWSMl81F6BoT3Hg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Bill, Please see comments in-line. > Guy - > > I hate to break it to you, but no one is here to spoon feed you deco theory > that you're too lazy to learn on your own. > That isn't what I'm asking for, and that awfully presumptuous of you. Thanks for the bad news, if only I cared. > You want citations? Go read > Bennett and Elliott's The Physiology and Medicine of Diving. Then email > Peter Bennett and tell him that he's wrong and there's no such thing as an > oxygen window. Why don't you go credential to credential and citation to > citation with him? In fact, why don't you post the citations that support > your theories, Guy? Or list all the articles on deco theory you've written > in peer reviewed journals that explain the myth of the oxygen window or the > benefits of 80/20? So far, I don't think there has been a Nobel prize issued for decompression models. Likewise, for most of the decompression models out there, I don't think one can get a math degree for a single one of them. In fact, exponential rise and fall functions are used every day, and it doesn't take much effort to build the usual crop of decompression software. This is not to discredit the enormous amount of work in the field, but rather, to point out that mainstream models haven't come that far. This is partly because of the enormous effort in validating the models. Anything the WKPP pretends to have is obviously just as flawed as what is out there. It is sad to see people like you, Bill, who go on and on how your methods are superior, that you know what you're doing, and so on. When someone actually bothers to scrutinize what you are doing, your first reflex is to berate, discredit, and diminish. Do you, or the WKPP, have an algorithm that can actually demonstrate the clear advantage of 50/100 decompression? I'll bet that the answer is: "No". Why do I know that for a fact? Because if you did have such an animal, there is little doubt in my mind that you would take great pleasure in putting my nose in it. In fact, you don't have it, and you're tying to put my nose in it, that just makes you a charlatan. Finally, it is even sadder still to see you folks promote practices that could be dangerous to people out there. Listen to what we are saying, don't question, in fact don't even dare question. Just shut up and do what we say is good. Maybe there are people out there who don't care for their lives and will take what you give them at face value, but so far, the WKPP techniques are either private, or proprietary, or even mystical. > > > Even Tom Mount honestly acknowledges that 80/20 is a suboptimal compromise > as far as deco gas selection is concerned and it was adopted primarily > because 1) it was easier to fill tanks and 2)IANTD was concerned about the > bouyancy problems of its students on pure 02 at 20 feet. Check the archives, > you'll find it there. > That's pretty weak, and I read the Tom Mount post. Sub optimal from what point of view? Obviously you're reading something in that post that isn't there. He simply pointed out the merits of either option. > > > You're just another guy who wants to come onto the list and argue about > something you don't understand. Hahahahahahahaha! You're funny Bill, and arrogant. > You've automatically assumed I'm with the > WKPP just because I think you're idiot. I didn't realize I thought you were part of the WKPP because you think I'm an idiot. Bill, this is funny, you must also be suffering from nerve damage. > In fact, you are an idiot, but I > have nothing to do with the WKPP. I can assure you, however, that they > think you're an idiot too. The problem, Guy, is that you are a moron, or is > that Morin? Either way, I've washed my hands of you because you're now > added to the twit list with Michael Black, the other know-it-all. There is something that interests me in that last sequence; and that's the reference to "moron", did you come up with that all by yourself? For all your "material", you've clearly not addressed the initial premise validated by your very own species. You're not even able to account for the oversight in decompression modeling as far as switching to back gas from O2. Everyone here realizes that any scrutiny of WKPP receives very poor reception here, and this is just further evidence of that. I forgot, it's the oxygen window, that's it. The "oxygen window" still isn't part of any algorithm in existence, it's yet another fudge factor, yet another legend that isn't part of anything remotely accessible. You refer to it, but in no material way do you correlate that to getting off pure O2 decompression, exactly like other people who promote the ways of the WKPP. As far as decompression theory, it isn't my career, and I don't pretend to be an expert. Finally, thank you for filtering my messages, you obviously have issues. Guy --Boundary_(ID_WHd4cGQJWSMl81F6BoT3Hg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Hi Bill, <p>Please see comments in-line. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Guy - <p>I hate to break it to you, but no one is here to spoon feed you deco theory <br>that you're too lazy to learn on your own. <br> </blockquote> That isn't what I'm asking for, and that awfully presumptuous of you. <br>Thanks for the bad news, if only I cared. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>You want citations? Go read <br>Bennett and Elliott's The Physiology and Medicine of Diving. Then email <br>Peter Bennett and tell him that he's wrong and there's no such thing as an <br>oxygen window. Why don't you go credential to credential and citation to <br>citation with him? In fact, why don't you post the citations that support <br>your theories, Guy? Or list all the articles on deco theory you've written <br>in peer reviewed journals that explain the myth of the oxygen window or the <br>benefits of 80/20?</blockquote> <p><br>So far, I don't think there has been a Nobel prize issued for decompression <br>models. Likewise, for most of the decompression models out there, I don't <br>think one can get a math degree for a single one of them. In fact, exponential <br>rise and fall functions are used every day, and it doesn't take much effort to <br>build the usual crop of decompression software. This is not to discredit the <br>enormous amount of work in the field, but rather, to point out that mainstream <br>models haven't come that far. This is partly because of the enormous effort <br>in validating the models. Anything the WKPP pretends to have is obviously <br>just as flawed as what is out there. <p>It is sad to see people like you, Bill, who go on and on how your methods <br>are superior, that you know what you're doing, and so on. When someone <br>actually bothers to scrutinize what you are doing, your first reflex is to berate, <br>discredit, and diminish. Do you, or the WKPP, have an algorithm that can <br>actually demonstrate the clear advantage of 50/100 decompression? I'll bet <br>that the answer is: "No". Why do I know that for a fact? Because if you did <br>have such an animal, there is little doubt in my mind that you would take <br>great pleasure in putting my nose in it. In fact, you don't have it, and you're <br>tying to put my nose in it, that just makes you a charlatan. <p>Finally, it is even sadder still to see you folks promote practices that could <br>be dangerous to people out there. Listen to what we are saying, don't question, <br>in fact don't even dare question. Just shut up and do what we say is good. <br>Maybe there are people out there who don't care for their lives and will take <br>what you give them at face value, but so far, the WKPP techniques are either <br>private, or proprietary, or even mystical. <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <p>Even Tom Mount honestly acknowledges that 80/20 is a suboptimal compromise <br>as far as deco gas selection is concerned and it was adopted primarily <br>because 1) it was easier to fill tanks and 2)IANTD was concerned about the <br>bouyancy problems of its students on pure 02 at 20 feet. Check the archives, <br>you'll find it there. <br> </blockquote> That's pretty weak, and I read the Tom Mount post. Sub optimal from what <br>point of view? Obviously you're reading something in that post that isn't there. <br>He simply pointed out the merits of either option. <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <p>You're just another guy who wants to come onto the list and argue about <br>something you don't understand.</blockquote> Hahahahahahahaha! You're funny Bill, and arrogant. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>You've automatically assumed I'm with the <br>WKPP just because I think you're idiot.</blockquote> I didn't realize I thought you were part of the WKPP because <br>you think I'm an idiot. Bill, this is funny, you must also be suffering <br>from nerve damage. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>In fact, you are an idiot, but I <br>have nothing to do with the WKPP. I can assure you, however, that they <br>think you're an idiot too. The problem, Guy, is that you are a moron, or is <br>that Morin? Either way, I've washed my hands of you because you're now <br>added to the twit list with Michael Black, the other know-it-all.</blockquote> There is something that interests me in that last sequence; and that's the <br>reference to "moron", did you come up with that all by yourself? <p>For all your "material", you've clearly not addressed the initial premise validated <br>by your very own species. You're not even able to account for the oversight in <br>decompression modeling as far as switching to back gas from O2. Everyone <br>here realizes that any scrutiny of WKPP receives very poor reception here, and <br>this is just further evidence of that. I forgot, it's the oxygen window, that's it. <p>The "oxygen window" still isn't part of any algorithm in existence, it's yet another <br>fudge factor, yet another legend that isn't part of anything remotely accessible. <br>You refer to it, but in no material way do you correlate that to getting off <br>pure O2 decompression, exactly like other people who promote the ways <br>of the WKPP. <p>As far as decompression theory, it isn't my career, and I don't pretend to <br>be an expert. <br> <pre>Finally, thank you for filtering my messages, you obviously</pre> <pre>have issues.</pre> <pre></pre> <pre>Guy</pre> </html> --Boundary_(ID_WHd4cGQJWSMl81F6BoT3Hg)-- -- 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]