Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Guy, there is no debate here since you do not enough to contribute anything but annoyance and bullshit. You still don't get it, so listen the fuck up: NO SINGLE model accounts for any of this. Deco is a compilation of models and empiricle date which then must be used knowing the phsiology. Telling a model that you are going to do breaks to speed offgassing wil NOT work in the model. Using the model for SHAPE and then applying the phsiology will work. I do not use anyones deco program, I use my own, and it is not available since it runs in my head on that computer. I carry no tables , I make no tables, I do record the results and publish them , so read that. I use bubble theory (mechanics) to define the deep sections while moving to other methods for the intermediate ( more Bulhmannish ) and finally relying on the OPPOSITE of bubble mehcaincs - offgassing IN bubble from - for the shallower steps, and then physiolgy again for the big oxygen steps. In none of these proecses, models, theories or anyones ACTUAL experience in doing REAL dives is ANYTHING that IANTD teaches even remotely correct in my opinion, and I will back that up to the hilt. Those assholes know nothing, and I am sick of seeing their crap coming out of the mouths of smartasses like you. Now shut the fuck up and go back to rec scuba where you belong, and take Tom Mouth's bullshit with you. And by the way, my nickname is "Trey", my real name is George Irvine, and I am the Director of the WKPP. So at least get that part right. I answer to nobody, I have a track reocord that nobody can touch. You get there you can fuck with me, in the meantime you can kiss my ass. From: Guy Morin <xnet@vi*.ca*> To: Trey <trey@ne*.co*> Cc: Tech Diver <techdiver@aquanaut.com> Date: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:29 AM Subject: Re: WKPP + DECO >Trey, > >Thank you very much for the information. It is very >insightful. > >In regard to issues relating to what I may feel toward >your, or any other organization, let's all wake up to >the fact that this is irrelevant. I have certainly not sought >any form of gratification in entering this debate, and >had no illusions in regard to the impact on my popularity. >It was a worthwhile sacrifice, and a very small one at >that, to finally come to some form of consensus, and >to debunk what were flagrant myths on this list as to >the very practices of the organization. While the myths >in question were raised by proponents of the organization, >these folks didn't receive anywhere near the criticism that >I have endured. These myths we have already agreed >upon, believe it or not, as is evident in reading through >the noise. > >Yes, it is a fact that people will be sensitized to the >choices pertaining to their deco, especially with the information >provided over a number of interesting posts. Also, it >seems that everyone who is relevant to the discussion >has indeed elucidated that using oxygen requires careful >consideration; it provides a lot of benefit, and there are >many factors to consider that relate to it's safe use. On >the practical side to the use of O2 at high PO2's a habitat >for oxygen decompression that provides protection for O2 >tox, is something one cannot carry on the dive boat, that is >also a reality. > >Across several posts from the organization's proponents, >it seems that I can find statements confirming that breaks >are not accounted for in the software. The organization >uses empirical data that is difficult to adapt for the diver >that is outside of the organization, best to consult said >organization to gain a deeper understanding, and a valid >application of the empirical data. It would be foolish to >attempt to do what the organization does without first >getting trained. This was the essence of my original post. > >Trey himself has confirmed the 12/6 spread I mentioned >in one of my posts. Other details I leave to the reader, who >can't see that oxygen requires no blending, and is always >accurate, duh? The oxygen window concept does not try >to invoke anything beyond the use of hyperoxic mixes. Using >oxygen is a tricky affair providing both benefit, and penalties, >that must be carefully managed. Taking breaks aims to restore >lung efficiency, not magically increase it. It increases it from >it's reduced state, thus restoring. The other minor ones >are also evident. > >The organization does a very specialized type of dive, >and using some very specialized techniques, and in a single >environment; these are factors when considering applying >these techniques outside that envelope. > >As you say, the reader is left to figure out whether the type >of specialization your organization exercises for it's dives >even applies in other environments. Now, more than before >this debate, it is possible for people to do just that. While >these things are spelled out on some of the web sites, >proponents of the organization did offer some questionable >insights, I refer simply to the residual tissue loading using >O2 that are the root of my contribution to the thread. Yet >the organization didn't so much as blink about those falsehoods. > >The points I raised were vigorously debated, and I >am satisfied with the outcome, again, it wasn't, and isn't, >personal. In the face of ridicule and derision, I succeeded >in keeping the dialog as courteous as possible, without placidly >enduring what was, at times, inappropriate behavior devoid >of social grace. As far as what is expressed by me, we >still hold freedom of expression as a fundamental right, >and at no time did I suggest a practice that might be construed >in any way as being dangerous, nor did I ever express that >I was an expert on any subject of my posts. I merely highlighted >some obvious oversights, and contradictions that I found >in the various posts. > >Finally several people have expressed similar concerns as >I did, and were served by the discussion. It is also too bad >for those who might have something to contribute, but didn't >in the face of poor social graces. > >It is too bad you are bitter about the result of the debate. >You claim victory, but have no satisfaction at that affirmation... > >My position was not one of win/lose; in this exchange, I think >everyone came out winning. Too bad some people are still angry; >time will heal your wounds. Realize that I am not here for your >liking, as you are not here for mine. I prefer to think that something >came out of this, if nothing more than getting people thinking, >without placing value on a particular organization, or person. > >Sincerely yours, > >Guy > -- 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]