Idiot, every post you make shows that you are a neophyte and a complete
stroke. In the first one, which I have reproduced below, you do "not see the
need for a focusable beam light". That is because you are too fucking stupid
to know why we use them ( to signal ) and too much of a rookie to know you
can not see down a passage without them in order to make an exploration
decision, but that is beyond you anyway. Also, the mere fact that you have a
piece of shit like the light you mention is proof of cluelessness beyond the
pale,. and ignorance of anything to do with real diving or dive gear made
for real diving. Then, we have the post from you where you are trying to
pawn off the worst regulator made, and we have the post from you where you
do not get why we do not use zippers on dry suit pockets, and finally this
series of babbling bullshit out of you about your worthless stroke opinion.

You want my opinion? You are a moron. Here is some more proof:


From: "David E. Smith" <dsmith218@ho*.co*>
Subject: RE: 10W HID ?
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:14:03 -0500


To those who care:
I dive a Dive Rite HID (Wreck1/10W).  I have about 10 cave dives with it.
I have really enjoyed it.  I have definitely not found the beam to be too
small.  Several of us have been diving them and have been experiencing
3+ hour burn times on a very compact and lightweight canister.  There have
been times when I would have preferred a focusable beam, but have not
had a case where it was detrimental not to have it.  In my opinion, I don't
see how you can beat it for the price and size/weight!!


dsmith218@ho*.co*




-----Original Message-----
From: David E. Smith [mailto:dsmith218@ho*.co*]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 7:54 PM
To: Trey; Mike Rodriguez
Cc: Joel Silverstein; RDecker388@ao*.co*; rikard.lundgren@sw*.se*;
techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: RE: Isolating Manifold Question


I agree with one of your earlier posts.  Nothing around here ever changes.
As usual
you have chosen to not address any of the facts of any my posts.  You have
failed to
counter anything in my posts specifically.  You simply chose to spout off in
your normal
manner, without knowing what or who you are talking about.  You don't know
me, or what
I do.   But that is irrelevant, anyway.  Facts are facts.  And you choose to
ignore those
in a discussion and just rely on your holier than though rhetoric about how
everyone
who is not WKPP MUST be on the "other" side.

If you ever read a post carefully, you would have seen that I actually dive
my isolator
fully open.  However, some of the arguments expressed in that discussion
were garbage (IMHO).
But, you can feel free to make your assumptions regarding my background;
which, you make with
no basis.  So bravo, psychic one!

dsmith218@ho*.co*
ICQ# 25409809

Moderation is for the poor, and the healthy...of which I am neither. -
Polver




-----Original Message-----
From: Trey [mailto:trey@ne*.co*]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 7:26 PM
To: David E. Smith; Mike Rodriguez
Cc: Joel Silverstein; RDecker388@ao*.co*; rikard.lundgren@sw*.se*;
techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: RE: Isolating Manifold Question



I have seen enough of your opinions on here - they are worthless because you
have no clue, and you prove it with each and every post you make. I am sick
of idiots who do nothing yet have all the answers. You are one of many who
fit that category.

Unfortunately, there are enough of you out there that the accident stats
keep racking up, so your bullshit needs to be treated as bullshit and offset
with the real story, which many on here who do have a clue and who do dive
have already done.

I noticed some of your posts and read them only because we have a "David
Smith" in the WKPP. It only took a few of your dumb ass comments for me to
realize this was not our David Smith.


-----Original Message-----
From: David E. Smith [mailto:dsmith218@ho*.co*]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 7:06 AM
To: Trey; Mike Rodriguez
Cc: Joel Silverstein; RDecker388@ao*.co*; rikard.lundgren@sw*.se*;
techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: RE: Isolating Manifold Question


Trey,
  Why don't you tell me what part of my post is not factual or clearly
indicated as opinion.  Meanwhile, I will forget your errors in pointing
out the "obvious".

dsmith218@ho*.co*
ICQ# 25409809

Moderation is for the poor, and the healthy...of which I am neither. -
Polver




-----Original Message-----
From: Trey [mailto:trey@ne*.co*]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 6:35 AM
To: David E. Smith; Mike Rodriguez
Cc: Joel Silverstein; RDecker388@ao*.co*; rikard.lundgren@sw*.se*;
techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: RE: Isolating Manifold Question


Dave, you obviously do not dive, and you obviously do not understand any of
this, and you are wasting everyone's time with bullshit. Tukker hit the nail
on the head.

-----Original Message-----
From: David E. Smith [mailto:dsmith218@ho*.co*]
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 10:49 PM
To: Mike Rodriguez
Cc: Joel Silverstein; RDecker388@ao*.co*; rikard.lundgren@sw*.se*;
techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: RE: Isolating Manifold Question


Mike,
  If you read my posts you will see that I have not advocated any of the
options for how to operate your valves.  I have stated only that it is not
"common sense" that the valve should be fully open.  I have stated that a
valve not fully shut is open (this in response to the statement that a valve
not fully open is shut).  I think if you think of the "system response" to
the 2 scenarios (partially shut = open or partially shut = shut) you would
have to agree with my version.  In any case, I think these "arguments" have
little to do with the real discussion of whether or not a valve should be
fully open or not.  I haven't even really gotten into that.  I am simply
commenting on the "absolutist" posts that make statements of common sense or
fact because it suits someone's argument.  To this end, what is your source
on the design basis of scuba valves being several turns to shut as an
"intrinsic safety factor".  Also, I think you would have to admit, (without
coming to a conclusion on how you should operate your valves) their is a
difference in the likelihood of rolling shut an isolator vice an orifice
valve. If this argument were made to me, I would counter with.."There is
still the likelihood..."  But then, that is why we have good technique and
don't contact our manifolds.  And when in spite of that technique, we
do...we check.  (Not to start another thread, but my isolator knob is
inverted and CAN'T contact the overhead!)
  In any case, it may amuse you to discover that I keep my isolator fully
open.  I didn't used to.  And I arrived at this decision based very little
on any of the arguments posed so far.  I just take issue with the fact that
some have arrived at conclusions/statements of FACT, without any proof or
"authority".

So as I go on and on....Let me state one more time what I CONSIDER to be
fact...whether it is relevant to the main issue or not.

A partially open valve will act like an open valve.
A partially open valve will be more easily shut (whether intentionally or
not).
I should notice an inadvertently shut isolator by monitoring my SPG.
If I am too stupid to open my isolator before mixing/filling, then that is
Darwin at work.

Now, there are many more, more relevant facts.  These are just the ones
presented (or contradicted) in order to arrive at the decision that the
isolator MUST remain fully open.  (Lest you be a farm animal or something.
<g>)  So I plead, argue/discuss/whatever the merits...That is why we are all
here (I presume).  Let us not dispute fact with opinion and state it as a
fact.

Happy Diving!
Dave Smith

dsmith218@ho*.co*
ICQ# 25409809

Moderation is for the poor, and the healthy...of which I am neither. -
Polver




-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rodriguez [mailto:mikey@ma*.co*]
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 5:43 PM
To: David E. Smith
Cc: Joel Silverstein; RDecker388@ao*.co*; rikard.lundgren@sw*.se*;
techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: RE: Isolating Manifold Question


At 11:11 AM 4/15/2001 -0400, David E. Smith wrote:

Hello David,

>If it is not shut, it is open.

A bump on a fully open valve results in a non-event.  The same bump
on a mostly closed valve can result in an accident, maybe a fatal one,
as analysis of several diving deaths over the years related to
inadvertently closed isolators suggests.  If it can happen to other
divers, it can happen to any of us, including you.

-Mike Rodriguez
<mikey@mi*.ne*>
http://www.mikey.net/scuba
Pn(x) = (1/(2^n)n!)[d/dx]^n(x^2 - 1)^n

--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.


--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.



--
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]