good Morning,
sorry , ha haha

Jack Farmer schrieb:
 
> Trey;
> 
> He's a WASTE of your time in my opinion.  Stick to those of us on DIR-QUEST
who
> WANT to LEARN and are not convinced

pause to take a good breath 

>we 

GG  spells God Gracious, not Gods Gift, Mister Haha

Matthias


are god's gift to the diving world line
> this TWIT. haha
> 
> L8R
> 
> Trey wrote:
> 
> > 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'.
> 
> --
> You Don't HAVE to be NUTS to be a SysAdmin./WebMaster. BUT it Helps!
>                     http://www.thecrusaderbbs.com
>                    -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> GAT dpu s+: a++ C UL++++ P+ L+++ E- W+++ N+ o-- K w O M- V--
> PS PE Y PGP- t-- 5 X- R- tv+ b++ DI++++ D G- e h--- r+++ z+++
>                    ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> 
> --
> 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]