Jack,
  I think only one person on this list has declared himself a gift from God.
Of course he may not have uses THOSE words.

dsmith218@ho*.co*
ICQ# 25409809

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




-----Original Message-----
From: jack@we*.th*.co* [mailto:jack@we*.th*.co*]On
Behalf Of Jack Farmer
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 8:38 AM
To: Trey
Cc: David E. Smith; Mike Rodriguez; Joel Silverstein;
RDecker388@ao*.co*; rikard.lundgren@sw*.se*; techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: Re: A Stroke is a stroke was RE: Isolating Manifold Question


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 we 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]