George,
 What would be the point.  All you would do is scream about
your "World's Fucking Records"  (excuse the profanity, but
it was a quote after all.  You don't have to be a record holder
in one aspect of diving to understand how mechanical things work.
But that is all you ever use to support your opinions/arguments
in the presence of opposition.

Get over yourself, George.

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: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:16 AM
To: David E. Smith; George Irvine; Mike Rodriguez
Cc: Joel Silverstein; RDecker388@ao*.co*; rikard.lundgren@sw*.se*;
techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: RE: A Stroke is a stroke was RE: Isolating Manifold Question


Idiot, the people you are arguing with have nothing to do with me or the
WKPP. They actually dive, and are not dive students like you, and so they
know what works. Maybe you or your buddies would like to compare track
records with me? Maybe with any of the people you are arguing with?

-----Original Message-----
From: David E. Smith [mailto:dsmith218@ho*.co*]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 9:14 PM
To: George Irvine; Trey; Mike Rodriguez
Cc: Joel Silverstein; RDecker388@ao*.co*; rikard.lundgren@sw*.se*;
techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: RE: A Stroke is a stroke was RE: Isolating Manifold Question


George,
 You (and your closest minions) are the only one that thinks you do ALL the
diving.
You say you do all the diving only because you dismiss everyone else's
contributions
to the diving community (especially if they are outside the realm of cave
diving).
Yes..Don't be shocked...There is diving besides cave diving!

dsmith218@ho*.co*
ICQ# 25409809

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




-----Original Message-----
From: George Irvine [mailto:kirvine@sa*.ne*]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 6:38 AM
To: David E. Smith; Trey; Mike Rodriguez
Cc: Joel Silverstein; RDecker388@ao*.co*; rikard.lundgren@sw*.se*;
techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: Re: A Stroke is a stroke was RE: Isolating Manifold Question


David, you certainly are not DIR, as DIR divers know that MRI heads do not
work for signaling. Any moron knows that . This is nothing new.

DIR puts details together that neophytes with know it all attitudes do not
understand, and never will.  You have no logic or system, and you have no
basis to form one, and never will in the circle of ignorance in which you
clearly travel.

Funny, you have all the answers, and we do all the diving.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David E. Smith" <dsmith218@ho*.co*>
To: "Trey" <trey@ne*.co*>; "Mike Rodriguez" <mikey@ma*.co*>
Cc: "Joel Silverstein" <JoelSilverstein@sn*.ne*>; <RDecker388@ao*.co*>;
<rikard.lundgren@sw*.se*>; <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: A Stroke is a stroke was RE: Isolating Manifold Question


> Well done you sleuth, you, George.  Guilty as charged.  I own, dive,
> and am quite happy with the DiveRite Compact HID.  No, I have not
> explored any new cave.  I have successfully signaled plenty of dive
> buddies.  Have you ever dove this light, George?  No of course not.
> It is not DIR.  Well I have never claimed to be, nor do I aspire to
> be DIR.
>
> Funny you took the time to search the archives for posts for someone
> you "accidentally read" posts from.  But, yet again, you do not address
> the content of the relevant post.  You make incorrect statements about my
> previous posts. (I sold a hose, not a regulator) I said that I have never
> had a zipper (the type used by DUI) get jammed.  I asked the list and
> heard of no cases where anyone else had either.  Minor details, but you
> usually ignore the details in your passionate, online diatribes.
>
> 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 8:18 PM
> To: David E. Smith; Mike Rodriguez
> Cc: Joel Silverstein; RDecker388@ao*.co*; rikard.lundgren@sw*.se*;
> techdiver@aquanaut.com
> Subject: A Stroke is a stroke was RE: Isolating Manifold Question
>
>
>
> 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'.
>


--
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]