Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Aloha Christian, Well, as to the specifics... >Dave Sams wrote: >(snips) > >> I don't know about that...have watched Bird and Larry Green fail >> students. And, as far as I can tell, any cave diving is real diving. >(snip) > >That last comment is _quite_ a statement, although a generalisation. >Care to take it further? So, you want open water divers in relatively shallow caves just because you don't define that as real diving? (I'm a manly man!) I think, if you analyzed cave accident statistics, you'd find that the vast majority of divers dying in caves are 1) open water certified in 2) relatively shallow caves. Last time I was in a cave (this past spring), I was 1) under water (which sort of leads you to believe that I *was* diving, and 2) underground which implies overhead environment with no direct ascent to the surface. Seems pretty specific to me. Oh, and if the dive tables and computer I was using were any where near accurate, had I *not* used stage decompression on my way to the surface (and cave exit) I would probably have had a pretty nasty case of the bends (most likely type II). >> Granted, there are differences between the cave dives you're doing and >> the "recreational" cave dives that most of us do on the weekend, but at >> the end of the day we've both been feeling our way along in the dark. > >Again, care to take it further? > >Actually, I rather hope that "at the end of the day we've both been >feeling our way along in the dark" is not as naive as it sounds. Well, again, this seems pretty self explantory to me... Caves are dark, no doubt about it. Normally I like to use lights, but have seem more than one fail. >> If I may so humbly ask, which agency did you first certify cave with? >> Forgive me, but your attitude (and agency affiliation) is showing. > >So what's wrong with that? Aren't other people entitled to an opinion, >just like you? It would seem that I'm not entitled to a dissenting opinion; I merely asked a question. If George certed before GUE was existant, with which agency did he certify? As far as attitude, calling other people stupid and morons, as well as describing other agencies' training as a "joke", sort of makes me wonder if 1) he suffers from an inferiority complex, or 2) has a vested interest in getting business for the agency he's affilated with. >EVEN IF it was an agency that the DIR crowd now has not truck with, >can't people change their minds along the way once they know (or think >they know) better? Sure, anyone can change their mind at any time. I know several folks who, after originally certing with NACD or NSS, went to GUE. I also know a few people who trained with GUE that are no longer diving with them. I originally certed OW in the J-valve age; suffice it to say that a fair amount of the training I received back then has been reconsidered and revised. >> And just for my information (I missed your explanation) what, exactly, >> was the new entry technique you demonstrated last fall at PeacockI? > >As follows. > >You're new here, aren't you? > >Seems you just failed TechDiver I. > >Which happens to be "search the Archives before putting hoof into mouth". > >Then you failed TechDiver II. > >Which is "lay low, listen and espy the land". > >The list probably goes on. Oh, just answer the damn question. Just like a GUE/DIR inductee, when the going gets tough ad homiem attack and ignore the obvious. Actually, Christian, I had access to the original ARPA net. In reality, I didn't know there was going to be a test (and I *failed* ohhhmmyygod!). Sorry, I don't live or dive on the net. It's more a communication medium for me. And, simply stated, I just plain get tired of BULLSHIT. Seems to me, you DIR fellows have been spewing more than your fair share. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass how deep you're going or how great you *think* you are -- if you can't provide 1) substantive content (spell that FACTS) and 2) persuasive argument for your interpretation of those FACTS, then it's simply so much crap. Substantive criticism of agencies and instructors (including GUE/DIR) is appreciated; I like knowing who to steer away from too. Character assassination and name calling -- get real if you want to be taken seriously. Regards, Dave >Cheers, > >Christian > >> >The only thing you need for an NACD course is a checkbook and two days. It >> >is a joke. The "instructors" do not themselves do any real diving , >> >whereas the GUE guys do, and the majority of them are going to run you >> >through bullshit dives as fast as they can so they can get on back to the >> >trailer for Miller Time. >> > >> >The one thing you can get from the NACD is a card, no matter how much of a >> >clusterfuck you are, so if you can not pass the walk and chew gum test, go >> >to the NACD. If you are a real basket case, go to the CDS. >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: pina >> > To: Brad, Jen, and Sam >> > Cc: Techdiver >> > Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 10:29 PM >> > Subject: don't be silly....was....RE: Advice on NACD? >> > >> > That is silly. >> > >> > Here is the link to the GUE Cave 1 course: >> > http://www.gue.com/classroom/standards/gue_cave1_student.pdf >> > >> > You do not need any prior cave/cavern training for this course, and if >> >you have had any they will just have to un-train all the bad habits you >> >have developed, and straighten the bad gear advice you received from other >> >instructors. >> > >> > Just get the proper training the first time. >> > >> > --pina > -- 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]