Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Hi Dave, Dave Sams wrote: > > Aloha Christian, > > Well, as to the specifics... > So, you want open water divers in relatively shallow caves just because > you don't define that as real diving? Did I say that? Really? I don't think so. Never even inferred it. Care to quote me? > 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. Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Whilst I agree with your point, what has that to do with what *I* commented on? Anything? Care to quote me? > I was 1) under water (which > sort of leads you to believe that I *was* diving, Did I infer that you weren't? Care to show me where I did that? Care to quote me? > 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). What's your point? Did I comment on any of this? Actually I didn't even KNOW of any ot this. Its the first time its come up. Care to quote me? > >> 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. Eh? Anybody who gets into a cave environment with, or even worse without, a buddy and has no lights? THAT is what you seemed to be inferring. NOT good! > >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? George has been on this list for a LONG time. He has explained, tirelessly, patiently, sometimes not that patiently, his opinions on this list for exactly that same long time. Me? I think he has the patience of a saint because as often as not people such as yourself come along "full of piss and wind" (I think I'm quoting George correctly but no doubt he'll let me know if not) who, from their own naive (I use the word advisedly) perspective decide to go up against a guy who, quite simply, knows better. That he is still here says something for his extraordinary tenacity to try to better the world of technical diving. Put it this way: NOBODY has yet been able to technically refute ANYTHING that he has said. > 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. Actually he has no vested interest in ANYTHING other than the WKPP which is a not-for-profit organisation, in case you hadn't looked. If you had cared to look at the archives you would realise this. If you had cared to look at the archives IN DEPTH you would relise that George cares diddley squat about anything at all. Well, apart from proper diving technique. > >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. Hmmm wonder why that last? GUE makes no bones about the fact that they FAIL people. That's a HUGELY novel concept to the vast majority who teach Scuba., at whatever level. I commend that idea to you. Personally I find it rather refreshing. > 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. Sure. So what? Where's the point? > 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!). Perhaps written in response to my (well meaning) suggestion that (a) you read the archives and (b) observe netiquette? Seems to me that that admission hoists you with your own petard. Well, whatever ARPA might be, I assume its OLD and you should therefore perhaps know better? > 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. Hey! Care to tell me where I admitted to being DIR? Truth to tell if George knew my rig he'd flame me to hell and back. Which is the point. THIS writer, a non cave diver (but he has a Cavern Diving qualification from a reasonable, Oz, agency which only teaches that) is not DIR, happens to like TechDiver (because he is able to learn from it), respects (after some agonising) George and DIR, wishes he _was_ DIR but realises, mostly because of his age, that he is unlikely ever to be such. I just get upset when people come out of left field, as they so often do on this list, claiming they are the Diving God's answer to the world, the universe and ... everything, to badly paraphrase the late, much lamented Douglas Adams (The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, etc). > 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. Substantive? Care to look it up? So where did I criticise, "substantively" or otherwise, agencies and instructors? Would you care to quote me? As for character assassination, if you seriously think that I was "character assassinating" you, laddie, just wait for me to actually get serious. As for name calling, just where did I call you names in my post? Oh, the fact that I could be said to have described you as naive? Gee, I'm devastated. Again, try the archives. You'll soon learn what "criticism", "character assassination", "name calling" actually mean in the real world of this list. If you do, I hope you don't blush too easily. Cheers, Christian -- 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]