Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
--=====================_21539711==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
George, every dive for everyone has some risk. The deeper and/or more
technical the gear the higher the risk. Divers should take into
consideration their families when increasing the risk, not to mention
fellow divers. Divers who want to believe will not ask the correct
questions when considering CCR and a good salesman will not have to
disclose any faults (even if he really knows them) to sell the unit.
I did not come into this to get at you. I want divers and families to be on
the same page. I must be the only one who looks at the dives we do as
possible accidents. When I saw the post from Lisa I looked at it as just
info, then yours as the typical bashing of the CCR. To me it looked
rehearsed. Then Michelle, the grieving wife looking to blame anything or
anyone for her husbands death, not one word to cast any blame on him.
Described him as highly intelligent while at the same time saying he had
many problems with the unit and still chose to dive it. Not to mention in a
way that had not been tested yet. All oxymoron statements.
I saw in her post the same thing I saw at a friends funeral. He had came to
my home several times, parties, dive trips, get togethers. He always came
alone, she showed no interest in him or what he was doing, the young adult
kids were the same way. I saw someone who was a pallbearer that he could
not stand, but had worked their way next to the family for personal reasons
of their own. Only the deceased could have truly saved his own life, but
you could not convince the family that, they had others to blame and those
with ulterior motives were there to support them.
So you see, I want the families to be part of the decision making process
for the diver.
Have a nice day
At 08:12 PM 3/24/03 -0500, George Irvine wrote:
>Well, JT , that sounds real good coming from somebody who turns every dive
>into a risky situation, but when people are told that devices are safe by
>the manufacturer and the training agencies and all the people who think
>that a CCR will "level the playing field", the odds are that these people
>will believe it - at least until and unless they get the real story.
>
>I personally think you jumped into this along with "Christina" because you
>thought that hammering these people was a way of getting at me. I don't
>even know them, but I have heard their stories, and now so has everyone
>else. They are saying the same thing about CCRs that you and I are saying,
>and the same thing about the Buddy that Christina and I are saying.
>
>AP Valves made all high quality stuff right up to where they started
>making the Buddy. True, it was bullshit stroke stuff, but high quality,
>and having seen plenty of James Bond movies, you know how the Brits love
>their trinkets. I mean, if you ever rode in a Rolls Royce, you would not
>get on a jet that uses RR engines, but if you ever rode on a jet with RR
>engines, you might buy a Rolls Royce car - that's about what we have
>"hear" as you would say.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Capt JT [mailto:captjt@mi*.co*]
>>Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 4:15 PM
>>To: George Irvine; techdiver@aquanaut.com
>>Subject: RE: Nic Gotto Inquest
>>
>>The only dumbass is the one who will risk his life on an unproven piece
>>of equipment and not think there is any risk.
>>
>>At 06:31 AM 3/24/03 -0500, George Irvine wrote:
>>>Dumbass, she was talking about scrubber breakthroughs, you ignorant
>>>moron. What he did not know and was not told is that this is an easy
>>>calculation to within minutes on a properly designed unit, a designation
>>>which obviously does not apply to the Buddy Inspiration. The scrubber is
>>>uselessly small and inefficient.
>>>
>>>The Buddy crowd then tried to concoct some issue with "trimix" being the
>>>problem with the unit, which is utter nonsense.
>>>
>>>The Buddy was never properly tested prior to it being produced or it
>>>would never have been produced. They molded parts and set production and
>>>painted themselves into a corner, not that any of them has the ability ,
>>>resources or information to do otherwise.
>>>
>>>The vast number of aftermarket "fixes" to this thing are themselves all
>>>the argument against it that it needs. Kevin Jurgenson and the late Will
>>>Smithers came up with all kinds of remedies for it, but the design is so
>>>flawed that all their modifications merely improve the quality of the
>>>components and set other automatic features to prevent obvious accidents
>>>while the underlying problems are still present.
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Capt JT [mailto:captjt@mi*.co*]
>>>Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 7:01 PM
>>>To: techdiver@aquanaut.com
>>>Subject: Re: Nic Gotto Inquest
>>>
>>>Your post go no where.........dead is dead and divers who get involved
>>>with technical diving should accept the risk.......families should be
>>>involved and informed by the diver before he takes risk not after he
>>>dies. >that Nic was a *pioneer* (but NOT testing a prototype) pioneer =
>>>one that originates or helps open up a new line of thought or activity
>>>In order to be a pioneer you must accept risk because it is NEW
>>>New "key words"....unfamiliar, not accustom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 08:08 PM 3/21/03 +1100, Christian Gerzner wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:19:11 -0500, Capt JT <captjt@mi*.co*> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > >And, apropos the current discussion, your point is? You appear to be
>>>> > >implying that Nic Gotto couldn't dive to begin with, hoped it would
>>>> > >make him something he was not, was a moron and an accident waiting to
>>>> > >happen? Really?
>>>> > I have never met Nic or even talked to him and was not referring to him
>>>> > directly ,
>>>>
>>>>No doubt, yet you come across as all-knowing, charging across the
>>>>landscape on your trusty steed. Wouldn't it then have been a rather
>>>>good idea to change the subject line? After all, it still refers to
>>>>Nic Gotto?
>>>>
>>>>Couldn't Michelle Gotto have drawn the very same conclusions as I did
>>>>- as to your inferences? Since you had already firmly implanted both
>>>>feet into mouth where Michelle is concerned, don't you think that
>>>>might have been a good idea?
>>>>
>>>>JT, your insensitivity, your braggadocio, your lack of compassion is
>>>>quite simply breathtaking. I think you need to take stock of yourself
>>>>before it's too late, but then that might well be the case already.
>>>>Sorry, that's a cheap shot but I really can't help myself on this occasion.
>>>>
>>>>I suggest, as a start, that you re-read before sending something and
>>>>at least, at the very least, ask yourself whether what you have
>>>>written will be interpreted in the way you intend it to be. Mind, I
>>>>really don't know whether that'll do any good but it's a start.
>>>>
>>>> > but since he is doing a permanent 6ft deco stop I will never get
>>>> > to know him, ask him, or anything. If I could ask him, I think I
>>>> would ask
>>>> > "was it worth it"......
>>>>
>>>>It still doesn't seem to have dawned on you, in spite of all that has
>>>>been written, that Nic was a *pioneer* (but NOT testing a prototype)
>>>>on this thing, that its reputation as a seriously questionable piece
>>>>of kit HAD NOT YET BEEN ESTABLISHED (upper case to get your
>>>>attention). Hello? Are you reading the same posts that I am?
>>>>
>>>>Tell me, do you read and seek to understand the posts of others before
>>>>putting either or both feet back into mouth? From this viewing angle
>>>>it sure doesn't look like it.
>>>>
>>>>Now, would you care to answer my response to you as follows:
>>>>
>>>> > > > On trips I organize there are only a select few I let on with
>>>> > > > a RB and then I have certain rules they must agree to and
>>>> > > > they were getting it done on OC before they got a RB.
>>>>
>>>> > > So first of all you challenge anyone to prove ... oh ... I get it,
>>>> > > the RB divers are NEVER your buddies? But subject to *your*
>>>> > > rules that a select few must agree to, that's OK, these select
>>>> > > few can then dive with you?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > What apparently gives you the right to be the final arbiter of
>>>> > > whether a RB diver can, or cannot, dive with your group? Oh,
>>>> > > you're an expert on RBs? But you don't dive them. Or is your
>>>> > > criterion the fact that they were getting it done on OC before
>>>> > > they got a RB? If so, that's quite a call.
>>>>
>>>>Christian
>>>>--
>>>>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
>>>>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
>>>"You can't learn to dive on the net, sooner or later you have to get in
>>>the water"
>>>Your Guide to Great Wreck Diving along the East Coast & more
>>> Web Site http://www.capt-jt.com/
>>>Email captjt@mi*.co*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"You can't learn to dive on the net, sooner or later you have to get in
>>>the water"
>>>Your Guide to Great Wreck Diving along the East Coast & more
>>> Web Site http://www.capt-jt.com/
>>>Email captjt@mi*.co*
>
>
>"You can't learn to dive on the net, sooner or later you have to get in
>the water"
>Your Guide to Great Wreck Diving along the East Coast & more
> Web Site http://www.capt-jt.com/
>Email captjt@mi*.co*
>
--=====================_21539711==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
George, every dive for everyone has some risk. The deeper and/or more
technical the gear the higher the risk. Divers should take into
consideration their families when increasing the risk, not to mention
fellow divers. Divers who want to believe will not ask the correct
questions when considering CCR and a good salesman will not have to
disclose any faults (even if he really knows them) to sell the
unit.<br>
<br>
I did not come into this to get at you. I want divers and families to be
on the same page. I must be the only one who looks at the dives we do as
possible accidents. When I saw the post from Lisa I looked at it as just
info, then yours as the typical bashing of the CCR. To me it looked
rehearsed. Then Michelle, the grieving wife looking to blame
anything or anyone for her husbands death, not one word to cast any blame
on him. Described him as highly intelligent while at the same time saying
he had many problems with the unit and still chose to dive it. Not to
mention in a way that had not been tested yet. All oxymoron statements.
<br>
<br>
I saw in her post the same thing I saw at a friends funeral. He had came
to my home several times, parties, dive trips, get togethers. He always
came alone, she showed no interest in him or what he was doing, the young
adult kids were the same way. I saw someone who was a pallbearer that he
could not stand, but had worked their way next to the family for personal
reasons of their own. Only the deceased could have truly saved his own
life, but you could not convince the family that, they had others to
blame and those with ulterior motives were there to support them.
<br>
<br>
So you see, I want the families to be part of the decision making process
for the diver. <br>
<br>
Have a nice day<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 08:12 PM 3/24/03 -0500, George Irvine wrote:<br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"><blockquote type=cite cite>Well,
JT , that sounds real good coming from somebody who turns every dive into
a risky situation, but when people are told that devices are safe by the
manufacturer and the training agencies and all the people who think that
a CCR will "level the playing field", the odds are that these
people will believe it - at least until and unless they get the real
story.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">I personally think you jumped
into this along with "Christina" because you thought that
hammering these people was a way of getting at me. I don't even know
them, but I have heard their stories, and now so has everyone else. They
are saying the same thing about CCRs that you and I are saying, and the
same thing about the Buddy that Christina and I are
saying.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">AP Valves made all high quality
stuff right up to where they started making the Buddy. True, it was
bullshit stroke stuff, but high quality, and having seen plenty of James
Bond movies, you know how the Brits love their trinkets. I mean, if you
ever rode in a Rolls Royce, you would not get on a jet that uses RR
engines, but if you ever rode on a jet with RR engines, you might buy a
Rolls Royce car - that's about what we have "hear" as you would
say.</font><blockquote><font face="tahoma" size=2>
<dl>
<dd>-----Original Message-----
<dd>From:</b> Capt JT
[<a href="mailto:captjt@mi*.co*"
eudora="autourl">mailto:captjt@mi*.co*</a>]
<dd>Sent:</b> Monday, March 24, 2003 4:15 PM
<dd>To:</b> George Irvine; techdiver@aquanaut.com
<dd>Subject:</b> RE: Nic Gotto Inquest<br>
<br>
</font>
<dd>The only dumbass is the one who will risk his life on an unproven
piece of equipment and not think there is any risk. <br>
<br>
<dd>At 06:31 AM 3/24/03 -0500, George Irvine
wrote:<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"><blockquote type=cite
cite>
<dd>Dumbass, she was talking about scrubber breakthroughs, you ignorant
moron. What he did not know and was not told is that this is an easy
calculation to within minutes on a properly designed unit, a designation
which obviously does not apply to the Buddy Inspiration. The scrubber is
uselessly small and inefficient. </font>
<dd> <font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">
<dd>The Buddy crowd then tried to concoct some issue with
"trimix" being the problem with the unit, which is utter
nonsense.</font>
<dd> <font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">
<dd>The Buddy was never properly tested prior to it being produced or it
would never have been produced. They molded parts and set production and
painted themselves into a corner, not that any of them has the ability ,
resources or information to do otherwise.</font>
<dd> <font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">
<dd>The vast number of aftermarket "fixes" to this thing are
themselves all the argument against it that it needs. Kevin Jurgenson and
the late Will Smithers came up with all kinds of remedies for it, but the
design is so flawed that all their modifications merely improve the
quality of the components and set other automatic features to prevent
obvious accidents while the underlying problems are still present.</font>
<font face="tahoma" size=2>
<dd>-----Original Message-----
<dd>From: Capt JT
[<a href="mailto:captjt@mi*.co*"
eudora="autourl">mailto:captjt@mi*.co*</a>]
<dd>Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 7:01 PM
<dd>To: techdiver@aquanaut.com
<dd>Subject: Re: Nic Gotto Inquest<br>
<br>
</font>
<dd>Your post go no where.........dead is dead and divers who get
involved with technical diving should accept the risk.......families
should be involved and informed by the diver before he takes risk not
after he dies. >that Nic was a *pioneer* (but NOT testing a
prototype) pioneer = one that originates or helps open up a new line of
thought or activity
<dd>In order to be a pioneer you must accept risk because it is NEW
<dd>New "key words"....unfamiliar, not accustom<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd> At 08:08 PM 3/21/03 +1100, Christian Gerzner wrote:
<blockquote type=cite cite>
<dd>On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:19:11 -0500, Capt JT
<captjt@mi*.co*> wrote:<br>
<br>
<dd>I wrote:<br>
<br>
<dd>> >And, apropos the current discussion, your point is? You
appear to be
<dd>> >implying that Nic Gotto couldn't dive to begin with, hoped
it would
<dd>> >make him something he was not, was a moron and an accident
waiting to
<dd>> >happen? Really?
<dd>> I have never met Nic or even talked to him and was not referring
to him
<dd>> directly ,<br>
<br>
<dd>No doubt, yet you come across as all-knowing, charging across the
<dd>landscape on your trusty steed. Wouldn't it then have been a rather
<dd>good idea to change the subject line? After all, it still refers to
<dd>Nic Gotto?<br>
<br>
<dd>Couldn't Michelle Gotto have drawn the very same conclusions as I did
<dd>- as to your inferences? Since you had already firmly implanted both
<dd>feet into mouth where Michelle is concerned, don't you think that
<dd>might have been a good idea?<br>
<br>
<dd>JT, your insensitivity, your braggadocio, your lack of compassion is
<dd>quite simply breathtaking. I think you need to take stock of yourself
<dd>before it's too late, but then that might well be the case already.
<dd>Sorry, that's a cheap shot but I really can't help myself on this
occasion.<br>
<br>
<dd>I suggest, as a start, that you re-read before sending something and
<dd>at least, at the very least, ask yourself whether what you have
<dd>written will be interpreted in the way you intend it to be. Mind, I
<dd>really don't know whether that'll do any good but it's a start.<br>
<br>
<dd>> but since he is doing a permanent 6ft deco stop I will never get
<dd>> to know him, ask him, or anything. If I could ask him, I think I
would ask
<dd>> "was it worth it"......<br>
<br>
<dd>It still doesn't seem to have dawned on you, in spite of all that has
<dd>been written, that Nic was a *pioneer* (but NOT testing a prototype)
<dd>on this thing, that its reputation as a seriously questionable piece
<dd>of kit HAD NOT YET BEEN ESTABLISHED (upper case to get your
<dd>attention). Hello? Are you reading the same posts that I am?<br>
<br>
<dd>Tell me, do you read and seek to understand the posts of others
before
<dd>putting either or both feet back into mouth? From this viewing angle
<dd>it sure doesn't look like it.<br>
<br>
<dd>Now, would you care to answer my response to you as follows:<br>
<br>
<dd>> > > On trips I organize there are only a select few I let
on with
<dd>> > > a RB and then I have certain rules they must agree to
and
<dd>> > > they were getting it done on OC before they got a
RB.<br>
<br>
<dd>> > So first of all you challenge anyone to prove ... oh ... I
get it,
<dd>> > the RB divers are NEVER your buddies? But subject to *your*
<dd>> > rules that a select few must agree to, that's OK, these
select
<dd>> > few can then dive with you?
<dd>> >
<dd>> > What apparently gives you the right to be the final arbiter
of
<dd>> > whether a RB diver can, or cannot, dive with your group?
Oh,
<dd>> > you're an expert on RBs? But you don't dive them. Or is
your
<dd>> > criterion the fact that they were getting it done on OC
before
<dd>> > they got a RB? If so, that's quite a call.<br>
<br>
<dd>Christian
<dd>--
<dd>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to
`techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
<dd>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to
`techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. </blockquote>
<dd>"You can't learn to dive on the net, sooner or later you have to
get in the water"<font color="#0000FF">
<dd>Your Guide to Great Wreck Diving along the East Coast & more
<dd> Web Site
<a href="http://www.capt-jt.com/"
eudora="autourl">http://www.capt-jt.com/</a>
<dd>Email captjt@mi*.co*</font>
</dl><br>
<br>
<br>
"You can't learn to dive on the net, sooner or later you have to get
in the water"<br>
<font color="#0000FF">Your Guide to Great Wreck Diving along the East
Coast & more <br>
Web Site
<a href="http://www.capt-jt.com/"
eudora="autourl">http://www.capt-jt.com/</a><br>
Email captjt@mi*.co*<br>
</font></u></blockquote></blockquote><br>
<br>
"You can't learn to dive on the net, sooner or later you have to get
in the water"<br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u>Your Guide to Great Wreck Diving along the East
Coast & more <br>
Web Site
<a href="http://www.capt-jt.com/"
eudora="autourl">http://www.capt-jt.com</a><a
href="http://www.capt-jt.com/" eudora="autourl">/<br>
</a>Email captjt@mi*.co*<br>
<br>
</font></u></html>
--=====================_21539711==_.ALT--
--
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]