Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Stuart Masch sez: > I was informed by someone of certain comments regarding ANDI being posted on > techdiver. I know who posted them. After responding, I received a public, > vulgar, vitriolic response from Mr. Irvine. Stuart, please stop playing the poor, hurt victim part. We have all had quite enough of the flaming, whining, abuse, etc., and we really don't need any more. But if you are going to criticize, then: perhaps you can explain how you were above the fray in this matter? > [...] > I was advocating nothing dangerous or patently unsafe. How did his response to > me further the cause, the public's awareness, and the safety of diving in > general? First, your original response to Raimo and JD contributed nothing to the discussion; essentially, you just parroted back what is in the ANDI manuals. The core issue, the issue which earned you a diatribe from George, is the issue of high O2 exposures (please correct me if I am wrong, G.). You could have taken the opportunity to actually discuss the issue, to quell the flaming, take the moral high ground (so to speak), and have a technical discussion worthy of this list. But you chose not to -- so you are just as guilty as the rest, and the hurt victim act just doesn't play. > Mr. Irvine, and several others on this particular list have created their own > situation. By allowing themselves to write without caring, they have created > techno-bully personalities that no one cares to deal with. Their messages are > lost due to the messenger. Some of us are hearing the messenger quite well. > I've always felt if my point isn't getting across, I change the nature of the > message, not the content, not the volume. Well, you may say this, but I have yet to see it: you have yet to actually discuss the issues. I am beginning to think that you are more interested in playing the victim, continuing the flaming, etc, than discussing the issues; perhaps that is an easier (and safer) position for you. Why not really do what you are saying, and start a discussion? I'm *sure* there are plenty of people here who are ready to drop their arms and discuss.... > [...] We need not defend ourselves and our policies against > just anyone who challenges us. And we certainly aren't required to do so with > the poorly mannered, self-appointed. Ahh, now this is telling. Well, as I have said before, your presentation, and the perception of your company/agency/etc that it creates is up to you. I hope you know what you are doing with this sort of attitude.... > Is it possible for NOAA, US NAVY, DCIEM, Australian Navy, HSE, other > institutions, all the agencies, all the divers, essentially, most of the > conventional wisdom to be "wrong", and Mr. Irvine to be "right"? > > Of course it is. > > But it's not likely. It wouldn't be the first time; there are numerous analogies, but the one I really like is a comparison to anissette: thousands of people used to believe anisette perfectly safe, even while they were going insane (especially then!). But we now know that anisette is a strong CNS toxin, and it's production is banned. Also, note that as I mentioned to you before (which you have yet to respond to), ANDI stands alone in advocating a bailout gas with a ppO2 of 2.0 ata. So in that arena, how are we to take what ANDI says as right, if you yourself advocate "acceptance by numbers"? > Privately, I am > > Stuart -frank -- fhd@in*.ne* | If God invented marathons to keep people from doing 1 212 559 5534 | anything more stupid, triathlon must have taken Him 1 917 992 2248 | completely by surprise. 1 718 746 7061 | -- P. Z. Pearce, M.D.
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]