 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / March 2005TDI Solo Diver Course/South Florida
I'm thinking about taking the TDI Solo Diver Course in south Florida. Any recommendations for a shop? > I'm thinking about taking the TDI Solo Diver Course in south Florida. > Any recommendations for a shop? Nothing except I'd be interested in who you know of that offers it. Lee Lee: I'll let you know. Why pay to take a solo dive course? Most of us here in LI/NY dive solo without a "course certification". > Why pay to take a solo dive course? > > Most of us here in LI/NY dive solo without a "course certification". Obviously he doesn't have as much faith as you. All of my "local" diving is solo. However, there are resorts and liveaboards that will NOT let you dive solo unless you have the "Card". So YES, I'll do it just to get the card. I just had that experience in Curacao, where the resort would not let me dive solo, even though I have extensive solo diving experience. > All of my "local" diving is solo. However, there are resorts and > liveaboards that will NOT let you dive solo unless you have the "Card". > So YES, I'll do it just to get the card. I just had that experience > in Curacao, where the resort would not let me dive solo, even though I > have extensive solo diving experience. I don't consider that "just to have the card." It seems to me that you have a valid reason to want one. I think a solo certification is one of the silliest things to hit the dive industry in years. I'm of the opinion that, when you're ready to dive solo, you'll know. If you don't know, you aren't ready for solo diving. I want the card because I think I'll enjoy having and showing it. Lee . > I think a solo certification is one of the silliest things to hit the dive > industry in years. I'm of the opinion that, when you're ready to dive solo, > you'll know. If you don't know, you aren't ready for solo diving. I want > the card because I think I'll enjoy having and showing it. > > Lee I couldn't agree more. For me I can't even get one. A local iunstructor, and freind, here in LI NY, teaches this course. I approached him about taking it, and he flat out said no. He said that he felt that there was nothing he could teach me since I have been diving solo for 17 years. He said he'd be embarrassed to have me sit through his course, and to his credit will not hand out cards, so I am left with no card. Funny thing is the older I am getting the more often I dive with buddies. > I couldn't agree more. For me I can't even get one. A local > instructor, and freind, here in LI NY, teaches this course. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > through his course, and to his credit will not hand out cards, so I am > left with no card. Sue him for discrimination based on age. (another morphed thread). <grin> > Funny thing is the older I am getting the more often I dive with buddies. I haven't always had available buddies. There just weren't that many divers around in the old days, even here in South Florida, at least not until I was old enough to tow our boat to the ramp. Then buddies came out of the woodwork. I hate to admit it, but I've always been a bit of a diving snob. For most of my diving history, I just didn't want to dive with people that didn't dive well and, frankly, there weren't many around that did. These days, there are more. I've always enjoyed diving most as a social activity. To me, it's kind of like seeing a really good movie. It's better if you have somebody to share it with, to go "did you see that?" with. Even when I'm solo, I enjoy talking the dive over with others when it's done. Lee > Sue him for discrimination based on age. (another morphed thread). <grin> I don't know if will fly, the instrutor in question is actually older then me, I just got into diving at 16. . > I've always enjoyed diving most as a social activity. To me, it's kind of > like seeing a really good movie. It's better if you have somebody to share > it with, to go "did you see that?" with. Even when I'm solo, I enjoy > talking the dive over with others when it's done. > > Lee I understand completely. When I used to shore dive, these days I loath sand, the best buddies where the ones that showed up, hit the water and that was the last you saw of them until you surface. Hanging out BS'ing after the dive was sometimes more rewarding then the dive itself. Regards John >> I couldn't agree more. For me I can't even get one. A local >> instructor, and freind, here in LI NY, teaches this course. I [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >it with, to go "did you see that?" with. Even when I'm solo, I enjoy >talking the dive over with others when it's done. I gotta ask. Why would anyone bother with a "solo" card? I've dived with Lee and for all intents and purposes, he's a solo diver when he's chasing bugs. It's fun to watch but I realized after a very few minutes that Lee's focus was on bugs and nothing else. That's not a criticism because for the most part up here in the frozen north buddy diving only means talking on the boat. In the water we just meander around and on the rare occasion we pass within viz limits (often only a few feet) we wave and carry on. The fact of the matter is that with the temps and viz we usually dive in, cordiality is way down the totem pole. For all intents and purposes, by definition most of our dives up here are solo dives, just because of the crappy conditions, and perhaps also because most of the northern divers haven't heard about DIR etc. I'm not clear though on what the "solo" card will do for you. Are there dive ops who will acept a card to let you bugger off on your own? I had to prove what I could do before I could venture away from the group in Grand Cayman but up here yer just expected to stick with the gang or go it alone. It's a matter of personal choice or exigency. It isn't something we try to apply a card to. JF > I gotta ask. Why would anyone bother with a "solo" card? Because he wants to have it. I believe he thinks it is funny. I tend to agree with that sentiment. >I've dived > with Lee and for all intents and purposes, he's a solo diver when he's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the temps and viz we usually dive in, cordiality is way down the totem > pole. Seems to me, that having a good buddy would be primary in that environment. It's not like SOBing with a group in Caribbean(type) waters where if you get in trouble, there's a chance on of the SOB's will notice. > For all intents and purposes, by definition most of our dives up here > are solo dives, just because of the crappy conditions, and perhaps > also because most of the northern divers haven't heard about DIR etc. Regardless . . . > I'm not clear though on what the "solo" card will do for you. Bragging rights. >Are > there dive ops who will acept a card to let you bugger off on your > own? I had to prove what I could do before I could venture away from > the group in Grand Cayman but up here yer just expected to stick with > the gang or go it alone. It's a matter of personal choice or exigency. > It isn't something we try to apply a card to. I don't think he's trying to "apply" the card to anything. > JF > Seems to me, that having a good buddy would be primary in that environment. > It's not like SOBing with a group in Caribbean(type) waters where if you get > in trouble, there's a chance on of the SOB's will notice. Only if you want to dive with someone. Most I know go off by themselves. >>For all intents and purposes, by definition most of our dives up here >>are solo dives, just because of the crappy conditions, and perhaps >>also because most of the northern divers haven't heard about DIR etc. > Regardless . . . ?? > > Seems to me, that having a good buddy would be primary in that environment. > > It's not like SOBing with a group in Caribbean(type) waters where if you get > > in trouble, there's a chance on of the SOB's will notice. > > Only if you want to dive with someone. Most I know go off by themselves. Been laying in the mud, almost zero viz . . all wound up in filament . . alone . . .it wasn't good. But hey, I was alone. Doesn't get any better than that, does it? > >>For all intents and purposes, by definition most of our dives up here > >>are solo dives, just because of the crappy conditions, and perhaps [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ?? Regardless, you guys should get yourselves some decent (descent) buddies. > Regardless, you guys should get yourselves some decent (descent) buddies. Buddies are a liability. While you're looking out for their welfare, they're snagging all the big lobsters. >>Regardless, you guys should get yourselves some decent (descent) buddies. > Buddies are a liability. While you're looking out for their welfare, > they're snagging all the big lobsters. So true.... >>>Seems to me, that having a good buddy would be primary in that environment. >>>It's not like SOBing with a group in Caribbean(type) waters where if you get >>>in trouble, there's a chance on of the SOB's will notice. >>Only if you want to dive with someone. Most I know go off by themselves. > Been laying in the mud, almost zero viz . . all wound up in filament . . > alone . . .it wasn't good. But hey, I was alone. Doesn't get any better > than that, does it? I can see the mono, never dive in the mud and have enough strategic cutting tools to get out of any entanglement so far. >>>>For all intents and purposes, by definition most of our dives up here >>>>are solo dives, just because of the crappy conditions, and perhaps [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >>?? > Regardless, you guys should get yourselves some decent (descent) buddies. Why? Yes, a buddy can help in certain situations. IF that buddy is taggin along watching your every move. We all have different agendas. We all pay for our own dives. So, I do what I want. They do what they want. We all have a good time doing it. > For all intents and purposes, by definition most of our dives up here > are solo dives, just because of the crappy conditions, and perhaps > also because most of the northern divers haven't heard about DIR etc. Everyone I know has heard of DIR. No one dives it strictly (then you would not be a "solo" diver), but do take what they feel is good for them and go diving. We dive solo because we have different objectives in diving. Those that like to shoot photos or fish, lobstering, exploring of just plain site-seeing. > I'm not clear though on what the "solo" card will do for you. Are > there dive ops who will acept a card to let you bugger off on your > own? I had to prove what I could do before I could venture away from > the group in Grand Cayman but up here yer just expected to stick with > the gang or go it alone. It's a matter of personal choice or exigency. > It isn't something we try to apply a card to. The only time I see a "group" is when there is a class going on. We get in before them and since we stay down longer, we surface after them. > I couldn't agree more. For me I can't even get one. A local > iunstructor, and freind, here in LI NY, teaches this course. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > left with no card. Funny thing is the older I am getting the more often > I dive with buddies. Does that mean you will be looking for a "buddie" to dive with? The Loupster is always available. >> Does that mean you will be looking for a "buddie" to dive with? The > Loupster is always available. And break up your cutting edge dive team, I couldn't do that to you. Plus I'd probally lose him the silt anyhow. Finally, since I give him all my lobster anyhow, doing it on the bottom would lead you to believe he out hunted you. <Ducking and running>. >>>Does that mean you will be looking for a "buddie" to dive with? The >>Loupster is always available. > And break up your cutting edge dive team, I couldn't do that to you. > Plus I'd probally lose him the silt anyhow. Finally, since I give him > all my lobster anyhow, doing it on the bottom would lead you to believe > he out hunted you. <Ducking and running>. The team was cutting edge BECAUSE of the Loupster! How many people do you know that can dive like him. See? So, I figure, since in your "old" age, you are looking for a dive buddy, who better to go diving with than the Loupster. He could teach you his kicking technique. "How to silt out a wreck and survive". "Catch that Cricket". Along with the usual insults and profanities that follow. Hey, he makes it back after every dive! Who else could show you how to suck down a pair of doubles, a sling and then someone else's hanging O2 bottle? He's a fun guy, a good cook (can you say "olives") and doesn't mind taking down new people. Now, about those lobsters.... the season is going to start in a couple of months, and we will see... I know I can out-lobster Louie, you are different. I don't know of anyone finding a dead 20 pounder and leaving him "up" on the San Diego. > The team was cutting edge BECAUSE of the Loupster! How many people do > you know that can dive like him. See? So, I figure, since in your "old" > age, you are looking for a dive buddy, who better to go diving with than > the Loupster. He could teach you his kicking technique. "How to silt out > a wreck and survive". "Catch that Cricket". Along with the usual insults > and profanities that follow. Hey, he makes it back after every dive! Luckily Darwin isn't always paying attetion. And hopefully it will remain this way. > Who else could show you how to suck down a pair of doubles, a sling and > then someone else's hanging O2 bottle? He's a fun guy, a good cook (can > you say "olives") and doesn't mind taking down new people. He does tend to aerate the ocean, but he seems happy. He is a good cook, but come on Olivezagna. > Now, about those lobsters.... the season is going to start in a couple > of months, and we will see... I know I can out-lobster Louie, you are > different. I don't know of anyone finding a dead 20 pounder and leaving > him "up" on the San Diego. Listen, The lobster was alive for years and I told all of you guys where he was, but you guys hate the Diego remeber. And he was more like 15 lb., and my guess is someone tried and spear him and gave him a fatal wound. So when I saw his corpse I couldn't help put him right under line for a joke. And just remeber our deal, anything over 10lbs goes back right. >> and profanities that follow. Hey, he makes it back after every > dive! > > Luckily Darwin isn't always paying attetion. And hopefully it will > remain this way. Darwin? You're talking to TonyP. He doesn't believe in Darwin. >>Luckily Darwin isn't always paying attetion. And hopefully it will >>remain this way. > Darwin? You're talking to TonyP. He doesn't believe in Darwin. Greg.. you have it all wrong (as if this is anything new). I believe in Darwin (as an actual historical figure), just not his outdated theory. >>> Luckily Darwin isn't always paying attetion. And hopefully it will >>> remain this way. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Greg.. you have it all wrong (as if this is anything new). I believe in > Darwin (as an actual historical figure), just not his outdated theory. where is his theory wrong? And, Accepting for the moment the argument of creation, why couldn't Darwin's theory be accurate since the moment of creation? Survival of the fittest/best adaptation to changing environment.  SignatureThe constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Think about it, It ain't that hard to figure out. If your religion is none, then deal with it. I strongly urge everyone reading this to check out WWW.anysoldier.com, and support our troops with a letter, a package or a donation. > where is his theory wrong? And, Accepting for the moment the argument of > creation, why couldn't Darwin's theory be accurate since the moment of > creation? > Survival of the fittest/best adaptation to changing environment. If that were true, Mossman and the rest of the gun grabbers would have been murdered by now. >> Survival of the fittest/best adaptation to changing environment. > > If that were true, Mossman and the rest of the gun grabbers would have > been > murdered by now. More jealous missives from the trailer park. Maybe you should have another drink. >> Greg.. you have it all wrong (as if this is anything new). I believe >> in Darwin (as an actual historical figure), just not his outdated theory. >> > where is his theory wrong? And, Accepting for the moment the argument of > creation, why couldn't Darwin's theory be accurate since the moment of > creation? Survival of the fittest/best adaptation to changing environment. Modern evolutionary scientists and geneticists claim a long list of errors in Darwin's theories, as did Darwin himself in later (after "Origin..")writings. And the popular understanding of Darwinism is a fabrication that would astound old Charlie. Science is a moving target, constantly revising its "truths" as new evidence is added to an issue, and constantly rejecting what it doesn't yet understand. I was taught that the Iliad, and the very existence of Troy, were myths. Now they're excavating it. I was taught that we are off in a corner of the universe. Since the mid-1990s cosmologists have agreed that we are at the center of the universe, as is every other point in the universe. As a religion, Science is just too damned uncertain about everything. And where can I sign up for that ice diver course in SoFla? m > >> Greg.. you have it all wrong (as if this is anything new). I believe > >> in Darwin (as an actual historical figure), just not his outdated theory. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (after "Origin..")writings. And the popular understanding of > Darwinism is a fabrication that would astound old Charlie. True. But these are minor details which has little effect on the global theme of evolution. > Science is a moving target, constantly revising its "truths" as > new evidence is added to an issue, and constantly rejecting what > it doesn't yet understand. That much is very true. In science, everything is "theory" only, the best theory of the day. That's why Newton got hit on the head and explained physics that way until his head was hit by Einstein, and they Einstein's head was hit by the later physicists. > I was taught that we are off in a corner of the universe. Geez Mike, I didn't realize you were born in the Middle Ages, or could've been the 2000-yr Old Man himself! > Since > the mid-1990s cosmologists have agreed that we are at the center > of the universe, as is every other point in the universe. That's like the drunk who got floored at the bar when he couldn't pick anyone to fight there until he said he could beat up anyone in the entire universe. The new theory is full of holes, not limited to the black ones. The earth is FAR off the center of our galaxy -- that big local bar. So all that center of the universe theory is the same old theory of planatery motion based on circles and epi-circles because god's creation must be perfect (like a circle) -- how dare anyone think of such a eccentric idea of an ellipse! The bible takes science back 4000 years, at least. So far, as best I can tell, it should be voted as the all-time best seller in Fiction. -- Bob. > As a religion, Science is just too damned uncertain about > everything. > > And where can I sign up for that ice diver course in SoFla? > > m > The new theory is full of holes, not limited to the black ones. > The earth is FAR off the center of our galaxy -- that big local > bar. So all that center of the universe theory is the same old > theory of planatery motion based on circles and epi-circles > because god's creation must be perfect (like a circle) -- how > dare anyone think of such a eccentric idea of an ellipse! We are at the edge of our galaxy, but according to generally accepted current science, we and every other point of the universe is at the center of the universe, i.e. the far reaches of our galaxy are at the center of the universe, just as we are. > The bible takes science back 4000 years, at least. So far, as > best I can tell, it should be voted as the all-time best seller > in Fiction. The Bible only reflects the fact that no matter where you are, the universe extends out from you in every direction, and if that doesn't put ya right in the center of things, I sure don't know what does. The Bible has nothing to do with science, but science is showing that the Bible is a much more accurate history than was previously thought. And science has finally resolved the old Baltimore Catechism question, "Where is God?" Ain't science grand! > > The new theory is full of holes, not limited to the black ones. > > The earth is FAR off the center of our galaxy -- that big local > > bar. You forgot to cite the local bar story. > We are at the edge of our galaxy, but according to generally > accepted current science, we and every other point of the > universe is at the center of the universe, i.e. the far reaches > of our galaxy are at the center of the universe, just as we are. That's NEW? That for infinity you can SAY every point in the continuum is the CENTER of infinity? Therefore, while the earth is NOT even at the center of our own SOLAR system, which is NOT anywhere close to the center of our own GALAXY ... suddenly we can claim to be at the center of the UNIVERSE, just like the religious ignoramuses claimed back in the Middle Ages? That the little Martians can now claim to be at the Center of the Universe too? That YerAnus <sic> folks at the outer edge of the Solar System can now claim to be the Center of the Universe too? > Ain't science grand! Sho, Mike. -- Bob. >> > The new theory is full of holes, not limited to the black ones. >> > The earth is FAR off the center of our galaxy -- that big local [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >That's NEW? That for infinity you can SAY every point in the >continuum is the CENTER of infinity? The Universe does not have infinites in spacetime, it just curls back on itself. The diameter is comparable to the age, though, so nothing has been able to travel "full circle" yet. The fact that the night sky is dark is proof of that. >Therefore, while the earth is NOT even at the center of our own >SOLAR system, which is NOT anywhere close to the center of our >own GALAXY ... suddenly we can claim to be at the center of the >UNIVERSE, just like the religious ignoramuses claimed back in >the Middle Ages? This is the equivalence principle. Einstein is still beating our heads; noone has seriously challenged his main theories. Go read his papers. They are brilliant pieces of work. >That the little Martians can now claim to be at the Center of >the Universe too? Yep. >That YerAnus <sic> folks at the outer edge of the Solar System can >now claim to be the Center of the Universe too? The theory only states that there are no special points in spacetime. It is all continous. It may have to be modified for black hole singularities; but the jury (with Stephen Hawking as foreman) is still out on that one. -- mrr > >> > The new theory is full of holes, not limited to the black ones. > >> > The earth is FAR off the center of our galaxy -- that big local [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > nothing has been able to travel "full circle" yet. The fact that > the night sky is dark is proof of that. I was using the concept of infinity for simplicity of explaining how everything CAN be considered the "center". Whether the universe is finite or infinite is still up for grabs. The fact that Einstein and others have used the 4th dimention in spacetime, to explain HIS theory via the mathematical constructs of Lorentz transforms, is merely "theory". > >Therefore, while the earth is NOT even at the center of our own > >SOLAR system, which is NOT anywhere close to the center of our [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This is the equivalence principle. Einstein is still beating our > heads; noone has seriously challenged his main theories. I've read his theory of relativity papers back in the 1950s, while I was still a high school kid, with a friend of about my age, who is possibly the ONLY Professor at Harvard noa who had his entire education at Harvard, never left Harvard, and was named a Chaired Professor there 7 years after he graduated. :-) IMHSHO, he was at least as brilliant as Einstein who stole the relativity theory from his (more) brilliant wife anyway. <G> > Go read his papers. They are brilliant pieces of work. At the time. Since then, there had been much hole patching and structural upgrading. Physicists are following the steps of economists -- you can line them up end-to-end and they point all directions. > >That the little Martians can now claim to be at the Center of > >the Universe too? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The theory only states that there are no special points in spacetime. That's my whole counterpoint to Mike Gray's assertion that the earth is NOW considered the center of the universe, in the CONTEXT as if the old religious baboons of the Middle Ages were right in the first place. The CRUX of the matter is that the CENTER of the universe theory, in the religious context, had to do with the importance of the god- created EARTH. Hell, if EVERY place in the universe can be considered the CENTER of the universe, then the center of the universe no longer has any importance or anything to gloat about. HELL would be the center of the universe too -- of course we'll have to dig the theologians out from the bottom of their book piles to argue how many angels can dance at the center of the universe! > It is all continous. It may have to be modified for black hole > singularities; but the jury (with Stephen Hawking as foreman) is still > out on that one. > > -- mrr Steve Hawking stole his ideas from his grad students and colleaques too, as reported in Science and other scientifically credible sources. It's just not politically correct to say anything uncomplimentary about a severely handicapped chap, who managed to write without his hands, feet, or even a pen held by teeth. You are a physicist too, I presume? :-) Besides being a computer jock who dwells in alt.folklore.computers. alt.tasteless.jokes, alt.religion.kibology, and other groups of esoteric science discussions? <G> -- Bob. > That's my whole counterpoint to Mike Gray's assertion that the earth > is NOW considered the center of the universe, in the CONTEXT as if > the old religious baboons of the Middle Ages were right in the first > place. We know that the old religious baboons of the Middle Ages were right in the first place. What we're arguing about is whether modern scientists have spent their grant money wisely. > The CRUX of the matter is that the CENTER of the universe theory, > in the religious context, had to do with the importance of the god- > created EARTH. You need to go back and read more of those old religious baboons of the Middle Ages. Their position was that God is everywhere, and therefore the earth (and everything else in the universe) is at the center. That is essentially the position of modern cosmologists. It was the old scientific baboons of the Middle Ages that posited that the earth was at the physical center of what could be observed. Which, of course, it is. Limited comprehension certainly restricts understanding various views of the same phenomenon. > > That's my whole counterpoint to Mike Gray's assertion that the earth > > is NOW considered the center of the universe, in the CONTEXT as if [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > right in the first place. What we're arguing about is whether > modern scientists have spent their grant money wisely. No. We were arguing about whether the old religious baboons of the Middle Ages were right or not. I would have agreed with you that many (not all) modern scientists have spent their grant money foolishly. > > The CRUX of the matter is that the CENTER of the universe theory, > > in the religious context, had to do with the importance of the god- > > created EARTH. > > You need to go back and read more of those old religious baboons > of the Middle Ages. Their position was that God is everywhere, That much is true about god being everywhere (omni this and omni that). But god pays more attention to its creation Earth where he sent his son, etc., etc. > and therefore the earth (and everything else in the universe) is > at the center. That doesn't follow at all. > That is essentially the position of modern cosmologists. That essentially how religious nuts can use the same bible to interpret one thousand different ways to have created its modern sects of over 1000 brands of Christianity, some of which are killing each other over their Christian believe too! > It was the old scientific baboons of the Middle Ages that > posited that the earth was at the physical center of what could > be observed. Which, of course, it is. I think you misidentified many of the Middle Ages baboons. > Limited comprehension certainly restricts understanding various > views of the same phenomenon. That's certainly true. Scientific baboons at least look at MANY views to come to their "latest" theory. Religious baboons never look at any other view other than the same old FICTION written 2000 years ago, and continue to use it to justify every scientifically unjustifiable conclusion of theirs. When EVERYTHING fails, religious baboons appeal to their trump card "faith". When EVERYTHING fails, scientific baboons continue to search for the view that makes most sense. -- Bob. > When EVERYTHING fails, scientific baboons continue to search > for the view that makes most sense. No. When EVERYTHING fails, scientific baboons go to work for Lockheed Martin converting taxes into weapons for some previous war. > > When EVERYTHING fails, scientific baboons continue to search > > for the view that makes most sense. > > No. When EVERYTHING fails, scientific baboons go to work for > Lockheed Martin converting taxes into weapons for some previous war. No argument from me about that! In fact, many of the baboons who work for Lockheed Martin are not even scientists. The truth of your statement and mine are not mutually exclusive. -- Bob. > > > When EVERYTHING fails, scientific baboons continue to search > > > for the view that makes most sense. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No argument from me about that! In fact, many of the baboons who > work for Lockheed Martin are not even scientists. True. Many of them are stasticians. > > > > When EVERYTHING fails, scientific baboons continue to search > > > > for the view that makes most sense. > > > > > > No. When EVERYTHING fails, scientific baboons go to work for > > > Lockheed Martin converting taxes into weapons for some previous war. > > No argument from me about that! In fact, many of the baboons who > > work for Lockheed Martin are not even scientists. > > True. Many of them are stasticians. But not many of them are so dysfunctional that they spell it as "stasticians". Alan Street wrote: > In article <1110134607.825020.19430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Reef > Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ? > No. When EVERYTHING fails, scientific baboons go to work for > ? > Lockheed Martin converting taxes into weapons for some previous war. > ? > ? No argument from me about that! In fact, many of the baboons who > ? work for Lockheed Martin are not even scientists. > ? > > >True. Many of them are stasticians. >But not many of them are so dysfunctional that they spell it as >"stasticians". I wonder how many dysfunctional statisticians there are that can't spell "blindfold"? > When EVERYTHING fails, scientific baboons continue to search > for the view that makes most sense. Statistically. > > When EVERYTHING fails, scientific baboons continue to search > > for the view that makes most sense. > > Statistically. Ahhh. > He does tend to aerate the ocean, but he seems happy. He is a good > cook, but come on Olivezagna. Yeah.. the infamous Lagsagna stuffed with olives! A few would fine, but the whole jar? And yes, he is happy. He (and everyone on board) love being out, even if just for the fun that is had (and to escape the land and all that is on it for a few hours). >>Now, about those lobsters.... the season is going to start in a couple> >>of months, and we will see... I know I can out-lobster Louie, you are> >>different. I don't know of anyone finding a dead 20 pounder and leaving >>him "up" on the San Diego. > Listen, The lobster was alive for years and I told all of you guys > where he was, but you guys hate the Diego remeber. And he was more like > 15 lb., and my guess is someone tried and spear him and gave him a > fatal wound. So when I saw his corpse I couldn't help put him right > under line for a joke. And just remeber our deal, anything over 10lbs > goes back right. I still hate the Diego. Can't wait for the big collapse. Just hope no one is tied into when it happens. I don't remember you telling me where "he" was. Something that big I would not keep anyway (does it "hurt" them coming up for show and tossing 'em back?). I thought it was funny. "He" was there after I started my dive. Imagine my surprise to see him "sitting" there under the anchor line! As for the 10pound rule, no problem with me at all. Can't wait for the season to start. I have a couple of new certs wanting to dive with us this season. So, you'll have your work cut out for you! >. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> Lee Same reason we take the Ice Diver course. Get a card to show to the dive dudes in wetsuit land. >I couldn't agree more. For me I can't even get one. A local >iunstructor, and freind, here in LI NY, teaches this course. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >left with no card. Funny thing is the older I am getting the more often >I dive with buddies. -- mrr > All of my "local" diving is solo. However, there are resorts and > liveaboards that will NOT let you dive solo unless you have the "Card". The whole idea of a "Solo Diver" CERT is an oxymoron. If the diver is observed by the certification agency, then said diver is no longer diving "solo" -- but under the watchful eyes of someone else. Who certifies the Solo Diver Instructor? Ask them if they need an instructor to teach a "Deep Solo Diver" course which certifies solo diving to below 200 feet. :-) -- Bob. >>Why pay to take a solo dive course? >> >>Most of us here in LI/NY dive solo without a "course certification". > Obviously he doesn't have as much faith as you. Or you. > Why pay to take a solo dive course? > Most of us here in LI/NY dive solo without a "course certification". To have the card. > I'm thinking about taking the TDI Solo Diver Course in south Florida. > Any recommendations for a shop? I have no idea about your motives for taking the solo course, but do be aware that there are few places that honor the certification. The info isn't bad, in terms of thinking about redundancy and such but remember there are failure modes like a loss of consciousness that only a properly trained buddy could be of assistance. John > > I'm thinking about taking the TDI Solo Diver Course in south Florida. > > Any recommendations for a shop? > > I have no idea about your motives for taking the solo course, but do be > aware that there are few places that honor the certification. In my experience, few places care whether you dive solo. > The info isn't bad, in terms of thinking about redundancy and such but > remember there are failure modes like a loss of consciousness that only > a properly trained buddy could be of assistance. That happen alot where you dive? >>>I'm thinking about taking the TDI Solo Diver Course in south > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > In my experience, few places care whether you dive solo. Some do many don't, i just mentioned it as a point of reference. I don't see much value to the course other than for the instructor to lay out the potential risks and deal with gear issues but to me that shouldn't really be needed if you're ready to dive solo. >>The info isn't bad, in terms of thinking about redundancy and such > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That happen alot where you dive? Actually had an incident like that at the local quarry. The normal loss of consciousness is the after dive consumption of tasty beverages John >>>>I'm thinking about taking the TDI Solo Diver Course in south >> >> Florida. >>>I have no idea about your motives for taking the solo course, but do >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > out the potential risks and deal with gear issues but to me that shouldn't > really be needed if you're ready to dive solo. I got the SDI solo card in January of 2004. The course was more evaluative than instructive, with the instructor critiquing my diving after two dives with him, and lots of interactive discussion for the other parts of the class. I did do a post last year outlining in detail what I did. Every place I have dived since then has accepted the card, especially since I have a separate waiver supplied by SDI that I sign and file with the operator. SignatureBut then again, what do I know? Lou Vallone LouVallone@aol.com http://members.aol.com/LouVallone > I did do a post last year outlining in detail what I did. Are you still diving with the spare-air? >> I did do a post last year outlining in detail what I did. > > Are you still diving with the spare-air? On recreational open water dives, of course. That is what it was meant for and why I have it. On other type dives, other type equipment may be in order. I have solved the problem of transport by having a see-through case for the SA, which I take apart, and in which I put the letter from the TSA saying it may be packed in checked luggage. I haven't had a problem since. SignatureBut then again, what do I know? Lou Vallone LouVallone@aol.com http://members.aol.com/LouVallone > >> I did do a post last year outlining in detail what I did. > > > > Are you still diving with the spare-air? > > On recreational open water dives, of course. That is what it was meant for > and why I have it. You are DISQUALIFIED as a Solo Diver no matter who certified you, because you are diving with a buddy -- Spare Death! -- Bob. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.