 |
 | 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 / September 2005GUE - tell me more
Who are they? What do they teach? Where do they teach (i.e. does it tend to be limited to the US)? etc. etc. etc. I know it's vague but all I really know (beyond Global Underwater Explorers built on DIR fundamentals [I think]) is from press articles in dive magazines which usually favour BSAC or PADI and they are rarely objective in their reporting.  SignatureStef the pragmatist Hope for the best Plan for the worst Sometimes the glass is half-full; most of the time I’m waiting for a refill. > Who are they? What do they teach? Where do they teach (i.e. does it tend > to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > magazines which usually favour BSAC or PADI and they are rarely objective > in their reporting. ... and you expect objectivism here? > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ... and you expect objectivism here? Not from individual opinions maybe but from a variety of viewpoints I can (hopefully) discover more... If you're not DIR you're a stroke (I don't even know where that originated as an insult); if you're a stroke your going to die through stupidity seems to be the message coming across. I have read a little more, mostly to do with the fact that everybody MUST use the same kit regardless of individual preference, but I balance the logic of diving the same against the fact that very few people want to be dictated to with regards to the kit that they use. I'd be a self-confessed stroke... but I want to learn more and pick out the bits that make sense. SignatureStef the pragmatist Hope for the best Plan for the worst Sometimes the glass is half-full; most of the time I’m waiting for a refill. > I'd be a self-confessed stroke... but I want to learn more and pick out > the bits that make sense. That's quite a task in itself. DIR is a combination of fitness, gear configuration, philosophy and procedures. It originated with a group of cave divers known as WKPP, Waukula Karst Plains Project. One of the principal people in the WKPP was Jarrod Jablonski who is now the head of GUE. That's the link between GUE and DIR. The fitness, procedures and philosophical elements are a bit beyond what I would try to explain or, for that matter, fully understand. The equipment configuration is a bit easier. Just don't confuse the gear with the program as a whole. There's a lot more to it than that. WKPP/DIR principals start with the idea of everybody being configured and trained the same. The training aspect focuses on doing everything the same way, every time, and practicing it until you can do it almost without thinking about it or, if necessary, in the dark, without panic. In addition to the procedures and training, all equipment used on WKPP dives must be essentially the same. It's not necessary for everything to be the same brand, at least not quite necessary, but it does have to be configured the same and have the same features. Generally, but not always, that means the same brand. The idea is that, if your buddy's equipment and yours are identical and to their standards, and you're trained to their standards, the chances of doing the right thing in a crisis situation is greatly enhanced. The downside to the system is that if the something that goes wrong is not something that they planned for, the chances of doing the wrong thing, or nothing, are greatly increased. To their credit, things they did not consider, plan and train for are, well, they're very rare. Cave ins have killed a few people here and there, as has the overconfidence of some DIR trained divers when diving in non DIR ways. That's not allowed on the project site, but it has happened off site, in the ocean for example. The system gained fame from successes in cave diving and through the proud insistence by it's adherents that it was the one best way for all divers, regardless of conditions, regardless of the goal of the dive. It gained a lot of resistance from the same source. There are still those that will claim there is only on way to do it right and they're still wrong. A lot of us here are using what I first named DIR-L, or DIR-Like configurations. At first glance, I look, or until recently, looked DIR, but on close inspection, have only adopted some of the many elements of the gear configuration. I'll leave it to you to use Google to find the approved configuration. It's certainly on line in a number of places. I will, however, point something that you might not notice at first. DIR divers do not use computers, as computers and, when they use them as gauges, they don't put them in a console . . . ever. Good luck and good hunting. Lee > > I'd be a self-confessed stroke... but I want to learn more and pick out > > the bits that make sense. > > That's quite a task in itself. DIR is a combination of fitness, gear > configuration, philosophy and procedures. Balony! It's all alphbet soup and slogans for the UNTHINKING diver! > WKPP/DIR principals start with the idea of everybody being configured and > trained the same. And the UNTHINKING divers would be led to believe what's suitable for CAVE diving is best, let alone suitable, for warm water Open Water no-deco diving! Only the extremely gullible bought that bill of goods. > The training aspect focuses on doing everything the same > way, every time, and practicing it until you can do it almost without > thinking about it Whatever happened to "THINK before you ACT"? That's why you have so many non-thinking cavers dying inside and outside the caves. > A lot of us here are using what I first named DIR-L, or DIR-Like > configurations. As in Virgin-like but scrwed a plenty? > At first glance, I look, or until recently, looked DIR, but > on close inspection, have only adopted some of the many elements of the gear > configuration. Only the BLIND SHEEP and LEMMINGS want to "look DIR". For what? > DIR divers do not use computers, as computers and, when they Just the "no dive computer" bit puts them squarely in the Middle Ages! DIR -- Dumb & Ignant Robots. -- Bob. > Just the "no dive computer" bit puts them squarely in the Middle Ages! Until I read further on in the thread I would have agreed. Within the 'project' dive I can understand the logic, when they apply it to recreational diving when there are some perfectly good tools available for the purpose I can't see the point. SignatureStef the pragmatist Hope for the best Plan for the worst Sometimes the glass is half-full; most of the time I’m waiting for a refill. >> Just the "no dive computer" bit puts them squarely in the Middle Ages! > > Until I read further on in the thread I would have agreed. Within the > 'project' dive I can understand the logic, when they apply it to > recreational diving when there are some perfectly good tools available for > the purpose I can't see the point. .....and that's the point. There is no point. LD. > .....and that's the point. There is no point. Point is, for the cost difference between a dive computer and a bottom timer, one could buy a lot of other goodies, in some cases enough for a good set of doubles. Think Lee pointed out some anonamous diver he knows that does quite well without one. ;-) Curtis ""Magilla"" yahoo.com> wrote >> .....and that's the point. There is no point. > > Point is, for the cost difference between a dive computer and a bottom > timer, one could buy a lot of other goodies, in some cases enough for a > good set of doubles. The standard for WKPP bottom timers was a Suunto dive computer in gauge mode. > Think Lee pointed out some anonamous diver he knows that does quite > well without one. ;-) Fairly well, only fairly well. 8^) Lee > The standard for WKPP bottom timers was a Suunto dive computer in gauge > mode. I was totally unaware of that. You one of them secret members? >>> Think Lee pointed out some anonamous diver he knows that does quite >> well without one. ;-) > > Fairly well, only fairly well. 8^) Extremely well for what he wants, I'd wager. I'll ask him next time I see him. Bet he knows how to achieve proper trim with Jets too. Reckon the computer geeks cannot sing, so....... Curtis "Magilla" wrote: > > The standard for WKPP bottom timers was a Suunto dive computer in gauge > > mode. > > I was totally unaware of that. You one of them secret members? I happened to drop in to see what's happening. Lee actually had a good JOKE that escaped you! Do you know what "gauge mode" is, especially in Cochran dive computers? It means the computer is DEAD, MORIBUND. -- Bob. > "Magilla" wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do you know what "gauge mode" is, especially in Cochran dive computers? > It means the computer is DEAD, MORIBUND. Good thing they use gauge mode in Suunto computers then, where the computer is busy logging depths, water temp, etc. Yes, the computer is not calculating deco limits. Still logging stuff depths, time, etc. http://www.suunto.com/media/suunto/manuals/en_US/vyper_manual1_en_10cdb.pdf see section 3.4 > -- Bob. ""Magilla"" wrote >> The standard for WKPP bottom timers was a Suunto dive computer in gauge >> mode. > > I was totally unaware of that. You one of them secret members? Not hardly, but George used to take great pains to tell me everything I didn't know about the group, inbetween calling me a liar and farm animal stupid. >> Fairly well, only fairly well. 8^) > > Extremely well for what he wants, I'd wager. I'll ask him next time I see > him. He's happy and it's only a slight constraint on his occasional dive buddies. It works well enough when everything is known in advance, just like a lot of other things about diving. > Bet he knows how to achieve proper trim with Jets too. Yeah, but he dives with a guy that skinned the same cat a different way. Lee >> Bet he knows how to achieve proper trim with Jets too. > > Yeah, but he dives with a guy that skinned the same cat a different way. Suspect he knows a few, more alluding to he's got the diving without the toy figured out. Curtis > > The standard for WKPP bottom timers was a Suunto dive computer in gauge > > mode. > > I was totally unaware of that. You one of them secret members? I do know for a fact that Alan got 4 Vypers for JJ and some other members before he got booted. -- An American friend of mine - living in Canada - says that in the US, greed is acceptable but envy is a sin. In Canada it is just the opposite. I would suggest that envy is our national sport. And no one inspires more envy in us than our southern neighbor. It is a shame, because any legitimate gripes we may have about America get lost in a sea of childish wolf-crying. > > > The standard for WKPP bottom timers was a Suunto dive computer in gauge > > > mode. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I do know for a fact that Alan got 4 Vypers for JJ and some other members > before he got booted. And I thought that was Lee's JOKE. If that's the case, then Lee certainly MIS-USED the term "gauge mode". LOL Lee meant to say they use it as a "depth gauge" (a working one). In "gauge mode" is when the computer is "locked out" (for 24 hours or whatever 'the gauge mode' is defined for the dive comp". While in "gauge mode", the computer is completely dead, moribund, and you can't use it even as a depth gauge! That was Mike Cochran's JOKE -- to call a locked out computer to be one in "gauge mode" because it CEASE to work as any kind of gauge. See, that joke would have made sense in the WKKP situation, because it would not violate the rule of using a dive computer by carrying a DEAD one. :-) I think you were around 1995 when Cochran made his big splash in rec.scuba, of making a FOOL of himself, together with his ad agent, the WETone. Carl Heinzl (who is still alive and well, but became so mellowed that he would smile if you kick him in the shin) made himself famous by introducing the Cochran WEIGHT belt -- drilling little holes in Cochran dive computers and fill them with lead! Just another bit of SCUBA history in rec.scuba! Hey Pops, where have you been? If you're still around Hotlanta, I can do lunch with you there, anytime before 2 pm, anywhere in Hotlanta or Marietta, on my way to catch a flight to Lost Wages on Sunday. -- Bob. P.S. Jumping to another thread on hh Huntzinger's clueless blabbers about Frequent Flyer Program benefits and his ignorance about those benefits, monetary AND free upgrades of seats, I can tell him, and other who read theat thread, that today is FIVE days before my RETURN, and I already had all my coach segments COMPLIMENTARILY upgraded to First Class, and CONFIRMED at the earliest possible date for Platium members -- 5 days before flight departure times. The first confirmation was Monday 8 Aug 2005 23:26:13 -0500, 5 days before my Sunday departure. :-) > > > > The standard for WKPP bottom timers was a Suunto dive computer in gauge > > > > mode. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > in "gauge mode", the computer is completely dead, moribund, and > you can't use it even as a depth gauge! Did you read the stuff I posted about Suunto's "gauge mode"? <snip> > -- Bob. > > > > > The standard for WKPP bottom timers was a Suunto dive computer in > gauge [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Did you read the stuff I posted about Suunto's "gauge mode"? Nah! I hardly ever read rec.scuba now -- except for the few threads in which gnats bug me about MY posts. You mean your post of Oct last year? I read it just now. Dennis> Yes, in gauge mode. The Suunto Cobra, I believe. Dennis> The computer is NOT calculating deco for you. Rather Dennis> its just logging depth info. But does it SHOW the data it's logging while it's in gauge mode. :-) Of course the cive comp is not REALLY dead, but only PLAYING dead. In the Cochran Nemesis, the "gauge mode" was Cochran's joke -- it doesn't SHOW anything, but it was RECORDING. That was how I knew, after it revived, that it MIS-CALCULATED my "missed deco" to be 51 MINUTES while the dive was a no deco dive, according to my trusted ORCA and all the other computers using the RECORDED detailed probile, after it dropped dead. :-) If the Suunto is not showing even the DEPTH, (as the Nemesis when it was in "gauge mode"), then it wouldn't be any use, to anybody -- not even JJ. :-) -- Bob. > > > > > > The standard for WKPP bottom timers was a Suunto dive computer in > > gauge [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > You mean your post of Oct last year? I read it just now. No, the one jsut a few days ago. > Dennis> Yes, in gauge mode. The Suunto Cobra, I believe. > Dennis> The computer is NOT calculating deco for you. Rather [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > when it was in "gauge mode"), then it wouldn't be any use, > to anybody -- not even JJ. :-) > -- Bob. Dennis > > > > > > > The standard for WKPP bottom timers was a Suunto dive computer > in [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > No, the one jsut a few days ago. Oh that one. When google pointed to THIS thread, I thought it was pointing to your present post. But what you said a few days ago was no different from what you said in the October post. My comment about "guage mode" and Mike Cochran's use of that term, still applies. I don't use Cochran anymore. Never used the Suunto. So, if there is any difference in the meaning of "gauge mode" in dive computers, it is only a point of historical interest, relative to Lee's comment and his respondent's comment. -- Bob. > > Dennis> Yes, in gauge mode. The Suunto Cobra, I believe. > > Dennis> The computer is NOT calculating deco for you. Rather [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > when it was in "gauge mode"), then it wouldn't be any use, > > to anybody -- not even JJ. :-) "P.S. Jumping to another thread on hh Huntzinger's clueless blabbers about Frequent Flyer Program benefits and his ignorance about those benefits, monetary AND free upgrades of seats, I can tell him, and other who read theat thread, that today is FIVE days before my RETURN, and I already had all my coach segments COMPLIMENTARILY upgraded to First Class, and CONFIRMED at the earliest possible date for Platium members -- 5 days before flight departure times. The first confirmation was Monday 8 Aug 2005 23:26:13 -0500, 5 days before my Sunday departure. :-) " Well, it's good to see some things never change. Bob's still a pompous a.s who's addicted to the caps button. Capt. Bill > Well, it's good to see some things never change. Bob's still a pompous > a.s who's addicted to the caps button. > > Capt. Bill Well, it's good to see when I got back from my First Class flights this Capt. Bill must've been envious about, that this resident MENTAL MIDGET has to change his name to Capt. Bill1 to worship me on my return. You may get off your knees now, Capt. Bill1. <snicker> > Well, it's good to see some things never change. Bob's still a pompous > a.s who's addicted to the caps button. Bob who? Oh, Ding-a-Ling. He still around? Hadn't noticed. Curtis "Magilla" wrote: > > Well, it's good to see some things never change. Bob's still a pompous > > a.s who's addicted to the caps button. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Curtis Same to you, Curtis. You never did answer if you and CPR86 are the same IDIOT! :=) -- Bob. > > Well, it's good to see some things never change. Bob's still a pompous > > a.s who's addicted to the caps button. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Curtis What? > What? Ah, then you are indeed blessed! Unfortunately, I get reminded of what every time someone plays with the "corpse". Curtis "Magilla" wrote: > > What? > > Ah, then you are indeed blessed! Unfortunately, I get reminded of what > every time someone plays with the "corpse". > > Curtis Besides being a GAY Gorilla (as identified by Greg), are you a necrophiliac too? > Besides being a GAY Gorilla (as identified by Greg), are you > a necrophiliac too? Why, does that get you hot and bothered thinking about it at night? <snicker> > > Besides being a GAY Gorilla (as identified by Greg), are you > > a necrophiliac too? > > Why, does that get you hot and bothered thinking about it at night? > <snicker> Lookie! Political talks must be slowing waaaaay down in rec.scuba to have Grummy come from outer space to land deeeeep into the ancient archives to have come up with that line out of context. Grummy, it was a hint that Curtis <the GAY Gorilla>, Scott <the self-characterized ... Scott> I am drunk, old, illiterate, ignorant trailer trash and you Grummy <... hmmm... a Chinese wannabee cuz he has a girl friend from Taiwan?> might be a lovely trio to hold a "night dive" <ob scuba> at some cemetary to engage in your favorite pasttime. Furthermore, I am shocked to discover that the Spelling Cops missed to correct the spelling of your personal trait -- necrophyliac! <snicker back at ya> -- Bob. > Lookie! Political talks must be slowing waaaaay down in rec.scuba > to have Grummy come from outer space to land deeeeep into the ancient > archives to have come up with that line out of context. Awh, hell, Reefy, it wasn't *that* ancient... Just got back to Houston and synced up with the news server here... I deleted everything except the last few days, so it shouldn't have been all that ancient... As far as any slowdown in political topics, I'm an equal opportunity offender... It was about time to raz you a bit... > Grummy, it was a hint that Curtis <the GAY Gorilla>, Scott <the > self-characterized ... > Scott> I am drunk, old, illiterate, ignorant trailer trash > and you Grummy <... hmmm... a Chinese wannabee cuz he has a girl > friend from Taiwan?> "Wannabee"? No fuckin' way... But familiarity with the 'culture' did breed contempt... > Furthermore, I am shocked to discover that the Spelling Cops > missed to correct the spelling of your personal trait -- necrophyliac! > <snicker back at ya> I was under the impression that it was spelled with an "i" instead of a "y" for the 8th letter... Do you have a dictionary that spells it differently? > > Grummy, it was a hint that Curtis <the GAY Gorilla>, Scott <the > > self-characterized ... > > Scott> I am drunk, old, illiterate, ignorant trailer trash > > and you Grummy <... hmmm... a Chinese wannabee cuz he has a girl > > friend from Taiwan?> Oh look, the supercilious Bob Ling making a boringly typical, yet flaccid, attempt at slinging sophomoric insult. Let's see, I aint drunk, 45 years old, far from ignorant, and I dont live in a trailer. Curtis is as far from gay as a man could get (perhaps why Ling f.cked that one up), and Grumman is married. 3 strikes. Must be because of his charmed existence(s) that he is so far seperated from any semblance of the truth. > > > Scott> I am drunk, old, illiterate, ignorant trailer trash > Let's see, I aint drunk, 45 years old, far from ignorant, and I dont live in > a trailer. That's DRUNK, OLD, and IGNORANT, 3 of 4 you said you were, now say you ain't. And your mind is failing too. You forgot the illiterate part also! That was when I told you that you don't have to live in a trailer park to be the necrophiliac that you are. Get it? <a Grummy snicker at ya> >> Besides being a GAY Gorilla (as identified by Greg), are you >> a necrophiliac too? > > Why, does that get you hot and bothered thinking about it at night? > <snicker> Bet he'd just love to be locked in the cage with the gorilla overnight....... Curtis > > What? > > Ah, then you are indeed blessed! Unfortunately, I get reminded of what > every time someone plays with the "corpse". I know. Me too. But what do I know; I am drunk, old, illiterate, ignorant trailer trash (even though I dont live in a trailer). > > > What? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I am drunk, old, illiterate, ignorant trailer trash (even though I dont live > in a trailer). Yeah, an old drunk illiterate will suffice. You don't have to live in a trailer to be a necrophyliac, just like Curtis. >> > The standard for WKPP bottom timers was a Suunto dive computer in gauge >> > mode. to which I replied >> I was totally unaware of that. You one of them secret members? > I do know for a fact that Alan got 4 Vypers for JJ and some other members > before he got booted. Just wondering where Lee got his info, he answered. My Cave One course was six years ago now, I used the Suunto Companion? air during. I did, however, get some very good instruction on how to do deco not relying on the computer calculations. Reason was simple, even though I was supposed to dive within "no deco" limits, those could be easily exceeded with one delay in a cave, so was just another skill learned to make prepared. Made it easy for me to just buy and use a simple bottom timer when I lost my computer, knew how to read tables. Cave Two buddies I sometimes dive with use the same one I do, but non-computer use is not limited to GUE trained divers. Cannot speak beyond that, beyond my realm, won't speak for groups I do not represent. My original reason for taking GUE training in the first place was because I knew they would tell me honestly if I had the skills necisary to safely cave dive, or if I needed to stay in the daylight zone, no "sugar coating". One of the things that keeps me safe is not letting my ego get me beyond my real skill levels, and accepting the evaluations of those very qualified to access them. I just kind of get a chuckle out of the computer guys who talk as if the dive computer determines whether or not they're "clean". Especially funny when they forget to turn them on, and have to run back and reset them. Same idea that some might chide me for not using one to try and "maximize" my bottom time, even though I'm usually allowing myself more time AT the bottom. Doesn't prevent having good dives together. More chuckles reading the quotes of Ding-a-Ling, he's got a long way to go to catch up with Lee. ;-) Curtis "Magilla" wrote: > Just wondering where Lee got his info, he answered. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Curtis Wish I'd written that. > "Magilla" wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Wish I'd written that. Keep whistling. How's your mother? Is Curtis the same DF as CPR86? I seem to recollect some claim of one as the other or vice versa. I think he's confused about DING-DONG Lee. Nobody can catch Lee in how LOW his understanding of physics, physiology, and especially the algorithmic theory of DIVE computers. Not even CPR86 can sink that low -- even if he is not Curtis. :-) As for Curtis, just by reading the little bit he wrote, it is clear that he knows NOTHING about dive computers. LOL! -- Bob. > Keep whistling. How's your mother? Wow, very funny. Haha. Damn, I never thought of that. You shure must be one sophisticated dude to know about one of the world's most famous paintings. I stand in awe of your knowledge and your wit. > As for Curtis, just by reading the little bit he wrote, it is > clear that he knows NOTHING about dive computers. LOL! Bob, you ignorant slut. Nobody gives a flying f.ck about Cochran computers because all they did was put people in peril. Suunto Vypers have a ``Gauge mode'' where it simply shows depth, time and temperature, but does no decompression algorithms. It is difficult to get such a simple gauge these days. Uwatec does make one, but I've only found it in meters. The Vypers were an acceptable alternative for WKPP and other DIR divers who wanted to run their own decompression schedules. Lee was not making a joke, he was just reporting. Now go google ``Bob'' and ``slut'' and tell me how many hits you get now. > Bob, you ignorant slut. "Magnificaently ignorant slut." -- Dan Aykroyd > Nobody gives a flying f.ck about Cochran computers because all they did > was put people in peril. Cockrings? Sure sign of ego overriding purchasing wisdom, or basic diving knowledge. Remember the computer we used to un-kink you? The Homo Sapiens MkI. > Suunto Vypers have a ``Gauge mode'' where it simply shows depth, time > and temperature, but does no decompression algorithms. It is difficult > to get such a simple gauge these days. Uwatec does make one, but I've > only found it in meters. I have two that read feet. Only bonus for the Suunto is user replaceable batteries. > The Vypers were an acceptable alternative for > WKPP and other DIR divers who wanted to run their own decompression > schedules. Lee was not making a joke, he was just reporting. > Now go google ``Bob'' and ``slut'' and tell me how many hits you get now. <cough> But, how many lives have *you* lived? >> As for Curtis, just by reading the little bit he wrote, it is >> clear that he knows NOTHING about dive computers. LOL! > > Bob, you ignorant slut. Yes he is, and he'll never figure out why. Curtis > It is difficult to get such a simple gauge these days. Uwatec does make > one, but I've only found it in meters. Easy enough here in Florida. Mine reads in FFW. Very convenient, since I do about 85% of my diving in fresh water. Curtis > Keep whistling. How's your mother? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > As for Curtis, just by reading the little bit he wrote, it is > clear that he knows NOTHING about dive computers. LOL! I haven't received a whole helluva lot of edification on any of these subjects from yer direction, either. >> Is Curtis the same DF as CPR86? I seem to recollect some claim of >> one as the other or vice versa. Two different Curtis's, guess Ding-a-Ling doesn't know anything about PCs. Curtis Yea, the great GI111 never paid Alan for his Vyper. Kevin > > > The standard for WKPP bottom timers was a Suunto dive computer in gauge > > > mode. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > than our southern neighbor. It is a shame, because any legitimate gripes we > may have about America get lost in a sea of childish wolf-crying. "Magilla" wrote: >>.....and that's the point. There is no point. > > Point is, for the cost difference between a dive computer and a bottom > timer, one could buy a lot of other goodies, in some cases enough for a good > set of doubles. Hmm, the difference between a UWatec bottom timer and a Mares M1 computer is only about 100 euros - not even enough for a single 7l tank. >> .....and that's the point. There is no point. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Think Lee pointed out some anonamous diver he knows that does quite > well without one. ;-) Yeah I know bro. But at the end of the day, your primary diving activities aren't the same as mine......or Lee's. Dave. >>I'd be a self-confessed stroke... but I want to learn more and pick out >>the bits that make sense. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > not use computers, as computers and, when they use them as gauges, they > don't put them in a console . . . ever. This is the one area of DIR that makes no sense. Possibly when the rule was written, computer technology was not reliable enough to rely on, but the idea that now a human can do dive calculations more reliably and accurately than a computer is laughable. The tech diving principle of two identical computers is far better for complete reliability. The chance of one computer failing is miniscule - two is never going to happen. >> DIR divers do not use computers, as computers and, when they use them as >> gauges, they don't put them in a console . . . ever. > This is the one area of DIR that makes no sense. Possibly when the rule > was written, computer technology was not reliable enough to rely on, but > the idea that now a human can do dive calculations more reliably and > accurately than a computer is laughable. Not so laughable as you might think. There isn't a dive computer made that will handle the dives the WKPP did and, I assume, still do. These guys were way out on the edge of deep and long and even now, years after their record breaking dives, only a very few, very technical groups are catching up with the level of diving they routinely did. It's dive computers that they don't use, not computers in general. They use land based computers extensively in their very detailed dive planning, along with software that, in many cases, was developed by, or at least in collaboration, with them. Those of us that like to plan our dives on the fly and are content to dive within the limits of today's dive computers, think it's pretty silly to deny yourself the benefits during recreational dives. Frankly, so do some DIR divers, but you'll be hard pressed to get the hard liner core group to admit it. >The tech diving principle of two identical computers is far better for >complete reliability. The chance of one > computer failing is miniscule - two is never going to happen. Few things in life are more certain to happen than something that is "never going to happen." You might be right if there were a dive computer capable of handling the dives they guys do. To the best of my knowledge, and theirs, there isn't. Lee >>>DIR divers do not use computers, as computers and, when they use them as >>>gauges, they don't put them in a console . . . ever. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > divers, but you'll be hard pressed to get the hard liner core group to admit > it. Ok, you and others have made a reasonable case for projects like the WKPP not using computers, but the insistence of some DIR divers on not using computers in recreational diving still makes no sense. Generally recreational dives are only planned to the extent of "ok, we'll head out at 330deg to 20m then turn to 240 and explore till one of us hits 100 bar then head back at 150". They are not planned with the advance knowledge of exact times and depths that WKPP might be used to - and I don't think they'd be half as much fun if they were. I already have one job - I don't need a second as a hobby :-) >>The tech diving principle of two identical computers is far better for >>complete reliability. The chance of one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of handling the dives they guys do. To the best of my knowledge, and > theirs, there isn't. Possibly not but for recreational style dives even one dive computer is many orders of magnitude more reliable than the human brain. The DIR insistance that their way is the best for recreational diving as well does not seem credible in regards to computers. > Lee >> Those of us that like to plan our dives on the fly and are content to >> dive within the limits of today's dive computers, think it's pretty silly >> to deny yourself the benefits during recreational dives. Frankly, so do >> some DIR divers, but you'll be hard pressed to get the hard liner core >> group to admit it. > Ok, you and others have made a reasonable case for projects like the WKPP > not using computers, but the insistence of some DIR divers on not using > computers in recreational diving still makes no sense. See my comment above. > Generally recreational dives are only planned to the extent of "ok, we'll > head out at 330deg to 20m then turn to 240 and explore till one of us hits > 100 bar then head back at 150". They are not planned with the advance > knowledge of exact times and depths that WKPP might be used to - and I > don't think they'd be half as much fun if they were. I already have one > job - I don't need a second as a hobby :-) My recreational dives, quite often, aren't planned even as much as you suggest. That's why I use computers, two on any situation where the failure of one would be a significant inconvenience. Not everybody, however, is as casual about their recreational diving as we are. A certain member of this group, who may speak up any time now, dives with me occasionally. He does not use a computer. On dives to moderate depths, for moderate times, he is not a constrained to a specific plan as you might imagine. The depth and time constraints he has are a bit more stringent than what I, diving with a computer am comfortable doing, but they're not so stringent as to cause being his buddy to become a problem . . . except on ascent. Note that his ascent, very slow with a lot more intermediate stops than most divers would do on a similar dive, is not a problem for me. It's quite similar to what I chose for the sake of my own safety anyway. My preference for intermediate stops is one of the reasons we are compatable divers. On diving like this, however, it's important to remember to leave sufficient gas for the slow ascent. He does it by carrying more gas. I do it by having a somewhat lower consumption rate. Regardless, both of us know that we have sufficient gas for the dive and ascent we plan. >>>The tech diving principle of two identical computers is far better for >>>complete reliability. The chance of one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> computer capable of handling the dives they guys do. To the best of my >> knowledge, and theirs, there isn't. > Possibly not but for recreational style dives even one dive computer is > many orders of magnitude more reliable than the human brain. Perhaps the way you meant this, but not the way you said it. A computer is simply a tool. It does not replace the organic computer that is standard equipment on the human model. Those that expect their computer to take over for their minds have a special name . . . statistic. > The DIR insistance that their way is the best for recreational diving as > well does not seem credible in regards to computers. It does not seem credible in any respect. Frankly, one of the biggest problems with their attitude is nothing more than context. In some cases, they don't even consider the kind of diving that most of us do, as worthy of discussion. Lee > >> DIR divers do not use computers, as computers and, when they use them as > >> gauges, they don't put them in a console . . . ever. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not so laughable as you might think. There isn't a dive computer made that > will handle the dives the WKPP did and, I assume, still do. It wasn't a technology limitation, but merely a marketplace limitation. But in any event, this probably "true enough" when they were diving open circuit. However, upon the WKPP's acceptance of rebreathers, this arguement probably goes out the window. Pragmatically, it almost doesn't matter if we're talking about semi-closed or closed...there's dynamic media changes therein, so the question is to try to model an average value in advance (table), or to use dynamic tracking (dive computer integrated to a realtime O2 sensor data feed). -hh "-hh" wrote l wrote: >> >> DIR divers do not use computers, as computers and, when they use them >> >> as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > But in any event, this probably "true enough" when they were diving > open circuit. Actually, it was both. There are no algorithms, or at least weren't to model the kind of decompression schedules used by the WKPP. > However, upon the WKPP's acceptance of rebreathers, this arguement > probably goes out the window. > Pragmatically, it almost doesn't matter if we're talking about > semi-closed or closed...there's dynamic media changes therein, so the > question is to try to model an average value in advance (table), or to > use dynamic tracking (dive computer integrated to a realtime O2 sensor > data feed). I assume you're talking about computer controlled rebreathers that alter the mix according to depth. To the best of my knowledge, the WKPP divers did not use them. They used simple mechancially activated rebreathers that provide a relatively constant mix. Since I'm talking way above my knowledge now, I think I'll stop. Lee I believe that they're using semi-closed RB's, and as you stated, that results in a relatively constant mix. However, that means that the number of gas swaps will be significantly reduced versus Open Circuit, and as such, one of the existing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) "2 mix" or "3 mix" computers would probably be able to handle the job... ...until, that is, their "unique" deco-shortening shedules are used...they're not COTS. However, the technology exists to contact a manufacturer (the "Telephone") and pay for a customized product (the "Credit Card"). Since this would be a directed customer design that's 99% software changes, the manufacturer's actual expenses are low, and his lawyer can easily write the liability waiver that's part of the purchase contract to dodge that part. There's no reason for it to be horrifically expensive. And in any event, even with a 'constant mix' RB design, it is actually a very good idea to have an O2 sensor in the loop even if its not controlling things, but purely has an alarm triggerer for O2 levels (both high & low). For example, such a device probably would have been adequate to save Ron Fuller's life. And once you have the O2 sensor and basic wiring, power and logic, to apply the rest of the software code to include the rest of the deco model is again an extremely short step today. -hh >I believe that they're using semi-closed RB's, and as you stated, that > results in a relatively constant mix. However, that means that the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ...until, that is, their "unique" deco-shortening shedules are > used...they're not COTS. Correct. > However, the technology exists to contact a manufacturer (the > "Telephone") and pay for a customized product (the "Credit Card"). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to dodge that part. There's no reason for it to be horrifically > expensive. No, but given the nature of their diving, also no reason to spend the money. When you know your depths at each stage of the dive, with a high degree of certainty and you have the effective equivalent of a chamber suspended in the water, a land based computer dive plan works pretty well. > And in any event, even with a 'constant mix' RB design, it is actually > a very good idea to have an O2 sensor in the loop even if its not > controlling things, but purely has an alarm triggerer for O2 levels > (both high & low). Good point. I wonder if they do/did. Lee > I believe that they're using semi-closed RB's, and as you stated, that > results in a relatively constant mix. However, that means that the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to dodge that part. There's no reason for it to be horrifically > expensive. I suspect it would be - the software is actually far more expensive than the electronics in a dive computer but it's a one time expense that can be used across 100,000 computers so the price per unit is pretty low. For custom software you can expect to pay about $100 per hour for the programmer's time and even simple changes require extensive testing. I doubt you'd see much change out of $1,000 for even a minor change, even if the manufacturer agreed to do it. >> I believe that they're using semi-closed RB's, and as you stated, that >> results in a relatively constant mix. However, that means that the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > doubt you'd see much change out of $1,000 for even a minor change, even > if the manufacturer agreed to do it. If I was making a change on something like that, I'd charge a lot more than $1000. That's what we charge here for battery replacement. (It takes time to get to a potted whale tag's battery.) If I've got to rewrite the code inside because the customer forgot something or wanted to make a "minor change", then they're looking at big bucks. Instead of getting to the battery, we have to get down to the programming pins. For one customer, it was easier and cheaper for us to upgrade their units than it was to repair the ones we sent out last year. There's a lot of time involved. You've got the time it'll take to write the code. There's no such thing as a minor change on an embedded system. If you want more precision on - for example - your depth, you're moving from an integer to a float, and that takes a lot more space in the chip. If the code barely fit, other routines might have to be removed or re-written to get the new code to fit. Alternatively, a new chip could be selected, but that's a whole new carnival of wrong. Beyond the programming time, there's testing time, shop time, potting time, retesting time, and documentation. If the device is a consumer device, it's got to be CE and UL tested. If it's got a transmitter, you've got to send a copy to the FCC. I suspect that most dive computers use the same chip and the same firmware but they don't want to tell us. If you wanted custom software put into your dive computer, there's no way that a manufacturer will do it. Well, that's not true. If you pay them enough and buy enough units, then they'll do it. You're probably looking at millions of dollars and thousands of units just to get them interested. Oh, and let me say this as a guy who writes firmware - trusting my life to a computer scares the [blank] out of me. SignatureMagnus McElroy Electrical Engineer (EIT) HABIT Research (250) 381-9425 <EL SNIPPO> > Oh, and let me say this as a guy who writes firmware - trusting my life > to a computer scares the [blank] out of me. At last, the voice of reason. People like to compare dive electronics to the electronic ignition and fuel systems available in their cars. How would they feel if they had to dive Windows XP? Me? '98? 95? DOS? If you car's electronics fail, you either get a warning light, or coast to the curb and call a tow truck. Diving and deco arent unexplored mysteries (it goes all the way back to goat bladders), there are literally hundreds of thousands of safe man hours to draw from, and a significant percentage of those integers were derived from dives next to no one reading here will ever approach. If a computer makes you feel warm and fuzzy and safe, by all means dive one. What makes me feel warm, fuzzy and safe is knowing that it isnt all that hard to figure, with just a little bit of study, and that I can do any dive I want to do with a depth timer. If you dive in an area familiar to you, you can get away with dives with nothing more than a cheapo Timex and an SPG. But, this mindset doesnt sell gear and computers. > If a computer makes you feel warm and fuzzy and safe, by all means dive > one. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you > can get away with dives with nothing more than a cheapo Timex and an SPG. Damn, similiar opinions from very different divers. > But, this mindset doesnt sell gear and computers. Sold me, bought a real nice Ewatec bottom timer, past 155 dives, 3 years done with only it (logs are nice sometimes). Curtis > > If a computer makes you feel warm and fuzzy and safe, by all means dive > > one. > > What makes me feel warm, fuzzy and safe is knowing that it isnt all that > > hard to figure, with just a little bit of study, and that I can do any > > dive I want to do with a depth timer. If you dive in an area familiar to you, > > you can get away with dives with nothing more than a cheapo Timex and an SPG. > Damn, similiar opinions from very different divers. I dont think we are all that different, 'cept for salt component and location. There are geological and biological indicators of depth, but you have to know where you are, and what you are looking at. Out here, it is Sea Whips, start about 75 and end about 120 feet. > > But, this mindset doesnt sell gear and computers. > Sold me, bought a real nice Ewatec bottom timer, past 155 dives, 3 years > done with only it (logs are nice sometimes). Simple, reliable, and when it goes bad (only one in my experience) they make a damned fine 100 yard reactive target. > If you dive in an area familiar to you, you > can get away with dives with nothing more > than a cheapo Timex and an SPG. Awh, hell, ya' don't even need that... That's what J-valves are for... > If you dive in an area familiar to you, you can get away with dives with > nothing more than a cheapo Timex and an > SPG. You don't need an SPG. Diving with a computer isn't about being able to dive. Millions of dives were done before dive timers, depth gauges and SPGs were common equipment. Diving with a computer is about two things, convenience and flexibility. Convenience because you can significantly increase the time you get to spend underwater without increasing dcs risk and without doing the same extensive level of predive planning that you would have to do if you didn't have a computer. Flexibility because you can decide, on the spot, when to do the next dive and how you're going to do it and or significantly alter the plan during the dive, again, without increasing dcs risk. Lee >> For custom software you can expect to pay about $100 per hour for the >> programmer's time and even simple changes require extensive testing. I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >one customer, it was easier and cheaper for us to upgrade their units >than it was to repair the ones we sent out last year. I can attest to that. During my last year in college I assisted a commercial company in squeezing code into a smaller chip. We succeeded, after some hair-raising stuff to utilize a chip that was seriously lame. It involved counting clock cycles in each and every instruction, and use them for timing. The work paid for a year in college, and the first downpayment on a new car. >There's a lot of time involved. You've got the time it'll take to write >the code. There's no such thing as a minor change on an embedded [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Oh, and let me say this as a guy who writes firmware - trusting my life >to a computer scares the [blank] out of me. Amen. -- mrr > > DIR divers do > > not use computers, as computers and, when they use them as gauges, they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > complete reliability. The chance of one computer failing is miniscule - > two is never going to happen. But if you actually PLAN your dive, including the ascent, then all you need is a timing device. And when you have a team of divers working a very "serious" dive, up-front planning is essential. There can be times when communications is not possible (i.e., shallow support divers waiting for deep divers to show up at a deco stop). Only detailed up-front planning, and every diver following that plan, will assure everyone is where they need to be, at the right time, and doing the right thing. Another thing to consider is repetition. If you execute dives having the same profile over and over, you get to know what that profile. Again, all you need is a timing device. If your dive is a saturation dive (I suspect 10+ hours at 300 feet qualifies), then changes in bottom time (time actually spent at 300 feet) don't result in a change in ascent profile. And here, then, if you've done this ascent profile many times, you are familiar enough with it that all you need is a timing device. This is, I think, the genesis of that attitude toward dive computers. Its logical, really, for that kind of diving, where one's survival depends on everything going exactly as planned. IMO, the typical recreational dive doesn't call for that sort of discipline. And many so-called "technical" dives don't, either. Certainly, if you dive without any support, or solo, then you have much more freedom to alter your dive plan on the fly, and a dive computer allows you to do that. SignatureArt Greenberg artg AT eclipse (remove this) DOT net > But if you actually PLAN your dive, including the ascent, then all you > need is a timing device. Setting aside contingency planning, sure. And for classical rec diving, the correct type of timing device equipment isn't a [stop]watch that the diver manually manages every detail, but is instead a Bottom Timer which is water-activated...this reduces the statistical probability of human error in conducting the timing, even though this is arguably a simple enough work taskload, it is all too easily forgotten, done incorrectly, and/or subject to a stopwatch button being accidentally pushed sometime during the dive, etc, etc. The bottom line is that for the performance of mundane functions, machines are significantly more reliable than man. > Another thing to consider is repetition. If you execute dives having the same > profile over and over, you get to know what that profile. Again, all you need > is a timing device. Sure, but as soon as we are talking about a diver swimming any distance along a route, there's sources of variation. Presumably, we are using enough of a safety margin to overcome them, but they exist nevertheless. For example, the history of the flight of the Enola Gay to Hiroshima was planned out in what most of us would consider to be a rediculous detail when we find in the history that it has recorded the fact that they arrived over target 15 seconds behind their predetermined schedule. > If your dive is a saturation dive (I suspect 10+ hours at 300 feet qualifies), IIRC, the classical pragmatic "close enough" interpretation for full saturation is a duration of at least 6 halftimes (~98.5%). This would then mathmatically suggest that a 12 hour dive would be sufficient to provide 6 halftimes to 'saturate' all modelled compartments faster than 2 hours (120 minutes), but it would not be adequate to give 6 halftimes on compartments of any longer duration compartments. For example, several several conventional dive computers have included a IIRC 240 minute compartment, which would receive only 2.5 halftimes within a 10 hour period. And for the old Orca/EIT model, IIRC, they had a 480 minute compartment in its model, which would produce only 1.25 halftimes within a 10 hour dive. Assuming that a 480 minute compartment is valid, it would theoretically require 48 hours ... 2 full days ... to saturate it. As such, the WKPP dives don't technically approach full saturation as is routinely accomplished by Commercial divers, so they do have the hypothetical need for a decompression schedule that could vary depending on if they had just completed a 6, 8, 10, 12 or 18 hour duration dive. This does however assume that their deco model does actually include the modeling of these 'very long duration' compartments...we shouldn't forget that the PADI RDP has nothing longer than 1 hour compartments, which is essentially part of the reasons why it prohibits doing any deco diving whatsoever with it. > then changes in bottom time (time actually spent at 300 feet) don't result in > a change in ascent profile. And here, then, if you've done this ascent profile > many times, you are familiar enough with it that all you need is a timing > device. I don't disagree with the basic premise, but its applicability. For example, the WKPP isn't simply "commuting" down to a wellhead to do 30 minutes of work before coming back up: their claimed purpose is to explore, so by that definition, their dives are going to become progressively longer in duration as they extend their line. As such, they're not technically doing the same dive repeatedly, even though there will be a lot of functional repetition as they commute through the same tunnel again and again...their dive plan, by virtue of their exploratory mission, cannot remain constant. > This is, I think, the genesis of that attitude toward dive computers. Its > logical, really, for that kind of diving, where one's survival depends on > everything going exactly as planned. Unfortunately, while there's good parts to the KISS principle in terms of risk assessment, there's also the potential to overinterpret its application to the required capabilities, and end up effectively ignoring the contribution to system-level process reliability. -hh > > But if you actually PLAN your dive, including the ascent, then all you > > need is a timing device. < big snip of valid counterpoints > > For example, several several conventional dive computers have included > a IIRC 240 minute compartment, which would receive only 2.5 halftimes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > compartment is valid, it would theoretically require 48 hours ... 2 > full days ... to saturate it. The compartments with LONG half-lives in dive computer algorithms ARE important, culmulatively, for monitoring on/off gas approximations that are BEYOND the capability of TABLES, any existing tables. Most tables assume a completely CLEAR state after 24 hours SIT. That reminds me of the occasion in which I turned my ORCA off everyday after each two-tank dive (to save battery) because I KNEW it would clear "time to fly" long before my first dive the next day, though not necessarily "turn me off" (when all the compartments are completely cleared. For 20 consecutive days, I dived to an average MAX in excess of 190 fsw, but short of 200 fsw (because my ORCA goes out of range at 200 fsw) <G>. On the 20th day, I felt the symptoms of sub-clinical bends, and walked to the Cozumel chamber to have myself checked out. :-) I had ALL my detailed dive profiles on my laptop. But having listened to my description and physically examined me (without putting me through any chamber ride), the hyperbaric physician put me on 10 minutes of pure O2, and prescribed two asprins (to which I am deathly allergic -- hence I didn;t take) and rest in bed. My sub-clinical bends symptoms were all gone by the time I walked back to my nearby hotel room, and I lived happily thereafter -- and it was the CLOSEST I had ever come to getting bent in the thosands of dives I've done, relying on my ORCA algorithm, a no=bell, no-whistle, SkinnyDipper which runs the same algorithm as the EDGE, without the EDGE's graphical displays of all 12 compartments. The only logical REASON I assessed, in retrospect, other than the fact that no computer can predict or prevent DCI <because I was always well hydrated, well rested, and I was in good if not excellent physical health> was the fact that the LONG half-time compartments were prematurely truncated by my turning off the computer each day when I should have let it run continuously, as I do on liveaboards. Thus, cumulatively over 20 days, my ORCA WOULD have warned me of going over NDL and needed DECO had it been running continuously, whereas treating my diving each day as if it were a fresh start led to my NDL diving everyday that resulted in a false-diagnose by the modified Haldanean algorithm, NOT because the algorithm wasn't doing its job, but because *I* screwed in its PROPER use by trying to save battery life. :-) I used a lot more ORCA batteries after that incident in 1997, but never had another symptom or subclinical symptom of getting bent since. That's a story worth repeating because I suspect what I did (of turning off the dive comp before letting it run, or letting run off completely before turning it off) is COMMON among divers who dive repetitively over a period of days. It's a NO NO, if your dive comp have LONG de-sat half-lives built into it. -- Bob. > Thus, cumulatively over 20 days, my ORCA WOULD have warned > me of going over NDL and needed DECO had it been running [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > after that incident in 1997, but never had another symptom > or subclinical symptom of getting bent since. This doesn't make sense. If the computer stopped calculating offgassing while turned off, the nitrogen loading should be significantly *higher* when you start your next dive, not lower. Or did this computer completely reset when turned off? > >>I'd be a self-confessed stroke... but I want to learn more and pick out > >>the bits that make sense. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the idea that now a human can do dive calculations more reliably and > accurately than a computer is laughable. DIR is a set of principles applicable from OW throgh cave & deep (mandatory deco) diving. There aren't many computers that can handle helium mixes, nor that can handle gas switches (going from mix a, to mix b, etc). They also figure its a good thing to have a good understanding of deco You can use a computer - at the surface, where you print the tables for your dive plan, diving that mix, with the switches. > The tech diving principle of two identical computers is far better for > complete reliability. The chance of one computer failing is miniscule - > two is never going to happen. IIRC, NASA thought like that - lost two probes to chip problems. :-) Dennis The fitness, > procedures and philosophical elements are a bit beyond what I would > try to explain or, for that matter, fully understand. The equipment > configuration is a bit easier. Just don't confuse the gear with the > program as a whole. There's a lot more to it than that. This is the mistake I've been making in the past. > WKPP/DIR principals start with the idea of everybody being configured > and trained the same. The training aspect focuses on doing everything > the same way, every time, and practicing it until you can do it almost > without thinking about it or, if necessary, in the dark, without > panic. In addition to the procedures and training, all equipment used > on WKPP dives must be essentially the same. This makes sense given their working environment. > It's not necessary for everything to be the same brand, This is another misconception I've had. at least not quite necessary, but it > does have to be configured the same and have the same features. > Generally, but not always, that means the same brand. The idea is > that, if your buddy's equipment and yours are identical and to their > standards, and you're trained to their standards, the chances of doing > the right thing in a crisis situation is greatly enhanced. Again makes perfect sense and fits in with what I generally understood to be the concept. > The system gained fame from successes in cave diving and through the > proud insistence by it's adherents that it was the one best way for > all divers, regardless of conditions, regardless of the goal of the > dive. I'd not heard this statement; but it explains why, when I've mentioned DIR to others they've very nearly had an apoplectic attack. > A lot of us here are using what I first named DIR-L, or DIR-Like > configurations. At first glance, I look, or until recently, looked > DIR, but on close inspection, have only adopted some of the many > elements of the gear configuration. Based on the little knowledge I had I was anticipating doing similar with my gear. I will, however, point something that you might > not notice at first. DIR divers do not use computers, as computers > and, when they use them as gauges, they don't put them in a console . > . . ever. I had no idea about that little nugget of information Many thanks SignatureStef the pragmatist Hope for the best Plan for the worst Sometimes the glass is half-full; most of the time I’m waiting for a refill. > I'd be a self-confessed stroke... but I want to learn more and pick out > the bits that make sense. Hey, Stef! You're supposed to get enlightened about diving Nitrox by asking, "Hi folks. I am from the other side of the pond. Can I dive Nitrox with a gun? > Stef the pragmatist A GUN would be VERY pragmatic, if you're gonna step in THIS neighborhood. :-) -- Bob. >> I'd be a self-confessed stroke... but I want to learn more and pick >> out the bits that make sense. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -- Bob. Hey Bob, I've just replied to a similar post from yourself in r.s.locations; on a lighter note though: I can handle small arms (side arms, rifles, smg's and the like) but I've never fired a gun... I used to leave that to artillery. SignatureStef the pragmatist Hope for the best Plan for the worst Sometimes the glass is half-full; most of the time I’m waiting for a refill. >>>I'd be a self-confessed stroke... but I want to learn more and pick >>>out the bits that make sense. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and the like) but I've never fired a gun... I used to leave that to > artillery. Don't mind him, Stef, he's our (almost self-declared) village idiot. BTW what Lee calls DIR-L is, to my understanding, approx. the same as what they call DIS (do it simple) in the UK. SignatureMichael Wolf ----- Cthulhu For President. Why settle for the lesser evil? remove stopspam to reply Michael Wolf <michael.wolf@advalvasstopspam.be> wrote in news:42ef1e5d$0 $4433$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be: > BTW what Lee calls DIR-L is, to my understanding, approx. the same as > what they call DIS (do it simple) in the UK. Cheers SignatureStef the pragmatist Hope for the best Plan for the worst Sometimes the glass is half-full; most of the time I’m waiting for a refill. >>I'd be a self-confessed stroke... but I want to learn more and pick out >>the bits that make sense. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Hi folks. I am from the other side of the pond. Can I dive > Nitrox with a gun? Speaking of that, anyone see that Mythbusters where they were shooting holes in scuba tanks? :-) > I'd be a self-confessed stroke... but I want to learn more and pick out > the bits that make sense. It's a religion and as such, it doesn't have to make sense... You have to accept its dogma as faith and to question it is to be branded a heretic and as such to be banished to the nether regions of strokedom... <snicker> > > I'd be a self-confessed stroke... but I want to learn more and pick out > > the bits that make sense. > > It's a religion and as such, it doesn't have to make sense... You have to > accept its dogma as faith and to question it is to be branded a heretic and > as such to be banished to the nether regions of strokedom... <snicker> Hee hee! Stef had already met you and was impressed by your politeness and was telling Lee, in rec.scuba.locations, where to go: Stef> Maybe Grumman's polite reply should be... Welcome to rec.scuba Stef> has anybody told you to go to fsu.freenet.scuba? Have you ever said anything nice and polite about Steve Kramer? :-) A quick look at google revealed what you said of Kramer: Grummy> Glad to see that you also had a misspent youth.. to a Kramer fan: Grummy> <useless-dribble-snipped> Grummy> <bitch-slap> Grummy> <plonk> But the best one yet seemed to be: Grummy> I would like to filter all messages that are also Grummy> crossposted to certain groups so that I can get rid of Grummy> the idiots who seem to have a hard-on for Steve Kramer No WONDER Kramer was whining in rec.scuba.locations! LOL! Kramer was flaming ME (in rec.scuba.locations) after he had been there a few days this entire YEAR, and said I should go back to rec.scuba for my OT stuff, and not bring it to rec.scuba.locations. LOL!!! Steve Kramer was in only THREE threads in rec.scuba this year (one of which I participated). You guys here must have kicked his a.s hard for him to be whining in rec.scuba.locations. :-) -- Bob. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message