Print

Print


At 03:05 PM 3/3/00 +1200, Jean-Marc wrote:
>"Robert F. Ling" wrote:
>>
>> >> *>A RESPONSIBLE diver, alone or not, at ANY depth, should
>> >> *>
>> >> *>          NEVER, EVER, EVER, NEVER, NEVER ...
>>
>> is an unconditional statement in the rest of my post.
>>
>> An instructor, with plenty of AIR (two minutes?) and WARNING
>> (reg freeflow) at 50 m and was OOA at 35 m (your revised
>> depth <G>), and you're defending it?
>>
>
>Your <G> is dutifully noted. I guess that after you read my next
>revision, I'll be entitled to a "<VBG> :-)
>
>If I tell you that he switched to my octo before his tank was
>empty would that change your view?

No.  Under the scenario you described, he had no business being
OOA at 35m, you ever-changing story notwithstanding.


Now comes the IRRELEVANT part:

>You conveniently snipped the first part of my reply to you. You
>alleged that I had endorsed the hose cutting option. I stated
>that this was not the case.

I snipped the first part because it was a JOKE that was quite
irrelevant to your OOA story about the instructor.  You mean
this don't you? :

*>(such as endorsing cutting the HP hose <G>), took refuge
*> behind da Feesh by FAKING:

See the <G> there?  It was irrelevant in the first place.  The
FAKING part was about you missing my MAIN POINT about OOA!
You still do -- still missing those points !


*>Violation of guideline No something for distorting facts. I NEVER
*>endorsed cutting the HP hose. -1 brownie point :-)

Nitpicking a JOKE and an irrelevant point to your story (while you
missed the LESSON about NEVER, EVER, should anyone be in an OOA
situation in the first place, NO MATTER WHAT), you continue with


>I challenge you to substantiate your allegations. You were wrong.

That was not a serious allegation in the first place, when used
as a JOKE in context.  If you promise you'll pay more attention
to the OOA lesson, instead of arguing about the irrelevant point,
I'll make you happy by admit I am PARTIALLY wrong if you had taken
it as a serious allegation.  The source of my "allegation" in
the joke was what you said:

>Option 2 doesn't work
>in all circumstances (there must be air in the tank).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doesn't that imply partial endorsement?  What difference
does it make whether there is air in the tank or not?


The bottom line on my reply to YOU was, and is, that YOU should
have recognized you instructor's OOA at 35 m as a very avoidable
situation that was a result of a GROSS ERROR on his part.

-- Bob.