Print

Print


"Robert F. Ling" wrote:
>
> At 10:05 PM 3/2/00 +1200, Jean-Marc wrote:
> >"Robert F. Ling" wrote:
> >
> >> THIS was the post Jean-Marc referred to, in which I wrote:
> >>
> >> *>A RESPONSIBLE diver, alone or not, at ANY depth, should
> >> *>
> >> *>          NEVER, EVER, EVER, NEVER, NEVER ...
> >> *>
> >> *>be so CARELESS as to find himself/herself in such an OOA situation!
> >> *>
> >> *>It SHOULD BE a NON-existent scenario.  :-)
> >
> >I thought that your "such an OOA situation" referred to the case
> >where one doesn't monitor one's air properly.
>
> >> *>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? While I personally would still
describe the whole as an OOA situation, he was never really out
of air.

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 challenge you to substantiate your
allegations. You were wrong.

Jean-Marc