Son of Deep Stops *or* Waiting to be merged with the mother thread...

[cerich]

To the best of my knowledge, Ross is actually an Australian living in Manila. He lived in Canada for a while. I don't know his citizenship status.

Bruce

in full disclosure, I am a Canadian living in the US. I really got tired of the thermal considerations...(except that my diving in Brockville last week was warmer than my typical diving in Florida)

 

[oya]

To the best of my knowledge, Ross is actually an Australian living in Manila. He lived in Canada for a while. I don't know his citizenship status.

Bruce

I have just got to say... I LOVE this post! Absolutely love!

Arguably the most well-regarded decompression programmer on the planet today... and your sole contribution to this ridiculous back-and-forth is Canadian pride!

F'ing hilarious!!!

 

[cerich]

I have just got to say... I LOVE this post! Absolutely love!

Arguably the most well-regarded decompression programmer on the planet today... and your sole contribution to this ridiculous back-and-forth is Canadian pride!

F'ing hilarious!!!

well...Canadian Pride is damn important eh!

 

[RainPilot]

(snip)

SIMON ASKED: "....by way of a reminder, could you explain how VPM B/E+5 is sanctioned whilst VPM B+7 is considered "fake" even though....."
Answer:
(snip).... It's a clear attempt to deceive the public, and an attribution that does not exist. As a science person trying to make valid argument, I would think you would be ashamed of any association to such underhanded tactics.

.

Bolding is mine.

@rossh . @Simon Mitchell was very clearly responding to posts where you used the term "fake" to describe VPM +7 and asked you why it would be considered fake. In response, you accused him of deliberately attempting to deceive the public, which as far as I am concerned is a clear violation of the multiple mod warnings on these threads as well as, depending where you live, grounds for a lawsuit. Luckily Dr Mitchell is substantially more patient than I could ever be.

NO. YOU DO NOT GET TO PLAY FAVORITES !

Simon asked: " .... way of a reminder, could you explain how VPM B/E+5 is sanctioned whilst VPM B+7 is considered "fake"."


He asked the question - he gets his answer, as nicely worded as I possibly can.

.

I believe @Storker was completely correct in his post, as well as being scrupulously correct in keeping his mod hat off as he is a (valued) participant in this and the other threads. He was by no means playing favorites.

I also have no doubt that the wording is as nice as you possibly can, it has become blatantly obvious to me that no matter what anyone says, you will respond with an ad-hominem attack while avoiding all the issues. Every request for you to "show your workings" results in the same comment of "I dont have to do anything I can just sit sniping from the sidelines"

If this post gets me in trouble for being "inflammatory" then so be it but I feel it needed to be said. My apologies to others for taking up the bandwidth and i shall henceforth be a silent observer. You see @rossh , I know when i have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation any more.

 

[dmaziuk]

You mean that its been an accepted metric of DCS stress for over 40 yrs except in one Canadian computer programmer's mind? You don't say?

Well, that's the problem , isn't it? What is this "DCS stress" you speak of?

Although the occurrence of VGE might be a relatively poor predictor of DCS,
the absence of VGE is a good indicator of decompression safety, and can be used to estimate
a level of decompression stress

Clearly it's not DCS, VGE being a "poor predictor" of that. Best I can figure from the above is it's some kind of "decompression unsafety".

"a close relationship between the number or load of VGE present and DCS cannot be derived"

 

[rjack321]

"specificity": what fraction of true negatives test negative
"predictive value positive": what fraction of positive tests are true positives

Seems to me one person argues the test has low predictive value positive while the rest are arguing that its high specificity weeds out true negatives.

The higher grades have (duh) the higher positive predictive power. Of course its not 100% these are humans.

Well, that's the problem , isn't it? What is this "DCS stress" you speak of?

Although the occurrence of VGE might be a relatively poor predictor of DCS,
the absence of VGE is a good indicator of decompression safety, and can be used to estimate
a level of decompression stress

Clearly it's not DCS, VGE being a "poor predictor" of that. Best I can figure from the above is it's some kind of "decompression unsafety".

"a close relationship between the number or load of VGE present and DCS cannot be derived"

Huh? High grade (3+) VGE absolutely are correlated with DCS. Grade 1 and 2 almost never associated with DCS. So when you get out of the water what would you rather have yourself VGE 1 or VGE 4?

"Close" is all in the eye of the beholder. I suggest you get used to using VGE as a proxy for decompression stress because its almost impossible to get a study design approved that actually bends people. Its unethical.

 

[cerich]

The higher grades have (duh) the higher positive predictive power. Of course its not 100% these are humans.


Huh? High grade (3+) VGE absolutely are correlated with DCS. Grade 1 and 2 almost never associated with DCS. So when you get out of the water what would you rather have yourself VGE 1 or VGE 4?

"Close" is all in the eye of the beholder. I suggest you get used to using VGE as a proxy for decompression stress because its almost impossible to get a study design approved that actually bends people. Its unethical.

I am pretty sure Demaz was being sarcastic

 

[rjack321]

I'm terrible with that lol

 

[dmaziuk]

I am pretty sure Demaz was being sarcastic

More like playing Devil's advocate, but note that I quoted "Proceedings+of+Validation+of+Dive+Computers+Workshop.pdf" posted by you, where on p.94 BLOGG AND MØLLERLØKKEN say: "a close relationship between the number or load of VGE present and DCS cannot be derived", and @rjack321 replies with High grade (3+) VGE absolutely are correlated with DCS. No: DCS is correlated with high grade VGE, but not the other way around. I can't in all fairness fault Ross for wanting to scream at the top of his lungs here.

 

[cerich]

More like playing Devil's advocate, but note that I quoted "Proceedings+of+Validation+of+Dive+Computers+Workshop.pdf" posted by you, where on p.94 BLOGG AND MØLLERLØKKEN say: "a close relationship between the number or load of VGE present and DCS cannot be derived", and @rjack321 replies with High grade (3+) VGE absolutely are correlated with DCS. No: DCS is correlated with high grade VGE, but not the other way around. I can't in all fairness fault Ross for wanting to scream at the top of his lungs here.

oh..it was the "decompression unsafety" that made me think you were being sarcastic.

Correlated means a mutual relationship, not sure that is the best choice of word in making the argument that DCS has VGE but that VGE does not necessarily have DCS...

To his wanting to scream at top of lungs... cant agree