James Pate
Guest
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
Pufferfish,
Thank you for posting the details regarding air quality testing. It gives me something concrete to work with. I have also been doing some foot of my own. I have been in contact with the Proficiency Testing Manager at CAEAL.ca and have calls into A2LA and SCC. But the information you have posted will save a lot of time.
As posted earlier, we are interested in what you are saying but we need to research the issue in order to make an informed decision. We came to you folks in a constructive manner and asked that you present your critical details/documentation that would support what your stance. All we received in return was more of the same personal opinions that were already present throughout the thread. I got involved when you did not answer any of the questions put to you regarding this topic. You just repeated what you had posted previously. If we had found the answers we are looking for in the earlier posts we would not have asked the questions.
Also, you cannot fault sJ for the typo of SneakyBtard and I do believe I have thanked sneaky for his help. As far as my village idiot comment goes, it was merited. Soze admitted the same. Yes I could have shown a little patience but my patience is running pretty thin. I have had 3 years of people poking at my training. It is just natural to poke back. I will also continue to call crap when I see it. Even in this last posting of yours at least 3 of the paragraphs fall into the crap category. I will always call a spade a spade. When you want to discuss the critical nature of air qualitiy testing it should not be based on emotional pleas and what ifs. In order to keep the issue clear you have to stay focused on the documentation.
As much as you may not care for my tone. I do not care much for your tone and defensive posturing either. The only consistency you folks have shown is to start mud slinging each time someone post a question or offers a difference of opinion until proving otherwise. As I stated in an earlier post: In order for us to support your position we have to make an informed decision based on critical documentation. I am not sure how you interpret that statement but it means we are looking to support you. In order to make a critical decision we have to look at what you have and what the OUC does and compare this to accredited testing. Hence, critically evaluate the evidence. We will not act blindly.
I did consider that some people on this board might actually be experts in some of the fields regarding air quality testing and standards. That is why I asked for your documentation instead of wasting 2 more months attempting to reinvent the wheel; hence my surprise and frustration when the information was not forthcoming. If you have such a solid case you should not hesitate to bring it to the table. It makes no sense to hide the details, especially when you have people approaching you to offer support.
In parting, you can buy your own DIR-F book.
Safe dives
james
Thank you for posting the details regarding air quality testing. It gives me something concrete to work with. I have also been doing some foot of my own. I have been in contact with the Proficiency Testing Manager at CAEAL.ca and have calls into A2LA and SCC. But the information you have posted will save a lot of time.
As posted earlier, we are interested in what you are saying but we need to research the issue in order to make an informed decision. We came to you folks in a constructive manner and asked that you present your critical details/documentation that would support what your stance. All we received in return was more of the same personal opinions that were already present throughout the thread. I got involved when you did not answer any of the questions put to you regarding this topic. You just repeated what you had posted previously. If we had found the answers we are looking for in the earlier posts we would not have asked the questions.
Also, you cannot fault sJ for the typo of SneakyBtard and I do believe I have thanked sneaky for his help. As far as my village idiot comment goes, it was merited. Soze admitted the same. Yes I could have shown a little patience but my patience is running pretty thin. I have had 3 years of people poking at my training. It is just natural to poke back. I will also continue to call crap when I see it. Even in this last posting of yours at least 3 of the paragraphs fall into the crap category. I will always call a spade a spade. When you want to discuss the critical nature of air qualitiy testing it should not be based on emotional pleas and what ifs. In order to keep the issue clear you have to stay focused on the documentation.
As much as you may not care for my tone. I do not care much for your tone and defensive posturing either. The only consistency you folks have shown is to start mud slinging each time someone post a question or offers a difference of opinion until proving otherwise. As I stated in an earlier post: In order for us to support your position we have to make an informed decision based on critical documentation. I am not sure how you interpret that statement but it means we are looking to support you. In order to make a critical decision we have to look at what you have and what the OUC does and compare this to accredited testing. Hence, critically evaluate the evidence. We will not act blindly.
I did consider that some people on this board might actually be experts in some of the fields regarding air quality testing and standards. That is why I asked for your documentation instead of wasting 2 more months attempting to reinvent the wheel; hence my surprise and frustration when the information was not forthcoming. If you have such a solid case you should not hesitate to bring it to the table. It makes no sense to hide the details, especially when you have people approaching you to offer support.
In parting, you can buy your own DIR-F book.
Safe dives
james