The Philosophy of Diver Training

[The Chairman]

NetDoc, if you openly state that DCBC is involved in agency bashing, would you be offended if someone said that, as a businessman, you are sticking up for PADI so as to not lose the revenue which SB (and therefore you, personally) generates from PADI sponsorship?

You can say it, but I don't think that PADI is a current advertiser. Do you see their ads? I really stay out of the marketing area as much as possible by design. But hey, DCBC thanked you, so it must be true!

Now, go ask anyone actually currently advertising with us if I look out for them. The answer would be: Negative.

Again, commenting negatively on an agency you DON'T represent is about as UNPROFESSIONAL as it gets. If the fin fits, wear it.

 

[The Chairman]

Back to slogans and mottos.

I generally agree with your interpertation of what the mottos mean. I do find it interesting that although you posted SEI's motto earlier in the thread, you didn't take the trouble to look it up for your second post on mottos & slogans. Perception needs to be taken into account. For example, you said about SDI, "Obviously, they want to cut out the needless crap." I would have said they want to cut out what they see as needless. Otherwise people might take an opinion as a fact.

I had the others stuck in my memory Walter, and I was rushing out the door to visit my sick mother. Sorry my personal life got in the way. I'll tell her just to tough it out next time. Better yet, I'll make this my last post here.

Earlier, you called me "the original Warm Water Wimp" and state that I "refuses to dive in cold water."

After I pointed out that, considering my diving history, this is obviously a mistake, you ignore it. Come on Pete, you should be gracious enough to acknowledge your mistake.

Location, location, location. It was the last post on that page and I missed it. Again, attack me and my integrity if you must. It doesn't have anything to do with the actual point I made that you DIDN'T comment on, but it's typical in this thread.

So which is incorrect: that you call yourself the "original Warm Water Wimp" or that you refuse to dive in cold water? If the first part is true and second part is not, perhaps you misrepresent yourself? If you don't call yourself the original Warm Water Wimp, then I am clearly mistaken: mea culpa. If that causes you to ignore EVERYTHING that I say, then so be it. My friends normally try to understand what I am trying to communicate rather than take exception with everything I say. Maybe our concept of friendship differs significantly?

Hey gang, I give up. Bash PADI to your heart's content. Pontificate as you will about your feigned superiority and lofty standards. I've seen enough BS in this thread to last me a long time! You've already offended Diver0001 to the point of his leaving as well as a few others. You obviously don't give a sailor's damn that you do offend people, so I will join Diver0001 and leave you to your ultra-negativity. If you have something you actually want me to read: use PMs.

But know this:

While you are busy bashing agencies, they will grow stronger without you, and they will certainly not be listening to you. As you continue to marginalize yourselves and your contributions to the sport, people will still be getting certified and having FUN doing so. In the end, you're not as important as you think you are, but then neither am I!

TTFN! Tchuss! Spater! Au Revoir! Da poka! Sayonara!
​

 

[Crush]

You can say it, but I don't think that PADI is a current advertiser. Do you see their ads?

You may be taking advantage of a (temporary) lull in advertising. I do not believe that you are a poor businessman.

But hey, DCBC thanked you, so it must be true!

I really did expect more from the owner of ScubaBoard. If the fin fits...

Now, go ask anyone actually currently advertising with us if I look out for them. The answer would be: Negative.

[Cough] now you owe me a new monitor! I will stop just short of saying that you shill for sponsors, and I don't doubt that many of your posts in favour of a current SB supporter are sincere, but your remonstrations of SB members who disagree with your glowing reviews of sponsor products are glaring.

Again, commenting negatively on an agency you DON'T represent is about as UNPROFESSIONAL as it gets. If the fin fits, wear it.

Your argument is logically inconsistent. I need not belong to any organization in order to see fault in it. The demonstration of fault is not unprofessional.

 

[Thalassamania]

Frankly I have found Pete's posts to be a bit much, but they don't hold a candle to your accusation that he is pulling his punches to get PADI to buy advertising. Please ... let's leave that one rot in the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Crush]

Frankly I have found Pete's posts to be a bit much, but they don't hold a candle to your accusation that he is pulling his punches to get PADI to buy advertising. Please ... let's leave that one rot in the bottom of the barrel.

I have found his posts to be a bit much as well, so in a moment of weakness I proposed to him a scenario which was designed to prompt him to consider how it might feel to be on the other end of his half truths. There may have been a better way of making my point, but at the time nothing else came to mind.

Also, I would like to note that in my post no actionable statements were made. Specifically, "would you be offended if someone said that, as a businessman, you are..." is a question, not a statement.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I will stop just short of saying that you shill for sponsors...

Given the tone of some of the comments in this thread I can see where you might think so ... but I would have to disagree.

I've known Pete for about 8 years now. We've disagreed on a buinch of things. Had some serious knock-down drag out cat fights out here in public that we probably shouldn't have. I've remonstrated him and vice-versa.

But if Pete's ever ... EVER ... shown favoritism to someone because they bought an ad on ScubaBoard, I haven't seen it ... and I spend a LOT of time here. In fact, I've known him to "vacation" an advertiser once for bad behavior. That happened while I was a moderator, and I supported the decision.

Pete's passionate about what he believes in. Maybe sometimes a little bit TOO passionate, considering his position on the board. But I would never question his integrity.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Crush]

NWGratefulDiver and Thalassamania,

You have both spoken eloquently in defence of Netoc. Not having had he pleasure of meeting the individual, I will defer to the both of you.

My objections to NetDoc's posts pertain to what I perceive to be his sophistry (modern definition). I believe that NetDoc tries to persuade his audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual.

The both of you have faith in his strength of character based upon personal interaction with him. I have only belief in his insincerity based upon his posts.

 

[Guy Alcala]

Wow... the REAL reason why we have some of these rules in our agencies. It has nothing to do with trying to dumb down the system: it has everything to do with risk management.

Sure. The only question is who's managing whose risk, and whether they should be. My philosophy is pretty simple. The person most at risk for a particular action has the ultimate responsibility for managing the risk. Thus, a diver has ultimate responsibility for their own safety while diving. The person filling tanks is primarily concerned about the risk to themselves of a tank exploding, so they should take responsibility for managing risk to see that it doesn't happen. The problem is that unless they clean the tank and VIP it before each fill, they have no way of knowing what's been done to that tank before they've seen it, no matter what or how many stickers are affixed to it. So it ultimately comes down to how much they trust the user to be concerned about the filler's safety.

If they're filling tanks commercially, then they also have full responsibility that what they've put in the tank meets applicable health and safety codes. They don't have the ultimate responsibility that the diver will use the gas as they should, and realistically they have no way to control that.

So, in the case that TomFCrist related, if the diver asked for and was given 32% Nitrox (and analyzed it), then the fill station's responsibility ends there (assuming no dangerous contaminants). It's on the diver to use the stuff in a reasonable fashion, because they're the one who's going to be injured or die if they fail to do so (as in this case). There is no way any diver who bothered to learn anything about Nitrox in (guessing) the last 15 years, could chose to go to 155' (PO2 1.82) under the assumption that was widely accepted as minimal risk. Either they decided to accept the extra risk, or else they didn't bother to educate themselves. Either way, they took the risk and suffered the consequences, and that's just as it should be.

Now the agencies have set themselves up as gatekeepers (no C-Card, no fills), thereby taking much of the responsibility for their personal safety away from the diver. You may regard this as a good thing, as it certainly keeps many of the dumber members of the species from killing or injuring themselves. As you've probably guessed I'm not a fan of this, because it also takes away personal responsibility for risk management from every member of the species who isn't a dummy, and that, IMO, breeds dependency.

Guy

 

[DCBC]

Pete's passionate about what he believes in. Maybe sometimes a little bit TOO passionate, considering his position on the board. But I would never question his integrity.

Yet he feels it totally acceptable to question the integrity of others. As Christ once said: "You know the tree by the fruit it bears."

 

[DCBC]

I proposed to him a scenario which was designed to prompt him to consider how it might feel to be on the other end,,.

That's exactly what I got from your statement. To me, integrity is a quality that requires a person to base their actions upon a well-thought out framework of moral principles. What they do in real life, is the same as what they say. When discussing things on-line, there's an opportunity to treat others differently than one might normally do in a face-to-face conversation. If a person does so, their integrity is lost.

Personally, I don't respect anyone who in a conversation avoids the points in-issue and only responds with insults, innuendo and sarcasm. There simply is no excuse for this behavior.