And I am confusticated.
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
...To me, that's a far more valuable lesson than giving them the false notion that they can do ANY dive because I trained them that way. Of course, they can dive in BC if and only if they have satisfied their limits.
Why are people so hesitate to accept that if a Diver is to be trained in more hazardous local conditions, that further training is also required? Why is the concept so foreign to expect all diver certification agencies to accept this truth that diving in ice cold water with tide, waves, surf, current and poor visibility is different than diving in ideal conditions?
It seems generally accepted that if you want to dive: a cave, ice, or a wreck, you should seek further training to do so. If you want to dive deeper, further training is required. Why are people so hesitate to accept that if a Diver is to be trained in more hazardous local conditions, that further training is also required? Why is the concept so foreign to expect all diver certification agencies to accept this truth that diving in ice cold water with tide, waves, surf, current and poor visibility is different than diving in ideal conditions?
You keep interjecting the word 'most." You don't put a new diver into the worst water conditions imaginable.
No one 'Standard' can adequately address this, unless it's designed for the most hazardous conditions.
Thal, and showing off by typing in names helps this discussion in what way?
No John you're dead wrong. BTW: I all ready answered that question.It's called an appeal to authority. By typing in those names, he wants to impress you with the number of people who agree with him. If you were to do the same thing, he would immediately jump in and tell you it is a logical fallacy making the argument invalid.
It is indeed a logical fallacy when it is a false appeal to authority--that is, when the authority to which an appeal has been made does not have the supposed qualifications or does not actually hold the opinion for which he or she has been cited.
was in response to roterner and DCBC's exchange:Yeah, what he said. There are at least two of us, and then we need to add: Austin, Egstrom, Stewart, McDonald, Flahan, Lang, Rioux, Somers, Taylor, Heine, Erickson, Kintzing, Duffy, Fastenau, Reed, Bell, Harper, Reed, Mitchell, and Maney ... to name a few.
I've been diving from the coast of BC, to Lake Malawi, and all across the world.... Ice diving in -15C in the Czech Republic, to +30C in Egypt...... from Cozumel to Puerto Escondido, from zero viz to seeing as far as your lamp will shine, from deploying line because it was an interesting thing to try to laying line to identify an unknown WWI submarine wreck full of undetonated torpedoes; from diving in currents that were unmanageable to teaching students how to do the same. From seeing squid dance in the distance to having them "kiss" my forehead and lay eggs on my mask.
Look. I don't want to suggest that Wayne doesn't know what he's doing, but dude.... seriously. to suggest that you are the ONLY person who knows how to train divers in sub-optimal conditions.... yeah... it's insulting... it's rude... it's wrong. I'm going to wager that I could produce students for your local conditions who would be like, "dude, it's not that hard".
R..
and was actual a poke at the idea that Wayne would entertain the notion of being the "only person ..." rather than support of a 100 hour training program. Had I been attempting an, "appeal to authority," I would have used my e-mail address book to produce a list perhaps two orders of magnitude longer and in alphabetic order to boot.I don't question your 'world-wide experience.' You might however do me the courtesy of showing where I allegedly said that I'm the "ONLY person who knows how to train divers in sub-optimal conditions." Or perhaps you just enjoy running off at the mouth...
Nobody (not even me) has said that "standard OW instruction should be 100 hours long and should prepare all divers to dive in the most hazardous conditions in the world." I think what you are attempting here is usually referred to as a "straw-man fallacy."We have been given a list of names. We have been shown nothing that tells us that those people all believe that standard OW instruction should be 100 hours long and should prepare all divers to dive in the most hazardous conditions in the world, regardless of their intentions for their future diving. To make that appeal worthwhile, he would have to provide a link with each name showing that this is indeed what they believe. If not, it is just a list of names.
Sherry Reed, DSO at Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce/Caribbean Coral Reef Ecosystems Program.