• Welcome to ScubaBoard

  1. 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

    • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
    • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
    • You can make this box go away

    Joining is quick and easy. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

Advanced penetration of the Spiegel Grove Wreck

Discussion in 'Wreck Diving' started by norwhal, Nov 19, 2020.

  1. jadairiii

    jadairiii Solo Diver

    To reiterate ChuckP's post, a blown lp/hp hose or even a free-flowing reg in side there with inexperienced divers and it goes from zero to Sh*t Show in a heart beat. Good luck handing off your Octo on a standard hose and getting the diver out without incident. There actually is a valid reason for a 7' primary hose.
  2. tridacna

    tridacna ScubaBoard Supporter ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 2,500 - 4,999
    Location: New Jersey
    I suspect that this was aimed at @Coztick not you.
  3. Soloist

    Soloist Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: North Carolina
    If I may, take the musings of the OP with a grain of salt. This was his very successful attempt at kicking the hornet’s nest.
    Zef, SD Climber, scubadada and 2 others like this.
  4. mac64

    mac64 ScubaBoard Supporter ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 5,000 - ∞
    Location: Ireland
    How you conduct your dives is entirely up to you, I do sonar and side scan passes. survey dives on the wreck and area where she is, and most certainly wouldn’t plan a wreck dive on internet information. I believe that’s what I said on my post.
  5. tridacna

    tridacna ScubaBoard Supporter ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 2,500 - 4,999
    Location: New Jersey
    If “kicking the horrnet’s nest” equates to trolling, I agree with you. iDocSteve has been doing this for years under different guises. It’s a game for him.
    shoredivr, Miyaru, rsingler and 2 others like this.
  6. Manatee Diver

    Manatee Diver Stop throwing lettuce at me! ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: None - Not Certified
    Location: Tampa Bay, FL
    The type of sites this thread is talking about is one with plans for sale, mooring balls, and probably sees more divers in a day than you site sees in a year.
    ChuckP likes this.
  7. wedivebc

    wedivebc CCR Instructor Trainer ScubaBoard Supporter

    If a diver is banned for extreme hubris it might be constructive to allow them read only privileges
  8. Hoag

    Hoag Contributor

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: SW Ontario - Just outside of the GTHA
    I don't know for sure, but I would assume that they can read posts. I would see little to no difference between being banned and what you can do while not logged in, or if you found a link to a thread as a result of a "Google search".
  9. ontdiver

    ontdiver Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Ottawa, Ontario
    If the incident was not overly egregious, a "time out" with read only privileges might be appropriate. In this instance, however, the OP clearly met the standard to be banned. I am happy to accept the judgement of the mods.
  10. Zef

    Zef Divemaster

    What is that standard exactly that you are referring to? What did the OP do in your mind that crossed the line other than posting about diving in a way that others object to? I have seen people do some really stupid stuff in my time on this planet, while I disagree with what/how the OP wanted to go about the SG dive, I also know that his participation or not on this board will do little to nothing to prevent him from exercising his will. There are far more people out there doing far more egregious things. I used to be an avid rock climber...I can tell you stories of the stupid things I have witnessed that put peoples lives in direct danger...more so than this OP could probably dream up.

    My thinking is the OP was a sock puppet account of a previously banned member, there seemed to be some similarities to the argumentative dismissiveness that seemed similar to another poster that is no longer a member of SB. Perhaps the mods figured that out and hence the ban of the new screen name...the OP's profile did not list many posts from what I recall seeing. Or that can be totally wrong...I guess we will never know.


Share This Page