Diver Deported in Canada, Beware

[B Lo]

Oh, I understand B Lo's feelings. My poor choices and behaviors were not deemed more than that and my probation officer never required me to attend any classes or AA meetings, but I end up getting involved in those for other reasons - a guest at open meetings, even prison meetings. There are people who make poor choices and just might do it again, and there are drunks who will do it again and again. I've seen 6 divers leave by ambulance over the years and alcohol was involved in half of them...

It's clear you handled yourself in a mature manner. And, without the slighest bit of sarcasm, I'd dive with you any day.

 

[DandyDon]

I'd dive with you any day.

You're new here, right?

I try to not screw up, but it's just not my style. I do carry my own pony so as to not inconvenience others, but I've screwed that up a time or two. No problems the last couple of trips at least, and I'm trying to make that a habit. :blush:

Anyway, from looking at your cards & kit, you seem like a responsible diver - but you just won't know about the others onboard. Never let your self rescue down.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I never got a DUI ... but considering the lifestyle I lived for 20-something years, I easily could have. Times were different back then ... and it's misleading to judge those times by today's societal mores.

Can people change? Sure ... most of us do change as we grow older. I walked away from that lifestyle nearly two decades ago, and haven't missed it for a moment. I can't imagine being judged today based on the things I did 20 years ago.

You're supposed to get wiser with experience ... most folks do ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[tregrrr]

It's clear you handled yourself in a mature manner. And, without the slighest bit of sarcasm, I'd dive with you any day.

If that were to happen, then according to your first post, coupled with IF one of his transgretions was EVER a DUI, then there's a little hypocrisy issue if you were in fact to dive with Don.

According to that first post, and several subsequent, there is apparently no way you are getting into the water with any DUI convict... Irregardless of how far in their past or whether they chose to continue making them stupid mistakes.

My point all along has been that ONE stupid does not a bad person make.

The analogy to a schoolyard fight was merely to point that out to you. We as a society do not necessarily need to hold some stupid decision made 20 years prior,( one which an individual has attoned for and changed their ways since) in higher esteem than a person's current actions or proclivities. Just as a child evolves into a young adult, a young adult will, if he survives, evolve into a mature adult. If you need to see a person's life long rap sheet before diving with them, that is your perogative.

Assume for a second the mindset of a single, heterosexual male, and some day you are introduced to a wonderful, beautiful, single woman by a mutual friend?? Imagine this fantastic lady had worked evenings while taking her MBA as a dive instructor and now, as well as her millions in the bank, still has the patience of Job and the diving skills of an average GUE koolaid drinker. What if after diving a dozen weekends with her you find out that on her 20th birthday she had been convicted of DUI, but then on her 30th, as a gift to herself she went through the process to have it pardoned.

Would that change your view of her?? According to your first post your answer would have been yes, but now after Don's post, it seems that you may have problems straddling your fence.

I can without hestation say it wouldn't for me... I would still try asking for her hand in **gasp** marriage

My contention all along has been that if a person acts in a prudent manner now, and makes good decisions, then perhaps they may have evolved and learned from a mistake decade or years in their past.

If they made those same or similar bad decisions last week too... then definitely, that is evidence of CONTINUED POOR DECISION MAKING. That would definitely be a valid reason to reconsider the individual as a potential dive buddy.



Either way, you are entitled to your choices, just as we all are. It's good that you recognize this also so you won't be disappointed when I hesitate to dive with someone who seems to act in a hypocritical mannor, and appears inflexible or intolerent in how they make their decisions.

 

[scuba=dude]

Don, I always thought that you walked a bit on the wild side; now the truth comes out...

I only had one time that I was refused entry into the U.S. (Buffalo, N.Y.). A Border Agent made a big deal about my military training and the danger that I apparently presented to the security of the U.S. Although I was trained in explosives and some elements of special operations (some of these training courses were taken in the U.S.), I couldn't see why they would consider me a threat (no criminal record, etc.). Does the U.S. monitor members of their military that receive certain types of training and enter them onto a computer database? I never did understand how they even knew...

You can bet they know how us Vets are and what we did

 

[B Lo]

tregrrr, I've never said that making one mistake makes you a bad person. You keep making assumptions about me that are totally off base. The only concern I've expressed is one of potential risk. If you know someone has truly bettered themselves and learned from their mistakes, they cease to present the same level of danger. Hence, it's not hypocritical that I would dive with Dan. He clearly has a mature mindset and has addressed whatever caused him difficulty in the past. The thing is that I can't say the same for everyone. I don't get the chance to interview random dive buddies on a boat very often. Nor would it be appropriate to do so in most instances.

And this most recent example is as off base as the previous one posted. Having a long term relationship with someone would provide an opportunity to evaluate whether she has learned from her mistakes and bettered herself.

I stand behind my original position that I would prefer not to dive with anyone that has had a DUI. However, I did not mean to suggest that there are no mitigating circumstances whatsoever that would serve to change my opinion on a case by case basis.

If I was unclear about the reasoning behind my opinion, I apologize for that.

And, as I said before, you are free to dive with anyone you please. Random boat buddies aside, I have never had a dive buddy I don't like because I don't get in the water with people I am unsure of. If I have a reasonable opportunity to better ensure my safety, I will take advantage of it.

 

[tregrrr]

I don't mean to be a jerk but I'd rather not dive with someone who has ever had a DUI.

tregrrr, I've never said that making one mistake makes you a bad person. You keep making assumptions about me that are totally off base. The only concern I've expressed is one of potential risk. If you know someone has truly bettered themselves and learned from their mistakes, they cease to present the same level of danger.

Backpedaling aside, please refer to your initial post. I have appended it directly above for your easy reference. Please refer to the distinct lack of any sort of modifiers associated with your definitive statement. That was the statement I referenced, and to which no assumptions were made, but rather question arose from.
[/QUOTE]

Hence, it's not hypocritical that I would dive with Dan. He clearly has a mature mindset and has addressed whatever caused him difficulty in the past. The thing is that I can't say the same for everyone. I don't get the chance to interview random dive buddies on a boat very often. Nor would it be appropriate to do so in most instances.

And this most recent example is as off base as the previous one posted. Having a long term relationship with someone would provide an opportunity to evaluate whether she has learned from her mistakes and bettered herself.

offbase but whatever... I am merely using cartoonish examples to make a point.

Refer to your initial post: you said you do not make any provision for redemption.

I stand behind my original position that I would prefer not to dive with anyone that has had a DUI. However, I did not mean to suggest that there are no mitigating circumstances whatsoever that would serve to change my opinion on a case by case basis.

If I was unclear about the reasoning behind my opinion, I apologize for that.

And, as I said before, you are free to dive with anyone you please. Random boat buddies aside, I have never had a dive buddy I don't like because I don't get in the water with people I am unsure of. If I have a reasonable opportunity to better ensure my safety, I will take advantage of it.

You made an absolute statement: "[You] 'd rather not dive with someone who has ever had a DUI"

How can/do you stand by that statement and then contend that mitigating factors would alter your disposition?? "Ever had a DUI" is a tantamount to a Boolean operation; By your statement either they had a DUI or they did not.... IJS

anyways just so you know, we can only read what you type; thinking it real loud don't make the pixels change, or modify the construed intent of your posts

 

[CriticalMass]

Here's a novel idea, albeit politically-incorrect...How about living one's life in such a way that outstanding warrants, and other, similar blots on one's personal existence, DON'T EXIST? I mean, are we to the point in our culture that it's just taken for granted that some of us will have demonstrated we can't obey the laws?

If the answer is yes, that's a sad, sad commentary on where we are, as a society. And, as far as I'm concerned, individuals that fit into that category can just deal with the consequences.

Am I too harsh? I think not. Actions have consequences.

 

[B Lo]

I'll let you have the last word; apparently you need it. Feel free to comment on this post if you'd like.

Backpedaling aside, please refer to your initial post. I have appended it directly above for your easy reference. Please refer to the distinct lack of any sort of modifiers associated with your definitive statement. That was the statement I referenced, and to which no assumptions were made, but rather question arose from.

offbase but whatever... I am merely using cartoonish examples to make a point.

Refer to your initial post: you said you do not make any provision for redemption.



You made an absolute statement: "[You] 'd rather not dive with someone who has ever had a DUI"

How can/do you stand by that statement and then contend that mitigating factors would alter your disposition?? "Ever had a DUI" is a tantamount to a Boolean operation; By your statement either they had a DUI or they did not.... IJS

anyways just so you know, we can only read what you type; thinking it real loud don't make the pixels change, or modify the construed intent of your posts [/QUOTE]

 

[vladimir]

Don, I always thought that you walked a bit on the wild side; now the truth comes out...

I only had one time that I was refused entry into the U.S. (Buffalo, N.Y.). A Border Agent made a big deal about my military training and the danger that I apparently presented to the security of the U.S. Although I was trained in explosives and some elements of special operations (some of these training courses were taken in the U.S.), I couldn't see why they would consider me a threat (no criminal record, etc.). Does the U.S. monitor members of their military that receive certain types of training and enter them onto a computer database? I never did understand how they even knew...

A known POV warrior with special-ops training? How much scarier does it get?