Diver0001 once bubbled...
> WE did it? Did we?
Yes we did. Divers have been unscrupulously plundering wrecks without considering the wishes of survivors and victims families since the very beginning of the sport. We created the need for controls, we brought it down on our own heads and we have nobody to blame for it but ourselves. If we (and I mean divers as a whole) would have shown *respect* for the gravesites and to the survivors and victim's families, the situation would be very different. Nobody would think to control who can enter a cemetery but then we don't run around desecrating graves in a cemetery. As I said, like it or not, shipwrecks are gravesites. You said you don't like it. Ok, that's your prerogative, but look in a mirror and ask yourself *why*, what personal need do you have that would motivate you to reject that simple fact.
> Let's say a diver recovers a signigicant artifact, bell, steam
> whistle, helm, etc., from one of your "grave site" wrecks. In
> what way has he or she "desecrated" the site? Agreed, if he
>scatters bones or recovers a skull, its a problem, otherwise
>you're wrong.
If you steal a grave marker like a head stone you're desecrating a grave. You don't need to disturb the bones...... As divers we are in the unique position of being able to offer the service of recovering something tangible for the victim's families. I would submit, however, that recovering it without having been requested to do so is sloppy at best and given where most artefacts end up I find it often tasteless, rude and even unethical.
> You're living loved ones argument doesn't fly either. Lots of
> relatives of Titanic victims are still around, my step-mother is >one of them. Should she be left alone too?
Are you asking if the Titanic should be left alone? I don't think the rules for the Titanic should be any different than for any other ship. My personal opinion (which you are quite welcome not to share) is that if survivors and/or direct decedents of victims want it left alone it should be treated like a gravesite. It *is* after all a gravesite. Visit but don't disturb.
> Should every location where people die be left alone? Imagine
> the state of our highways and airports. Every battlefield
> throughout history as a memorial, suddenly there's no land left
> that's not set aside.
A car wreck is not recognised as a gravesite. Shipwrecks are. You're confusing the argument with an apples and oranges comparison. Battlefields are not considered gravesites either but the cemeteries where the battle dead are buried are. Would you advocate the plunder a war-cemetery?
> Sentimentality is great, in its place.
Agreed, as is sensitivity. I see we don't agree and I don't hold any anticipation of being able to convince you to adopt my view. Feel free to present your own side of the argument as articulately as you can and let others who may read this decide on their own where their conscience will lead them.
R..
