Mr Chattertons Self Reliance Article...

[chrpai]

Every thread has it's event horizon. We all get sucked in sooner or later.

You know, I wish my wife hadn't explained your avatar to me... very disturbing.

 

[DaleC]

I think people read whatever they want into an article like this because it is written in a style that is open for interpretation.

To me, that line about fighting someone who jumps him for his reg means something completely different. I don't assume he would never share air and callously let someone die but rather that he retains the right to control his own gas supply.....

"Let me be clear, if you have nothing to breathe, or nothing you feel like breathing at the time, and you jump me for my regulator, I will fight you for it, and I will win. Period."

I was once grabbed by someone who thought they were drowning and wanted to use me as their own PFD by climbing on top of me. My best/only response at the time was to swim downward, punching as I went, until the desire for the surface made them release their grip. I did the opposite of trying to save them.

Did I fight them - yes. Did I mean them harm - no. If I were able to tell them ahead of time that if they tried to climb on top of me I wouldn't let them would I - yes. Does that make me callous - no. Would I try to help them in a way that did not endanger me - yes. Which I did (btw) by swimming in front of them and having them dog paddle to catch me all the way to the edge of the pool.

Haters gonna hate but I have a hard time thinking Johns intention is to deny help when he can offer it. I do believe, given the circumstances and the risk, he does choose to determine the how and when of it.

I think his article was meant to be thought provoking and to let careless divers know they should not assume they will get a free pass from every diver they meet UW.

 

[ScubaInChicago]

I think people read whatever they want into an article like this because it is written in a style that is open for interpretation.

Like this:

To me, that line about fighting someone who jumps him for his reg means something completely different. I don't assume he would never share air and callously let someone die

I'm confused, writing in double negative circles isn't helping....

 

[DaleC]

Where's the confusion?

1. I don't assume John would never share air and callously let someone die.
as opposed to
2. I assume John would never share air and callously let someone die
I meant 1. not 2.



The first negative (don't) refers to my assumption, the second negative (never) refers to Johns actions.

I believe a double negative would be when two negatives refer to the same subject ie. I don't not assume John wouldn't never share air...

 

[danvolker]

If a book author writes that something is black, and some on scubaboard want to interpret him to have really meant white, you almost have to wonder if there is any need to use real words in your writing--these guys can figure out your meaning no matter what.....!!!!

 

[dumpsterDiver]

I think people read whatever they want into an article like this because it is written in a style that is open for interpretation.

To me, that line about fighting someone who jumps him for his reg means something completely different. I don't assume he would never share air and callously let someone die but rather that he retains the right to control his own gas supply.....

"Let me be clear, if you have nothing to breathe, or nothing you feel like breathing at the time, and you jump me for my regulator, I will fight you for it, and I will win. Period."

I was once grabbed by someone who thought they were drowning and wanted to use me as their own PFD by climbing on top of me. My best/only response at the time was to swim downward, punching as I went, until the desire for the surface made them release their grip. I did the opposite of trying to save them.

Did I fight them - yes. Did I mean them harm - no. If I were able to tell them ahead of time that if they tried to climb on top of me I wouldn't let them would I - yes. Does that make me callous - no. Would I try to help them in a way that did not endanger me - yes. Which I did (btw) by swimming in front of them and having them dog paddle to catch me all the way to the edge of the pool.

Haters gonna hate but I have a hard time thinking Johns intention is to deny help when he can offer it. I do believe, given the circumstances and the risk, he does choose to determine the how and when of it.

I think his article was meant to be thought provoking and to let careless divers know they should not assume they will get a free pass from every diver they meet UW.

Doggie paddling at the surface of a pool is analogous to fighting off a fellow tech diver at 2-300 feet? You REALLY gotta be kidding me.

 

[ScubaInChicago]

Where's the confusion?

1. I don't assume John would never share air and callously let someone die.
as opposed to
2. I assume John would never share air and callously let someone die
I [-]meant[/-] want to believe 1. not 2.

Fixed that for you

 

[DaleC]

Haters gotta hate.

The real problem is that some simply do not want to attempt to understand another POV. So Dan, words in that case are meaningless but not because they lack meaning - but because people simply choose not to hear them. It speaks to a form of intellectual dishonesty wherein people pretend to listen while they are only formulating their rebuttal.

I thought for a moment someone was engaging in discussion. Stupid me.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Never mind..

 

[Scott L]

I think can agree with a little, anyway.

Some day i will tell you about the time my 18 month old threw his bath toy out of the tub. I recovered it and returned it to the tub. If you extrapolate just a little, you will realize it was similar to a coast guard rescue copter flying out into a blizzard to pluk sailors from the frigid sea..

DaleC is a fine man, but that was funny DD.