Vinegarbiscuit, I don't thing that there is adequate information to reach the conclusion that you did. That may be the case, that may not be the case, the little bit of existing evidence that there is (he happened to live) argues against you.
As far as Steve is concerned, he seems to need to get out of the nursery more to a place where there are competent people who responsibly undertake difficult and dangerous tasks. He appears to be spending too much time watching infants play in their prams while being an apologist for a bankrupt and depauperized system that not everyone requires to survive or to enjoy diving.
With all due respect - and I both respect and really enjoy the posts you make on SB, so I hope you don't take offense - I must humbly beg to differ. I do agree that we aren't in position of every single fact surrounding the OPs dive, but he's related enough facts to draw a conclusion that his behaviour was ill-advised.
Fact: A bloke engaged in a dive beyond his capabilities. He engaged in a trust-me dive using a piece of equipment that is deadly to the untrained.
That's why CCR students never receive their whole kit upon purchase: a crucial piece of equipment, such as the counter-lungs, are sent directly to the instructor, to prevent the student from 'experimenting' with it and dying. Even once trained, they dive knowing that while a carefully-checked and perfectly functioning unit is essential, having one breeds complacency (the 'Pyle Paradox'), and they must assume their rebreather is going to malfunction at any moment. Did the OP dive with that assumption, and was he trained to save himself and bail himself out if anything went wrong? No. Because he didn't spend weeks training, drilling and practicing with ain instructor in order to obtain basic familiarity with the unit.
Fact: The fact he lived is testimony that learning from qualified professionals is not always necessary?! No, it's testimony that he was lucky.
Now, I too have encountered remarkable divers without the formal training to undertake the dives they're regularly undertake. One, an acquaintence back home in NY, has a YMCA OW card (which he displays to anyone that asks and even some people that don't with the greatest glee!), but he was/is one of THOSE wreck divers in the Northeast, who participated in expeditions to the Doria and so on. But then - there were precious little C-cards back then, and much of what we know today is thanks to the likes of divers like him (and, very sadly, his dead buddies). I have the utmost awe and respect for divers who dived back when there were precious few rules - dammit, they helped make the rules! - and who literally cobbled together equipment to undertake those dives. But we don't live in that world anymore. We have access to tried-and-true equipment and (if you shop around) experienced, insured instructors to teach us how to use that equipment to plan and execute incident-free dives. Mentors help us build on that experience, and for that, they're absolutely invaluable. But there's an important distinction between mentors and instructors.
As to the comments about Mr. Lewis: I must respectfully disagree with you there, too. As one of the most competant and skilled instructor-trainers in the world today, I would venture that he's eminently qualified to watch folk undertake difficult and dangerous tasks and assess whether they're being undertaken responsibly. The consequences of doing otherwise are too great. Firstly, it's the individual's decision whether or not to be in the water with a person they deem as unsafe and putting themselves - and others - at risk. Maybe he's done that on a few occasions and made himself unpopular as a result, who knows? Secondly, scuba is a self-regulating sport, because for the most part, its practitioners dive safely and responsibily. But if enough people have serious accidents and get hurt, scuba as a self-regulating sport may be a thing of the past.
Time to get off my high horse, I reckon, and back to work!
