Test

[InkyUndine]

I seem to be having word wrap issues, so here goes a test: "When you explore the fragile environment around corals, sponges and other aquatic life without exposure suit protection, you tend to be cautions. After all, you need to watch what you touch to prevent abrasion or a minor sting. Wearing exposure suits takes away this incentive, which can mean harm to the environment unless you keep its welfare in mind. Hopefully, you wouldn't intentionally kick, kneel on or bump against fragile aquatic life but exposure suits make it more difficult to tell when you do it accidentally. Realize that even a light touch can harm or kill some organisms. Break a 25 cm/10 in piece of branching coral, for example, and you've destroyed over a decade of growth."

 

[HowardE]

And... what happened?

 

[jepuskar]

The Big Bang. Life. The god particle. Decision 2012.

 

[HowardE]

Maybe I should have been more specific?

 

[j2s]

I think you're looking at it wrong....Wearing an exposure suit of any kind shouldn't 'take away the incentive' not to unintentionally touch anything......Getting your buoyancy control down pat should be your focus......so you never even come close......Whether you wear a suit or not [and in most cases you will probably be wearing something] should not make you any more or less cautious.......

 

[Mark Derail]

Test Bump

 

[jepuskar]

I think he was looking for a wordwrap test...not feedback on post content. :/

 

[Mark Derail]

Which is why this is funny...

Bump

 

[jepuskar]

NO!! This isn't funny. Testing is critical.

 

[Mark Derail]

Testing in the IT world is called QA