What a disappointment

[Oregon Duck]

All the smokers I've known are stubborn people. I've known my share who've quit by default. It's tragic to watch a loved one quit in desperation only when it's way too late. Good for Bob. Even 3-5 a day can't be good.

I know little about GUE but I admire that they stick to their standards and apply them equally to all applicants - provided they don't discriminate on the basis of race, age, gender, etc., (more lawyer speak). Some divers I just finished a course with couldn't swim to save their lives in a pool without current or waves. I lapped them twice in a 200 yd swim. Diving is swimming underwater - albeit with fins. The minimum standards for proficient surface swimming are too low IMO, and there is no standard for underwater swimming w/o scuba in the basic courses (besides CESA practice). That's just stupid. I say be comfortable submerged w/o the gear and w/o the fear before you add the hardware that can get you into trouble. I'd rather dive with a chronic smoker who had solid swimming skills and was comfortable undewater than most of the people I see out there - provided he/she didn't smoke during the dive!

B1g Country, I guarded at Montrose Beach for two summers and did my first diving off Montrose Harbor and the breakwater (before bc's lol). Where (and when) were you?

 

[Blox]

GUE recommends ... forbids smoking or recreational drug use.

Does that imply professional drug use is acceptable?

 

[lamont]

Does that imply professional drug use is acceptable?

apparently there's no mention of research chemicals, so 2C-T-21 would be okay? (would this be "techreational drug use"? do i need to wear a BP/W during the experience?)

 

[CompuDude]

apparently there's no mention of research chemicals, so 2C-T-21 would be okay? (would this be "techreational drug use"? do i need to wear a BP/W during the experience?)

Only if you apply the rule of thirds and divide that 21 by 3.

Although nevermind, things have changed in that regard...

Oooh, Glo-Toob...

 

[MSilvia]

The reason GUE excludes smokers is that GUE does not share your view of the purpose of their organization or the purpose of their Fundamentals course.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that my view of the purpose of GUE is "teaching the world to dive", or why you think I believe DIR-F is about anything other than training divers to be GUE divers. I assure you that's not the case.

Obviously, GUE can set whatever standards they feel appropriate, and divers who want to train with them can take it or leave it. However, since DIR-F is the first exposure to GUE that most people will ever have, it seems strange to me to bar people from taking that first, intoductory, level of GUE training for failure to meet standards. After all, without taking DIR-F, how would a diver know if meeting those standards is a goal that would be worth their effort? Is the expectation that you'll learn all you need to know in order to decide if GUE's holistic DIR approch is right for you by reading about it in internet forums? That's hardly going to paint an accurate picture compared to hearing directly from a GUE instructor.

Passing DIR-F doesn't certify a person to do anything other than take further GUE training, but without having taken it a person can't be expected to really understand why they would want that training as opposed to that offered by any other agency.

I'm not saying it's wrong, and I'm certainly not suggesting they should adopt a "GUE is for everybody" approach, but I don't understand why they would prevent a person from taking the fundies class with the understanding that they'll never be able to pass it without changing. Higher level training SHOULD only be available to those who have demonstrated that they meet standards, but divers taking DIR-F typically aren't there yet.

I would add that there is a well thought-out REASON for all of the rules and regs that GUE embraces and that they are not excluding smokers (or anyone for that matter) simply to have a no-smoking club. You may disagree with their reasoning and choose to go another route, but it is worth investigating the why of the situation.

I agree completely. How do you suggest a diver interested in learning about the whys of GUE training go about it if not by taking DIR-F? I was led to believe that accepting DIR methodologies on faith and without understanding was to be discouraged.

 

[do it easy]

I agree completely. How do you suggest a diver interested in learning about the whys of GUE training go about it if not by taking DIR-F? I was led to believe that accepting DIR methodologies on faith and without understanding was to be discouraged.

Are these two mutually exclusive?

 

[MSilvia]

Are these two mutually exclusive?

If you mean faith and understanding, then yes... I believe they are.

If you really understand something, you don't need to take it on faith that there's a reason for it because you know the reason for it.

If you do something because you have faith that there's a reason for it, you clearly don't know what that reason is.

Faith only exists when there is an absence of certain knowledge.

 

[Soggy]

I'm not sure it's necessary to take DIRF to understand why smoking and diving are contraindicated.

 

[MSilvia]

I'm not sure it's necessary to take DIRF to understand why smoking and diving are contraindicated.

Not necessarily, but I have run into a number of smokers who don't think it has a negative impact on their diving. In fact, several have even argued that it actually helps their air consumption due to reduced lung capacity. I don't think you'll find a smoker out there who doesn't know it isn't good for them, but I don't think it's obvious to everyone that it's a problem for divers in particular. I was a smoking diver for many years, and never found it to have any noticable adverse consequences beyond those it caused on land.

In any case, even if they appreciate that smoking is contraindicated for diving, it might well be necessary for divers who enjoy smoking to take DIR-F to understand that the benefits of GUE training are worth giving it up for.

 

[AaronR103]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that my view of the purpose of GUE is "teaching the world to dive", or why you think I believe DIR-F is about anything other than training divers to be GUE divers. I assure you that's not the case.

Obviously, GUE can set whatever standards they feel appropriate, and divers who want to train with them can take it or leave it. However, since DIR-F is the first exposure to GUE that most people will ever have, it seems strange to me to bar people from taking that first, intoductory, level of GUE training for failure to meet standards. After all, without taking DIR-F, how would a diver know if meeting those standards is a goal that would be worth their effort? Is the expectation that you'll learn all you need to know in order to decide if GUE's holistic DIR approch is right for you by reading about it in internet forums? That's hardly going to paint an accurate picture compared to hearing directly from a GUE instructor.

Passing DIR-F doesn't certify a person to do anything other than take further GUE training, but without having taken it a person can't be expected to really understand why they would want that training as opposed to that offered by any other agency.

I'm not saying it's wrong, and I'm certainly not suggesting they should adopt a "GUE is for everybody" approach, but I don't understand why they would prevent a person from taking the fundies class with the understanding that they'll never be able to pass it without changing. Higher level training SHOULD only be available to those who have demonstrated that they meet standards, but divers taking DIR-F typically aren't there yet.


I agree completely. How do you suggest a diver interested in learning about the whys of GUE training go about it if not by taking DIR-F? I was led to believe that accepting DIR methodologies on faith and without understanding was to be discouraged.

DIR/F isn't so much an introduction to DIR with the intent of raising interest as it is a class to teach the skills that GUE deems necessary to better diving. It's the difference between familiarization and instruction. You are correct that most divers taking DIR/F can't meet the standards the first time through, but their shortcomings are in skill performance. I think in GUE's eyes a lack of skill proficiency is something that can't usually be fixed BEFORE the class is taught and doesn't imply a lifestyle standard that is not being met, whereas not smoking is a standard that CAN be met before the class begins. I think the key to the misunderstanding here is that GUE doesn't want to raise interest in DIR with the fundies class, but rather to train those already interested who are willing to conform to the standard. I make no implications of right or wrong here, but that's how I see the issue.

To answer your question as to how to investigate DIR without taking the class I'd suggest ordering the book "Doing it Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving." It's a great read that explains the DIR philosophy and why each of the standards are what they are. Even if you don't end up wanting to go DIR it's got a lot of useful concepts you can consider adding to your diving style. I've even got non-DIR buddies (don't tell anyone) who read my copy and bought their own. You can get it from GUE's website.

A