On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:59:54 +0800, Chris B. McKinney
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:


>Chris> The boy, who had apparently been under for almost
>> 10 minutes, lived.
>> >>
>Bob> Did he or didn't he DIE?
>> >
>Chris> I'll answer that when you give me your definition of life
>and
>> >death.
>>
>Bob> Nah.  I wasn't suggesting a GAME.  I was merely
>Bob> pointing out that
>Bob> the dictionary game in which you played was just as
>Bob> irrelevant to
>Bob> the issue at hand as the definition of "DROWN" would be.


>We're talking about the English language here,

See the phrase "irrelevant to the issue at hand"?


>I am going to refresh everybody's memory

It's all in the ARCHIVES.  Anyone can read your rehash THERE, in full!

>Bob> irrelevant to
>Bob> the issue at hand as the definition of "DROWN" would be.

In dwelling on the IRRELEVANT, Chris, you overlooked the only
RELEVANT post to all your rehash:

"Pedantic and Pathetic Thread on Lee Bell's diversion ..."

in which I had explained that:

RF> Lee was the one who introduced the term "recruited" which was NOT
RF> in my statement he cited.  However, I saw no objection to his use
RF> of the term since it coincided with my understanding of the term
RF> "was recruited".

The term "recruited" was NOT in MY statement which Lee challenged.



Back to the present thread:

Regarding instructors being blamed for DIVERS' own faults:

>> If I am not mistaken, that was precisely the reason
>> given by Strike
>> that he STOPPED renewing his teaching license as an
>> Instructor, because
>> of the liability issue.  That was LONG before this
>> thread came up.  :-)
>
>I think there are now three issues, with the introduction of this
>one:

>(1) Whether divers should be responsible for themselves (I
>don't think anybody's arguing against this one);

COuld've fooled me!  I thought the bulk of the debate was IN FAVOR
of rules, regulations over "divers should be responsible for
themselves" (SELF RESPONSIBILITY).


>(2) Whether
>others in proximity to a fatal accident might blame themselves,
>regardless of the fact that they aren't really to blame; and

They are perfectly entitled to;  and they tend to.  But they
should put the blame where it belong.


>(3)
>Whether others in proximity to a fatal accident might be
>considered liable for the accident, no matter that it was the
>result of the dead diver's diving beyond his limits.

That's the problem with LAWYERS -- which I didn't address.


>> YOu seemed to have missed MY POINT altogether.  IF
>> divers are stressed
>> to take RESPONSIBILITY for THEMSELVES, by their
>> trainers, by the
>> dive industry and all related segments of societies, then we
>> WOULDN'T have fine Instructors like Strike (and some other fine
>> instructors and DMs I personally know) dropping out of
>> scuba teaching
>> and dive-guide professional role, because people TEND
>> to blame THEM
>> for mishaps that are mostly (or wholly) the fault of
>> the IRRESPONSIBLE
>> DIVER.
>
>You are correct.  I hadn't understood all of that from your
>previous formulations.

Thank you.  BUt I think you still didn't get my point:

>I had thought your point was that if
>divers are drilled into taking seriously that once certified,
>each diver and only the diver himself is responsible for his own
>safety in diving, and must not rely on anyone else, then there
>would be less accidents.

That IS my point.  Less accidents from incompetent divers relying
on others to save their neck in ordinary diving situations.
>
>Smiles,

Is that a general 'disclaimer or was your preceding paragraph
another deep joke of your?
>
>Chris

-- Bob.