David Strike wrote:

> Seems like smart business sense to me.  :-)

It does to me too.  The problem is that it's not George or the WKPP that's
applied for it.  It's Robert Carmichael, the man behind hookah systems that
float on inner tubes, the man that started Halcyon and, according to
insiders, still controls it.

> DIR - as opposed to D.I.R., or even 'doing it right' (in lower case) - has
> commercial value.  But it in no way alters or changes the need to 'do it
> right or don't do it at all'!  :-)

Like I said in a previous post.  You've been exposed to the best DIR has to
offer.  There's no doubt in my mind that there is a very positive side to
it.  If you look back, you'll find that I've been promoting it longer than
anybody here except Mika.  The problem is that the people that what made it
special is not where it is going.  Watch.  You'll see.  Wanna buy some DIR
flippers?

> Sadly, many people equate doing it right (let's say DIR) with equipment
and
> equipment configuration and neglect, or ignore completely, the more
> important aspects of the concept. :-)

Not likely.  More like they/we chose to dive differently.  Mika's the most
DIR person on this list that I know of, but he smokes, uses a dive computer
and has not complied with the buddy protocols on any dive I ever did with
him.  This is not a criticism of Mika.  He knows what is DIR and what is not
and he knows what he prefers and when.  It's not neglect and it's not
ignoring, it's deciding for himself what is right for him in each situation,
for each dive.

> >This may be the death of DIR as a model of
> > excellence for the dive industry.

> I doubt it!  The underlying philosophy that the term encapsulates will,
for
> some of us, always exist.

Of course, but if the trademark is approved, we won't be calling it DIR any
more and, frankly, the term and controversy over what it means has a lot to
do with what made it so successful.

> The military and commercial diving fraternities have been practicing it
for years and I see no reason why it shouldn't  remain a concept that
thinking recreational
> divers also continue to strive towards. :-)

Perhaps the military and commercial diving fraternities you've been
associated with have.  Last time I looked, the equipment we associate with
DIR is not on the approved equipment list and nobody I know of in the
military is doing mile long penetration dives, on open circuit or otherwise.

> I tend to question the term 'revolutionise'?  It seems to me that it's
more
> of a natural progression based on models used successfully in other diving
> disciplines. :-)

One mans poison . . .   I certainly do not mean revolutionize in any adverse
way, but I have a hard time considering DIR to be a progression.  The
fitness aspects are as old as I am . . . hell, they're as old as you are.
The plate concept predates my first dive and maybe yours.  I'm not sure when
the first wing was used, but I'd bet it was also before my first dive.
Strict buddy protocols were much more common in the old days than they are
now.  Everything about the system is a return to the very roots of diving.
It's just packaged differently and communicated a lot differently.
Regardless, I am firm in my belief that the changes brought about by DIR are
nothing less than revolutionary.  Long live the revolution.

> None of the instructors queried or quibbled it, or suggested that it was
non-DIR!  :-)

JJ's been pretty clear in the past.  There's only one DIR.  Andrew has a
very good reputation not because he insists on strict DIR, but because he
gets past such surface concerns and teaches good diving to anybody whose
equipment is not, in his opinion, unsafe.

> Sadly, there are too many mindsets that equate DIR with brand-name
> equipment.

There's about to be a law that makes it a reality.  That's exactly what my
post was about.

> Having the most appropriate equipment is important . . .

Defend this for your diving.

> . . . a standardised system of configuration is equally so . . . defend
this for your diving.

> . . . but more important is the accompanying mind-set.

You don't have to defend this, but you may have to explain it a lot.  One of
the biggest problems ever was the multiplicity of DIR concepts spouted by
every Tom Dick and Harry.  When you see JJ, ask him what his primary
regulator is these days.  If it's still a Scuba Pro, ask him what George
thinks of his choice . . . no don't.  Neither you nor JJ deserve to go
there.

> In that regard, the registration of the name"DIR" is inconsequential and
doesn't impact one jot on the concept!

For somebody so intensely and rightfully sensitive about the use of your own
intellectual property, you're remarkably casual about the trademaking of
somebody else's.  There is certainly nothing about the trademark that will
change your diving or mine, but I'm betting that it will have a profound
impact on future generations of divers unless, of course, we come up with a
new and equally catchy phrase for what you and I have traditionally referred
to as DIR.

By the way, are you using a DIR gear bag?  8^)

Lee