On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:22:21 -0400, Reef Fish
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Carl probably can still find remnants of the bumps on his head (not that
>he is a bumphead parrotfish) for "arguing" <tm> that even in 86F water
>temp in Cozumel, it's best to dive with a drysuit (on the DIR and one-
>size-fits-all" theory that was carried over from months of arguments
>about the length of hoses ... from 7 ft to 6 ft to 5 ft ... to Mika's
>42" (which was greatly admired by somebody's girl friend) :-))
A VERY important correction (and re-discovery) from my quest for
ACCURACY in posting, resulted from finding a poxt by Mika, which had
a MAJOR surprise -- that GOD did NOT prescribe all those long hoses
for warm water diving -- in addition to the correction about my 42"
reference above:
=============================================================
From: Michael Doelle ([log in to unmask])
Subject: god hath spoken about the Long Hose!
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Date: 1996/07/08
Reef Fish (LNG), reappeared from rec.scubaduba and wrote:
Feesh:>>Gee, all the while St. Carl was here bashing everyone for not
using the 7' hose, I thought he was just preaching the gospel according
to George of WKPP. But GOD George spoke tonight, on that topic, in
techdiver!
GMIIII:>>>> " ... open water gear is the same as Hogarthian except
that there is only one first stage, and the long hose is only about 40
inches - [...] <<<<
Feesh: >> That's a quote from a posting by George Irvine, III -- the
self-anointed god of cave divers whom WKPP cavers worship.
Sheesh! Just think we wasted all that bandwidth in Scuba-L on Carl's
7' hose dogma and it wasn't even preached by the god of his church! :^)
I feel better about my 42" long hose already. :-)<<
And George also said this:
GMIIII to MD: >> I only was planning an open water dive with open water
gear, otherwise I would have my normal setup. You are right, the normal
rig is always better, but with rough seas and a weenie dive, I go to the
minimum gear. [snip].<<
Feesh:>>BTW, it was Michael Doelle (whose girl friend was ecstatic about
Gerrit's 42" hose) who asked George the question which resulted in
the quoted response above.<<
Wrong, that was just your assumption when you wrote:
Feeesh: >>Your GIRLFRIEND is the NED hose evaluator. :-)
She should be ECSTATIC over Gerrit's 42 inches!
But then she realized the diameter was rather unimpressive <bg>.
regards
michael, muc
=============================================================
Notice Mika couldn't find the keys for ":-)" but used "<bg>" instead.
Okay. So it was Gerrit's girlfriend who was ecstatic about Mika's
42" hose of rather unimprssive diameter? <?>
Or you two are just members of the mutual admiration society of each
other's 42" hose with small diameters that nevertheless impressive
somebody's girlfriend? <VBG>
NOW that I have the original record for the reference <BG>, I can
embark on my journey back to good ole USA without having too much
time left on my hands.
ElPezNeuvo.
P.S. This elderly rotund gentleman is green with envy because his
small-diameter hose is only 36", not to mention it's 4" short
of GOD's prescription for warm water dives.
|
