On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:49:31 +0800, Bjorn Vang Jensen
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Lee wrote:
>
>> I and other non professionals are not the same as a working DM or
>> instructor.  I'm under no obligation to them one way or the other.
>
>Bad, bad mistake in assumptions!

( BIG snip )


>> We're not talking about standards for certified divers, we're

Every time Lee uses the word "we", I always have trouble with
HIS "we", because sometimes he uses it in the sense of an
an 'editorial "we"' (meaning "I"), while he gives the impression
that "we" was him and everyone else, except of course the ONE
with whom he is arguing.   :-)


>> talking about standards for professionals working in the agency's name.
>
>And you seem to be offended that there is no standard that requires them to
>think on behalf of the certified diver,

True.

>yet you champion the diver's
>individual responsibility every chance you get.

No, no.  That was ME!  :-)  I got flamed by Lee for my emphasis on
diver's individual responsibility.  He insisted that I should talk
about CAVES, risks, overheads, and "qualified divers" (even though
he had trouble saying what that means himself!)..., ad infinitum.


He even took it upon himself to EVADE a very direct question I posed
to Christian who championed Lee's insistence on the word "qualified"!

CG > This is why I would (in this kind of circumstance) rather
CG > have Lee's rationale of "If you're not qualified, don't go
CG > there."

RF > How does this C-diver know whether he is qualified?

LB > A good question without a good answer.

Then why insist on using a ill-defined term without a practical
(pragmatic) application?   I am still waiting for Christian's
reply to MY question to HIM.  ;-)


BVJ> My head is spinning :-)
>
>Bjorn

Just stop following anybody swimming in circles!  :-)


Strike was right on target (as is usually the case) when he wrote,

DS> Regrettably far too many people who are certified by a particular
DS> agency regard themselves as "members" of that agency, (not so!),
DS> and with little understanding of the purpose of standards - or
DS> their content - interpret them in the wrong way.

I wonder if Strike was thinking about "we".  :-))))))

DS> It's time to put an end to this lengthy - and tedious - debate!

I couldn't agree more.  It's no longer a 'discussion' or 'debate'.
It has become a swimming event, not quite a synchonized one, but
with at least one swimmer swimming around in circles!  <BG>

-- Bob.