Jeff Kell wrote (substantial editing):

> I think perhaps you were caught up in the SOB (Same Ocean Buddy for
> any newcomers to the list) diving style which is common for both Bob
> and Sue.

> As I related earlier, when Bob introduced me to Cozumel diving, he
> really *was* the textbook buddy, incredible as it may sound.

> As for Sue, she is an excellent diver but is not fond of or cares to
> participate in Bob's dips.

> So in summary, Bob can be a textbook buddy if you let him know ahead of
> time . . .

I've changed the topic because I prefer my apology stand alone rather than
begin a new thread which, like many, might deteriorate.  I'm not the least
hung up on Bob's SOB preferences.  In fact, I share at least some of them.
SOB is my preferred way to dive most of the time.  What I am hung up on is
statements such as "I have NO reason to consider . . . ", very hung up.
This has a lot to do with the anger I previously vented.  Consideration of
everything is the most important, most central and most overwhelmingly
primary element in my life and my diving.  It is my religion and my essence.
I simply can not let a statement that anyone, ever, has "no need to
consider" go unchallanged.  This does not mean that I think everyone will or
should come to a common conclusion, only that everything should be
considered in reaching an individual conclusion.  Thinking and continuously
considering everything is essential to my definition of a good diver and
certainly to my definition of a self reliant diver.

I believed and continue to believe that Bob feels and thinks very much the
same way.  He simply can't convince me otherwise without also convincing me
that he's the Stoke I defined earlier.  Since I'm convinced he's not a
Stroke (again, my definition), I have to retain my belief that he's the
thinking, considering diver that goes along with being good.  His attempt to
convince me otherwise is kind of like my trying to convince someone I'm
stupid.  It's counter productive and counter to reasonable self interest.  I
don't know why he can't or won't understand what I'm trying to say or if I'm
actually hearing what he's trying to say.  If he's actually able to chose
not to even consider previously dismissed options, then he's the first
intellectually capable person I've ever met who could, let alone has made
such a choice.  That's beyond my ability to accept.  I have to believe what
I hear him saying is wrong.

> I think Lee was pointing out a perceived "lack of concern" by Bob.  But
> the is a basis for that; he prefers to dive with another self-suficient
> diver where this is acceptable.  Especially in Cozumel
> with the high visibility.  It might be a different story at another
> site.

I've miscommunicated again.  I don't believe Bob has a "lack of concern."
He may, but that's not my opinion.  To the contrary, I believe Bob has a
great deal of concern which his posts seem to deny.  It was my intent to
bring his concern to the surface and to communicate why such concern goes
hand in hand with consideration and reconsideration of options as new
information becomes available that led me astray.

> So I don't think you were quite so wrong in your observations, Lee, but
> you didn't have the whole picture.  No, Bob is not a textbook
> buddy unless you speak up and let him know you need one.

Bob is the kind of buddy he choses to be, as he should be (my opinion).  I
strongly believe that parties should agree on what kind of buddies they will
be before the dive starts and, if one or the other is uncomfortable with the
results, should seek another buddy.  I suspect Bob does that just fine and
you seem to confirm my suspicion.  He's never done anything I know of to
make me think otherwise.

> Sue on the other hand, is.  She's an excellent diver, within her limits,
and I'd
> highly recommend diving with her anytime you don't plan a 'dip' into the
> abyss.

It's a diver's limits that tend to become critical.  I made the mistake of
trying to use Sue as an example once and won't repeat my mistake.  No diver
can be a textbook buddy if they are diving with someone who is not.  Forget
Bob and Sue, concentrate on any diver team.  I like SOB just fine as long as
everyone is competent and comfortable diving that way.  Bob and I would be
most compatable buddies, regardless of our equipment choices.  We're both
competent enough to dive as we chose, both independent and self reliant
enough to chose our limits and abide by them and both experienced enough to
have thought through how or if we will handle problems that may arise.  I
believe Bob would do what he could and perhaps more than he should if he
thought he could help someone in need, but do not consider it his
responsibility to do so.  It's his choice, not his responsibility unless, of
course, he specically accepts such responsibility.  This is not, and never
has been my issue.  My only issue is whether or not there is ever a reason
to say, and mean "I have no reason to consider options."

> Do you and Jayna ever separate during a dive?  Same principle.

Not as often as you might think.  There is a very wide difference in our
diving skills and experience, one that has widened even more over the last
year or so.  I'm nitrox certified and prefer to breathe it.  She's not.  I'm
comfortable with depths some would consider exceptional, she's less
comfortable.  I consider minor decompression to be a safe and normal part of
my dives, she doesn't.  When I dive with Jayna, I tend to stay closer to her
than I do when diving with those whose skills are a closer match to my own.
She too, is a good diver within her limits, but her limits are not mine.  In
short, we do what any good buddy team does, limit the dive to the comfort
level of the most conservative diver.

SOB diving, in my opinion, is not really buddy diving.  It's much closer to
solo diving, being different only in the knowledge that there's another
diver in the water who bears remembering.

At any rate, this discussion has gone far from my original intent.  I
believe that there is always reason to consider options, even those that
have been previously considered and rejected, particularly when information
on possible advantages and disadvantages are being presented.  I believe
there are both advantages and disadvantages to a long primary hose and
believe it's worth mentioning them and considering them, no matter how many
times it's been done in the past.

Here are the key elements I considered:
Pro: The long hose is more streamlined and offers a lower risk of
entaglement.
Pro: The long hose is clearly an advantage in a confined space where the
ability of two divers to use the same air supply in single file might be
important.
Pro: The long hose facilitates sharing of air in not emergency "convenience"
situations.
Con:The long hose requires a change in configuration and has a learning
curve.  It takes time to understand, get comfortable with and integrate into
an overall diving style.
Con:The long hose is more difficult to deal with on a dive boat.  It
requires additional care to keep safe and may require more space while
kitting up.  This too has a learning curve.
Con:The long hose brings the possibility of separation of a donating diver
and an OOA diver that is undesirable for those whose rescue skills are based
on being up close, personal and in control, as mine are.

Bob says I'm hung up on the long hose.  I'm not really.  I could have just
as easily used the same pros and cons to support a different decision.  To
me, the pros outweighed the cons.  That was my personal choice and, to be
honest, it was not a clear call.  Of all the DIR elements, the long hose is
probably the least clear of the advantages that moved me to change my entire
configuration.  I tried it, along with other DIR configuation elements and
decided the advantages made it worth keeping, particularly since I had
already dealt with learnnig curve issues.  The decision could have gone the
other way.  The convenience advantages have already been used as I
previously posted, in a non emergency situation.  In fact, they've been used
more than once in similar situations.

Lee