From: David Strike <[log in to unmask]>

> I've often maintained that the sort of people who call me 'David' are Bank
> Managers who want to discuss the state of my overdraft!  (In fact I once
had
> a bank manager whose name was Bell.  Everytime that he called me 'David',
I
> called him 'Ding-Dong'!)  :-)

Fair enough.  Any time I get a call for Palmer, I know it's someone who's
going to try to sell me something.  On the other hand, you call yourself
David (see above), so the mistake is, perhaps a bit more understandable.
That's easily corrected

> > Lee> I'm not sure what it is that you are responding "no it wasn't" to.

> > Strike> Your statement that it had been modified!

> > Strike> Then why are you using terms like 'modified' if you don't know
the
> > facts????

> The term 'modified' was introduced by you.  It was introduced in the
context
> of always having people topside on a craft..  You said that the Queensland
> Code had been modified to incorporate this.  I maintained that it adn't!

I did, in fact, introduce the term modified but if you look back, you'll
find that I was not at all certain what the modification was.  You responded
"no it wasn't" and I asked what you were referring to.  I think you will
have to admit that your answer, "Your statement that it had been modified!"
does not communicate what you now indicate.  It may have been introduced in
the context of the nature of the lookout, but your statement that carried no
such context.

> 'My' government has released nothing of the sort.  The Queensland
Government
> is the one to introduce the Code of Practice to which you refer.

Do you not live in Cairns?  Isn't Cairns in Queensland?  Isn't Queensland a
government entity and, therefore correctly described as your government?

> Undoubtedly!  (Australian Standards, for example!)

This is something I've not seen you share in the past.  Is there a web
address for the Australian Standards?

> Cats and dogs may both have four legs, but they're different creatures.
In
> the case of military and commercial diving, the tasks are often very,
very,
> very  different!   The reason for my being apparently pedantic about the
> issue is that the "shit-can" experiences to which I earlier made mention
are
> equally very, very, very different!  In one you are paid handsomely to
> accept a risk - and have the freedom to decline if you see fit:  In the
> other you are paid poorly and - within certain parameters - have little
> flexibility over whether or not you'll do the  job!

Understood.  I think you are well justified in being proud of both your
commercial and your military diving history, both of which are undoubtedly a
source of lots of opportunities for shit can experiences.

Lee