On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:52:07 +1100, David Strike <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:21 PM, Reef Fish wrote:

This one is strictly desserts for the Devil.  :-)
>
>(snip)

>(snip)

>(snip)

>What!  And bugger up a perfectly good - and lengthy - pre-dive briefing?
>Not bloody likely!  :-)
>
>> So,you pick a point I DIDN'T make to disagree with, and slipped
>> right past the point I DID make.  :-)
>
>Sneakiness brings iits own rewards!  :-)

Thank goodness it was YOU, Strike.  Given some OTHER discussant(s), the
response COULD have turned into an incessant series of 'you know wots'
by 'you know whoms'.


>> That's exactly what Sheck and other explorers say about what THEY
>> chose to do (even to the extent of costing their own lives).  They
>> don't seek permission from others;  they don't expect assistance
>> if they got into trouble down deep (nobody could help anyway);
>> and they don't seek others' sympathy should they DIE from their
>> endeavor.
>
>> That's the sign of a truly self-reliant and self-responsible diver!
>
>What?  That they're dead?  :-)  (The devil made me say that!)  :-)

Your devil needs a REFREASHER course in the use of the Fork!   :-)

Actually that was my paraphrase of what was said about Jim Bowden
(who is very much ALIVE) when he was merciless flamed for having
gotten bent while Sheck lost his life on the same dive.  The paraphrase was
what was said in Sheck's eulogy, about Sheck -- in defence of what Jim
Bowden did -- that JIM wouldn't have expected sympathy from anyone
had HE died from his dive which he sought no permission, heoric rescue,
nor sympathy.

-- Bob.