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

(snip)
> >2) They only dived the shallows of the inner reef - rather than sites
along
> >the outer edge or out in the Coral Sea - where, (generally speaking)
> >they'd've required a bucket and spade to go deeper than 80 fsw! :-)

> I DO have facts contrary to that.  :-)  The max depth of the inner
> reef, apparently by shear coincidence, was described by SEVERAL of
> teh Queensland Code webpages to be 40 meters.  :-)

I did say, "generally speaking"!  :-)  There are deeper points, but - as far
as the "inner reef" is concerned - they're generally found in the Whitsunday
and southern areas! :-)

(snip)

> >> >My copy of the Code reads, "Certificated Divers ..... not to dive
> >> >to depths greater than that to which they have been trained or have
> >> >experience."

> >> If the Code had stopped right THERE, I would have absolutely NO
> >> PROBLEM with it.  'To my way of thinking <g>', it strikes me as
> >> just another way of saying (for DEPTH), "Know YOUR limit, and
> >> dive WITHIN it."  :-)

> I am disappointed that you neither agree nor disagree on this point. :-)

I agree that it is another way of saying, "Know YOUR limit, and
> >> dive WITHIN it."   :-)

(snip)

>>>My point reamins -- there no NEED to set
> >> any depth rules (call it recommendation if you like) indiscriminantly
> >> for ALL divers.

> >I disagree!  :-)  (I hope Lee's paying attention!)

> >There's a world of difference between saying something like, "The rules
> >state you will not dive below 40-metres!"  and, "It is recommended that
you
> >do not dive below 40-metres because ..... "   At the very least it's a
> >wake-up call to those divers with less experience!  :-)

> But your POINT of disagreement was not to my point.  My point was
> NOT the distinction between "you will not" and "it is recommended
> that you do not".   My point is that there is NO POINT in that
> general "recommendation" when all you NEED is to tell them that
> paragraph in the Queensland Code which I said was essentially the
> same as "Know YOUR limit, and dive WITHIN them."  That is,
> state NO NUMBER of any kind in the "recommendation".  Recommend
> that the certified diver be RESPONSIBLE for himself.

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!  :-)

> >> Emphasis should be on the DIVERS being responsible for THEMSELVES
> >> and set their OWN rules (for themselves;  and not for others).

> >Providing that any mishap does not imperil the lives or safety of others
> who
> >may feel obligated to render assistance!  :-)

> I'll accept that amendment.  HOWEVER, a self-reliant diver that may
> run into a mishap (whether it's his fault or not) will NOT expect
> others to imperil themselves to render assistance.

The point is not whether they expect others to do so or not!  Where the life
and safety of others is concerned, it's been my experience that people have
a tendency to react immediately to the situation - and only later, when they
review their actions, do they appreciate their irrational response!  :-)

> In that sense, IF some diver would take it upon himself to IMPERIL
> HIS OWN life or safety because he felt obliged to render assistance
> beyond his call of duty to a SELF-RESPONSIBLE diver, then your
> "provided" clause is ITSELF the sign of an diver who should be
> more RESPONSIBLE to HIMSELF.  :-)   These IRREPONSIBLE divers are
> the ones who filled that pages of dive fatality cases with
> DOUBLE fatality and TRIPLE fatality.

Undoubtedly true!  Which is why we have so many 'heroes'!  :-)

 > Thank carefully over the logic behind the preceding paragraph.  :-)

I did!  But logic and emotion make strange bedfellows!  :-)

> 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!)  :-)


Strike