> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reef Fish
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:22 PM
>
> In dwelling on the IRRELEVANT, Chris, you overlooked the only
> RELEVANT post to all your rehash:
>
> "Pedantic and Pathetic Thread on Lee Bell's diversion ..."
>
> in which I had explained that:
>
> RF> Lee was the one who introduced the term
> "recruited" which was NOT
> RF> in my statement he cited.  However, I saw no
> objection to his use
> RF> of the term since it coincided with my
> understanding of the term
> RF> "was recruited".
>
> The term "recruited" was NOT in MY statement which Lee
> challenged.

A good point which I see no reason to challenge.  However, it is
a non sequiter as I did not claim that you introduced the term
"recruited."  What I did say was that you claimed that Lee
contradicted himself when he used the term, and was therefore a
liar.

> Back to the present thread:
>
> >I think there are now three issues, with the
> introduction of this
> >one:
>
> >(1) Whether divers should be responsible for themselves (I
> >don't think anybody's arguing against this one);
>
> COuld've fooled me!  I thought the bulk of the debate
> was IN FAVOR
> of rules, regulations over "divers should be responsible for
> themselves" (SELF RESPONSIBILITY).

Again, you are posing a false dilemma.  It is possible to both
(1) believe that divers should be responsible for themselves; and
(2) believe that certain rules are beneficial.

I have observed several writers (including you) make distinctions
between (a) rules which are not uniformly enforced or applied to
all divers regardless of experience or competence, and (b) laws
or regulations which are applied to one and all without regard
for circumstances, experience, etc.

> >> YOu seemed to have missed MY POINT altogether.  IF
> >> divers are stressed
> >> to take RESPONSIBILITY for THEMSELVES, by their
> >> trainers, by the
> >> dive industry and all related segments of societies, then we
> >> WOULDN'T have fine Instructors like Strike (and
> some other fine
> >> instructors and DMs I personally know) dropping out of
> >> scuba teaching
> >> and dive-guide professional role, because people TEND
> >> to blame THEM
> >> for mishaps that are mostly (or wholly) the fault of
> >> the IRRESPONSIBLE
> >> DIVER.
> >
> >You are correct.  I hadn't understood all of that from your
> >previous formulations.
>
> Thank you.  BUt I think you still didn't get my point:
>
> >I had thought your point was that if
> >divers are drilled into taking seriously that once certified,
> >each diver and only the diver himself is responsible
> for his own
> >safety in diving, and must not rely on anyone else, then there
> >would be less accidents.
>
> That IS my point.  Less accidents from incompetent
> divers relying
> on others to save their neck in ordinary diving situations.

The two points could not be your single point, as the first one
above stresses the effect of irresponsibility on dive
professionals, while the second one stresses the effect on dive
accidents.  I will conclude that you find both points valid.

> >Smiles,
>
> Is that a general 'disclaimer or was your preceding paragraph
> another deep joke of your?

It was just meant to lighten a bit the tone of a message which,
without the aid of voice tone, body language, or facial
expression, could be taken as anything from nit-pickiness through
devil's-advocate through hostile-attack.

Another example of this is your last question, which is a loaded
one.  I could take it that you are confused, not knowing how to
interpret my "complimentary close," or that you are hostile,
trying to remind people of your archival research on my lack of
sense of humor (I am trying to use more emoticons), or simply
that you are wary of some kind of jab on my part.

(insert your complimentary close here - <g>),

Chris