On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:28:18 +0800, Chris B. McKinney
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:


>> 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.

Nope.  See Below.

>It is possible to both

I didn't say it's not possible.  In fact I IMPLIED possible for BOTH.

>(1) believe that divers should be responsible for themselves; and

I clearly stated this a zillion times.

>(2) believe that certain rules are beneficial.

I did not deny that.  I even stressed that I was objecting only to
CERTAIN rules that are NOT beneficial.  I said to Strike in the
Queensland thread:

RF> That's the PARALLEL this 'anachist' and 'iconoclast'
RF> see in the efficacy of CERTAIN (I must emphasis not ALL) rules,
RF> regulations, and laws.

Actually in the example, it was the LACK of efficacy.

Nevertheless, here's the simple LOGIC:

I objected only to CERTAIN rules that are NOT beneficial.  Not ALL rules.
Therefore, by implicaiton, I believe CERTAIN (other) rules are beneficial.


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

<G>

-- Bob.