Two Divers Missing Off Cocos Island, Costa Rica
John Appel
http://www.ticotimes.net/newsbriefs.htm
Hope Fades for Missing Divers
By David Boddiger, Tico Times Staff
May 23, 2003
What should have been an idyllic 10-day diving trip to remote Cocos Island
turned to tragedy this week for two men missing since last Friday and
suspected dead.
U.S. retiree Bruce Rubin, 56, and Brazilian Israel Ostrowiecki, 55,
disappeared Friday morning during a dive at the "Dos Amigos Pequeños" site
on the southwest side of the uninhabited island, some 530 kilometers (300
miles) southwest of Costa Rica's Pacific coast. The divers were discovered
missing after the conclusion of the dive, family members said.
An exhaustive search headed by the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard has failed to
locate the missing divers, and at press time, authorities were evaluating
whether or not to call off the search, which has covered some 2,400
square-miles since last Friday, according to U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Marcia
Bosshardt.
In a Wednesday meeting with U.S. Embassy officials, family members of the
two missing men persuaded authorities to continue searching, hoping against
odds that the divers are alive and drifting at sea. Search crews on Monday
found one of the divers' empty air tanks and an orange floating location
device, known as a "sausage," some 12 miles southwest of the site.
"I'm going to do everything I can to bring the most comprehensive search and
rescue operation possible," Rubin's wife Sondra told The Tico Times on
Wednesday. "If anyone could survive this, my husband could."
But family members began to lose hope yesterday that the divers, who have
been lost for more than 150 hours, would be found alive.
Rubin and Ostrowiecki were on their second day of a 19-person dive
expedition aboard the 120-foot Okeanos Aggressor, based in the Pacific port
of Puntarenas. A Costa Rican franchise of the Louisiana-based Aggressor
Fleet, the Okeanos Aggressor is one of three companies that charters trips
to the uninhabited island, located some 36 hours away.
Cocos Island, a protected national park accessible only by ship, is known
worldwide for an abundance of marine species, including dense populations of
the hammerhead shark. Strong currents, cold temperatures and the area's
isolation can create difficult conditions even for experienced divers.
Speaking by phone from Louisiana, Aggressor Fleet founder Wayne Hasson said
he is "heartbroken."
"This is the first time this has ever happened to us in 20 years of diving,"
he said. "We have all the security procedures in place, and everyone on that
boat is thoroughly trained in what to do."
In Costa Rica, franchise operations manager José Pastora would not release
details of the accident, saying an investigation would be conducted when the
dive boat returns to port, most likely today. He said this week's accident
was the first in the company's 15-year history.
According to initial reports from family members of both men, Rubin, his
19-year-old daughter Lilith and Ostrowiecki were part of a smaller
nine-member group that departed for the Friday-morning dive on the island's
south side in one of the company's two smaller boats.
Lilith Rubin and Ostrowiecki allegedly descended in a first group of four
divers, while Bruce Rubin followed in a second group of five.
It is unclear whether the two men - apparently in different dive groups -
disappeared together or separately. It is also unclear whether the divers
were utilizing the standard "dive buddy" safety system of diving in pairs.
According to family members, one dive master accompanied the two groups,
although neither family members nor Pastora could confirm the information
until the ship returns today.
"There are many unanswered questions regarding security issues," said
Ostrowiecki's 24-year-old son Alexandre, who arrived this week with other
relatives from his home in Sao Paulo, Brazil. "We just want a thorough
investigation. If (employees) were doing their job, fine. If there was
negligence, we want to know, so that my father and Bruce are the last two
people this happens to."
Both family members and company officials praised U.S. authorities for what
they said has been an intense and impressive search and rescue effort.
Directed by a U.S. command center in San Francisco, California, Coast Guard
and Navy officials have conducted 24 searches totaling more than 140 hours,
from aboard the U.S.S. O'Bannon destroyer, a C-130 plane equipped with
state-of-the-art sonar and radar equipment, and an SH-60 search helicopter.
Costa Rican officials have also participated in the search aboard a boat
assigned to the Cocos Island ranger station. Search crews have logged more
than 140 hours, Bosshardt said.
Questions also remain about whether Rubin, whose knee had been operated on
26 times, was fit for the dive. Information distributed to divers by the
company warned that the trip "is not recommended to new divers or
handicapped divers."
But Rubin - a third-degree black belt, Sensei and Nisei Goju Ryu
instructor - had significant dive experience, diving off five different
continents during the last 18 years. According to his wife, he had also
trekked "nearly every major mountain range on the planet, and lived with
almost every primitive tribe left on earth."
Rubin and Ostrowiecki - both Jewish - had never met before last week's
tragic expedition. But their disappearance was marked by strange
coincidences that have helped family members find strength.
Ostrowiecki was born in Germany to Polish parents who both survived Hitler's
concentration camps. Shortly after his birth, the family migrated to Brazil,
where his 80-year-old parents live today, struggling with the news of his
disappearance.
Rubin - a tough-as-nails educator and philanthropist who spent 25 years
teaching math and science in one of New York's toughest Bronx
neighborhoods - spent much of his time traveling the world with his two
daughters, many times seeking out obscure indigenous tribes with suspected
ancient Jewish ties, his wife said. The family retired to New Mexico 10
years ago.
Ironically, the two disappeared in a dive site known as "Dos Amigos,"
meaning "two friends" in Spanish.
"We are a very strong family," said Sondra Rubin. "Our philosophy is not
unlike the third chapter of Ecclesiastes - unto every season there is a
time. I just don't yet know which time it is for Bruce and Israel."
The divers' disappearance is the second accident on Cocos Island in less
than two years. In January 2002, 38-year-old U.S. diver William Bradley Hunt
drowned during a diving expedition with a different company (TT, Jan. 25,
2002).
In the 1980s, a cruise-ship passenger failed to return from a group hike
through the craggy and thickly-vegetated territory of Cocos. No trace of her
was found.
--
John
"The world is your oyster, all you gotta do is stick your fork in it."
--George "KingFish" Stevens
Da Parrot-chick
"John Appel" <jap...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:msAza.46132$Lm2.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> From The Tico Times, Costa Rica's English Language Newspaper
> http://www.ticotimes.net/newsbriefs.htm
>
> Hope Fades for Missing Divers
> By David Boddiger, Tico Times Staff
> May 23, 2003
You do know that by copying this story in this manner and posting it here
you're in violation of copyright laws.
Greg Mossman
news:YtOza.14920$Io.12...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Ya think they'll extradite him to Costa Rica to stand trial?
plaguebeast
"Da Parrot-chick" <ju...@sk.me> wrote in message
news:YtOza.14920$Io.12...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
Why does it bother you so much ? Would you rather he paraphrased it ?
Would that have made you feel better ?
Jammer Six
<plagu...@nowhere.com> wrote:
€ Why does it bother you so much ? Would you rather he paraphrased it ?
€ Would that have made you feel better ?
Yes.
That would have demonstrated compliance with the law.
I haven't answered your first question. If you have to ask that
question, you wouldn't understand the answer.
--
"We're going to rush the hijackers."
-Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Greg Mossman
news:baopg4$rse$0...@216.39.146.232...
> That would have demonstrated compliance with the law.
So now Jammer is an expert on Costa Rican copyright law?
"COSTA RICA: Recommended for Priority Watch List The software industry
concerns about Costa Rica stem from a variety of factors, including delays
in judicial proceedings and the lack of an administrative agency to protect
intellectual property rights. In addition, the Government did not support
efforts to defeat weakening amendments to the existing copyright law
pertaining to the protection of intellectual property. Additionally, there
is a lack of commitment to enforcement, as demonstrated by the drastic
budget cuts experienced by the judicial branch of government responsible for
IP enforcement. And, Costa Rica passed legislation in 2000, which is not
compatible with TRIPs and the Berne Convention, two critical pieces of
internationally accepted law, which establishes the protocol for protecting
intellectual property."
http://www.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases/2001-02-16.451.phtml?type=policy
Hmmm. "Lack of commitment to enforcement." It looks like John may not be
extradited after all.
Da Parrot-chick
news:zSQza.53185$HE5....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
Why does it bother me? Because it's stealing.
Would I rather he paraphrased it? I would have preferred he post the link
to the story and not copied and pasted the entire thing here. His
intentions were good, but you know what they say about the road to hell.
Would that have made me feel better? I'd'a felt better if he'd'a respected
copyright laws and that you had taken this issue seriously. But tell you
what--go create something original and useful, then watch others take it and
reproduce it without compensating you. Then come and make big fun of the
issue.
Jim Clinkenbeard
laws.
"Jammer Six" <jam...@invalid.oz.net> wrote in message
news:baopg4$rse$0...@216.39.146.232...
> In article <zSQza.53185$HE5....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com>, plaguebeast
> <plagu...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> ? Why does it bother you so much ? Would you rather he paraphrased it ?
Jammer Six
<jcc...@cox.net> wrote:
€ Two divers are probably dead and you assholes are bickering about copywrite
€ laws.
We're not bickering, we're spanking.
New, huh?
If you live, come back when you're not. Otherwise, you're just
volunteering to take this thief's place in the barrel.
If you don't live, we'll talk about you, too.
But we won't violate the copyright of the writer who writes up your
death.
What's your Old Lady's name? We might need it.
There's only one way to comfort a new widow.
--
"C'mon, you sons of bitches, you want to live forever?"
-Sergeant Major Dan Daly
plaguebeast
> "plaguebeast" <plagu...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:zSQza.53185$HE5....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > "Da Parrot-chick" <ju...@sk.me> wrote in message
>
<snip>
good, but you know what they say about the road to hell.
>
> Would that have made me feel better? I'd'a felt better if he'd'a
respected
> copyright laws and that you had taken this issue seriously. But tell you
> what--go create something original and useful, then watch others take it
and
> reproduce it without compensating you. Then come and make big fun of the
> issue.
>
Sorry I bothered to post. I thought this NG was related to SCUBA, not
copyright law. In this situation I think it was OK to reprint the article,
the writer already got paid and if the information was paraphrased it might
have been done so incorrectly.
plaguebeast
> <plagu...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> ? Would that have made you feel better ?
>
> Yes.
>
> That would have demonstrated compliance with the law.
>
> I haven't answered your first question. If you have to ask that
> question, you wouldn't understand the answer.
>
> --
> "We're going to rush the hijackers."
> -Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
Weren't you the asshole who faked his death ? Maybe you should not have
faked it.
Jammer Six
<plagu...@nowhere.com> wrote:
€ Sorry I bothered to post.
So are we.
€ I thought this NG was related to SCUBA, not copyright law. In this
€ situation I think it was OK to reprint the article, the writer
€ already got paid and if the information was paraphrased it might have
€ been done so incorrectly.
We are already aware of what you think.
We are also aware that copying the article in question was the limits
of your ability, and telling us what it contained without copying it
would have been beyond you, as you (probably correctly) point out.
Futhermore, we saw that you are completely clueless about all the other
options open to you, and we see that you are incapable of using them.
We know all this the same way we would know that you know nothing of
belts or suspenders if we saw your pants in a pile around your ankles.
For all these (and many more) reasons, we don't care what your opinion
is.
As has been clearly demonstrated, by your own words, your opinion is
simply wrong, and we are not foolish enough to give it weight.
Perhaps someday, if you grow older, you will learn how to distinguish
between right and wrong. It's a shame you weren't taught, but it's not
our problem.
Until then, pick up your pants, or at least change your underwear.
As it is, you smell bad.
plaguebeast
> In article <W_Wza.75210$Dr5....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>, plaguebeast
> <plagu...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
<snip>
> "We're going to rush the hijackers."
> -Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
first, I did not post the original article, I was just glad to be able to
read it.
Second, and more importantly, you are very good at being insulting, too bad
you you insulted my opinions, something that I am entitled to. I never said
it was legal to
ohh, fuck it, you are a dickhead, I have seen it in other groups. I am not
wasting anymore energy on something your parents did in a drunken state one
night, what was it...13 years ago ?
Da Parrot-chick
Don't have a cow, man. You just didn't know. Next time just post the URL
and don't copy and paste the article, that's all. Reproducing the article
without permission is not okay and has nothing to do with whether the writer
got paid.
plaguebeast
<snip>
> Don't have a cow, man. You just didn't know. Next time just post the URL
> and don't copy and paste the article, that's all. Reproducing the article
> without permission is not okay and has nothing to do with whether the
writer
> got paid.
>
I did not post the article.
I did not post the article
I did not post the article
I did not post the article
I only suggested that it might not have been so bad for the original poster
to post the actualy article rather then possibly paraphrase incorrectly.
But, you are right, a link would have better for the ORIGINAL poster to have
inserted into his post. Not only would none of this OT posting be
happening, saving space, but the original post, THAT I DID NOT DO, would
have been shorter.
MacReady
wrote:
Actually he is not, this is fair use. Just my $.02 from the IP Bar.
Eric Weiss
Eric
Da Parrot-chick
"MacReady" <southsi...@notme.com> wrote in message
news:0n62dvo6qph8kio0u...@4ax.com...
Fair use applies only to private and personal reference. This isn't private
or personal; it's public. But the OP agreed to post only the URL in the
future, so that addresses the issue.
Chris Pflaum
"Da Parrot-chick" <ju...@sk.me> wrote in message
news:0ldAa.16683$Io.14...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Joe English
Greg Mossman wrote:
I am counting on you, Greg, to set things right here. Two guys die , we
are discussing on a scuba news group and someone is worried about a
copyright infraction. I think most of us our concerned about WHAT
happened so we don'g f*ck ourselves up!
Joe English
Joe English
plaguebeast wrote:
not that much credit - 12 at best!
>
Michael Wolf
If it's a US paper just add:
This article reprinted in full without permission for the purposes of
discussion and review, as permitted by Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright
Act of 1976.
--
Michael Wolf
-----
Cthulhu For President.
Why settle for the lesser evil?
remove stopspam to reply
Da Parrot-chick
reproduce documents without permission.
"Michael Wolf" <michae...@advalvasstopspam.be> wrote in message
news:Xns9387643...@195.121.6.67...
MacReady
wrote:
>
>"MacReady" <southsi...@notme.com> wrote in message
>news:0n62dvo6qph8kio0u...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 May 2003 18:03:36 GMT, "Da Parrot-chick" <ju...@sk.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Appel" <jap...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >news:msAza.46132$Lm2.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> >> From The Tico Times, Costa Rica's English Language Newspaper
>> >> http://www.ticotimes.net/newsbriefs.htm
>> >>
>> >> Hope Fades for Missing Divers
>> >> By David Boddiger, Tico Times Staff
>> >> May 23, 2003
>> >
>> >You do know that by copying this story in this manner and posting it here
>> >you're in violation of copyright laws.
>> >
>>
>> Actually he is not, this is fair use. Just my $.02 from the IP Bar.
>
>Fair use applies only to private and personal reference. This isn't private
>or personal; it's public. But the OP agreed to post only the URL in the
>future, so that addresses the issue.
Where in the world did you get that idea??? In point of fact if the
reproduction is within the guidelines of fair use then that addresses
the issue without the necessity of posting a link. This is an
educational forum, the distribution is narrow in relationship to the
origianal market (Costa Rica) and there is no profit being generated.
It is fair use and that is that.
>
Da Parrot-chick
This is the "neener-neener" argument? Fair use applies to libraries and
educational forums of which this is neither. It also specifically excludes
instances where the original document is subject to commercial exploitation;
i.e. a newspaper.
Jammer Six
Da Parrot-chick <ju...@sk.me> wrote:
€ > It is fair use and that is that.
€
€ This is the "neener-neener" argument?
Sounded more like the fingers-in-the-ear, "I can't hear you, nyah,
nyah, nyah, nyah..." argument to me.
--
Greg Mossman
news:3ED188E0...@accessus.net...
> I think it is okay - no copyright violation
Sure it is. But who cares?
Michael Wolf
> Where in Section 17 is this allowed? It seems pretty specific to
> me--don't reproduce documents without permission.
>
This is what section 107 says:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright.
I consider the purposes of posting it in this NG were indeed: comment, news
reporting and perhaps even teaching (and depending on your definition of
'criticism', that one too).
Da Parrot-chick
> "Da Parrot-chick" <ju...@sk.me> wrote in
> news:oqrAa.17464$Io.15...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
> > Where in Section 17 is this allowed? It seems pretty specific to
> > me--don't reproduce documents without permission.
> >
>
> This is what section 107 says:
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
> copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
> phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
> such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
> copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement
> of copyright.
>
>
> I consider the purposes of posting it in this NG were indeed: comment,
news
> reporting and perhaps even teaching (and depending on your definition of
> 'criticism', that one too).
That's an awfully fine line, but I believe the OP stepped over it
nonetheless. Certainly not reporting the news if it's just copying and
reproducing someone else's work while not connected to the original work
other than finding it somewhere. If he had just posted the URL, we wouldn't
be having this discussion. Oh well.
Joe English
Greg Mossman wrote:
I guess that isa what I was trying to say - just not very well
MacReady
wrote:
Nope, wrong again. Not even close. But you know your purblind
adherence to a wrong position piques my interest. Curiosity compels
the following question. Do you by chance solo dive a Buddy
Inspiration and/or a helmet festooned with a half a dozen or so dive
lights?
Da Parrot-chick
Since this is getting personal now, I believe I'll just leave you to your
bleating (I'm right, I'm right!!). Buh bye.
Marc Hellweger
Oldiver
Only a small one?? (^-^)
Steve
Da Parrot-chick wrote:
>
> Fair use applies to libraries and
> educational forums of which this is neither. It also specifically excludes
> instances where the original document is subject to commercial exploitation;
> i.e. a newspaper.
So it would be copyright infringement to quote from a book in a review in a
newspaper?
BTW, you may be amazed to discover that if you select text and then delete it
from your post your post won't have all of that unnecessary crap from the last
ten messages.
--
Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
qwerty
you guys owe me big. ;-)
Maybe I should subscribe to the newspaper of the author who wrote the
article so he gets paid.........
I notice that you copied the original thought in:
> --
> "We're going to rush the hijackers."
> -Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001
It is an illegal interception of transmitted broadcasts if you actually
heard it and I'm assuming your not paying his family a royalty every time
you use it.....Are you?
-Get over it.
"Da Parrot-chick" <ju...@sk.me> wrote in message
news:NAtAa.17661$Io.15...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...