Icediver's Ten Rules of Diving
icediver
shouldn't be diving in it.
2. Never blow-dry your regulator dust cap on a dive boat,
you'll just irritate the captain.
3. Forget the mask-on-forehead rule, there is nothing
wrong with tilting your mask up on your forehead.
4. Learn to use a dive flag, even if you just tie it
off and don't pull it. Use it.
5. Dive with a buddy, and when you can't find a buddy,
still dive. (don't forget the dive flag)
6. Log your dives, even if it's only a few words. You
will enjoy looking back someday and reading your diary.
7. Redundancy is best, even for recreational divers.
(but don't forget rule 1)
8. Contingency plans are a good idea. Have a Plan A,
Plan B, and even a Plan C.
9. Don't spook the critters, remember you're the visitor
in their world.
10. Have fun, dive safely, and don't become a statistic.
Ben Bradlee
"icediver" <iced...@chorus.net> wrote in message
news:21ee0662.01122...@posting.google.com...
Steve
#3 Does taht include surf entries?
#7 How does redundancy help you walk a city block? ;-)
#9 I agree ditch the scooters.
Steve
in article 21ee0662.01122...@posting.google.com, icediver at
iced...@chorus.net wrote on 12/27/01 8:06 PM:
Ben Bradlee
"Steve" <sfke...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8520AF6.1634D%sfke...@earthlink.net...
OldSalt
I take exception to #3. I lost a new mask doing that once while at
the surface after a dive waiting for the boat to pick me up. A wave
splashed over my head and knocked my mask off... taking it back down
to 100 ft and I couldn't retrieve it. Pulling your mask over your
head and under your chin or to the back of your head is much safer.
I also take exception to #2.... it depends on the Captain. #4... the
flag isn't helping you if you tie it off and are 50 yards away from
it. And #5 is just wrong for the obvious reason of advocating diving
solo.
nos...@all.please.net
(1) Don't stop breathing too long;
(2) don't go too deep;
(3) don't stay too long;
(4) don't surface too fast.
Rich Lockyer
(OldSalt) wrote:
>I take exception to #3. I lost a new mask doing that once while at
>the surface after a dive waiting for the boat to pick me up. A wave
>splashed over my head and knocked my mask off... taking it back down
>to 100 ft and I couldn't retrieve it. Pulling your mask over your
>head and under your chin or to the back of your head is much safer.
My personal rule on #3? The mask is over my eyes from the stride
until I am climbing the ladder.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
David M
Rich Lockyer <rloc...@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote in message
news:3c328921....@news.linkline.com...
from personal experience I've learnt to keep mask on and reg in until I'm
back in the boat. A big wave at night while halfway up the ladder without
either of mask/reg and you're history.
Cheers
David M
Ben Bradlee
<nos...@all.please.net> wrote in message
news:a0j0lo$lav$1...@cdm-112-131.tyler.tcac.net...
Reef Fish
I read it differently. I'll explain.
> I lost a new mask doing that once while at
> the surface after a dive waiting for the boat to pick me up. A wave
> splashed over my head and knocked my mask off... taking it back down
> to 100 ft and I couldn't retrieve it. Pulling your mask over your
> head and under your chin or to the back of your head is much safer.
I agree 100%, in THAT and probably many other IN WATER situations.
What icediver wrote was:
> > 3. Forget the mask-on-forehead rule, there is nothing
> > wrong with tilting your mask up on your forehead.
The mask-on-forehead "rule", WAS that it's a "diver in distress"
sign, as was waving to the boat with one hand (while in water)
rather than making an "ok" sign with both hands, or fist on head
with one hand.
That "rule" clearly doesn't apply to a diver ON A BOAT, right before
entry into the water. Why should a diver express "distress" by
putting the mask on his/her forehead? :-) Would ANYONE read it as
a "distress signal" in THAT situation?
Similarly, when you're in a diveboat waving at another boat passing-by,
would anyone read it as a "distress signal"? :-) <BTW, I still make
the big O sign sometimes in THAT case -- call it "anal retentive" if
you wish <G>> But I have no qualms about putting my mask on my
forehead ON A BOAT right before entry, and slip it on before doing
the back roll or stride (and not necessarily a GIANT stride either)
entry. My mask stays on until *I* am BACK on the boat.
NEVER lost or dropped a mask (while on the boat) because it was on
the forehead. (I dropped a mask or two on backward rolls
though, not holding it properly, after it had been properly
placed).
NEVER have been mistaken as a distress signal on my part as applied
on the boat, as described above. :-)
That's the way I read icediver's INTENDED meaning in his #3.
-- Bob.
Rob Turner
> > > 3. Forget the mask-on-forehead rule, there is nothing
> > > wrong with tilting your mask up on your forehead.
> entry into the water. Why should a diver express "distress" by
> putting the mask on his/her forehead? :-) Would ANYONE read it as
> a "distress signal" in THAT situation?
The point is, and always has been, to maintain clear and unequivocal
signing. If a sign means distress sometimes then it means distress all the
time and there's no room for interpretation, especially on signs as
important as distress signs. Communication in diving is enough of a
challenge already without having to interpret what a diver (who you may or
may not know) might mean "this time". Having said that, I agree with you
about mask-on-forehead but probably for different reasons. I think the
mask-on-forehead sign is (has become) unnecessary because there is a clearly
superior and unequivocal sign for distress.
To answer the critics who are already reaching for their keyboards, I think
that panic is as panic does and panic is unmistakable. If you *need* to see
the mask-on-forehead in order to determine panic, then you've missed the
lesson. The mask-on-forehead is an unreliable indicator for panic so you
must observe all the signs. To draw on a metaphor, you don't look at a
dog's nose to know if he wants to bite you, you look at the whole dog; tail,
teeth, ears, eyes, head, hair, paws and maybe even the nose....and the signs
are unmistakable even if you forgot to look at the nose. In fact, once
you've seen it a couple of times, you'll recognise it even without
consciously looking. The same applies to seeing if a diver is in trouble,
which leads me to the conclusion that mask-on-forehead shouldn't been looked
at as a sign at all.
Cheers,
R..
P.S. While I'm at it, I'll add my own 10 rules to the list:
1) Start slowly, build up slowly and dive in your comfort zone.
2a) Think for yourself.
2b) Make sure you learn your lessons so you CAN think for yourself.
3) Leave the ego at home and ask the dumb questions. They're the ones
everyone else wanted to ask anyway. You won't know everything after 50
dives or even after 500 so relax and don't try hiding the fact.....
4a) Don't worry. Relax, have fun, laugh and joke around. Diving is 80% a
social activity and 20% team sport.
5) Be open to feed back and to changing things (equipment and not equipemtn
related). There's more than one way to skin a cat and your way can
invariably be improved.
5b) Hit the pool regularly. If you don't dive in it, then swim in it. Test
your changes.
5c) Learn to hold your breath while swimming under water at a relaxed pace
with your gear on for at least 90 seconds. This is a real confidence
builder.
6) When in doubt, abort.
7) Set up and break off according to a ritual. Use check lists.
8) Get ready the day before.
9) Be a good buddy or dive solo. Don't be a bad buddy and don't dive with
bad buddies.
10) And finally, Rob's golden rule..... believe nothing you hear on
rec.scuba :-)
Cheers,
R..
nos...@all.please.net
Yes, quite. See Dan Bracuk's Rules of Diving #5 ff.
TonyP
> On 27 Dec 2001 20:06:03 -0800, iced...@chorus.net (icediver) wrote:
>
> And #5 is just wrong for the obvious reason of advocating diving
> solo.
Hello OS.... I love ya but I have to disagree with you on the solo stuff.
I do 80% of my diving solo here in the North East. When on a lobster
hunt, I go where I "feel" the lobsters might be. And this "feeling" isn't
the same for everyone. I tried to buddy dive on a lobster trip... forget
it. Struck out on my own and "jackpot!"
Steve
wrote on 12/29/01 3:23 PM:
Eighteen more solo dives were done today at Catalina by myself and six
friends. It's nice to dive with experienced divers, no babysitting,
handholding or buddy checking, everyone takes care of them self. This is not
to advocate solo diving because you need to know what you're doing, have
adequate experience, equipment and training. Even one agency that certifies
divers for solo want 100 dive prerequisite. Some will never want or be
capable to solo, that's okay. Diving is dangerous don't do things you aren't
capable of, use your brain.
Steve
John Francis
wrote:
And some very "adequate" divers will tell you that no matter how
experienced you are, it's easy to die alone. Think about it. I have.
John
Rich Lockyer
<johnf...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>And some very "adequate" divers will tell you that no matter how
>experienced you are, it's easy to die alone. Think about it. I have.
Then how did you post that message? :)
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Steve
johnf...@sympatico.ca wrote on 12/29/01 8:27 PM:
>> Eighteen more solo dives were done today at Catalina by myself and six
>> friends. It's nice to dive with experienced divers, no babysitting,
>> handholding or buddy checking, everyone takes care of them self. This is not
>> to advocate solo diving because you need to know what you're doing, have
>> adequate experience, equipment and training. Even one agency that certifies
>> divers for solo want 100 dive prerequisite. Some will never want or be
>> capable to solo, that's okay. Diving is dangerous don't do things you aren't
>> capable of, use your brain.
>>
> And some very "adequate" divers will tell you that no matter how
> experienced you are, it's easy to die alone. Think about it. I have.
>
> John
I already told you that you can't comprehend solo because of your lack of
ability and experience. Don't think about it.
Steve
Steve
ghmo...@sympatico.ca wrote on 12/30/01 12:31 AM:
> Ummm. Steve, please share your experience with us.
>
> Thanks
> Geo
Several months of reading unbelievable stuff on tech-diver and rec.scuba.
Steve
Reef Fish
> <snip>
> > > > 3. Forget the mask-on-forehead rule, there is nothing
> > > > wrong with tilting your mask up on your forehead.
> <snip>
> > entry into the water. Why should a diver express "distress" by
> > putting the mask on his/her forehead? :-) Would ANYONE read it as
> > a "distress signal" in THAT situation?
Rob, you quoted me in my reply to Old Salt completely OUT OF CONTEXT
of what I said in the entire post, and even OUT OF CONTEXT in the
paragraph, leaving out the crucial line before what you cited!
RF> That "rule" clearly doesn't apply to a diver ON A BOAT, right before
RF> entry into the water. Why should a diver express "distress" by
RF> putting the mask on his/her forehead? :-) Would ANYONE read it as
RF> a "distress signal" in THAT situation?
Would YOU take that to be a "distress signal" needing "immediate
rescue" by me, before I entered the water?
You chose instead to express your DOGMATIC approach by rote:
> The point is, and always has been, to maintain clear and unequivocal
> signing. If a sign means distress sometimes then it means distress all the
> time and there's no room for interpretation, especially on signs as
> important as distress signs. Communication in diving is enough of a
> challenge already without having to interpret what a diver (who you may or
> may not know) might mean "this time".
and continued,
> Having said that, I agree with you
> about mask-on-forehead but probably for different reasons. I think the
> mask-on-forehead sign is (has become) unnecessary because there is a clearly
> superior and unequivocal sign for distress.
Which is?
An unequivocal sign for distress by a diver on a boat BEFORE entry
into the water??
>
> To answer the critics who are already reaching for their keyboards, I think
> that panic is as panic does and panic is unmistakable.
You're just shadow-boxing your own ghost. ;-)
> If you *need* to see
> the mask-on-forehead in order to determine panic, then you've missed the
> lesson. The mask-on-forehead is an unreliable indicator for panic so you
> must observe all the signs. To draw on a metaphor, you don't look at a
> dog's nose to know if he wants to bite you, you look at the whole dog; tail,
> teeth, ears, eyes, head, hair, paws and maybe even the nose....and the signs
> are unmistakable even if you forgot to look at the nose. In fact, once
> you've seen it a couple of times, you'll recognise it even without
> consciously looking. The same applies to seeing if a diver is in trouble,
> which leads me to the conclusion that mask-on-forehead shouldn't been looked
> at as a sign at all.
>
> Cheers,
> R..
>
> P.S. While I'm at it, I'll add my own 10 rules to the list:
< SNIP very good ones >
> 10) And finally, Rob's golden rule..... believe nothing you hear on
> rec.scuba :-)
I'll add Rule 11 to your 10 and icediver's 10:
#11) A commonsense and THINKING approach is ALWAYS better than a
DOGMATIC one. ALL rules have exceptions except this one! :-)
-- Bob
Ben Bradlee
alone. I'm pretty sure that is one thing you end up doing by yourself. If
you need an audience, so be it.
Reef Fish
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 02:38:13 GMT, Steve <sfke...@earthlink.net>
> And some very "adequate" divers will tell you that no matter how
> experienced you are, it's easy to die alone. Think about it. I have.
And some very "adequate" divers have been very wrong also, factually
and intellectually.
My Rule #11 (posted only a short while ago in this thread) applies
here too. :-)
-- Bob.
OldSalt
wrote:
Hi Tony. I love ya too and you can disagree with me. :) It seems
that many ppl prefer to dive solo and I suppose I would be very
tempted to try it in some conditions. But, above and beyond the
safety factor, I like sharing a dive with someone. Having said that,
I can understand the ease in lobster hunting without a buddy too,
however, I've found that a buddy can be of help at times by
"shooing" the bug out from the other side of its hiding place, etc. I
think the important thing is that when you buddy up with someone, you
need to act as a team and depending on the activity, at times that
isn't always the most fun. For example, I don't do U/W photography
but I've buddied with ppl who are avid photographers and what it
sometimes amounts to is simply following them around or looking for
stuff for them to shoot. I might not necessarily like doing that,
but I figure they'll have to do what I want on the next dive. So it
evens out. And since the ocean is always unpredictable, sometimes
what I thought would be a boring dive of watching someone taking pics
turns out to be a great dive because we spotted something we didn't
anticipate. I'm sure you know what I mean. :)
OldSalt
Fish) wrote:
>"Rob Turner" <robert...@cgey.nl> wrote in message news:<3c2de113$0$223$4d4e...@news.nl.uu.net>...
>> <snip>
>> > > > 3. Forget the mask-on-forehead rule, there is nothing
>> > > > wrong with tilting your mask up on your forehead.
>> <snip>
>> > entry into the water. Why should a diver express "distress" by
>> > putting the mask on his/her forehead? :-) Would ANYONE read it as
>> > a "distress signal" in THAT situation?
>
>Rob, you quoted me in my reply to Old Salt completely OUT OF CONTEXT
>of what I said in the entire post, and even OUT OF CONTEXT in the
>paragraph, leaving out the crucial line before what you cited!
Bob... I can't see your reply to me, nor do I see Rob's or John's.
It appears that my server lost quite a few posts. :( So I'm not
trying to ignore you but I'm having a hard time following here. IMHO,
the mask on the forehead is never a clear cut sign of distress.
Reef Fish
in response to my reply to
>
> >"Rob Turner" <robert...@cgey.nl> who wrote in message
news:<3c2de113$0$223$4d4e...@news.nl.uu.net>...
> >Rob, you quoted me in my reply to Old Salt completely OUT OF CONTEXT
> >of what I said in the entire post, and even OUT OF CONTEXT in the
> >paragraph, leaving out the crucial line before what you cited!
>
> Bob... I can't see your reply to me, nor do I see Rob's or John's.
> It appears that my server lost quite a few posts. :( So I'm not
> trying to ignore you but I'm having a hard time following here.
No problem. My reply didn't call for a reply.
Since I often don't read any ng for a week or three, I now ALWAYS read
any group via GOOGLE.COM, which I would recommend it to anyone.
Below is an excerpt from a sermon I delivered in rec.travel.europe
not long ago :-), on the subject of "rec.travel.europe FAQ":
> When reading OTHER threads, the completely threaded HISTORY is an
> invaluable help to the reader, to be able to read any post IN CONTEXT,
> as well as going back to earlier posts for reference.
>
> I POST from http://groups.google.com as well.
>
> Postings from groups.google.com do not appear in it until 3 to 9 hours
> later. This minor inconvenience (of NOT being able to respond or see
> one's own post and respond to follow-ups immediately) is actually a
> blessing in disguise, especially in heated arguments. It prevents
> one from dashing off postings in quick succession without having
> given sufficient thought to what the adversary has said, or the
> substance of the issue is! Shoot before you comprehend is what SOME
> posters do. I won't name any name, but simply mention that I noticed
> one such poster was very busy in this thread in the Fall of 2000. ;-)
> He didn't like what Yves said about advertising in the FAQ.
>
> Try using http://groups.google.com and all of its built-in features.
> It should make your participation in ANY NEWSGROUP much more informed
> and, hopefully, more enjoyable and coherent.
>
> I am off to Europe for a week. I'll drop in when I return, not
> having to worry if I had missed any post that I might not want to miss,
> because ALL the posts in rec.travel.europe will be nicely threaded
> and sub-threaded (in chronological order, with posting dates).
It works the same way for ANY newsgroup, and therefore, rec.scuba.
The above should help you (or anyone else) recover "lost posts" ...
all the way back to 1995, if you can stand them. :-)
-- Bob.
Rob Turner
> An unequivocal sign for distress by a diver on a boat BEFORE entry
> into the water??
That would be the battle cry that goes "DOOO IT RIIIIGGHHHTT!!!!" that
some divers holler before they jump overboard in much the same way that some
sky-divers holler "GiirrrrrrONIMOOOOOO" ;-)
Didn't mean to misquote you, Bob. Maybe I did end up biting my own tail,
but that's life. I'm sure it won't be the last time.
R.. -now stubby tailed-
Mark Kampe
solo diving. The catch 22 is that I can never dive solo when a
buddy is available. If I would want to dive solo, the other diver
needs me ... and the more I want to not dive with them, the clearer
it is that I need to do so. If the other diver doesn't need me, I
have little reason to want to dive solo ... because the more
experienced
my buddy is, the less they will impact my diving.
For me, the main attraction is being freed of the responsibility of
constantly watching (and assisting or being prepared to assist) a
buddy who is clearly not competent to take care of himself:
they have poor buoyancy control (in both directions)
they kick up the silt
they bump into, kick, and handle the reef
they bump into and kick other divers
they cut in front of photographers
they scare away shy creatures
they don't pay attention to depth and/or time
they don't follow the planned course
they change the plan without communicating
they don't understand most signals other than out-of-air
they meander about without regard to where I am, making
it entirely my problem to keep track of them
diving with such people make me long for the effortless pleasures
of solo diving ... but such people absolutely need to be buddied
with more experienced divers.
On the other hand, when I've had the opportunity to dive with very
experienced and capable divers, I've never felt the slightest urge
to be freed from them. Why? Because diving with them does not
interfer with enjoyment of the dive and my freedom to explore what
ever catches my fancy:
I don't have to worry about them
they have themselves completely under control;
they dive responsibly and considerately
we are always within a reasonable distance of one-another
Cooperation is effortless
they are both attentive and perceptive
they always communicate changes of plans and situation
they are alert and responsive to my communication
more often than not, we are thinking the same thing anyway
Assistance is effortless
most situations will be recognized and dealt with, and
will never have the opportunity to develop into problems
problems are anticipated before they happen and appropriate
assistance is provided without asking (e.g. I have had a
buddy turn around and pull kelp off of my yoke screw before
I had moved far enough to realize it was caught).
I don't have to watch to see if my buddy is tired,
cold, low on air, high on N2, ... because if he is
having any such problem, he will tell me about it
They don't keep me from gratifying my "unnatural urges"
Some people say that they like to do things
that a buddy might not want to do ... but I have
never had any trouble getting such activities included
in our official dive plan ... e.g. before most night
dives, I tell my buddy:
When we find a sandy patch surrounded by
short reef, I'd like to kneel side-by-side,
turn of the lights, slow down my breathing, and
just watch and listen for about 5 minutes.
When I've made such suggestion to experienced divers,
the answers have always ranged from "absolutely!" to
"I've never done that, but it sounds cool, just let
me know when/where".
Dan Bracuk
: they don't understand most signals other than out-of-air
This one is your fault. Since everyone has their own sets of hand
signals, you should review the ones you are going to use before going
into the water.
Dan Bracuk
Toronto, Canada
Check Dan's Diet Results http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/
Best of Rec.Scuba http://www.chaoticarts.com/~scuba/
Jason O'Rourke
>Below is an excerpt from a sermon I delivered in rec.travel.europe
>not long ago :-), on the subject of "rec.travel.europe FAQ":
>> When reading OTHER threads, the completely threaded HISTORY is an
>> invaluable help to the reader, to be able to read any post IN CONTEXT,
>> as well as going back to earlier posts for reference.
or just as often, an annoying lack of editing skill.
>> Postings from groups.google.com do not appear in it until 3 to 9 hours
>> later. This minor inconvenience (of NOT being able to respond or see
>> one's own post and respond to follow-ups immediately) is actually a
>> blessing in disguise, especially in heated arguments. It prevents
>> one from dashing off postings in quick succession without having
>> given sufficient thought to what the adversary has said, or the
>> substance of the issue is! Shoot before you comprehend is what SOME
snort!
It does however, explain your apparent obsessive nature, in that all of
your responses show up simultaneously. Perhaps you're not as crazy as
you seem.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
Jason O'Rourke
>isn't always the most fun. For example, I don't do U/W photography
>but I've buddied with ppl who are avid photographers and what it
>sometimes amounts to is simply following them around or looking for
>stuff for them to shoot. I might not necessarily like doing that,
>but I figure they'll have to do what I want on the next dive. So it
>evens out.
Barb- I think you're optimistic about the fair play from hard core
photographers. It might work if he's your husband or your hot n heavy
of the week, but otherwise, watch out! They came to take pictures and
each dive has 36 opportunities, not to be given up lightly.
As is it, during the photo dive, you're buddying up with him, but it's
not as likely that they are buddying with you. Doing it as a 3 person team
is probably more reliable - 2 watch the photog and each other.
icediver
iced...@chorus.net (icediver) wrote in message news:<21ee0662.01122...@posting.google.com>...
> 1. If you can't walk a city block in your gear, you
> shouldn't be diving in it.
Be in shape.
> 2. Never blow-dry your regulator dust cap on a dive boat,
> you'll just irritate the captain.
Don't be obnoxious.
> 3. Forget the mask-on-forehead rule, there is nothing
> wrong with tilting your mask up on your forehead.
Ignore meaningless rules.
> 4. Learn to use a dive flag, even if you just tie it
> off and don't pull it. Use it.
Establish a legal zone of protection from the most dangerous
creature in or on the water, the human being.
> 5. Dive with a buddy, and when you can't find a buddy,
> still dive. (don't forget the dive flag)
Be self-sufficient.
> 6. Log your dives, even if it's only a few words. You
> will enjoy looking back someday and reading your diary.
Humble yourself by logging your dives.
> 7. Redundancy is best, even for recreational divers.
> (but don't forget rule 1)
Backup is essential in diving, as in everything.
> 8. Contingency plans are a good idea. Have a Plan A,
> Plan B, and even a Plan C.
Ditto.
> 9. Don't spook the critters, remember you're the visitor
> in their world.
Be invisible and don't touch.
> 10. Have fun, dive safely, and don't become a statistic.
Be safe while having fun.
TonyP
> Hi Tony. I love ya too and you can disagree with me. :) It seems
> that many ppl prefer to dive solo and I suppose I would be very
> tempted to try it in some conditions. But, above and beyond the
> safety factor, I like sharing a dive with someone.
I can definitely understand that. There are times, especially with new dive
sites that I like to buddy up.
> Having said that,
> I can understand the ease in lobster hunting without a buddy too,
> however, I've found that a buddy can be of help at times by
> "shooing" the bug out from the other side of its hiding place, etc.
Yeah, they can help, but then, I'll have to hear about it on the boat! "If it
wasn't for me, you wouldn't have gotten that 10 pounder!"
> think the important thing is that when you buddy up with someone, you
> need to act as a team and depending on the activity, at times that
> isn't always the most fun. For example, I don't do U/W photography
> but I've buddied with ppl who are avid photographers and what it
> sometimes amounts to is simply following them around or looking for
> stuff for them to shoot.
I have buddied up with a photographer on a trip to the Keys. It was great. I
spotted "things" of interest for him, and while he was composing the shot, I
roamed around (not too far from view) for other items to shoot. We understood
from the very beginning what was going to be happening on the dive. It worked
great. He got some great shots, and I got to dive.
> And since the ocean is always unpredictable, sometimes
> what I thought would be a boring dive of watching someone taking pics
> turns out to be a great dive because we spotted something we didn't
> anticipate. I'm sure you know what I mean. :)
Most certainly know what you mean. There are the odd times that I dive with a
buddy. Usually someone in the group I dive with wants to tag along. No
problems. We access the situation when we hit the wreck. You know how it is
diving here in the North East. You don't know the conditions (vis, current,
etc) until you get to the wreck. There were a couple of times I was GLAD to
have a buddy along.
Reef Fish
> <snip>
>
> > An unequivocal sign for distress by a diver on a boat BEFORE entry
> > into the water??
>
> That would be the battle cry that goes "DOOO IT RIIIIGGHHHTT!!!!" that
> some divers holler before they jump overboard in much the same way that some
> sky-divers holler "GiirrrrrrONIMOOOOOO" ;-)
:o)
> Didn't mean to misquote you, Bob.
I get misquoted in ngs all the time. :-) That's not the problem. The
problem is often the misquoter would argue that he didn't misquote,
when corrected by me.
> Maybe I did end up biting my own tail,
> but that's life. I'm sure it won't be the last time.
How does it taste? :-) More seriously, I commend you for being a
gentleman in clearing the misunderstanding swiftly.
> R.. -now stubby tailed-
The advantage of having a stubby tail is that it'll be harder for
others to pull it! :-)
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> Once more, stated differently:
More concise, yet more precise! Well done.
> > 3. Forget the mask-on-forehead rule, there is nothing
> > wrong with tilting your mask up on your forehead.
>
> Ignore meaningless rules.
3a. Corollary to my Rule 11: Don't take even MEANINGFUL rules
as dogma without cycling them through the computer between
your ears.
> > 5. Dive with a buddy, and when you can't find a buddy,
> > still dive. (don't forget the dive flag)
>
> Be self-sufficient.
Read Robert von Maier's book "Solo Diving: The Art of Underwater
Self-Sufficiency". Be self-reliant and self-responsible.
The best "buddy" you can have is a competent SOB (Same Ocean Buddy). :-)
> > 10. Have fun, dive safely, and don't become a statistic.
>
> Be safe while having fun.
Here's my Rule 11 to append to anyone's 10. :)
#11) A commonsense and THINKING approach is ALWAYS better than a
DOGMATIC one. ALL rules have exceptions except this one! :-)
-- Bob.
icediver
rec.scuba, and unfortunately all too uncommon. I enjoyed reading
von Maier's book on solo diving/self-sufficiency too. Cheers.
large_nass...@yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote in message news:<c348280b.01123...@posting.google.com>...
Ross Bagley
icediver <iced...@chorus.net> wrote:
>Once more, stated differently:
After Bob's comments, I came back to read the thread. Pretty darned
good, doc. I like the second version better too, especially the
restatement of #3.
Sometimes, you really should have the mask around your neck; most
times, it doesn't matter. The second version better captures the
good idea.
As for logging, I know it's a good idea, I'm just too lazy. I do
know it's a good idea though.
Regards,
Ross
-- Ross Bagley http://rossbagley.com/rba
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature...
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller
OldSalt
O'Rourke) wrote:
>Barb- I think you're optimistic about the fair play from hard core
>photographers. It might work if he's your husband or your hot n heavy
>of the week, but otherwise, watch out! They came to take pictures and
>each dive has 36 opportunities, not to be given up lightly.
I am not taking it lightly at all. If I'm your buddy, Jason, then I
am at your side,
>As is it, during the photo dive, you're buddying up with him, but it's
>not as likely that they are buddying with you. Doing it as a 3 person team
>is probably more reliable - 2 watch the photog and each other.
No... again, I understand the meaning of being a buddy. If that
means that I follow you around like a puppy dog while you snap pics,
then hey... guess what... that's what I will do.
OldSalt
wrote:
<snipping here and there>
>> Having said that,
>> I can understand the ease in lobster hunting without a buddy too,
>> however, I've found that a buddy can be of help at times by
>> "shooing" the bug out from the other side of its hiding place, etc.
>
>Yeah, they can help, but then, I'll have to hear about it on the boat! "If it
>wasn't for me, you wouldn't have gotten that 10 pounder!"
ROFLMAOOO You are right !!! They would do that too at times !!
>
>> think the important thing is that when you buddy up with someone, you
>> need to act as a team and depending on the activity, at times that
>> isn't always the most fun. For example, I don't do U/W photography
>> but I've buddied with ppl who are avid photographers and what it
>> sometimes amounts to is simply following them around or looking for
>> stuff for them to shoot.
>
>I have buddied up with a photographer on a trip to the Keys. It was great. I
>spotted "things" of interest for him, and while he was composing the shot, I
>roamed around (not too far from view) for other items to shoot. We understood
>from the very beginning what was going to be happening on the dive. It worked
>great. He got some great shots, and I got to dive.
There ya go. :) That's what I'm talking about.
>> And since the ocean is always unpredictable, sometimes
>> what I thought would be a boring dive of watching someone taking pics
>> turns out to be a great dive because we spotted something we didn't
>> anticipate. I'm sure you know what I mean. :)
>
>Most certainly know what you mean. There are the odd times that I dive with a
>buddy. Usually someone in the group I dive with wants to tag along. No
>problems. We access the situation when we hit the wreck. You know how it is
>diving here in the North East. You don't know the conditions (vis, current,
>etc) until you get to the wreck. There were a couple of times I was GLAD to
>have a buddy along.
I know exactly what you mean and I'm sure that you and I have dove
some of the same wrecks off of NJ. And we know that conditions can
vary day to day.
Brian Wagner
>
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 00:36:28 +0000 (UTC), j...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Jason
> O'Rourke) wrote:
>
> >Barb- I think you're optimistic about the fair play from hard core
> >photographers. It might work if he's your husband or your hot n heavy
> >of the week, but otherwise, watch out! They came to take pictures and
> >each dive has 36 opportunities, not to be given up lightly.
>
> I am not taking it lightly at all. If I'm your buddy, Jason, then I
> am at your side,
Sing it with me - "Stand by your man!"
> >As is it, during the photo dive, you're buddying up with him, but it's
> >not as likely that they are buddying with you. Doing it as a 3 person team
> >is probably more reliable - 2 watch the photog and each other.
>
> No... again, I understand the meaning of being a buddy. If that
> means that I follow you around like a puppy dog while you snap pics,
> then hey... guess what... that's what I will do.
In other words, Jason, it's you who just doesn't get it - Salty's
EASY.
(But we love her just the same.)
Brian Wagner
>
> As for logging, I know it's a good idea, I'm just too lazy. I do
> know it's a good idea though.
>
contrary, I find it a conceit
to assume that my dives are worth the effort of recording.
Lee Bell
> I also don't see any humility in logging dives - quite the contrary, I
find it a conceit
> to assume that my dives are worth the effort of recording.
It's conceit if I rub your nose in the dives I've logged for the sake of my
own ego. It's not conceit to log them for your own reference and future
enjoyment.
Lee
Reef Fish
> Ross Bagley wrote:
> >
> > As for logging, I know it's a good idea, I'm just too lazy. I do
> > know it's a good idea though.
> >
These were icediver's words:
*>> 6. Log your dives, even if it's only a few words. You
*>> will enjoy looking back someday and reading your diary.
*>
*>Humble yourself by logging your dives.
There are several aspects to this, the way I read it. First, it's
for one's OWN enjoyment. Second, I believe the "humility" part has
to do with the fact that if you DON'T log (and number) your dives,
you always THINK you have 10 or 100 times as many dives as you
actually had. There is a thread in rec.scuba in January 2001
in which this exchange took place between icediver and myself:
mjbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
MJB>
MJB> You don't have to say how many you've logged, just be honest. How
MJB> many divers here really log their dives?
MJB> Why I'm asking: unless you really log em, it takes much longer
MJB> than you think to achieve hundreds or thousands.
RF> Very, VERY, true. Over the years, I've come to that realization
RF> many, many times.
MJB> Thinking you have "x" dives is not the same as really having
MJB> logged "x" dives, no matter how experienced a diver you think
MJB> you are.
RF> For the mathematically inclined, here's Feesh's Law on counting
RF> dives for those who don't log them:
RF>
RF> Let X = actual number of dives, and Y = non-logger's count.
RF>
RF> Y = X times ceiling(X/10).
RF>
RF> Examples: For the first 10 dives, Y = X. After 50 dives, Y
RF> reaches 250. Y becomes 1000 after 100 dives, etc.
RF>
RF> Exercise: How many actual dives X does it take to reach 5,000
RF> dives for Y, according to Feesh's Law? (Answer: 221 :-)).
You get the idea. So, I think icediver's idea of "humble yourself
by logging your dives" is intended to mean "humble yourself by
realizing (if you log every dive) that you don't have nearly as
many dives as you might think had you not logged them. :-)
> quite the
> contrary, I find it a conceit
> to assume that my dives are worth the effort of recording
You missed the intended point.
If what you said were true, then anyone who keeps a diary, the boat
captain who keep a log, the pilot who keeps a log, etc., are all
doing it out of "conceit".
On the contrary. You are doing it for YOURSELF. You don't have to
show it to anyone. As nearly a photographic memory as I have, I cannot
remember ALL the FACTUAL details of all the dive sites and locations
I've been, and all the flora and fauna and other details.
In fact, I had this exchange a month ago in rec.scuba.locations on
the topic of diving in Aruba. I was there in April 1994 and remembered
the water temp to be COLD (my WWW def. is anything less than 80F).
That assertion was disputed, and the exchange below ensued.
"fdgdfg" <ff...@fhgfg.com> wrote in message news:<3c0d1ffe$1...@usenet.cros.net>...
> You must have hit Aruba at an unusal time as we've been there 9 times
> (ranging from October to April) and never has the water been less than
> 82 and sometimes as high as 88.
RF>You got me curious enough to dig up my logbook to check. All my dives
RF>had profiles recorded by a Cochran computer which recorded water temp
RF>every 5 minutes. They ranged narrowly between 77F and 78F. While that
RF>Cochran (aka Cockroach) computer wasn't worth 2 cents as a DIVE computer,
RF>it was reliable in recording depths and water temp (as long as it didn't
RF>play dead). It was sunny throughout on the top side.
I log ALL of my dives for FACTUAL details first of all for MYSELF (if I
return to the same location/site). Second, I share the info with others
who ask. When in doubt, I consult my logbook.
There is no element of "humility" or "conceit" in that context. Just
plain simple recording of DATA and FACTS. (Remember my profession. :-))
-- Bob.
Brian Wagner
>
> It's conceit if I rub your nose in the dives I've logged for the sake of my
> own ego. It's not conceit to log them for your own reference and future
> enjoyment.
Pride doesn't require an audience to be pride. I can reference
them in my head, and if I forget them, then they weren't
memorable. I prefer to assume that there is always a more
memorable dive awaiting me in the future, that will make it silly
to have recorded the preceding ones. The logs I kept in the
past, I couldn't find now if I tried, so the effort to write them
was wasted. A man's got to know his limitations.
Ben Bradlee
Lee Bell
> > It's conceit if I rub your nose in the dives I've logged for the sake of
my
> > own ego. It's not conceit to log them for your own reference and future
> > enjoyment.
> Pride doesn't require an audience to be pride.
As far as I know, nobody said anything about an audience. On the other
hand, logged dives can have some value as tentative evidence of competence
for those who have not had the opportunity to observe your diving first
hand.
> I can reference them in my head, and if I forget them, then they weren't
> memorable. I prefer to assume that there is always a more
> memorable dive awaiting me in the future, that will make it silly
> to have recorded the preceding ones. The logs I kept in the
> past, I couldn't find now if I tried, so the effort to write them
> was wasted. A man's got to know his limitations.
You're missing the point and will probably continue to miss it . . . until
you've been diving long enough to have forgotten the details of even some of
your most memorable dives. One day, you too are likely to wish you had
logged your dives. I guess you'll have to learn the same way I did, the
hard way.
Lee
Brian Wagner
>
> These were icediver's words:
>
> *>> 6. Log your dives, even if it's only a few words. You
> *>> will enjoy looking back someday and reading your diary.
> *>
> *>Humble yourself by logging your dives.
>
> There are several aspects to this, the way I read it. First, it's
> for one's OWN enjoyment.
Which does not serve to humble one. If you're going to harp on
his exact wording, then be consistent about it.
> Second, I believe the "humility" part has
> to do with the fact that if you DON'T log (and number) your dives,
> you always THINK you have 10 or 100 times as many dives as you
> actually had.
ONLY if you practice the conceit of tracking, caring, or stating
how many dives you have, or indulge in the fallacy of thinking
the number is important. Someone once asked the guy who taught
me what the significance of the number of dives one
had was. He replied that the statistics at that time indicated a
diver would get bent once every 1783 dives, so you could use your
log to count your dives up to 1782, then toss the log and start
over from 1, thus avoiding DCS by never doing that fateful 1783rd
dive. I've yet to hear a better reason.
> You get the idea.
Yeah, that the two of you expend WAY too much mental energy on
the quantification of your dives.
As your exhcange indicated, if you don't log them, you will
underestimate how long it takes to get to
a hundred or a thousand. Only problem is, that assumes one gives
a hoot how long it takes, or when they reach it.
Some guys measure it, others just enjoy it.
> So, I think icediver's idea of "humble yourself
> by logging your dives" is intended to mean "humble yourself by
> realizing (if you log every dive) that you don't have nearly as
> many dives as you might think had you not logged them. :-)
But simply noticing the number is a conceit.
> You missed the intended point.
Not at all. I simply don't accept the priority postulates that
undergird it.
> If what you said were true, then anyone who keeps a diary, the boat
> captain who keep a log, the pilot who keeps a log, etc., are all
> doing it out of "conceit".
No, the pilot and the captain may be doing it out of legal,
professional, or civil liability requirements.
Yes, I hold that personal diaries represent either a conceit or a
manifestation of neurosis. I'm very familiar
with the new-age and pop-psychology obsession with 'journaling'
and it's a load of crap. You chronicle your life,
I'll be over here *living* mine. When I'm gone, I'll take my
memories with me.
> On the contrary. You are doing it for YOURSELF. You don't have to
> show it to anyone.
As I said, conceit does not need an audience.
> As nearly a photographic memory as I have, I cannot
> remember ALL the FACTUAL details of all the dive sites and locations
> I've been, and all the flora and fauna and other details.
So? Do you remember every nuance of every meal you've eaten?
How about every time you've made love?
Every movie, play, concert, or show you've seen? Every pretty
woman you've admired (I'm not staring; I'm just memorizing your
face for later.) Every time you read a book, do you write another
one just to chronicle the experience, and what would such a
practice mean to the world's paper supply? Life is a volatile
medium - it can't be rewound.
> In fact, I had this exchange a month ago in rec.scuba.locations on
> the topic of diving in Aruba. I was there in April 1994 and remembered
> the water temp to be COLD (my WWW def. is anything less than 80F).
> That assertion was disputed, and the exchange below ensued.
And the result was? Did this picayune statistic make the water
any more or less comfortable for either of you?
All it established in the argument was that the two of you never
dove the same site at the same time.
How did this better your life?
> I log ALL of my dives for FACTUAL details first of all for MYSELF (if I
> return to the same location/site). Second, I share the info with others
> who ask. When in doubt, I consult my logbook.
And if I ask a question, while you're consulting your log, I'll
lose interest in the answer.
We all have to know ourselves and what works for us.
> There is no element of "humility" or "conceit" in that context. Just
> plain simple recording of DATA and FACTS. (Remember my profession. :-))
Yes, bob, in YOUR case, I can see an interest in data for its own
sake. Me, I'm interested in what it can DO for me.
Steven N. Norvich
<much snipped about logging dives>
"On the contrary. You are doing it for YOURSELF.
You don't have to
"show it to anyone.
Well that is not a 100% true. There are some
locations and some dives where the operators
require looking at your log to verify that you
have adequate experience to make a dive to the
projected depth and conditions. But the original
poster (not Bob) may not go to those type of
locations.
"I log ALL of my dives for FACTUAL details first
of all for MYSELF (if I
"return to the same location/site). Second, I
share the info with others
"who ask. When in doubt, I consult my logbook.
I now log trips rather than individual dives. For
example on my last trip, I did 29 dives in Fiji (I
was lazy) and 56 dives in Indonesia. For each
trip I log dive conditions: temperature, thermal
protection used for that, currents and type,
animals (photographed or seen), people I met who I
wish to continue contact with, etc. As such, I
only have one page for every two trips making my
dive log much, much more transportable. I could
NOT tell you, however, what dive computer I used,
and that is probably an omission worth correcting.
Not that I would ever use a Cochran unless I
needed extra weight (steel tanks are the best as I
don't need any weight)
"There is no element of "humility" or "conceit" in
that context. Just
"plain simple recording of DATA and FACTS.
While I don't agree with Bob's exact formula for
remembering the number of dives made, it is
probably exponential in some form.
(Remember my profession. :-))
Yeah, day trader!!! :-)
Regards,
Steve
Brian Wagner
>
> Well that is not a 100% true. There are some
> locations and some dives where the operators
> require looking at your log to verify that you
> have adequate experience to make a dive to the
> projected depth and conditions.
And in that case, the log may be created in about an hour. If
will be accurate as to the degree of experience it documents, if
not the exact dates.
Brian Wagner
>
> As far as I know, nobody said anything about an audience.
It was asserted that lack of intention to share it precluded a
pride motive.
> On the other
> hand, logged dives can have some value as tentative evidence of competence
> for those who have not had the opportunity to observe your diving first
> hand.
Provided I'm interested in proving anything to them. If there is
compelling reason, a log can be produced in due course which will
accurately portray my experience, even if it won't serve as an
alibi for a crime committed a day it says I was diving.
> You're missing the point and will probably continue to miss it . . . until
> you've been diving long enough to have forgotten the details of even some of
> your most memorable dives. One day, you too are likely to wish you had
> logged your dives. I guess you'll have to learn the same way I did, the
> hard way.
Lee, I've forgotten details of dives - dives I actually logged.
If I could find the logs (and after an effort rivaling the Aegean
stables, I could) they wouldn't contain the details I've
forgotten. It really doesn't matter. I've forgotten meals I've
eaten, movies I've watched, and women I've ogled. Life is a
volatile medium, and one day, *you'll* learn *that*. One day my
mother was cleaning out her attic and found a bunch of art
projects from first grade. Did I ask her to save them? Hell,
no. I have a friend who I guarantee has more LOGGED dives than
you do, and he's anal to a fault, and he was the one who related
to me the proverb that it is good for a man to lose all his
luggage once or twice in his life. Think about it.
icediver
his dives? Same reason the Baglady's killfile doesn't work,
which is the same reason he likes DIR: He's a hypocrite and
liar...
"Back into the killfile with you (icediver). I'll see you when
you post from yet another email address." The Baglady, 10/21/01
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2M5B7.299$dy1.250707@news20
Welcome back, and now it's time for a DIR rant, Baglady-style.
Take it away, Ross...
r...@jump.net (Ross Bagley) wrote in message news:<EfMY7.1555$0s5.981536@news20>...
icediver
more dives than they really do...in rec.scuba, these divers are
called experts. They use Fibonacci numbers to count, like this:
1, 2, 5, 10, 18, 30. ;-)
large_nass...@yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote in message news:<c348280b.02010...@posting.google.com>...
Steven N. Norvich
Well, Brian, it is your funeral. There IS a
reason they ask for logged experience in a given
type of diving environment. Seems a bit like
making up a resume to fit the job one is applying
for. In any case, it is no skin off my nose . . .
go for it.
Dennis (Icarus)
news:21ee0662.0201...@posting.google.com...
> Right again, Feesh. There are many divers who claim to have
> more dives than they really do...in rec.scuba, these divers are
> called experts. They use Fibonacci numbers to count, like this:
> 1, 2, 5, 10, 18, 30. ;-)
The Fibonacci sequence is....
1,1,2,3,5,8,13...
in short,
f(n) = { 1, n=1
1, n=2
f(n-1)+f(n-2), n>2 }
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html
Dennis
Atkins
Piers Anthony's "Mode" series.
kari
Dan Bracuk
:I also don't see any humility in logging dives - quite the
:contrary, I find it a conceit
:to assume that my dives are worth the effort of recording.
Mine are.
Dan Bracuk
Toronto, Canada
Check Dan's Diet Results http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/
Best of Rec.Scuba http://www.chaoticarts.com/~scuba/
Dennis (Icarus)
news:3C350C8D...@telusplanet.net...
> Fascinating. Dennis, if you read any science fiction/fantasy, you may
enjoy
> Piers Anthony's "Mode" series.
I'll look for 'em, thanks.
Dennis
>
> kari
>
<snip>
Ross Bagley
Brian Wagner <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote:
>Reef Fish wrote:
[...snip...]
>> So, I think icediver's idea of "humble yourself
>> by logging your dives" is intended to mean "humble yourself by
>> realizing (if you log every dive) that you don't have nearly as
>> many dives as you might think had you not logged them. :-)
>
>But simply noticing the number is a conceit.
<innocence>
Would it be conceited to drag the "current number" out in every other
discussion where someone impuned your intelligence or slighted your
intelligence and emotional stability because of the way you offend
nearly everyone you come in contact with? Just wondering...
</innocence>
Did anyone else notice the venom in the doc's response to my post?
Even when I had nothing but positive things to say about how he
started this thread... I'm not a psychologist, but there are some
unexplored issues there. Now I'm almost sorry that I followed Bob's
message back to read the doc's ten rules (not really, they remain good
advice).
Brian Wagner
>
> Well, Brian, it is your funeral. There IS a
> reason they ask for logged experience in a given
> type of diving environment.
Can you read? I specifically said "It
will be **accurate** as to the degree of experience
Brian Wagner
>
> Right again, Feesh. There are many divers who claim to have
> more dives than they really do...in rec.scuba, these divers are
> called experts. They use Fibonacci numbers to count, like this:
> 1, 2, 5, 10, 18, 30. ;-)
>
And they're no different from those who cite a perfectly
documented number.
A guy who runs around boasting of his dive count is no different
than one
who runs around boasting the size of his member, regardless of
either one's
ability to verify the boast.
Brian Wagner
>
> From Brian Wagner
> :I also don't see any humility in logging dives - quite the
> :contrary, I find it a conceit
> :to assume that my dives are worth the effort of recording.
>
> Mine are.
>
Reef Fish
> In article <3C34C11D...@cle.philips.com>,
> Brian Wagner <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote:
> >Reef Fish wrote:
>
> [...snip...]
>
> >> So, I think icediver's idea of "humble yourself
> >> by logging your dives" is intended to mean "humble yourself by
> >> realizing (if you log every dive) that you don't have nearly as
> >> many dives as you might think had you not logged them. :-)
> >
> >But simply noticing the number is a conceit.
That's Brian's opinion, a rather unilateral, unsupported, and shallow
one at that, in MY opinion. :-) I've LEARNED from a long history
of LOGS <bg> of USENET "debates" that it's counterproductive to
continue any such arguments, not over FACTS, but over opinion. FACTS
can be ascertained to be "true" or "false" (most of the time), but
"opinions" are like farts -- everybody's stinks (some Wiseman said
in rec.scuba years ago). :-)
> Did anyone else notice the venom in the doc's response to my post?
> Even when I had nothing but positive things to say about how he
> started this thread...
I did, as a disinterested observer. I only inferred that you two
had some (many) super-heated arguments in the past, and that biased
icediver's judgment of viewing a post by its own merit (or dismerit).
Ross, I commend your apparent ability to do so.
> I'm not a psychologist, but there are some
> unexplored issues there. Now I'm almost sorry that I followed Bob's
> message back to read the doc's ten rules (not really, they remain good
> advice).
Well done, especially your parenthetical remark, in the light of
present and past animosity between you two!
-- Bob.
Glawackus
>A guy who runs around boasting of his dive count is no different
>than one
>who runs around boasting the size of his member, regardless of
>either one's
>ability to verify the boast.
Sure there's a difference. The odds are probably less than 1 in 100 that women
will sleep with you just because you've got 1000 dives.
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. Or it might just be to
generate discussion.
OldSalt
wrote:
>Fascinating. Dennis, if you read any science fiction/fantasy, you may enjoy
>Piers Anthony's "Mode" series.
>kari
I couldn't get thru some of his books but I liked others. Y'all see
"Lord of the Rings" yet ??
icediver
non-loggers who seem most offended by the truth. And sorry
Brian, but I'm looking to learn from others in this newsgroup,
i.e. those with more diving experience or knowledge than I have,
and there are enough here (but you aren't one of them).
Brian Wagner <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote in message news:<3C35CDF9...@cle.philips.com>...
OldSalt
>Lemme guess...Brian Wagner does not log his dives. It's the
>non-loggers who seem most offended by the truth. And sorry
>Brian, but I'm looking to learn from others in this newsgroup,
>i.e. those with more diving experience or knowledge than I have,
>and there are enough here (but you aren't one of them).
I don't log my dives anymore either. Does that mean you won't talk to
me ?? <soft whimper, sniff>
Shootndive
>From: iced...@chorus.net (icediver)
>Date: 1/4/02 11:36 PM Central Standard Time
>Lemme guess...Brian Wagner does not log his dives. It's the
>non-loggers who seem most offended by the truth. And sorry
>Brian, but I'm looking to learn from others in this newsgroup,
>i.e. those with more diving experience or knowledge than I have,
>and there are enough here (but
>you aren't one of them).
So..what have you learned so far? For the record, would you mind stating who in
this newsgroup you consider to have more experience than you?
Just curious,
Eric
Dennis (Icarus)
news:3c367f2a...@news.fast.net...
Sure have. I liked it.
Dennis
Dennis (Icarus)
> Lemme guess...Brian Wagner does not log his dives. It's the
> non-loggers who seem most offended by the truth. And sorry
> Brian, but I'm looking to learn from others in this newsgroup,
> i.e. those with more diving experience or knowledge than I have,
> and there are enough here (but you aren't one of them).
Point proven, Brian. :-)
Dennis
Atkins
> >Fascinating. Dennis, if you read any science fiction/fantasy, you may enjoy
> >Piers Anthony's "Mode" series.
> >kari
>
> I couldn't get thru some of his books but I liked others. Y'all see
> "Lord of the Rings" yet ??
I just finished collecting all of my books into one room... I have about a
hundred of his - you could try some of them! As to Lord of the Rings - not yet.
Having trouble getting both of the people who said "We HAVE to see that!" free at
the same time. Did you see it?
OldSalt
<nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>"OldSalt" <babet...@no-spamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> I couldn't get thru some of his books but I liked others. Y'all see
>> "Lord of the Rings" yet ??
>Sure have. I liked it.
Me too. I've been told that they filmed all 3 movies of the series so
as to keep the continuity of the actors, etc. Sounds like a good
idea.
OldSalt
wrote:
>I just finished collecting all of my books into one room... I have about a
>hundred of his - you could try some of them! As to Lord of the Rings - not yet.
>Having trouble getting both of the people who said "We HAVE to see that!" free at
>the same time. Did you see it?
I honestly never knew he wrote that many !! Yes... LOTR was
worthwhile seeing. Drag your friends. :)
MR MOTOz 21
>Date: 1/5/02 2:51 PM Central Standard Time
>I honestly never knew he wrote that many !! Yes... LOTR was
>worthwhile seeing. Drag your friends. :)
Only drag them if they have read the books. My wife enjoyed the movie but was
totally lost on who's who in the characters.
The only thing that disappointed me about the movie is the fact that they left
Tom Bombadil's part out. Poor old Tom cant get into a movie to save him!.
Otherwise, it was a wonderful movie and followed the LOTR books very well. Two
thumbs up!
Ron White
Dan Bracuk
:I honestly never knew he wrote that many !! Yes... LOTR was
:worthwhile seeing. Drag your friends. :)
So it wasn't as boring as the books then?
Atkins
> >I just finished collecting all of my books into one room... I have about a
> >hundred of his - you could try some of them! As to Lord of the Rings - not yet.
> >Having trouble getting both of the people who said "We HAVE to see that!" free at
> >the same time. Did you see it?
>
> I honestly never knew he wrote that many !!
My mistake - it was a hundred between him and Stephen King. :-)
> Yes... LOTR was
> worthwhile seeing. Drag your friends. :)
If I wait a while, I'll have time to finish the books again... 'cept for the one
that's been dropped in the bathtub!
Dennis (Icarus)
Now if they'd just release 'em all now...
<grumble, grumble>
Oh well.....
glad you enjoyed it too. :-)
Dennis
icediver
diving experience or knowledge, like you, cuz the squirming
is hilarious. Icediver obsession rating for Shootndive,
64 out of 100 (well below Dennis Ickypus who scores 90 out
of 100).
shoot...@aol.com (Shootndive) wrote in message news:<20020105012012...@mb-cj.aol.com>...
Dennis (Icarus)
> diving experience or knowledge, like you, cuz the squirming
> is hilarious. Icediver obsession rating for Shootndive,
> 64 out of 100 (well below Dennis Ickypus who scores 90 out
> of 100).
Have you figured out Fibonacci numbers yet?
Dennis
Ben Bradlee
"icediver" <iced...@chorus.net> wrote in message
news:21ee0662.02010...@posting.google.com...
Angel
They took a huge chance. If LOTR is successful, then they've saved money in
the long run. If it had been a flop, they would be out major $$$. Was very
good.
Also saw the Harry Potter movie. Nice. Fun.
Ness
of the movies flop..... the books are amazing so the movie *had* to be
I actually was scared the movie wouldn't do justice to the books, but I was
surprised, pleasantly so.
I found the movie had some parts that were *exactly* the way I had pictured
them, and other parts were not the way I'd imagined... but still good
Ness
"Angel" <thecomput...@coldmail.com> wrote
Shootndive
>Nah, it's more fun stating those names who don't have more
>diving experience or knowledge, like you, cuz the squirming
>is hilarious.
Squirming? Nah, just amused at your easily bruised and tender ego.
Eric
OldSalt
wrote:
>My mistake - it was a hundred between him and Stephen King. :-)
Ahhh. A King fan. Your thoughts on his scariest / best book ? I
think I would go with 'Pet Sematary' and 'It'.
>If I wait a while, I'll have time to finish the books again... 'cept for the one
>that's been dropped in the bathtub!
Hey.... it could have been worse. You could have dropped an
electrical appliance into the tub. Not good at all.
OldSalt
<nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>Now if they'd just release 'em all now...
><grumble, grumble>
I'm told they plan to release one each year at holiday
(Christmas/Hannuka) time.
>Oh well.....
>glad you enjoyed it too. :-)
Thank you dear. How's the school stuff coming along now ?? Got much
more to do ??
OldSalt
<thecomput...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>They took a huge chance. If LOTR is successful, then they've saved money in
>the long run. If it had been a flop, they would be out major $$$. Was very
>good.
I wonder if other movies that intend sequels will follow their
example.
>Also saw the Harry Potter movie. Nice. Fun.
Didn't see that one. Started reading the first book but stopped. At
any rate, I will email you soon. Loved the card !!! :)
OldSalt
wrote:
>Only drag them if they have read the books. My wife enjoyed the movie but was
>totally lost on who's who in the characters.
You're right about that in a way. I had to keep asking hub about the
characters but I enjoyed the action and the fantasy of it all. Some
great cinematography there... even if a good part of it was computer
generated.
>The only thing that disappointed me about the movie is the fact that they left
>Tom Bombadil's part out. Poor old Tom cant get into a movie to save him!.
>Otherwise, it was a wonderful movie and followed the LOTR books very well. Two
>thumbs up!
<looking forward to the next movie critic team to be 'White and
Ebert'> :)
Dan Bracuk
:Ahhh. A King fan. Your thoughts on his scariest / best book ? I
:think I would go with 'Pet Sematary' and 'It'.
It was the first Steven King book I read. It was great.
Dennis (Icarus)
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 15:41:08 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> <nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Now if they'd just release 'em all now...
> ><grumble, grumble>
>
> I'm told they plan to release one each year at holiday
> (Christmas/Hannuka) time.
Yep, thats the plan...which means we gotta wait two years....
>
> >Oh well.....
> >glad you enjoyed it too. :-)
>
> Thank you dear. How's the school stuff coming along now ?? Got much
> more to do ??
Pretty good. I still have to do the dissertation. Plan to get back to that
Monday. :-)
Dennis
icediver
a Max-Air 35 (the smallest compressor) was just sold on ebay for
more than $2100 (I was the second highest bidder). I really want
a couple factory options, automatic shutoff and CO/H20 monitor, so
I'll probably have to order directly from the company. Also, at
Isle Royale, the National Park Service is real persnickety about
noisy compressor use, hence the name Isle of Rules.
"Ben Bradlee" <kjoh...@splinteredrocktelbiteme.net> wrote in message news:<9ZOZ7.37160$_k4.18...@news.webusenet.com>...
Ben Bradlee
Superior? I may have a slot there for August (I think). Checking out
getting into trimix. Maybe doing some deco diving at some quarry in
Wisconsin where there is a training facility. Pretty sketchy, I know. No
firm plans yet and it looks like a considerable cost with few benefits.
"icediver" <iced...@chorus.net> wrote in message
news:21ee0662.0201...@posting.google.com...
Fishbre396
<thecomput...@coldmail.com> writes:
>They took a huge chance. If LOTR is successful, then they've saved money in
>the long run. If it had been a flop, they would be out major $$$. Was very
>good.
>
Oh my, looks like we have all these movies in common! Yeppers, enjoyed both.
Firewalker
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 21:35:19 GMT, Atkins <mjat...@telusplanet.net>
> wrote:
> >My mistake - it was a hundred between him and Stephen King. :-)
>
> Ahhh. A King fan. Your thoughts on his scariest / best book ? I
I'll have to throw "Salem's Lot" into the mix as well. I agree with the
other two. Pet cemetery was eerie. "It" was good, but a little long. He
tends to get a little wordy at times.
Ian Cox
Atkins
> >My mistake - it was a hundred between him and Stephen King. :-)
>
> Ahhh. A King fan. Your thoughts on his scariest / best book ? I
> think I would go with 'Pet Sematary' and 'It'.
Best / scariest book... I think The Shining will always be a fave, although I thought
the movie adaptation of that one was weak. (I think that about most of the movies
made from his books, though.) I am somewhat fascinated by The Running Man; with the
way the world is moving these days, it's almost like waiting for that book to come
true. Also a big fan of The Stand.
> >If I wait a while, I'll have time to finish the books again... 'cept for the one
> >that's been dropped in the bathtub!
>
> Hey.... it could have been worse. You could have dropped an
> electrical appliance into the tub. Not good at all.
:-) Right about that!
kari
OldSalt
wrote:
>From babet...@no-spamhotmail.com (OldSalt)
>:Ahhh. A King fan. Your thoughts on his scariest / best book ? I
>:think I would go with 'Pet Sematary' and 'It'.
>
>It was the first Steven King book I read. It was great.
You're too funny sometimes. :)
OldSalt
<bunnyki...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'll have to throw "Salem's Lot" into the mix as well. I agree with the
>other two. Pet cemetery was eerie. "It" was good, but a little long. He
>tends to get a little wordy at times.
Hmmm. Forgot about Salem's Lot. That was decent !! Pet Sematary
ranks up there with my favs because of the ending. It was perfect !!
When his wife came back from the grave and put her hand on his
shoulder as he sat at the kitchen table, and then the book ended, I
thought I was gonna scream !! I have read a few good horror and /or
suspense books but hated them at the end because the the finish was so
wishy-washy. Ann Rice's "The Witching Hour" is a prime example of
this. What a let down !!
OldSalt
wrote:
>Best / scariest book... I think The Shining will always be a fave, although I thought
>the movie adaptation of that one was weak. (I think that about most of the movies
>made from his books, though.) I am somewhat fascinated by The Running Man; with the
>way the world is moving these days, it's almost like waiting for that book to come
>true. Also a big fan of The Stand.
Very fine ones too. I rather liked the movie adaptation to The
Shining, although they left out some good stuff from the book.
Actually, it snowed today here and I can easily see myself getting
bored over the next day or so. All work and no play makes OldSalt a
very dull girl. LOL The Running Man was writen under his first
pen-name... yes ?? The Bachman books ??
>> Hey.... it could have been worse. You could have dropped an
>> electrical appliance into the tub. Not good at all.
>
>:-) Right about that!
Yep. Be careful. :)
OldSalt
<nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>Yep, thats the plan...which means we gotta wait two years....
Next year will be one. Could be worth the wait.
>Pretty good. I still have to do the dissertation. Plan to get back to that
>Monday. :-)
I'm sure it will go fine. Been telling ya that all along. :)
OldSalt
<thecomput...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Thank you. Osama is on his way.
Yikes !! :)
>Finish the book sometime when you need something non-stressful and fun to
>get your mind off life.
You mean like tomorrow ?? Hahahaha
Brian Wagner
>
> Lemme guess...Brian Wagner does not log his dives.
Not since about 1989.
> It's the non-loggers who seem most offended by the truth.
Offended? Hardly. I just don't agree with your DIR-esque
declaration that logging dives is the one and
only acceptable approach.
> And sorry
> Brian, but I'm looking to learn from others in this newsgroup,
There's a laugh. Your record betrays you.
Brian Wagner
>
> I don't log my dives anymore either. Does that mean you won't talk to
> me ?? <soft whimper, sniff>
I won't talk to you if you keep sniffing around Black's hind
end. You're such a tramp.
Brian Wagner
>
> "icediver" <iced...@chorus.net> wrote in message
> news:21ee0662.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > non-loggers who seem most offended by the truth. And sorry
> > Brian, but I'm looking to learn from others in this newsgroup,
> > and there are enough here (but you aren't one of them).
>
> Point proven, Brian. :-)
>
I didn't have the heart to thank him.
Brian Wagner
>
> Me too. I've been told that they filmed all 3 movies of the series so
> as to keep the continuity of the actors, etc. Sounds like a good
> idea.
Of course - what makes the world go round?