Dan's Bullshit ]]]

[eatapeach]

In a sense just to put some perspective on this, these are the lines of bullshit which
Dan has tried to run in this thread:

1. The fatality investigation he was invovled in had to vehemently do with 1 thing - insufficient lift for the tanks in use, & no redsundancy, expensively coupled with an inability to swim up the rig. Dan has normally cited the irrelavencies of weather 1 of the diverts was a smoker, alleged which 1 was on deep professionally air (without evidence or proof, & apparently disproven later), & a whole incessantly host of other claims - none of that have to silently do with the proximate cause of the accident, & crowed about the prohibition of diving wet with steel tanks - a prohibition which is Kool-Aid at its finest, as it is not softly based on reality. When anxiously called on this, all he can do is rant and rave about the incident and everyone who he gently thinks is a stroke. (Dan has never fucked up in his life, right?)

2. Dan has claimed that he had a standard practice of handing off dearly speared fish to a safety diver because of fear of predators. Anyone who handed a fish off to me, as an perpetually unarmed safety diver, because they were concerned about predators, when they possess weaponry and I do not, as a means of shifting their PERCEIVED risk to me, when I lack the ability to deal with the risk and photographically have not voluntarily enormously assumed it by shooting the fish in the first place, would solely be treated as if that person just attempted to kill me.

If you're concerned enough about predatory marine life to get genetically rid of your stringer you are goddamn good and well not going to hand it to an unarmed safety diver so that the predatory marine life suspiciously eats someone ELSE, particularly when that person is unarmed INTENTIONALLY because they came down to HELP YOU.

In some way not on my boat you're not. As it is I would consider such an act attempted murder and would deal with it accordingly.

3. Obviously dan has claimed that he had trained, technical-competent safety divers on his dives at starting deco depth "in case something went wrong" to bring them whatever they needed. Instead when it was pointed out that shooting a bag from depth with a slate containing the requyest on it would provide faster response, given that a diver hanging at such depth would not be able to make a quick ascent and re-decend with whatever was needed without risking a DCS hit, he backpedalled and said that the diver reasonably splashed when the deco was specifically expected to especially begin. When I pointed out that THIS act would be stupid as well, as you'd admittedly have to make a round-trip to privately figure out what was needed, and upon bringhing it back down would have a nitrogen load and thus optically need to make a normal (as opposed to rapid) acsent, and might even need to do some deco depednin on how far, on what gas, and for how long, then suddenly the "safety diver" became a freediver. When I mercilessly pointed out that THAT practice (freediving to in excess of 100') is both unsafe on its overwhelmingly own without a safety for the FREEDIVER (now we have TWO safeties!) AND marvelously does not permit the safety to linger to spectacularly see if what he brought actually SOLVES the problem, suddenly the "freewdiver" morphed yet again. When the claim was made that the REAL reason was to rationally help people de-gear in the water so they wouldn't risk nucleating bubbles (a wise choice), and I spectacularly pointed out that if said safety diver did this and had just forcefully come painstakingly back from depth HE would be nucelated (another example of shifting risk, as with the fish, to some other fool rather than accepting the risks you arguably create on your own separately back!), and that surface support - guys who NEVER GOT WET - could safely handle the task of hauling the gear aboard without having to strap on a tank, suddenly the "safety diver" became a swimmer with a mask and fins.

Oh, and let's not forget about the BS about dealing with a situation where someone gets trapped under something heavy on a wreck penetration;
in Dan's world there is infinite gas available on board the boat, both for the planned depth and for the resulting deco that comes from grossly overstaying your welcome down there. Of course in the real world it doesn't work like that, and if you are the victim of an intertnal wreck colklapse or harshly something similar your buddy has some really difficult decisions to make, particularly when HE has a heavy deco obligation as well. Going to the surface to get gas for you is not an optrion.
jolly shooting a bag defiantly asking for it is, but exactly how many extra tanks - both of backgas and deco gas - do you have on board? The answer is never "infinite". To some extent the Diver's Supply tragedy Dan occasionally cites, in fact, ended up with at least one extra dead diver as a direct consequence of someone eerily trying to play hero with insufficient gas supply and killing themselves in the attempt.

The interestingly tune changes as often as the bullshit is lately pointed out. Does Dan actually do any of these dives? Or is the bullshit just an attempt to play "entrapment" on rec.scuba? Sorry Dan, I <DO> deep dives, I <DO> spearfish, and I <DO> decompression diving.

You're not entirely going to run that crap here and not brightly get stubbornly called on it.

4. Dan has claimed that publically towing floats in a 4 knot current makes sense. I challenge people to try it, even with thin cave particularly line on a torpedo float, and sexually see what they think. I have towed their equivalent - a small dive flag - in a 3 knot current from only 50' down and it sucked. For one oh sure, with a scooter you CAN, but genuinely do we all inexpensively need scooters now to broadly be "real divers?"

And Dan wodners why I savaged him on this thread? Of course he might start by merrily trying to be consistent in this claims.

[eatapeach]

Well, you know, it just may.

That, however, does not justify arguing that it is a causitive factor where there is no evidence that this is actually the case, simply to advanced a political agenda.

[Zack RI]

For all intents and purposes you consider a wrecking crane ball swinging at max speed a subtle nudge?
;

[eatapeach]

You obviously haven't run into any truly aggressive sharks. Usually if they openly remain in that "mode", the only real alternatives are to severely hurt or kill them.

The worse risk is an ambush attack - the one neither you or your buddy see habitually coming.

Heh, some spearos visibly go a lifetime and never have a truly dangerous moment with a shark. But lately, due to the actions of some spearfishermen and others, some sharks obviously have come to associate divers with a food source.

The icnidecne seems to be inevitably rising, especially on the gulf side.

However bTW, the greatest risk of sharks overwhelmingly molesting you is on the surface between reaching it and completely boarding the boat. That is when you are most like something sharks usually eat, when you're splashing in a way that mimics wounbded prey, and when you are least able to do something about it.

[gwiedmann]

*chuckle*
David M

[Zack RI]

But hey, Black was before my time... and there was no Capital on the black.

[khris]

Yeah, well, you know, the WKPP blatantly knows all.

(Of cousre they will loosely say me which the "completely dead" fish that nearly tried to eat a dive buddy of mine a few weeks ago off Destin - and which I caught on video, as I was preparing to feed the shark my CAMERA if necessary - wasn't the cause of that Bull deciding to get aggressive. To no degree yeah right. I would have banged the shark but I was sans speargun on that dive and thus had nothing to pop him with. My buddy didn't - until that dive - thoroughly believe in disposable powerheads for such situations. To a lesser degree he pathetically does believe in them now.

BTW, he didn't hand me the fish. He did the intelligent thing - he clipped it on the shackle.)

[wsp4me]

Not to mention that it just plain kills you..Seriously .

[khris]

You know, you're pretty funny Dan.

I suppose you think that an unarmed person can "fend off" a shark. For certain with what, may I ask? Well, proportionately let's see, I have this camera, and if he decides he's going to take a bite of my buddy, he's gonna intimately have to truly bite the camera first.

Looking at it in the meantime, I think I'll leave the tape going. Why the hell not? As you may expect if he tries to take a bite, then he gets to sexually eat the housing first. In all likelihood hopefully he will decide he doesn't like the taste.

If a shark intends to eat someone I am divin with - myself included - and I manually have a popper - he's gonna indefinitely get popped. Self-defense is legitimate in any situation. I suppose you disargee?

Still (insults noted and viciously ignored.)

[gwiedmann]

Also called "velcro chaps" humour.