PADI Training vs.. others

Reef Fish wrote:

>
> " I am a man or many words. If I were to speak contemporaneously,
> I could probably hold myself spellbound for an hour,"

now we understand you better than you understand us.



> -- Bob.
>

"VK" <vandit.kalia@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142108960.038138.307720@e56g2000cwe.googlegr oups.com...
>
> If you rely on smileys, subtletly is lost.

:^)

"Grumman-581" wrote

> Hmmm.... Thanks Reefy, sounds like I'm in pretty good company...

CTMRH

Curtis

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1142131379.033191.164640@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> > But that's rec.scuba's true color, isn't it? You have stooped even
> > LOWER than the known Dysfunctional GANG -- Alan, Crownfield,
> > Magilla, and Lee -- and THAT's pretty low.
>
> Hmmm.... Thanks Reefy, sounds like I'm in pretty good company...


Perhaps you haven't been watching their pointless NOISE making
and disruptive behavior in rec.scuba.locations. If you had, and you
think you're in good company of their kind of behavior, who am I
to argue with you?

For your having stayed out of their disruptive GANG behavior in
rec.scuba.locations, having NOTHING scuba related to discuss
except making noise, I had placed you above that.

I am sure your application to be a member of that GANG will be
cheerfully accepted by them. After all, that's REC.SCUBA's
true color, isn't it?

NOT rec.scuba.locations -- a group that seems foreign to you,
but the group which *I* read, and contribute to, primarily, in
SCUBA discussions.

-- Bob.

In rec.scuba, "Reef Fish" wrote in message
news:1142219153.328707.141160@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

<crossposting-snipped>

> I am sure your application to be a member of that GANG will be
> cheerfully accepted by them. After all, that's REC.SCUBA's
> true color, isn't it?

Nawh, the purpose of rec.scuba is not just to yank your chain... But it is a
nice side effect... <evil-grin>

sytech@yahoo.com wrote:


> I purposely qualified my statement when I said "I have decided that I
> will avoid any PADI courses iF AT ALL POSSIBLE". That does not mean
> that I will never take a PADI course but will likely prefer other types
> of instruction.

The only rational intrepretation of your statement is that you will *never* take a
PADI course if there is alternative. Even if we dismiss the alternative of simply not
taking a course at all, the claim is that you will choose an alternate agency
regardless of the merits. I'm not at all impressed by PADI, but if I'm interested in
any given course and have choices I'd make my choice based on which is better, based
on a number of factors. If all else is equal then I'll avoid PADI.

If I'm simply looking for an outfit to dive with the agency an outfit is affiliated
with is probably going to be meaningless. Far more operators are affiliated with
PADI than anyother agency. I don't know about you, but my criteria for an operator to
dive with and one to take a class with are substantially different.

--
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.

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1142131379.033191.164640@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> But that's rec.scuba's true color, isn't it? You have stooped even
>> LOWER than the known Dysfunctional GANG -- Alan, Crownfield,
>> Magilla, and Lee -- and THAT's pretty low.
>
> Hmmm.... Thanks Reefy, sounds like I'm in pretty good company...

he will never understand.

>
>

"bob crownfield" wrote

>>> But that's rec.scuba's true color, isn't it? You have stooped even
>>> LOWER than the known Dysfunctional GANG -- Alan, Crownfield,
>>> Magilla, and Lee -- and THAT's pretty low.

>> Hmmm.... Thanks Reefy, sounds like I'm in pretty good company...

> he will never understand.

OH, he understands. He's just pissed off because it's a status he once had,
that he'll never have again.

Lee

Thus spake Steve <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> :

>
>
>Charlie Hammond wrote:
>
>>>>How is this a "problem"? If it is true (I agree that it probably is)
>>>>then it shows that the current level of training produces divers with
>>>>the skills and knowledge to prevent a minor incident from becoming
>>>>serious. That is a good thing.
>
>If it's true, what it proves is that the agencies turn out a lot of divers that can't
>prevent minor problems. We can't be sure what prevents the minor problems from
>becoming major ones, but we do know that a lot of the major problems start as minor ones.
>
>> Opinions differ, but you'll surely have to explain this one to me in
>> more detail -- if you care that I understand it. I cannot see any
>> validity to this analogy.
>
>How about this analogy? The hiketo your favorite spot in the woods is an hour shorter
>if you take a shortcut that includes a walk along a ledge 200 feet up a cliff. The
>ledge is a full 4 feet wide, and the two times you tripped you didn't go over the
>edge. Does that mean that tripping on the ledge is't a problem??


Steve, can you correct your attributions? I can't tell what part of
the post is originally from Charlie and what part comes from some
other person.

Thanks
--
dillon

Could have been is in the past
Could be is in the future
There is only the now

Dillon Pyron wrote:

> Steve, can you correct your attributions? I can't tell what part of
> the post is originally from Charlie and what part comes from some
> other person.

Both quotes were from Charlie, with Lee's intermediate response edited out.

--
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.