BSAC & Regulator Donating : A Statement

"Nick Eden" <null@localhost.com> wrote in message
news:8si4sv42b983uu4e15pfadanhcpa92ukh2@4ax.com

> They can teach it, but they can't claim that it's part of the Ocean
> Diver syllabus. This isn't complicated is it?

It's not at all complicated. It's also not what the NDO's statement
says.

Therein lies the problem.

Vic.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Keith Lawrence" <false@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3fc1b78d$0$52882$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk.. .
> "Vic" <vic@innocent.com> wrote in message
>
> > So if the statement is valid only within a given context, would it not
> > make sense to state that context?
>
> > > Now you
> > > have taken that to read "we must not teach...".
>
> > I have - because others will...
>
> We don't formally teach ankle weights either, so lets say we have a "ban"
on
> them as well shall we...
>

The obvious difference being that the NDO has never issued a statement even
remotely resembling, "We don't teach use of ankle weights." Neither has she
issued one which states, "We don't *formally* teach donation of the
primary." She has issued a rather more unequivocal one which says, "We
don't teach donation of the primary."

I think most people contributing to this thread wouldn't mind a statement
similar to the middle one above, but strongly object to the last. We all
look forward to the clarification, and it appears some people's membership
renewals (not mine) will depend on what it contains.

Neil