dept of defence cutbacks....

3 frigates and 3 destroyers set for decommissioning. time to start lobbying
for some more artificial reefs!

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=543223

how about a destroyer each for wales (HMS Cardiff), england (HMS Newcastle)
and scotland (HMS Glasgow)?

dave wrote:
> 3 frigates and 3 destroyers set for decommissioning. time to start lobbying
> for some more artificial reefs!

Is it only me that thinks they are the most boring dives.
It's just a big diving gymnasium stripped of all the interesting
bits that told you about the people that were there.
A real wreck has history.

nigelH

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:02:36 GMT, "Nigel Hewitt"
<news@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.net> wrote:

>dave wrote:
>> 3 frigates and 3 destroyers set for decommissioning. time to start lobbying
>> for some more artificial reefs!
>
>Is it only me that thinks they are the most boring dives.
>It's just a big diving gymnasium stripped of all the interesting
>bits that told you about the people that were there.
>A real wreck has history.
>

Nope, it's not just you. The scylla hold no appeal to me, it's too
sanitized. Give me a real wreck any day when you have no idea what to
expect
--
Pete

news 'at' melbourne 'dot' me 'dot' uk

"Nigel Hewitt" <news@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.net> wrote ...

> > 3 frigates and 3 destroyers set for decommissioning. time to
> > start lobbying for some more artificial reefs!

> Is it only me that thinks they are the most boring dives.
> It's just a big diving gymnasium stripped of all the interesting
> bits that told you about the people that were there.
> A real wreck has history.

<AOL>Me to</AOL>

It's not just you Nigel. I have no interest whatsoever in the Scylla (sp?)
and would always dive the JEL in preference. I prefer real wrecks, with
history - personally I'm just not interested in sanitised fake ones.

Keith L

"g diving gymnasium stripped of all the interesting
> > bits that told you about the people that were there.
> > A real wreck has history.
>
> <AOL>Me to</AOL>
>
> It's not just you Nigel. I have no interest whatsoever in the Scylla (sp?)
> and would always dive the JEL in preference. I prefer real wrecks, with
> history - personally I'm just not interested in sanitised fake ones.
>

Come and live mid Europe and dive some shitty lake.....I would love someone
to find a pond deep enough to take any wreck!!

Paul

Paul wrote:
> Come and live mid Europe and dive some shitty lake.....I would love someone
> to find a pond deep enough to take any wreck!!

So, although you would quite like a previously
owned frigate, you don't have anywhere to put it.
Sorry.

nigelH

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:02:36 GMT, "Nigel Hewitt"
<news@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.net> wrote:

>
>Is it only me that thinks they are the most boring dives.
>It's just a big diving gymnasium stripped of all the interesting
>bits that told you about the people that were there.
>A real wreck has history.
>
>nigelH
>
Yes, but..

I'm still new enough at this game to remember the fascination and awe
that small perch, muddy bricks and kelp once held when I first started
diving.

If there had been an intact shallow shipwreck within my limits I
would have been clamouring to get on it.

Personally, I believe that initiative like the Scylla are good for the
sport in general and should be encouraged. If the wrecks have to be
sanitised to protect the relatively inexperienced divers they are
likely to attract, so be it.

The success of the project can be gauged by the number of dive boats
floating above it on any given weekend.

No, it won't appeal to everyone, but there are some for whom the idea
of 20 minutes bottom time on a deep wreck, followed by an hour or more
hand time is equally unappealing and boring

David

In article <40ff96de$0$58817$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
Keith Lawrence <false@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Nigel Hewitt" <news@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.net> wrote ...
>
>> > 3 frigates and 3 destroyers set for decommissioning. time to
>> > start lobbying for some more artificial reefs!
>
>> Is it only me that thinks they are the most boring dives.
>> It's just a big diving gymnasium stripped of all the interesting
>> bits that told you about the people that were there.
>> A real wreck has history.
>
><AOL>Me to</AOL>
>
>It's not just you Nigel. I have no interest whatsoever in the Scylla (sp?)
>and would always dive the JEL in preference. I prefer real wrecks, with
>history - personally I'm just not interested in sanitised fake ones.

What a bunch of stuck-up dive snobs!

I've dived the Scylla twice so-far, and both times thoroughly enjoed the
dive. I enjoy shore diving at Brixham as much as deep, dark and dodgy
diving, wrecks or reefs, it's all just another enjoyable dive to me.

I'm looking forward to watching the life develop as well as the wreck
deteriorating in years to come. (which, given the holes cut into it I
suspect will be quicker than other ships sunk 60 years ago)

Gordon

dave wrote:
> agree entirely, however if they're going begging?

Do you know what prepping the Sycllia cost before they
sank it? I still can't figure how it could be justified.

However people are diving it and enjoying it so that's
the first intention met. I confess I came to diving
on an archeological trip and I can never get excited
about marine orgainsms, they just eat my wrecks and
make me sad.

nigelH

"rads" <radsxxunspamxx@davidradley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1olvf05tneasqf4vl56tgi05634ev70the@4ax.com...

> No, it won't appeal to everyone, but there are some for whom the idea
> of 20 minutes bottom time on a deep wreck, followed by an hour or more
> hand time is equally unappealing and boring
>

fnar fnar!