Fire coral

"Bradburn Fentress" wrote

>> We/they deserve their reputation. While you're right that many
>> photographers have better than average buoyancy control,

> I don't deserve that reputation. Not in the least. Nor do any of the
> photogs I dive with. That in and of itself renders any claim to the
> contrary little more than a bitch. Crass generalizations serve no idea
> well.

Do you dive with any photographers whose names I'd recognize? If not, what
makes you think your experience supercedes mine?

>>While you're right that many photographers have better than average
>>buoyancy control,
>
> And I didn't say buoyancy control...I said "buoyancy, control etc.". It's
> a small but great difference. I don't find buoyancy control the
> determining factor in whether a diver is in control or not. And I think
> the overwhelming infatuation with buoyancy control severely limits what
> most divers (photogs, sightseers and hunters alike), aspire too.

What's better buoyancy if not buoyancy control? Perhaps you don't find
buoyancy control the determining factor in whether a diver is in control or
not, but pretty much everybody else does.

>> that's not the problem. Anybody can stay off the bottom if they pay
>> attention.
>
> As if my point was that photogs are good divers because they stay off the
> bottom? That's a bit of an inane implication.....even for a Usenet.

Nobody cares what your point was. That was my point. You don't like it,
post one you like better. OK, so you don't think a diver that stays off the
bottom is better than one that can't. Guess what, pretty much everybody
else does.

>> Photographers are notorious for not paying attention.

> In the context that most divers are shitheads with attentions spans in the
> milliseconds, I don't argue that. What I was speaking to was the
> suggestion that photographers are worse divers than the general diving
> public.

Photographers, as a whole, are worse divers than the general diving public,
at least from the perspective of conservation, which is what this thread
morphed into. Out of that context, they're probably head and shoulders
above the average. They/we long since learned to dive well enough to do so
without a lot of conscious thought, to dive safely while focusing almost
completely on the subject and on composing and taking the picture.
Unfortunately, staying clear of the reef is not something you can relegate
to the background. You have to pay attention to your surroundings and to
your relationship to them and photographers, as a rule, just aren't all that
good at that. Sorry.

Lee

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:6LRSd.4356$Ba3.2409@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "Bradburn Fentress" wrote
>
> >> We/they deserve their reputation. While you're right that many
> >> photographers have better than average buoyancy control,
>
> > I don't deserve that reputation. Not in the least. Nor do any of the
> > photogs I dive with. That in and of itself renders any claim to the
> > contrary little more than a bitch. Crass generalizations serve no idea
> > well.
>
> Do you dive with any photographers whose names I'd recognize? If not,
what
> makes you think your experience supercedes mine?
>
> >>While you're right that many photographers have better than average
> >>buoyancy control,
> >
> > And I didn't say buoyancy control...I said "buoyancy, control etc.".
It's
> > a small but great difference. I don't find buoyancy control the
> > determining factor in whether a diver is in control or not. And I think
> > the overwhelming infatuation with buoyancy control severely limits what
> > most divers (photogs, sightseers and hunters alike), aspire too.
>
> What's better buoyancy if not buoyancy control? Perhaps you don't find
> buoyancy control the determining factor in whether a diver is in control
or
> not, but pretty much everybody else does.
>
> >> that's not the problem. Anybody can stay off the bottom if they pay
> >> attention.
> >
> > As if my point was that photogs are good divers because they stay off
the
> > bottom? That's a bit of an inane implication.....even for a Usenet.
>
> Nobody cares what your point was. That was my point. You don't like it,
> post one you like better. OK, so you don't think a diver that stays off
the
> bottom is better than one that can't. Guess what, pretty much everybody
> else does.

:^)

>
> >> Photographers are notorious for not paying attention.
>
> > In the context that most divers are shitheads with attentions spans in
the
> > milliseconds, I don't argue that. What I was speaking to was the
> > suggestion that photographers are worse divers than the general diving
> > public.
>
> Photographers, as a whole, are worse divers than the general diving
public,
> at least from the perspective of conservation, which is what this thread
> morphed into. Out of that context, they're probably head and shoulders
> above the average. They/we long since learned to dive well enough to do
so
> without a lot of conscious thought, to dive safely while focusing almost
> completely on the subject and on composing and taking the picture.
> Unfortunately, staying clear of the reef is not something you can relegate
> to the background. You have to pay attention to your surroundings and to
> your relationship to them and photographers, as a rule, just aren't all
that
> good at that. Sorry.

Are you sure? After all, it really takes some adeptness to skewer one hand
on an urchin and the other on the spines of a lionfish.

That sort of thing couldn't happen to just anybody.

I can't help but wonder with what the poor guy was holding his camera. I
guess he didn't have 'nothing but bad luck' . . .he was lucky enough to have
Brad as his buddy. He could have been buddied with someone that wasn't
paying any attention, then he'd have been f . . .erm.

"chilly" wrote

> Are you sure? After all, it really takes some adeptness to skewer one
> hand
> on an urchin and the other on the spines of a lionfish.
> That sort of thing couldn't happen to just anybody.

Good point.

"chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message
news:_uXSd.479885$6l.33895@pd7tw2no...

> Are you sure? After all, it really takes some adeptness to skewer one
> hand
> on an urchin and the other on the spines of a lionfish.

Oh now chilly, are you calling me a liar, or are you saying a good diver
couldn't ever get into a out-of-control circumstance?

> That sort of thing couldn't happen to just anybody.

I can't think of anyone it couldn't happen to.

> I can't help but wonder with what the poor guy was holding his camera.

Who said he continued to hold his camera?

> I
> guess he didn't have 'nothing but bad luck' . . .

Of course it was simply bad luck.

> he was lucky enough to have
> Brad as his buddy. He could have been buddied with someone that wasn't
> paying any attention, then he'd have been f . . .erm.

What does f...erm mean?

"Bradburn Fentress" <pleased@n't.spam> wrote in message
news:KS2Td.11$BI1.1159@news.uswest.net...
>
> "chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> wrote in message
> news:_uXSd.479885$6l.33895@pd7tw2no...
>
> > Are you sure? After all, it really takes some adeptness to skewer one
> > hand
> > on an urchin and the other on the spines of a lionfish.
>
> Oh now chilly, are you calling me a liar, or are you saying a good diver
> couldn't ever get into a out-of-control circumstance?

Of course I'm not calling you a liar. I never call anyone a liar. I have
no reason to doubt your story. Though, you have to admit, it's a doozy. :^)

I'm just having a little fun here. I'd always noticed that you had a great
sense of humor. Didn't think you'd mind so much.

>
> > That sort of thing couldn't happen to just anybody.
>
> I can't think of anyone it couldn't happen to.

Uh . . .

>
> > I can't help but wonder with what the poor guy was holding his camera.
>
> Who said he continued to hold his camera?

OK. What happened to his camera?

>
> > I
> > guess he didn't have 'nothing but bad luck' . . .
>
> Of course it was simply bad luck.

Like I said before "if it wasn't for bad luck, he'd have had no luck at
all."

>
> > he was lucky enough to have
> > Brad as his buddy. He could have been buddied with someone that wasn't
> > paying any attention, then he'd have been f . . .erm.
>
> What does f...erm mean?

:^)

>

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:6LRSd.4356$Ba3.2409@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "Bradburn Fentress" wrote
>
>>> We/they deserve their reputation. While you're right that many
>>> photographers have better than average buoyancy control,
>
>> I don't deserve that reputation. Not in the least. Nor do any of the
>> photogs I dive with. That in and of itself renders any claim to the
>> contrary little more than a bitch. Crass generalizations serve no idea
>> well.
>
> Do you dive with any photographers whose names I'd recognize?

Yes.

> If not, what makes you think your experience supercedes mine?

What supercedes the crass generalization that all deserve the reputation is
the fact that some photographers don't. As far as your experience goes, if
you believe it is so encompassing as to make such a generalization, then I
believe it is totally irrelevant.

Whether or not I believe my underwater photography experience supercedes
yours is of no matter. Except maybe to you, which is of no matter to me.

>>>While you're right that many photographers have better than average
>>>buoyancy control,
>>
>> And I didn't say buoyancy control...I said "buoyancy, control etc.". It's
>> a small but great difference. I don't find buoyancy control the
>> determining factor in whether a diver is in control or not. And I think
>> the overwhelming infatuation with buoyancy control severely limits what
>> most divers (photogs, sightseers and hunters alike), aspire too.
>
> What's better buoyancy if not buoyancy control?

I think the ability to read, comprehend and articulate a response that bears
some semblance of relativity to the original comment is better.

> Perhaps you don't find buoyancy control the determining factor in whether
> a diver is in control or not, but pretty much everybody else does.

Then I am indeed in conflict with "everybody else", as defined by you. I
have seen tons of divers with good buoyancy skills who were out of control.
Buoyancy control is just part of the equation to being an in-control diver.
But because so many people subscribe to your assessment that have that skill
is all that is needed, they aspire to little else.

>>> that's not the problem. Anybody can stay off the bottom if they pay
>>> attention.
>>
>> As if my point was that photogs are good divers because they stay off the
>> bottom? That's a bit of an inane implication.....even for a Usenet.
>
> Nobody cares what your point was.

Nobody else but you responded, so in their case that is likely true. But if
I am to assume you are not a complete imbecile, then I indeed must believe
you responded because you did care what my point was.

> That was my point. You don't like it, post one you like better.

Don't need to. I can't improve upon the stupidity set forth by you, that any
diver with buoyancy control is by default an in-control diver.

> OK, so you don't think a diver that stays off the bottom is better than
> one that can't.

Of course I don't. I sit or lay on the sea bottom all the time. Am I to
assume by your comment that just because someone else floats 15 feet above
me they are better. And the person who floats 20 feet above is better still?

> Guess what, pretty much everybody else does.

Nah. I'm certain that "pretty much everyone else" who has an opinion of who
is better, based upon who is on the bottom, has a lot to do with why they
are on the bottom, how they got there, and where on the bottom they are.

In general I find it more appropriate that the bad diver stay way from the
bottom and the good diver be the only one close to the reef or seabed. You
on the other hand seem to think the diver floating has to be better and the
diver with something to do on the bottom has to be worse.

I see now why your generalizations seem so insipid to me.

> Photographers, as a whole, are worse divers than the general diving
> public, at least from the perspective of conservation, which is what this
> thread morphed into.

Nah, they are no worse or better, on average. They are just another equal
part of a diving public that isn't very good in general.

> Out of that context, they're probably head and shoulders above the
> average.

Don't buy that either. They have learned to dive with a camera in their
hand, but they still tend to subscribe to your position that buoyancy
control is all one needs to be an in-control diver.

> They/we long since learned to dive well enough to do so without a lot of
> conscious thought, to dive safely while focusing almost completely on the
> subject and on composing and taking the picture.

That's not they way I dive, nor the way I shoot.

> Unfortunately, staying clear of the reef is not something you can relegate
> to the background. You have to pay attention to your surroundings and to
> your relationship to them and photographers, as a rule, just aren't all
> that good at that.

They are no better and no worse than anyone else. And they have no greater
aspirations to be better divers than anyone else.

Most, like you, think having buoyancy control is the equivalent to being in
control.

I'll let you go on your way Lee. After all, you don't care what my point is,
so you won't be replying.

Adios schlappschwanz

Brien Alkire wrote:

> I miscalculated. It
> happened on 18 February, much less than two weeks.

Miscalculated? I don't know where you're posting from, but in my time zone it's mid
afternoon on the 23rd. Your original post was 3 days ago, so it sounds like you
should have blamed it on a typo, saying you meant to say two days. Or maybe it just
hurt so bad for the first couple of days that it felt a lot longer?

--
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.

Bradburn Fentress wrote:

> Photogs get a bad rap though. On the average I don't find them any worse or
> better than sightseeing divers. When you start looking at the best of both
> groups though, photogs are probably better, at least in terms of buoyancy,
> control etc. Sometimes just having to understand the environment certain
> animals live in, and the behaviors they exhibit and the inter-dependencies
> of flora and fauna makes one a better citizen of the reef by default. By and
> large sightseers don't really have to have knowledge to that specific.

I side with Lee on this one. There are plenty of divers who grab all sorts of things
to have a look, or who just don't have a clue, but nowadays a lot of photographers
are just your average diver with a few bucks to spend on a camera. On the whole, it
seems to me that photographers are more likely than the non-photographers to be
trying to get closer in order to get the shot, whether that simply means being closer
to the reef in general, or finding the right camera angle. At the extreme, it's
photographers, not sightseeing divers, who break off pieces of coral to improve their
composition or put the seahorse where they want it.


> On the whole though, scuba divers as a group are real shitheads. We've all
> seen it :^)

We're all playing in a fragile environment for which we aren't adapted. Some divers
are just careless or clueless, but until we grow pectoral, dorsal, or ventral fins we
all lack the manueverability of fish. Adding a camera to the mix reduces the ability
for sculling, which makes it that much easier to end up closer than you intended when
there's a bit of current or surge even for those who are still paying attention.


--
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.

"Steve" <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cR5Td.11382$534.3323@twister.nyc.rr.com...

> for sculling, which makes it that much easier to end up closer than you
> intended when there's a bit of current or surge even for those who are
> still paying attention.

I view sculling as the mark of an out-of-control diver, on the bottom or
not. It's like soccer: no hands allowed. That way your fingers are left
free to poke things.

"Steve" <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cR5Td.11382$534.3323@twister.nyc.rr.com...

> I side with Lee on this one. There are plenty of divers who grab all sorts
> of things to have a look, or who just don't have a clue, but nowadays a
> lot of photographers are just your average diver with a few bucks to spend
> on a camera.

You are talking about bad divers who carry a camera around. There is a
difference between them and photogs who are committed to the craft. Believe
me, *most* people committed to being successful at the craft are
over-the-top in terms of being good visitors to the sea.

> We're all playing in a fragile environment for which we aren't adapted.
> Some divers are just careless or clueless, but until we grow pectoral,
> dorsal, or ventral fins we all lack the manueverability of fish.

> Adding a camera to the mix reduces the ability for sculling, which makes
> it that much easier to end up closer than you intended when there's a bit
> of current or surge even for those who are still paying attention.

I don't know what to say....even a diver without a camera should know how to
dive and control their body without using their hands. You are talking about
a bad diver making himself worse by carrying something underwater, This
isn't a comment on photographers, but rather a comment on a bad diver.

Judging all photographers on the basis of the average diver with a few bucks
to spend on a camera, is like judging all scuba divers on the basis of the
newly cert'ed on their first open water dive.