which diver are you?, part *three*

Reef Fish wrote:
> Dave C wrote:
> > <snipped the personal attack on Joe>
>
> We seem to have perfect agreement on the issue. The above line is
> my only disagreement with what you posted. Perhaps you were thinking
> of a different Joe (after all, Joe Doe is as common as John Smiht).
> But the Joe in question (in part 1 of this thread) was the one who
> attacked ME for providing the CORRECT information that could save
> his, and his buddy's life, some day. Instead, he wrote,
>
snipped the recounting of Joe's initial attack and Bob's _justified_
counteract.
>
> How should I have put it, Dave?
>
> Nevermind.
>
> -- Bob.

Whoa... easy now, big fellah...

Oops, sorry, Bob, I didn't mean to get your defenses up!

Your counteract on Joe _was_ justified.

It's just a style thing. My issue.

8^)

Regards,

Dave C

Reef Fish wrote:
> Dave C wrote:
> > Reef Fish wrote:
> > <snipped the personal attack on Joe>
>
> We seem to have perfect agreement on the issue. The above line is
> my only disagreement with what you posted. Perhaps you were thinking
> of a different Joe (after all, Joe Doe is as common as John Smiht).
> But the Joe in question (in part 1 of this thread) was the one who
> attacked ME for providing the CORRECT information that could save
> his, and his buddy's life, some day. Instead, he wrote,
<snipped Bob's recounting of Joe's initial attack on Bob and Bob's
_justified_ counterattack>

> How should I have put it, Dave?
>
> Nevermind.
>
> -- Bob.

Whoa... easy now, big fella....

Oops, sorry, Bob, I didn't mean to get your defenses up!

Your personal counterattack on Joe _was_ justified, it's just not my
style, so I didn't want to repeat it. Just a style thing, not
substance.

Regards,

Dave C

Dave C wrote:

> 6. Does he feel a dive operation would or could be held legally liable
> for dive accidents resulting from the diver's own poor skills on
> non-guided dives?

At least for operators in the US, I think this is an area where they may be cutting
their own throats. It's already becoming problematic when an operator who only
provides basic transportation transports somebody who injures themselves and starts
looking for somebody else to be held responsible. It's a bit tougher to deny all
responsibility when you've turned away some divers as lacking the skills for any
given dive, but, in effect, have told a diver who gets injured that the dive was
within their ability.

--
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.

Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
> One wonders if that same faithful following in the past had provided the
> necessary funds to rebuild, thereby providing them the confidence to
> spend those funds knowing that their faithful following would remain so
> securing them a future among the survivors.


Yes, the "faithul" did provide the funds, in a manner of speaking: they
were the source of the reliable revenue stream that allowed the business
to prosper without having to go through "feast or famine" cyclic pain.

As such, the resort had the resources to buy plywood before the storm,
which minimized damage, which meant that it cost less to clean up
afterwords, etc, etc.


Case in point: in November 2004, two months after Ivan hit the Caymans,
Pirate's Point on Little Cayman was completely rebuilt. Of the guests
that were there for Thanksgiving week, several of them put down their
deposits to reserve their rooms for November 2005.

Meantime, on the Brac (which got a lesser hit), I understand that
neither Divi nor Brac Reef have fully completed the reconstruction of
their docks. Wonder how many room deposits they have received in the
past six months that were for a full year in advance of the stay...



-hh