PADI Training vs.. others

""Magilla"" wrote

>> You've mentioned a lot of bullshit about how great you think you are.
>> Your saying it does not make it so.
>
> Nodding
>
>> I don't care how many slivers of lead you stick where, if you have to use
>> gas in your BCD to control your buoyancy, you're not correctly weighted.
>
> Disagree.
>
> But, you probably know why.

Good point. Different variables.

Lee

Lee Bell wrote:
> ""Magilla"" wrote

Lee, let me hasten to insert the attribution of what YOU bullshitted:
>
Lee >> I don't care how many slivers of lead you stick where, if you
have to use
Lee >> gas in your BCD to control your buoyancy, you're not correctly
weighted.
> >
> > Disagree.

For once, the gorilla was actually correct in pointing out your
BULLSHIT!
> >
> > But, you probably know why.

Lee who had just made the assinine statement and argued that he
could compensate 6 lbs of weight by breath control ALONE?? You've
gotta be KIDDING to think that Lee knows why.

He only knows how to BULLSHIT, and keep on bull-shitting!


> Good point. Different variables.
>
> Lee

Lee, you're such an ignorant simpleton when it comes to dive PHYSICS
and PHYSIOLOGY that even the gorilla knows enough to tell you that
you are FOS!

-- Bob.

Lee Bell wrote:
> ""Magilla"" wrote

Lee, let me hasten to insert the attribution of what YOU bullshitted:
>
Lee >> I don't care how many slivers of lead you stick where, if you
have to use
Lee >> gas in your BCD to control your buoyancy, you're not correctly
weighted.
> >
> > Disagree.

For once, the gorilla was actually correct in pointing out your
BULLSHIT!
> >
> > But, you probably know why.

Lee who had just made the assinine statement and argued that he
could compensate 6 lbs of weight by breath control ALONE?? You've
gotta be KIDDING to think that Lee knows why.

He only knows how to BULLSHIT, and keep on bull-shitting!


> Good point. Different variables.
>
> Lee

Lee, you're such an ignorant simpleton when it comes to dive PHYSICS
and PHYSIOLOGY that even the gorilla knows enough to tell you that
you are FOS!

-- Bob.

Lee Bell wrote:
> ""Magilla"" wrote

Lee, let me hasten to insert the attribution of what YOU bullshitted:
>
Lee >> I don't care how many slivers of lead you stick where, if you
have to use
Lee >> gas in your BCD to control your buoyancy, you're not correctly
weighted.
> >
> > Disagree.

For once, the gorilla was actually correct in pointing out your
BULLSHIT!
> >
> > But, you probably know why.

Lee who had just made the assinine statement and argued that he
could compensate 6 lbs of weight by breath control ALONE?? You've
gotta be KIDDING to think that Lee knows why.

He only knows how to BULLSHIT, and keep on bull-shitting!


> Good point. Different variables.
>
> Lee

Lee, you're such an ignorant simpleton when it comes to dive PHYSICS
and PHYSIOLOGY that even the gorilla knows enough to tell you that
you are FOS!

-- Bob.

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:TCeUf.1233$KC3.278@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> "chilly" wrote
>
(snip)> > No doubt that is true, however, not every diver that goes into the
water
> > is
> > properly weighted.
>
> So fix the problem rather than forcing something on those that don't have
> one.

Eh?

>
> > While you and I and many here know this to be true, many, many vacation
> > divers are short on experience. Further, in many of the destinations I
> > dive, the DM's consider themselves more than guides and take great pride
> > in
> > watching after their flock of novices (and others).
> > Most of them are also well prepared to do that too.
>
> Darwin's rules sometimes apply.
>
> Remember the popular position, even in this forum, that diving is not
> dangerous.

Agreed. But let us not get off track here.

>
(snip)>
> > We are agreed. Regardless, many's the DM that acts as everyone's buddy
> > and
> > many's the diver that while still a novice believes in the buddy system.
>
> There's nothing wrong with the buddy system. There's a great deal wrong
> with anyone that thinks the DM is everyone's buddy, particularly if the
one
> that thinks it is the DM. Everybody, and I hope DM's in particular,
should
> know that a proper buddy team consists of two divers, both of whom know
that
> they are one another's buddy and nobody else's. That's not to say that
they
> should not help others, only that, when they do, they should know that
they
> are abandoning their buddy.

Let the record reflect that I did not abandon my buddy when I went to the
aid of the other diver.

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:TCeUf.1233$KC3.278@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> "chilly" wrote
>
(snip)> > No doubt that is true, however, not every diver that goes into the
water
> > is
> > properly weighted.
>
> So fix the problem rather than forcing something on those that don't have
> one.

Eh?

>
> > While you and I and many here know this to be true, many, many vacation
> > divers are short on experience. Further, in many of the destinations I
> > dive, the DM's consider themselves more than guides and take great pride
> > in
> > watching after their flock of novices (and others).
> > Most of them are also well prepared to do that too.
>
> Darwin's rules sometimes apply.
>
> Remember the popular position, even in this forum, that diving is not
> dangerous.

Agreed. But let us not get off track here.

>
(snip)>
> > We are agreed. Regardless, many's the DM that acts as everyone's buddy
> > and
> > many's the diver that while still a novice believes in the buddy system.
>
> There's nothing wrong with the buddy system. There's a great deal wrong
> with anyone that thinks the DM is everyone's buddy, particularly if the
one
> that thinks it is the DM. Everybody, and I hope DM's in particular,
should
> know that a proper buddy team consists of two divers, both of whom know
that
> they are one another's buddy and nobody else's. That's not to say that
they
> should not help others, only that, when they do, they should know that
they
> are abandoning their buddy.

Let the record reflect that I did not abandon my buddy when I went to the
aid of the other diver.

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:TCeUf.1233$KC3.278@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> "chilly" wrote
>
(snip)> > No doubt that is true, however, not every diver that goes into the
water
> > is
> > properly weighted.
>
> So fix the problem rather than forcing something on those that don't have
> one.

Eh?

>
> > While you and I and many here know this to be true, many, many vacation
> > divers are short on experience. Further, in many of the destinations I
> > dive, the DM's consider themselves more than guides and take great pride
> > in
> > watching after their flock of novices (and others).
> > Most of them are also well prepared to do that too.
>
> Darwin's rules sometimes apply.
>
> Remember the popular position, even in this forum, that diving is not
> dangerous.

Agreed. But let us not get off track here.

>
(snip)>
> > We are agreed. Regardless, many's the DM that acts as everyone's buddy
> > and
> > many's the diver that while still a novice believes in the buddy system.
>
> There's nothing wrong with the buddy system. There's a great deal wrong
> with anyone that thinks the DM is everyone's buddy, particularly if the
one
> that thinks it is the DM. Everybody, and I hope DM's in particular,
should
> know that a proper buddy team consists of two divers, both of whom know
that
> they are one another's buddy and nobody else's. That's not to say that
they
> should not help others, only that, when they do, they should know that
they
> are abandoning their buddy.

Let the record reflect that I did not abandon my buddy when I went to the
aid of the other diver.

In article <CIeUf.1234$KC3.1106@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> writes:
>"Charlie Hammond" wrote
>
>
>>>> [remaining NEUTRALLY BUOYANT throughout an entire dive, by
>>>> changing breathing pattern alone]
>>>> It may not be good practice.
>>>
>>>Why not?
>
>> Because it could potentially alter rates of nitrogen absorption and/or
>> off-gassing; or increase the risk of lung expansion injury.
>
>Since nitrogen absorption is a function of relative partial pressures,
>changing your breathing pattern could slightly alter it. Longer retention
>of gas partially depleated of nitrogen or replacing it sooner might slightly
>increase the average partial pressure of nitrogen and, therefore nitrogen
>absorption. Someone's going to have to come up with some good evidence that
>it's significant before I start worrying about it.
>
>Altering breathing patterns does not increase the risk of a lung expansion
>injury. Only holding your breath while ascending does that and nobody in
>this discussion does, or would recommend that.

Lee --

I did say "many not be good practice", not "is not..."!

I agree with you that any difference in nitrogen absorption or off-gassing
is most likely not significant. However, I do think it is something to
consider.

I disagee that "Altering breathing patterns does not increase the risk of a
lung expansion injury." I am of the opinion that someone (NOT necessarily
you!) who is trying to breath while keeping his/her lungs as FULL or as
nearly EMPTY as possible may well make the mistake of holding his/her breath.

Please take note that I am NOT saying there is anything wrong or dangerous
about your (Lee Bell's) pratices. However, other people attempting the same
thing might should be cautious.

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
(hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

In article <CIeUf.1234$KC3.1106@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> writes:
>"Charlie Hammond" wrote
>
>
>>>> [remaining NEUTRALLY BUOYANT throughout an entire dive, by
>>>> changing breathing pattern alone]
>>>> It may not be good practice.
>>>
>>>Why not?
>
>> Because it could potentially alter rates of nitrogen absorption and/or
>> off-gassing; or increase the risk of lung expansion injury.
>
>Since nitrogen absorption is a function of relative partial pressures,
>changing your breathing pattern could slightly alter it. Longer retention
>of gas partially depleated of nitrogen or replacing it sooner might slightly
>increase the average partial pressure of nitrogen and, therefore nitrogen
>absorption. Someone's going to have to come up with some good evidence that
>it's significant before I start worrying about it.
>
>Altering breathing patterns does not increase the risk of a lung expansion
>injury. Only holding your breath while ascending does that and nobody in
>this discussion does, or would recommend that.

Lee --

I did say "many not be good practice", not "is not..."!

I agree with you that any difference in nitrogen absorption or off-gassing
is most likely not significant. However, I do think it is something to
consider.

I disagee that "Altering breathing patterns does not increase the risk of a
lung expansion injury." I am of the opinion that someone (NOT necessarily
you!) who is trying to breath while keeping his/her lungs as FULL or as
nearly EMPTY as possible may well make the mistake of holding his/her breath.

Please take note that I am NOT saying there is anything wrong or dangerous
about your (Lee Bell's) pratices. However, other people attempting the same
thing might should be cautious.

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
(hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

In article <CIeUf.1234$KC3.1106@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> writes:
>"Charlie Hammond" wrote
>
>
>>>> [remaining NEUTRALLY BUOYANT throughout an entire dive, by
>>>> changing breathing pattern alone]
>>>> It may not be good practice.
>>>
>>>Why not?
>
>> Because it could potentially alter rates of nitrogen absorption and/or
>> off-gassing; or increase the risk of lung expansion injury.
>
>Since nitrogen absorption is a function of relative partial pressures,
>changing your breathing pattern could slightly alter it. Longer retention
>of gas partially depleated of nitrogen or replacing it sooner might slightly
>increase the average partial pressure of nitrogen and, therefore nitrogen
>absorption. Someone's going to have to come up with some good evidence that
>it's significant before I start worrying about it.
>
>Altering breathing patterns does not increase the risk of a lung expansion
>injury. Only holding your breath while ascending does that and nobody in
>this discussion does, or would recommend that.

Lee --

I did say "many not be good practice", not "is not..."!

I agree with you that any difference in nitrogen absorption or off-gassing
is most likely not significant. However, I do think it is something to
consider.

I disagee that "Altering breathing patterns does not increase the risk of a
lung expansion injury." I am of the opinion that someone (NOT necessarily
you!) who is trying to breath while keeping his/her lungs as FULL or as
nearly EMPTY as possible may well make the mistake of holding his/her breath.

Please take note that I am NOT saying there is anything wrong or dangerous
about your (Lee Bell's) pratices. However, other people attempting the same
thing might should be cautious.

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
(hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.