PADI Training vs.. others

"VK" <vandit.kalia@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142108960.038138.307720@e56g2000cwe.googlegr oups.com...
>
> If you rely on smileys, subtletly is lost.

:^)

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142131379.033191.164640@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> But that's rec.scuba's true color, isn't it? You have stooped even
> LOWER than the known Dysfunctional GANG -- Alan, Crownfield,
> Magilla, and Lee -- and THAT's pretty low.

Hmmm.... Thanks Reefy, sounds like I'm in pretty good company...

"Grumman-581" wrote

> Hmmm.... Thanks Reefy, sounds like I'm in pretty good company...

CTMRH

Curtis

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1142131379.033191.164640@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> > But that's rec.scuba's true color, isn't it? You have stooped even
> > LOWER than the known Dysfunctional GANG -- Alan, Crownfield,
> > Magilla, and Lee -- and THAT's pretty low.
>
> Hmmm.... Thanks Reefy, sounds like I'm in pretty good company...


Perhaps you haven't been watching their pointless NOISE making
and disruptive behavior in rec.scuba.locations. If you had, and you
think you're in good company of their kind of behavior, who am I
to argue with you?

For your having stayed out of their disruptive GANG behavior in
rec.scuba.locations, having NOTHING scuba related to discuss
except making noise, I had placed you above that.

I am sure your application to be a member of that GANG will be
cheerfully accepted by them. After all, that's REC.SCUBA's
true color, isn't it?

NOT rec.scuba.locations -- a group that seems foreign to you,
but the group which *I* read, and contribute to, primarily, in
SCUBA discussions.

-- Bob.

sytech@yahoo.com wrote:


> I purposely qualified my statement when I said "I have decided that I
> will avoid any PADI courses iF AT ALL POSSIBLE". That does not mean
> that I will never take a PADI course but will likely prefer other types
> of instruction.

The only rational intrepretation of your statement is that you will *never* take a
PADI course if there is alternative. Even if we dismiss the alternative of simply not
taking a course at all, the claim is that you will choose an alternate agency
regardless of the merits. I'm not at all impressed by PADI, but if I'm interested in
any given course and have choices I'd make my choice based on which is better, based
on a number of factors. If all else is equal then I'll avoid PADI.

If I'm simply looking for an outfit to dive with the agency an outfit is affiliated
with is probably going to be meaningless. Far more operators are affiliated with
PADI than anyother agency. I don't know about you, but my criteria for an operator to
dive with and one to take a class with are substantially different.

--
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.

In article <1142219153.328707.141160@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:

€
€ NOT rec.scuba.locations -- a group that seems foreign to you,
€ but the group which *I* read, and contribute to, primarily, in
€ SCUBA discussions.
€


Your posting history suggests otherwise. Most of what you post here is
braggadocio, not scuba content.

Alan Street wrote:
> In article <1142219153.328707.141160@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> €
> € NOT rec.scuba.locations -- a group that seems foreign to you,
> € but the group which *I* read, and contribute to, primarily, in
> € SCUBA discussions.
> €
>
>
> Your posting history suggests otherwise. Most of what you post here is
> braggadocio, not scuba content.

Au contraire!

Those with no scuba content (such as this) are always my rebuttal
or response to no-scuba-content noise by the GANG (especially
the named gang members: Lee, Crownfield, Magilla, Alan Street,
and other former members now silent).

Take away those posts, it's ALL scuba discussions, about scuba
locations and other SCUBA related items.


Do the same with all the non-scuba noise posts of members of
the GANG, and what you have left by the gang members is
either vacuous or still have no scuba content. Alan Street is
a fine example of such a poster. Bob Crownfield is a perfect
example of an always-no-scuba-content poster.

-- Bob.

In article <9md612te6r8jtn2grht429tlopnn919r2p@4ax.com>,
dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com (Dillon Pyron) wrote:

> *From:* Dillon Pyron <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com>
> *Date:* Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:51:03 -0600
>
> Thus spake morgand@cix.compulink.co.uk :

> >Despite my training these things still happened.......they are
> >accidents......but not what i would call "diving" accidents.
>
> I call them screw ups. We all do them. It's part of being human.

Yes, none of us are perfect......allthough some think they are pretty
close, i try to stay clear of those.

> >Nowadays..........i allways check my wifes kit, in fact we both
> understand >that it is my responsibility to make sure everything is ok,
> and i do.....i >also check myself.......
>
> Dave, if you're going to check your wife's gear, she should be
> checking yours. It's easy to miss something or do it wrong, twice as
> easy to do it twice. If you're going to check, two sets of eyeballs
> are always better. Cross check.
>
> It's your responsibility to take care of your own gear and your wife's
> to take care of hers. I hate to rag on you like this, and hope you
> won't take it as such, but we are each responsible for our own
> actions. If she really wants to be a "good buddy" she has to shoulder
> her part of the load.

No problem........constructive criticism is good, but what suits one does
not allways suit another, your regime may not suit me, it may be just
idiosyncrasy on my part, but nothing is cast in stone, there is no
definitive "right" way...(in my view)......i think the important thing is
that all or both parties know and understand what their responsibilities
are.....any partnership, buddy system, marriage, or business is based upon
trust........knowing what or who you can depend on......the kit "IS" my
responsibility, my wife has other responsibilities.......and she
undertakes those without me having to think about them.........the most
important one is after we get out of the water.........making the
Tea...which she does without fail on every occasion, for me and the guide.
Its not a chauvinistic thing its just something that we have taken on.

I understand where you are coming from, and in the main i agree, maybe we
like diving on our own (not in groups) because it gives us the flexibility
to do our own thing.......like, the boat goes when we are ready......
My wife does shoulder her part of the load, when i have my camera, she is
watching my back, she is being my buddy, she also knows that because of
the camera, i am not buddy'ing her..........those with camera's will
understand what i mean. When she has the Video camera and i dont take mine
then the roll reverse's, i am looking out for her and watching her back
"at all" times......

When your just certified these things are not allways apparent, its called
experience...........jou cant buy that, you cant train for it, you get it
often at great cost, but only from time in the water........
Thank's for your view's, i appreciatte them.


> >...but the most important thing for me is to take
> >things easy....dont rush (thats why my accidents happened, diving in a
> >group) i dont give a shit if i am last.....they can wait.....if they
> >wont.....i dont go, i only go when i am ready. I have not done solo
> diving >but i dont think it would faze me........diving and doing macro
> photo is >as good as diving on your own, more often than not i look up
> from my >subject and find no one to be seen....
>
> Yup. When I'm shooting, I'm a piss poor buddy. Good thing Carol is a
> good one.
>
> >........i just carry on......guide
> >and wife know where i am, they complain about me sitting and watching
> >nudibranch or shrimp for twenty minutes........how can it ake that
> long to >take a photo they say..............i have dived at night
> without torch or >lights...........the eyes do get used to the
> darkness........there does >have to be some light of course but i found
> it ok......
> >As for PADI training.......its down to the individual instructor i
> think, >there are good and bad in all walks of life........i just think
> that the >more time you spend in the water, under different conditions
> and locations >that is the best trainer you can get..........as long as
> you have mastered >the basics.
>
>
> >
> >
> >www.seatreker.com
> >Dave Morgan @ Work in the UK
> --
> dillon
>
> Could have been is in the past
> Could be is in the future
> There is only the now


www.seatreker.com
Dave Morgan @ Work in the UK

"Reef Fish" wrote

>>> ? NOT rec.scuba.locations -- a group that seems foreign to you,
>>> ? but the group which *I* read, and contribute to, primarily, in
>>> ? SCUBA discussions.

>> Your posting history suggests otherwise. Most of what you post here is
>> braggadocio, not scuba content.

> Au contraire!
> Those with no scuba content (such as this) are always my rebuttal
or response to no-scuba-content noise by the GANG (especially
the named gang members: Lee, Crownfield, Magilla, Alan Street,
and other former members now silent).

Which comprise the majority of what you post here, exactly as Alan stated.

> Take away those posts, it's ALL scuba discussions, about scuba
> locations and other SCUBA related items.

Are they suddenly not your posts, or have you simply decided not to count
them because they don't support you?
Is that your idea of a statistically valid approach?

Lee

Reef Fish wrote:
> Alan Street wrote:
>> In article <1142219153.328707.141160@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
>> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> €
>> € NOT rec.scuba.locations -- a group that seems foreign to you,
>> € but the group which *I* read, and contribute to, primarily, in
>> € SCUBA discussions.
>> €
>>
>>
>> Your posting history suggests otherwise. Most of what you post here is
>> braggadocio, not scuba content.
>
> Au contraire!
>
> Those with no scuba content (such as this) are always my rebuttal
> or response to no-scuba-content noise by the GANG (especially
> the named gang members: Lee, Crownfield, Magilla, Alan Street,
> and other former members now silent).
>
> Take away those posts, it's ALL scuba discussions, about scuba
> locations and other SCUBA related items.
>
>
> Do the same with all the non-scuba noise posts of members of
> the GANG, and what you have left by the gang members is
> either vacuous or still have no scuba content. Alan Street is
> a fine example of such a poster. Bob Crownfield is a perfect
> example of an always-no-scuba-content poster.

Loser Ling, Lame Leader of the vacuous villains again displays his
ignorance and slow wittedness.

way to go, LLLL.

>
> -- Bob.
>