Oriskany Dive

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote

> The ship is not even sunk yet and I already have people lining up to dive
> on it. I sense another rec.scuba dive in the making. If it's going to
> happen, I might as well start keeping track of it unless there's someone
> else interested in taking the lead.

Definitely don't want the lead, and would probably opt out of that one
done as an open group.

I figure to do that one with just some trusted friends.

Sorry if I'm sounding "elitist", but that's gonna be recreational limits
at the deck, definite tech dive to the sand, if sunk as planned.

Curtis

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote

> The ship is not even sunk yet and I already have people lining up to dive
> on it. I sense another rec.scuba dive in the making. If it's going to
> happen, I might as well start keeping track of it unless there's someone
> else interested in taking the lead.

Definitely don't want the lead, and would probably opt out of that one
done as an open group.

I figure to do that one with just some trusted friends.

Sorry if I'm sounding "elitist", but that's gonna be recreational limits
at the deck, definite tech dive to the sand, if sunk as planned.

Curtis

"Magilla" wrote:
> "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote
>
> > The ship is not even sunk yet and I already have people lining up to dive
> > on it. I sense another rec.scuba dive in the making. If it's going to
> > happen, I might as well start keeping track of it unless there's someone
> > else interested in taking the lead.
>
> Definitely don't want the lead, and would probably opt out of that one
> done as an open group.

Curtis, don't worry about the diving part. The social topside stuff is
just as important as the actual dive itself.


> I figure to do that one with just some trusted friends.

But of course.


> Sorry if I'm sounding "elitist", but that's gonna be recreational limits
> at the deck, definite tech dive to the sand, if sunk as planned.

Its got to get down first. Then whoever's available whenever to go can
decide what dive plan they're comfortable with. While you're off to
the depths, there's sure to be those who are happy with the main deck
and/or conning tower (~60ft minimum).


-hh

"Magilla" wrote:
> "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote
>
> > The ship is not even sunk yet and I already have people lining up to dive
> > on it. I sense another rec.scuba dive in the making. If it's going to
> > happen, I might as well start keeping track of it unless there's someone
> > else interested in taking the lead.
>
> Definitely don't want the lead, and would probably opt out of that one
> done as an open group.

Curtis, don't worry about the diving part. The social topside stuff is
just as important as the actual dive itself.


> I figure to do that one with just some trusted friends.

But of course.


> Sorry if I'm sounding "elitist", but that's gonna be recreational limits
> at the deck, definite tech dive to the sand, if sunk as planned.

Its got to get down first. Then whoever's available whenever to go can
decide what dive plan they're comfortable with. While you're off to
the depths, there's sure to be those who are happy with the main deck
and/or conning tower (~60ft minimum).


-hh

"-hh" wrote

> Curtis, don't worry about the diving part. The social topside stuff is
> just as important as the actual dive itself.

As I am well aware. Still, I would feel compelled by the temptations
presented to be selective on a "social" like this.

>> I figure to do that one with just some trusted friends.
>
> But of course.

And of course, some here.

>> Sorry if I'm sounding "elitist", but that's gonna be recreational
>> limits
>> at the deck, definite tech dive to the sand, if sunk as planned.
>
> Its got to get down first.

Ain't that the truth.

> Then whoever's available whenever to go can
> decide what dive plan they're comfortable with. While you're off to
> the depths, there's sure to be those who are happy with the main deck
> and/or conning tower (~60ft minimum).

That would be the ideal thing, unfortunately, reality differs sometimes.

This one I will only do with a small group by invitation, respectfully
decline otherwise.

Curtis

"-hh" wrote

> Curtis, don't worry about the diving part. The social topside stuff is
> just as important as the actual dive itself.

As I am well aware. Still, I would feel compelled by the temptations
presented to be selective on a "social" like this.

>> I figure to do that one with just some trusted friends.
>
> But of course.

And of course, some here.

>> Sorry if I'm sounding "elitist", but that's gonna be recreational
>> limits
>> at the deck, definite tech dive to the sand, if sunk as planned.
>
> Its got to get down first.

Ain't that the truth.

> Then whoever's available whenever to go can
> decide what dive plan they're comfortable with. While you're off to
> the depths, there's sure to be those who are happy with the main deck
> and/or conning tower (~60ft minimum).

That would be the ideal thing, unfortunately, reality differs sometimes.

This one I will only do with a small group by invitation, respectfully
decline otherwise.

Curtis

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1141782694.852308.24030@j33g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Curtis, don't worry about the diving part. The social topside stuff is
> just as important as the actual dive itself.

Even more important... Hell, we need someone up there who can ensure that
the boat doesn't leave without us... Otherwise, that's a fuckin' long swim
back to shore...

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1141782694.852308.24030@j33g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Curtis, don't worry about the diving part. The social topside stuff is
> just as important as the actual dive itself.

Even more important... Hell, we need someone up there who can ensure that
the boat doesn't leave without us... Otherwise, that's a fuckin' long swim
back to shore...

""Magilla"" <cavey_curtis@$$ yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C7sPf.25212$J02.21731@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> That would be the ideal thing, unfortunately, reality differs sometimes.
>
> This one I will only do with a small group by invitation, respectfully
> decline otherwise.

I don't see how the Oriskany differs from any "bottomless" wall dive, that
thousands of PADI OW divers do daily around the world without any problems.
There may be a few, like Bob, who bounce to the depths, but most of us are
happy with recreational depths. I rarely break 115' or 120' on wall dives
even though there's obviously hundreds of feet of good stuff to see below
me, and most people I dive with are happy staying shallower than that.

""Magilla"" <cavey_curtis@$$ yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C7sPf.25212$J02.21731@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> That would be the ideal thing, unfortunately, reality differs sometimes.
>
> This one I will only do with a small group by invitation, respectfully
> decline otherwise.

I don't see how the Oriskany differs from any "bottomless" wall dive, that
thousands of PADI OW divers do daily around the world without any problems.
There may be a few, like Bob, who bounce to the depths, but most of us are
happy with recreational depths. I rarely break 115' or 120' on wall dives
even though there's obviously hundreds of feet of good stuff to see below
me, and most people I dive with are happy staying shallower than that.