There are a few things that I feel need to be said:
First of all, to Pete: Speaking for myself, I don't wish PADI ill, I wish PADI better. PADI has, in my view, been a primary leader in what I see as the failure of new diver education to live up to its potential. I feel that PADI has been the leader in focusing on the "needs" of once a year dive resort goers at the expense of the provision of adequate training for local divers. I strongly object to the way in which PADI has used two approaches to do this, the first being the pretense that they are training "DIVERS" with all that that word carries subliminally whilst contradicting that in the fine print with caveats concerning only diving in conditions similar to those trained in, the second being the disingenuous application of various accepted terms of art, such as "Advanced" or "Master Diver" that were created by other agencies to describe specific levels of diver training to PADI training programs that were equivalent to (or less than) levels of diver training that were lower on the ladder. I wish that PADI had not done either of these things. But that does not mean that I wish PADI ill (beyond the natural reaction that most anyone has to seeing someone lose what one perceives to be their ill gotten gains.) I would far prefer PADI to move back toward what it once once, a quality organization based on quality programs ... the industry would be much better off if that were to happen.
Second, to Walter: I am, despite the opinions expressed above, party to the "back room dealings." I would like to assure you that there is nothing that has gone on that I would describe as censorship of ideas, there has been censorship of inappropriate expression of some ideas, but only after rather lengthy discussion and debate. In every instance, every effort is made to bend over backwards to avoid the stifeling of ideas. When one of the staff expresses concern that an inappropriate limiting of free expression is being considered, even when that is a minority view or one, the discussion continues to consensus. For what it is worth, Pete developed this system and continues to be one of its staunchest supporters, even when he disagrees, and the ideas are protected by the rather wide range of views held by the staff members.
.
?
