A somewhat sad conversation last night

[JamesK]

argh, are those dive rite exp fins? gasp.


glad you had fun and welcome back.

 

[Fish-R-Man]

After reading this entire thread, I now have a little better understanding of how the whole DIR-GUE issue came about. The one thing that I believe, is that most people are missing the intent of the original post. TSand M, correct me if I am wrong, but your original post was basically about your feelings about a new non-DIR diver that had in your conversation with him, the wrong impression about DIR-GUE divers in general. In my experience over the years, I also found that a number of DIR divers that I meet, also had a negative effect on the DIR concept due to their attitude towards non-DIR divers.
I find this to be true in a number of other sports that I am involved in. TSandM, I noticed in your profile that you have a great picture of yourself on a horse. I raised three girls through 4-H and then high school rodeo and dressage. If you want to be involved in a sport that has a similar strong bias one way other the other, horses have to take the prize. Whether you rode English or Western, owned this breed or that, what trailer you towed, or even the truck you owned all would create some kind of discussion depending on the group or groups you were involved in. The same goes for trap shooting or golf or fly fishing or whatever. There always seem to be some extremists in a group that will be negative towards others if you don’t adhere to their way of thinking.
When you have a group of individuals that separate themselves from the main stream for whatever reason, there will be differences in opinions on what is right or wrong. Depending on how each member of that group portrays his or her thoughts on how it should be done, reflects on that group as a whole. If the most vocal members of that group are negative towards non-members, the whole group will have a negative reaction from non-members.
I choose to dive with a BP/W and jet fins. I like the idea of a long primary hose when diving open water. I like the idea of having my second right where I can get to it if I need it. I went to a BP/W not because of DIR or a tech class, I wanted to simplify my gear package as a whole. I started diving in the early 70’s and my first setup was a metal back plate and nylon harness. It worked good for me then and works well for me now. It also gives me more options when I travel. If I want to go from Drift diving in open water to cave diving the next day, it’s very easy to change up without having to pack the whole garage…… My wife and teenage daughter dive in BC’s with split fins. They are confident and comfortable in their gear choice. If I thought that their safety was somehow compromised by that choice, they wouldn’t be in the water.
I have had a few people ask me about my gear when I am diving. Most recently in Roatan. I explained my reasons for using a longer primary hose and why I choose to use a BP/W over my BC and these individuals thought that my reasoning was sound. There was an open discussion with no signs of the DIR-Tech versus non DIR. Just an interest in a different approach to enjoy a great day of diving.
Whatever I am interest I am involved in, I try and seek out others who are more proficient in that particular field. I try and learn all that they have to offer. For individuals that come to me in the same manner, I will try and teach them what I know to help them get more proficient as well. The key to a good relationship is to teach, not to preach………

 

[lamont]

In reading GI3's description of a stroke which you so graciously provided (thanks!), he never says "unsafe". He mostly describes people that don't agree with his methodology of diving. Mind you, I have never met anyone who thought that diving was an "every man for himself" sport so I really can't relate to all of it. But look at how he defines an "obvious stroke" with "their choice of gear and gear configuration". That really has nothing to do with safety.

"If you see something that is a complete mess, makes no sense, is less than optimal, or is designed to accommodate some phobia while ignoring all else, you are dealing with a stroke."

George here is basically invoking the law of unintended consequences. So the overweighted tech diver who is paranoid about not having enough lift and not being able to get off the bottom and get to the surface buys some obscene 160# wing instead of getting their rig balanced properly and winds up being unable to dump all that gas fast enough and takes a buoyant ride to the surface and either dies from a lung injury or gets severely bent/dead from DCS. The fear of drowning on the bottom of the ocean and being unable to ascend leads them to a gear choice which ultimately kills/injures them.

He's not talking about rockboots vs. turbosoles here, or even clipping the SPG to your waist vs. clipping it to your chest d-ring.

And what he writes there has everything to do with safety, but it needs to be taken in the context of some of the ideas back then, which you very rarely see around these days...

 

[TSandM]

BTW, in case anybody reading this is still curious about what DIR is, Gareth Burrows has one of the best essays I've read on the subject: What is DIR anyway? | DIR Theory

 

[danvolker]

"If you see something that is a complete mess, makes no sense, is less than optimal, or is designed to accommodate some phobia while ignoring all else, you are dealing with a stroke."

George here is basically invoking the law of unintended consequences. So the overweighted tech diver who is paranoid about not having enough lift and not being able to get off the bottom and get to the surface buys some obscene 160# wing instead of getting their rig balanced properly and winds up being unable to dump all that gas fast enough and takes a buoyant ride to the surface and either dies from a lung injury or gets severely bent/dead from DCS. The fear of drowning on the bottom of the ocean and being unable to ascend leads them to a gear choice which ultimately kills/injures them.

He's not talking about rockboots vs. turbosoles here, or even clipping the SPG to your waist vs. clipping it to your chest d-ring.

And what he writes there has everything to do with safety, but it needs to be taken in the context of some of the ideas back then, which you very rarely see around these days...

And...I can absolutely say that this was a huge part of it that we would see every time George would try to help someone new to diving with us, get squared away..it was the safety aspects..the lift needed but no more, the lack of entanglement hazzards.. Lamont is dead on with this. This was what DIR was about. Better safety for your adventures.
So much has changed in the way people consider gearing up and configuring today for a deep dive.....some of the rigs you could see around 1996 would have been ridiculed by Pete or any of the others, who NOW feel angry over GI3's rules and ideas.

 

[boulderjohn]

So, if I understand things correctly, what is being said is that statements made in a specific context made perfect sense in that context, but may have been later misapplied by some in another context for which they were not intended. Would that be a fair summary?

 

[danvolker]

So, if I understand things correctly, what is being said is that statements made in a specific context made perfect sense in that context, but may have been later misapplied by some in another context for which they were not intended. Would that be a fair summary?

Yes.This is exactly what has happened. DIR was put out to the world in the late 90's...It was never modified from then on, and the world has changed. GUE DID change, with the times..Their language and context reflects this.

 

[lowviz]

...//...GUE DID change, with the times..Their language and context reflects this.

I see it differently. Let's start with Lynne's link. -really good one. Quoting from it:

"OK, So how do you maximise spare capacity?
We work at our buoyancy control until we can be precisely where we want to be in the water column, critically without putting any effort in."

I'll be the last one to disagree with that statement.

GUE changed? I refuse to believe that anything substantial actually changed in DIR/GUE until their first course reflects this foundation concept. They just lost the abrasive text.

I would expect for Course #1: Re-do one's kit into a balanced rig, demonstrate the ability to hold buoyancy and trim thus presenting a "stable platform". End of course #1. -but that would be too inclusive of an approach...

-till then, I can only wish you guys the best.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Sounds to me like you want GUE to be like everybody else ... and anything they say that differentiates their training approach from the mainstream agencies can and will be used against them.

You want inclusive? Me too ... I'm a NAUI instructor, and reading this board a lot of times gives me the impression that a lot of people think PADI is the only legitimate training agency out there. Of course, I choose not to take it that way ... although I easily could. But a lot of what you read into these comments reflects what you want to hear ... that's both the strength and the curse of the Internet ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[TSandM]

I see it differently. Let's start with Lynne's link. -really good one. Quoting from it:

"​

OK, So how do you maximise spare capacity?
We work at our buoyancy control until we can be precisely where we want to be in the water column, critically without putting any effort in."

I'll be the last one to disagree with that statement.

GUE changed? I refuse to believe that anything substantial actually changed in DIR/GUE until their first course reflects this foundation concept. They just lost the abrasive text.

I would expect for Course #1: Re-do one's kit into a balanced rig, demonstrate the ability to hold buoyancy and trim thus presenting a "stable platform". End of course #1. -but that would be too inclusive of an approach...

-till then, I can only wish you guys the best.

Lowviz, I have to confess that I'm completely confused as to what you are trying to say here. Do you mean that, since buoyancy and a stable platform is a core idea, that there should be a whole course where nothing else is done? Or that they should have a course where that is done, but without standardized equipment?

Just as the system doesn't work if you cherry-pick pieces of it, you do have to read all of Gareth's essay to understand what he is describing.

Or maybe you were trying to say something entirely different, and I just didn't get it.