An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc

[Zippsy]

Because we are Americans and we rule the world. Now get back on topic.

 

[The Chairman]

it's simply using the wrong frigging word for Pete's sake.

Not for my sake, please!

Spoiler

They'll start telling you how much more friggin' money I'll make when people start doing things for my sake.

 

[RJP]

Why do so many Americans including diving instructors have a problem using the words 'then' and 'than'?

Example
What's more astounding then the minutia of the law

It's not even a grammatical error nor a typo, it's simply using the wrong frigging word for Pete's sake.

I'm sure you will appreciate the irony associated with the fact that "nor" is the wrong frigging word in the last sentence in your post. The proper word in that case would be "or." Alternatively, if you had your petty little heart set on the use of the word "nor," you should have written "It's neither a grammatical error nor a typo."

Hopefully you will also see the humor associated with the fact that confusing "then" and "than" is actually a usage error... not a grammatical error. I'm surprised your own selection of the word "using" didn't alert you to this fact. Should we assume that you were distracted by your own grammatical error associated with the incorrect choice of the gerund form ("using") of the verb "use" here?

Oh, and when I typed a question mark at the end of my previous sentence I was reminded of the fact that the question mark at the end of YOUR first sentence should have been placed INSIDE the apostrophe, rather than where you incorrectly placed it.

Additionally, you should have used a comma between "fringing word" and "for Pete's sake" in that same sentence. Perhaps you could have used the one you incorrectly placed between "nor a typo" and "it's simply." That comma should have been either a period or a semicolon.

I won't make you feel even worse by pointing out that the phrase "including dive instructors" should have been set off by commas (or parentheses) in your first sentence.

Further, you should have placed a colon after the word "Example" in the middle of your post.

See the next part of this post (in italics) for a demonstration of how several of these errors could be corrected.

Example:
Why do so many people, including those who exhibit poor grammar and improper usage in their own writing, insist on pointing out the errors of others? Doing so is neither productive nor appreciated, for Pete's sake.

Even the most poorly-educated American would have struggled to compose a three-sentence post containing no fewer than nine errors. Well done, sir!

PS - I hope you wil take comfort in the fact that I correclty used the word "than" in my concluding paragraph, above.

This post was composed on an iPad by a sleep-deprived, sarcastic a**hole; please pardon any errors in grammar, usage, or diction.

 

[rdbradish]

So you're suggesting that Carney/SDI/ITI can have it both ways? That the letter can hide behind a facade of being Brian Carney's "personal perspective" just in case PADI goes after them. But it magically (and I'm assuming temporarily) becomes the "official, stated position" of ITI and its subsidiaries if an SDI professional member has anything to say about it?

I'm saying that the CEO, responsible for handing down organizational rules, may at times have to break them himself for purposes of business. That's the nature of the role of CEO.

I'm saying that any letter, written on Corporate "Letterhead" and coming from a position of being the mouthpiece for an organization, should never have been written without BoD review first. While it is certainly possible that it went out without such a review, I think that unlikely. I believe it is much more likely that the message was reviewed, suggested edits may have been offered, and that a general "We stand behind you on this, Brian" was provided.

Here is another way to look at it. Go back in time and review all of the emails that Mr. Carney has made public. They are always positive, neutral and, for the most part, fluff pieces. Obvious to the masses. This time he writes something far away from the norm, just a few days before what most would call the largest global event in diving. He does this "after much thought and reflection". The man has had years in leadership positions managing both up and down. Frankly, I think one would be naïve to think the message was not a part of a larger strategy.

---------- Post added January 4th, 2015 at 08:24 AM ----------

Why do so many Americans including diving instructors have a problem using the words 'then' and 'than'?

Example
What's more astounding then the minutia of the law

It's not even a grammatical error nor a typo, it's simply using the wrong frigging word for Pete's sake.

I know for myself, it is complacency. I am so heavily dependent on spell check that I do no proof read as thoroughly as I would have 25 years ago, and I do not have the assistant to do it for me that was common 35 years ago!! Heck, then/than are easy. I destroy there/their/they're! Even get caught with a one/won error from time to time.

 

[The Chairman]

Frankly, I think one would be naïve to think the message was not a part of a larger strategy.

Wow, so you believe that it wasn't about simply sharing his personal opinion and outrage about PADI throwing an instructor under the bus? Could you tell us what that "larger strategy" is?

Think about the condemnation you're piling on Carney here. You're actually accusing him of Machiavellian mechanizations that are quite distressing. You're actually suggesting that he used the death of this poor child to further his business ends and that the TDI/SDI BoD is complicit in that. Wow. Make that a WOW!!! How do you feel about the ethics of that?

Me? I've maintained that while I find it disturbing, I believe that this is more of a simple mistake on Carney's part. I'm certainly hoping that the TDI/SDI BoD is not behind this. I'm guessing that either way, they certainly want this letter discussed and analyzed, so I'm backing the party line in that respect. If Carney wanted our attention, he's absolutely succeeded in that respect. If he wanted our respect and admiration, well that's a horse of a different color. I don't think it's produced that.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

PADI did not throw Douglas under the bus by expelling him, as Boulderjohn and Netdoc will scream from the heavens. PADI threw Douglas under the bus by helping the plaintiffs sue him. That is the betrayal that is so onerous.

I will join in with Boulderjohn and Netdoc screaming from the heavens. I have read and considered why you think otherwise and find your reasoning unsound.

 

[demed]

...

Me? I've maintained that while I find it disturbing, I believe that this is more of a simple mistake on Carney's part. I'm certainly hoping that the TDI/SDI BoD is not behind this. ...

if the ITI BoD did not approve it, mr Carney would be looking for a job today - however, given his financial interest in ITI, I'm pretty sure the BoD is not as indipendent as it would be if were a public company.

 

[rdbradish]

Wow, so you believe that it wasn't about simply sharing his personal opinion and outrage about PADI throwing an instructor under the bus? Could you tell us what that "larger strategy" is?

Think about the condemnation you're piling on Carney here. You're actually accusing him of Machiavellian mechanizations that are quite distressing. You're actually suggesting that he used the death of this poor child to further his business ends and that the TDI/SDI BoD is complicit in that. Wow. Make that a WOW!!! How do you feel about the ethics of that?

Talk about drawing wild ass conclusions. And people wonder why forums are the modern tabloid!

My perceptions are nowhere near that severe. I believe the content and manner of the letter were exactly as stated. Some things are wrong with the industry, a child died as a result, and there was a feeling that something needed to be said. My points after that are simple, but I will gladly simplify them further.

1. I don't believe such a message, delivered on company letterhead by the the CEO of the company, was purely personal and I believe the BoD, or its representatives, reviewed and and gave a nod before it was sent out.

2. I believe the time of the email was carefully considered, and that it's delivery was made in such a way as to make it a hot topic of discussion during DEMA week, with goals of getting a large number of people talking about it and sharing ideas as to how it shouldn't happen again.

Ethical? Absolutely, and if the resulting conversation helps change behavior, and save one life then fantastic. Moreover, if the accusations regarding PADI prove to be true, it will help them, and other agencies , make positive corrections. If they prove to be untrue, then his "personal" letter just appears premature.

Frankly, nowhere near a Machiavellian as you,would like to think.

 

[cerich]

I find it amusing and sad that people feel the need to "choose" one side over the other. Life isn't so black and white, nor is this case.

 

[The Chairman]

Talk about drawing wild ass conclusions. //SNIP// Some things are wrong with the industry, a child died as a result, and there was a feeling that something needed to be said.

This is ironic. Did you actually read the letter? It never suggested anything but that PADI threw the instructor under the bus. No standards were discussed. No additional safety measures suggested. Nothing but PADI's behavior in the law suit was brought out. He even states "My reason for writing this open letter to the industry is to shed some light on why PADI engaged in such bizarre behavior in the Utah case." That his accusations were based on flawed logic and outright deceptions are beside the point. The letter was never meant to spark a discussion about safety in our industry.

Now you're drawing your own 'wild ass conclusions' based on what? A feeling? Do you know where the discussion about standards and safety are happening? Right here. ScubaBoarders have made this tragedy a discussion about standards and ethics. We aren't in competition with either PADI or SDI/TDI so it's not a ploy to garner more market share. Rather than harp on the sensationalism and bash agencies, we are having a vibrant and candid discussion about standards and safety even when those discussions are off topic. We took an unfair agency bashing and are actually getting some great discussion in spite of its intent.