"...rendering your stops completely ineffective."
If vertical stops are "completely ineffective," does that mean that everyone who does stops vertically gets DCS? If those stops are completely ineffective, it must mean that doing such stops is the same as going directly to the surface without stopping.
Before I started tech training, exaggerated arguments like this turned me against a certain segment of the tech diving world. Years later, a key figure from the early days of that community was very active on ScubaBoard, and he constantly used that rhetorical strategy--arguing for a certain strategy or equipment by grossly exaggerating the benefits of one and grossly exaggerating the deficiencies of the other. If I gave you examples of his arguments now, you would think I was lying because of the absurdities.
So I wrote to him and suggested he abandon that strategy. I told him that when he said things that were so blatantly untrue, he was alienating a large segment of his target audience. His reply was illuminating. Those absurd exaggerations were indeed intentional, he said, and he would continue using them because over the many years he had been arguing that way, he had determined they were very effective.
EDIT: I believe his early example set the tone for others to follow in that path.
If vertical stops are "completely ineffective," does that mean that everyone who does stops vertically gets DCS? If those stops are completely ineffective, it must mean that doing such stops is the same as going directly to the surface without stopping.
Before I started tech training, exaggerated arguments like this turned me against a certain segment of the tech diving world. Years later, a key figure from the early days of that community was very active on ScubaBoard, and he constantly used that rhetorical strategy--arguing for a certain strategy or equipment by grossly exaggerating the benefits of one and grossly exaggerating the deficiencies of the other. If I gave you examples of his arguments now, you would think I was lying because of the absurdities.
So I wrote to him and suggested he abandon that strategy. I told him that when he said things that were so blatantly untrue, he was alienating a large segment of his target audience. His reply was illuminating. Those absurd exaggerations were indeed intentional, he said, and he would continue using them because over the many years he had been arguing that way, he had determined they were very effective.
EDIT: I believe his early example set the tone for others to follow in that path.