Genesis once bubbled...
telling me to "just drink the Kool-Aid" won't cut it with me.
But, there is no point in taking training if you can't meet the entry requirements. And lack of objective standards means that all kinds of games can be played when it comes time to both get in and to pass or fail.
What I'm challenging them to do - as I did in the Triox discussion - is to walk the talk.
Against my better judgement I'll try this one more time. You have referred to some triox thread that I don't recall. Apparently you *skewed* me, but perhaps you can remind me, but if it was anything like this thread I'm confident I just bowed out..
Let me offer this thought for all to consider as it relates to your objections. As you may be aware the NOAA recommendation for exposure to a PP02 of 1.6 is limited to 45 minutes on a single day exposure. There are planty of peer reviewed studies that support this idea, Rutkowski and Hamilton amongst the most notable. Now if you and I were to have a debate as we just had, and I proposed to you the idea that the 45 minute limit is ridiculously conservative and I further told you that at each and every dive we do at the WKPP such 45 minute limit is exceeded by over 10,000%.. Now it would be clear that you could cite study after study supporting 45 minutes and what I'm telling you is that in the real world there are other options and other ways to approach the dive. The manner with which we are able to exceed the NOAA limits by over 10,000% simply can not be taught over the internet, is too complex to discuss in detail, is too easy to get misapplied without knowing the totality of issue and someone could get hurt.. Accordingly, we do it every dive but I'd be reckless if I simply told diver's on an open forum that it is OK to exceed recommended NOAA limits by 10,000%..
At some point you just have to appreciate we can't teach the whole class over the interent, and there is much, much more to the approach then some study that can be debated ad nausem in teh scientific community. For example, if you wanted to side with the gas free phase model that would differ significantly from a bubble mechanic model. Each could cite varying studies and it would be pointless.. It reminds me of the last Presidential campaign.. Whatever economic plan Bush put forward Gore had some Nobel prize winning economist saying that it was wrong, then when Gore put his plan Bush countered with his Nobel proze winning economist shiding the Gore plan as reckless.. The obvious point being that there is disagreement with respect to the THEORY within the scientific community, so tying your arguments to some study without appreciating the larger picture is only half the story.. As hard as I try I simply am incapable of teaching the entire class, complete with the point - counter-point argument, over a BBS..
We believe in what we teach, we have back up to support everything we say, we try to go the extra mile in terms of providing information without charge on public forums but at some point it just becomes fruitless.. FTR, I see no other agency in the world being any where near as accessible as we are, nor do I see any other agency provide the content, chapter and verse on a free scuba forum. In fact, you asked for *goals* and we even put our videos out on the net for free to show you the very goal you seem to think is elusive..
And finally, I say once again, that GUE isn't for everyone and I suspect that it is beyond your scope and I wish you luck in your future training endeavors.. We are not out to convince you, we are remain available but to engage in this type of fruitless debate is pointless and wastes everyone's time.
Later
)... what I am suggesting is that you take a DIRf and learn something. You don't have to become assimilated to learn something!
