DIR wars...Is it the name?

[Keysdrifter454]

I'll say it:

I beleive that DIR is a safer and superior way to dive.

I also think that a five point harness is a safer and superior way to drive.

I dive DIR.

I don't drive with a five point harness, only a three point one. I'm comfortable with that.

If you don't want to dive DIR, just be comfortable with that decision. No need to piss and moan about it.

Roak

Roak knows.

You can dive DIR, or choose not to.

The real DIR guys don't care, and the mouthy ones usually aren't real DIR.

Why everyone whines about it is from self-steem issues and some sort of neo-phallic compensation.

 

[Keysdrifter454]

After going through the GUE site again and reading all the information available, they really don't appear to intend for DIR diving to be a replacement for recreational/sport diving.

To start DIR-F, you need an existing cert. The fundamentals provide you with the starting point to their cert progressions, all of which are based on overhead/technical diving designed to meet their goals of expanded education and exploration.

DIR concept apparently arose from problems and extreme variations in the cave diving community and the DIR name came from selecting the best practices, most effiicent systems for those environments. Yes, the concepts work in all evnironments, but DIR diving (from the sites verbiage) is not meant as a competing agency (especially as DIR-F requires another agency's cert).

This information from GUE's own site would trend to mean that DIR diving and rec/sport diving work quite well together and one calling the other a failure is rather mute (much like calling a night specialty better than a wreck specialty...it all depends on the kind of diving you do).

So, if you're like most of us and simply enjoy blowing bubbles, great! If you're like others of us that enjoy something a little different, great! If you want technical diving certs, DIR sounds wonderful. If you don't want technical diving certs, don't worry about it. Just (both sides) respect that we each have our own wants and desires and that does not negate the others. We're really talking about two different types of diving here.

Here's the first gold nugget in the mud pit.

 

[Keysdrifter454]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viscya
My question was, could you pass DIR-F and not be DIR?

Yes.

I'd say the vast majority of DIR-F alumni never were and never will be.

 

[Keysdrifter454]

Unless you have to do DECO stops where you must keep your depth within 1 ft, while you are closing valves and practising OOA in a zero viz environment, you won't be able to understand DIR.

Besides being grossly incorrect in context, these are all -very- basic skills you should already master.

 

[Keysdrifter454]

This is becoming more complicated than the ending to Matirx 2... :06:

Not aimed at you, but:

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." -Dean Wormer

Educate yourself.

There are very few places where you can find complete correct information about the holistic approach of DIR diving.

You get a lot of noise from the dissidents that's flatly incorrect.

 

[Keysdrifter454]

I do believe that Android summed up all the problems with DIR very well.

The only problem DIR has are ignorant interpretations of what it is, does, and encompasses.

 

[Keysdrifter454]

Back to the original question...

The name does endanger the concept. Doing it Safer, Doing it together, Tech Divers Unite, whatever, anything would have been better.

As a concept, it can't be endangered.

It is what it is.

Only your conception of it can be endangered.

The name impliess that the rest of us have lousy skills.

Most of you do.

Dosen't really invite me to find out more. Then, what I see is a bunch of morons (who are likely NOT trained) spouting off..so this represents all I've heard about DIR - a few dorks at a dive site who were just trained in tech and have been spending too much time on the internet.

Thus you identify your own misconception, and still allow it to poison you.

DIR divers make 16,000 ft round trips at 300 ft.

Is that what these buffoons represent to you?

Is this the excuse you use to insulate yourself from experience, innovation, and information?

That's a true example of open minded and forward looking thought.

NOT really knowing about DIR, have no desire to, really, but the name implies ego - likely NOT a trait exhibited by the individuals who truly are behind the program. DIR should have protected their image more.

They (and especially King George) don't give a Rat XXXX what you think of them.

They put the information out for you for free, and are simply astounded at the attitude you take towards it.

As far as I'm aware, the folks who have the greatest safety record are those who are cave trained, from the orginal cave (ie not padi, not iantd, etcc) cert agency. According to the statistics I've seen, this is the group with the lowest accident rate. I guess that's where I base my decision - the ones who don't need to advertise, but have a quiet confidence.

You're comparing apples to oranges and then (proudly) basing your decision on it.

That's pretty scary, actually.

I suggest you research the Bill Stone incident at Wakulla and get back to us on all those original cave agency trained divers.

 

[Keysdrifter454]

Well, your inability or unwillingness to respond to the point says a lot, that much is certain. I didn't state a position either way on DIR; I just don't have a major conniption over its existence like you do.

Ya can't let the zealots, shills and loudmouths wear ya down.

I've been diving all over the eastern US, and leaving out that DIR demo at Gilboa (where I really didn't scrutinize anyone), I haven't seen enough -true- DIR divers to count on one hand. Al Wells, Rich Lesperance and Kane come to mind.

And all that Rule #1 pontification becomes an inter-agency commonality after all the thin-skinned get done being affronted.

"Don't dive with unsafe divers!"

Whoo Hoo!

There's a unique paradigm.

 

[Derek S]

It always amazes me to see the polarizing effect that a simple little acronym has on people. I guess it has come down to society's adaptation (or lack thereof) as a whole.

I'm new to diving and therefore come in with a fresh (although in some people's eyes I am sure unquallified) view on the whole subject.

I'm not DIR. I don't know that I'll ever be DIR. I do know that I will be taking the DIR-F class sometime in the spring. Will it make me change the way I dive? Maybe. Will I learn from the class (and therefore make it a worthwhile expense/endeavor)? I would unequivocally say yes.

I have read Doing It Right:The Fundamentals Of Better Diving cover to cover. Twice. Do I feel that some of JJ's writing comes off as a bit over-the-top or dare I say arrogant? Maybe. But, I can honestly say that it is WHAT he says in the book and not HOW IT IS SAID that makes all the difference.

As someone who served proudly in the US Army with tours in Haiti and the Persian Gulf, I can surely see the benefit in the mindset that GUE is putting forward. In battle, a mishap can cost not only you, but your entire squad your lives. The same could be said for scuba diving. I do see merit in knowing that each of my "squad-mates" or "dive-buddies" is as adept at handling adversity and has gear of roughly the same caliber/configuration as I do.

I like the idea that GUE instructors are willing to travel to remote sites to teach classes. That proves to me that they believe in what they are teaching, and they wish to "spread the word" to any quallified/interested party willing to step up to the plate. They don't actively search out people, hunting for new 'recruits' like used car salespersons, but rather teach those who come seeking more knowledge about the sport they love.

Can someone go their entire diving career, not once taking a DIR class or upholding one tenet or applying one principle and never have an incident? Surely. But in my mind, anything that is going to help make someone a more knowledgeable (and therefore better/safer) diver, is good in my book.

If you are against DIR, then simply avoid it. People spend all this energy slinging electronic insults from the comfort of a keyboard, when they could just as well be spending their time doing something much more worthwhile.

I think these 2 gentlemen put it best:

Years ago I heard a comment regarding tattoos. I've found it applies so much to so many different areas. "The difference between people with tattoos and people without is that we don't care that you don't have ink".

As a concept, it can't be endangered.

It is what it is.

Only your conception of it can be endangered.

Thus you identify your own misconception, and still allow it to poison you.

They (and especially King George) don't give a Rat XXXX what you think of them.
They put the information out for you for free, and are simply astounded at the attitude you take towards it.

I still fail to see how people can bash a style of diving whose #1 tenet is "Do not dive with unsafe divers." If that ideology makes me a kool-aid drinker, pass the damn pitcher...

People need to get more/other hobbies or spend some more time in the water.... /

 

[Scuba]

.The name implies there's a right way, and somebody has set out to determine it.

.There is no hijack. The name states a goal. Clearly you don't share their goal, to find the right way. That's OK, so why do you need to get so worked up about other people's goals?

Once again, relativism implodes.

“Doing It Right” states there is a correct way of doing something, and by implication a wrong way, also.

“The best way” states there is an optimum path when compared to others paths.

These propositions have an absolute meaning. Is it being done right? Yes or No. Which is best? A or B or X, or a tie, as can best be determined, otherwise it remains unknown.

What these concepts don’t define is all the component parts, objective or goal, environmental conditions, in short, all the component parts and circumtances being judged, or the judge (s), or tools and perpective used to determine the outcome.

There are all kinds of relationships and interactions taking place. Change component parts or environment, or goals, and you will likely have a totally different outcome. Therefore the results derived from a precisely defined set of variables being considered, are totally dependent on the defined components. In other words, the outcome is relative to the defined parameters and components. Different strokes for different folks. There is no contradiction or violation of Aristotles first law of logic.

To diver A doing it right means deep diving. To diver B it means shallow diving. (They are both right if their goal is different, if the goal is safety, assuming equal capabilities, A is right and B is wrong. Divers and dive conditions may change the outcome, as well as goal difinition, just to name a few variables)

X gear is best for diver C. X gear is not best for diver D, but Y gear is.

Diver A uses X gear as best in a cave. Diver A use of X gear is not best in ocean surge.

Give a precise definition of what is being considered and what the goal is from your perpective and we can start having a meaningful discussion. Otherwise, everyone's perpective is fair game. These comparisons are dependent on the relative nature of relationships as viewed from various perspectives.

Relativism is not a myth or an illusion, but a broader view of nature which many absolutists have a difficult time seeing. The trap of our own perpective affects us all to various degrees.