Since we are fully in the hypothetical realm, I suspect I would not comment at all unless the accident analysis (yeah, right) concluded he had not enough bailout, in which case I might add my point to indicate that this was a practice of his, not a one-off event. My goal would be to strengthen the point of enough bailout is critical, not optional. Trying to mitigate the, "Well, I've never needed more bailout than I carry!" kind of responses based on complacency.Seems like rhetorical parsing. Why would you post the first sentence then?
Would this be better? "I know Joe, and he never carried enough bailout. Readers of this forum should ignore that fact, however, since I don't know if that was a factor in this tragedy."
I mean, what would the point of publicly stating your concern about a dive buddy's practices unless you were attempting to make some sort of point about the topic of the thread?