Does not compute but should I ?

[King Kong Matt]

SeaJay once bubbled...
???

Okay, my man. It's all yours.

SeaJay, you seem like a real nice guy and I enjoy reading your (shorter) posts.

Don't take this the wrong way and its definitely not meant as flame-bait, but do you honestly not see how your last few posts could be construed as WAY condescending?

Again, not meant to start a storm...

 

[Scubaroo]

Okay, this thread has been confusing and I'm not reading through the flaming etc to sort out the facts - for those of us who have not been exposed to the "Rule of 120" - does someone want to post a clear concise explanation, or was is already presented in JeffG's post?

All this thread has done is allure to a concept and then withhold it - if computers "rot our brains" - show us a better way.

I'd love to wait until my DIR-F class to find out, but I can't even get a response from the local group who organises them regarding upcoming dates, so there isn't one in my near future.

 

[SeaJay]

King Kong Matt once bubbled...


Don't take this the wrong way and its definitely not meant as flame-bait, but do you honestly not see how your last few posts could be construed as WAY condescending?

No.

People asked me to share. I declined. I've been raked over the coals for it, and I'm a little frustrated at that. They don't seem to understand why, even after I told them.

At this point, I've stopped caring if they understand or not. I'm really irritated, and perhaps that's showing through my posts. I've been told before that I relate feeling very well in my writings, and I told people that that "skill" is not always an asset. This is an example where it's not.

I'm done with this thread. I don't want my name associated with the giving out of this information... And I certainly don't want to feel responsible for someone else's misread, miscalculation, or misinformation.

...And if you view that as condescending... Well, you either need to get over it and see the message, or write it off like so many people do and say, "I'll ride the bus, because there are other people out there driving cars who seem ticked off (and therefore I interpret them as condescending.)"

Whatever, man.

Sorry you feel that way.

Enjoy your dive.

CWB, you missed several bits of vital information there... Don't forget to tell them the rest; It's not safe without ALL of the information. (Wasn't this my point exactly?)

 

[raxafarian]

Silly me. I thought discussion forums were made for... GASP!!.. discussions.

Using the faulted logic of "somebody will try it and get hurt" would have to lead to shutting down all discussions, including the medical forum, unless a certified instructor was willing to answer any and all posts.

I am not trying to "learn" diving exclusively from the internet. It is just one of the tools available.

An open discussion with many viewpoints is a good way to bounce ideas, methods, configurations, etc. around.

If your choice is to not participate in a discussion, that's fine... I don't think it takes numerous posts to discuss why you don't want to discuss... but that's just me.

In my opinion, open discussions are good. I'm not going to "try" something discussed on the internet unless the information can be verified in other locations (classes, other divers, books, etc) which all contribute to the developement of scubadiving.



Who knows... you might just learn something. Or at least open your mind to things you might not have even considered. The more opinions and information that you are exposed to, the better choices you will be able to make.

 

[MikeS]

gzscuba once bubbled...
First, don't most computers allow you to do a repetitive dive deeper than your first dive. Some people may say that this is okay, but I thought that most of the agencies frown upon this.

Gzscuba,

I apologies for using your comment as an example, my intent is not to pick on you and/or offend you in anyway, but to point out how not to use a dive computer.

A dive computer cannot allow you to do anything. All the computer does is provide you information upon which you should base your decisions. Dive tables work the same way; they will let you calculate the NDL limits for a reverse profile also. It is up to you as a diver to make decisions based on the information provided by the dive computer and your diving knowledge as well as your knowledge of how the computer works. You make the decision on if you want to make a reverse profile dive not the computer.

While many computers have alarms that warn you of certain situations, relying solely on a dive computer’s alarms and/or when it tells you to surface, to keep you out of trouble is dangerous.

While I don’t think computers rot your brain, they don’t prevent you from diving without using your brain. Nor do tables.

Mike

Mike

 

[O-ring]

Scubaroo once bubbled...
Okay, this thread has been confusing and I'm not reading through the flaming etc to sort out the facts - for those of us who have not been exposed to the "Rule of 120" - does someone want to post a clear concise explanation, or was is already presented in JeffG's post?

All this thread has done is allure to a concept and then withhold it - if computers "rot our brains" - show us a better way.

I'd love to wait until my DIR-F class to find out, but I can't even get a response from the local group who organises them regarding upcoming dates, so there isn't one in my near future.

Borrowing a page from this wonderful exchange we have had so far, let me state that this may be wrong and that this is to the best of my knowledge.

The Rule of 120 is just the old Navy table stuff...on the old tables, depth + time always equaled 120. That's really all I need to say on the matter...to get an NDL for an 80 foot dive, well, it was 40.

For a 30 foot dive it was 90...

I think there was more to it for repetitive dives and such, but I can't remember any of that stuff... Come to think of it, it may not even have equaled 120 all the time...but it was close...enough so that you could use it as a rule of thumb if your computer crapped out..

 

[JeffG]

Scubaroo once bubbled...
Okay, this thread has been confusing and I'm not reading through the flaming etc to sort out the facts - for those of us who have not been exposed to the "Rule of 120" - does someone want to post a clear concise explanation, or was is already presented in JeffG's post?

All this thread has done is allure to a concept and then withhold it - if computers "rot our brains" - show us a better way.

I'd love to wait until my DIR-F class to find out, but I can't even get a response from the local group who organises them regarding upcoming dates, so there isn't one in my near future.

Well I know that the explanation I gave is not the end all and be all (AND Its NOT the 120 rule). In its present form It only works if you start deep and work yourself shallow.

There is a way to use it if you are doing an up and down profile. It just deals with keeping track of you accumulated bottom time (including the NDL "adjustment time")

Jeff

 

[landlocked]

Sheesh.... this is really sounding like a broken record. (For those younger members of the scuba board, a record is a round device much like a cd only bigger that was used to play music. When it broke, or got scratched, it kept repeating the same phrase over and over again.) SeaJay has stated his position and quite eloquently given his reasons why. You may not agree with them, but you need to respect them. For crying out loud, let it go. Or is this simply an opportunity to crap on DIR for some personal, semi-psychotic reason?

I for one, SeaJay, thank you for your candor and even agree with your reasoning. Thank you for your contributions.

Let the reluctant blather on! ut:

 

[raxafarian]

landlocked once bubbled...
SeaJay has stated his position and quite eloquently given his reasons why. You may not agree with them, but you need to respect them. For crying out loud, let it go. Or is this simply an opportunity to crap on DIR for some personal, semi-psychotic reason?

I for one, SeaJay, thank you for your candor and even agree with your reasoning. Thank you for your contributions.

Let the reluctant blather on! ut:

well.... you are kind of right. He certainly has the right to not discuss something. A statement of "I'm not comfortable discussing that", or even "I don't wish to discuss that" would have been fine and understood by all.

An implication of "Take the class...without the class you won't understand.... without the class you will get hurt.... I can't tell you.... etc." is what, to me, became a little silly.


I would hope everyone takes internet discussions as a potential information source, and not as gospel. If somebody takes it as gospel, then they are candidates for the Darwin award.

Don't refuse to share information or discussion to save me from myself. I can look after myself and don't require a lifeguard.


Not wishing to participate is fine... whatever the reasons. Don't make the reasons about everyone else, make them about yourself.

 

[King Kong Matt]

landlocked once bubbled...
Or is this simply an opportunity to crap on DIR for some personal, semi-psychotic reason?

This has absolutely nothing to do with DIR in my opinion...DIR just happens to be the backdrop for the bigger discussion as I see it.

This is about information, how and when to share it, and the responsibilities asociated with sharing such information.

MOST of us seem to want to give the general ScubaBoard population the benefit of the doubt when it comes to information that, in the hands of the untrained, might cause irreperable harm or even death. It goes somewhat unstated that this can be a dangerous sport and if you are taking things you learn off the Internet as untested truths then you are simply asking for trouble.

I can appreciate that not everyone has that point of view...regardless of whether we are talking about how GUE teaches decompression or how agency ABC teaches XYZ. If you don't feel comfortable explaining the information at a level or depth that gives complete justice to the power of the information, or if you feel that the information is incomplete without corresponding training in its applied use, then fine...but, ultimately, this is a discussion board and it is meant for discussion.

Personally, I don't have a problem with SeaJay's point of view. While I personally could care less about his analogy, I certainly see others use of the term "patronizing" as justified when he chooses an analogy in which he and every other GUE-trained diver is a "car driver" and the rest are mere "bus riders" with no clue as to how a car works. Its simply a poor analogy that serves only to further a FALSE stereotype of DIR divers as brash and arrogant.

Having said that, I totally respect SeaJay's decision and understand perfectly the reasons why he has come to the conclusion he has...