I respectfully disagree that this is a one sided issue or that DIR advocates are pushing their position any more aggressively than non-DIR advocates. Its a case by case analysis. In most cases, people on both sides are presenting their opinion in a rational, respectful manner.
What seems to alienate people most is the DIR position that many diver's skills, particularly their buoyancy and their ability to react to crises, are inadequate and that their gear is not the most streamlined or failure proof configuration possible. The skills deficiencies become more noticeable in higher risk situations (cave or overhead) where you have a smaller margin for error. The gear issues become obvious when the gear fails or when the diver needs to expend more energy than necessary, which decreases gas supply.
These are difficult statements to dispute because they are factually accurate. BTW, I'll cheerfully admit that my skills are not perfect either.
The difference lies in the response to the situation. DIR trained divers strive for continuous skills improvement. We try to acheive perfect skills. We don't settle for mediocre.
It seems like many divers take offense at this factual statement and that they defend by claiming that their skills are "good enough". Good enough for a dive in which everything goes well, perhaps, although I got really sick of beanie babies dropping into the water and contorting their way around a dive site on my last trip to the Caymans. Regardless, good enough for a dive in which the poo-poo hits the fan is another matter. And it can happen.
Similarly, we choose to sacrifice what some to believe is convenience and comfort for function. That's our choice. We tell other people because we believe in it. You do the same when you recommend your favorite gear.
This is barely worth a response. As far as I can recall, the DIR/non-DIR debates I've been involved in started when someone went on an anti-DIR rant. When we go around calling people strokes, etc..., we get stepped on by our own people (see UP's response to this type of behavior). Anti-DIR divers, OTOH, have no internal police system.
As for free rein, we have no more and no less freedom than the rest of you. I suspect that it comes down to the fact that our dive system has been planned from the ground up to be a functional, as opposed to a marketing, success. That, combined with the fact that the rationale is freely available and is discussed during training, is the reason that we are able to rebut arguments.
I don't represent DIR. However, if I did, I would refer to my statement above regarding skills as the best reason for advocating change. Like it or not, those DIR big boys can really dive.
I provided example to prove that you are not correct. I also challenged you to show that your system is better. All you have to do is beat us at our own game.
As for "stroke", the definition of a stroke is an unsafe diver.
Your error lies in the assumption that DIR divers assume that anyone who doesn't dive a BP&W is an unsafe diver. This is simply incorrect.
A stroke is a person with the wrong attitude. For example, someone who leaves a buddy is a stroke. Someone who deliberately violates a dive plan over the objections of a dive team is a stroke. Someone who refuses to even try to improve their skills is a stroke.
Not having DIR gear does not make you a stroke. There is a difference between a non-DIR diver and a stroke.
There is no irony. The essence of DIR is risk minimization and streamlining. In terms of gear, it boils down to (1) figure out the best gear for your needs; (2) take it; and (3) leave everything else behind.
I dive wrecks, not caves. Sidemounts have not yet become an issue for me and, frankly, I doubt that they ever will. However, I see nothing wrong with them if it is established that they are the least risky gear configuration for a particular task.
As for my overall response, its real simple. If someone wants to engage in intelligent debate, great. I can do that. If someone wants to engage in name calling, well, I can do that as well.
