Interesting history of DIR debate. . .
- Thread starter JohnCollins
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Windwalker
Contributor
How long do you have to DIW before you can take some classes to Learn DIR??
You can take a DIRF class at anytime, but dont expect to do well unless you have pretty well mastered neutral bouyancy.
- Messages
- 102,617
- Reaction score
- 106,774
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
John, I think this is a good thread, and I'd like to get back to your original post and attempt to address one of your questions to SeaJay.
My take is that the GUE teaching philosophy, based on the DIR method of diving, starts with the assumption that everyone would benefit by learning certain aspects commonly accepted as appropriate for technical diving ... whereas the more "traditional" certification agencies do not. As a result, the latter are looked upon by the DIR community as "inferior" ... or even as fundamentally lacking in terms of teaching basic diving skills and safety.
This viewpoint, understandably, is looked upon unfavorably by those who are not DIR.
Now, I don't think the majority of DIR divers necessarily accept that this is so ... but enough do to create a kind of "backlash". Furthermore, I think a big part of the source for this attitude is the DIR-F book itself. JJ sets the stage with several comments in the book that can easily be viewed as disparaging toward those who work as instructors for agencies such as NAUI, PADI, YMCA, etc.
Some examples ...
Right at the outset ... Chapter 1 - "What Am I Missing?" states ...
This, in turn has resulted in an industry that has emphasized short and easy training over proficiency, and in divers who have been led to believe that recreational diving requires little if any dedication to skill mastery or physical fitness.
While this is no doubt true in some cases, the manner in which he choses to put it oversimplifies the training model used by a great many training organizations, and implies that the "industry" instructor downplays the importance of diving skills in the interest of making the course "short and easy". I think an awful lot of instructors out there would disagree, and understandably take exception to JJ's saying so.
Chapter 2 - "Learning How to Learn" ...
This chapter starts out with a section called "Why is it so hard to find a good diving educator?" ... the assumption being, of course, that finding someone who can provide an quality diving education is, well, hard. This entire section provides (in my opinion) an unnecessarily negative view of standard (i.e. non-GUE) dive instruction ... and in my opinion JJ would've been better served by not including this section in the book.
The very next section starts out with the sentence ... "Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing number of instructors that lack personal experience in what they are offering to teach. It is all too common for instructors to claim dozens or hundreds of dives as proof of experience. However, these dives (if true) are often teaching dives and not personally demanding."
This statement, while it may be true in some cases, certainly doesn't reflect the vast majority of instructors (none that I know personally). It does, however, set the stage for teaching the DIR-F student right from the outset that instruction outside the GUE agency is inferior, and often taught by people who are patently unqualified to teach.
Chapter 3 - "Building a Solid Foundation"
"Unfortunately, most organizations seem more intent on reducing training time than in improving diving ability."
"Today there are dozens of diving agencies, offering many more different certification courses, in skill-sets ranging from basic open water to advanced Trimix instructor. Though divers emerging from these course often possess vastly different skill and experience levels, nonetheless, the fact is that most seem to lack sound fundamental diving skills."
Again, reading these statements left me wondering why JJ spends so much effort knocking other training agencies, rather than simply emphasizing the positive aspects of the GUE training method.
On to Chapter 6 - "Details of DIR Equipment Configuration" ... in the section discussing gauges ...
"Historically, divers have been led to believe that consolidating an array of gauges into one bulky console and then dragging that console along behind them was somehow a sensible and responsible practice"
While the first part of that statement bears some resemblance to truth, I do not know of any agency or instructor who has ever (or would ever) encourage a student to "drag that console along behind them". All that I'm aware of teach that such a practice is an entanglement hazard and therefore not safe.
Again, I see JJ stretching the truth to make a point.
Finally, Chapter 11 - Accident Analysis: Are You at Risk? ...
"In fact, many open water classes strive to avoid any mention of serious risk or death."
'It is increasingly common for diving educators to emphasize the ease of diving, pretending that no real investment in time or effort is necessary."
The first statement is just flat-out false ... at least if an instructor teaches according to the course material provided by agencies such as NAUI and the YMCA (the two agencies with which I have direct experience). It is my understanding that a discussion of the risks associated with diving are an integral part of the training curriculum that discusses such things as diving physiology, depth and time limits, and underwater environments ... and that this is part of the "minimum" requirement taught by all RSTC-associated agencies.
My point in bringing all this up is to show where I think a lot of the "attitude" and argument comes from. A lot of people reading this material would necessarily take it as a license to "slam" non-DIR training agencies ... whether or not they hear such things from their instructor ... simply because it's coming right out of their text material. As a result, there is an understandable backlash from those outside the DIR community toward what they perceive as an undeserved slam aimed in their direction.
No other training manual I've ever read goes to such lengths to disparage another agencies training methods. Frankly, I wish JJ had found a more constructive way to make his points ... because he has some exceptionally good ones to make.
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
My take is that the GUE teaching philosophy, based on the DIR method of diving, starts with the assumption that everyone would benefit by learning certain aspects commonly accepted as appropriate for technical diving ... whereas the more "traditional" certification agencies do not. As a result, the latter are looked upon by the DIR community as "inferior" ... or even as fundamentally lacking in terms of teaching basic diving skills and safety.
This viewpoint, understandably, is looked upon unfavorably by those who are not DIR.
Now, I don't think the majority of DIR divers necessarily accept that this is so ... but enough do to create a kind of "backlash". Furthermore, I think a big part of the source for this attitude is the DIR-F book itself. JJ sets the stage with several comments in the book that can easily be viewed as disparaging toward those who work as instructors for agencies such as NAUI, PADI, YMCA, etc.
Some examples ...
Right at the outset ... Chapter 1 - "What Am I Missing?" states ...
This, in turn has resulted in an industry that has emphasized short and easy training over proficiency, and in divers who have been led to believe that recreational diving requires little if any dedication to skill mastery or physical fitness.
While this is no doubt true in some cases, the manner in which he choses to put it oversimplifies the training model used by a great many training organizations, and implies that the "industry" instructor downplays the importance of diving skills in the interest of making the course "short and easy". I think an awful lot of instructors out there would disagree, and understandably take exception to JJ's saying so.
Chapter 2 - "Learning How to Learn" ...
This chapter starts out with a section called "Why is it so hard to find a good diving educator?" ... the assumption being, of course, that finding someone who can provide an quality diving education is, well, hard. This entire section provides (in my opinion) an unnecessarily negative view of standard (i.e. non-GUE) dive instruction ... and in my opinion JJ would've been better served by not including this section in the book.
The very next section starts out with the sentence ... "Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing number of instructors that lack personal experience in what they are offering to teach. It is all too common for instructors to claim dozens or hundreds of dives as proof of experience. However, these dives (if true) are often teaching dives and not personally demanding."
This statement, while it may be true in some cases, certainly doesn't reflect the vast majority of instructors (none that I know personally). It does, however, set the stage for teaching the DIR-F student right from the outset that instruction outside the GUE agency is inferior, and often taught by people who are patently unqualified to teach.
Chapter 3 - "Building a Solid Foundation"
"Unfortunately, most organizations seem more intent on reducing training time than in improving diving ability."
"Today there are dozens of diving agencies, offering many more different certification courses, in skill-sets ranging from basic open water to advanced Trimix instructor. Though divers emerging from these course often possess vastly different skill and experience levels, nonetheless, the fact is that most seem to lack sound fundamental diving skills."
Again, reading these statements left me wondering why JJ spends so much effort knocking other training agencies, rather than simply emphasizing the positive aspects of the GUE training method.
On to Chapter 6 - "Details of DIR Equipment Configuration" ... in the section discussing gauges ...
"Historically, divers have been led to believe that consolidating an array of gauges into one bulky console and then dragging that console along behind them was somehow a sensible and responsible practice"
While the first part of that statement bears some resemblance to truth, I do not know of any agency or instructor who has ever (or would ever) encourage a student to "drag that console along behind them". All that I'm aware of teach that such a practice is an entanglement hazard and therefore not safe.
Again, I see JJ stretching the truth to make a point.
Finally, Chapter 11 - Accident Analysis: Are You at Risk? ...
"In fact, many open water classes strive to avoid any mention of serious risk or death."
'It is increasingly common for diving educators to emphasize the ease of diving, pretending that no real investment in time or effort is necessary."
The first statement is just flat-out false ... at least if an instructor teaches according to the course material provided by agencies such as NAUI and the YMCA (the two agencies with which I have direct experience). It is my understanding that a discussion of the risks associated with diving are an integral part of the training curriculum that discusses such things as diving physiology, depth and time limits, and underwater environments ... and that this is part of the "minimum" requirement taught by all RSTC-associated agencies.
My point in bringing all this up is to show where I think a lot of the "attitude" and argument comes from. A lot of people reading this material would necessarily take it as a license to "slam" non-DIR training agencies ... whether or not they hear such things from their instructor ... simply because it's coming right out of their text material. As a result, there is an understandable backlash from those outside the DIR community toward what they perceive as an undeserved slam aimed in their direction.
No other training manual I've ever read goes to such lengths to disparage another agencies training methods. Frankly, I wish JJ had found a more constructive way to make his points ... because he has some exceptionally good ones to make.
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
bwerb
Hoser/English Translator, eh
I thought I'd respond to your last post a bit...here's something kinda interesting...many, many of the divers who actively seek out boards like this one actually do care about their diving and do care enough to try to become "good divers". Also...especially being from the PNW (or any other predominantly cold water environs), we tend to have a group of more "dedicated" divers than some warm water areas because...not too many people in these areas on the whole are into what it takes to dive here. It's cold, dark, current filled, crappy vis etc. and hey...let's be honest only one of a myriad of sports one could take up. Note...I am NOT saying that cold water divers are necessarily better...I'm making the point that it takes a slightly different mindset to be a "frequent" diver in these areas.
So...what's my point...
There are millions of divers yet only a very small percentage take their diving beyond a couple times a year on vacation. Many who take it a bit more seriously show-up here or on regular dives in our area. Look at how many people walking by on the seawall are full of questions when you are gearing up at Alki or Les Davis.
So, to continue...
The MAJORITY of divers couldn't care less about anything else than blowing bubbles and looking at pretty fish while on vacation. Many, Many instructors and shops know that out of the 10 OW students only 1 or 2 will ever take up diving regularly...so...if you can get 'em in, blow through the training and sell some gear, then that's what you do. They will never even know that they were shortchanged and...unfortunately...WON'T/DON'T CARE.
So...look at JJ's book and tone with the insight that, in a lot of ways he's bang on correct. There are TONS of horrible instructors and crappy divers...most of them don't show-up here or on the regular Wed. night dives.
Take a "vacation diver" to Alki in 5 feet of vis and ask them to do something really really basic...hold your position in the water in a horizontal plane without floating up or down for two minutes and without using your hands for bouyancy/trim control. Guess what...99% of the divers out there would not be able to do it. Just because the 1% shows up and posts here doesn't negate the fact that a large majority can't.
Is JJ blunt? Yes.
Is the regular PNW dedicated diver a good example of "the problem"...most likely no.
On the other hand...I know of several local instructors who do almost NO diving on their own...it is all 100% classwork. I also know of several one year wonders who can't dive worth beans in terms of skills but are now instructing the next batch of divers. I also have been laughed at and criticized simply for diving a DIR set-up. I have been told that all DIR divers are just internet wannabees who don't actually dive. I've been told that I'd never want to buy a backplate/wings because they are impractical for single tank diving. I've been told that I shouldn't learn to dive the longhose because it was far too complicated for a new diver. I was told that a console was the way to go because I'd need all new gear when I switched to doubles anyway. Heck...I know of another website where half the time when DIR is mentioned the posts get pulled/edited/deleted and every three posts a moderator jumps in to tell everyone to "play nice" simply because the users are in the process of debate and some sacred cows are challenged. Lastly...the whole evolution of PADI's education and class philosophies have effectively demonstrated their belief that "diving is for everyone." Take a look at their new emphasis on deep air tech diving...several years ago they told divers to "run not walk from any instructor or agency teaching deep air" now...it's the pride of their curriculum.
My summary point. Web dive communities and serious local dive communities are more often than not, not the problem...it is the the other 99% who doesn't even know we exist.
So...what's my point...
There are millions of divers yet only a very small percentage take their diving beyond a couple times a year on vacation. Many who take it a bit more seriously show-up here or on regular dives in our area. Look at how many people walking by on the seawall are full of questions when you are gearing up at Alki or Les Davis.
So, to continue...
The MAJORITY of divers couldn't care less about anything else than blowing bubbles and looking at pretty fish while on vacation. Many, Many instructors and shops know that out of the 10 OW students only 1 or 2 will ever take up diving regularly...so...if you can get 'em in, blow through the training and sell some gear, then that's what you do. They will never even know that they were shortchanged and...unfortunately...WON'T/DON'T CARE.
So...look at JJ's book and tone with the insight that, in a lot of ways he's bang on correct. There are TONS of horrible instructors and crappy divers...most of them don't show-up here or on the regular Wed. night dives.
Take a "vacation diver" to Alki in 5 feet of vis and ask them to do something really really basic...hold your position in the water in a horizontal plane without floating up or down for two minutes and without using your hands for bouyancy/trim control. Guess what...99% of the divers out there would not be able to do it. Just because the 1% shows up and posts here doesn't negate the fact that a large majority can't.
Is JJ blunt? Yes.
Is the regular PNW dedicated diver a good example of "the problem"...most likely no.
On the other hand...I know of several local instructors who do almost NO diving on their own...it is all 100% classwork. I also know of several one year wonders who can't dive worth beans in terms of skills but are now instructing the next batch of divers. I also have been laughed at and criticized simply for diving a DIR set-up. I have been told that all DIR divers are just internet wannabees who don't actually dive. I've been told that I'd never want to buy a backplate/wings because they are impractical for single tank diving. I've been told that I shouldn't learn to dive the longhose because it was far too complicated for a new diver. I was told that a console was the way to go because I'd need all new gear when I switched to doubles anyway. Heck...I know of another website where half the time when DIR is mentioned the posts get pulled/edited/deleted and every three posts a moderator jumps in to tell everyone to "play nice" simply because the users are in the process of debate and some sacred cows are challenged. Lastly...the whole evolution of PADI's education and class philosophies have effectively demonstrated their belief that "diving is for everyone." Take a look at their new emphasis on deep air tech diving...several years ago they told divers to "run not walk from any instructor or agency teaching deep air" now...it's the pride of their curriculum.
My summary point. Web dive communities and serious local dive communities are more often than not, not the problem...it is the the other 99% who doesn't even know we exist.
OP
JohnCollins
Guest
Preesh!
I think some of your comments about JJ's approach are right on and well-put (I'm in sales, and I never got a sale by making a prospect feel stupid about where they were at when I met them).
Diving is a continuum from the few-times-per-year-warm-water-diver I've been and those who are more passionate about it who dive more and in more challenging environments. It's not a discrete progression. Maybe that's why I have found value in some of the DIR concepts. I have adopted some, and I'm comfortable not "going all the way" for the kind of diving I've done. Their concepts will make me a better casual diver. If I want to do more challenging diving, I'll move more toward DIR on the continuum.
I also feel what I've learned in "traditional" channels is valuable and don't feel threatened personally by DIR comments that paint with a broad brush. But then my instructor, in addition to being a PADI instructor, was also a military member, and we took a more serious approach to things. The fact that I can improve immensely from where I am doesn't make me feel my initial training was inferior in any way, for the kind of diving I do, an important distinction. The fact that I dont' have a lot invested in advanced training with an established organization also means I don't take a lot of what DIR has to say personally.
Anyway, I think DIR brings some great concepts to diving and if folks took a viewpoint that diving experience is a smooth continuum there'd be a lot less acrimony here. For where I am--the several time a year warm water OW diver, getting a long hose and practicing safety drills, buoyancy control, and adopting a more rigorous "buddy mind-set" is a great thing. I've moved a little along the continuum toward being a better diver, and I don't feel I haven't moved enough because I haven't ditched my jacket BC and Air II yet negates any positive benefits I may have gained from the thinking about things in DIR terms. I'm just building on the foundation I was given by an excellent PADI instructor.
On the other hand, I don't have any misconceptions that I'm in any way "ready" for more challenging diving. I want to get my gear and my technique down to almost military precision before I do any wreck penetration diving, for example. I could take a wreck course right now. . .but I simply won't until I move more along that continuum toward DIR before I try it.
Maybe that's the key. There's not "good/bad, right/wrong, us/them" kind of distinctions. There's a smooth continuum along diving's skill progression from the beginning stages--where a good instructor in any organization can take students--through an "apprentice" stage where DIR concepts become progressively more important--to the really advanced stages where I think the DIR folks have really defined the state of the art, if you will.
A diver can go as far along that continuum as they choose. There's nothing wrong with stopping at some point along that continuum and deciding "I'm happy here", at least for the moment. I do think that in serious diving, DIR has set the bar in the right place, though. You read the accident reports on scubadiving.com and you quickly realize that DIR principles would make most of those stories unthinkable.
On the other hand, most of those stories are the result of people diving out of their depth, so to speak--jumping ahead on the continuum of diving--and they injure or kill themselves because they are diving way out of their league on the experience and training scale. That doesn't mean their training was inadequate! Their training might have been just fine, but they were diving way out of their league! That's not the training agency's fault, that's the diver's fault. You might blame the dive master, but I, for one, take responsibility for my own actions, and I feel my instructor let me know in no uncertain terms what my limits are.
I don't know if any of this makes any sense at all (It's Friday night and I've had a few beers
), but I think the major training agencies have done a good job of getting folks started on the left end of the continuum. I think the DIR folks have done a great job of defining the right end of the continuum. There can be more mutual respect on both sides, however. If GUE were responsible for giving out basic certs, we wouldn't have a dive industry, and that's a fact. Of course, they might not think that's a bad thing, LOL. And for folks diving 30-50 feet in no current in Grand Cayman, that would be a shame. Because out of those folks, well trained to do that kind of diving by the major agencies, come people like me who want to push the envelope, and for us DIR has a lot to offer in taking us further along the continuum. You know, even JJ and GI3 probably got started with PADI or NAUI. That wouldn't make them capable of what they've accomplished, but it got them of to a good start. On the other hand, there's no way in heck they could have accomplished what they've accomplished on their basic training. In fact, they've accomplished what they have by defining the state of the art where they are themselves. And for that, we should all be grateful, I think. They are pioneers, but they are pioneers who have set down standards that make it safer for others to follow in their footsteps.
I'll shut up now. I'm going to get another beer and read this. Maybe it will make sense when read through beer goggles. Probably doesn't.
I think some of your comments about JJ's approach are right on and well-put (I'm in sales, and I never got a sale by making a prospect feel stupid about where they were at when I met them).
Diving is a continuum from the few-times-per-year-warm-water-diver I've been and those who are more passionate about it who dive more and in more challenging environments. It's not a discrete progression. Maybe that's why I have found value in some of the DIR concepts. I have adopted some, and I'm comfortable not "going all the way" for the kind of diving I've done. Their concepts will make me a better casual diver. If I want to do more challenging diving, I'll move more toward DIR on the continuum.
I also feel what I've learned in "traditional" channels is valuable and don't feel threatened personally by DIR comments that paint with a broad brush. But then my instructor, in addition to being a PADI instructor, was also a military member, and we took a more serious approach to things. The fact that I can improve immensely from where I am doesn't make me feel my initial training was inferior in any way, for the kind of diving I do, an important distinction. The fact that I dont' have a lot invested in advanced training with an established organization also means I don't take a lot of what DIR has to say personally.
Anyway, I think DIR brings some great concepts to diving and if folks took a viewpoint that diving experience is a smooth continuum there'd be a lot less acrimony here. For where I am--the several time a year warm water OW diver, getting a long hose and practicing safety drills, buoyancy control, and adopting a more rigorous "buddy mind-set" is a great thing. I've moved a little along the continuum toward being a better diver, and I don't feel I haven't moved enough because I haven't ditched my jacket BC and Air II yet negates any positive benefits I may have gained from the thinking about things in DIR terms. I'm just building on the foundation I was given by an excellent PADI instructor.
On the other hand, I don't have any misconceptions that I'm in any way "ready" for more challenging diving. I want to get my gear and my technique down to almost military precision before I do any wreck penetration diving, for example. I could take a wreck course right now. . .but I simply won't until I move more along that continuum toward DIR before I try it.
Maybe that's the key. There's not "good/bad, right/wrong, us/them" kind of distinctions. There's a smooth continuum along diving's skill progression from the beginning stages--where a good instructor in any organization can take students--through an "apprentice" stage where DIR concepts become progressively more important--to the really advanced stages where I think the DIR folks have really defined the state of the art, if you will.
A diver can go as far along that continuum as they choose. There's nothing wrong with stopping at some point along that continuum and deciding "I'm happy here", at least for the moment. I do think that in serious diving, DIR has set the bar in the right place, though. You read the accident reports on scubadiving.com and you quickly realize that DIR principles would make most of those stories unthinkable.
On the other hand, most of those stories are the result of people diving out of their depth, so to speak--jumping ahead on the continuum of diving--and they injure or kill themselves because they are diving way out of their league on the experience and training scale. That doesn't mean their training was inadequate! Their training might have been just fine, but they were diving way out of their league! That's not the training agency's fault, that's the diver's fault. You might blame the dive master, but I, for one, take responsibility for my own actions, and I feel my instructor let me know in no uncertain terms what my limits are.
I don't know if any of this makes any sense at all (It's Friday night and I've had a few beers
), but I think the major training agencies have done a good job of getting folks started on the left end of the continuum. I think the DIR folks have done a great job of defining the right end of the continuum. There can be more mutual respect on both sides, however. If GUE were responsible for giving out basic certs, we wouldn't have a dive industry, and that's a fact. Of course, they might not think that's a bad thing, LOL. And for folks diving 30-50 feet in no current in Grand Cayman, that would be a shame. Because out of those folks, well trained to do that kind of diving by the major agencies, come people like me who want to push the envelope, and for us DIR has a lot to offer in taking us further along the continuum. You know, even JJ and GI3 probably got started with PADI or NAUI. That wouldn't make them capable of what they've accomplished, but it got them of to a good start. On the other hand, there's no way in heck they could have accomplished what they've accomplished on their basic training. In fact, they've accomplished what they have by defining the state of the art where they are themselves. And for that, we should all be grateful, I think. They are pioneers, but they are pioneers who have set down standards that make it safer for others to follow in their footsteps.I'll shut up now. I'm going to get another beer and read this. Maybe it will make sense when read through beer goggles.
Probably doesn't.
PhotoTJ
Contributor
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 17
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
If, as you postulate, the 99% just dive Cancun once a year, exactly why are they a problem? They don't dive with you, and you don't dive with them.
Where is the conflict?
I know for a fact that the name alone offends people who have been diving for a while, that just leads to them being on the defensive about other things (such as gear).
I belive that 99% of divers out there would benefit from a change in configuration, and ALL would benefit from skills taught in DIR-F class.
While some instructors ARE great and spend a lot of time working w/ their students...a greater # dont. All I had to do for the "Bouyancy" part of my AOW was swim thru a F...ing Hula-Hoop!!!
Most people I know here say the same thing, "class was a joke!"
And Training like that can actually take you pretty far, I used to think (of my instructors 2,3 day classes) "Diving is not hard I dont see the problem w/ it" But GOOD diving IS a bit harder, until you experiance it (or see someone else do it) you wont see anything wrong either.
I belive that 99% of divers out there would benefit from a change in configuration, and ALL would benefit from skills taught in DIR-F class.
While some instructors ARE great and spend a lot of time working w/ their students...a greater # dont. All I had to do for the "Bouyancy" part of my AOW was swim thru a F...ing Hula-Hoop!!!
Most people I know here say the same thing, "class was a joke!"
And Training like that can actually take you pretty far, I used to think (of my instructors 2,3 day classes) "Diving is not hard I dont see the problem w/ it" But GOOD diving IS a bit harder, until you experiance it (or see someone else do it) you wont see anything wrong either.
PhotoTJ
Contributor
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 17
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
Two points.
1. YOU believe. Most people dive the way they do because they like it, it works for them. THEY believe that their configuration is fine.
2. All would benefit? Hmmm, maybe. But if I only drive to church on Sunday, do I need to go to the Bob Bonduraunt school of stunt driving? Doubt it.
Here's an engineering point of view.
If it works, leave it alone. Good enough is always good enough, while perfect is a pain in the a$$, and usually not that much better.
Why do the acolytes persist in trying to convert those who have no desire to be converted?
Similar threads
