Non GUE DIR

[jagfish]

GUE determines what DIR is. It depends on if they're DIR or not. DIR and GUE are two different things. Where are you going with this?

If AG is no longer DIR because GUE says so, then GUE and DIR are one and the same because GUE determines, by your standards, who is and is not DIR. For the record, AG was kicked out for being subversive - per Panos Alexakos, VP and Director of Quality Control, GUE.

Now I myself have found a former GUE instructor that has taught all of my instructors (probably some of yours too) and hundreds of students around the world that is now teaching through NAUI. Since he was the Technical Instruction Director for GUE for several years, I'm pretty sure anyone who is smart and reasonable would realize that he knows what DIR is. Seriously.

~ Jason

I feel clear that DIR has become a generic term, much like how "Coke" has come to include any cola-like substance. In this sense, Coca-Cola no longer owns or controls the term coke; and it can be argued (even by GUE) that they no longer control the term and now espouse GUE DIR. This seems to acknowledge that there are other brands of DIR out there...

 

[mweitz]

Coke owns Coke, they don't own Cola. There were other Cola's before Coke.

EDIT: Oh, and Ford didn't invent the automobile. It was invented years before Ford. Ford revolutionized manufacturing with the assembly line.

 

[darkpup]

Coke owns Coke, they don't own Cola. There were other Cola's before Coke.

Let the Coke wars begin....

~ Jason

 

[Derek S]

Oh, and Ford didn't invent the automobile. It was invented years before Ford. Ford revolutionized manufacturing with the assembly line.

Yeah, but they invented the only one that counts....Mustang. :14:

 

[Derek S]

Why, oh why does this again make me feel like I'm watching a dog chase his tail, only to realize that the pursuit of the tail is in itself, worthless?

I really wish I could take 5 seconds to get inside JJ's and GI3's head as they read threads like this to see what must be going through their minds.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

It changes when said instructor was tossed out of GUE for not being DIR.


Perhaps, but very unlikely. I have yet to see anyone who has taken DIR-F and claims that they had it all down beforehand.

Selling a scooter does not make one suddenly not be DIR.

One does not go from being "Training Director" to being an inferior diver for anything other than purely business reasons.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[lamont]

I'd be willing to bet that to take a Tech 1 from AG you have to have passed the GUE fundamentals and 25 dives past it.

He certainly isn't going to screw around with non fundies level divers in a tech situation I'm guessing, waste of his time, waste of their time.

Mark

Yeah, but AG also has a "5thd-x fundamentals" course which satisfies the requirements for '5thd-x tech 1". AG may accept GUE creds and transfer them over to 5thd-x, but I doubt that reciprocity will work the other direction.

 

[boomx5]

I'll bet you if you have someone who will be "Tech 1" certified by AG and holds no GUE certs that any GUE instructor will want them to complete DIRF. In that light calling them "DIR" may not have any utility at all.

I'm also quite certain that GI3 will disagree with you (loudly) that AG students aren't going to be DIR by *his* definition of DIR. Hop on gavinscooters and argue with him about the definition of DIR if you want to, I'm armed with popcorn...

If you're talking about a fluffier definition of DIR which boils down to "are they a good diver and would i dive with them?" then it probably depends on your opinions about AG and what your bar is for diving with other people and the dive in question.

I'm not to concerned with what George says regarding AG's students. Nothing against George, but he does not dive with them, he does not get to see them in the water and he will not be attending Andrew's classes. Also, I'm not talking about the "fluffier" definition of DIR or are they good enough; they are either squared away or they are not. Andrew is a friend of mine as well as one of my instructors, and I can tell you that he is definately DIR regardless of what some of the people who are spouting crap out there say about him. The problem with some of this stuff is people believe every bit of gossip they hear on the internet...which is totally wrong.

For example. There was a gentleman who jumped on the Gavin list and ripped into Nick T this afternoon. Now, do we believe what he say (which may or may not be true) or do we get all the facts before we pass judgement on what he says. I can tell you that one of my main dive buddies is friends with Nick and has taken a few classes with him and says he's a great guy. I also know others who will vouch for Nick, but who is really right in the particular instance...I really don't know.

The same thing goes for the things people are saying about Andrew. All I can say is Andrew is an excellent DIR diver, and excellent DIR instructor, a good friend and there is more to the story than most people know...things that go way back...years.

 

[lamont]

I'm not to concerned with what George says regarding AG's students. Nothing against George, but he does not dive with them, he does not get to see them in the water and he will not be attending Andrew's classes. Also, I'm not talking about the "fluffier" definition of DIR or are they good enough; they are either squared away or they are not. Andrew is a friend of mine as well as one of my instructors, and I can tell you that he is definately DIR regardless of what some of the people who are spouting crap out there say about him. The problem with some of this stuff is people believe every bit of gossip they hear on the internet...which is totally wrong.

And you missed my entire point.

We do, however, now know exactly what DIR means _to you_, which is half of my point.

Sorry if you took "fluffier" to be derogatory towards those divers who better fit that definition, I meant the derision to be aimed at the quality of the definition.

Generally, I agree with everything that you said. I'm just not going to defend your defintion of DIR because I'm rapidly becoming sick of the term.

 

[boomx5]

And you missed my entire point.

We do, however, now know exactly what DIR means _to you_, which is half of my point.

Sorry if you took "fluffier" to be derogatory towards those divers who better fit that definition, I meant the derision to be aimed at the quality of the definition.

Generally, I agree with everything that you said. I'm just not going to defend your defintion of DIR because I'm rapidly becoming sick of the term.

Actually, I understand what you said. I wasn't quoting you because I was arguing or disagreeing with you, but I was just referencing your first point about George...that's all. I think you and I have pretty much always agreed on this topic Lamont, and I think we still do. As far as my definition of DIR is concerned, I don't have one of my own. However, I do adhere to the things I have been taught formally and informally by the numerous (7) different GUE instructors that I know.