over weighting death

[The Chairman]

How do you know?

Walter, the facts have been stated though you may wish to argue them ad nauseum. While you may be unsure of what happened, it's fairly obvious to me. I believe it's obvious to many, many others as well.

 

[freediver]

Walter, the facts have been stated though you may wish to argue them ad nauseum. While you may be unsure of what happened, it's fairly obvious to me. I believe it's obvious to many, many others as well.

Actually, what should be fairly obvious is that we don't know the precise details about her mental, emotional and physical status nor do we know the precise extent of her training, all of which have been pointed out. There may be more people leaning toward a certain viewpoint but you're simply agreeing on speculation. However, if speculation has taught us something in this event, then I suppose this is good.

 

[Thalassamania]

You're trying awful hard not to see the point, it's not that obtuse. If you throw a non-swimmer into the deep end of the pool what happens? Panic. If you throw me into the deep end of the pool, what happens? I get wet. What's the difference? Training and experience. Ipso facto: "Panic kills quickly and without notice or defference to training." is horse puckey, training can clearly make a difference.

You, however overlook the obvious with such ease. I am so jealous! Not in all cases and unfortunately, not in THIS case.

What did I overlook? You don't answer the question, you don't address the example, in fact you do nothing but continue to impune my thought processes, intelligence, character, etc. which is all that you've done since this thread began.

I have clearly stated that I was not addressing the accident that had occured specifically, since I really don't feel that there is enough information to draw a conclusion there one way or another.

 

[Walter]

Walter, the facts have been stated though you may wish to argue them ad nauseum. While you may be unsure of what happened, it's fairly obvious to me. I believe it's obvious to many, many others as well.

The facts we've been told are:

1. She's dived Molassas Reef before.

2. She said she was overweighted.

3. She panicked.

4. She died.

What we don't know is:

1. What was the nature/extent of her training.

2. The nature/extent of her experience beyond one dive on Molassas Reef.

3. What else she may have said or did prior to becoming panicked.

4. The cause of death.

What have I missed?

 

[The Chairman]

What did I overlook? You don't answer the question, you don't address the example, in fact you do nothing but continue to impune my thought processes, intelligence, character, etc. which is all that you've done since this thread began.

Give it a rest Thalassamania. I have not come NEAR to how you have castigated me or others. Neither have I crossed the TOS. I HAVE disagreed with you, and somehow you think that this, in and of itself, should be a violation of the TOS. I answered your fallacious argument (a biased sample for you logicians) back in post 141 and you failed or refused to grasp it's import.

I have clearly stated that I was not addressing the accident that had occured specifically, since I really don't feel that there is enough information to draw a conclusion there one way or another.

Then why waste our time with mere innuendo? If you come into a discussion about an accident and all you do is rail about inadequate standards and poor training, please don't cry foul when we take it that you meant THIS accident. This is the fallacy of poisoning the well.

 

[TheRedHead]

What have I missed?

The amount of weight she was diving. Her gear (rental?). She was *supposedly* wearing a rented wetsuit. Too tight?

 

[Walter]

Right. I knew I would miss things we don't know (it's almost everytjing). Have I missed anything we do know?

 

[Thalassamania]

Give it a rest Thalassamania. I have not come NEAR to how you have castigated me or others. Neither have I crossed the TOS. I HAVE disagreed with you, and somehow you think that this, in and of itself, should be a violation of the TOS. I answered your fallacious argument (a biased sample for you llogicians) back in post 141 and you failed or refused to grasp it's import.

Then why waste our time with mere innuendo? If you come into a discussion about an accident and all you do is rail about inadequate standards and poor training, please don't cry foul when we take it that you meant THIS accident. This is the fallacy of poisoning the well.

You still refuse to answer and instead just call me names. In 141 you did not address the question and you have still to refute my position with anything except name calling.

Again, I repeat: I know nothing about the case that started this discussion, I have few facts about it, not enough to draw any conclusions. No innuendo is intended. This has been a confused thread that split into three and multiple conversations have been carried on each of the split off threads, so please take me at my word, I'm not engaged in the same conversation that you and Mike are.

 

[piikki]

Did I miss it...? Did she die because she aspirated water and drowned or did she panic so bad she had a heart attack before she had time to drown?

What saddens me is how one can drown on surface when people/boats and effective rescue would be around even after one has gotten water in the lungs and might be in a bad way. I don't know the site - how far from the boat did this happen?

Panic is a mighty opponent, and I think I have really considered that in situation like this, when it becomes a question of life and death - is there any way I can "safely" knock someone out to be able to help (if I can't talk/wait them out - like obviously, to my surprise, - didn't happen in this case). Screw thinking about lawsuits or hurting someone a bit if it's someone I love trying so hard to die on me anyway.

 

[Cacia]

is there any way I can "safely" knock someone out to be able to help

no, there is not.