Reply from Viking re: Oriskany ripoff

[OHGoDive]

Raise your hand if you believe that illegal and wrong are synonymous.

If you were to dive a wreck that had had stuff removed, but didn't know it, is your appreciation of the wreck affected? Has any harm been done? Is there any loss? Or does this only bother you because you read about it on the Interwebnette? That is, would you have ever noticed something was missing?

:59:

Ok, I'll bite here. If you break the law, you've done something wrong. Perhaps not in your mind, but in the view of the society that passed the law. Disagreeing with the law does not necessarily make it right. Breaking the law certainly does not.

Your argument is the same one used to defend a myriad of wrongs, the generic "they are so big/have so much they'll never notice or miss what I take" defense (see software & music piracy as exhibit A). It's a defense, but it doesn't make what was done right (or legal).

 

[Don Wray]

Yes I will miss it, but Mr. Sleepy won't.

 

[Soggy]

Yes I will miss it, but Mr. Sleepy won't.

Interesting. Where exactly was it?

 

[Don Wray]

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind regarding this issue, I am only speaking that I for one, would have liked to see them in place. Have I seen them in place, no. Will I get to see them in place, no. If someone had not taken them from the site, no

 

[Don Wray]

On the Oriskany, now in an individuals possession.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

You've expressed negative views about the Captain yourself. So who's the self-righteous one here?

Don ... the views I expressed had nothing to do with what happened on the Oriskany ... they have to do with what the Captain himself posted in the other thread, and with how he expressed himself in his response to Allison Finch.

Validity (or not) of his points notwithstanding ... the attitude displayed by Capt. Thorsen doesn't sound like someone I would choose to do business with.

It is often the case that divers who start diving businesses don't really know much about how to deal with their customers ...

It is entirely possible to disagree with someone without insulting people. As a potential customer, if you can't manage it, you don't deserve my business. Whatever happened on the Oriskany (which, if you've noticed, I didn't address in my comments), Capt. Thorsen did not represent himself very professionally here. I wouldn't be comfortable being 20 miles offshore with someone who can't keep his cool adequately to address the issues without resorting to the behavior he displayed in his posts.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Spectre]

On the Oriskany, now in an individuals possession.

I bleieve he meant to ask which of the gaping holes it came from, and if you can tell from the thousands of other gaping holes that are already there.

As I alluded to before: It costs $16.50 to go see the intrepid, and you get to see all those gauges and phones. Save your money, since you'll obviously be disappointed in the Oriskany if it's the gauges and phones you're interested in.

 

[Soggy]

:59:
Ok, I'll bite here. If you break the law, you've done something wrong. Perhaps not in your mind, but in the view of the society that passed the law. Disagreeing with the law does not necessarily make it right. Breaking the law certainly does not.

Interesting...so you believe that the law defines right and wrong? That's a very easy way to live one's life...obey the law and you have done no wrong. It requires no critical moral thought at all, in fact. "Is it legal? Yup...I'm A-OK!"

In a moral court (not a legal court), illegal does not necessarily mean wrong...it's not even a consideration. It just means you've broken a rule that has been set by some governing body. Slavery, for example, used to be legal....does that mean it was right? Drinking alcohol used to be illegal. Was it morally wrong then but ok now? Abortion is legal in some states, but not others. When you cross a border does that mean it's moral status has changed? If illegal = wrong, what determines whether something should be illegal?

Right and Wrong are concepts that are unchanging and atemporal, yet laws change all the time.

Your argument is the same one used to defend a myriad of wrongs, the generic "they are so big/have so much they'll never notice or miss what I take" defense (see software & music piracy as exhibit A). It's a defense, but it doesn't make what was done right (or legal).

Well, that *is* a crappy argument. A better argument is, "was there harm done?" and in some situations, no....that person who downloaded Metallica's MP3 may have never bought the album anyhow...they just downloaded it because it was convenient. Metallica makes a profit off of what the sell, and that person may never have been a potential buyer to begin with. I'm not condoning that argument, but it is a much more valid one. Obviously it would never hold up in court, but might in an ethical realm.

But I digress...

 

[Soggy]

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind regarding this issue, I am only speaking that I for one, would have liked to see them in place. Have I seen them in place, no. Will I get to see them in place, no. If someone had not taken them from the site, no

How can you miss something you didn't even know about?

 

[Don Wray]

I don't know and now will probably never know...someone took them