fire_diver
Contributor
brutus_scuba:
He was and is aware. He has made the same basic response to all of SB in the other Oriskany thread.
FD
Reply from Viking re: Oriskany ripoff
- Thread starter Allison Finch
- 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
He was and is aware. He has made the same basic response to all of SB in the other Oriskany thread.
FD
mike_s
Contributor
Actually guys, the captain has been presented the allegations and is aware of them. The captain has even acknowledged them. See this thread. http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=153080
He was asked many times point blank about why did he allow it and he "avoided" answering the direct questions several times.
The diver who took the items posted on another forum that he took them and described his actions. As one poster put it... "He cooked his own goose".
He was asked many times point blank about why did he allow it and he "avoided" answering the direct questions several times.
The diver who took the items posted on another forum that he took them and described his actions. As one poster put it... "He cooked his own goose".
Stormbringer
Contributor
Exactly...nowhere does he deny it.
jonnythan:
Diver Dennis
Contributor
Here are some quotes from Cap. Thorsen.
The Captain did know about it but he says he did not know it was illegal.
The Captain did know about it but he says he did not know it was illegal.
seadoggirl
Guest
Okay let me add to the pot. I am a diver in the Pensacola market. On Tuesday I had lunch with a DM here and a captain (fishing) from the same side of town as Capt Tim. The DM told me a story about a trip on Capt Tim's boat were Capt Tim actually lost a diver (she floated several hundreds of yards away from the boat in the current). Capt Tim was in the water diving at the time and the DM was on the boat. The DM signaled Capt Tim and he returned to the boat to find that two divers had gotten pulled away from the boat by the current. Her dive buddy was picked up by another boat and in an attempt to get the buddy back on Capt Tim's boat, she was almost mushed between the two boats. The other diver was finally picked up and returned to Capt Tim's boat. Capt Tim likes to talk about his safety record but here is a second hand account of a very unsafe situation.
The DM told me that he told himself right then and there, that he would never dive with Capt Tim again. I have not been on Capt Tim's boat but really respect the DM's opinion. We have so many good Capt's in S.Alabama and the panhandle of Florida. I would hate Capt Tim to give the area a black eye. As previously stated, I've dove the O many times and love it. I'm proud that the Navy (who I work for) gave us the honor of putting her here. I have met many of the sailors who were on the O when she was topside. I also wrote an email to Capt Tim. It was very nice and I tried not to accuse him. His response to me was not as bad as the one to Allison got but it was very strong.
My opinion is still the same.... vote with your dive charter dollars. Don't dive with a Captain who acts this way. It is a personal choice who you support with your money. Don't let this misdeed go unpunished.
The DM told me that he told himself right then and there, that he would never dive with Capt Tim again. I have not been on Capt Tim's boat but really respect the DM's opinion. We have so many good Capt's in S.Alabama and the panhandle of Florida. I would hate Capt Tim to give the area a black eye. As previously stated, I've dove the O many times and love it. I'm proud that the Navy (who I work for) gave us the honor of putting her here. I have met many of the sailors who were on the O when she was topside. I also wrote an email to Capt Tim. It was very nice and I tried not to accuse him. His response to me was not as bad as the one to Allison got but it was very strong.
My opinion is still the same.... vote with your dive charter dollars. Don't dive with a Captain who acts this way. It is a personal choice who you support with your money. Don't let this misdeed go unpunished.
Guba
Contributor
(another two cents worth...Hey, if we add up all these "two cents" we could fund the sinking of ANOTHER artificial reef! Idea!)
This topic is being roasted, diced, chewed, regurgitated, masticated some more, choked down, digested, and...well, you know what happens next in biological terms, right? Let's try to put things in the simplest terms...
Safety is job one for a dive operator. That much is agreed upon by just about everyone with no quibbling. Ensuring that clients have the opportunity to enjoy their dives is also a high priority. However, somewhere down the line, charter operators have a responsibility to the very sites to which they are delivering their clients. Those are, of course, the mainstay of the livelihood for the operator after all. Without the sites to draw the business, then the operators would have no one to whom to cater. Therefore, operators (Captain Tim included) are honor bound to preserve and protect the sites they are "borrowing" from others in order to make a living. To neglect this is something akin to piracy on the open seas, in my opinion (which is nearly worthless, so save your cents).
I can only guage Captain Tim's actions (the ones he himself professes) by those of captains I know. I can only imagine Captain Ken's (Gulf of Mexico) response at seeing a diver return to the surface with a big chunk of coral off the Flower Gardens. I imagine it would be something like "Well, it's a long swim back to Freeport (110 miles, in fact). I have no doubt someone's wetsuit would have a big hole somewhere just below the end of his tank.
I firmly believe that should be the response of all dive operators who frequent special places such as coral reefs and artifical reefs. We need more operators who will stand up for the industry from which they make their living. As the old saying goes, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." (also copied in a C&W song, I think...) Captian Tim cites "lack of experience" from people who call him into question as if one must earn the right to question the actions of a professional. It takes no experience at all to know right from wrong. We teach that in kindergarten--taking something that is not yours is wrong. If you help someone to take that item, you are wrong, too. The fact that Captain Tim has a long career in diving, the U.S. military, and has had close contact with famous environmentalists and dive "heroes" does not relieve him from the generally accepted standards (such as "leave it as you found it"). It confers upon him MORE responsibility, not less. He is helping to set the standard with the way he operates his boat. While he may not believe so, he OWES it to the memory of these pioneers,the ones who served on the Oriskany, their families and the general diving community to help maintain the site from which he makes his living.
I am not attacking the captain. However, I deplore the attitude that just because "everyone is doing it" somehow makes it right to aid and abet someone who is doing something wrong. I also question the philosophy that "I can't be wrong becuase I've been in the business a long time." What all these threads are saying is that the vast majority of the diving community feel a wrong has been committed, and we'd certainly like to see the wrongdoing stop.
sorry about the soap box...I'll try to refrain from climbing up on it again.
This topic is being roasted, diced, chewed, regurgitated, masticated some more, choked down, digested, and...well, you know what happens next in biological terms, right? Let's try to put things in the simplest terms...
Safety is job one for a dive operator. That much is agreed upon by just about everyone with no quibbling. Ensuring that clients have the opportunity to enjoy their dives is also a high priority. However, somewhere down the line, charter operators have a responsibility to the very sites to which they are delivering their clients. Those are, of course, the mainstay of the livelihood for the operator after all. Without the sites to draw the business, then the operators would have no one to whom to cater. Therefore, operators (Captain Tim included) are honor bound to preserve and protect the sites they are "borrowing" from others in order to make a living. To neglect this is something akin to piracy on the open seas, in my opinion (which is nearly worthless, so save your cents).
I can only guage Captain Tim's actions (the ones he himself professes) by those of captains I know. I can only imagine Captain Ken's (Gulf of Mexico) response at seeing a diver return to the surface with a big chunk of coral off the Flower Gardens. I imagine it would be something like "Well, it's a long swim back to Freeport (110 miles, in fact). I have no doubt someone's wetsuit would have a big hole somewhere just below the end of his tank.
I firmly believe that should be the response of all dive operators who frequent special places such as coral reefs and artifical reefs. We need more operators who will stand up for the industry from which they make their living. As the old saying goes, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." (also copied in a C&W song, I think...) Captian Tim cites "lack of experience" from people who call him into question as if one must earn the right to question the actions of a professional. It takes no experience at all to know right from wrong. We teach that in kindergarten--taking something that is not yours is wrong. If you help someone to take that item, you are wrong, too. The fact that Captain Tim has a long career in diving, the U.S. military, and has had close contact with famous environmentalists and dive "heroes" does not relieve him from the generally accepted standards (such as "leave it as you found it"). It confers upon him MORE responsibility, not less. He is helping to set the standard with the way he operates his boat. While he may not believe so, he OWES it to the memory of these pioneers,the ones who served on the Oriskany, their families and the general diving community to help maintain the site from which he makes his living.
I am not attacking the captain. However, I deplore the attitude that just because "everyone is doing it" somehow makes it right to aid and abet someone who is doing something wrong. I also question the philosophy that "I can't be wrong becuase I've been in the business a long time." What all these threads are saying is that the vast majority of the diving community feel a wrong has been committed, and we'd certainly like to see the wrongdoing stop.
sorry about the soap box...I'll try to refrain from climbing up on it again.
Diver Dennis
Contributor
This whole thing was not about whether Capt. Thorsen has a good operation or not, although he brought the issue up by describing how professional he is, it's about whether he knew Mr. Sleepy took the items. He did know, said he was not too happy about it but went on to say how responsible Mr. Sleppy is. By turning a blind eye to it, it is my opinion he is condoning the taking of these items. All the other stuff he talks about is in contradiction to this fact or tries to justify it.
djanni
Contributor
In this thread and the one that proceeded it, most of you are acting like a wild blood thirsty mod out to fry someone... anyone. Since you figure you can't fry the "DIVER" you'll fry the Captian. When I came to the Captain's defense in the prior thread a bunch of you decided you'd fry me. Not to picky I guess.
Here are some definitions you should read............
Main Entry: righ·teous
Pronunciation: 'rI-ch&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of earlier rightuous, alteration of Middle English rightwise, rightwos, from Old English rihtwIs, from riht, noun, right + wIs wise
1 : acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin
2 a : morally right or justifiable <a righteous decision> b : arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality <righteous indignation>
Main Entry: self-righ·teous
Pronunciation: -'rI-ch&s
Function: adjective
: convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic
Fuzzy logic
From Wikipedia encyclopedia
Fuzzy logic is derived from fuzzy set theory dealing with reasoning that is approximate rather than precisely deduced from classical predicate logic. It can be thought of as the application side of fuzzy set theory dealing with well thought out real world expert values for a complex problem. (Klir 1997).
Degrees of truth are often confused with probabilities. However, they are conceptually distinct; fuzzy truth represents membership in vaguely defined sets, not likelihood of some event or condition. To illustrate the difference, consider this scenario: Bob is in a house with two adjacent rooms: the kitchen and the dining room. In many cases, Bob's status within the set of things "in the kitchen" is completely plain: he's either "in the kitchen" or "not in the kitchen". What about when Bob stands in the doorway? He may be considered "partially in the kitchen". Quantifying this partial state yields a fuzzy set membership. With only his little toe in the dining room, we might say Bob is 99% "in the kitchen" and 1% "in the dining room", for instance. No event (like a coin toss) will resolve Bob to being completely "in the kitchen" or "not in the kitchen", as long as he's standing in that doorway. Fuzzy sets are based on vague definitions of sets, not randomness. Fuzzy logic allows for set membership values between and including 0 and 1, shades of gray as well as black and white, and in its linguistic form, imprecise concepts like "slightly", "quite" and "very". Specifically, it allows partial membership in a set. It is related to fuzzy sets and possibility theory. It was introduced in 1965 by Prof. Lotfi Zadeh at the University of California, Berkeley. Fuzzy logic is controversial in some circles, despite wide acceptance and a broad track record of successful applications. It is rejected by some control engineers for validation and other reasons, and by some statisticians who hold that probability is the only rigorous mathematical description of uncertainty. Critics also argue that it cannot be a superset of ordinary set theory since membership functions are defined in terms of conventional sets.
Here are some definitions you should read............
Main Entry: righ·teous
Pronunciation: 'rI-ch&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of earlier rightuous, alteration of Middle English rightwise, rightwos, from Old English rihtwIs, from riht, noun, right + wIs wise
1 : acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin
2 a : morally right or justifiable <a righteous decision> b : arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality <righteous indignation>
Main Entry: self-righ·teous
Pronunciation: -'rI-ch&s
Function: adjective
: convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic
Fuzzy logic
From Wikipedia encyclopedia
Fuzzy logic is derived from fuzzy set theory dealing with reasoning that is approximate rather than precisely deduced from classical predicate logic. It can be thought of as the application side of fuzzy set theory dealing with well thought out real world expert values for a complex problem. (Klir 1997).
Degrees of truth are often confused with probabilities. However, they are conceptually distinct; fuzzy truth represents membership in vaguely defined sets, not likelihood of some event or condition. To illustrate the difference, consider this scenario: Bob is in a house with two adjacent rooms: the kitchen and the dining room. In many cases, Bob's status within the set of things "in the kitchen" is completely plain: he's either "in the kitchen" or "not in the kitchen". What about when Bob stands in the doorway? He may be considered "partially in the kitchen". Quantifying this partial state yields a fuzzy set membership. With only his little toe in the dining room, we might say Bob is 99% "in the kitchen" and 1% "in the dining room", for instance. No event (like a coin toss) will resolve Bob to being completely "in the kitchen" or "not in the kitchen", as long as he's standing in that doorway. Fuzzy sets are based on vague definitions of sets, not randomness. Fuzzy logic allows for set membership values between and including 0 and 1, shades of gray as well as black and white, and in its linguistic form, imprecise concepts like "slightly", "quite" and "very". Specifically, it allows partial membership in a set. It is related to fuzzy sets and possibility theory. It was introduced in 1965 by Prof. Lotfi Zadeh at the University of California, Berkeley. Fuzzy logic is controversial in some circles, despite wide acceptance and a broad track record of successful applications. It is rejected by some control engineers for validation and other reasons, and by some statisticians who hold that probability is the only rigorous mathematical description of uncertainty. Critics also argue that it cannot be a superset of ordinary set theory since membership functions are defined in terms of conventional sets.
Don Janni:
I'm in full agreement.
fishb0y:
I agree. No matter what, the number 1 priority is to show people a good time and bring them back safely......
However, in his position as operator he has two things to consider. Diver safety AND regulations concerning the diving area. I assume that the wreck is not a legal "derelict" but from his response he seems to be treating it like one. If the wreck is protected, which I assume it is, and he is not enforcing the rules then he is only doing 1/2 of what is expected of him and he should expect people to challenge him on that--both ethically and legally.
A third point is that there is a no-touch "culture" among wreck divers in North America that's fairly strong. Even if he's legally within his right to allow divers to remove objects from a wreck, he should consider the "sensibilities" of his clients and at the very least it should be addressed in order to disarm the kind of feedback he's getting in this thread. This, in my mind shows a head-strong short-sightedness on the part of the operator that is decidedly not good for business. (read: going off 1/2-cocked with his head up his -*ss is dumb...dumb...dumb!).
R..
Similar threads
