In terms of the question as to whether M and M conference or peer review is open to public or legal viewing - the answer is no in the vast majority of cases. There are attempts to change that however. Opinions posted here are accessed, and a lawyer could use them, but it is doubtful to be of much help. They have experts in every field, and would not spend a great deal of time on this or any other website.
To Critique or not to Critique
- Thread starter DiveBandit
- 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
and welcome to SB epishock!
OP
- Messages
- 1,546
- Reaction score
- 2
Whats an M&M conference?
dlndavid:
Good for you I can perform the Heimlich maneuver via internet!
Welcome epishock, what's shakin?
adurso
Contributor
N@rco$i$:
Where you decide if you like blue ones better than red ones??????
TerryInFlorida
Registered
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
howarde:
One more round on the ride that is howarde:
Guy, I am not attacking you. I am merely challenging your claims and discussing them, it is my firm belief you are a liar by your own posts, you claim a number of times that these guys had said one thing or another and attacked Kevin, prove it... Don't blame me if your claims don't hold water and you fabricated the issue. All of the knowledge in the world can't support the farce you have helped to create. Also do any of the pm's have any facts to actually support your claim, the many I have gotten support mine.
Or are you just sore because of the "See in my case I am pointing my finger at the finger pointers" statement? Made a lot of sense didn't it...
I'm through with your merry-go-round illogical arguments. At first they seemed like intellectual stimulation, but now I am bored with your retorts.TerryInFlorida:
If I am a liar, then show me.
If you're "not attacking me" and "challenging my claims" then what claim is incorrect?
I have nothing to prove. I think it all speaks for itself.
If you have something to say to ME. keep it in private, people don't need to read this drivel.
edit - corrected merry-go-round.
howarde:
I don't want to get into the whether or not it is correct to critique but...
I would like to point out that merry-go-round, should be hyphenated :05:
ItsBruce
Contributor
Enough of the personal attacks and challenges. Back to the actual subject of the thread:
I agree with Catherine, condolences and the like should be separated from critique and analysis. However, I think critique and analysis are appropriate, if not necessary. Facts should come from those who are witnesses. Facts are things that come from the five senses. All else is opinion. IMHO, any statement that utilizes a conjugation of the verb “to be” is probably an opinion, whether the speaker’s or someone else’s. (Saying “It is 5:00 p.m.” is an opinion. Saying “My watch reads 5:00” is a fact.)
Subject to the foregoing, opinions and speculation is not a bad thing. It should be based on fact. A recent thread on a diving accident reflected something to the effect that the deceased diver’s second stage did not have a mouthpiece. That is a very odd fact. Why would it not have a mouthpiece? The answer may be speculative. However, such speculation might lead to investigation that might lead to a potentially valid answer. (For what its worth, in my experience, mouthpieces don’t often just come off second stages. Perhaps it was not installed correctly—in which case, it could have been a contributing factor to the injury. Perhaps it was pulled off in a struggle for the second stage—in which case it might be in someone’s mouth and might give a clue as to the nature of the struggle.)
Speculation may lead to answers.
Discussion, even without all the facts may prevent future injuries.
As to Catherine’s inquiry as to whether lawyers peruse what people have written. The answer is “yes.” We have to separate useful from useless. And, even if we don’t peruse, the experts we hire to educate us and provide us with opinions, do.
BTW: If I should die while diving, I hope all my SB friends will openly discuss it. Perhaps something useful will come to light and will prevent future incidents. However, I would hope they would refrain from unnecessarily criticizing my buddy, dive master, dive operator, resort, equipment manufacturer or anyone else. I’m sure these already feel badly. But, if there is justified blame, then it should not be hidden. Again, that is to prevent future incidents.
Also: As to DM protocol of not discussing accidents, my understanding is that this is to protect the DM, dive operator and certifying organization from possible liability, not because silence is the “right thing” to maintain.
I agree with Catherine, condolences and the like should be separated from critique and analysis. However, I think critique and analysis are appropriate, if not necessary. Facts should come from those who are witnesses. Facts are things that come from the five senses. All else is opinion. IMHO, any statement that utilizes a conjugation of the verb “to be” is probably an opinion, whether the speaker’s or someone else’s. (Saying “It is 5:00 p.m.” is an opinion. Saying “My watch reads 5:00” is a fact.)
Subject to the foregoing, opinions and speculation is not a bad thing. It should be based on fact. A recent thread on a diving accident reflected something to the effect that the deceased diver’s second stage did not have a mouthpiece. That is a very odd fact. Why would it not have a mouthpiece? The answer may be speculative. However, such speculation might lead to investigation that might lead to a potentially valid answer. (For what its worth, in my experience, mouthpieces don’t often just come off second stages. Perhaps it was not installed correctly—in which case, it could have been a contributing factor to the injury. Perhaps it was pulled off in a struggle for the second stage—in which case it might be in someone’s mouth and might give a clue as to the nature of the struggle.)
Speculation may lead to answers.
Discussion, even without all the facts may prevent future injuries.
As to Catherine’s inquiry as to whether lawyers peruse what people have written. The answer is “yes.” We have to separate useful from useless. And, even if we don’t peruse, the experts we hire to educate us and provide us with opinions, do.
BTW: If I should die while diving, I hope all my SB friends will openly discuss it. Perhaps something useful will come to light and will prevent future incidents. However, I would hope they would refrain from unnecessarily criticizing my buddy, dive master, dive operator, resort, equipment manufacturer or anyone else. I’m sure these already feel badly. But, if there is justified blame, then it should not be hidden. Again, that is to prevent future incidents.
Also: As to DM protocol of not discussing accidents, my understanding is that this is to protect the DM, dive operator and certifying organization from possible liability, not because silence is the “right thing” to maintain.
TerryInFlorida
Registered
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
I have stated the facts a number of times that contridict your claims.
One of your claims - Kevin was attacked
No he wasn't, not at all. The facts weren't in but it was stated early on that the press was probably way off base by one of the posters you claim was attacking Kevin in the first place with the very same post you claim he was attacking Kevin with. I cannot post something that isn't there in the first place, that is why the burden of proof falls on your shoulders because you claim it does exist.
Another of your claims - Other were discussing an issue without having the facts
They were not claiming anything that Kevin did or didn't do was fact. In your urgency to argue you fabricated your own version of what the posts said, you didn't actually comprehend what words were actually used and you just drew your own conclusion as to why such things were being asked in the first place, in your mind it was to attack Kevin. Well welcome to the free world, howarde I would like to introduce you to howarde... So again your burden of proof...
Yet another claim - They were pointing fingers
They never pointed a finger at Kevin, very far fetched to come to this conclusion. Your emotion over-road your reality of what was actually written and any intent they really had by the mere factor that you never asked them. I can't post every one of the posts in the thread to show you something isn't there... So again your burden of proof...
Lets start here...
One of your claims - Kevin was attacked
No he wasn't, not at all. The facts weren't in but it was stated early on that the press was probably way off base by one of the posters you claim was attacking Kevin in the first place with the very same post you claim he was attacking Kevin with. I cannot post something that isn't there in the first place, that is why the burden of proof falls on your shoulders because you claim it does exist.
Another of your claims - Other were discussing an issue without having the facts
They were not claiming anything that Kevin did or didn't do was fact. In your urgency to argue you fabricated your own version of what the posts said, you didn't actually comprehend what words were actually used and you just drew your own conclusion as to why such things were being asked in the first place, in your mind it was to attack Kevin. Well welcome to the free world, howarde I would like to introduce you to howarde... So again your burden of proof...
Yet another claim - They were pointing fingers
They never pointed a finger at Kevin, very far fetched to come to this conclusion. Your emotion over-road your reality of what was actually written and any intent they really had by the mere factor that you never asked them. I can't post every one of the posts in the thread to show you something isn't there... So again your burden of proof...
Lets start here...
Similar threads
