Ok for the record then. I said "debunked". I think the oxygen window discussion is officially behind us. I would qualify that as debunked but we didn't get any further than you choking on the definition of a word.
Really? Where is the science that "debunks" it?
I think it's clear to everyone that deep ascent lines, if you want to use them, need to be padded with extra time shallow but the current deep ascent (and bubble) models don't have any way of accurately predicting the amount of extra time needed.
What about using oxygen decompression? Does that work too in your mind?
The assumptions built into those approaches are based on thinking that controlling the fast tissues will protect the diver from an increased risk of DCS, which NEDU shows it does not. I called this "incorrect" and you choked on the definition of the word.
By "choking" on a word, do you mean splitting hairs about it's details? I'm wondering if you understand English well enough to know the definitions of the words you're using. Do you know what "debunked" means? Do you know the difference between "unwarranted" and "incorrect?" Do you understand what "choking" means colloquially?
Anyway, like I said, I'd prefer to protect my fast tissues more than the NEDU study suggests. Is that a crime?
Your thinking is still that protecting fast tissues is more important than protecting slower tissues, which NEDU has proven to be an incorrect assumption.
Again you're drawing your own conclusions and claiming that the NEDU study concluded it instead, so I'll quote their conclusion again: "The practical conclusion of this study is that controlling bubble formation in fast compartments with deep stops is unwarranted for air decompression dives."
Where in that conclusion does it say, "The assumption of protecting fast tissues is more important than protecting slow tissues is incorrect?" In fact, it doesn't mention ANYTHING about slow tissues, or how one group is in anyway relatively important than an other. I'd like to know, please, what other conclusions are you inferring? Is your conclusion about AG "being caught in a paradigm lock" one of those too?
I presume there is also an assumption that deep stops are "good" that they result in cleaner deco and that they get you to the surface faster. These are all things we have hear that are consistent with this paradigm. I called this being behind the curve and you choked on the definition of the word.
If someone doesn't believe in the same things you do, they are "behind the curve?" I'll keep "choking" I guess...
If GUE or any organisation who is developing deco strategies isn't trying to calibrate their models to account for the conclusions of the NEDU study then I would characterize that as ... what did I say again? .... unwise at best and irresponsible at worst.
So your OW students can teach JJ a lesson or two about decompression?
I'm not trying to be patronizing.
But you are being patronizing.
Trying to discredit me or assert dominance in this discussion is pointless because it does not make me wrong and it does not make you right.
Are you projecting? Aww
I'm not trying to discredit you, but merely get you to understand that there is potentially a group of people who don't believe exactly everything you do, and how we can still dive safely and not be "behind the curve."
You can't listen to me. Your personality will not allow it.
Correction: I can't listen to you because YOUR personality will not allow it. If you were less condescending then we might be able to have a discussion "as equals." However, condescending remarks and belittle the director of a training agency doesn't exactly get people to listen to you.
