Whats wrong with DIR

[Genesis]

I haven't seen anything anywhere indicating that GUE can apply force to anyone outside of threatening to deny or remove instructor credentials.

.... you are correct.

But GUE does retain the right to revoke a C-card, and they do not give an objective list of things for which it can be revoked.

What gets my radar going is when people start making public safety claims without evidence, and intentionally overstating their case, particularly when they are dancing on gravestones in doing so.

THAT is how unwarranted regulation and marketplace manipulation happens, and if you believe for one second that it can't happen here, you need to wake up.

 

[detroit diver]

If you haven't taken any of the GUE classes, then what you spout is what you read on the internet and interpret yourself. If you haven't been taught by a GUE instructor and learned directly from the source, how can you make the comments that you do?

If you don't know what you are talking about, with all due respect, don't open your mouth. And don't assume a GUE course will offer you nothing that you won't get elsewhere. You'd just be just plain wrong.

We don't try to tell you how to organize anti-competetive letter writing/polling campaigns. That's your specialty. Stick to it, and don't try to guess what you don't know about someone else's.

You write many words, but don't have a one clue what GUE and DIR are about.

Genesis once bubbled...
GUE offers me nothing that I want and am unable to get elsewhere, has a convoluted path to what I do want that I find obsessive and unreasonable, and further, has a demonstrated lack of objectivity in their "requirements" for students.

The latter is easily found - their standards for smoking .vs. other forms of physical compromise in cardio conditioning (body mass, etc), along with their claimed right to "revoke" someone's awarded card without an objective, clearly described list of what action(s) would constitute cause.

And no, I'm not a smoker - but I do object to arbitrary and capricious "standards", as if an organization is willing to publish such things, then I have every reason to expect that the same arbitrary and capricious standards will be used in "evaluating" my performance and possibly used to silence any criticism that might later emerge.

If I'm going to pay to learn something, I insist on an objective, documented set of demonstrated skills, metrics and/or achievement(s) that constitute "passing". If revocation of one's credentials is possible, then I demand that the standards for doing so also be clearly published and form an inherent part of the contractual understanding I have with that organization.

I have no reason to believe I will receive anything objective with GUE, ergo, until and unless GUE was to remove the arbitrary and capricious nature of their "requirements" and what they reserve the right to do, I will not take one of their classes for certification purposes.

There's more, but that's enough.

 

[O-ring]

Genesis, it can't be distilled any simpler than this:

Nobody cares, shut the **** up..

 

[DIR]

O-ring once bubbled...
Genesis, it can't be distilled any simpler than this:

Nobody cares, shut the **** up..

What is "****" ????

 

[kwesler]

***="heck"

Ken

 

[cornfed]

Genesis once bubbled...

But GUE does retain the right to revoke a C-card, and they do not give an objective list of things for which it can be revoked.

What are you talking about? If you're referring to the criteria outlined in their "student agreement" then things are pretty well spelled out. Is there something else you're talking about?

 

[cornfed]

kwesler once bubbled...
***="heck"

Ken

now the first * denotes "F" and the second star refers to the letter "U" . That brings us to the third star, which is "C" . Finally we have "K" for the last one.

Hmm... wonder how long this post will last!

 

[kwesler]

It's really all about standards...people in general (and I don't except me from this) do not like to meet high standards on an ongoing basis-it takes a lot of work, and most, if not all people, do not have that kind of discipline all the time.

In every field that I have had personal experience with, there are groups with higher standards and the other groups continually criticize the group with higher standards because they do not want to meet them!

The result is twofold-first, we lower the standards so "everyone gets an A"

Second, we forget what the higher standard looks like. Remember folks "C" is AVERAGE! A is supposed to represent exceptional.

As I like to say at work. the fastest way to achieve your goal is to lower your standards.

That's a slippery slope IMHO.

My personal rule of thumb is to meet the highest standard around-in the room, in the field etc.

I cannot always achieve it-in fact, I RARELY achieve it, but that does not stop me from RECOGNIZING it.

I am not, and likely will never be an excellent diver. I am giving it my best shot, and where I think the best instruction etc is, THAT is where you will find me.

There is NOTHING wrong, IMHO, in a judgement based standard-ie, qualitatively (sp?) not quantitatively based.

My $.02

Ken

 

[MikeFerrara]

Don Burke once bubbled...
That _is_ odd. You have already insisted that DIR called for double 104s and backmounted tanks. That's in this thread.

That's not true. I said it requires back mount. Try to do this without fabrications will you? Have you ever seen DIR sidemount? I haven't. Have you seen it documented in any of the GUE texts? training programs? Me neither. MHK did say there was such a thing but that's the only evidence I've ever found that it exists. Maybe it's been measured against other sidemount systems. I'd be interested in hearing about that too.

Now I'm confused.See above.

I'm thinking the same thing

We are apparently speaking different languages. I am not familiar with yours.

Thanks for the exchange.

You didn't offer any of the information I asked for. Can you give examples or can't you? One would be a start.

you're just repeating what you've been told aren't you?

 

[Genesis]

of the GUE "standards" permits revocation of GUE membership.

All GUE Members are bound to the standards in that document at all times. It clearly so states in 1.10(5)

You can, according to that document, lose your GUE membership for something as simple as not marking a deco bottle in accordance with their rules, using a steel stage bottle in open water, consuming a single cigarette or diving a set of steel doubles in a wetsuit!

Source: http://www.gue.com/classroom/standards/1/chapter.pdf

THIS is what I object to.