Posted by Jusfer aka Eins on August 11, 2000 at 22:04:11:
In Reply to: ...uhmmmm...you lost me w/your post there... posted by kelphead on August 11, 2000 at 20:47:11:
My point was that I was hoping people (divers) would be sensible enough to see that a rule has reason for being and that the mere fact that a rule tries to prevent them from penetrating implies that it may kill them. Which is why I thought even a rule without enforcement is better than no rule.
It has something to do with intelligence, with understanding why a rule was made and what it tries to achieve. But where there is no intelligence, you are right, unenforced rules won't solve the problem.
I fully accept someone's (your) desire not to penetrate wrecks. It is, however, hard to understand for me, again, because of where I'm coming from. For me, diving is Ersatz for flying, and diving near or through structures (arches, crevices, rocky reefs, oil rigs, wrecks) intensifies this feeling. I always had it in my plans to eventually be a wreck diver, and I don't mind getting the training (to the contrary, I am looking forward to it). It is the plastic cert that I'm not crazy about.
BTW, did you ever confirm that 21/22 weekend for Monterey? It's going to be great!
J1