Posted by MHK on September 25, 2000 at 09:29:12:
In Reply to: Re: Long response attached posted by Ken Kurtis on September 22, 2000 at 22:55:38:
Posted by Ken Kurtis on September 22, 2000 at 22:55:38:
Don't know why it's so hrd to see that most of us don't accept your definition of diving solo, and that's where most of the disagreement stems from.
I could care less if anyone accepts my definition.. That's part of the problem. The definition is completely irrelevant, what is important is the issue, not whether we can agree on language. I have attempted to be as broad as possible because the fact of the matter is what is important is whether you have someone available to help when you need it. You guys keep talking about buddyless -v- solo. I keep saying I don't care how you got there.
So let's agree to disagree on semantics and let's focus the debate on the fact that 8 *buddyless* diver's are dead and several of them probably could have been saved if they had, had someone with them at the time something went wrong..
The usual arguements that I hear in this forum and other's are that * I'm experienced and I have been doing it this way forever, and I can handle any emergency or I know the risks etc. etc. etc.*
Those are the troubling components of this debate, so to keep it politically correct we should bifrucate the issue into the following:
1) Planned solo;
2) Unplanned solo
I stipulate that it doesn't matter to me, but in the interest of having a substantive discussion on the merits of the issues I'll acquiese the point...
Can we now focus on the facts???
Post a Followup