Posted by Eins on September 25, 2000 at 12:01:36:
In Reply to: Re: No need to check your e-mail this time posted by MHK on September 25, 2000 at 10:30:26:
"So my question is, given that many of these deaths were from VERY, VERY experienced diver's who planned on being solo, and a few that were with a buddy who complacantely believed that they were * OK * to ascend solo, how can anyone still be arguing in favor of solo diving????
Save the verbal gymnastics for another thread and answer that question????"
Thanks for a factual response.
MHK, I am not arguing in favor of solo diving per se. I am only concerned about solo diving getting a worse rep than it deserves.
Again, I'm with all of you who say that buddies can save lives and that having an able buddy with you is safer than being alone.
My point is that many dives are called "solo" that are not solo but rather something went wrong in the buddy team. Which serves to prove my complacency-fighting point that buddies are no guarantee for a save dive.
From the ten dives you list, five were solo dives (3, 4, 5, 6, 10), three were gone-bad buddy dives (1, 2, 7), and two are unspecified (8, 9). Sad enough and clearly pointing to the inherent dangers of solo diving. And that was never denied (at least not by me). But also pointing to the inherent false safety net believed to be there by many uneducated divers. For this alone, to raise awareness for the need to be alert at all times, this debate is very fruitful.
Ken made a legitimate attempt to clarify terminology so that facts can remain facts.
MHK also wrote:
"I know full well what I'm talking about, can you say the same???"
assuming that three question marks mean I'm expected to give an answer: I can say the same about me but still have my doubts about you. Another recent example was your drysuit comment at
where you stated that crushed neoprene compresses at depth (which it does not).
Post a Followup