Posted by MHK on September 26, 2000 at 09:00:10:
In Reply to: Did I mean you? posted by Wayne on September 25, 2000 at 20:45:52:
I don't know if you and I have ever met, and if we have forgive me for not remembering, but I have been noticing in your posts that you are a pretty level headed guy and tend to make some sense in your posts.
I had a conversation with Ken Kurtis yesterday ( Ken I don't think this was confidential so I hope you don't mind if I share ) but he and I both noticed that all too often communication on the net comes off differently than communication IRL. You could say the same thing IRL with some inflection or smile that is missed when reduced to the written word.. My sense is that some of these *debates* would not get so heated if the participants were face to face.
But that aside, my commitment to DIR, and the resulting strict interpretation comes from the standpoint of once you start parceling somthing ( and that applies to anything ) the final product looks like what you were copying but isn't strictly it. Once you start getting into piecmealing everyone will have there own idea of what should be added or omitted. For certain each individual is free to do what ever they want, but to bastardize ( for lack of a better word ) a strict configuration and philosophy and then call it something else simply is inaccurate.
For example, if everyone took 80% of what we say, I believe that more diver would be safer and that would be a good thing, but it wouldn't necesarily speak to the fact that everyone is DIR. Let's say for example that you did everything else DIR but decided that you could go solo. Solo diving goes against the DIR philosophy so how could you call it DIR when you are violating one of the strictest mandates of the philosophy???
So maybe a better way to ask this question is what would you change and why, and then let's discuss..
Post a Followup