Posted by Eins on October 03, 2000 at 00:53:10:
In Reply to: Re: Nice work, MHK posted by MHK on October 02, 2000 at 17:32:48:
In case you have not noticed—since a while now I have decided to stay away from the mud slinging as far as you are concerned. You, however, do your best to keep this solo pissing contest alive, repeat things that have long ago been said and beat dead horses time and again.
[(sic) applies to all of your quotes]
You wrote on October 02, 2000 at 09:33:15: “Earlier last weel you once again challenged something that I said, and as usual you were once again wrong. You bet me $20 that compressed neoprene drysuits do not compress at depth as I had suggested.”
This is wrong. I bet you that CRUSHED neoprene does not compress, as you had suggested. Read my lips, MHK, crushed is not compressed. Crushed means that there are no air bubbles left in the material. And don’t say I’m parsing language, or you have lost the last ounce of credibility.
In my post of September 25 at 14:06:46 I offered you the title of champion in hair splitting if you insist that I’m wrong just because there may be an infinitesimally small and irrelevant amount of compression of crushed neoprene. But who knows, maybe I AM wrong.
On October 02, 2000 at 09:33:15 you quoted Weinke: “Gas bubbles in westsuits and compresed drysuits are subject to …” etc. etc.
What does it take for you to understand and comprehend the difference between compressed and crushed neoprene?
Then you waste bandwidth with formulas and more formulas that may all be right (even though I don’t know what ‘figure of merit’ means—is this an assumption?) but which all center around defining degrees of compression of air bubbles, which, as you still have not grasped, are not existent in crushed neoprene. So, please enlighten me where the relevance of Weinke’s undisputed wisdom is, pertaining to the question at hand.
On October 02, 2000 at 17:00:45 you once more loose your countenance and write “Under pressure and tempaeture changes, ALL ( pat attention here EINS ) ALL, as in everything, as in all, as in compressed neoprene... ( I bet you believe pre shrunk jeans don't shrink in the dryer) ALL matter undergoes expansion or compression.”
You know, I don’t even disagree with the core of this statement. But I again call you to order and ask that you apply your formulas to relevant areas of diving. Seriously now, I know that temperature influences volume which is equal to compression or decompression. However, temperature was not an issue in our disagreement, it was pressure resulting from DEPTH. And again seriously, I learned in physics (but I’m not a physics major) that liquids and some dense materials can not compress (at constant temperature and relevant pressures). If I am wrong here and if CRUSHED neoprene (the one without bubbles) does indeed compress significantly under relevant pressure, I will freely admit that I made a mistake to question your expertise in this point and I won’t have a problem to apologize for that.
You continue …” you need to send Karl $20 and then provide depth, water temp and then wetsuit size -v- drysuit...”
Give me Karl’s e-mail address so I can e-mail the money. I promised that I’ll send the $20 independently of the outcome, and I will.
What do you need depth, water temp and then wetsuit size -v- drysuit.. for? I don’t get it. I have a faint idea that you want to do calculations, as you write, but what you are asking for has no relevance to our disagreement. Again, we were talking crushed neoprene (the one with no compressible air bubbles inside).
Unfortunately, once again you could not contain yourself and had to add “But the most important issue that needs to be highlighted is that you nitpick BS issues ( such as the cost of DA's ), but have consistently missed the boat on the big and important issues so cut the crap and let's get this list back on track because it is becomming unbearable and a waste of my time...”
First of all, it was in your hands for quite a while to “get this list back on track”. For a while you did a solo performance in being unbearable and wasting your own time. And again you beat that dead horse and repeat things that you should have better left unmentioned. You still have not comprehended why it is not nitpicking BS issues. You have made certain remarks to prove a point (!). In this, these remarks are part of your statement, and if they are wrong, your big picture is in doubt.
You’ve tried to prove the point that a Dive Alert is a piece of junk and, among other reasons, have used a price of well over $100 to discredit this $40 product. Fact is that you had no clue how much a DA would cost. But nevertheless, you go out and use a number as supporting fact which is a product of your fantasy. What’s more, you have the audacity to repeatedly attack me for pointing out your mistake. How about you admitting that you had no clue and just invented a number to support your point? And, what’s more important, learn from this and be more careful the next time you state something that you are not sure about.
Finally, your unglorious seven solo deaths which started this whole mess. “Here's the facts: 7 diver's went into the water without a buddy and 7 of them are dead... “ so you repeated on September 07, 2000 at 09:11:00. Then you repeat again on September 07, 2000 at 11:08:53 “The only irrefutable facts that I know ( since the solo diving victms are not alive to give us the facts ) are that 7 went in solo and 7 are dead what more do you want/need????”
Well, MHK, isn’t it great that we (and most) agree on the point that a buddy can save a life where a solo diver may be lost without a buddy. However, claiming “irrefutable facts” to support your point is what I argued against, because these “facts” were indeed false. Not all of these seven went in solo. And you know it. But you keep beating this dead horse time and again. Have you still not learned that it may be wiser to just shut the f*** up?