Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Page 45 of 45 FirstFirst ... 35434445
Results 441 to 446 of 446

Thread: Deep Stops

  1. #441
    TDF Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    274
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by simon mitchell View Post
    Fine Ross. You have a whole week while I'm off line to demonstrate which of my "fake straw arguments" is wrong by linking back to the threads where the various issues have been discussed. Go on, do it. But remember, I have screenshots of all the relevant posts, so there is no point changing them now.



    If you are going to publicly accuse me of somehow being responsible for a fellow diver's injury, don't start whinging about getting a bit of push back. And in that regard, despite being asked in multiple threads on multiple forums, you still have not answered an obvious question: since you clearly intend blaming me for cases of DCS that used shallower first stop than you think are ideal, are you now going to accept responsibility for all cases of DCS that have occurred (or occur in future) on dives that use bubble models or other deep stop approaches? I know a number of injured divers who are interested in your answer.

    Simon M
    Listen Simon. YOU, and the paid marketing guy, are out here telling us that you have a better way to do deco. YOU are the one who set the world on this new direction. Problem is, it does not work everywhere. So be a man and face up to the fact that your "new, more efficient, lower stress" deco cannot be used everywhere, and that in some cases, fast tissue are important and deep stop are essential to a safe outcome. Remember it was only a few months ago you shouted down some non-believer with a comment that deep stops were a fad.... seems you were wrong.


    Your "quid pro quo" challenge is moot, and stupid. I did not invent VPM, or the deep stop. I have nothing to be personally responsible for here.


    You deliberately started this new trend, coercing and manipulating the public directly, and now its blown up in your face.... tough luck for you.
    x

  2. #442
    TDF Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    274
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsix36 View Post
    Ross, I am getting sick and tired of you trying to tell people that my dive was somehow approved by Simon. He has never advocated for me to use the GF numbers I did. I know that I was my own test subject and pushed the limits too far for this particular dive. I would have to venture a guess and say that even if I did use VPM-B and dialed it in to give me the same runtime, I would have still got bent.
    I already answered this Don. I know you made your own independent decisions. But you also co-incidentally used the same parameters as the "new more efficient lower stress" method, as advocated and approved by Simon and friends. So like it or not, your dive served as a good test.

    Note: VPM-B has done your dive and many like it, very successfully over the last 14 years. Please keep that in mind when next predicting the outcome of something you have not used. Or maybe if you ever go this deep again, take a look at the history and success of others, and follow on from what they did.
    x

  3. #443
    New TDF Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28
    Likes (Given)
    8
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by rossh View Post
    You're as bad as the people who pay for you …
    Quote Originally Posted by rossh View Post
    Listen Simon. YOU, and the paid marketing guy, …
    Do you have ANY proof that I've ever received payment for my participation in any of these threads? No, of course ... simply because I haven't (and have said as much many times ... you're just a very very very slow learner).

    Quote Originally Posted by rossh View Post
    [your list of my positions are]... all out of context, all grossly distorted
    That's great. Then please let us know which of the following positions (see list below) you now disavow. Are you now convinced that VGE is an important indicator of decompression stress and correlated to risk of DCS? How about supersaturation on the surface-- do you still maintain it's unimportant? If not, then how do you justify VPM-B+3 surfacing a diver at a GF in excess of 130? How about exercise at depth? Are you admitting now that exercise at depth is linked to an increase in DCS risk?

    Which of your positions below do you now disavow?

    • 3 world class decompression researchers (Mitchell, Doolette, Pollock) are involved in a cover-up and deliberate misrepresentation of the state of decompression research
    • Venous gas emboli (VGE) don't matter.
    • Gas kinetics are controlled by half times, which have nothing to do with perfusion.
    • Perfusion matters when it is reduced by cold, but not when it is increased by exercise.
    • Exercise at depth makes no difference to decompression requirements.
    • Surface supersaturation doesn't matter (but if you exercise after surfacing it can cause DCS)
    • Total time exposed to supersaturation doesn't matter.
    • The results of carefully conducted human dive trials are irrelevant to dive practices
    Last edited by UWSojourner; 29-09-2018 at 11:21 PM.

  4. #444
    TDF Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    170
    Likes (Given)
    32
    Likes (Received)
    353
    Nice try at deflection Ross. But my post is an important perspective on your lack of knowledge of the subjects in which you portray yourself as expert. The community needs to understand this about you, and I will defend my position.

    You said:

    You make up fake straw arguments about me so you can shoot them down, miss quote me and out of context too. Your reporting of the event and my position is wrong!

    So please demonstrate which of the "fake straw arguments" in my post were wrong. I am confident I can prove all of them by reference to recent posts by you.

    Quote Originally Posted by rossh View Post
    Listen Simon. YOU, and the paid marketing guy, are out here telling us that you have a better way to do deco.
    I have stated multiple times that I cannot define optimal decompression. Based on the best human evidence currently available I believe optimal decompression has less deep stops than prescribed by a bubble model, but that is as far as it goes. When pressed I have revealed my personal response to the evidence, but have never framed this as a recommendation - quite the opposite in fact.

    As for "paid marketing guy", this is just a flat out lie. UWS is neither paid for participation here nor in marketing to my knowledge. The only person with a financial interest in the outcome of these discussions is you.


    Quote Originally Posted by rossh View Post
    Your "quid pro quo" challenge is moot, and stupid. I did not invent VPM, or the deep stop. I have nothing to be personally responsible for here.
    I did not invent the human experimental evidence on deep stops either, but you seem to believe that defending it against your irrational attacks makes me responsible for any cases of DCS arising from dives that de-emphasise deep stops. It seems something of a double standard that your vehement defence of deep stops would not, therefore, make you responsible for any cases of DCS arising from dives using bubble models / deep stops. If I am personally responsible, then so are you.

    Neither of us are of course, but this is the ridiculous position you seem to be taking.


    Quote Originally Posted by rossh View Post
    You deliberately started this new trend, coercing and manipulating the public directly, and now its blown up in your face.... tough luck for you.
    Your inference that the outcome of a single dive (which did not even conform to any practice I have endorse) proves anything is yet more evidence of your profound naivety about such issues, and further proof that no one should listen to anything you say on these matters.

    Simon M
    Last edited by simon mitchell; 29-09-2018 at 10:38 PM.

  5. #445
    A Moderate Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    1,103
    Likes (Given)
    246
    Likes (Received)
    1154
    Guys

    Please tone down the level of personal attack. The TDF rules ask that you discuss and debate issues cordially.

    Thanks in advance.

    Mal

  6. #446
    Established TDF Member matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,150
    Likes (Given)
    976
    Likes (Received)
    1236
    Lots of posts, but did we agree the first bit yet - the overall schedules between those tested and what a real-diver might do are quite similar in duration?

    Or are we still disagreeing about this - I posted 3 scheduled now and didn't see anyone post anything to the contrary (other than gobbers who posted a 100/100 ish profile where he was unsure what GFs were set...)


 
Page 45 of 45 FirstFirst ... 35434445

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •