Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: GUNS and stuff--commentary

["Gregory Snyder" <snyde032@tc.umn.edu>]

Here, here Vance - Nicely put.
This forum is a club of individuals that have separate personalities and
opinions. A slight side step from the main objective has always been
entertaining. It's just as easy to delete the stuff that you don't want to
read.  We are on topic most of the time.  And more than one of us (myself
saddly included) has had a momentary out of line rant, but folded back into
the group. It's the nature of the medium.  I have learned more about you
guys as individuals over that last month than any time before.
Isn't that what the internet is about?
It's a big, interesting group. I hope we can keep it that way.
( An occasional sub related thread would be nice, however)
Sincerely,
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: <VBra676539@aol.com>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: GUNS and stuff--commentary


> Pat,
>
> Just a reminder (which Ray will whip out pretty quick anyway) to change
the Subject-thread-title when the conversation changes so that someone
coming along behind us can follow one thread or another without all the side
issues. I noticed we were all still rattling on the "guns and stuff"
subject.
>
> Speaking of which, who was fuming about the libertarian trend in our
emails? You have to know that most of us are like that, don't you. We
believe in taking responsibility for our actions and not leaning on others.
That means we have opinions about things, and there really isn't any way to
get around it.
>
> And I might as well tell you that I disagree with the frog-step marching
orders imposed by restricting subjects, too. When we get too far out into
left field, the Keefe-man leans over and whacks our collectively pointy
haids as a gentle reminder, but otherwise, I feel that the free flow of
ideas and random acts of creativity are productive and entertaining.
>
> I was discouraged during the last fire fight (last year?)--not because of
the topic(s), but rather because of the intolerance displayed. Some of the
old keyboards logged off in a huff, others simply dropped into the
background to await a more productive thread. Some new ones have appeared
since then and bumped heads a time or two with no animosity or reprisal. So
what's wrong with that? My boss says a 6% attrition rate is healthy; it
allows room for new ideas and new personalities. I certainly don't speak for
the web page, but I was here when the last blow-up cost us months of
discussion for little more than authoritarian reprisals. And in the end,
with the very best of intentions, it didn't help a bit. Here we are again,
talking about the same thing.
>
> It's all very well to say we should use other forums for this cherished
belief or that hair-brained scheme, but the reality is that the folks on
this line are a disparate bunch meandering more or less in the same
direction and chatting as they go on more or less the same subject. There
are some really bright people here, some enthusiastic tyros, and some real
back yard nut cases. Some have their very own psubs, some will have, others
won't--which doesn't make any difference. Believe it or not,just about every
one of them has a whole bucket full of opinions and ideas and questions. It
strikes me as wasteful and unfriendly to try to filter the input of these
folks with some amorphous subject guide that is, after all, merely one
person's idea of how another person should act or react. The problem with
the filter is that all of us are strong in the individualist category, and
our experiences and ideas come with .... baggage (shocking, isn't it?). It
is hard to spout facts without !
> !
> opinion, and opinions are personality/experience driven, and there you
are, right back where you started. If you ask someone WHAT he believes, they
are hard pressed to respond in a meaningful manner without saying WHY they
believe it. Lots of what we do is simple, irrefutable math. Can't argue
about that, right? Yeah, sure.
>
> For me, it is important to know where this stuff comes from. You have to
know that Phil Nuytton has the strength of his convictions, or that Pat
Regan has strong opinions and the will to carry through. And Jon and Dave
and others. You have to know because these guys have not only sat over a
cold brew and shot the breeze about pressure vessels and cup holders--they
have actually gone back to the shop and built one to hold the other. I like
that. I want to know about people like that. And I don't often care whether
we are talking about the relative merits of Crane seals or about seal
relatives and merit badges. To me, it's all about being a sub crank, the sum
of which is greater than its parts. And we simply wouldn't know so much
about each other without yakking back and forth.
>
> I'll quit the rant, and I apologize to those of you who already knew this,
or don't care. I just would like to avoid the dissention and rifts that
developed last time just because opinions differed. I'll follow the party
line, whatever it is, as long as it suits me; but I'd like to put my nickel
down on the slot marked "p'subs, etc.," and bet that we can have some fun
here while we're at it. I mean, don't you ever wish Suds would tell you what
he sees when he looks out the window in the morning down there in Central
America, or how the trout fishing is in New Zealand, or the beer in Germany,
or what Phil is thinking when he's sitting on the bottom of Vancouver Harbor
in a DW2000 waiting for the Today Show to come up live and invterview him on
national television? I think that's all good stuff, right along with
Poisson's Ratio and O2 flow rates for light work and compensator's for wet
sub battery packs.
>
> Jeez' I'm sorry fellas. I couldn't stop.
> Vance
>