Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Seals again

["D. Blake" <dblake@bright.net>]

No flame ! On the contrary I agree.  I once heard that the definition of
being "crazy" was repeating a behavior expecting a different consequence.
If it does not prove fruitful the first time, best bet is to change the
strategy in order to achieve a different result.
Hey don't take me wrong--although anyone wanting to do what we want to do
has to be a little unhinged--I feel like we are just a special group of
folks not satisfied with regular discourse or anything else for that matter,
alright?
Big Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: SFreihof@aol.com <SFreihof@aol.com>
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Date: Monday, October 09, 2000 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Seals again


>"Argumentum ad Hominum" (agrument against the man) is a fallacy of logic.
>You cannot refute an argument simply by attacking the person who makes that
>argument.
>
>Steve raises some interesting points which are worthy of exploration on a
>more cerebral level, because it gets people thinking.  The old adage is
that
>if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always
>got.  That may be a good thing where safety is concerned, but it doesn't
>break any new ground.
>
>I don't refute Nemo's knowledge, skill, or accomplishments.  In fact, Pat,
I
>admire you.  But I also want Steve to make his argument, and have that
>argument evaluated on its merits because I enjoy the discourse as both
>educational and enlightening.  We've explored many areas here... propulsion
>being a popular one.  I don't think Steve's comments were ever intended to
be
>a personal affront, although they have apparently been taken as such.
>
>I hope we can evaluate ideas and concepts without feeling threatened or
>chastised.  I think there are two reasons we are all here:  to explore and
to
>learn.  Let the ideas flow, with the caveat that each builder is
responsible
>for their own safety through design, materials, construction, and
operation.
>
>Ok.  You can flame me now....
>
>Stan
>
>
>
>
>In a message dated 10/6/00 8:17:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>vulcania@interpac.net writes:
>
><< >" As so often happens on prolonged threads, I'm managed to back myself
>into
> a
> > position much more extreme than I actually hold."
>
> Trip yourself up a lot, do you?  And what's this now: changing your tune?
>
>  "I got nothing against
> > pressure compensation."
>
> Sure could have fooled us! >>