Re: Too much debate - JUST THE FACTS,svp.

[Rick Lucertini <empiricus@sprint.ca>]

COURTESY WARNING: the following has nothing to do with the technical aspects of
psubbing.
Hit DELETE to bypass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Hello Psubbers and all Quiet Lurkers

I'm now in the mood to stick to facts.

I am going to reign in my temper out of respect for the vast majority of list members
who don't give a rat's colon about our petty little flame-outs.

HOWEVER . . . Up until today, I have used humour, patience, encouragement and
thoughtfulness not only as literary and communicative devices, but, to maintain some
kind of human flow of interaction.

That's over.  Being gracious has served me well - let's see what happens when I serve
up some of their own . . .

Read on and weep . . . (remember - JUST the facts - and the more technical the better
. . . right?)

Jonathan Shawl has fired the first, and hopefully the last insult (well, read Gary
Boucher's flame against Phil, Feb. 28) in a flame war.

If I lived south of the 49th parallel, I'd sue for libel.  But, I'm one of those
"nice" Canadians.

He and Gary indicate perfectly, the genesis of how out-of-control and out-of-context
diatribes can hurt and dissuade newbies and seasoned professionals alike.

Please, read Paolo Velcich's response to Gary.  English is not Paolo's first
language, and, yet, he shows the intellectual grace, emotional maturity and
contextual understanding that, in my opinion, both Jon and Gary lack.  Gary
completely missed Phil's qualifiers in his posts.  Paolo's insulted and, regarding
both Jon and Gary, so am I.

Jon and Gary are the first, to my knowledge, to openly flame, and in these particular
instances, insult others on this list.

Coincidentally, both flames occurred on the same date. Ironically, against two
Canadians (and for heaven's sake, don't take THIS remark out of context; I'm just
observing a completely useless twist of irony).  And, another touch of irony: a
"foreigner" from Europe (an industrial designer, no less) is the most supportive, and
accurate, element in this fiasco.

Jonathan Shawl wrote: (he included a quote from a newbie)

> [snip]    When I first subscribed to the group I couldn't wait to read

> the messages. Now I could care less. I read a message replying to your
> email today that completely infuriated me! ............. I want ideas
> and pointers. After today, I will either unsubscribe from the list of (sic)
> remain a lurker till someone pushes my button again (which wont [sic] be long
> the way things are going) "
> ..... unquote. Note, this is one of the newer members. Is it helping the
> newcomer to subs by engaging in debate over what each other is "really
> saying"?

Dear Jon ( I love letters that start that way)

In the interest of educating himself to the point of design enlightenment, would you
please encourage this newbie to join the fray.  If he needs you to present his views
to the list second hand, he may just kill himself in a sub.  He may not have the
courage to put his own questions out.  He may die for your misplaced Samaritanism.

If the poor fellow needs a technical epiphany, I am just one of many who can provide
it for him and save his life at the same time.  We'll deal with him at a level he can
understand.  And first hand.

Jon continues . . .

> Some of the recent debate???

> "OOOhhhh . . . I just crossed my knees  - I feel a flux in the Force,
> ObiWan!"
> "Moi? "
> "Repeat as in "throw up"?          :-) "
> "You are indeed a gentleman and a scholar! "
> "Somewhere around 0345h I think I lost my sense of humour. "
> "No flames!  Wasn't I sweet? "
> "Seem to enjoy"?  That's coming close to a FLAME!!!  Actually, it's
> closer to libel,
> but, I won't tell anyone   ;-)"
> "Say that with a smile, there, Pardner!!!  Another "almost FLAME"!!! "
> "I'm inclined to wonder if something can be done with papier mache
> (sealed and re-enforced, of course!).    ;-) "
> "I still wouldn't do it out of Jello, mind you. "
> ".... why not cardboard?  Please, test it first -repeatedly! "
> "Would a cardboard submarine be safe at a depth of 100'? "
> "Absolutely.  Come on.  Design within the parameters of the material you
> are using!!! "
> "Finally, the party responsible steps forward.  Are you in trouble now!"
>
> "Flamed?  I've seen no evidence of such abuse!  So far our exchanges
> have been very "
> "civil, if spirited, and respectful.  But, flaming? "
> "Ooooohhhhh - you shoulda seen the FLAME I just deleted!"
> "I better send the "technically sound" stuff first so I don't develop
> a radical reputation! "       (TOO LATE)
>  ">my technical engineering background is minimal; however, my training
> included DISCUSSION and DEBATE."

The majority of the above are out-takes of MY posts.  So . . .

Let me use your words, Jon, as a response to the above:

    "I hope your sense of humor is as good as your imagination." (quote from Jon
Shawl to Rick Lucertini)

Changed your mind, Jon?  Judas, you need some lessons in net etiquette.

Thanks for taking an angry lurker's concerns and quoting me out of context.  "Et tu,
Brute".

> [snip]            I don't care for
> debate that comes with many of the above unnecessary comments. Some of
> the comments seem to me more like one liners at a comedy club (I did
> laugh at some), or like a jab in the ribs with a sharp stick, rather
> than something you would say in a "professional debate".

Professional debates contain elements of humanism that leave participants in awe of
human range and potential.  As I mentioned in a previous post, teckies have extremely
narrow views of the world and don't know how to argue in a larger context.  They are
basically lame intellectually on non-technical issues like communication and on being
human.

I have seen myself, Phil and others taken completely out of context.  I'm not here to
defend Phil or anyone else.  No mature adult needs that.  Incipient lurkers may need
their hands held.  However, what's that say about them?

But, when I see valid points attacked with emotional abandon, that's when I draw the
line.

Quotes taken out of context create hurt.

Have you not been reading the posts complimenting this exchange (only until now, no
doubt)?  A number of people (newbies, too) have expressed delight at what's been
happening here in terms of PURE educational value that goes beyond domes and
thru-hulls.

Quotes from Jon Shawl's more acceptable version of discussion and debate . . .

" . . . how long before we get to the part where people start beating the dead
horsie?"

" . . . I don't worry about being dead. Its the dieing (sic) underwater part I don't
like."

"You are now entering the Twilight zone [sic]."

"I do not want to flame anyone or step on any toes so please don't anyone take it
that
way."

Oh, no, Jon, we won't.  Once someone's true colours are showing, they are much easier
to handle.

Now, how can the list possibly understand what context you had intended when you made
the above remarks?
They can't.  Which illustrates my point.

>This next part is in reference to the sub related death     [snip]

> I think Rick made some assumptions about the accident. Rick Said (sic) ....
> [snip]        >...It is an engineering fundamental that you test without humans
> before
> you test with humans."
>
> [snip]
> ..but Rick, you are just guessing about what happened in this tragic
> event [snip]

Really?  Everything you present as evidence to support that view will backfire.

Read on.

> Now for the rest of the story...

> [snip]         I have a dive friend that saw the sub up close at a
> boat show. At that time my friend asked them about the windows and was
> told that they had tested them to over a 100' in a unmanned test.

So?  How many times did he cycle the tests?  Sounds like once.

> He
> also said that they would be making the next one thicker, from 1/4" up
> to 5/16" thick.

My God!  These were engineers?  A quarter of an inch to 100 ft. and he called that
successful?
You're defending these guys?  And I'm making assumptions?

> So here we have an
> "engineered" sub that was tested unmanned to over 100' and survived.

Jon, this was not "engineered".  That would imply a conscious thought process.  They
failed.  Period.

As for survival - obviously, stressors occurred that created an accident waiting to
happen. Did they dispose of the hull after such "extreme" testing?  No - they
actually dived in a severely compromised hull carcass.  You duplicate the hull a
number of times and dive in the latest generations.

They evidently did not research their topic.

> [snip]        That would mean then that they did not test there (sic) unique window
>
> design enough to prove it's long term reliability. And from what I here (sic)
> about these two they where not stupid people.

How can you claim the sub was engineered, then turn around and contradict yourself by
saying they did not test for reliability. Not stupid people?  Why not?  They only
violated engineering fundamentals.

> [snip]        They were trained but had more to learn from experience . . . [snip]
> This experience has made me rethink many things since building my sub.

Undoubtedly.  Like applying the rules that all successful designers promote: know
your materials, test and test again.

> To close I will quote Gary's words once more.
> "I would say this to new people and those thinking about psubs "ASK ALL
> THE QUESTIONS YOU WANT OF ANY OF US.  I don't want to impede the free
> flow of questions at all.  But if some are answered by "no" then
> understand that we are not trying to squelch creativity."

> I couldn't say it better myself.

Exactly, Jon, I agree with you 100%.  You had to quote Gary.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have illustrated perfectly to newbies just exactly what a flame is and how it can
destroy trust.

It is an unsubstantiated personal attack on the viewpoints of another, either due to
maliciousness, ignorance or gross negligence.

You have demonstrated that a flamer can state one thing and, like the Janus god, do
another.

Your post's irrational diatribe against me, and Gary's emotional diatribe against
Phil, illustrate perfectly, as well, the danger of answering innocent questions and
showing your personality "online" for all to see through light hearted answers.

You're angry?  That's what private email is for.  At least the lurker had the good
graces to keep his feelings offline.

A read through my posts in the archives will show, not only light heartedness, but, a
rabid concern for the welfare of others.

In my case my love for people, their welfare and their futures during this lifetime
extends beyond metal bathtubs with windows in them.  It answering questions, it is my
responsibility and moral duty to TEACH, as it is yours.

But, to mentor from a global, more encompassing viewpoint demands stretching one's
own didactic fundamentalism beyond the boundaries of the centre of the bell-curve,
or, in your case, centre of the universe.

I choose to relate to the PERSON behind these electrons and CRT's.

You have elected to  " . . . impede the free flow of questions . . . "    and try to
convince us that we should

" . . . understand that we are not trying to squelch creativity."

Well, you and Gary have succeeded in doing both.  I just hope you haven't chased away
the people that need our help the most.

How dare you.



--
Rick Lucertini
empiricus@sprint.ca
(Vancouver, Canada)

"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."