Forum for private cave discussion

[deepdiverbob]

Something that has been discussed,is we are discussing things that for the lay public could be considered a violation of rules,and could upset landowners who view this forum,and defy their trust. Perhaps we need a medium where we can discuss things where we know the only audience will be certified cave/cavern divers. The CDF has many private forums,and perhaps one can be started for this purpose.

Would you grant "read only" access to land owners? I am trying to put myself in their position, and I would really get suspicious if things started going private so I couldn't see it anymore. I think that would go against all the good things you have worked towards in land owner relationships.

I agree with Skip, although I wont use 200 point scrabble words to make my point. I like the openness of this forum. I dont think its up to the mods or board members to police divers, and have them do things they aren't trained, experienced or qualified to be doing.

[Cindy]

I can't imagine any normal land owner knowing about or caring about this forum. The Ginnie/State whatever divers who read this know we are all nuts to start with because they are themselves nutty. LOL So the main people that are causing the worry are cave divers or have cave divers on the staff so what's the big secret. You can't keep them out.
I originally thought this was supposed to be for divers interested and in cave diving. It seems to be getting somewhat convoluted lately.

[deepdiverbob]

I can't imagine any normal land owner knowing about or caring about this forum...

I thought the same thing, until I saw Jim's post:

But I know for a fact that they look and also have people reporting to them regarding the contents of these forums.

My phone has rung more than once from "Landowners" asking me about stuff they read here or on other forums. I attend meetings where "Landowners" are present and ask about what is going on in regards to various postings on this & other forums.

You may be surprised at who all actually reads this stuff & it does not require all of their free time.

[Ken Hill]

I can't imagine any normal land owner .

Hey Cindy,
Land owners are rightly concerned about possible liability and the tendency of plaintiff attorneys to get the courts to shift the assumption of risk on them. While negotiating site openings, several in government told me they Googled "cave diving" to learn about the sport. It is not unusual to have a reporter call after an incident and ask for a comment about the incident or about internet chatter about it. We are a sporting activity that can make a sensational news story. Incidents are always covered and sometimes feedback tells me that they are wire serviced throughout the world.

This is no longer an environment where everybody knew everyone else. There are a lot new people (that in itself is not bad) however some seem to lack the understanding of what it took to get where we are and what it will take to keep access open. I hate to think that the recent events of the museum are a sign of things to comes, but none the less it happened. What was discussion 15 years ago is the same discussion today, but now the internet has made the hypothetical appear to be gospel to some.

/Ken

[Cali Knucklehead]

Another sensitive topic that I'd like to see in a private forum is a discussion on "Exploration vs Conservation." Why is it that some people are so vocal about the front half of a system being damaged due to too much traffic, but turn a blind eye when divers break open a restriction with the butt of an Al80 in the back of the system? When is intentional damage not considered vandalism?

[Jay]

With cave divers you only need two to have 'sufficient genetic variation'. In some cases one is enough.

true, but you are assuming that the smaller group has sufficient genetic variation to propagate successfully. in this case it would be "memetic" variation (memes = parcels of memories like genes = parcels of biologies). i am predicting that the splinter group would be too small for adaptation and thus become extinct. your prediciton is scarier. almost halloween-like.

-skip

[MORGAN]

With cave divers you only need two to have 'sufficient genetic variation'. In some cases one is enough.

Are some cave divers capable of asexual reproduction?

Mike

[DarkCoffee]

Only the solo ones.. <sorry, couldn't resist. Back to lurking>

[skip]

I ran a chi-square analysis on the poll data. With four categories there is a statistical difference in the frequencies (x2 = 39.28, p < .05). This means different number of people in each category. But since three categories are in favor of a private forum of some kind and only one category is opposed to a private forum, it seems reasonable to collapse them into two categories: those in favor of a private forum and those opposed (this gives 59 vs 38 ). Now the chi-square says no difference from what you'd expect by chance variation (x2 = 2.27, p > .05).

At this point, although you may think 59 vs 38 represents a difference, we must say it indicates an equal split on the vote.

Things may change as more people vote, but it seems like it's been long enough to get an idea of opinions.

-skip

[aainslie]

Did you check that with Ken? He may have an opinion on how scientific your chisq stat is. Especially after a bit of googling.

(This also is when some moronic repetition of Disraeli's hopelessly dumbass quote also comes up... why the hell anyone would trust a politician's opinion on anything is beyond me...)

Good luck with this audience, Skip!

I ran a chi-square analysis on the poll data. With four categories there is a statistical difference in the frequencies (x2 = 39.28, p < .05). This means different number of people in each category. But since three categories are in favor of a private forum of some kind and only one category is opposed to a private forum, it seems reasonable to collapse them into two categories: those in favor of a private forum and those opposed (this gives 59 vs 38 ). Now the chi-square says no difference from what you'd expect by chance variation (x2 = 2.27, p > .05).

At this point, although you may think 59 vs 38 represents a difference, we must say it indicates an equal split on the vote.

Things may change as more people vote, but it seems like it's been long enough to get an idea of opinions.

-skip