Help with OA Cluster

[Macpage]

All,

I really appreciate all the advice here. I need some help with an OA cluster that looks to be "maybe" REM sleep. It always happens around 2 hours into sleep. I have been on the APAP for five months and have gotten over all the new issues to some degree. I started on pressure of 8-16 but quickly learned that I need to sleep on my side to reduce aerophagia and lowering the pressures to 11.4-6.8. This worked for awhile and my numbers looked good and the clusters only appeared occasionally. I even statred to feel a little better. However, the clusters now seem to be coming on more evenings. I don't know if's it the seasonal weather, getting more used to the process, or reducing some of the medication I take. Yet, I know I need to do something about it as I'm not feeling very good at the moment. I do think once I have these clusters my bodies does its best not to enter this stage again and I have trouble sleeping in the morning hours. I occasionally have an OA or two in these moments as well but either the machine takes care of it or perhaps I disturb out of it.

I've seen a couple of directions on clusters by exploring posts but don't really know where to go to optimize therapy. It seems some recommend setting the epap higher to prevent the cluster from starting while others recommend keeping the epap lower and letting the ipap run wide open to allow the machine to break up the cluster. I know its different for all, but I would really appreciate the thought and some direction.

Best,

Mike

[URL=http://s1368.photobucket.com/user/ ... .jpg[/img][/url]

[Guest1]

Open the higher end of the range. Make it 15 to start with. Then evaluate your data in the coming mornings to see where the machine goes up to. Looks like your upper bound of pressure is not cutting it.

Also, maybe you are sleeping on your back during that time and so it looks like you need more pressure to break the OA cluster.

[Pugsy]

You need to either set the minimum pressure a little higher or reduce EPR (maybe that will be enough) or if you really like EPR just increase that minimum a little. I don't know how much more will be needed...that's a pretty ugly cluster and I can't tell from the tiny pressure graph what you are using now as the minimum but I suspect 1 or 2 cm will do the job.

Generally EPAP (that's the minimum pressure when using EPR) is what needs to be adjusted when we see clusters of OAs. Increasing the maximum may not help because the machine already can't get to where it needs to go quickly enough so letting it go higher won't make it go there any faster. I can't tell if you are maxing out or not but it appears you might be...if you are..hitting the maximum and using a tight range (I can't tell what your settings are from this image) then a little more maximum might do the trick but I have my doubts when I see a cluster of OAs this ugly.

The 2 most likely culprits when we see clusters like this...something changed and it's usually either supine sleeping or REM stage sleep or maybe a little of both. I suspect that you are correct with the assumption this is probably a REM related cluster.
My OSA is worse in REM and I need more pressure in REM and would often see clusters or marked pressure increases in this most likely first REM sleep stage of the night. Typically the first REM happens 90 to 120 minutes after sleep onset and yours is right in that window.

In your situation with the history of aerophagia I would probably still try to limit the maximum if I could and try to work on the cluster from EPAPs standpoint. You might actually need maximum to be increase a little also but with the history of aerophagia being a problem....I wouldn't do that unless I couldn't get the cluster broken up with the minimum pressure.
While I think you probably will need around 2 cm more minimum (EPAP)....I would go up slowly in hopes that I could get by with less. Like maybe 0.5 increments...see what happens and maybe try just a tiny bit more maximum pressure if it still wants to max out.

If you weren't having aerophagia issues...different tactics that might be a little more aggressive but we don't want to fix one problem only to create a new problem.

[Macpage]

You need to either set the minimum pressure a little higher or reduce EPR (maybe that will be enough) or if you really like EPR just increase that minimum a little. I don't know how much more will be needed...that's a pretty ugly cluster and I can't tell from the tiny pressure graph what you are using now as the minimum but I suspect 1 or 2 cm will do the job.

Generally EPAP (that's the minimum pressure when using EPR) is what needs to be adjusted when we see clusters of OAs. Increasing the maximum may not help because the machine already can't get to where it needs to go quickly enough so letting it go higher won't make it go there any faster. I can't tell if you are maxing out or not but it appears you might be...if you are..hitting the maximum and using a tight range (I can't tell what your settings are from this image) then a little more maximum might do the trick but I have my doubts when I see a cluster of OAs this ugly.

The 2 most likely culprits when we see clusters like this...something changed and it's usually either supine sleeping or REM stage sleep or maybe a little of both. I suspect that you are correct with the assumption this is probably a REM related cluster.
My OSA is worse in REM and I need more pressure in REM and would often see clusters or marked pressure increases in this most likely first REM sleep stage of the night. Typically the first REM happens 90 to 120 minutes after sleep onset and yours is right in that window.

In your situation with the history of aerophagia I would probably still try to limit the maximum if I could and try to work on the cluster from EPAPs standpoint. You might actually need maximum to be increase a little also but with the history of aerophagia being a problem....I wouldn't do that unless I couldn't get the cluster broken up with the minimum pressure.
While I think you probably will need around 2 cm more minimum (EPAP)....I would go up slowly in hopes that I could get by with less. Like maybe 0.5 increments...see what happens and maybe try just a tiny bit more maximum pressure if it still wants to max out.

If you weren't having aerophagia issues...different tactics that might be a little more aggressive but we don't want to fix one problem only to create a new problem.

Thanks. I read a lot of your posts. It's where I guessed it's maybe a REM cluster. I think after these clusters my body has a protection measure that prevents going into REM again. Something is certainly making feel bad. I guess this ugliness is the most likely culprit.

My Epap presuure is at 6.8. I'll take it up as you suggest in half increments. My Ipap is at 11.4 and it does max out during these clusters. What happens if someone needs a lot of pressure to stop this in REM stage but not for the rest of the night? Do you just have to bear with the higher number?

Best,

Mike

[Pugsy]

What happens if someone needs a lot of pressure to stop this in REM stage but not for the rest of the night? Do you just have to bear with the higher number?

Sometimes we have to make compromises and try to figure out which devil is the worst devil.
One devil being more pressure causing aerophagia maybe or the other devil maybe letting a few OAs slide (like maybe a less ugly cluster than what you have here). Decide which problem is the worst problem.

While I have been lucky not to have very many problems with aerophagia, I have had it happen 3 or 4 times and it was really bad and I was sick all day with it and it was more than a lot of belching or farting. Not only was my sleep time horrible my daytime awake time was also miserable. I decided a long time ago if the higher pressures needed to treat 30 minute clusters that happened once a night happen to cause me much misery that I would let the clusters slide because I felt less "bad" with the clusters than I did with the really bad aerophagia symptoms. Fortunately I never had to make that choice but if I did I already know what I would choose and it wouldn't be total eradication of the clusters...maybe I would let them slide or maybe I would be happy just to have a less ugly cluster.

Each person has to decide which devil is the worst devil to live with.

Cross that bridge if you come to it.

[TyroneShoes]

I am a little confused by some of the terminology used here.

If IPAP is related to inhalation pressure and EPAP is related to exhalation pressure, then an IPAP of 11.4 and a EPAP of 6.8 implies a bi-level machine, which presents an IPAP pressure of 11.4 and an EPAP pressure of 6.8, for those settings.

But I have the same S9Autoset machine, and this machine delivers the same identical IPAP/EPAP pressure all at the same time through the entire breath cycle, and IPAP and EPAP are the same pressure. IOW, if the pressure range were set to 6.8-11.4, it would start with an equal IPAP and EPAP pressure of 6.8, would raise both together once encountering obstructive events, and then lower both back down evenly at a ~20% per minute rate in the absence of further obstructive events, until back to 6.8. But at all times IPAP and EPAP are the same exact pressure.

That can be somewhat modified by EPR, so for instance if your pressure is at 9, it lowers the EPAP to as low as 6, but never are IPAP and EPAP more than 3 cm apart. That is how a modern APAP machine with EPR invoked works. I think.

But describing separate IPAP and EPAP pressures more than 3 cm apart probably refers to a bi-level or ASV-type of machine. I do not think the Autoset falls in that category, and the pressure graph posted, which looks very much like those my S9 Autoset reports, indicates that IPAP and EPAP are consistently 3 cm apart, indicating an EPR setting of 3. But it does not indicate an IPAP of 11.4 nor does it indicate an EPAP of 6.8. IPAP starts at 8 and never really goes above 11.4, and EPAP starts at 5 and never really goes above 8.4, and they are always consistently 3 cm apart.

I think the numbers 6.8-11.4 indicate the limits of the pressure range that IPAP can auto-adjust between rather than a separate IPAP and EPAP.

But I have been wrong before, and I will probably be wrong again. But I won't learn the answer without taking that chance. Way too many buts.

So I am hoping someone who understands this better can clarify this for me.

TIA.

[Pugsy]

So I am hoping someone who understands this better can clarify this for me.

With the S9 machines if EPR is use then for all practical purposes the settings function like a bilevel machine with either 1, 2 or 3 cm difference between EPAP and IPAP.

I think the numbers 6.8-11.4 indicate the limits of the pressure range that IPAP can auto-adjust between rather than a separate IPAP and EPAP.

6.8 to 11.4 is indeed the apap minimum and maximum.

My use of EPAP term in this situation

will need around 2 cm more minimum (EPAP)..

was more to explain that with bilevel pressures (which is what we have here when EPR is used)...EPAP is what we adjust when we see Obstructive apneas.
EPAP was in parentheses..and in my head I thought I explained that generally with bilevel pressures we look at EPAP for OAs and IPAP for hyponeas. As I look back..what I saw in my head I didn't convey to paper very well.

I never mentioned IPAP...OP did though in conjunction with what is the maximum setting. I didn't draw attention to what he called it because I knew what he meant.
My mention of EPAP wasn't to call the 6.8 EPAP but to say that the minimum pressure in this situation is thought of in the same light as EPAP is with bilevel machine and generally EPAP is what we use to deal with OAs when someone is using bilevel.

BTW...bilevel doesn't mean that the difference has to be greater than 3...bilevel can be with as little as 0.5 cm difference between inhale and exhale. Meaning if exhale is 9.5 and inhale is 10.0...it's still bilevel...2 distinct pressures.
When people use EPR they are creating a bilevel pressure situation.

I probably have just confused you more...it's straight in my head but hard to put into words.

[TyroneShoes]

Pugs, you were not the one confusing me. Everything you say pretty much always makes perfect sense to me. It did not appear that you were even addressing the issue that was confusing me (nor should you have been), which was the reference of the pressure range limits as being numbers representing a separate IPAP and EPAP. My assertion is that that those numbers do not refer to a separate IPAP and EPAP, and to refer to them in that manner is what is confusing.

It also makes sense that invoking EPR technically turns a CPAP/APAP into a "bi-level" machine, so I probably confused the issue even more by terming "bi-level" as a machine that can set a separate IPAP and EPAP greater than the limits of EPR. My understanding is that an ASV-capable machine has this particular ability, but I distinguished this as different from simple "bi-level" only because the ASV machine has many other capabilities similar to a ventilator that a garden-variety APAP/CPAP or bi-level-capable machine does not have, so ironically that was an attempt to distinguish them rather than confuse them.

This may have led folks to believe that I was referring to the Autoset as not bi-level, when by your more-inclusive definition, it is. My apologies.

But my Autoset will not operate with a EPAP more than 3 cm lower than the set IPAP, so referring to an IPAP of 11.4 with an EPAP of 6.8 made no sense to me for an Autoset user. And it will only do that by virtue of EPR.

What might be confusing is that we are all talking here about two different things at the same time, one being a pressure range for typical APAP that is centered basically on IPAP and then does not really change for EPAP unless EPR is invoked (at least on the Autoset) but has the capability to dynamically change IPAP (with EPR changing EPAP concurrently) in the presence of SA events, and the second thing being a different approach to therapy for complex apnea and Cheyne-Stokes sufferers that specifically can set IPAP and EPAP separately with a range potentially wider than EPR. When a separate IPAP and EPAP are mentioned, especially in a range greater than 3 cm, this implies that sort of therapy rather than the common APAP/CPAP therapy most of us are in, and so I think that causes confusion, especially when the machine in question is not even capable of invoking that sort of therapy. That is the issue I was trying to clarify.

But we can move forward on that one, I think.

The more interesting thing you have raised here is the statement "generally with bilevel pressures we look at EPAP for OAs and IPAP for hypopneas". I understand that raising IPAP to minimize further OAs after encountering them is a common function of an APAP, but I do not understand that statement at all. It seems that you are saying that setting EPAP is critical for minimizing OAs and setting IPAP is critical for minimizing hypopneas. Or am I inferring more from that statement than was implied?

It would be a great favor to me if you could explain the strategy behind EPAP settings for OAs and IPAP settings for hypopneas. TIA.

[Pugsy]

The more interesting thing you have raised here is the statement "generally with bilevel pressures we look at EPAP for OAs and IPAP for hypopneas". I understand that raising IPAP to minimize further OAs after encountering them is a common function of an APAP, but I do not understand that statement at all. It seems that you are saying that setting EPAP is critical for minimizing OAs and setting IPAP is critical for minimizing hypopneas. Or am I inferring more from that statement than was implied?

It would be a great favor to me if you could explain the strategy behind EPAP settings for OAs and IPAP settings for hypopneas. TIA.

It's a strategy that has been around for quite some time and I read it long ago and have no idea where to tell you to look.
I am not saying it is "critical" though. You are making it into something that I didn't mean.
Generally means generally.
I had a hard time wrapping my little brain around EPAP for OAs and IPAP for hyponeas.....seems like it should be the other way around but that's what it is. I think it was in some papers that were found in some of my forum reading. Also it was often mentioned by the other forum members in the past that had a LOT of knowledge about bilevels.
You should see now that pretty much everything associated with OSA/Sleep apnea/CPAP/APAP/Bilevel therapy...comes with a big YMMV sticker. Even the general "usually we do EPAP for OAs and IPAP for hyponeas" carries that sticker.
There's often more than one way to get a job done.

But my Autoset will not operate with a EPAP more than 3 cm lower than the set IPAP, so referring to an IPAP of 11.4 with an EPAP of 6.8 made no sense to me for an Autoset user. And it will only do that by virtue of EPR.

Yes...but remember the comment was from a newbie who didn't know any better. Newbies make little errors in what they call stuff all the time. If it confused you I am sorry. I try not to pick apart newbies comments and go correcting every little error because I don't want to sound anymore like a nit picker than I already do.

What might be confusing is that we are all talking here about two different things at the same time, one being a pressure range for typical APAP that is centered basically on IPAP and then does not really change for EPAP unless EPR is invoked (at least on the Autoset) but has the capability to dynamically change IPAP (with EPR changing EPAP concurrently) in the presence of SA events, and the second thing being a different approach to therapy for complex apnea and Cheyne-Stokes sufferers that specifically can set IPAP and EPAP separately with a range potentially wider than EPR. When a separate IPAP and EPAP are mentioned, especially in a range greater than 3 cm, this implies that sort of therapy rather than the common APAP/CPAP therapy most of us are in, and so I think that causes confusion, especially when the machine in question is not even capable of invoking that sort of therapy. That is the issue I was trying to clarify.

You have me totally lost here. I can't get a grip on what you are trying to say or wanting explained. No where in this thread did we discuss Complex Apnea or CSR. It's not relevant to this situation. I try to adhere to the K.I.S.S. school though.

How about if you want/need further clarification on the ins and outs of all this bilevel stuff that you start a thread of your own and we don't hijack this one any further. That way your questions will get the attention they deserve and we don't confuse the OP any more than we have already.

[Macpage]

Yes. I was referring to ipap max and minimum. I apologize for the terminology. Hope this didn't lead anyone astray. You would think I would know better after reading here for months. However, I can barely function these days. I'm amazed at just how hard it is to even sit down and read or post coherently. I took me 3 tries just to get the randomly assigned password entered correctly. Of course, I had forgotten my original one again!

I bumped the minimum ipap to 7.4 with EPR still at 3. My ahi was .4.....because I was up all night! It wasn't the pressure just the uncontrollable anxiety that hits me. Funny, I have no issues with putting the mask on or anything in the set-up. I haven't had trouble getting to sleep in a long time. I still don't know if its the OA's I've been having, just restless sleep in general, or maybe the stomach issues that came on when all this hit me at the beginning of the year. In any case, the anxiety just goes through the roof. Still find it interesting that I never had any anxiety about the mask or using the machine.

Best,

Mike

[TyroneShoes]

The more interesting thing you have raised here is the statement "generally with bilevel pressures we look at EPAP for OAs and IPAP for hypopneas". I understand that raising IPAP to minimize further OAs after encountering them is a common function of an APAP, but I do not understand that statement at all. It seems that you are saying that setting EPAP is critical for minimizing OAs and setting IPAP is critical for minimizing hypopneas. Or am I inferring more from that statement than was implied?

It would be a great favor to me if you could explain the strategy behind EPAP settings for OAs and IPAP settings for hypopneas. TIA.

It's a strategy that has been around for quite some time and I read it long ago and have no idea where to tell you to look.
I am not saying it is "critical" though. You are making it into something that I didn't mean.
Generally means generally.
I had a hard time wrapping my little brain around EPAP for OAs and IPAP for hyponeas.....seems like it should be the other way around but that's what it is. I think it was in some papers that were found in some of my forum reading. Also it was often mentioned by the other forum members in the past that had a LOT of knowledge about bilevels.
You should see now that pretty much everything associated with OSA/Sleep apnea/CPAP/APAP/Bilevel therapy...comes with a big YMMV sticker. Even the general "usually we do EPAP for OAs and IPAP for hyponeas" carries that sticker.
There's often more than one way to get a job done.

But my Autoset will not operate with a EPAP more than 3 cm lower than the set IPAP, so referring to an IPAP of 11.4 with an EPAP of 6.8 made no sense to me for an Autoset user. And it will only do that by virtue of EPR.

Yes...but remember the comment was from a newbie who didn't know any better. Newbies make little errors in what they call stuff all the time. If it confused you I am sorry. I try not to pick apart newbies comments and go correcting every little error because I don't want to sound anymore like a nit picker than I already do.

What might be confusing is that we are all talking here about two different things at the same time, one being a pressure range for typical APAP that is centered basically on IPAP and then does not really change for EPAP unless EPR is invoked (at least on the Autoset) but has the capability to dynamically change IPAP (with EPR changing EPAP concurrently) in the presence of SA events, and the second thing being a different approach to therapy for complex apnea and Cheyne-Stokes sufferers that specifically can set IPAP and EPAP separately with a range potentially wider than EPR. When a separate IPAP and EPAP are mentioned, especially in a range greater than 3 cm, this implies that sort of therapy rather than the common APAP/CPAP therapy most of us are in, and so I think that causes confusion, especially when the machine in question is not even capable of invoking that sort of therapy. That is the issue I was trying to clarify.

You have me totally lost here. I can't get a grip on what you are trying to say or wanting explained. No where in this thread did we discuss Complex Apnea or CSR. It's not relevant to this situation. I try to adhere to the K.I.S.S. school though.

How about if you want/need further clarification on the ins and outs of all this bilevel stuff that you start a thread of your own and we don't hijack this one any further. That way your questions will get the attention they deserve and we don't confuse the OP any more than we have already.

My intentions were never to upset you. Quite the opposite, in fact. They were also not intended to confuse anyone, especially the OP, but were intended to help clarify, especially for the OP. Somehow I thought you might be the person to help make that happen, even though I never solicited a response directly from you in that post. Sorry that never worked out.

And I was careful NOT to come down on anyone for muddying the waters, because I am sensitive to how some people might interpret that. There are plenty of jackasses on the internet that just can't wait to correct every little misstep someone might make innocently, and I was trying to avoid being one of them. It would have been much clearer for me to point a finger, but that is also negative, and I was trying exactly NOT to do that while still trying to help clarify, something no one else was doing. I don't know it all, so it would be ludicrous for me to come off as a know-it-all, and I am simply trying to get at the truth here without coming off like that.

I am quite aware that "we" did not discuss complex SA, but I did, and it was in reference to implications of therapy for that condition, made by others, right here in this thread. I also did not ask for any of that to be explained, just for you to amplify on one particular other statement, also made right here in this thread, on the off-chance that you could clarify it a little better. Certainly I am completely surprised that you were unable to pick up on that, because I know you are better than that.

I also take just a little bit of offense to the term "hijack", especially when the claim is dripping with that much attitude. I think it is quite reasonable to expand on an issue into related issues on an internet forum. Posters have every option to ignore and post directly on the topic, and a bit of a sidebar is innocent, often helpful, and typically allowed when the subject is related, especially when simply asking for clarification of something already posted in that thread that could easily be considered just as off-topic.

In my mind, "hijack" refers to going fully off-topic onto something unrelated, targeted at folks who would have never chosen to click on something regarding the original subject, while if related, it still falls within the area of interest that got them to click here in the first place. No gun to the head; anyone can ignore or redirect the focus easily if that is what they wish. It's the internet, after all, and not the congressional record.

I think it is also OK to respond to an allegation directly in a thread where that allegation, ironically more off-topic than anything else in the thread, originated.

But I see my efforts have been completely for naught, so I'm out. Enjoy your non-hijacked thread, and I'll dispense with trying to foster clarity, and I'll go get my answers from someone who actually has them, instead.

But thanks for suggesting how I should post and that I should start my own thread. In return I would like to suggest that you start your own thread, and the sleep issue focused on there maybe could be about waking up on the wrong side of the bed.

[Pugsy]

I am so sorry you had a bad night last night. I have always said the mind is a powerful drug..and sometimes it's power doesn't work in our favor.
Do what you can to lessen the anxiety as best you can. I imagine that this is not the first time you have been down this road.

[Pugsy]

First of all...
My apologies to Macpage for my part in taking your thread off the deep end with ugly stuff and my showing my irritation in a not so nice way. I am only human and sometimes I get ugly right back.

Now for the ugly part.

Looks like I am not the only one who got out on the wrong side of the bed.

My intentions were never to upset you

You didn't until this last post.

They were also not intended to confuse anyone, especially the OP, but were intended to help clarify, especially for the OP

Well..your comments confused me...so I figured if I was confused then I probably wouldn't be the only one.

I also take just a little bit of offense to the term "hijack",

You are entitled to your opinion but when people start having stuff like this crap here that I have to say in this post...that's hijacking in my book and just like you are entitled to have your opinion than so am I.

But I see my efforts have been completely for naught, so I'm out. Enjoy your non-hijacked thread, and I'll dispense with trying to foster clarity, and I'll go get my answers from someone who actually has them, instead.

But thanks for suggesting how I should post and that I should start my own thread. In return I would like to suggest that you start your own thread, and the sleep issue focused on there maybe could be about waking up on the wrong side of the bed.

I don't need to start my own thread..but thank you for the suggestion. Go get your answers to your questions from someone else or better yet...do about 1000 hours of reading through the threads and papers and studying.... It will save me a lot of work.
And thank you for letting me know that I don't need to bother trying to explain anything to you and I also don't have to bother reading anything you say.

[palerider]

But I see my efforts have been completely for naught, so I'm out. Enjoy your non-hijacked thread, and I'll dispense with trying to foster clarity, and I'll go get my answers from someone who actually has them, instead.

But thanks for suggesting how I should post and that I should start my own thread. In return I would like to suggest that you start your own thread, and the sleep issue focused on there maybe could be about waking up on the wrong side of the bed.

I don't need to start my own thread..but thank you for the suggestion. Go get your answers to your questions from someone else or better yet...do about 1000 hours of reading through the threads and papers and studying.... It will save me a lot of work.
And thank you for letting me know that I don't need to bother trying to explain anything to you and I also don't have to bother reading anything you say.

this kind of crap is why tyrone earned a place on my ignore list, he's got nothing useful to contribute, just confusion and abuse.

[TyroneShoes]

@Pugsy

I actually had a wonderful night.

And if what you took away from this is what it appears you took away from this, I think who had the bad night might have been asked and answered. It is now part of the public record here, and can be reviewed. Cool heads will reveal who is lashing out, and who has not. But that is really not a "thing", at least I hope not. It's microscopic at best.

But you also have every right to have and express your opinion, and I would never fault you for that. I thought I did, too.

And you are the last person I would want to get off on the wrong foot with. I consider you a top asset here, and I think everyone else should think that also. I am amazed by your knowledge and your ability and generosity in expressing it, which is why what you posted here raised an eyebrow, because in my view it was pretty much out of character.

Make no mistake, your contributions here are precious and valuable to me, and to everyone else here. We love you. I would never want to diminish your body of work here, so please don't read that in. Please don't let this tiny wrinkle get in the way of your selfless commitment to helping all of us here. If I'm in the thread, please don't see that as a reason to abstain, as that will just hurt everyone else other than me here, which is the last thing either of us wants. It's not about me, or at least it should not be. If we were Skyping, you would see that I am literally on my knees.

If I need to apologize, then I will apologize as profusely as I can, because I want us to be OK with each other. I want us to value each other's contributions. I also want you to never feel pressured to provide an answer that you simply do not have, or to feel that you have to divert attention from that by saying "something else", which in my view is what might have happened here.

But that does not mean I will not stand up for myself, and I think that is what you would expect a worthy poster to do anyway. Everyone has the right to their day in court and to try to set the record straight. And it can't be denied that what was posted is why I felt I needed to do that. But let's get beyond that, as I was careful not to make my reply be or appear as an attack, and mostly because you are a wonderful person and priceless contributor and member here and there would never be a good reason to attack you, which I feel I did not, and would not, do. I feel no ill will whatsoever and can't imagine that I ever would. I might be disappointed in your response, but that is on me, not on you. You are just fine.

So I am really saddened how things have turned. And I must take most of the blame. I put people who I greatly admire up on a pedestal, and when they slip off the pedestal even for just a tiny moment, I am exceptionally disappointed. I find it difficult not to react to that. I typically do not allow them the courtesy of being human, and fallible, probably because I do not extend that same courtesy to myself. That is just one more character flaw that I am plagued with. But my reply was careful not to register my disappointment, at least this time. Instead, it dealt with the facts of what was posted matter-of-factly, only. Anything pointed out was not to diminish anyone or anything, just to set the record straight from my point of view, something each of us deserves the chance to do as long as it is not used as a cudgel to inflict damage on others, something I was careful not to do. Again, cooler heads will reveal that.

But we all are human, and fallible, including me, and including you. I am a work in progress, and trying to get myself to allow people to be people, rather than being disappointed when they are not completely and absolutely perfect, 24/7/365. But it will be really difficult to ever extend that same courtesy to the haters who are more interested in acting like 3-year-olds and simply piling on, which serves no other purpose than their selfish needs to validate themselves and invalidate everyone else (you know who you are). Happily, you are not and will never fall into that category, because you have character, and compassion.

I still feel that on a different day, were you to go back and actually read my earlier posts here, that your responses might be completely different. But then maybe that's just me trying to put you up on that pedestal again. Or simply wishful thinking.

Regardless, peace is my wish for you.