An Open Note regarding Integrity

dsm,
You can not post things questioning the credibility of one of the members of this forums, which insults her, and not expect an emotional reaction.

Tell me, would you walk up to someone you've known and gotten along with for quite some time, insult them, and not expect some sort of emotional reaction?

We are humans, not machines. We have emotions. Everything we as humans do (that includes you) involves our emotions, whether you think it does or not. That's basic psychology.

No, we cannot keep emotions out of our existence. We have to deal with them. And if you, unprovoked, attack one of my friends (which is exactly what you did), who also (I would imagine) considered herself one of *your* friends, (I'm making an assumption here, since I saw nothing but friendly posts between the two of you) then you will have to deal with my emotions as well.

And incidentally, calling someone's response "emotional theatrics," is, again, not a very intelligent way to go about things if you want "emotions kept out of it." Saying you don't want emotions brought into it and then insulting posters on this board makes no sense at all. You owe us all an apology.

Now, in regards to why people are so vehement about their love for certain machines or masks, you're just not getting it.

The vast majority of people posting on this board are NOT company plants. We are just people who have dealt with untreated apnea for years (or decades), who took forever to find the right machine, or the right mask, and are therefore excited about it, and post about it whenever given the opportunity. It took over a year and a half of a largely fruitless search to find the Aura, and, finally, the right treatment combination that actually let me feel rested for the first time in my life.

You bet I'm excited about that, and that anytime someone asks what sort of nasal interface they should use, I'll recommend the Aura in a heartbeat. Because it has changed my life. I'd be willing to bet that most of the posters who "push" certain brands have had similar experiences, and are doing so for the same reason I am.

I do STRONGLLY agree with him that the MANY posts of outraged "How could you???!!!" contribute NOTHING to what would have otherwise been a vital discussion regarding the essential basis of our ability to trust the opinions that we offer and count on from one another.

Neither did a personal attack on RG.

DSM had the courage to raise a consideration that we all owed ourselves the opportunity to consider, for better or for worse.

That RG is anything but the benevolent person she is? Are you serious?

He is to be only admired for caring enough about this community and its welfare to brave the predictable storm and raise the issues discussed here.

Raising the issue is one thing - I would have had no problem with discussing that in a civil manner. Insulting other posters, completely unprovoked, is NOT "playing nice," however, and is absolutely not okay with me, and DEFINITELY not worthy of admiration.

I will never see dsm the same way again.

CG,

I can see you are a passionate person. You really feel the need to make your point. I am passionate about xpap therapy and investigating how these things work.

But, please post the sentence that I wrote that can be called an attack ?
Do it via PM if you want.

I have expressed opinions & I have asked questions - any person being asked a question only ever had to answer & those observing can come to their own conclusions about the interaction. It doesn't require much intellect to know what happens to any discussion when emotional bursts are injected - kind of a 'shoot the messenger mentality' - I am not at all impressed.

Outrage & indignation can be justified when there is a reason. Please list the line from me that justifies derailing this thread in this case (by PM if you wish).

Thanks

DSM

I honestly don't care if you're impressed, dsm. I've certainly lost any respect for you I ever had.

You said, among other things:

I am interpreting your remarks as along the lines
'no one has the right to criticise aspects of a machine because you believe we don't have the expertise to do so'

You asked five questions, all of which, in the context of this thread, imply that you think RG has, in your words, "vested interests."

If I walked up to a friend and said, "You know how you've given me all that advice on relationships? Well, I haven't found one. I think you're sabotaging me because you like the same men I do," I would no longer be that person's friend. That's an attack.

You are not the "messenger," you're the instigator. Learn to take responsibility for yourself.

Sorry CG where did I say RG had vested interests

I fear you have not made your case. You are struggling to do so.

It really pays to read (and comprehend) these discussion before making your own 'attacks'

DSM

dsm wrote:Sorry CG where did I say RG had vested interests

I fear you have not made your case. You are struggling to do so.

It really pays to read (and comprehend) these discussion before making your own 'attacks'

DSM

DSM,

I recall you saying "regulars" with vested interests and we all know RG is anything but a "regular" gal.

Wader,

Regulars covers a lot of people here.
10 points for your *accurate* recall of the point made.
Am still keen to see CG now explain the justification for her 'outrage'.
It isn't on the points she made.

Cheers Doug

I've tried to resist butting into this "conversation," but I have to put my two cents worth in. DSM, you asked what you had said specifically that was insulting to Rested Gal. Well, I think your questions #4 and #5 were both quite insulting. Of course, you can argue that they weren't, but we all know that it is how something is perceived that generally carries the day. And I think College Girl, myself, and probably some others believe those words were challenging her integrity, if not out right accusing her of ulterior motives. She asked you to specify a thread she had derailed or squashed and I notice that you haven't answered that direct question.

My experience on this board and others on which I participate is that if the subject about which you post doesn't impact people, they are not likely to respond, unless, like Rested Gal for example, their motive is simply to help. If you posted about a problem you have with your Respironics machines and got little response, perhaps that was because few others had the same or similar experience to share with you.

Linda,

Thanks for you comments.

I am sorry anyone saw those questions as insulting. I certainly didn't & still don't. The easiest thing to do was answer them & put that to rest - anyone here can come to their own conclusions about who they decide to 'like' or don't like'.- the typical result though is for certain people to leap in in indignation (usually without any intelligent input to the discussion - sometimes without even understanding what the discussion is about).
Cheers

DSM

Okay, DSM -- now you are insulting everybody. No, let me retract that emotional statement. Now you are insulting every WOMAN who has the guts to call you on your abusive behavior to first RG, and then to every woman who tries to call you on it.

So let me have my final say, and you can add me to your list.

Mr. DSM, this isn't the first time you've attacked RG when she has posted a response to someone having a problem and asking questions. You are not Mr. Innocent.

Refer back to:
viewtopic.php?p=79236&highlight=#79236

and your nasty comment directed at RG. You wrote, "As we all know the celluloid character Pollyanna could see no wrong in anything no matter how wrong it was."

If that isn't getting "emotional" or "an attack", then I don't know what is.

I wish you would just grow up and act like an adult.

dsm wrote:To outside observers, watch how an otherwise calm and sensible discussion can so quickly get hijacked and derailed & the core issues dissapear - possibly predictably !

To outside observers, watch how an otherwise calm and sensible discussion can so quickly get hijacked and derailed & the core issues disappear when dsm makes an unfounded accusation against an esteemed member of this forum and then feigns surprise and disdain for the maelstrom he has single-handedly created.

dsm wrote:Moogy.
I am sure you mean well when you step into a discussion between others and answer for them but if someone asked your husband a question would you answer for him too ?

dsm, here's a helpful hint. If you prefer certain people not offer their opinion in response to you posts, I would suggest you confine your correspondence to PMs and avoid using the public forum (with the exception of your forthcoming apology to Rested Gal).

You'll note, other than asking for specific examples to support this allegation of yours, Rested Gal has not been drawn into the fray, has not found it necessary to insult anyone and has maintained her integrity through it all. You asked her, "Why do you seem to lead the charge to scuttle discussions any time they involve issues with Respironics machines ?" You wrote, "RG, I do believe you have squashed conversations that have had material critical of Respironics."
She answered,

rested gal wrote:"DSM, I'm sorry, but I'm simply amazed. I cannot fathom where you've gotten the impression that anyone, least of all me, has tried to squash discussions about anything on this message board.

If you will kindly post a link to whatever past thread(s?) contained something I said that has made you think I've ever indicated that people should not discuss what works/doesn't work for them or talk about problems they've had with their equipment, I'd really like to see it.

I see you haven't come up with anything yet, dsm. Here's another helpful hint: if you're going to make an accusation, it's always a wise idea to have the evidence to back it up. I fear you have not made your case. You are struggling to do so.

GoofyUT wrote:I want to say that I disagree with DSM's statements regarding what he believes are RG's efforts to stifle dissent regarding Respironics equioment. I have NEVER experienced any contributions that RG has made here as being other than well-intended, genuinely helpful, thoughtful, kind and always wise.

I'm with you, GoofyUT. I also disagree with DSM's statements regarding what he believes are RG's efforts to stifle dissent regarding Respironics equipment. In fact, it is evident everyone disagrees with his statements. DSM has been unsuccessful in his attempt to damage Rested Gal’s credibility, but has succeeded brilliantly in damaging his own.

DSM has been unsuccessful in his attempt to damage Rested Gal’s credibility, but has succeeded brilliantly in damaging his own.

Yet Again.
viewtopic.php?p=79236&highlight=#79236

neversleeps wrote:

dsm wrote:To outside observers, watch how an otherwise calm and sensible discussion can so quickly get hijacked and derailed & the core issues dissapear - possibly predictably !

To outside observers, watch how an otherwise calm and sensible discussion can so quickly get hijacked and derailed & the core issues disappear when dsm makes an unfounded accusation against an esteemed member of this forum and then feigns surprise and disdain for the maelstrom he has single-handedly created.

dsm wrote:Moogy.
I am sure you mean well when you step into a discussion between others and answer for them but if someone asked your husband a question would you answer for him too ?

dsm, here's a helpful hint. If you prefer certain people not offer their opinion in response to you posts, I would suggest you confine your correspondence to PMs and avoid using the public forum (with the exception of your forthcoming apology to Rested Gal).

You'll note, other than asking for specific examples to support this allegation of yours, Rested Gal has not been drawn into the fray, has not found it necessary to insult anyone and has maintained her integrity through it all. You asked her, "Why do you seem to lead the charge to scuttle discussions any time they involve issues with Respironics machines ?" You wrote, "RG, I do believe you have squashed conversations that have had material critical of Respironics."
She answered,

rested gal wrote:"DSM, I'm sorry, but I'm simply amazed. I cannot fathom where you've gotten the impression that anyone, least of all me, has tried to squash discussions about anything on this message board.

If you will kindly post a link to whatever past thread(s?) contained something I said that has made you think I've ever indicated that people should not discuss what works/doesn't work for them or talk about problems they've had with their equipment, I'd really like to see it.

I see you haven't come up with anything yet, dsm. Here's another helpful hint: if you're going to make an accusation, it's always a wise idea to have the evidence to back it up. I fear you have not made your case. You are struggling to do so.

GoofyUT wrote:I want to say that I disagree with DSM's statements regarding what he believes are RG's efforts to stifle dissent regarding Respironics equioment. I have NEVER experienced any contributions that RG has made here as being other than well-intended, genuinely helpful, thoughtful, kind and always wise.

I'm with you, GoofyUT. I also disagree with DSM's statements regarding what he believes are RG's efforts to stifle dissent regarding Respironics equipment. In fact, it is evident everyone disagrees with his statements. DSM has been unsuccessful in his attempt to damage Rested Gal’s credibility, but has succeeded brilliantly in damaging his own.

_________________

CPAPopedia Keywords Contained In This Post (Click For Definition): respironics


Neversleeps

What unfounded 'accusation' Where ?


Re coming up with something - not one of my politely worded 'concerns' got answered.

You are repeating CG's emotional & unjustified attacks on me.


But for one very recent thread,

Go back to the original thread where I some asked people why they though EncorePro was good software after I gave my reasons why I saw otherwise.

Who killed that discussion without any justification - nothing said in that thread had anything to do with RG (or then again maybe it did). Some questionable anon attempted to bait me - I did explain my concerns re the prospect of people being given free gear to promote it ('vested interests') - that is a genuine concern and one that could have been discussed openly & put to rest instead we get what happened - someone takes offence & leaps in with guns (tongue) blazing & the discussion suddenly shifts completly off topic.

Cheers

DSM

Linda3032 wrote:

DSM has been unsuccessful in his attempt to damage Rested Gal’s credibility, but has succeeded brilliantly in damaging his own.

Yet Again.
viewtopic.php?p=79236&highlight=#79236

Linda,

You haven't got one remark I made that could in anyway damage RG's reputation.

Excuse me if I now show some annoyance & call this post emotional clap-trap. Now if you take offence to that statement I will truly understand.

I long ago stopped being intimidated by the emotional 'cries of the banshees' on this forum (oops DSM you just did it again )

DSM

dsm wrote:What unfounded 'accusation' Where ?

You asked her, "Why do you seem to lead the charge to scuttle discussions any time they involve issues with Respironics machines ?" You wrote, "RG, I do believe you have squashed conversations that have had material critical of Respironics."

dsm wrote: Re coming up with something -

Yes, please let us know when you come up with evidence to support your claim. Not from your memory, but something we can all read. Facts are preferable to emotional and unjustified allegations. Good luck with that.

Cheers.