An Open Note regarding Integrity

I really screwed up this time. Devious little nit that I am, kind of backed myself into a corner and not sure what to do.

Thought I would outline my dilemma on this thread as all the heavyweights seem to be playing close attention which should increase my chances of getting sound advice on just what to do.

I think my problem stems from my own insecurities since becoming a true blue hosehead. Started to think my bed partner of many years would actually shun me and my amorous ways due to the odd and noisy contraption sitting on half my face.

I must tell you that if I had been a mouth breather this may not have happened at all. Mouth breathers - rejoice!!! Unlucky me, A nasal mask was all I seemed to need. Dare I mention it is an Activa nasal hooked up to one of those new fangled Respironics which keeps changing the damn pressure all the time?

Anyway, with the insecurities entrenched but the mouth still free to operate I devised a plan to retain the interests of my nosey bed partner. I figured all I had to do was pretend to be sleeping. I mean how the hell would she know if I was sleeping or not with that monstrosity quivering and whirring away over my big schnoz and cheeks? Then what I would do is simply mumble how much I loved, needed and respected the nosey one. She would listen and decipher these unconscious ramblings as wonderful compliments which must be true beyond doubt.

Well, it worked!! Beyond my wildest dreams in fact! Every night I have her hovering over me waiting for my somewhat incoherent adulations. She gets in real close so as not to miss a thing.

And that's where the problem started and why I need your help to resolve this. Seems she is getting quite a wind burn on her ears from the exhaust ports on the mask. So, what do you think? Should I mumble for her to use vaseline or Ky gel?

Bob F

P.S. - I really do appreciate these contentious threads but not to the point where well meaning people get a little too carried away. Forming camps or name calling is not really helping anyone and kind of makes us all seem less than we really are. We have all made mistakes, split hairs or simply got to carried away but we also have much to offer one another and especially newcomers seeking information. This is a great forum so lets all try to keep it that way.

Uncle Bob,

You are a gem (please note that this, in this context, a compliment )


I agree wholeheartedly with your summary at the bottom.


DSM

Neversleeps

- how in hades is that an accusation justifying a group personal attack on me !!! How !! Those were genuine concerns I voiced & only need to be put to rest.

If RG replied with a simple answer that made quite clear she thinks I am wrong & there wasn't the predictable chorus on indignation from the likes of you, the matter could have been settled.

People coming here are not so stupid that they can't see things for themselves although I do believe there are those among us who have short emotional fuses & are quick to judge & who may not have read all the discussion. and are quite capable of warping the issues and are compelled to intervene.

Just as an open remark apart from the mumbo-jumbo in posts above, it may well be that the real issues that could be resolved here is that there are times when some of us want to discuss matters such as why machines behave in a particular way or how we might want to improve the software available to us all. But there are others who are not able to see the benefits of discussion that investigate too deeply the way some things work. Way back I called that the 'pollyana' approach to problems. By that I meant (please see this for the humour it is) "oh, isn't everything lovely & cosy - there are no problems anywhere".

I can see the possibility that this particular conflict is really one of hearts vs minds. That I now think may be the clash.

The minds want to analyse dissect discuss test pull apart, the hearts want to help others here and pass on their expertise - possibly my gripe is that there are times when I see the hearts perhaps intentionally, perhaps not, step in where minds are at work and possibly unwittingly stifle what was a useful & purposeful discussion.

One other point I will make for CG and for you, is that when this thread ends - In future threads I will judge you both based on what you post, how you reach conclusions, how you put your cases. I won't be leaving here with the blanket statement (CG) that you are what you called me.

Cheers

DSM

dsm,
While I appreciate you exposing your feminine side in sharing your "hearts vs. minds" theory, I'm really more interested in the facts than that sort of emotional inanity.

You asked rested gal, "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."

Please let us know when you come up with evidence to support your claim. You brought this subject up. You made the allegation. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you to back up your claim. Because you have avoided doing so, it leads me to believe you have no such evidence. Is that correct?

neversleeps wrote:dsm,
While I appreciate you exposing your feminine side in sharing your "hearts vs. minds" theory, I'm really more interested in the facts than that sort of emotional inanity.

You asked rested gal, "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."

Please let us know when you come up with evidence to support your claim. You brought this subject up. You made the allegation. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you to back up your claim. Because you have avoided doing so, it leads me to believe you have no such evidence. Is that correct?

Neversleeps,

You are a charmer.

I am not accepting a question in response to a question(s) - that leads me to wonder why answering such straight forward points is so difficult.

I believe there was many times more insight in what I had posted than in your response.

I don't believe there is anything further you can meaningfully contribute here other than what was always obvious in the blatant 'attack' nature of your interjections.

Thanks

DSM

_________________

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

_________________

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

neversleeps wrote:dsm,

Please let us know when you come up with evidence to support your claim. You brought this subject up. You made the allegation. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you to back up your claim. Because you have avoided doing so, it leads me to believe you have no such evidence. Is that correct?

Neversleeps,

You are taking quite a leap to make this conclusion. For DSM (or anyone) to go back and re-read RGs 4000+ posts to find such "evidence" is an arduous task.

I have no doubt that one could find "evidence" that could be construed to support what DSM says "He believes." ...I bet one, if one looked hard enough, one might even be able to find a post by some "gal" with pictures of her wearing pantyhose on her head. LOL!

Maybe this is all so serious that we need to call for a Congressional investigation into this whole "sorted" matter... I'm sure that would put an end to it... but not likely before we are all dead and gone.

integrity

SYLLABICATION: in·teg·ri·ty
PRONUNCIATION: n-tgr-t

NOUN: 1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. 2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness. 3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

ETYMOLOGY: Middle English integrite, from Old French, from Latin integrits, soundness, from integer, whole, complete.


.... American Heritage

You know, I love looking up words, even the ones I think I know the meaning, just to make sure I understand it. And seeing how this word was the topic for discussion, I couldn't resist looking it up. But as with many words, there is often more than one definition. Obviously we weren't referring to the second definition. I mean, really, us sleep apneacs ARE impaired, so that rules out definition number two. Which of the other two definitions are we referring to? But definition number one is interesting. It doesn't specifically say WHICH or WHAT TYPE of strict moral or ethical code. So it follows to me that integrity may well be in the eye of the beholder, or be different things to different people. I don't know if definition number one means that a strict moral or ethical code need be unimpaired, whole, undivided or complete.

Now in this case, the integrity of posters is called into question, or perhaps the integrity of the posts themselves. So we are discussing whether posters are giving the complete and whole story. (kinda covers definition number three) But then I am reminded that this is a word, and we are reading what is being discussed. Ultimately it's up to the individual to decide. Still, that doesn't mean that discussions aren't one-sided or based on incomplete information. Words can influence people, just as sticks and stones can break your bones.

But if you're calling into question a person's steadfast adherance to a strict moral or ethical code OR that they're posts are incomplete (hence, they are liars or somehow unethical), then strong emotions are inevitable, even to the analytical among us. I say there is no heads vs hearts. Anatomically and magically they rely on one another. How else would our bodies create arousals and jumpstart our breathing?

Ok, maybe my blood pressure medication is affecting both my heart AND my brain.

dsm wrote:Neversleeps,

You are a charmer.

Aw, shucks, dsm... Thank you!

dsm wrote:I am not accepting a question in response to a question(s) - that leads me to wonder why answering such straight forward points is so difficult.

I believe there was many times more insight in what I had posted than in your response.

I don't believe there is anything further you can meaningfully contribute here other than what was always obvious in the blatant 'attack' nature of your interjections.

dsm, I am not accepting your refusal to supply evidence to support your allegation against rested gal- it is painfully obvious you are incapable of coming up with it because it doesn't exist. The decent thing to do at this point, is admit you made a mistake, apologize to rested gal and move on.

I believe there was many times more insight in what I had posted than in your response.

I don't believe there is anything further you can meaningfully contribute here other than what was always obvious in the blatant accusatory nature of your allegation, which we've all now learned was completely unfounded.

neversleeps wrote:
I don't believe there is anything further you can meaningfully contribute here other than what was always obvious in the blatant accusatory nature of your allegation, which we've all now learned was completely unfounded.

Please provide your written proof of this as I have not "learned" this and I assume I am part of "we all."

Ladies, perhaps we should put an end to this.

After all, we are emotional.

But at least we are not "emotionally unstable".

I think you're right Linda. We're not shedding any new light on this viewpoint of DSM, and the topic is not moving anywhere.

From my observation, I think Rested Gal's intentions are not only honorable but tremendously helpful. I can not imagine how many hours she devotes to replying to people who are having problems, and I was one of them when I first got into the initial struggles of taming an xPAP almost 2 years ago. She helped me more than I would have ever expected, and I am eternally grateful to her.

Dsm, I know you are frustrated with not having a more open, analytical approach to drilling down on details of machine therapy, and I support you in your endeavor. But I think in placing blame on RG for percieved squelching of your attempts is misplaced. From what I can see, she is attempting to offer observations from her history of therapy, and you're taking this to mean that she has offered a solution, therefore no further analysis need continue. I think you misread her intent. She would fully support other opinions and observations to continue down the path of analysis and is not trying to close off the topic. But she only wants to provide an informed opinion.

RG, I hope I'm not speaking for you out of turn. If so, I appolgize. This is only my cut at what I think is going on.

Paul

wading thru the muck! wrote:

neversleeps wrote:
I don't believe there is anything further you can meaningfully contribute here other than what was always obvious in the blatant accusatory nature of your allegation, which we've all now learned was completely unfounded.

Please provide your written proof of this as I have not "learned" this and I assume I am part of "we all."

Ah, precisely my point. Here is the written proof dsm has supplied from which we've all now learned his allegation was completely unfounded:

dsm wrote:









.

Paul B wrote:From my observation, I think Rested Gal's intentions are not only honorable but tremendously helpful. I can not imagine how many hours she devotes to replying to people who are having problems, and I was one of them when I first got into the initial struggles of taming an xPAP almost 2 years ago. She helped me more than I would have ever expected, and I am eternally grateful to her.

Dsm, I know you are frustrated with not having a more open, analytical approach to drilling down on details of machine therapy, and I support you in your endeavor. But I think in placing blame on RG for percieved squelching of your attempts is misplaced. From what I can see, she is attempting to offer observations from her history of therapy, and you're taking this to mean that she has offered a solution, therefore no further analysis need continue. I think you misread her intent. She would fully support other opinions and observations to continue down the path of analysis and is not trying to close off the topic. But she only wants to provide an informed opinion.

Well said, Paul.

Neversleeps,

That was quite disingenuous & you know it...

What did you imagine I meant by this earlier post ?

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.

Here is the thread - viewtopic.php?t=13532&highlight=data+hc234


I have done my best to remain polite with you despite your attacks, I continue to do so because I know there are a lot of people reading this thread and that most (clearly some aren't) able to see that I have been meticulous in making my remarks in this one.

So having humoured me on this are you willing to concede that I may have felt that RG killed the above thread that was about to discuss what I saw as the inadequacies of Respironics (EncorePro). I did praise MyEncore written by Derek. I am a software engineer.

RG had no need whatsoever to put that last post in the thread none

But as soon as she did I politely responded and then walked away from it knowing what was coming, but I made a slight misjudgement, the what was coming turned up here. So in a thread where all I did was praise RG, a number of reactive folks have turned into me attacking RG.


Then as honestly as you seem able please humour me with an answer to each point raised (if you won't it tells me exactly what your motives are here)

- In that thread did I ask for opinions on EncorePro after stating what I saw wrong with it ?
- In that thread is there anything I said other than in *genuine* praise of Rested Gal & her efforts (in regard to her helping people with EncorePro)
- Did I mention RG's name or even *hint* RGs name re the vested interests definition I gave
- Why on earth did RG choose to step in at all and act like it was somehow targeting her ? and with what she said in her last post there - because without any provocation, her post killed that whole thread dead.
- So what post appears to have killed that thread.
- What worthwhile topics then got lost (try: EncorePro, An OpenSourced version capable of working with multiple machines, The relevance of vested interests)

I am really not expecting honest replies from you based on your last post but I will apologize if you do answer the questions honestly.
I will also award you 10 points for being the 'hit man' on forcing me to answer your questions when mine have been ignored. A highly commendable achievement.

DSM

_________________

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

_________________

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

_________________

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

_________________

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

Since nothing seems to be able to get through your hard head, I'll answer your questions. Then perhaps you can try answering ours.

- In that thread did I ask for opinions on EncorePro after stating what I saw wrong with it ?

In case you haven't noticed, this is a public forum. EVERYONE is free to post their opinions, no matter what they are. That was not even your thread. The OP asked a question - he got it answered. Up until this point, the thread was factual (just as you purport to like it). Then, you came in and offered your *opinion.* RG then added hers. That's fair - that's supposed to be how this board works. Balances, counterbalances.

- In that thread is there anything I said other than in *genuine* praise of Rested Gal & her efforts (in regard to her helping people with EncorePro).

Absolutely not. And also, correspondingly, I had no problem with what you posted in that thread. The "regulars with vested interests" struck me as a little strange, but there was nothing offensive. You saved that for this thread, apparently.

- Did I mention RG's name or even *hint* RGs name re the vested interests definition I gave.

You absolutely did not, nor did I think you meant her. This thread, however, shed a different light on things.

- Why on earth did RG choose to step in at all and act like it was somehow targeting her ? and with what she said in her last post there - because without any provocation, her post killed that whole thread dead.

Again, here, you are way off base.

She was responding to your "regulars with vested interests" comment and defending her answer, in a jocular manner, since she is a regular. I can't speak for her, but I did not at all get the sense from that post that she thought you meant her. I myself was about to post something similar (joking about my "vested interests,") but had to go to class instead. Her post was not attacking you or what you said in any sort of way - she was simply presenting her own opinion and experience, and joking about the vested interests comment. If it had been her post that killed that thread, hers would have been the last. If you'll notice, there were 7 - yes, 7 - posts after hers, 2 of which were hers. It was obviously not her post that led to the ending of that thread. And if you're that wound up about it, just start another one and stick to technology rather than "vested interests" comments.

- So what post appears to have killed that thread.

I would say yours, actually. After that "vested interests" comment, the tone of the thread was more uncomfortable and confrontational, and that thread was not long for the world.

- What worthwhile topics then got lost (try: EncorePro, An OpenSourced version capable of working with multiple machines, The relevance of vested interests)

I can't really answer that, because I don't really feel you were contributing anything worthwhile. dsm, if people are interested in what you have to say, they'll continue posting. If not, the thread dies. THIS is the reason your threads are dying - you are making people uncomfortable with your paranoia, and there just aren't high numbers of technical people on this forum that care about that sort of thing. Most are happy with the software they have, if they have any, and so might not even bother reading much (if any) of threads related to "which is better" topics or "improving it" topics.

Perhaps you might have more luck at an engineering forum.

College Girl

Thanks for your answers on behalf of Neversleeps.
I still say that none of that justified attacking me as you and other have done here.

#2 added

But thanks for your opinions and for being honest enough to admit I did nothing in that thread to attack anyone. In that thread I did qualify my earlier reference to vested interests by explaining exactly what I meant by the issue of should people who are being given free xpap gear to write reviews, acknowledge this in the review (I don't really believe people would mind all that much) but it would let people know exactly where a reviewer was coming from.

Do you believe it is not a valid topic for discussion on cpaptalk ?

Would you conceed that I felt I had cause to wonder what RGs motives were in that last post of hers (I took it as RG squashing both the EncorePro & Vested Interests issues) that was exactly the effect of her last post.

DSM

#3 added

You absolutely did not, nor did I think you meant her. This thread, however, shed a different light on things.

CG - how did what I say in this thread shed a different light on the Vested Interests topic ? - where ?

I have said *nothing* about the vested interests issue here other than (I think) to ask why it is not a reasonable topic to discuss. Others have mentioned it & none with any encouragement nor contact with or from me.
I consider a few people here believe it a fair thing to ask people who are given free gear to say so in their evals.

In this thread now as you know, I did ask RG why she appeared to lead the charge on squashing threads discussing Respironics products - I am still of that opinion based on the factual outcome in the original thread.

When I asked that question here it was, to me, a very fair question but it was brushed aside in the whipped up storm of indignation that seemed to be outrage that I even dared to ask it.

As always I do hope that the observant ones among us can see the real flow in both threads. I have endured a lot in remaining calm, stepping over the muck and logically walking through who said what and why. I believe strongly that calmness and reason will win out over emotion and feined (or real) outrage once people can see the absolute facts. I will admit that SWS has demonstrated that to me many times.

Again I raise the difference between mind vs heart - a reality we all have to live with & learn to work with

D

_________________

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

_________________

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