Corporate responsibility and misplaced perceptions.

GoofyUT wrote:...my warning about corporate shills on this board is as irrefutable as it is indefensible.

And the world was created by a giant flying spaghetti monster.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Just because something is irrefutable doesn't make it true. It's your burden of proof to convince logical people of your viewpoint. I'd be happy to be brought over to your viewpoint, but stop getting so defensive and say "I don't have proof, I just feel this way." There's no reason to make judgements about peoples' characters and then say you enjoy it.

"indefensible"

To GoofyUT:

I agree with you that there may be corporate shills on this board. However, I believe them to be the "penny ante" variety - such as being given a new mask occasionally "for testing purposes". Considering that patients aren't even considered customers by Respironics or ResMed, and that both companies go to great lengths to ignore patients, it would seem illogical to presume that they are now paying shills to haunt the message boards. If they were doing so, however, I would view that as a positive development.

I'll accept your assessment of ResMed as having the best ergonomics of any available CPAP machine. Add to that the "sloppiness" and user abusiveness with which Encore Pro was obviously constructed, and the fact that the Respironics machines are the heaviest of the lot. ResMed is the clear choice to be the preferred machine by xPAP users everywhere, right? Oops, there's that pesky matter of algorithm effectiveness . . ., how well one sleeps at night. Could C-flex be a part of the reason so many seem to prefer Respironics despite all the obvious flaws of the Respironics machines and software?

Oh well, maybe next year for ResMed . . .

Regards,
Bill (loyal to any manufacturer who offers the best product . . ., for me. )

Bravo! VERY well-said.

I agree comletely with all you've so eloquently said.

Thank you!

Chuck

GoofyUT wrote:"indefensible"

Indefensible: incapable of being defended or justified.
Irrefutable: impossible to deny or disprove.

From http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Do you see much difference there? I don't. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

Listen carefully: I said that I acknowledge and understand that my warning can neither be proven nor denied. Capice?

The sky is falling, the sky is falling--Help! Help! Respironics wants to take over the Internet and they're staring---HERE!!

Oops, sorry, I guess the falling sky hit me in the head and made me forget to sign in on that last "guest" post!

Here shills......here shills......come out, come out wherever you are......
We want to talk to YOU and your companies.

We've had a few (like "Research_Guy" for one) posting here pretending to be from the companies, but ended up being phonies (with multiple-personality disorders).

If your companies are reading this, how about coming up with an "advisory council" made up of REAL hoseheads that WOULD give useful input to your companies.

Den (waiting to talk to them)

GoofyUT wrote:"indefensible"

I KNEW I should have never sent you that self-help book entitled "Big long scientific words book for dummies"

I believe that, except for the CPAPpro spammers, nobody is a company shill. Every major contributor to this board has demonstrated over time that they are individuals and are willing to help others. Yes we have fans of particualar products, but that doesn't make them shills.

If you go back through the posts of some of the long term posters that have been brought into question, you will find that they have supported different manufacturers at different times.

When I came on board, from the tenor of her posts it was very clear that Rested Gal was a Puritan Bennet fan. Now she leans more towards Respironics. This was not due to a change in employers but based upon her personal experience.

Casting aspersions on contributors serves no purpose and is detrimental to the board. Unless you have proof of allegations, then the only purpose would seem to be disruption of the board.

Ofcourse for me to accuse somebody of exhibiting trollish behavior without foundation is also without merit..

[quote="dsm"]Visit to Resmed at Bella Vista,

I have my 2 new machines & some info to pass on - I also took a set of photos of the Resmed site & the sleep clinic there using my 2mp camera in my Moto V3i phone I'll post them on my website - the place was under security camera observation but no one came out & told me to stop taking pics so I snapped away. I also got a pic of the original washing machine motor version of the cpap - the machined used by Colin Sullivan that started it off. It is a sight to behold.


1) The site is still being built incl a new manufacturing facility + a new warehouse (but this whole site is only about a year or two old).

2) The recall was due to a power cord incompatibility with the length of the power pins in the power socket - my educated guess on the nature of the fault was close (I had the arcing taking place at the wrong end of the pin & for the wrong reason), so the problem was not due to any manufacturing issue in how the pins were fitted, just how long they were. Some 3rd party power cords were not making enough contact with the pins & that could in exceptional circumstances cause arcing between the power cord and these pins. The new sockets have slightly longer power pins and that solves any issues.

3) No one ordered Resmed to do a recall, not the FDA or any other authority, the recall was entirely instigated by Resmed and is voluntary but Resmed had to put reserves aside to cover a possible maximum number of replacements. The sleep specialist who provided me with my new machines said that some people were alarmed by the recall but that most were ok once it was explained that the recall was voluntary & the problem was not a manufacturing one caused by defective parts, just pins that need to be longer to work well with all types of power cords (a design issue).

Some other info I gleaned ...

Colin Sullivan never worked for Resmed, they basically were a medical equip manufacturer who saw what he was doing & approached him with their design ideas & thus their 1st machines were called Sullivans.

The S8 mfg line isn't robot controlled but still uses human beings (I speculated that they were robot assembled based on what I observed inside the S8). But I still believe the line could be easily converted into robot assembly.

They had a building there called the innovation centre but it was in an area not open to the public. Now I would have liked to have got into that building


#2 Also discussed HI & AI readings with the sleepclinic person doing the exchange. I mentioned that I had very low AI scores (usually under 1.0) but higher HI scores. He commented that during the night it was common for people to take a deep breath sometimes then not breathe for several seconds (even yawning will do it) & that if this was over 10 secs then most machines will score a hypopnea even if it wasn't one & that they regard an HI score of up to 4.0 as being quite acceptable.


DSM

mikemoran wrote:Casting aspersions on contributors serves no purpose and is detrimental to the board. Unless you have proof of allegations, then the only purpose would seem to be disruption of the board.

The only topic in this entire thread which deserves to be taken seriously . . ., and it comes from mikemoran?

I'm shocked! I see mikemoran's moniker beside the thread . . . I jump to read the humor. Instead . . ., Ya know, it might be best to stop it now, Mike. Seriousness can infect ya. Just nip it in the butt. Like a cancer, it is.

Regards,
Bill

GoofyUT wrote:As I've stated and as I well understand, my warning about corporate shills on this board is as irrefutable as it is indefensible. I take comfort in raising this issue for the benefit of new visitors to this community in good faith that the users here will evaluate the merits of my warning for themselves.

Chuck, I think it's entirely ethical to make new users aware of the pro-Respironics lopsidedness and even vitriol that is frequently displayed on this message board. However, I vehemently disagree with that extra and "indefensible" dot-connecting step that you took next: you attributed the above pattern of message board behavior to: 1) a specific ethical infraction being committed by, 2) specific types of message board users, in conjunction with 3) a specific manufacturer.

Chuck, the fact that you have repeatedly identified a specific manufacturer being engaged in a particular ethical crime with specific types of message board members---and then admitted that your own incriminating accusations are both "irrefutable" and "indefensible"---is precisely what reminds me of certain historical jurisprudence travesties entailing highly unjust condemnation. In those historical eras superficiality and suspicion also ruled the day, to the tragic demise of many who simply did not deserve the imprecision, injustice, and even cruelty of the "vigilance men" of those days. In my opinion you really would have served new users very well to emphasize the observable part I have underlined above. But to characterize that into a highly specific crime of ethics is another thing altogether.

In my opinion anyone who steps up to the podium with highly-specific incriminating crimes had better provide more supporting evidence than simply admitting their own allegations are "irrefutable and indefensible". Otherwise we socially risk slipping right back into....

GoofyUT wrote:Now, I'm quits with this nonsense.

As am I. Please don't take to heart that I simply happen to vehemently disagree with you, Chuck.

GoofyUT wrote:Listen carefully: I said that I acknowledge and understand that my warning can neither be proven nor denied. Capice?

Yes, I understand. So you crafted a huge post about it, chastised a board member for not being more open minded to your view point and then get annoyed with me when I'm surprised that you'd do this all over something that you admit is neither here nor there? I see.