Dude, you are kind to offer an apology even when you probably don't think one is necessary. I didn't take actual offense at anything you wrote. But I still figured one riff off of n00b deserved another and I don't consider it in the same league as pointing out irrelevant spelling errors as if they affect the content of a logical argument.DreamStalker wrote:Sometimes my posts are taken as blunt, gruff, and insensitive … that’s the way I am. Other times I may attempt to have a little fun and it comes off as bad humor … that’s the way I am.ApNoob wrote:...only when being insulted. If someone is going to be oh so clever and try and riff off of my self-reflexive nom de forum by calling me a noob I have to say it is fair game to call them on it.DreamStalker wrote:Aye! A noob and a spell checker too ....If you are going to try and riff on my self-awknowledged newbie status you should at least spell "properly" it in leet speak: "n00b"
I may be a n00b about xPAP but I'm not a new at being rational and fact oriented.
So, my attempts to add some humor to this thread were obviously taken as offensive insults by you and for that I apologize (Dang! … that’s my second apology on this forum in two days).
Just so you know, your reply (above) to Jim can be taken as a bit insulting too but I tried to respond in a fun way. Anyway, for you, enough of my funny stuff. Having a background in science, I too can appreciate rationality and facts. I am not a statistician but I am familiar with its principles from my graduate experience and current employment. IMO, I find the statistical rigor of the BMJ article wanting. So the mischaracterization of the study lies with the authors of that paper (again just my opinion/interpretation). As has been said, we all interpret such findings differently and just because it is peer reviewed does NOT make it fact and/or rational -- at least not within my professional discipline of science.ApNoob wrote:The biggest variable is that you don't know what you are talking about re: the study in question. The study is a peer reviewed published study with randomized controls.
Finally, as a self-proclaimed decider of misinformation on this forum, you should expect challenges to your decisions and there are at least two long-time members I know of who will indeed challenge and insult you and not apologize (you will be in for a treat when you cross their paths), so beware. As for spell checking the forum … there have been some who tried … good luck!
I mean no ill will to you or anyone else and do hope that you continue your participation on this forum because it really is the best place to get your PAP treatment done right and quickly (relatively speaking). My best wishes to you and your treatment. As for me I think it is time for me to go away chill again.
Re: the study. My comments about factual error were directed at goofproof. He made a factual mischaracterization about the study--one you have not refuted. While you may have some reason to doubt the study it not based on the mischaracterization made by goofproof..
Previously stated plainly and clearly that I am not always right. I expect to be challenged. I can't learn if people don't point out where I made mistakes. The same is true for all people, including goofproof. However, goofproof is not by dint of his moniker free of error. And just because he may be a stand up guy doesn't mean he wasn't wrong about a specific aspect of his criticism of the study.
I doubt neither goofproof's intelligence nor yours. Nor your sincerity. What I thought you might say is "you are right, the outcome measurements weren't just self-reported subjective measures as goofproof claimed but I have these other reasons to doubt the study." Instead you ignore goofproof's false claim and tell me about "other" reasons to doubt the study. Just because you both think the study is flawed is not reason to give goofproof the free pass on a specific mischaracterization he made.
People are entitled to their opinion and such but they should at least base their opinions on fact. You don't need to be a research scientist to read the study and see that they used multiple measures to determine outcome including AHI measured at a sleep center. Goofproof is still entitled to doubt the study but his characterization that the metrics were solely based on self reporting is false. I've already quoted that section, so I won't repeat it in this post.
I have been, I think, very consistent. I don't doubt that the study, like any other, is subject to future refutation or confirmation!!! I said so in so many words. Check my posts. Your criticism of of the rigor of the rigor and stats of the study on the merits is a legitimate one. Even the author's only posit that a larger study is needed. However, it is important to keep criticism based on facts, as you have, and not on mischaracterization (or a mixture of the two), as goofproof has.
BTW,
I sometime compartmentalize argument. Just because I'm arguing for this one, specific point doesn't mean I don't otherwise respect both you and goofproof. This post is specifically about a factual error, not a criticism of either of you personally. In retrospect, I probably should have let it be, but I really didn't think that pointing out an obvious and easily verified error would be such a big deal...
