CPAPtalk.com

Nodzy wrote:Gee...
I think I'm supposed to feel reprimanded, or spanked.

Snoredog, I applaud your wealth of SDB and flow generator knowledge, and all the definitive help you gave me when I was struggling. It was welcome and remains deeply appreciated.

But, I posted the items and settings to reduce the frequent, repetitive questions about what I use in order to protect my health, achieve consistently beneficial treatment and good numbers. I assure you that many folks have commented that they were encouraged and had benefitted from seeing it. Of course, it's a matter of preference. And my preference now is to not snap-to and dance to a grouch-worded demand, suggestion or comment. Not today, anyway -- but I'll check my 2012 calendar for an open "snap-to and dance day."

Yes, it's a bit much, and I may delete, change or trim it, or may let it ride for a while yet. No offense meant, but tolerance is not your strong suit. And I'm not just speaking about this particular thread. But that's ok too, because I am tolerant, within prudent reason.

Nodzy

-SWS wrote:

birdshell wrote:

birdshell wrote:What really prompted this "bumping" back up the the top of the forum list:

ENTIRE posts quoted immediately below the original post. I understand someone not realizing the quote programming or being unfamiliar with the system...

But do we need to quote what we have just read--the ENTIRE thing, when the next post is our response? I'll show you what I mean:



Please Click Here--Free


Karen,
Who will be objectionable shortly

See what I mean? I am posting just below the last post, but quoting the entire thing. I am sorry if I am offending someone, but I know that it eats up the memory, uses more power, makes the search feature less efficient, and--in case you are interested--uses a larger carbon footprint. In other words, so much quoting is NOT "green". Ed Begley, Jr. would argue with his wife about this!

Karen,
Who should not be quite so objectionable from here on out






Please Click Here--Free

Since I accidentally subverted Karen's point, I'll insert her entire post here to drive her point home. Sorry about that!

Snoredog wrote:

-SWS wrote:

birdshell wrote:

birdshell wrote:What really prompted this "bumping" back up the the top of the forum list:

ENTIRE posts quoted immediately below the original post. I understand someone not realizing the quote programming or being unfamiliar with the system...

But do we need to quote what we have just read--the ENTIRE thing, when the next post is our response? I'll show you what I mean:



Please Click Here--Free


Karen,
Who will be objectionable shortly

See what I mean? I am posting just below the last post, but quoting the entire thing. I am sorry if I am offending someone, but I know that it eats up the memory, uses more power, makes the search feature less efficient, and--in case you are interested--uses a larger carbon footprint. In other words, so much quoting is NOT "green". Ed Begley, Jr. would argue with his wife about this!

Karen,
Who should not be quite so objectionable from here on out






Please Click Here--Free

Since I accidentally subverted Karen's point, I'll insert her entire post here to drive her point home. Sorry about that!

what was the point?

snoredog wrote:what was the point?

-SWS wrote:

Snoredog wrote:

-SWS wrote:

birdshell wrote:

birdshell wrote:What really prompted this "bumping" back up the the top of the forum list:

ENTIRE posts quoted immediately below the original post. I understand someone not realizing the quote programming or being unfamiliar with the system...

But do we need to quote what we have just read--the ENTIRE thing, when the next post is our response? I'll show you what I mean:



Please Click Here--Free


Karen,
Who will be objectionable shortly

See what I mean? I am posting just below the last post, but quoting the entire thing. I am sorry if I am offending someone, but I know that it eats up the memory, uses more power, makes the search feature less efficient, and--in case you are interested--uses a larger carbon footprint. In other words, so much quoting is NOT "green". Ed Begley, Jr. would argue with his wife about this!

Karen,
Who should not be quite so objectionable from here on out






Please Click Here--Free

Since I accidentally subverted Karen's point, I'll insert her entire post here to drive her point home. Sorry about that!

what was the point?

EXHIBIT A

-SWS wrote:

snoredog wrote:what was the point?

EXHIBIT B

Dunno... Haven't been able to figure it out myself...

-SWS wrote:

Snoredog wrote:

-SWS wrote:

birdshell wrote:

birdshell wrote:What really prompted this "bumping" back up the the top of the forum list:

ENTIRE posts quoted immediately below the original post. I understand someone not realizing the quote programming or being unfamiliar with the system...

But do we need to quote what we have just read--the ENTIRE thing, when the next post is our response? I'll show you what I mean:



Please Click Here--Free


Karen,
Who will be objectionable shortly

See what I mean? I am posting just below the last post, but quoting the entire thing. I am sorry if I am offending someone, but I know that it eats up the memory, uses more power, makes the search feature less efficient, and--in case you are interested--uses a larger carbon footprint. In other words, so much quoting is NOT "green". Ed Begley, Jr. would argue with his wife about this!

Karen,
Who should not be quite so objectionable from here on out






Please Click Here--Free

Since I accidentally subverted Karen's point, I'll insert her entire post here to drive her point home. Sorry about that!

what was the point?

EXHIBIT A