I appreciate your comments and the time it took to make them, headhunter. I have to admit that Dandy Don stomped on a couple of hot buttons when I read on the internet. Let me explain.
You're right, Dandy's use of the phrase "give yourself validity" was indeed very unfortunate. Unfortunate because he was just plain old wrong. Dandy seems to think that having a profile filled out and having made over 1000 posts lends credibility to a poster. And I would agree with him to some extent if that poster was providing information without corroboration, and all of the readers were well familiar with his track record in previous posts. But I'll bet you that not all readers of this board are as familiar with him as you are. For example, Dog&pony is a new poster. Should Dandy assume that Dog&pony has read most of his 4700+ posts and just "know" that he's trustworthy because he's been around a long time? Or should he assume that Dog&pony has read his profile and already knows that Dandy is "just a diver" and his information isn't based on any real knowledge? Neither, I would say. Anyone can post 4700 inane and irrelevant messages, and many people who are "just divers" give excellent advice worthy of close attention. IMHO, we can all be wrong at any time, and each post stands on its own. If we make a statement that is questionable, we should either answer the questions or retract the statement- NOT attack the questioner for asking.
And he implied that the converse was also true. He seemed to me to be saying that my post LACKED "validity" because I had not filled out a profile, hadn't introduced myself, and hadn't posted as long has he. As I asked him, how long do you have to post here to be able to ask a "valid" question? Personlly, I would say "once", but he seems to think differently since my question apparently lacked "validity" in his view. Now I did also provide additional information in my post. And Dandy is right, how can you know to trust a new poster? That's why I posted a link to a generally trusted source that anyone could check. I didn't EXPECT anyone to trust a first time poster.
But I could have filled out my profile so you'd know to trust me, right? Yes, as you surmised I am a specialist in hyperbaric medicine with many years experience. After teaching hyperbaric theory to John Haldane in my early years as a university professor, I went on to show Emile Gagnan how to build a self-contained breathing apparatus with a pressure regulator (an idea that my former best friend and diving buddy Jacques-Yves Cousteau later took credit for- curse his name!). I run the busiest hyperbaric research and treatment facility on the planet, and all the other hyperbaric specialist that are worth anything call me to ask my opinion. I just turned down the post of Secretary General of the UN to accecpt my new position as the head of DAN. In the past I posted on a now defunct French language scuba message board where I had made thousands of well respected and admired posts. And yes, that's all a lie. Every bit of it. Profiles may be "friendly" for people out to socialize, but they are worthless in determining the "validity" of a post or a poster that intends to convey information. It's just too easy to make things up and SEEM important on the internet. His point about my question lacking "validity" because I hadn't met his arbitrary and irrelevant criteria was WRONG and he deserved to be called on it.
You say it's just "his style" to "toss" smilies into a thread, and I misread them? OK, you tell me. How do I "read" the smilie-directed at me- of one happy face bashing the other with a hammer? Is that Dandy smashing me, or me smashing him? Or was it totally irrelevant to the discussion? In any case, it was RUDE and grossly inappropriate. What about the smilie knocking his head against the wall- also directed at me? How did I misread that one? How would you read my example smilie of the happy face raising his middle finger at YOU in this response?. Would you think kindly of me if someone came along later and said, "Oh, that's just kelpie. He meant it in friendly way." I think not. It would be RUDE and uncalled for, and worthy of a critical response. Dandy should be MUCH more careful about what smilies he "tosses" into a response.
You're right, I did misread Dandy's comment about the "unknown entity with an antagonistic approach" thing. (Hey Dandy, see how easy it can be to admit when you're wrong? You should try it some time!) But I must counter that I was NOT being "antagonistic", I was being defensive because DANDY was being antagonistic.
My initial question to him was certainly pointed, because I disagree strongly with his position, but pointed is not "antagonistic". I even made an effort to help him out by giving what I think is the correct answer to my question in the post. I thought that was pretty nice of me. If he had simply responded along the lines of, "Gee, DAN's a pretty good source. I had no idea that they thought Sudafed was OK to use with nitrox with appropriate precautions, and it had never occured to me that blanket condemnations of using Sudafed with nitrox are uncalled for. I personally choose not to use Sudafed with nitrox, but before I ever tell anyone else again not to do it, I'll give them the whole story and a more balance view. My bad. I was wrong." And if he had gone on to say something like, "Hey kelpie, that was a good question, and a great link. Welcome to the board. Why not introduce yourself, fill out a profile, and stick around for awhile?" without any uncalled for comments about my "validity" that would have been nice. He could have even included a simple happy face smilie with no worries. Smilies are poor excuses for good writing, and as you say, easily misunderstood, but this is a scuba board, not a creative writing board. I would have just said thanks and let it go.
But that's NOT what he did. He posted what I believe was BAD medical advice using his profile, his long posting history, and his semi-official capacity as a member of the "Greeter team" to lend unwarranted "validity" to his advice to a new poster. And when he was asked to provide more substantial "validity" to his post he ignored the question and instead launched into an attack on MY "validity" to post including what I can ONLY perceive as rude and insulting smilies. You know, I think I have darn good reason to be defenisive since I gave him no reason in my initial post to be so antagonistic towards me.
You say that this is not the real Dandy Don. Ok, maybe he's having a bad day. I might be having a bad day too, and don't really appreciate his "welcome" to me here. If he's such a nice guy, then I suppose we'll see an apology from him soon, wouldn't you think?
Thanks for your input,
kelpie
By the way, I certainly apologize to Dog&pony and other readers of the board for hijacking this thread to defend myself against Dandy's attacks. I just feel that people that are attacked publically should defend themselves publically. And like I said, I'll be happy to drop it if there are no more questions or comments that I feel that I need to explain. Hey, and where are are the regulars who should be chastizing their buddy Dandy? Being nice and doing it by private message, I guess.
We are not not going to get along today, are we? 
