Nose bleed concerns

[headhunter]

kelpie,

I appreciate your response to my comments and you're willingness to take the time to respond. I believe that you make some valid points and believe that your willingness to participate in this discourse over the matter at hand shows progression toward resolution.

Again, it appears to me that most of this has really escalated out of a basic misunderstanding of Don's intentions. I do not pretend to speak on his behalf and simply hope that he is not offended that I am about to continue to speculate about this situation and make assumptions that are absolutely unconfirmed.

Dandy seems to think that having a profile filled out and having made over 1000 posts lends credibility to a poster.

In looking over Don's posts, I don't see anywhere in his statements that he actually believes this to be the case. In fact, he seems to appreciate the link you've provided. He does go on to mention that he is still not sure if he wants to "blindy" rely on the information, but concedes that it is certainly valuable as a part of the body of evidence to consider. I get that from this paragraph:

But thanks for the link. You'll see in my Info that I'm just a a diver, but - I'm still leery about taking PSE before a Nitrox dive. Still, it's always good to study the limited facts available on the subject for oneself.

I'll address this following section in it's entirety.

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.

I would agree with you that total post count is meaningless as a measure of reliability. I don't think that this is in question by anyone.

However, I would disagree that Don's statement about being "just a diver" would equate to his information not being based on any real knowledge. There is a difference between a person recognizing that they are not an expert in the field and having "no real knowledge". Even though I myself may not agree with all of Don's conclusions, I still think of him as a knowledgeable diver and worthy of stating his opinions.

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.

Again, I just don't see that Don has attacked you for asking any questions. While I agree that Don didn't actually answer the question, I think that he simply got genuinely excited about the fact that you were new to the board and that this was your first post. To be fair to you here, if you don't know Don and his enthusiasm for greeting new members, I can see how that comment could be read as a slam for only having one post. This again goes to a simple misunderstanding. That is one of the difficult things about the written word. You can't easily determine the tone of a statement. If we had the benefit of hearing him say something this would not be an issue.

I'm assuming that this was the question to which you were referring:

Why do you make a blanket statment like, "as long as you are on Air and not Nitrox"?

Next point.

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.

This all hinges on the fact that Don used the phrase "give yourself validity". It is indeed the phrase that he used and I would agree with you that the use of this phrase was "unfortunate". But taken in context, I have trouble believing that what he wrote was exactly what he meant. Obviously, I'm now applying a context that takes into account knowing the kind of guy that Don is. Admittedly, this is not something that you would have any way of knowing as a new member to the board.

(cont. in Part 2)

 

[headhunter]

(Cont. from Part 1)

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.

This goes again to the use of the word "validity". Had this not been the word used, we probably wouldn't be having this exchange. I don't believe that Don intended to hinge the validity of anyone's statements on an arbitrary and irrelivant criteria that could be falsified. It wouldn't be logical to think that any rational person would consider a statement to be true based on a criteria that could be falsified. I would agree with you that if someone really believed that, it would be appropriate to call them 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.

I concede the point that anyone should be careful about what smilies they "toss" into a response. For that very reason, I have a tendency not to use them once any serious conversation begins. I'm not sure what Don was thinking when he used those smilies. I am fairly certain that whatever he was thinking, he did not intend them to carry an antagonistic meaning. Only he can actually answer this one though.

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.

If Don was being antagonistic, then I would agree that you were simply being defensive. But if Don didn't think he was being antagonistic, then your comments would have appeared antagonistic to Don. Then to Don, his next response would have been simply defensive. This goes to the heart of the issue. Your individual perspectives would naturally lead you both to feel that you've done nothing wrong. From your own perspectives, the other party would have been the aggressor.

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.

I've already addressed the "validity" issue, "post counts" and "smilies", so I won't say more about that.

I can agree in part with what you are saying here. If there were what everyone would consider conclusive evidence that this was bad medical advice in the DAN article, then I'd expect him to make a retraction. What I saw in the DAN article was that there was not enough evidence for them to take a stand against the drug's use with Nitrox. But their own language in their paragraph stating their conclusions shows a certain amount of ambiguity. Here is that paragraph:

What's the bottom line? In normal, healthy divers breathing air, occasional use of pseudoephedrine at the recommended dose is probably safe. This presumes that the drug has been taken during periods when no diving has occurred and that no undesirable reactions have occurred. However, one should avoid chronic (daily) use when diving, and it seems reasonable to avoid the drug entirely if diving while using oxygen-nitrogen mixes where the PO2 during a dive might exceed 1.4 ata, the current recommended "safe" open-circuit scuba limit.

They say that "in normal, healthy divers breathing air, occasional use of pseudoephedrine at the recommended dose is probably safe". The use of the word "probably" is telling. It seems like while they are willing to take a stance, they leave the door open for the possiblility of later finding out that there may be a problem once more evidence is properly presented. I think they fairly present the fact that Don's position seems to be a commonly held belief in the technical community as evidenced in an article written in "a technical diving training association's journal". The DAN article simply goes along the line that the evidence was not presented properly and that therefore no conclusion against the use of pseudoephedrine should be made. I don't think their posision is unreasonable, but I don't think Don's position is unreasonable either. He seems to be in pretty good company according to the article.

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?

From my perspective, I would imagine that neither of you feel that you have anything to apologize about. It all seems to depend which side you are looking at it from. I think both sides are reasonable based on your own perspectives. I'd love to see everyone give each other the benefit of the doubt, virtually shake hands and walk away amicably. But I like happy endings. (I think that was an appropriate use of a smilie)

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.

I also apologize to everybody for the continuance. Hopefully, it provided some entertainment value.

Best regards.

Christian

 

[DandyDon]

Very interesting, Headhunter. Can't sleep tonight?

Anyway, Kelpie - I didn't mean any offense. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

And I don't think I'll use smilies here...

 

[kelpie]

Anyway, Kelpie - I didn't mean any offense. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

Apology accepted.

kelpie

 

[made for it]

Hello there,
Just a quick one, I don't think it's much for you to be conserned about, but you never know.
Check out www.scuba-doc.com
And click to sinus
There's allot of info there to check out

 

[getwet2]

Hey kelpie, welcome to the board. It's lots of fun so far EH!!!!!!! :1poke: :lol2:

 

[DiveGolfSki]

Newbie here, just did 7th and 8th dives on Sunday. During last dive went to 60 or so feet. Experienced a sinus squeeze and had a bit of blood in my mask upon surfacing. Both decent and ascent were very slow and controlled. I had no further bleeding after the initial. My nasal passages became somewhat congested during the dive, first time that had happened, and made it difficult to clear my mask.
Based on my reading here the above sounds normal and if that had been the end I would have no worries. But today is Thursday and I am noticing small amounts of blood in my phlegm. Nothing dramatic, just enough to notice. Is this remnants of Sunday's problem or something more serious?

All my life I've been plagued with nosebleeds. My EEN doc said my viens are too close to the surface and can be irritated (no ... I don't pick my nose ... hmm Seinfeld had an eposide on this). In my case, "aggressive" equalizing can trigger a nose bleed. I learned to live/dive with it. Makes for an interesting dive when I clear my mask ... green water !!! ... and when sharks are around (that's why I carry a knife :11: ).

However, if your nose bleeds due to sinus problems, check with your doctor. There may be alternatives to OTC medicine.