96 minutes of CPR...

[Eydawn]

I didn't defend it. I simply tried to show that people were missing elements contained inthe article itself that are relevant to the discussion. Heaven forbid I should let someone misinterpret further from a fubar mess of writing... I merely highlighted the parts indicating monitor presence and presence of ALS providers. That doesn't mean I wholly support the article and I really wonder how you managed to infer that.

Your tone read very pissy. Which is where the "if I pissed you off" phrase came from.

If I go into everything that is wrong with journalism and most mainstream journalistic writing we are going to need a new thread. Seriously. This article was interesting in concept if not in fact and is really not worth getting panties in a bunch over. Nobody is going yay us hero worship that I can see so not sure where you got that idea...

Perhaps it is ill phrased to say that I chose not to question it. A better phrasing is that it wasn't worth my time to really take a hard look because I have a lot of other way more important shit I should be doing. I read it with mild interest and tried to point out where it was being misread. Note to self, heaven forbid I should only engage with something in a cursory fashion because the forum police along with everyone else in my life at the moment will smack me as hard as possible given the first opportunity. I have enough of that thanks very much.

Wendy

CO EMT-B

[paramedicmike]

Do I believe it was a bad thing to post this story? Yeah, if you don't stand behind it I believe that it was bad to post it without comments and many of the younger and more inexperienced posters, as myself, might accept it as valid based simply on the fact that you posted it.

I posted this story to generate discussion. It's not my job to think and ask questions for the younger, less experienced crowd. If people want to accept it at face value then that's their problem. It will also prove to be their undoing in some other future discussion.

Unfortunately, this thread seems to have generated the wrong type of discussion.

But I do believe that for a few moments you may have forgotten that this is a learning/teaching forum and posted something sensational.

Why? Because I held off for a bit to see what kind of discussion took place as a result?

I love that this story was posted, but am disappointed that it didn't get more comments. This is a perfect example of, "We want to feel that we're important so lets take all sensational stories at face value!" yet is the first step back to providers worshiping pseudoscience. And that is really bad.

This isn't even remotely presented as pseudoscience. It's a newspaper article. Anyone who would take what's outlined in a newspaper article and think they could apply that information to their practice shouldn't be practicing. Not being able to differentiate between a newspaper article and a peer reviewed journal article that actually presents evidence for change is probably a larger problem.

I noticed that you used 'rah rah bullshit' over and over.

I used it because I liked it. Quite frankly, I'm a little disappointed I didn't think of it myself.

...I didn't read past, "I see no reason to doubt this story as presented, because there's simply not enough to go on and it was obviously not written by a health professional." This sentence is so far off in the ditch that I had to bail at that point....

What's wrong with pointing this out? By reading the comments in this thread I'm under the impression that a lot of what was printed was taken at face value. By reminding everyone that it was written by a journalist who in all likelihood isn't a health care provider should help to put in perspective a lot of what was written in the piece.

[DwayneEMTP]

I didn't defend it. I simply tried to show that people were missing elements contained inthe article itself that are relevant to the discussion. Heaven forbid I should let someone misinterpret further from a fubar mess of writing... I merely highlighted the parts indicating monitor presence and presence of ALS providers. That doesn't mean I wholly support the article and I really wonder how you managed to infer that.

...I see no reason to doubt this story as presented, which is why I think Mike posted it... he's usually a lot more critical than I am of stuff and it seemed to pass muster for him.

I inferred it from that.

...Your tone read very pissy. Which is where the "if I pissed you off" phrase came from.

Yeah, my tone is often pissy, but I'm almost never pissed off. And never at you that I can think of. Ok, maybe years ago when you followed me around the forums correcting my spelling and grammar. But now I love you for that. :-)

...If I go into everything that is wrong with journalism and most mainstream journalistic writing we are going to need a new thread. Seriously. This article was interesting in concept if not in fact and is really not worth getting panties in a bunch over. Nobody is going yay us hero worship that I can see so not sure where you got that idea...

No interest in going into what's wrong with journalism. It doesn't interest me and it seems to me that the shortcomings are obvioius. But I am interested in EMS and trying to be good for it. I think the article was interesting only in the sense that I watched some of the smartest people on this forum jump on board with it being factual when each and every one of them is smarter than I am. That is where I get the fact that sometimes, we'd rather feel important the intelligent.

...Perhaps it is ill phrased to say that I chose not to question it.

And yet, here you are still telling me I'm an asshole for showing you the respect of taking your comments at face value.

... A better phrasing is that it wasn't worth my time to really take a hard look because I have a lot of other way more important shit I should be doing.

If that is what you felt, then yes, that would have been much better phrasing. I didn't chase you down babe looking to split hairs. They were your comments, and they were clear. This is the first time since we've been friends that I've seen you try not to be responsible for something that you've said. It doesn't suit you.

...I read it with mild interest and tried to point out where it was being misread. Note to self, heaven forbid I should only engage with something in a cursory fashion because the forum police along with everyone else in my life at the moment will smack me as hard as possible given the first opportunity. I have enough of that thanks very much.

Wendy

CO EMT-B

It sounds like what you also have enough of is people that surround you and have accepted complaining in place of logic. I know you're tired...new husband, job, school..it's a lot and sometimes too much, but you have never been that way and and I'm not going to support it now. You know better than to expect me to allow you to be half assed because you're having a bad day. You and others have never accepted that from me and I won't accept it from you. We've been friends for what, 5 years or so? You will be happy that this thread didn't stand on the things you've posted so far...you will see. Love you Cutie.

Dwayne

[mobey]

Dwayne: Put your discussion with Wendy on the backshelf for a sec, as I don't want that emotion to effect your answer to my question.

My question to you is, Do you ever just turn the switch "off" and allow a story such as this to brighten your day for a couple hours? Even if it is filled with holes?

I am not talking about blindly believing unreasonable stories of heroism, I mean the stories that "could" be true.... you know in the back of your mind if you analyze it enough, you may be able to discredit it, but you have the opportunity to just smile, and accept it at face value because that is what you require at that time, on that day.

...... That is where I get the fact that sometimes, we'd rather feel important the intelligent

The point I am trying to make is this: As I am sure you know, most choices made by humans are based on emotion. People who make choices based on logic are touted as more intellegent. In a situation like this, when analyzing behavior, you really can't descern motive without knowing the emotion involved at the time of the post.

You pseudo-know the people who reacted emotionaly to this post are in fact logical-intellegent thinkers, so the question becomes: Why did these people choose react emotionally?

I think you tried to answer that question above (in quote (spelling error aside LOL)), but I think that YOU are in fact answering with emotion, as you know damn well the posters we are discussing are far too logical to get wrapped up in a "blind leading blind" situation.

I was one of the first to jump on board the "rah rah" train. Thinking logically (not emotionaly) why do you think that would be?

Hint: My recent scenario.

[DwayneEMTP]

Dwayne: Put your discussion with Wendy on the backshelf for a sec, as I don't want that emotion to effect your answer to my question.

My question to you is, Do you ever just turn the switch "off" and allow a story such as this to brighten your day for a couple hours? Even if it is filled with holes?

Very seldom. When I watch cartoons, or movies, or even medical comedy or drama I feel no need to analyze. Even the hero type stories in the Readers Digest I can sometimes like if they're not too fantastic. But no, in this instance I can't seem to turn it off, or instances like it. I have a major hardon for those that take undeserved applause. In this case at the very least the article is the center of attention when in fact there is almost a certainty that the article is shit. Yet, no doubt the author will be more than happy to accept his/her awards...

I am not talking about blindly believing unreasonable stories of heroism, I mean the stories that "could" be true.... you know in the back of your mind if you analyze it enough, you may be able to discredit it, but you have the opportunity to just smile, and accept it at face value because that is what you require at that time, on that day.

Probably..grin. I just can't really think of any times right now. I am so completely convinced that a search for the truth should be at the heart of nearly everything if it is to have value that it's difficult for me to turn it off. Every evil fucking thing that I can think of comes from ignorance, deciet, and/or anger/fear (Which I see most often as the same thing misdefined)

The point I am trying to make is this: As I am sure you know, most choices made by humans are based on emotion. People who make choices based on logic are touted as more intellegent. In a situation like this, when analyzing behavior, you really can't descern motive without knowing the emotion involved at the time of the post.

You pseudo-know the people who reacted emotionaly to this post are in fact logical-intellegent thinkers, so the question becomes: Why did these people choose react emotionally?

I think you tried to answer that question above (in quote (spelling error aside LOL)), but I think that YOU are in fact answering with emotion, as you know damn well the posters we are discussing are far too logical to get wrapped up in a "blind leading blind" situation.

Man, great point. I saw this last night but decided to let it percolate a bit before answering, as my knee jerk reaction was, "Because it's bad medicine validated by bad journalism!" And that is part of it...But when I was thinking about it, it did piss me off to imagine the award ceremonies going to be held at the volly fire companies because you know damn good and well none of the heros are going to be looking for the truth if it will interfere with getting their pictures in the paper.

And you being amongst the first shocked me, to tell the truth. An honest statement, not meant to be a cheap shot. So many of the posters that I respect here were involved in the Rah Rah of this story and it freaked me out a little bit!! I do believe that very few people are critical thinkers, and I like to think those that can, should, for those that can't. Dumb I know. And lastly, I'm confident that amongst this crowd I am one of the least intelligent people here. Sometimes I think, "Holy shit! If they're not watching the helm, if they can be sucked in with a bit of sensationalism, then what hope is there really for logic to ever take hold again." So yeah, that emotion would have fueled my answer the same as a need for a positive outcome may have fueled anothers. So I wonder if there is a right or wrong here....I have no doubt that there is...but I'm no longer sure that I know what it is.

It's weird..we can say, "I could give a shit if that articles true or not." And I can live with that....But say, "I think that article was bullshit, what do you think?" And you say, "It's probably true...." without justification and I go out of my mind!

I was one of the first to jump on board the "rah rah" train. Thinking logically (not emotional) why do you think that would be?

Hint: My recent scenario.

Behavioral psych was my strong suit..but I'm guessing that emotionally you were looking to put a win out in the karma column to balance the loss from your past call.

Awesome response, thank you for it... I have no idea yet what my answers mean. I look forward to your thoughts if there are any to be given and will have to give it some thought...I liked it a lot though..

Dwayne

[BushyFromOz]

Wow

Same old city....

[paramedicmike]

Bushy!

Where the hell have you been, mate? How's life treating you?

[Chief1C]

BFO. wb

Anyhoo, this guy survived, which is unlike the vast majority of patients... So... He's alive, and has a quality of life that he can manage. I fail to see negative here.

[DwayneEMTP]

BFO. wb

Anyhoo, this guy survived, which is unlike the vast majority of patients... So... He's alive, and has a quality of life that he can manage. I fail to see negative here.

Then you've not been paying attention.

Dwayne

[Chief1C]

Correct. I only paid attention to the part where he's alive and well. My thermoscan wrote me a metaphorical note so that I'm excused from being clear of mind today, and possibly tomorrow as well. So, I've chosen to be on vacation, feels like a tropical beach, however, I can't seem to find the sand.