Ok now, I didn't say I had a problem with highligting I said that underlining makes it hard to read. Certain formats are just hard to view on a screen. As far as highlighting the things you feel are pertinent and reinforce you point, I'm all for that. In fact I appreciate it and do the same thing myself. But I only highlight the parts of a paragraph that I want to stand out...I don't leave out other things that may be detrimental to my point.
Of course you should post entire abstracts. They're not that long and I didn't say anything against posting it all and can't imagine why I would.
For some reason you keep misconstruing things I say and I'm sorry for that. I'm not saying your posts are too complicated I'm just saying the formatting may have mixed me up a bit.
And you haven't seen the full article actually which I was going to talk to you about, since there is a TON of useful info in there and quite frankly it's a lot of new stuff for me and I'm going to go over it with a fine tooth comb and hopefully refine the sticky. In fact I was just getting ready to thank your for bringing it to my attention. It turns out to be a fantastic article and provide a whole lot of updated inforamation. It will take a while for me to digest but hopefully it should significantly improve the sticky.
Didn't I say I would post the whole thing once I get it formatted? I jumped all over it because it had so much info in it. Again if you take the side effects it mentions out of the context of all the rest you don't get the point. There is more info in there and it ellucidates a lot of new stuff.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iron
Especially when the overiding theme of the article is that ice may do considerable irreversible damage. I wouldn't be to proud of using that article to defend icing because it doesn't do that. That being the case then I can only assume that your intention was to discredit myself personally. (I'm not pissed BTW, I considered it fair play actually.)
|
My intent is to look at everything the abstract says. You are only seeing the parts you want to see. It is not saying that you shouldn't use ice because it is dangerous it is saying that it wants to present information as to the modalities of ice and heat in order to prevent some of the side effects and dangerous things it mentioned. I don't want to discredit you I'm simply calling you on the fact that you used ONLY the parts that supported you and ignored the other parts.
Quote:
|
Through a better understanding of these modalities, clinicians can optimize their present treatment strategies. Although cold and hot treatment modalities both decrease pain and muscle spasm, they have opposite effects on tissue metabolism, blood flow, inflammation, edema, and connective tissue extensibility. Cryotherapy decreases these effects while thermotherapy increases them. Continuous low-level cryotherapy and thermotherapy are newer concepts in therapeutic modalities. Both modalities provide significant pain relief with a low side-effect profile.
|
See, I highlight too. The article states plainly that there are are possible complications and then makes it plainly clear that it wishes to provide modalities to limit these complications.
I don't know why you only mention the swelling when I posted that whole article on the SUPPOSED beneficial effects of ice which are clearly not all swelling.
As far as those things listed in number 4 I thought we got past our problems. I am not asking you to walk on egg shells and I didn't think your were asking me to do that. I called you on the one little thing of leaving out the first sentence and I meant it jokingly. I'm sorry you didn't take it that way. What has frustrated me is that you seem to misunderstand and misconstrue the things I am trying to say continually. I don't know what is causing that but perhaps it is what is leading to some of what you see as attacks on your credibility. That was not my intention.
There was another statement in number 2 where you say I said something that I clearly did not say. It's like no matter how much I write I have to keep re-explaining myself. It must be something about the way I write. I know you said your weren't mad but you clearly think I am trying to do things I'm not.
I want to go ahead and post that full article so I can refer to it and hopefully update some stuff.
Wev'e agreed on certain things and disagreed on others. Let's leave it at that as far as continued debate between us. If you post more stuff and I don't respond, please know that I am not ignoring it.
It was never my intention to personally discredit you. In fact I was trying to apologize if I left anything out and only brought up that I was having a hard time following some of your formatting so that you would know I didn't do it on purpose.
I have tried to show you the continued respect of speaking as best I can to the things you have brought up. Despite my best intentions you continue to misunderstand me and for me I'd rather avoid any further misunderstanding. I don't really enjoy arguing for arguings sake.