• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

video: a PointTwo failure to deploy

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • But I have always (ALWAYS) been one to question the dominant opinion
    Most people would identify themselves the same way, I think. Not many folks will self-describe as "I go along with what everyone else says and don't like to ask questions", will they? Even if they BEHAVE a certain way, how they self-identify is often much different (and more flattering). But that's an observation from spending 20+ years talking to people for a living, not a well-researched phenomenon by any means!

    But even a "dominant" opinion pales in the face of FACTS. Which is what OUGHT to be used to make decisions, provided they are available.
    Click here before you buy.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ahbaumgardner View Post
      But I have always (ALWAYS) been one to question the dominant opinion. Had a bumper sticker that said, "Question Authority,"

      So this is probably one of the reasons I persist in questioning the popular opinion on this forum. I am always uncomfortable with strong opinions, especially when accompanied by the insistence that the source is an "expert."



      Peace. Ann
      Considering your statements above, I am surprised that you aren't persistent in questioning P2, after all, the popular opinion seems to be on their side.
      You were defending them before you learned (on this forum) of their sleazy advertising practices and , many people continue to accept their sponsorship.

      P2 has expressed "strong opinions" and, I believe, consider themselves "experts" since they are marketing the product.
      It is interesting that you don't feel the need to question them before you question the people on this forum who have concerns.

      Comment

      • Original Poster

        Originally posted by ahbaumgardner View Post
        So this is probably one of the reasons I persist in questioning the popular opinion on this forum. I am always uncomfortable with strong opinions, especially when accompanied by the insistence that the source is an "expert."
        All very good reasons to choose to believe the marketing hype.

        Wasn't it on a previous thread -- the KOC one? -- that I had to explain to you the equation k = 1/2mv^2? I think this shows you're in need of some real expertise when it comes to simple physics. I don't know why you characterize the explanations of basic principles, as Reed as done many times for you, as 'strong opinions.'

        It sounds to me like you're uncomfortable with 'strong opinions' that run counter to what you want to believe. If you're a social scientist, you might have read Leon Festinger's classic When Prophecy Fails, which is an exploration of the theory of cognitive dissonance. That seems to be what's going on in some of your posts.

        (Another classic, but less directly applicable here, is David Rosenhans's On Being Sane In Insane Places, a study in which a group of people get themselves committed to psychiatric hospitals for research purposes. The gullible, professional staff (MDs included) give them meds and psychiatric diagnoses and in-patient treatment; their fellow patients -- the real crazy people -- are quick to figure out that they're fake inmates. Belief systems are hard to shake, even for 'scientists'.)

        Comment


        • a group of people get themselves committed to psychiatric hospitals for research purposes
          Given access to Google or even a vivid imagination, I'd imagine adopting behavior to make oneself appear quite nuts is a piece of cake. One must only push a few "hot buttons" to make oneself appear in need of commitment. Doing so voluntarily, though--even in the name of science--well, maybe those brave folks are not so far off the bubble in question after all! Getting in is one thing. Getting OUT, quite another.
          Click here before you buy.

          Comment


          • I do not believe that I have defended the air vest companies. I have defended the use of the air vest by myself and others.

            How have I defended the marketing hype? I don't even read it.

            And yes, I am very familiar with original as well as decades of findings following Festinger's seminal research on cognitive dissonance. I do not think that I am falling prey to faulty logic. I am only doing what I think is best, based on my limited knowledge. I have not created a straw man to make my point, as in attacking the advertising as if it reflects directly on the actual product.

            Again, bad advertising reflects on bad marketing. It does not reflect on the product per se. It is what it is.

            Ann

            Comment


            • bad advertising reflects on bad marketing. It does not reflect on the product per se. It is what it is.
              Yes. And what IS it? As safe as it might be? Sufficiently researched? Adequately shown to be fail-safe within reason?

              Bad advertising also (IMO) reflects on the ethics and priorities of the company producing the product. Maybe to a small degree, maybe to a larger degree. That is of course for the individual consumer to decide. How much does each individual trust a product that is advertised by a company with shady or questionable practices?
              Click here before you buy.

              Comment

              • Original Poster

                Originally posted by deltawave View Post
                Given access to Google or even a vivid imagination, I'd imagine adopting behavior to make oneself appear quite nuts is a piece of cake.
                Don't be so quick to denigrate, deltawave. Your biases are showing.

                The Rosenhan Experiment was no 'piece of cake', and it was done decades before Google. It was a thoughtful, elegant experiment, and the participants followed a controlled plan of action. One participant was a pediatrician, several were psychologists, another was a psychiatrist.

                With the help of Google, the Rosenhan paper is easy to find: On Being Sane in Insane Places. It's a short paper and a stunning read, but for those who want the short version, Google also found me this excellent summary:

                The original Rosenhan Experiment was an amazing, and brave, study designed to test the accuracy of psychiatric diagnoses. The study had two parts. First, Professor David Rosenhan and seven associates had themselves admitted to a variety of mental hospitals. They described auditory hallucinations and were diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenics. After they were admitted, they acted normally and waited for the hospital staff to notice. While many of the real patients noticed that the imposters lacked symptoms of mental illness, the hospital staff did not. In some cases, Rosenhan’s associates were not released for months.

                In a second part of Rosenhan’s study, a hospital was told that one or more imposters would attempt to be admitted as psychiatric patients. After hearing about Rosenhan’s initial test, this institution had claimed that similar errors would not occur there. Staff at the hospital subsequently determined that 41 out of 193 patients were highly likely to be imposters. But, in reality, Rosenhan had sent no imposters to the hospital. Rosenhan ultimately concluded that “one thing is certain: any diagnostic process that lends itself too readily to massive errors of this sort cannot be a very reliable one.”
                To quote a poster from earlier on this thread: This is why we do research, people.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JER View Post
                  Don't be so quick to denigrate, deltawave. Your biases are showing.
                  No denigration was intended. It was meant to be a small joke. However, one COULD argue, if one were so inclined, that if simply to report auditory hallucinations was all that was required to garner a working diagnosis of 'paranoid schizophrenia' in this study population (and the paper takes pains to point out that the subjects did little else to embroider on their pseudo-illness) then indeed the act of being diagnosed was, in fact, EASY. One simply had to play-act a bit. The practitioners and the "system" took it from there.

                  Don't jump to conclusions that I was trivializing the study, or defending said system. I stand by my original statement.
                  Click here before you buy.

                  Comment


                  • I do find it interesting that a punctured lung is a common injury with people who are wearing air vests. Would love to hear how common they are for those without.
                    Boss Mare Eventing Blog
                    https://www.youtube.com/user/jealoushe

                    Comment


                    • Completely unrelated, but JER, thanks for posting that -- I had never heard of that one and do not even have an adjective for it after reading it. Amazing, disturbing, cool, unnerving...ha, that rhymed. I need to sleep.
                      Life doesn't have perfect footing.

                      Bloggily entertain yourself with our adventures (and disasters):
                      We Are Flying Solo

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post
                        I do find it interesting that a punctured lung is a common injury with people who are wearing air vests. Would love to hear how common they are for those without.
                        It is??? How common?

                        Comment


                        • I'd wager that a punctured lung is a fairly common sequela of any crush/rotational type of injury. Not sure if any governing body keeps that type of statistic, as it would have to comply with HIPAA regulations.
                          Click here before you buy.

                          Comment

                          • Original Poster

                            Originally posted by wildlifer View Post
                            Completely unrelated, but JER, thanks for posting that -- I had never heard of that one and do not even have an adjective for it after reading it.
                            How about 'empty', 'hollow' or 'thud'?

                            My favorite part is this:

                            Immediately upon admission to the psychiatric ward, the pseudopatient ceased simulating any symptoms of abnormality. In some cases, there was a brief period of mild nervousness and anxiety, since none of the pseudopatients really believed that they would be admitted so easily.
                            Holy crap, I'm in the looney bin! And back then you couldn't check yourself out without permission. One of them stayed for 52 days before release.

                            Comment

                            • Original Poster

                              re: punctured lungs

                              When you have six fractured ribs, you will almost always have an unstable chest wall. Any subsequent movement or pressure can cause further injury, like a punctured lung or perforated aorta.

                              The rapid inflation/compression and subsequent deflation by an air vest could be a mechanism of injury in this scenario.

                              Comment


                              • or protection...

                                Comment


                                • Yeah, it would sure be nice to know which, wouldn't it? It is easy to speculate that something pressing inward with a great deal of force (like an inflating thing around the torso) would be highly likely to drive rib fragments toward the center, with the lungs being the next layer of tissue and all. But without evidence and careful study of this question, we are just . . . speculating.

                                  Given the nature of ribs, anything short of a hard shell (like an Exo) is highly unlikely to protect one from rib fractures in the event of a very hard fall, especially with the weight of a horse piled on. Broken ribs would be almost predictable. One simply would have to be left only to speculate upon which direction the fragments might be traveling . . . I shall refrain from offering an opinion, however.
                                  Click here before you buy.

                                  Comment


                                  • Since the vest pushes on the now broken ribcage; pushing the shards into the lung - I can't imagine it offers much protection.

                                    The fact this company cannot provide any evidence their product works, much less causes no harm, is deeply disturbing.

                                    But hey - if really do think that your belief is enough to save you, hedge your bets and go to church, too.
                                    Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
                                    Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
                                    -Rudyard Kipling

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by ahbaumgardner View Post
                                      or protection...

                                      No.

                                      It is certainly an individual's decision whether or not to wear an air vest, but arm yourself with a greater knowledge of the mechanism of these injuries.

                                      One of the greatest dangers of these devices is inflation AFTER the injury (I'm not Reed but I'm certainly no stranger to exposure to devastating injuries). I would venture that in the majority of rotational falls the rider is never separated enough from the horse to activate the lanyard. Thus inflation happens AFTER the horse rolls off the rider and AFTER the injuries have occurred.

                                      A flail chest or broken ribs subjected to the sudden force of vest inflation is not desirable and has the definite potential to make a bad situation worse. The makers of these vests would be foolish to claim that they might "stabilize" injuries.

                                      I noticed that TBS 24/7 stated that Andrea's vest saved her life. I would love to know if her vest inflated before or after her ribs broke. I wish her a speedy and full recovery and great sympathy on the loss of her lovely mare.

                                      (Forgive typos, I'm at work and on a portable device)
                                      Always be yourself. Unless you can be Batman. Then always be Batman.

                                      The Grove at Five Points

                                      Comment

                                      • Original Poster

                                        Originally posted by ahbaumgardner View Post
                                        or protection...

                                        I'll assume from the lol that you're joking.

                                        Auto air bags (when deployed) have been known to cause rib fractures, aortic transections, pneumothorax and cardiac rupture. Airbag systems have been refined over the past several decades because of these incidents, especially where children and small adults are concerned.

                                        MAST pants are known to cause vascular instability due to rapid deflation. But again, these devices are studied and refined (or, in this case, dumped) so that they do less harm.

                                        A rapid inflation/compression to non-displaced rib fractures might result in displaced rib fractures and an unstable chest wall. Same with the subsequent rapid deflation of that compression. You don't want either of those things.

                                        I like to understand my risks before I agree to undertake them. I'm not getting much understanding from the air jacket companies. Hearing that any number of BNRs wear one doesn't get me any closer to understanding those risks.

                                        Comment


                                        • I noticed that TBS 24/7 stated that Andrea's vest saved her life.
                                          Pretty sure we can all agree that this is an emotional and not a forensic statement.
                                          Click here before you buy.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X