I think you are being unreasonably critical and condescending, FLCH. No one is asking you to make something up. We are interested in what you know about these systems. And if PPs don't know then oliver2002 is most certainly not overdramatising anything, is he?
Of course oliver2002 is due an accounting of what went wrong. His life was threatened in a real emergency. He paid the airline to get him from A to B reasonably comfortably and safely and they failed. His life was endangered. No question about that whatsoever. He was taken up to 34000 feet where humans without special machines simply die by an airline who then managed to lose his life support system. They then raised his blood pressure along with that of a cabin load of fellow passengers by dropping in his face an alternative cheap and temporary system which actually could support him for a maximum of only 12 or 14 minutes. The resolution of the emergency also required the warning systems to operate correctly, the crew to have identified the fault within seconds, to have donned their own oxygen masks and hope they worked lest they potentially become totally unable to perform within one minute, and for them to immediately descend the aircraft at a high rate which may or may not have injured some passengers in order to stop oliver2002 and his fellow passengers dying from eventual asphyxiation or something else.
And you say that because this is a pilot's BB there is nothing more to say than that a checklist was followed and it all seemed to turn out right in the end?
Who is responsible for deciding several times a day whether to launch these machines up to the Tropopause? Is it the autopilot perhaps? Who is responsible for maintaining the life support systems throughout the flight? Oh that would be the autopressurisation system, eh? ... oh not forgetting the maintenance engineers on the ground with their own bulletin board? Right. On a Space Shuttle maybe. On 737s there have been too many pressurisation incidents for most people's liking. 737-800s are the workhorse of a number of modern fleets which means many of us rely on them. On a 738 it's you who is responsible for the whole shooting match after the doors close! ... that's why we want to hear from you now.
Something along the lines of "Oi you! You fly a 737-800? Tell us what pressurisation systems and procedural problems / oversights you know about that might cause failures, ... please. We've seen too many on 737 and we don't like the fact that a whole generation of newer aircraft on fast turnaround / minimum maintenance ops seem similarly affected."
I was trained as a scientist, a physicist. That meant I looked at the world around me and wondered why things might behave the way they do. It didn't mean that I dismissed observations I couldn't explain and waited patiently to be fed "facts" by people who might know more than me. That's for GSCE students. I learned to know for myself what is fact, what is well-formed hypothesis, what is wishful thinking, and what is plain arrogance and denial.
Also, later on I also got to appreciate how all these things are routinely interchanged to avoid liability for negligence when accidents occur.
I am not interested in pointing any finger. I am just impatient to drive out complacency from aviation so when I and my family fly I only have to worry about whether I can afford the money not my life.
If you personally have your reasons for not wanting to pass on what you know, that's your prerogative.