CPAPtalk.com

Do you remember the old saying when we were kids??????????????

STICKS AND STONES WILL BREAK MY BONES, BUT WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME
Wise words to live by.....yes.

Stom if you read back a bunch of pages you will find that you have been "had" by knightsleeper. You will find that he has embolden you to punch back by praising you you and repeatedly saying you have been slighted. Its an old tactic to get someone to follow you and do the dirty work for them. You didn't say much before that but once he did you jumped in with both feet and joined the fray, you became the bully.

My method to shut down people like this is to turn around and walk away, they won't get their jollies by bullying thin air.

nanwilson wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:50 am

Do you remember the old saying when we were kids??????????????

STICKS AND STONES WILL BREAK MY BONES, BUT WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME
Wise words to live by.....yes.

Unfortunately, that aphorism is not actually true. People are harmed by words all the time.

nanwilson wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:50 am

Stom if you read back a bunch of pages you will find that you have been "had" by knightsleeper. You will find that he has embolden you to punch back by praising you you and repeatedly saying you have been slighted. Its an old tactic to get someone to follow you and do the dirty work for them. You didn't say much before that but once he did you jumped in with both feet and joined the fray, you became the bully.

My method to shut down people like this is to turn around and walk away, they won't get their jollies by bullying thin air.

knightsleeper's motivations are their own. If you had paid attention to the thread you'd have noticed that none of my posts are responses to knightsleeper or their posts. My first reply in the thread was a direct response to Midwest_non_sleeper's claim that the bully is too important to hold accountable.

And so far the defenses of the bully in question are essentially "He's too important to hold accountable", "Freedom!!!11!!! Moderation == cesspool" and "If ya don't break any bones it ain't bullying!", none of which are especially convincing.

Funny thing is that everybody knows who the bully in question is even when his name isn't mentioned. His bullying isn't unnoticed, it's just excused by people.

Stom wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:12 am

Funny thing is that everybody knows who the bully in question is even when his name isn't mentioned. His bullying isn't unnoticed, it's just excused by people.

His name has been mentioned numerous times in this topic. The OP has posted graphics identifying palerider in this topic. Since the beginning of the month the OP has posted non-stop about him and identifying him. His vendetta against him is well known.

For you to portray that readers, have identified him solely based on the bully description is dishonest.

Dog Slobber wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:25 am

His name has been mentioned numerous times in this topic. The OP has posted graphics identifying palerider in this topic. Since the beginning of the month the OP has posted non-stop about him and identifying him. His vendetta against him is well known.

For you to portray that readers, have identified him solely based on the bully description is dishonest.

Note that you don't actually deny that people can tell who the bully in question is without being told. His behavior is well known both by new people he has bullied as well as by regulars.

Stom wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:33 am

Dog Slobber wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:25 am

His name has been mentioned numerous times in this topic. The OP has posted graphics identifying palerider in this topic. Since the beginning of the month the OP has posted non-stop about him and identifying him. His vendetta against him is well known.

For you to portray that readers, have identified him solely based on the bully description is dishonest.

Note that you don't actually deny that people can tell who the bully in question is without being told. His behavior is well known both by new people he has bullied as well as by regulars.

I have no idea, how people have identified him.

I'm just pointing out that your claim that that is how people are identifying is dishonest.

But since you think it's important to point out what we don't deny, note how you didn't deny you were dishonest.

Stom wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:12 am

nanwilson wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:50 am

Do you remember the old saying when we were kids??????????????

STICKS AND STONES WILL BREAK MY BONES, BUT WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME
Wise words to live by.....yes.

Unfortunately, that aphorism is not actually true. People are harmed by words all the time.

nanwilson wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:50 am

Stom if you read back a bunch of pages you will find that you have been "had" by knightsleeper. You will find that he has embolden you to punch back by praising you you and repeatedly saying you have been slighted. Its an old tactic to get someone to follow you and do the dirty work for them. You didn't say much before that but once he did you jumped in with both feet and joined the fray, you became the bully.

My method to shut down people like this is to turn around and walk away, they won't get their jollies by bullying thin air.

knightsleeper's motivations are their own. If you had paid attention to the thread you'd have noticed that none of my posts are responses to knightsleeper or their posts. And so far the defenses of the bully in question are essentially "He's too important to hold accountable", "Freedom!!!11!!! Moderation == cesspool" and "If ya don't break any bones it ain't bullying!", none of which are especially convincing.

Funny thing is that everybody knows who the bully in question is even when his name isn't mentioned. His bullying isn't unnoticed, it's just excused by people.

Your a priori argument is a fallacy as you still have not proven bullying. Calling someone a bully without any proof of actual bullying only shows your utter lack of critical thinking skills. Are you particularly upset because your bad advice got you put on a foe list? Ad hominem attacks and fallacious arguments do not make a case they only show utter ignorance on the part of the person posting them.

By your own definition of bullying:

"bully1 | ˈbo͝olē |
noun (plural bullies)
a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.

Please prove a position of power or strength. Still waiting...

Dog Slobber wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:25 am

Stom wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:12 am

Funny thing is that everybody knows who the bully in question is even when his name isn't mentioned. His bullying isn't unnoticed, it's just excused by people.

His name has been mentioned numerous times in this topic. The OP has posted graphics identifying palerider in this topic. Since the beginning of the month the OP has posted non-stop about him and identifying him. His vendetta against him is well known.

For you to portray that readers, have identified him solely based on the bully description is dishonest.

If it the consensus there is bullying, the only way to stop it is to convince the site owners it is actual bullying.
They can then ban said bully for violating the terms of service. The terms specify it must be in THEIR opinion, NOT a community consensus.

prodigyplace wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:49 am

Dog Slobber wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:25 am

Stom wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:12 am

Funny thing is that everybody knows who the bully in question is even when his name isn't mentioned. His bullying isn't unnoticed, it's just excused by people.

His name has been mentioned numerous times in this topic. The OP has posted graphics identifying palerider in this topic. Since the beginning of the month the OP has posted non-stop about him and identifying him. His vendetta against him is well known.

For you to portray that readers, have identified him solely based on the bully description is dishonest.

If it the consensus there is bullying, the only way to stop it is to convince the site owners it is actual bullying.
They can then ban said bully for violating the terms of service. The terms specify it must be in THEIR opinion, NOT a community consensus.

Well then perhaps the OP and the few making the allegations should be supporting their allegations. Because I have seen a lot of allegations, but no supporting evidence.

You know what else I'm seeing. Through out all of this palerider is not getting into it. He's taking the high road. He's continuing to help people, and in quite a few instances he's showing a lot of care and compassion.

I have noticed that all the caring and supportive people have treated this as a read-only thread.

Except me ... I never thought of myself as caring or supportive

grayghost4 wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:16 am

I have noticed that all the caring and supportive people have treated this as a read-only thread.

Except me ... I never thought of myself as caring or supportive

I have already earned my anti-PR badge in his signature.

just did an informal and by no means official count.

hard to break this down without sounding harsh, which isn't my intent. prolly a better way to put this, but here goes-

number of respondents in this thread that are pro keeping the status quo=28

number of respondents in this thread that are are pro making changes=5

not sure how to categorize some responses. kteague was her usually polite and charming self, but i didn't get the sense that she was either for change or for keeping it as it is. oki bipap commenting without really stating a preference. jas_williams could be similar, except he just seems to think the whole thing has gone far enough in this thread.(if his yawn is any indication.)

steve of cornubia was so outraged (my term, not his) by the "pile on" in this very thread that he quit the forum. checking his last activity, it seems he was serious.

midwest non sleeper seemed to take offense at stom and said he quit. am unable to get a handle on this as, as of this post, he hasn't logged in since yesterday. don't know if he was serious about quitting or not.


i'm sure this doesn't prove anything, nor do i mean it to. and my count is very rough, indeed. if anyone wants to challenge the numbers, go right ahead. it just looks to me that any changes that the forum may make in the future regarding an anti-bullying policy may face quite an uphill battle.

Okie bipap wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:47 pm

As has been stated in earlier posts in this thread and other threads, there are multiple CPAP and apnea forums available. If you don't like how this one is ran, you are free to check out the others, hopefully finding one that is more to your liking. Or, as I would have said in my younger days, "Don't let the door hit in the ass on your way out."

Evidently, I did not make myself clear enough for you. I appreciate the way this forum is ran and would NOT like to see any changes to the ground rules or how it operates. As I stated, if you don't like it here, you are free to leave.

Okie bipap wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:32 pm

Okie bipap wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:47 pm

As has been stated in earlier posts in this thread and other threads, there are multiple CPAP and apnea forums available. If you don't like how this one is ran, you are free to check out the others, hopefully finding one that is more to your liking. Or, as I would have said in my younger days, "Don't let the door hit in the ass on your way out."

Evidently, I did not make myself clear enough for you. I appreciate the way this forum is ran and would NOT like to see any changes to the ground rules or how it operates. As I stated, if you don't like it here, you are free to leave.

sorry!! that changes 28 to 29.

i really didn't pour over each post, particularly if one person posted more than once. and even the posts i "read" i merely skimmed.

thanks for setting the record straight.

zonker wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:13 pm

just did an informal and by no means official count.

hard to break this down without sounding harsh, which isn't my intent. prolly a better way to put this, but here goes-

number of respondents in this thread that are pro keeping the status quo=28

number of respondents in this thread that are are pro making changes=5
...

What about the people that think this entire thread is completely silly and haven't participated?

Stom wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:22 pm

Goofproof wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:07 pm

As long as we declare Bullying (Anything said about anything), I suggest we use the term in it's correct context, subversion, threat of bodily harm, maiming, or killing .

Yeah, no. That can qualify as bullying but it's not the "correct" definition of bullying. Bullying is not limited to assault and battery or threats of physical violence.

bully1 | ˈbo͝olē |
noun (plural bullies)
a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
verb (bullies, bullying, bullied) [with object]
use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants: a local man was bullied into helping them.

The person at issue here has the tacit support of the admin and the explicit support of his posse. He gets high fives from his posse when he bullies new posters and others he considers beneath him. His bad behavior from his relative position of power here easily fits an actual definition of bullying.

Your bully definition could be used for this entire ridiculous thread. You are discussing a member of this forum, and anyone that disagrees with you or Knightsleeper is automatically lumped into a clique/gang/posse status. This thread in and of itself is a bully thread.
As I stated earlier, I am not friends with anyone on this forum. I felt compelled to jump in and come to the defense of a member of this forum who is being talked about as if he has no eyes and can’t read what you are writing. Back on page 5 you were brought into this thread by Knightsleeper. He announced that you were being bullied because of Paleriders signature. Is yours any better?
The OP was right about one thing. There is plenty of drama and chaos going on around here. Someone is definitely stirring sh*t.