CPAPtalk.com

Sleepy Taz wrote:

Muffy wrote:

plr66 wrote:For those of you who have been here for a few years--- how would you feel to learn that such trusted identities as rested gal, sws, ozij, wulfman, or others you and I have consistently trusted to provide trusted answers, have been posting under another name and degrading you or others or making fun of your concerns, or deflecting posters to some trivial topic?

Could you come up with a better example? Since I would stake my life that those members would never do that, I find it difficult to answer your hypothetical question.

Muffy, Not Muffy...

That is not a good example either. NotMuffy is a "parody".

I thought she was a "parity."

NotMuffy wrote:

Sleepy Taz wrote:

Muffy wrote:

plr66 wrote:For those of you who have been here for a few years--- how would you feel to learn that such trusted identities as rested gal, sws, ozij, wulfman, or others you and I have consistently trusted to provide trusted answers, have been posting under another name and degrading you or others or making fun of your concerns, or deflecting posters to some trivial topic?

Could you come up with a better example? Since I would stake my life that those members would never do that, I find it difficult to answer your hypothetical question.

Muffy, Not Muffy...

That is not a good example either. NotMuffy is a "parody".

This was not a question. I was addressing all of the above as those who were known as dual identity posters. My questions are valid!

1) Why do you need to use an alternate identity to be rude to people?
2) What makes your opinion any better than someone else’s?
3) What right do you have to be a bully?)

Sleepy Taz wrote:This was not a question. I was addressing all of the above as those who were known as dual identity posters. My questions are valid!

1) Why do you need to use an alternate identity to be rude to people?
2) What makes your opinion any better than someone else’s?
3) What right do you have to be a bully?)

I am certainly not aware of any instances of this.

Can you show me where they occur, and we'll take care of this right away!

TIA.

NM

A muffin with hair is still a muffin. Maybe an out-of-fashion muffin, but a muffin nonetheless.

So Well wrote:A muffin with hair is still a muffin. Maybe an out-of-fashion muffin, but a muffin nonetheless.

Well, it may still be a muffin, but I certainly wouldn't want to eat it!

NotMuffy wrote:

Sleepy Taz wrote:This was not a question. I was addressing all of the above as those who were known as dual identity posters. My questions are valid!

1) Why do you need to use an alternate identity to be rude to people?
2) What makes your opinion any better than someone else’s?
3) What right do you have to be a bully?)

I am certainly not aware of any instances of this.

Can you show me where they occur, and we'll take care of this right away!

TIA.

NM

NotMuffy,

I just went through all of your posts to date and there is no evidence of rudeness or any form of bullying and for that I agree that there are no instances. I also see why you created this alter ego and your use proves that done properly there should be no problems. My questions are still valid, but do not pertain to you, and if you felt offended I am sorry. I am a strong advocate against rudeness and bullying, and when I see it in any form I look for ways to try to stop it. My daughter is 15 years old and her Freshman year in high school she was tormented and threatened by many bullies and the effects have caused us to seek help for her. This is what happens when people treat others without respect. This place is great for all the help and knowledge provided, even the humor, but some of what goes on defeats the purpose of this forum and is totally unnecessary. I know that you have been fighting that same beast with little luck, which is probably what prompted you using your alternate identity.

Taz

echo wrote: I'll follow the bowlers but not the golfers, though.

"Bowlers and golfers?" Hahahaha! Did I REALLY say golfers?

Sometimes my own embarrassing typos just crack me up... I sure DON'T consider golf a REAL sport... I meant to say "bowling and tiddlywinks".

brain_cloud wrote:Hey -SWS, do you remember the time over at Kenwood Lanes that Miss Jaylee lost her drawers on the approach? Ah, good times!

Now THAT makes me angry!


I almost forgot about that part of my life... If it wasn't for that combination tornado/fire/earthquake/microburst/hail storm back in '88 I would STILL have a copy of that cherished picture in my OWN fond-memories scrap book. Thanks for reminding me brain_cloud! Boy... That's when I smoked like a proverbial smoking monkey!

Sleepy Taz wrote:My daughter is 15 years old and her Freshman year in high school she was tormented and threatened by many bullies and the effects have caused us to seek help for her. This is what happens when people treat others without respect. This place is great for all the help and knowledge provided, even the humor, but some of what goes on defeats the purpose of this forum and is totally unnecessary. I know that you have been fighting that same beast with little luck, which is probably what prompted you using your alternate identity.Taz

I am very sorry that your daughter had to cope with this. I can definitely relate to this in a personal way as my daughter was being bullied and threatened on the bus a couple years ago (she's 16 now). A kid was talking trash to her nonstop (sexually explicit content) and she ignored him, but it escalated and he started touching her!! I ended up calling the principal of the school AND the resource officer (a county sheriff's deputy) and reporting it to them. Luckily, our county has an ENFORCED no tolerance policy toward that type of thing and they dealt with it swiftly and efficiently. But I made it clear that I would take it as far as was necessary, including calling the police and filing a formal complaint against the boy, if they didn't do something immediately.

I, too, don't like seeing any type of nastiness or bullying in any form and have little patience or tolerance for it on the internet.

Sleepy Taz and Madalot, I'm very sorry to hear that you BOTH had children who were bullied in the real world.

As far as what occurs at CPAPtalk.com I think it's safe to say that we each formulate our opinions of poor or acceptable behavior very differently. You both very openly told us that painful real-world experiences rather heavily influence how you perceive and tolerate behavior here at cpaptalk. I think it's very natural to translate any genuinely bad real-world experience into a defensive bias thereafter. I say that based on some of my own defensive biases, having grown up in a high crime area. Some of those biases I managed to shed, while some still defensively manage to hang on... at least in my own case.

Sleepy Taz, I'm not sure but you might have helped us with a valuable lesson regarding perception and defensive biases. I get the impression that you had an initial opinion of NotMuffy which you later revised----after more reading. If so (and I might have interpreted that incorrectly ), I suppose that might be an example of defensive bias skewing perception---at least initially.

But my point is that we don't all share the same standards, biases, or perceptions----rather we judge very uniquely. Fortunately I don't think there are any genuine cyberbullies on CPAPtalk despite harsh words and the occasional reprehensible behavior. But as ozij wisely put it, we must each judge for ourselves----and that, in part, is because of our uniqueness and diversity.

plr66 wrote:I think we need some fess-up details from jnk . . . involved in this kind of scamming. Sorry. I respect what jnk contributes. But the duplicity doesn't cut it for me. I think it frankly sucks if everyone isn't on board to see through it. "Inside PM's "such as ozij referred to, are not justification and rationalization for me. But I am clearly not on the "inside track."

jnk wrote:I'll try to tell you anything you want to know as simply and honestly as I can. Not that anyone will trust me.

Perhaps the question plr66 would like to ask is, "Jnk, why 'who'?" The following is my self-serving answer:

A while back, a poster I respect overmuch implied a few of my radical opinions were neither logical nor helpful and could hurt the boards "reputation." When the poster saw I was hurt, he apologized immediately, mentioning a personal situation. I mentioned that recent health problems likely made my feelings too tender. I turned off PM's to keep from dealing with questions about health matters I was trying not to think about. And I pouted.

When I thought about the statements made in that thread, I decided it was mostly the number that followed the word "Posts" below "jnk" that was causing the "board reputation" problem. (For those who don't know me, about 90% of my posts are humor and nonsense, so my "posts" number is misleading.) As I was home recuperating from some procedures, I read the board. I felt the desire to post some helpful words without risking getting attacked, according to my perspective at the time.

I knew that some posters here also post at other forums with other names, and I knew that a very few who post here (OK, one) use parody personas to keep their post numbers low. So I figured: "Hey, why not just sign up with another name?" That was the “aha” moment that should have been an "uh-oh" moment. I chose the name "Who" as a hint that it was a regular poster using an alter. (Looking back now, I should have put a question mark after "Who," but the name made me think of the Dr. Seuss book Horton Hears a Who, so I didn't. Isn't it irritating how many sentences I put in parentheses? Don't answer that.)

I made a few posts and was amazed at what happened--"Who's" posts were judged by the content rather than by the number of posts! Now I could interact with newbies without their kowtowing to the number that makes high-post people on a nonmoderated board appear to be de facto moderators. It was absolutely addictively liberating! When I responded to a poster, it didn't end the thread, and my opinions were seen on the same level as everyone else's in every way. I loved it! Around that time a few questions came up on the board that coincidentally aligned with some of my newly-diagnosed conditions that I had just done days of research on it, so I posted up a storm.

Naturally, a number of posters recognized my convoluted use of the English language ( ) and knew immediately who "Who" was. Some even called me "jnk" in threads and made jokes as they played along. At the same time, some who knew that I post over at SleepGuide as j_n_k signed up at that board to ask about "Who." I gave winking "I can neither confirm nor deny" statements. Since the jig was up, I started having goofy discussions with myself, playful "fights" between "Who" and "jnk" where I could throw around as many fun hints and admissions as I could to entertain the board (the "E" in W.I.N.E., as my signature text reads). Turns out, though, that much of the board didn't read that foolishness, so when I did the twilight-zone reveal thing in this thread in an attempt to get "Really" and others to do the same, it was understandably disconcerting to a number of people. I didn't expect that. Yeah, I AM actually that dumb!

Does any of the above explain the utter stupidity of what I did? No, not really. A ‘stupid thing to do’ is still ‘a stupid thing to do.’ I know now some people got hurt. Hurting people like that is never right for any reason, even if it is by accident or simple poor judgment. I am sorry about that. I owe carbonman and ozij a particular apology, so I made those first by PM.

Two statements I would like to make, though:

(1) The long-term posters mentioned by others earlier in this thread would never pull such a goofy stunt as mine. Muffy’s personas are an unrelated issue. She identifies “herself” immediately when she does it and is making an artistic statement with it, in my opinion. As for the others, my actions in posting with two identieis runs contrary to all of the solid helpfulness they stand for. Those posters are exactly who they are, and it is important that they be so. And, if you read their posts closely, they do NOT agree on everything and do NOT always approve of one another’s actions. But they have seen one another's posts enough to have mutual respect and to have one another's back. That is how it should be. This place would not be the way it is without that, in my opinion.

(2) I'm not sure an unmoderated board like this one is the place for someone as tenderhearted/clumsy as I am, so I am likely to post more at moderated boards in the future. I don't like foul language, overt provocative sexual inuendo, and personal attacks. Those things will happen in public on a non-moderated board. I don't condemn that it happens; it just isn't my cup of tea. That may make me wimpy, cowardly, too soft--I don't know. I think a lot of great help is offered on this board when things aren't happening to turn people off.

In conclusion (FINALLY, right?), I apologize sincerely to anyone hurt by my posting under two different identities at the same time without making it clear what I was doing and why. That was cruel to those who have come to care for "jnk" for whatever reason and didn't follow the dodge or the joke. THAT mistake won't happen again. But I warn you that if I was stupid enough to do what I did, I'm stupid enough to make similar mistakes in the future, even if not that one. You have been forewarned. Any post here in the future will be as jnk. But I may be doing more posting at apneasupport and Sleepguide for a while. One is highly moderated and the other is medium-low moderated, which may be better for me, personally, for now, than “lightly moderated.” Feel free to pass my statement on to those who have me on their ignore list. And for any who desire more information for any reason, feel free to PM me.

Oh, and one more thing:

Jeff/jnk/who

-SWS wrote:Sleepy Taz and Madalot, I'm very sorry to hear that you BOTH had children who were bullied in the real world.

As far as what occurs at CPAPtalk.com I think it's safe to say that we each formulate our opinions of poor or acceptable behavior very differently. You both very openly told us that painful real-world experiences rather heavily influence how you perceive and tolerate behavior here at cpaptalk. I think it's very natural to translate any genuinely bad real-world experience into a defensive bias thereafter. I say that based on some of my own defensive biases, having grown up in a high crime area. Some of those biases I managed to shed, while some still defensively manage to hang on... at least in my own case.

Sleepy Taz, I'm not sure but you might have helped us with a valuable lesson regarding perception and defensive biases. I get the impression that you had an initial opinion of NotMuffy which you later revised----after more reading. If so (and I might have interpreted that incorrectly ), I suppose that might be an example of defensive bias skewing perception---at least initially.

But my point is that we don't all share the same standards, biases, or perceptions----rather we judge very uniquely. Fortunately I don't think there are any genuine cyberbullies on CPAPtalk despite harsh words and the occasional reprehensible behavior. But as ozij wisely put it, we must each judge for ourselves----and that, in part, is because of our uniqueness and diversity.

-SWS,

I agree with what you've said here. I think there ARE times that things are said that there's no other way to interpret them other than inappropriate, but I can't argue with your logic. Everyone must judge for themselves.

Another point to make is that there are times a comment is made by someone that is meant to be kind or humorous, but is not RECEIVED that way by someone else. The writer may have had nothing but good intentions, but the reader interpreted the comments as hostile, rude or inappropriate. That happens with me and my husband all the time and we're in the same room. The nature of the internet (email, message boards, etc) makes for a breeding ground for this type of misunderstanding.

Anyone who suggests that this forum would be better off with categories get insulted big time by rude, agressive posters, of whom, this thread has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, there are many.

Why is it that some people cannot -- or will not -- discuss a subject rationally and civilly?


bc:
> The notion that one insults only when one cannot rationally debate
> is about the most shopworn cliche imaginable, and fails to do
> any kind of justice to the complexities of human interaction.

OK, let's discuss "human interaction". So your point is that there are those who just love to insult other people. They actually _prefer_ to insult people than to discuss an issue in a civil way. Anyone with behavior like that is pretty screwed up.


ozij:
> Eventually, his [jayj] _spitting in our faces_ became far more blatant.

jayj "spit in your face"?

To take such _huge_ over-the-top offense -- rather than have a civil discussion -- and to post surly responses to those who do not agree with you is really disappointing.


Multiple, continuous personal attacks instead of civil discussion invalidates the responses of those rude individuals. They reply with _emotional_ responses, the kind of behavior of small children when they don't get their way.

But young children are at an age where they haven't matured to the point where they are capable of controlling themselves. It's disappointing to see adults who are still in that stage.

It's certainly disappointing that many of the regulars/old timers don't condemn the attacks. Instead they just praise the posts of other old timers and sidestep the insults.

Perhaps it's the inability to think and act rationally that causes some (not everyone) to have distain for some modest level of organization, i.e., categories.

Note that no one has responded to my original question.

I visit multiple forums, lots of them actually, and _not a single one of them_ that I visit, except this one, has only one category. Why is that?

When you are one and the others are many, there should be a rational, easily described, apparent reason why that is so.

-SWS wrote:I almost forgot about that part of my life... If it wasn't for that combination tornado/fire/earthquake/microburst/hail storm back in '88 I would STILL have a copy of that cherished picture in my OWN fond-memories scrap book. Thanks for reminding me brain_cloud! Boy... That's when I smoked like a proverbial smoking monkey!

That picture is priceless, -SWS!

xyz wrote:Anyone who suggests that this forum would be better off with categories get insulted big time by rude, agressive posters, of whom, this thread has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, there are many.

Why is it that some people cannot -- or will not -- discuss a subject rationally and civilly?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and share a personal experience that may help answer this question. While it HAS already been answered, perhaps an example may help shed some light on this.

I have a family member that has a different sense of appropriate behavior than most people I know. It took me a very long time to realize and accept that even though I would have gladly strangled him for some of the things he said, he really did not think he was doing anything wrong.

He used to make comments about my weight, one time even looking me in the eye and saying "you look like you've gotten even fatter!!" Even after I spoke to another family member, who then went and asked him to please stop making comments, he didn't see where it was a problem. He honestly felt that because he was just kidding -- and the same comments made to him wouldn't have upset him at all -- that there was nothing wrong with saying them. After all -- he was kidding and didn't mean anything bad.

Another thing he does (and this drives me insane even now) is to "joke" with my children about things that are important to them or are sensitive about. Years ago, my children wanted to get kittens. My husband and I, at the time, said absolutely not. No way -- they weren't responsible enough to care for kittens. This was our final decision about the subject. Every time the family member visited, he would joke with the kids, saying he had some kittens at his house and would bring them over. He knew how much the kids wanted kittens and also knew we had said no. To sit there and "tease" my children over it was so upsetting and hurtful.

But you know what -- he, to this day, doesn't think he did anything wrong and SWEARS that he was only joking and that if any of us were upset, it was because we were too sensitive and couldn't take a joke.

He's not being intentionally difficult or dense -- this is what he BELIEVES. No amount of talking or convincing is going to change that.

So even though some people may feel that others cannot discuss something in a civil manner, it sometimes IS a matter of perception.