Billy Brandt - Big Messy Bottom?

[Guest shadow]

how about poor communities in general?

[Guest shadow]

Have you forgotten

>some of the nasty things

>you have said to others

>on this message board,

 

such as?

[Guest regulation]

>finally, regulation. You are the worse.

>

>Do you know why I got

>so upset at you so

>long ago?

 

Yes, I do know. It's because you lack the emotional maturity necessary to communicate with people who disagree with you on an issue without engaging in personal attacks. That is exactly what occurred in the Lacoste thread. A remark I made on the issue of criminal liability for prostitution, which was not directed at you, did not mention you, and neither stated nor implied anything about you, provoked a torrent of personal abuse from you. Q.E.D.

 

>With the nasty way you talk

>to people. I saw you

>as below dirt. But when

>you used Rosa Parks to

>continue talking nasty to other

>people, the was beyond horrible..

>

 

You are lying. I merely remarked that Ms. Parks, who had been mentioned by Tampa Yankee, would not have liked her civil rights activities to be cited as an argument in favor of prostitution. That statement is unassailably true and constitutes a personal attack on absolutely no one.

 

>YOu read a book about Rosa

>Parks, so what did you

>do? Did you go out

>and tutor young minority kids?

>

>Did you encourage businesses to invest

>in minority neighborhoods?

>Did you go out and volunteer

>to help clean up minority

>neighborhoods?

>It looked like you read the

>books so that you could

>put someone down on this

>website.

 

I read a book on Rosa Parks because I was interested in her life. And knowing something about her life, I know that she would not care for the way her name was being used on this message board. Which is exactly what I said.

 

As for what I do with my spare time, if you feel everyone has an obligation to spend his spare time helping minorities then how is that you spend so much of yours getting off with prostitutes?

 

 

>I challenge anyone to look at

>all of the posts I

>have ever written and compare

>them to all of the

>post you have ever written

>and see who is the

>true hypocrite..

 

You are the true hypocrite. Unlike you, I have never criticized others for engaging in exactly the same behavior in which I have engaged. After all the DELIBERATE insults you have directed at me and others here, it is outrageous that you demand an apology for a casual remark about black women that clearly was not meant to offend you or anyone else. Sheer hypocrisy, sir!

 

>This word hypocrite seems to only

>have power among old cynical

>white elitest men..I don't know

>why you use it so

>much.

 

I use it when it fits the case, no more and no less. Now you know.

 

 

>Please, when I was calling you

>those names I was really

>hoping that you would understand

>how you were making people

>feel in all of your

>posts..

 

Oh, so you were really trying to be nice by calling me an "ignorant piece of shit"? LOL!

 

 

People had been trying

>for a long time to

>get some humility out of

>you.. You were always too

>stubborn to listen..Like the world

>was against your blind self..If

>you would had asked me

>to stop, I would had

>stopped..If you would had ask

>me for an apology I

>would had given it to

>you..My regret about that situation

>is that it did not

>make you more humane at

>all, but even more like

>a cornered caged animal..and for

>that, I apologize...

>Think of all the people you

>owe apologizes to

 

I owe apologies to no one. Unlike you, I do not direct personal attacks at people who do not direct such attacks at me.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>I guess you are just going

>to have to take my

>word for it. But,

>

>I would have made the posting

>if I were not sure

>of my facts.

 

If you are not present for every sexual encounter he has ever had, then your statement is a supposition and not a statement of fact. I will accept it as being as supposition and nothing more.

 

My bottom radar is telling me he's a bottom.

 

But of course, that's merely conjecture on my part.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>As for what I do with

>my spare time, if you

>feel everyone has an obligation

>to spend his spare time

>helping minorities then how is

>that you spend so much

>of yours getting off with

>prostitutes?

 

 

OUCH!

[Guest Bitchboy]

Spot checking this thread, I learned two things: shadow is truly an idiot and Phil50 is as stupid here as he is on the muscle logbook

[Guest alanm]

RE: Hooboy's Lockdowns & Billy Brandt

 

Hey CZ, the information about Billy at the Gaiety has been on this site for a long time. You were there; I was not. Therefore,

I have no reason to disbelieve you. I saw Billy in a totally different setting where we had a long time to get to know one another, with no drugs involved. Believe me, I have no reason to make anything up. There has been a lot of speculation about his sexuality, especially on the Falcon site. Since I have specific information, I spoke up.

[Guest shadow]

>Yes, I do know. It's

>because you lack the emotional

>maturity necessary to communicate with

>people who disagree with you

>on an issue without engaging

>in personal attacks. That

>is exactly what occurred in

>the Lacoste thread. A

>remark I made on the

>issue of criminal liability for

>prostitution, which was not directed

>at you, did not mention

>you, and neither stated nor

>implied anything about you, provoked

>a torrent of personal abuse

>from you. Q.E.D.

>

 

emotional maturity? Is this the excuse you use for others who have confronted you.Is that what you call your bitter attacks on Stephan Lacoste, Bilbo, HooBoy, Justice, Joey Ciccone to name a very very few? How emotionally mature is the word "peachy"? No matter you talk to, you always claim it to be an issue of "disagreement". It must be fun to blind yourself to atitude.

 

>>With the nasty way you talk

>>to people. I saw you

>>as below dirt. But when

>>you used Rosa Parks to

>>continue talking nasty to other

>>people, the was beyond horrible..

>>

>

 

>You are lying. I merely

>remarked that Ms. Parks, who

>had been mentioned by Tampa

>Yankee, would not have liked

>her civil rights activities to

>be cited as an argument

>in favor of prostitution.

>That statement is unassailably true

>and constitutes a personal attack

>on absolutely no one.

 

And how is this a lie? Do you not what nasty is? And why do you look at these issues so single mindedly?

 

>

>>YOu read a book about Rosa

>>Parks, so what did you

>>do? Did you go out

>>and tutor young minority kids?

>>

>>Did you encourage businesses to invest

>>in minority neighborhoods?

>>Did you go out and volunteer

>>to help clean up minority

>>neighborhoods?

>>It looked like you read the

>>books so that you could

>>put someone down on this

>>website.

>

>I read a book on Rosa

>Parks because I was interested

>in her life. And

>knowing something about her life,

>I know that she would

>not care for the way

>her name was being used

>on this message board.

>Which is exactly what I

>said.

>

 

You never listened to Bilbo, or the other posters who tried to confront you. Why should I expect that you would listen to input from me..

 

>As for what I do with

>my spare time, if you

>feel everyone has an obligation

>to spend his spare time

>helping minorities then how is

>that you spend so much

>of yours getting off with

>prostitutes?

>

 

Is this suppose to be hurtful? Spending time with "prostitutes" is a commonality that we all share.

If you want some idea of what I do with my free time, communicate with bluboy. I sent him an e-mail. Maybe you can determine how much time i spend with them.

 

>>I challenge anyone to look at

>>all of the posts I

>>have ever written and compare

>>them to all of the

>>post you have ever written

>>and see who is the

>>true hypocrite..

>

>You are the true hypocrite.

>Unlike you, I have never

>criticized others for engaging in

>exactly the same behavior in

>which I have engaged.

 

It is ok for you to act like a monster, along as you don't criticise someone else for acting like a monster.

 

>After all the DELIBERATE insults

>you have directed at me

>and others here, it is

>outrageous that you demand an

>apology for a casual remark

>about black women that clearly

>was not meant to offend

>you or anyone else.

>Sheer hypocrisy, sir!

>

 

Who are you to make a statement like this?

 

If being a hypocrite means that I totally unlike a monster like you, then I am pround to be a hypocrite.

I would not be surprised if you were on the hypocrite band wagon when allegations came out Martin Luther King, Jr's marriage infidelity.

 

>>Please, when I was calling you

>>those names I was really

>>hoping that you would understand

>>how you were making people

>>feel in all of your

>>posts..

>

>Oh, so you were really trying

>to be nice by calling

>me an "ignorant piece of

>shit"? LOL!

>

 

If you don't want to accept the apology, then that is your choice. Too bad you are just now figuring that out. It is the same thing that I said in that thread.

 

 

>People had been trying

>>for a long time to

>>get some humility out of

>>you.. You were always too

>>stubborn to listen..Like the world

>>was against your blind self..If

>>you would had asked me

>>to stop, I would had

>>stopped..If you would had ask

>>me for an apology I

>>would had given it to

>>you..My regret about that situation

>>is that it did not

>>make you more humane at

>>all, but even more like

>>a cornered caged animal..and for

>>that, I apologize...

>>Think of all the people you

>>owe apologizes to

>

>I owe apologies to no one.

> Unlike you, I do

>not direct personal attacks at

>people who do not direct

>such attacks at me.

 

Look at your attacks and look at the attacks of others. Where you came up with this conclusion, I have no idea.

[Guest shadow]

>Spot checking this thread, I learned

>two things: shadow is

>truly an idiot

 

And you based this on?

 

Can you elaborate on this?

[Guest shadow]

>Shadow!!

>

>Enough Already! Your posts are

>really starting to fucking irritate

>me. I got news

>for you. MOST white

>people go out of their

>way to be sensitive to

>the plights of African Americans.

> But you know what

>pisses me off about guys

>like you? There are

>always a few guys like

>you who have to exploit

>it, manipulate it, and use

>it to carry on either

>a personal agenda or build

>and enjoy some drama to

>make up for whatever is

>missing in their lives!

>When guys like you decide

>to make such big issues

>out of trivial ones, you

>only serve to desensitize people

>to the issues and problems

>facing African Americans. You

>know, the crying wolf too

>many times thing? So

>knock it off.

>

>And you know something? There

>are a lot of people

>of all races who are

>faced with far greater obstacles

>in life compared to reading

>about fat church ladies singing

>in church. The escort

>Brad, for example, after only

>20 years on this planet

>no longer has his life

>to live! An employee

>(mid twenties) in my apartment

>building recently fell off a

>ladder and is now permanently

>paralyzed from the waist down.

> There are gazillions of

>examples of what I mean.

> But hopefully you get

>my point. Surely there

>are other more constructive things

>that you can get all

>traumatized about? But either

>way, get a fucking grip!!

>

>

>I know. Dam(n) me.

 

 

I guess I have been a bad african american this week....a discredit to my race.

 

To hell with the other things I have done in my life.

[Guest shadow]

>

>>As for what I do with

>>my spare time, if you

>>feel everyone has an obligation

>>to spend his spare time

>>helping minorities then how is

>>that you spend so much

>>of yours getting off with

>>prostitutes?

>

>

>OUCH!

 

 

Did something hit home with you?

[Guest shadow]

>You are the true hypocrite.

>Unlike you, I have never

>criticized others for engaging in

>exactly the same behavior in

>which I have engaged.

>After all the DELIBERATE insults

>you have directed at me

>and others here, it is

>outrageous that you demand an

>apology for a casual remark

>about black women that clearly

>was not meant to offend

>you or anyone else.

>Sheer hypocrisy, sir!

>

 

Tell this to Rosa Parks. She is a real person and still alive.

[Guest shadow]

I told you that the original line spoken by Fin Fang Foom reminded me of my mother and other women who have raised me and had an impact on my life. It also reminded me of the women of the civil rights movement and people like the mothers of the children who were killed in the church bombing. When I saw Fin Fang Foom's line, I tried not to make a big deal of it by typing only a single line. Then people came in and bullied me, ridiculed me for having that pain. That only increase the hurt exponentially. For such an immensly personal issue all i could think of doing was beg. I begged and pleaded. People like Fin Fang Foom and LAPrada did not care. I did not want people here to know about my race. Now that I am trying to described the pain, people have categorized as one of those african americans who whines. Going from begging to whining. Why were people so cruel when I begged? I humbled myself a great amount, and all people here could do was take advantage of me.

I need closure. Locking out this thread would stop the so-called irritation for some people who read it, but the pain would only increase for me. You don't understand this pain..

 

(And what were you going to say about this?)

 

 

Who is sorry?

AIM who sees me as one of those african americans who whine too much?

LAbuyer who contributes to my pain and thinks its stupid and melodramatic?

Harrison with zero posts who doesn't understand how people on the message center can hurt me?

Fin Fang Foom who is on some PC crusade?

LAPrada, with his 13 posts, who sees me as a drama queen and a hypocrite?

 

Everyone's true colors are coming out.

This issue needs closure, not locking out. If you ignore it by locking it out, you will hurt me more than you ever know. When this post eventually goes away, most people here will have forgotten it..But the pain will still be there for me.Am I making people feel uncomfortable by describing my pain?

 

Since when does this post do anything to sidetrack the other posts? I have to interact with everyone here, but more and more I'm beginning to find that that is not a good thing.

 

(And this?)

[Guest regulation]

>emotional maturity? Is this the excuse

>you use for others who

>have confronted you.Is that what

>you call your bitter attacks

>on Stephan Lacoste, Bilbo, HooBoy,

>Justice, Joey Ciccone to name

>a very very few? How

>emotionally mature is the word

>"peachy"? No matter you talk

>to, you always claim it

>to be an issue of

>"disagreement". It must be fun

>to blind yourself to atitude.

 

You seem unable to comprehend the difference between posting slurs and insults about another person and posting opinions that differ from his on particular issues. I suppose that is why you typically reply to the latter with the former.

 

>And how is this a lie?

>Do you not what nasty

>is? And why do you

>look at these issues so

>single mindedly?

>

 

You lied when you stated that I used my knowledge of Rosa Parks's biography to be "nasty" to others. Once again, you don't understand the difference between disagreeing with someone's opinion on an issue and attacking him personally. To you, both are "nasty." If you are going to participate in discussions with grownups, you need to grow up yourself.

 

>You never listened to Bilbo, or

>the other posters who tried

>to confront you. Why should

>I expect that you would

>listen to input from me..

>

 

"Input"? The only input you ever presented was a series of insults that you learned from your classmates in middle school. You shouldn't expect me or any other adult to listen to that.

 

 

>>As for what I do with

>>my spare time, if you

>>feel everyone has an obligation

>>to spend his spare time

>>helping minorities then how is

>>that you spend so much

>>of yours getting off with

>>prostitutes?

>>

>

>Is this suppose to be hurtful?

>Spending time with "prostitutes" is

>a commonality that we all

>share.

 

It is my comment on the self-righteous nonsense you posted about community involvement. You have no business criticizing anyone else on that score.

 

 

>It is ok for you to

>act like a monster, along

>as you don't criticise someone

>else for acting like a

>monster.

>

 

It's NOT okay for anyone to upbraid others for doing exactly what he himself does. That is the definition of hypocrisy. And that is what you have been doing in this thread. If you thought no one was going to call you on it, you were quite wrong.

 

>>After all the DELIBERATE insults

>>you have directed at me

>>and others here, it is

>>outrageous that you demand an

>>apology for a casual remark

>>about black women that clearly

>>was not meant to offend

>>you or anyone else.

>>Sheer hypocrisy, sir!

>>

>

>Who are you to make a

>statement like this?

 

I am someone who has been the target of many deliberately hurtful statements from you. That's why it offends me to hear you weep and whine when others treat you the same way you have treated me. Hypocrite!

 

 

>I am

>pround to be a hypocrite.

 

I believe it.

 

>

>I would not be surprised if

>you were on the hypocrite

>band wagon when allegations came

>out Martin Luther King, Jr's

>marriage infidelity.

>

 

Is this an example of what happens when people take too much ecstasy?

 

 

>>Oh, so you were really trying

>>to be nice by calling

>>me an "ignorant piece of

>>shit"? LOL!

>>

>

>If you don't want to accept

>the apology, then that is

>your choice. Too bad you

>are just now figuring that

>out. It is the same

>thing that I said in

>that thread.

>

 

Given your history, it's a lot easier to accept your putrid insults as sincere than it is to accept your apologies.

 

>Look at your attacks and look

>at the attacks of others.

>Where you came up with

>this conclusion, I have no

>idea.

 

Perhaps you will be able to figure it out after you have mastered English.

[Guest regulation]

>Tell this to Rosa Parks. She

>is a real person and

>still alive.

 

It disgusts me to hear you use the name of that good woman to justify your absurd attacks on posters here who have done nothing to deserve such treatment.

[Guest Harrison]

Hey Shadow, this is Harrison with O posts as you so elegantly put it before.

 

You question who is sorry and you go on to name a few who you have decided don't live up to your expectations of what is or is not proper behavior.

You state that you begged and pleaded for people to stop.

At what point are you going to realize you aren't going to win this battle?

Fight the war, my friend, its much more important.

 

You're not gonna solve so-called "racism" (which I don't believe this is)by shouting at the top of your lungs "I'm begging you to stop" and then when they don't stop shouting "Dam you."

 

People respond to rational thought and explanation. You never gave any of that until recently and only after denigrating any point you were trying to make by insulting others and shouting dam you every two seconds.

 

No one here that hasn't apologized is going to now. You've completely desecrated any type of respect you had going on.

 

At some point, why waste your breath? Get back to what this board and hell what this post is supposed to be about, escorts.

 

And for the record, just because it says I have zero posts, doesn't mean a damn thing. You wanna cry racism and segregation yet when someone states something you don't like, you jump to the defense and point out "you're not one of us." Talk about hypocritical.

[Bilbo]

While Reggie and I have a long history of fighting, I am rather proud of the fact that the last time we disagreed on something, I was able to find the correct level of respect to get him to answer me back with respect. In fact, I got an email or two congratulating me on the fact. So, while it should also be noted that on this thread I am in basic agreement with Shadow, on this particular point, I must be excused.

[Guest pickwick]

>Caring more about your own feelings

>than the feelings of the

>person you are talking to

>or talking about is unkind.

> Continuing to insist on

>your rights and the correctness

>of your position is really

>quite boorish -- and I

>don't mean that in the

>sense of being tedious, I

>mean it in the sense

>of being rude and inconsiderate.

>

>

>You mentioned above that perhaps you

>shouldn't crack jokes here anymore.

> I second that, at

>least until you are able

>to do so without using

>offensive references.

>

>And while I'm on the subject,

>I have obliquely replied to

>at least two prior threads

>in which you have put

>down one escort or another,

>usually in a condescending or

>insulting manner. I felt

>your post on Flawlescort8 was

>uncalled for and offensive.

>

>So while you're thinking about what

>I and clearly at least

>a few others view as

>boorish postings here, you might

>want to spend a few

>more minutes thinking about the

>put-downs and personal cuts that

>you seem to enjoy lavishing

>on others on a regular

>basis with little regard for

>their feelings.

>

>You either fail to understand the

>impact of your words or

>you enjoy putting down and

>hurting others. If it

>is the former, you should

>more carefully consider what you

>write and what you say

>in the presence of others;

>if the latter, you should

>seek another form of amusement.

>

 

You asked whether anyone likes to talk to FFF. I do. I've enjoyed all of the threads he has started here.

 

Your post should be entitled "How to be Sensitive to Everything and Everybody in the Age of Political Correctness." I hope it doesn't discourage FFF from continuing to post here. Replacing his stuff with yours would make this a much duller site.

 

I have noticed that you have a pronounced tendency to lecture other people on what you consider to be appropriate behavior. I can't believe that there are a lot of people in your life who enjoy being subjected to such lectures. In my experience most people find that sort of behavior tedious and condescending. I know I do.

[Boston Guy]

I hope I don't discourage FFF from posting here either. But I'm not sure if, in retrospect, most folks here would view this particular thread as having been wildly successful.

 

If the choice is between being tedious and being unkind or purposefully insensitive or hurtful, I'll choose the former. (I am reminded of Frost's poem "Fire and Ice.") In fact, even after all these years, I'm still surprised by how often people post things on the Internet that seem to be cheap shots at someone else's expense merely to try to be funny or look clever or get a rise from someone. Or how often people refuse to back down or even acknowledge the possibility that the person on the other side of an argument might be right or have some valid points.

 

You seem to imply that trying to be sensitive to the feelings and concerns of those around us -- even in Internet space -- makes one guilty of trying to be 'politically correct.' This is a tactic similar to those used by the Republicans in Congress, who often use the PC label to try to ridicule positions counter to their own.

 

For me, I think there's a vast difference between 'politically correct' -- whatever that means today -- and being concerned about the feelings of other people and willing to stand up for them. And, fortunately, the people in my life seem to understand how not to ridicule those around them and aren't in need of any lectures. :-)

[Guest pickwick]

>I hope I don't discourage FFF

>from posting here either.

 

That is a ludicrous statement. You just got through telling FFF that you don't like him or his posts and that you wish he would do something else with his time.

 

>But I'm not sure if,

>in retrospect, most folks here

>would view this particular thread

>as having been wildly successful.

 

 

It is easily the most popular thread on this board. Why do you have such a problem with letting people talk about what they want to talk about? Because it's not what you want to talk about?

 

 

>If the choice is between being

>tedious and being unkind or

>purposefully insensitive or hurtful, I'll

>choose the former.

 

You've often chosen to be tedious here, but I fail to see that you or anyone else has demonstrated that the person you are criticizing has been purposely insensitive or hurtful. It's obvious that FFF had no intention of hurting black people with the remark he made. It's wrong for you to slam him because he didn't want to admit doing something he didn't do.

 

 

>You seem to imply that trying

>to be sensitive to the

>feelings and concerns of those

>around us -- even in

>Internet space -- makes one

>guilty of trying to be

>'politically correct.' This is

>a tactic similar to those

>used by the Republicans in

>Congress, who often use the

>PC label to try to

>ridicule positions counter to their

>own.

>

 

And the positions they ridicule are often quite ridiculous. That's why their tactic is frequently successful.

 

 

>For me, I think there's a

>vast difference between 'politically correct'

>-- whatever that means today

>-- and being concerned about

>the feelings of other people

>and willing to stand up

>for them. And, fortunately,

>the people in my life

>seem to understand how not

>to ridicule those around them

>and aren't in need of

>any lectures. :-)

 

What political correctness means in the hands of the Left is ending the search for a common standard of behavior in a diverse society and instead forcing everyone to adopt every prohibition that is proposed by every group with a claim of historical victimization. When you yell at someone for making an innocent and inoffensive remark because there is a slight possibility it could violate such a prohibition, that is the agenda you are promoting. It is an agenda of division rather than inclusion. I want no part of it.

[Boston Guy]

>>I hope I don't discourage FFF

>>from posting here either.

>

>That is a ludicrous statement.

>You just got through telling

>FFF that you don't like

>him or his posts and

>that you wish he would

>do something else with his

>time.

>

 

No. If you are going be critical -- and that is surely your right -- please do so a bit more carefully. I don't believe that I told FFF that I "don't like him ... and that I wish he would do something else with his time."

 

Instead -- and this wasn't a case of something "I just got through telling", for this interchange occurred a couple of weeks ago, at least -- I was critical of some of his posts. It seemed to me at that time that FFF had, in a very short period of time, been overly-critical of several people. And when that happens repeatedly, I think it's reasonable for others to point it out.

 

However, FFF has made many other posts here that I've found interesting or amusing or on-point, including posts made since I wrote the remarks you refer to.

 

I certainly don't dislike him at all -- that would be difficult, since I don't even know him -- and I don't dislike all or even most of his posts by any means. I often enjoy what he writes and hope he continues to post here often.

 

I simply don't care for ad hominem attacks that hurt other people unnecessarily. I think we should all be able to criticize what someone says, as you have done here. Such criticism can be revealing or lead to interesting discussions or may simply be inaccurate or wrong. But criticizing what someone has said is really quite different than insulting or trying to hurt the person themself.

 

 

>>But I'm not sure if,

>>in retrospect, most folks here

>>would view this particular thread

>>as having been wildly successful.

>

>

>It is easily the most popular

>thread on this board.

>Why do you have such

>a problem with letting people

>talk about what they want

>to talk about? Because

>it's not what you want

>to talk about?

>

 

Actually, I'm not sure that 'most popular' is the description I would choose. Most divisive might be more on track. But, either way, I'm on record here any number of times opposing censorship and supporting the right of people to post and say just about anything. Please see some of the more recent posts in the Lounge section. However, I also maintain the right of each person here to call someone else on a post and say "that really was unkind and you probably shouldn't have said that."

 

Just as I support and welcome your comments here. We all see the world through one set of eyes and trying to sort through issues with the help of others who see the world differently can be a very good thing indeed. If we post on a message board, we need to be willing to welcome all comments and to have a thick skin.

 

>

>>If the choice is between being

>>tedious and being unkind or

>>purposefully insensitive or hurtful, I'll

>>choose the former.

>

>You've often chosen to be tedious

>here, but I fail to

>see that you or anyone

>else has demonstrated that the

>person you are criticizing has

>been purposely insensitive or hurtful.

> It's obvious that FFF

>had no intention of hurting

>black people with the remark

>he made. It's wrong

>for you to slam him

>because he didn't want to

>admit doing something he didn't

>do.

>

 

On this we will simply have to disagree. I felt that FFF had posted several insensitive things in a short period of time. If I recall correctly, and I might not, the one about the new young escort in NYC (who called himself flawlesscort8 or something like that) was the first of a series of posts that I felt were unkind.

 

I guess at the time it seemed to me to be a pattern that I wanted to respond to and I did. I don't normally respond to other posters quite so strongly as I did in the post you are referring to, but I stand by what I said.

 

I do agree that neither I nor you nor any of us knew what FFF was thinking and it's possible I misjudged what he said or the reasons why he said it. If so, I'm sorry. I've made mistakes posting here before and this probably won't the last one. However, at some level, we have only what people write here to go on.

 

>

>>You seem to imply that trying

>>to be sensitive to the

>>feelings and concerns of those

>>around us -- even in

>>Internet space -- makes one

>>guilty of trying to be

>>'politically correct.' This is

>>a tactic similar to those

>>used by the Republicans in

>>Congress, who often use the

>>PC label to try to

>>ridicule positions counter to their

>>own.

>>

>

>And the positions they ridicule are

>often quite ridiculous. That's

>why their tactic is frequently

>successful.

>

 

That is your opinion. I don't agree.

 

>

>>For me, I think there's a

>>vast difference between 'politically correct'

>>-- whatever that means today

>>-- and being concerned about

>>the feelings of other people

>>and willing to stand up

>>for them. And, fortunately,

>>the people in my life

>>seem to understand how not

>>to ridicule those around them

>>and aren't in need of

>>any lectures. :-)

>

>What political correctness means in the

>hands of the Left is

>ending the search for a

>common standard of behavior in

>a diverse society and instead

>forcing everyone to adopt every

>prohibition that is proposed by

>every group with a claim

>of historical victimization. When

>you yell at someone for

>making an innocent and inoffensive

>remark because there is a

>slight possibility it could violate

>such a prohibition, that is

>the agenda you are promoting.

> It is an agenda

>of division rather than inclusion.

> I want no part

>of it.

 

Again, we simply disagree. I think the term 'political correctness' is often used today in a pejorative manner, often by conservatives, to try to ridicule the views of others. When so used, it seems to be a substitute for a real argument and an attempt to shut down a conversation or prevent a real one from developing. And I think the Republicans have become adept at using this kind of device.

 

In fact, though, I'm not a fan of polical correctness in the way I understand the term and my friends might find it surprising that I would be on the side of an argument defending it.

 

But I do think the PC movement, for all its flaws, tried to establish a new common standard of behavior. That new standard is disliked by many people, especially it seems by many people on the right side of the political spectrum. Sometimes it reminds me of the battles and shifts in opinion that occurred in the 60's as a result of the black movement and the women's movement. If you are old enough to remember that decade, you'll probably also remember how most of us came out of the sixties with views at least somewhat different than the ones we held going in. Even people like my very conservative father found his understanding of women and of minorties shifted and I know that today he doesn't much like the views he held as a younger man.

 

Fortunately, though, we live a free society and are we free to choose and hold our own views.

[Guest pickwick]

>No. If you are going

>be critical -- and that

>is surely your right --

>please do so a bit

>more carefully. I don't

>believe that I told FFF

>that I "don't like him

>... and that I wish

>he would do something else

>with his time."

>

 

Those remarks belong in the category of "splitting hairs." You used a number of extremely unflattering words to describe his behavior, including "rude," "boorish," "insensitive" and "unkind." And you told him that if his posts to which you referred were amusing to him, he should do something else for amusement.

 

 

>Instead -- and this wasn't a

>case of something "I just

>got through telling", for this

>interchange occurred a couple of

>weeks ago, at least --

>I was critical of some

>of his posts. It

>seemed to me at that

>time that FFF had, in

>a very short period of

>time, been overly-critical of several

>people. And when that

>happens repeatedly, I think it's

>reasonable for others to point

>it out.

>

 

 

"Overly critical" are not the words you used in addressing him.

 

 

>However, FFF has made many other

>posts here that I've found

>interesting or amusing or on-point,

>including posts made since I

>wrote the remarks you refer

>to.

>

 

Then perhaps you should have corrected the record instead of letting your harsh words about him stand.

 

 

>I certainly don't dislike him at

>all -- that would be

>difficult, since I don't even

>know him -- and I

>don't dislike all or even

>most of his posts by

>any means. I often

>enjoy what he writes and

>hope he continues to post

>here often.

>

 

Oh? Well, you have a mighty funny way of showing it.

 

> But

>criticizing what someone has said

>is really quite different than

>insulting or trying to hurt

>the person themself.

>

 

It's in the eye of the beholder, as you pointed out to FFF at great, I should say very great length.

 

>Actually, I'm not sure that 'most

>popular' is the description I

>would choose. Most divisive

>might be more on track.

 

 

More hairsplitting. It is clearly the most popular. The level of participation is greater than in any other recent thread.

 

>On this we will simply have

>to disagree. I felt

>that FFF had posted several

>insensitive things in a short

>period of time. If

>I recall correctly, and I

>might not, the one about

>the new young escort in

>NYC (who called himself flawlesscort8

>or something like that) was

>the first of a series

>of posts that I felt

>were unkind.

>

 

They were no more unkind than what you said to him.

 

>Again, we simply disagree. I

>think the term 'political correctness'

>is often used today in

>a pejorative manner, often by

>conservatives, to try to ridicule

>the views of others.

>When so used, it seems

>to be a substitute for

>a real argument and an

>attempt to shut down a

>conversation or prevent a real

>one from developing. And

>I think the Republicans have

>become adept at using this

>kind of device.

>

 

On the contrary, it is leftists who use the same rhetoric of "sensitivity to the feelings of others" that we have heard from you to shut down discussion of things they would rather not discuss, such as personal responsibilty among those they claim are "disadvantaged."

[Boston Guy]

In terms of the above, it comes down to our own opinions and we disagree.

 

>

>On the contrary, it is leftists

>who use the same rhetoric

>of "sensitivity to the feelings

>of others" that we have

>heard from you to shut

>down discussion of things they

>would rather not discuss, such

>as personal responsibilty among those

>they claim are "disadvantaged."

 

On this point, I think you are not correct. It's my belief that the right often uses calls of 'political correctness' as ridicule, to stop discussions of fact or at least opinion. The things you are calling political correctness here are, I believe, people asking others to stop making personal attacks. I don't think people are asking others to be sensitive to stop the arguments, but to stop the name-calling. I'm again distinguishing between attacking the argument and attacking the person.

 

You have criticised what I have written and stated that I often write tedious things. But you haven't attacked me personally and I respect your opinion. I don't agree with you on a number of points, but I value your opinion and the fact that you have taken the time to write it down.

 

More to the point, I value your approach. Regulation often takes the same approach (your writing is so similar, I find myself wondering sometimes if you are the same person): he's logical, his points are usually well-considered and he doesn't seem to start fights. He attacks people's arguments, sometimes vigorously, but seldom resorts to personal insults.

 

And it's the insults that are really what a whole lot of this very long thread has ended up being about.

[Guest pickwick]

>On this point, I think you

>are not correct. It's

>my belief that the right

>often uses calls of 'political

>correctness' as ridicule, to stop

>discussions of fact or at

>least opinion. The things

>you are calling political correctness

>here are, I believe, people

>asking others to stop making

>personal attacks.

 

Nonsense. The expression that you complained about at such great length, "screaming like a black lady in church," is not a personal attack on anyone. It clearly was not meant as a racial slur, but you made a huge fuss because FFF refused to apologize for it. That was just an excuse for bashing him, and a pretty flimsy one at that.

 

The Left uses the same tactic to bash its enemies. Anyone who says anything the Left dislikes is accused of being "offensive" or "insensitive," two words that the Left now uses after having worn out the usefulness of "racist." Political Correctness is nothing more than a means of preventing people from expressing their views by attempting to outlaw any expression they might use to do it. It is the antithesis of free speech.

 

 

>And it's the insults that are

>really what a whole lot

>of this very long thread

>has ended up being about.

>

 

No. This thread is about the discomfort that many of us feel when others try to limit what we say by claiming that they find it "offensive." I think that claim is often bogus, and I think it is in this case also.

[Boston Guy]

>>And it's the insults that are

>>really what a whole lot

>>of this very long thread

>>has ended up being about.

>>

>

>No. This thread is about

>the discomfort that many of

>us feel when others try

>to limit what we say

>by claiming that they find

>it "offensive." I think

>that claim is often bogus,

>and I think it is

>in this case also.

 

Again, we disagree. However, in that disagreement there may be a kernel of truth. You say that you and many others feel discomfort when people try to limit what you say by claiming it is offensive.

 

I agree with that general principle and I would refer you once more to the thread in which Los Gatan and I were talking about freedom of speech. In that thread, I tried to make the point that offensive speech needs to be allowed because the danger of not allowing it is far worse. I firmly believe that, although I do think that certain vehicles of communication carry certain limitations. For example, most people seem to agree that posting real names, addresses and telephone numbers here is going beyond the pale.

 

If the discussion turns on a free-speech question, I am firmly with you. However, within the boundaries of freedom of speech there is also something that used to be called good taste and might better be described as caring a little bit about the feelings of those around you.

 

In some ways, it's part of carrying on a civilized conversation. And sometimes it is sadly lacking on message boards on the Internet. Sometimes it seems as if people log on in a bad mood and just look for a target to attack, as if the attack itself is fun, not caring much about how the target is going to feel.

 

I guess I don't much like personal attacks. Attacking what someone says or how they say it should be pretty fair game. Getting upset and calling the person an asshole isn't so great. Publicly calling someone an asshole who you've never met, based on a couple of observations, is also not so cool.

 

I think that just as we have the right to speak our opinions, we must have the right as well to tell others that we think that what they have said, or how they said it, was offensive or insensitive or whatever. Freedom of speech calls for that freedom as well. In an ideal setting, ideas can be discussed vigorously without resorting to name-calling and I think that the discussions that do degenerate into name-calling are ultimately less interesting than the others. Sure, it can be fun watching a hen fight, but it's still just a hen fight.