New Guidelines Posted

[Guest 7Zach]

You put a lot of thought into the guidelines, Hoo..tks for making it all clearer.

[HooBoy]

>You put a lot of thought

>into the guidelines, Hoo..tks for

>making it all clearer.

 

This document was begun by Deej and contributed to by all the other moderators, myself and a few invited regular contributors. Then, it was looked over by my highly respected attorney.

 

I do not deserve any credit on this at all. It should all be bestowed on the moderators who devote their time and energy for free to keep this joint rockin'.

 

And I appreciate it!

 

Now, if there are any questions about what can and cannot be posted, we have a "constitution" we can point to.

 

We're living in too weird of a time to be bickering with each other. Lets have some fun, laughs and may everyone get laid!

 

HooBoy

Email: HooBoy@male4malescorts.com

[+ deej]

>Lets have some fun, laughs and may everyone get laid!

 

I'll drink to that! :-)

[Guest BenDover]

Did I miss something? What guidelines and where are they?

[Bilbo]

Check the listings at the top of the screen. Just to the right of Massage Center is Massage Center Rules with one of those great big New! signs on it.

[BuckyXTC]

Hi Hoo, deej, and other moderators:

 

The new guidelines look quite reasonable and eminently fair. Thanks for your efforts to make this site the best it can be.

 

Bucky

[Guest TruthTeller]

> Then, it was looked

>over by my highly respected

>attorney.

 

The attorney who reviewed these new rules may be highly respected, but he's also grossly misinformed, because this:

 

<<Saying "He's a thief" may be libelous. Saying "I think he's a thief" is not.>>

 

is just plain wrong. Inserting the phrase "I think" or "It is my opinion" before a defamatory statement absolutely, unquestionably does not render the defamatory factual statement non-actionable.

 

I'm not sure you care about this -- or should care about this --becasue courts have been vigorously protective of providers of internet opinion forums, and have repeatedly made clear that forum providers cannot be held liable for defamatory statements posted by users. Nonetheless, reading this patently inaccurate description of defamation law over and over again in this forum (it's spreading like anthrax) is about to make my head explode.

 

No need to thank me. As you know, I consider knowledge-sharing and myth-busting -- especially in these stressful times -- to be a civic duty.

[Guest 7Zach]

glad to know you figured out the difference of libel and slander now, tt

[Guest cmp]

What happens to TT's neighbors when he thinks they are in the wrong? This question is going to be moved over to the "Discussion of the Horror".

 

<ducking for cover>

[+ deej]

You know, I knew from the time I sat down to write the first draft I'd be reading this message. You're consistent and predictable. I'll give you that.

 

<<reading this patently inaccurate description of defamation law >>

 

Where does it say it's a description of defamation law? It is this site's policy and no more than that.

 

If you don't like this policy, you are free to be a jerk and complain about it. Your right to do so is very clearly spelled out in the document as well, intentionally.

 

I *can* tell you that the site proprietor, four moderators, and a dozen or so regular posters had much input into the document but that statement is one of the few that remains unchanged from the first draft.

 

I fully expected the attorney to modify that statement, but he did not. He is very familiar with this site and the message center and was aware of our goal and our need. He recognizes when enough is enough.

 

It's a pity you can't.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>glad to know you figured out

>the difference of libel and

>slander now, tt

 

There are so many options for me to mock what you've written and to demonstrate that it is the most nonsensical, inane statement ever, but because I think your picture and reviews are hot -- and may, at some point in the future, use them or you for sexual arousal (which will be ruined if I see you as utterly vapid) -- I'm going to refrain from ridiculing what you said.

[HooBoy]

Actually, the attorney DID modify the statement about libel as it was originally written. He inserted the word "MAY" so it was not an oversight.

 

HooBoy

Email: HooBoy@male4malescorts.com

[Traveller]

>There are so many options for

>me to mock what you've

>written and to demonstrate that

>it is the most nonsensical,

>inane statement ever, but because

>I think your picture and

>reviews are hot -- and

>may, at some point in

>the future, use them or

>you for sexual arousal (which

>will be ruined if I

>see you as utterly vapid)

>-- I'm going to refrain

>from ridiculing what you said.

>

 

T2, you're being really mean again. How the fuck am I supposed to judge if 7Zach is really hot if you don't give me the state that he primarily services and his listing name here. Christ, and I thought that you were a detail man.

 

Later.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Where does it say it's a

>description of defamation law?

 

RIGHT HERE: "The libel issue is more dicey. Saying "He's a thief" may be libelous. Saying "I think he's a thief" is not."

 

Did you miss that part? It's purporting to describe what "libel" is and is not under the law, and it's an inaccurate description.

 

>If you don't like this policy,

>you are free to be

>a jerk and complain about

>it. Your right to do

>so is very clearly spelled

>out in the document as

>well, intentionally.

 

I like the policy just fine. Since I don't own the forum, I have no stake in whether the rules are based on a wrong understanding of what libel is. What I was actually doing, as a favor, was telling Hooboy -- who *does* own the forum and does seem to care about what is and is not libel (since it's in his rules) -- that the understanding of libel expressed in those rules is inaccurate. He is free to do with that what he wants.

 

>I *can* tell you that the

>site proprietor, four moderators, and

>a dozen or so regular

>posters had much input into

>the document but that statement

>is one of the few

>that remains unchanged from the

>first draft.

 

All that means is that the site proprietor, four moderators, and

a dozen or so regular posters either did not realize that this was an inaccurate statement of libel or they didn't pay attention to it. It's still inaccurate; facts are not determined by popular vote.

 

>I fully expected the attorney to

>modify that statement, but he

>did not. He is very

>familiar with this site and

>the message center and was

>aware of our goal and

>our need. He recognizes when

>enough is enough.

>

>It's a pity you can't.

 

I have made the point several times (and I'll say it slowly this time in the likely futile hope that you can finally understand it) that I do not believe it is necessary at all -- as a legal matter -- for this forum to delete libellous posts because it cannot be held liable for such posts. Thus, not only do I think that the policy on libel is "enough"; I think it's more than enough.

 

Nonetheless, the statement in the rules about libel is just plain wrong, and that wrong statement has been repeated by several people (including you). I can't imagine why anyone -- let alone an attorney reviewing it -- would want to include in the rules an unquestionably inaccurate statement about what libel is.

 

But if you think it's a good idea to do so, I can't think of any reason why it's worth one second of my time trying to convince you otherwise. While you're add it, why not also put in the rules that 2 + 2 = 5?

[Guest TruthTeller]

>T2, you're being really mean again.

> How the fuck am

>I supposed to judge if

>7Zach is really hot if

>you don't give me the

>state that he primarily services

>and his listing name here.

 

Actually, now that you ask, it occurs to me that I may be confusing him with some other Zach who sells his cock for money. I'm not even sure now that this Zach is an escort. As I'm quite certain you know, it's very difficult to keep track of these things. I'll investigate this Zach matter and disclose my findings promptly.

 

My apologies if I got your hopes up for a good new way to fill your hole.

[Guest cmp]

Reproducing without permission:

 

"Manners and Ambience

 

You won't have to hang around for very long to discover that discussions can become quite heated. Some people just have bad days and come into the message center grumpy. Other posters have chips on their shoulders or ulterior motives and will take any opportunity to trash another poster.

 

Posters in the Message Center are allowed to behave this way, within the confines of the posting guidelines described below, although we would prefer that conversations remain civil.

 

You can avoid being "flamed" in the message center several ways. First, be considerate in your posts. By that, we mean consider that the person on the receiving end may be from another culture, may not speak your language natively, may just be in a grumpy mood, and may not read your message the way you intended it. Consider how your message may be read before posting it."

 

"There are no guidelines against rudeness, arrogance, bitchiness, hatefulness, or otherwise just being an asshole. It won't make you popular, but there are no guidelines against it."

 

"The message center will be what you make of it. We'd like it to be a pleasant place for all, but that's up to you."

 

I couldn't have said it better.

[+ deej]

I missed that. Thanks!

[+ deej]

<<But if you think it's a good idea to do so, I can't think of any reason why it's worth one second of my time trying to convince you otherwise. >>

 

And yet you feel compelled to do so.

 

This sounds like an issue for YOUR therapist, not mine.

[Guest TruthTeller]

><<But if you think it's a good idea to do so, I can't think of any reason why it's worth one second of my time trying to convince you otherwise. >>

>

>And yet you feel compelled to

>do so.

 

I haven't attempted to convince you or anyone else to remove that sentence; as a courtesy to Hooboy, I have merely pointed out that the sentence is inaccurate. I am indifferent to whether it stays in his rules or not. Do you understand that distinction?

[+ deej]

>><<But if you think it's a good idea to do so, I can't think of any reason why it's worth one second of my time trying to convince you otherwise. >>

>>

>>And yet you feel compelled to

>>do so.

>

>I haven't attempted to convince you

>or anyone else to remove

>that sentence; as a courtesy

>to Hooboy, I have merely

>pointed out that the sentence

>is inaccurate. I am

>indifferent to whether it stays

>in his rules or not.

> Do you understand that

>distinction?

 

I never said you attempted to convince anyone to remove the sentence. Where did you get that? Why are you now tossing out untrue accusations?

 

You have, yourself, stated that it's a moot point not worth your time and yet you're still pursuing it.

 

Why?

[Guest 7Zach]

Re: Truth Teacher

 

In the thread on Kirk Strikes Again in the Deli, you said:

>

>If I say "It is my

>opinion that deej is a

>child molseter," that is defamatory

>(assuming it's not true), even

>though I prefaced it with

>the phrase "it's my opinion."

>

>

>Conversely, if I say "Deej is

>a stupid cunt," that is

>NOT actionable nor can it

>ever be defamatory, notwithstanding the

>fact that I did not

>preface it with the magic

>words "It is my opinion

>that . . . .",

>because the statement is intrinsically

>opinion.

>

>Thus, when you say that I

>am an unmitigated asshole, that

>can never be "libellous," even

>if you don't preface it

>with "it's my opinion."

>And, if you make a

>statement of fact about someone,

>even if you preface it

>with the phrase "it's my

>opinion," it's still defamatory -

>saying that a factual statement

>is an opinion doesn't make

>it so.

>

>Although it's cute when people who

>know nothing about the law

>try to speak about it,

>it can be tiring having

>to correct it. I

>don't mind though, because in

>addition to being the Truth

>Teller, I'm also the Truth

>Teacher.

 

Seems to me that you're stating quite clearly that the spoken word can never be libelous above, when in fact you meant slanderous or defamatory. It's "really tiresome" to have to correct you. If you like, we could dwelve a little bit more into how true opinion can be either slanderous or libelous, but I'd prefer that you would first 'bone up' on it. I don't mind, really, cuz I too think it's really cute.

 

But you've got me here when you said the following:

 

When I first started reading this

>board, I was amazed by

>its similarlity to a third-grade

>playground - little cliques bickering

>with each other; misfits looking

>up to, and trying to

>fit in, with the popular

>kids; temper tantrums by the

>spoiled students telling everyone they're

>not allowed to play with

>their toys anymore.

 

Glad you like the pics...

[Guest jc92103]

After reading all of these posts I have concluded that a certain person from the DC area has returned with a new identity. Could it be that tt is actually DC--you know who? Seems that way to me. The guidelines are fair and we all need to respect them and each other.

[Scorpio]

>After reading all of these posts

>I have concluded that a

>certain person from the DC

>area has returned with a

>new identity. Could it be

>that tt is actually DC--you

>know who? Seems that way

>to me.

 

I would have to disagree. Apparently you didn't read the heated discussions between TT and DC that occurred in the Attack on American Forum...so I think it highly unlikely that they are the same person.

 

If Ethan (DC) was back, I think we would know it without a doubt.

[Guest jc92103]

I stayed away from those posts as much as possible and did not notice the interaction. So much for that theory!

[Bilbo]

The guidelines say, unless I've gotten muzzy minded again, that lateda "is libel", not "is legally libel." The English language predates USA law, I believe, and I do not hold with allowing the government to feel that it has a monopoly with defining words. Look at what they did with "olympic" after all. I won't bore you all with my recollections of the story as to how "the gay games" came to be called that rather than the "gay olympics", unless I'm asked to of course, but I think it proves my point.