Do members post here when they're under the influence?

[RockHard]

What's with all the locked threads lately? Why are perfectly fine topics turning into an excuse for some asshole to act like a major asshole? Why are threads being locked when it seems to me there's typically one or two instigators hell bent on disruption? Is it not possible to delete a single (offending) post and notify the offender of a time-out warning, and keep the thread open? Is this suggestion more work than it's worth?

 

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to run this place but other boards have assholes, too, and, typically, mods will delete offending posts and keep threads open. Members know, if your post got deleted, you crossed the line. If those who cross the line don't respect the 3 strikes and you're out rule, then their membership is canceled. You lose your username forever. The only time I see threads close is when 3 or more turn something into a gang fight. At that point, closure seems reasonable to me.

 

I have no issue with deleted posts, or closed threads for that matter. You will never hear me argue for free speech rights on a privately owned board, especially one that offers free bandwidth. I think those screamers are just plain crazy. But why react in what seems to me is a knee jerk fashion? Doesn't this feed the ego of the asshole who is out to disrupt and shut everyone else up at the same time? Why is it necessary to shut down a topic, one that is worthy of discussion, too soon?

 

IMO, Betty Ford deserved better. Of course, all one has to do is try again but fear, probably unwarranted, may stand in the way.

 

I wish the assholes wouldn't drink or do drugs, and then come here to get their jollies. I wish more gay men were happier, and knew how to behave like gentlemen.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

Everyone is “under the influence” of one thing or another. Some people are “under the influence” of multiple things concurrently.

 

Some people here are “under the influence” of megalomania and feel topics such as this influence others less influenced.

 

Many people here are “under the influence” of having sex and getting laid.

 

What-ever one might be “under the influence” of is called life. It comes in many shapes and facets.

 

Topics gets locked for many reasons and for many purposes.

 

If you are not “under the influence” of something – then you are either not living your life to the fullest or you are dead.

 

One could argue that being “under the influence” of Sardinia with no internet could bring peace to the world.

 

Well, to at least internet forums.

[gcursor]

Valid

 

Just for the record...I post what I post without the aid of alcohol or drugs and you do make some valid points.

Gcursor

 

What's with all the locked threads lately? Why are perfectly fine topics turning into an excuse for some asshole to act like a major asshole? Why are threads being locked when it seems to me there's typically one or two instigators hell bent on disruption? Is it not possible to delete a single (offending) post and notify the offender of a time-out warning, and keep the thread open? Is this suggestion more work than it's worth?

 

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to run this place but other boards have assholes, too, and, typically, mods will delete offending posts and keep threads open. Members know, if your post got deleted, you crossed the line. If those who cross the line don't respect the 3 strikes and you're out rule, then their membership is canceled. You lose your username forever. The only time I see threads close is when 3 or more turn something into a gang fight. At that point, closure seems reasonable to me.

 

I have no issue with deleted posts, or closed threads for that matter. You will never hear me argue for free speech rights on a privately owned board, especially one that offers free bandwidth. I think those screamers are just plain crazy. But why react in what seems to me is a knee jerk fashion? Doesn't this feed the ego of the asshole who is out to disrupt and shut everyone else up at the same time? Why is it necessary to shut down a topic, one that is worthy of discussion, too soon?

 

IMO, Betty Ford deserved better. Of course, all one has to do is try again but fear, probably unwarranted, may stand in the way.

 

I wish the assholes wouldn't drink or do drugs, and then come here to get their jollies. I wish more gay men were happier, and knew how to behave like gentlemen.

[+ deej]

Personally, I'm more in favor of locking posters than locking threads. Threads don't cause problems. Posters do. Posters may sober up, threads don't need to. (It's also interesting seeing which long-dormant posters suddenly show up when a new-ish poster gets locked out.)

 

I agree that Betty Ford deserved better. I'll disagree about editing threads, though. I prefer leaving all of the evidence on the table for all to see. You're all grown-ups (or you shouldn't be here) so you can see these things.

 

But no matter what action is taken I can guarantee exactly one thing: someone will bitch. Probably you. There cannot be a unilaterally popular decision.

[gcursor]

Solution!

 

I have a solution!! How about if we block posters ONLY if they're drunk or under the influence of drugs?

 

p.s. Yes I know what the next question is, "How are we going to know that?" and well there's a way but I haven't figured it out yet. How about breathalyzers next to everybody's computer?

 

Gcursor

 

Personally, I'm more in favor of locking posters than locking threads. Threads don't cause problems. Posters do. Posters may sober up, threads don't need to. (It's also interesting seeing which long-dormant posters suddenly show up when a new-ish poster gets locked out.)

 

I agree that Betty Ford deserved better. I'll disagree about editing threads, though. I prefer leaving all of the evidence on the table for all to see. You're all grown-ups (or you shouldn't be here) so you can see these things.

 

But no matter what action is taken I can guarantee exactly one thing: someone will bitch. Probably you. There cannot be a unilaterally popular decision.

[RexAll]

Personally, I'm more in favor of locking posters than locking threads. Threads don't cause problems. Posters do. Posters may sober up, threads don't need to. (It's also interesting seeing which long-dormant posters suddenly show up when a new-ish poster gets locked out.)

 

I agree that Betty Ford deserved better. I'll disagree about editing threads, though. I prefer leaving all of the evidence on the table for all to see. You're all grown-ups (or you shouldn't be here) so you can see these things.

 

But no matter what action is taken I can guarantee exactly one thing: someone will bitch. Probably you. There cannot be a unilaterally popular decision.

 

I have never posted high ( I don't get high) or drunk either. On a different subject ( sorry)-- why did Betty Ford deserve better? I'm not knocking her. She was very courageous admitting her addiction, and I believe made breast cancer more acceptable for public discourse as the scourge it is. I just didn't know she had been treated badly.

 

Rex

[Lookin]

I will not smoke and post.

I will not smoke and post.

I will not smoke and post.

I will not smoke and post.

I will not smoke and post.

I will not smoke and post.

I will not smoke and post.

I will not smoke and post.

I will not smoke and post.

I will not stroke and host.

I will not toke and phoosh

. . . . http://www.emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/smileys/rasta-smiley.gif. . . . http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/smoke/toke.gif. . . . http://www.nextgenupdate.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley_rasta.gif. . . . http://www.unratedgaming.net/images/smilies/rasta.gif. . . .

[mansniffing]

I'd guess that people are more prone to browse for escorts when "under the influence." As for posting "under the influence" . . . it's probably a mix with some as sober as a judge and others a little pickled. The Forums certainly are a way to let off steam and in turn many of the replies, if we're lucky, expand our minds.

[seeker630]

I have never posted high ( I don't get high) or drunk either. On a different subject ( sorry)-- why did Betty Ford deserve better? I'm not knocking her. She was very courageous admitting her addiction, and I believe made breast cancer more acceptable for public discourse as the scourge it is. I just didn't know she had been treated badly.

 

Rex

 

 

I'm assuming the reference is to the posts by Rich in the Betty Ford thread (e.g., http://www.companyofmen.org/showthread.php?81386-R.I.P.-Betty-Ford&p=726087#post726087)

[+ glutes]

Apparently. I told rich.boyNOTBN to put away the 'drinks trolley' in another thread.

Looks like he didn't take my advice...

[Steven_Draker]

How about breathalyzers next to everybody's computer?

 

Ingenious, GCursor. Probably you can submit a new patent similar to the existing breathalyzer ignition locks for cars ...

 

http://www.speedieautoelectrical.com.au/images/Image2967.jpg

[Poolboy21409]

I just mixed my second gin & tonic so I won't post.

[orbital sander]

not all people need to be drinking to act like assholes...

[imrthr]

I read the two posts that are the subject of this thread.

 

I agree, the posts are pretty tasteless and inappropriate.

 

I cannot imagine what could have justified such a hateful message over the passing of a person who left such a positive mark on society.

 

I guess there is no accounting for taste, as the saying goes.

-

[Guest Bauer]

Why is it necessary to shut down a topic, one that is worthy of discussion, too soon?

 

IMO, Betty Ford deserved better. Of course, all one has to do is try again but fear, probably unwarranted, may stand in the way.

 

I wish the assholes wouldn't drink or do drugs, and then come here to get their jollies. I wish more gay men were happier, and knew how to behave like gentlemen.

So do I!!

 

It's just been a horrific fortnight. First the elation of the New York vote, and then the anti-climax of the death of what would have been europe's Emperor, were Europe not so democratically well represented -- the death of HIRH Archduke Otto, on Monday, and then, the announcement of the death of what in my opinion was a brave and courageous woman, Betty Ford, who, if you'll pardon the expression "won the trick" with her own passing at 93.

 

Macabre as that sounds to "win the trick".

 

I say that she was brave because she confronted her challenges with an aplomb which is sorely lacking by so so many.

[RockHard]

Hiccup.

 

Personally, I'm more in favor of locking posters than locking threads.

Which may suggest the existence of a control/power issue with people.

 

(It's also interesting seeing which long-dormant posters suddenly show up when a new-ish poster gets locked out.)

Ah, worker-bee entertainment. This is the most sensible explanation I've seen, since my first inquiry almost 5 years ago, why multiple usernames are permitted on this board. Personally, I need more substance to qualify as interesting. The "Guess Who's Posting Under Another Username" is a game I do not find interesting, entertaining, or worth my precious brain time. Allowing multiple usernames is an open invitation to trolls. And that's a broken record. At least we now know you find them entertaining, er, I mean interesting.

 

I'll disagree about editing threads, though. I prefer leaving all of the evidence on the table for all to see.

Unfortunately, this preference has not helped your username's reputation on this board and elsewhere.

 

While researching and observing various internet forum policies in the past 10 years, I've come to agree in letting users hang themselves, including the mods. (Trolls obviously don't care about username credibility. They have a different agenda and should be treated as such.) The vast majority of forum participants do care about their online reputations. They put thought and energy into creating and using one username and their simple goal is to make the name last and be heard.

 

The vast majority of participants also hope their contributions to the communal discussion will help add interest to the board and maybe make a difference in someone's life. Most gay men care about the time and energy they invest in pleasure. So, when posters reveal themselves to be a pessimist, a racist, angry, sour, miserable, rude, happy gay or anti-gay, etc., I think those words should remain for all to see.

 

But I've also observed some expert moderation along the way. Tone matters to some board owners. Intent matters to many forum boards owned and operated by corporations. The NY Times moderates all posts prior to publication. This causes a delay which kills momentum and the feeling of conversation but, with political discussion, they believe this is the only way to stabilize the tone and keep truly offensive posts off the page, and it works for them. Luckily, the Times' editors don't censor opinion. I'm often surprised and impressed how varied the opinion is among the readers of the NY Times.

 

Random House publishers, using just one more example, offer an icon (similar to here) on some of their forums for members to report on troll or offensive behavior. Many of their boards are open to underage readers so deeper moderation is good customer service. They delete offending posts as the editors see fit but they only close threads when things go too far. The editors are professionals and, of course, they get paid. Sure, a few usernames have an occasional hissy fit, and some get their usernames banned for life. But 99.9% of participants prefer to play by the rules because they enjoy the service and respect the owner and the team of people who created the rules.

 

My conclusion: if you can respect the rules and respect the person, people, or organization who creates the rules, and respect those who enforce them, the vast majority of people who enjoy your reason-for-being will come and participate with good intentions.

 

There cannot be a unilaterally popular decision.

Rules can never be construed as "popular." Terms Of Service policies are not ice cream flavors or shampoo scents. No reasonable person could ever expect unilateral acceptance of all rules so, for me, this statement can't be taken seriously.

 

There is plenty of proof out there on the internet that forum rules can be respected and enforced, without any disruption. There are a lot of success stories. If people like the subject of a forum and they can respect the owner and his/her rules of engagement, one can run, enjoy, and participate on a very successful board. Granted, the subject of sex and escorts is its own animal.

 

But no matter what action is taken I can guarantee exactly one thing: someone will bitch. Probably you.

 

Probably not.

 

I once knew an old woman who worked in customer service for a very successful store, earning a modest middle class salary. She put in 40 years and was hanging tough for another ten to get the healthy severance package that was part of the store's long-term employee policy. The woman was nasty: unattractive, overweight, sour disposition, no patience, and a sincere dislike for people. She was protected by her union and she felt her seniority made her owner of the store and gave her the right to treat everyone and anyone with disdain. She clung to her fake power perch like a New Jersey Housewife clings to hairspray. She viewed every single question from a customer, no matter how heartfelt and sincere, as a bitch. If you got her at the counter, she did whatever she could to make your life as miserable as hers. Yes, she made it to 50 years but two years later she died of cancer.

 

Believe it or not, my questions in my opening post were sincere. They were questions, not complaints. Caring, intelligent people know there's a difference. But I also thought my questions were rhetorical. Obviously, fellow members can only speculate. And Daddy, the only opinion that actually matters here, has bigger things to do and think about. I wasn't expecting any response from him.

 

I have never posted high ( I don't get high) or drunk either.

I don't get high anymore and I was a teenager the last time I got drunk. I can barely speak after three glasses of wine and I absolutely can't write high.

 

I'd guess that people are more prone to browse for escorts when "under the influence."

I forget that many gay men have an intimate relationship with alcohol and/or drugs. My social circle these days is way beyond that. I forget that many find these items useful as they think about having sex or while having sex. I've had sex with intoxicated men and men who had serious drug breath as they ground their teeth to powder. YUCK and FOUL! No thank you.

 

not all people need to be drinking to act like assholes...

This is true. But some of the writing here is so muddled and incoherent, and I'm not talking about Joey Bryant. If you're sober, talking to a drunk is no fun.

 

I say that she (Betty Ford) was brave because she confronted her challenges with an aplomb which is sorely lacking by so so many.

I like "confronting challenges with aplomb." So few have aplomb. So few are brave. :-(

 

I really appreciate a good man.

[+ Axiom2001]

I have never posted high ( I don't get high) or drunk either. On a different subject ( sorry)-- why did Betty Ford deserve better? I'm not knocking her. She was very courageous admitting her addiction, and I believe made breast cancer more acceptable for public discourse as the scourge it is. I just didn't know she had been treated badly.

 

Rex

 

I've been "high" on booze only once in my lifetime, and that was back in college when I was a fraternity pledge. As for as coming here and being "under the influence," the only "influence" in my being here is my interest in the text and subtext! I find this thread to be odd and thought I'd add my take since I've posted over 5,600+ times....

[jjkrkwood]

I guess if "HORNY" is considered an influence, then YES !!!

[JT Brooklyn]

Personally, I'm more in favor of locking posters than locking threads. Threads don't cause problems. Posters do. Posters may sober up, threads don't need to. (It's also interesting seeing which long-dormant posters suddenly show up when a new-ish poster gets locked out.)

 

I agree that Betty Ford deserved better. I'll disagree about editing threads, though. I prefer leaving all of the evidence on the table for all to see. You're all grown-ups (or you shouldn't be here) so you can see these things.

 

But no matter what action is taken I can guarantee exactly one thing: someone will bitch. Probably you. There cannot be a unilaterally popular decision.

 

Totally Agree! Some around here especially the occasional "Alleged Newbie" seem to be "Posting with a Buzz On" from Day One!

[jjkrkwood]

Totally Agree! Some around here especially the occasional "Alleged Newbie" seem to be "Posting with a Buzz On" from Day One!

 

Hmmmm BG, could you have been aluding to ME ? LOL....... I havent had a drink in my life and am drug free ;-) I'm just sayin.....

[Guest Bauer]

Personally, I'm more in favor of locking posters than locking threads. Threads don't cause problems. Posters do. Posters may sober up, threads don't need to. (It's also interesting seeing which long-dormant posters suddenly show up when a new-ish poster gets locked out.)

 

I agree that Betty Ford deserved better. I'll disagree about editing threads, though. I prefer leaving all of the evidence on the table for all to see. You're all grown-ups (or you shouldn't be here) so you can see these things.

That is odd. It seems as if so often that threads are written by playwrights, who have characters waiting in the wings to enter and to advance the script or story line.

[RockHard]

And another thread bites the dust...

 

But no surprise there. Anyone who bothered to read "Step Aside Benjamin Nicholas" quickly realized they lost a few, precious moments from their life that they'll never get back. And what a waste of time it was. A useless, pointless thought stream, even if a thought didn't exist. One of the emptiest threads to ever appear on this board. Sarah Palin's blog would be more interesting (if I read it) and that ignorant cunt makes me want to barf.

 

The game of mentioning the plagiarizing escort that dare not speak its name, just to start a flame war and a view count thrill, is tiresome. And boring. Yet, the bored boneheads that exist here still love to play it. Some people do nothing to change their lives.

 

Yes, I know, that escort who no longer posts here, at least not under his escort name, really shot himself in the foot with the way he marketed himself to customers. Everyone who has any brains in advertising knows, if you're going to play the class war game, you better know what you're doing and how to play it without offending anyone. IMO, to truly be a successful escort, you don't want to offend any segment of the customer marketplace, regardless of your price point. Offended queens are like angry lesbians. They will cut you.

 

And, finally, defending yourself under a troll username, and it's the only source of any defense, is about the saddest thing to see and read on the internet, especially when the board owner drops the hint. It suggests delusion from way beyond. And in this economy, who wants to drop a few grand on an escort whose delusional state has reached the level of serious?

 

Once you travel down the road of believing your own hype, and are discovered to be false in any way, you take a serious risk of becoming a joke. Once you become a joke, it's really, really difficult to erase public perceptions and build a better reputation. It may be easier to become someone new and start over.

 

Wishing all my favorite escorts well.

[+ glutes]

 

And, finally, defending yourself under a troll username, and it's the only source of any defense, is about the saddest thing to see and read on the internet, especially when the board owner drops the hint. .

 

 

RHard, you almost got it right. It should be "defending yourself under troll usernames".

Let the delusions and drinking continue!