My Apologies

[SmallTownJohn]

Howdy Boys,

 

My apologies to those on the board I may have offended in my Scott Merritt post. I wasn't congratulating Scott Merritt for making the cover of The Advocate or coming out. I just thought it was cool that he is working to maintain a relationship with his child since so many guys, gay or straight, skip out & ignore their children. And I love kids:0) So, sometimes I go off. I try to keep things light and positive which doesn't seem to be popular. I'm following the advice of someone very close to me, "Shut up, stay out of their space & stick to travel!" Aye, aye, Captain lol

 

All My Best,

 

John

http://www.SmallTownJohn1.com

[jackhammer91406]

A classy apology John. I appreciate your devotion to your child and got that your original post was all about that. That is a good passion to have.

 

 

[Donnie]

>My apologies to those on the board I may have offended in my

>Scott Merritt post.

 

I'm confused. I thought what they were offended by were your subsequent posts in the same thread, where you said most guys who post here are bitchy, old, drunk, unmedicated queens who have no lives outside of cyberspace.

[VaHawk]

Well, imo, you're not confused, as I do believe you nailed it. I personally, don't need him to apologize for his remarks just as I won't apologize for mine. He adamantly said what he was feeling, and I respect him for doing that, but he does sound as if he doesn't get upset about others replying likewise.

 

I really don't know why he felt he had to post an apology, especially to us, as he stated that most of his clients don't post here anyway. Given that, I fail to see how it is any kind of "damage control" as thus no damage was done.

 

If it was meant as a general apology to the board, then as you say, he didn't address the issue that offended the regular posters. But that doesn't matter, as our pathetic lives will go on regardless.

[BewareofNick]

>>My apologies to those on the board I may have offended in

>my

>>Scott Merritt post.

>

>I'm confused. I thought what they were offended by were your

>subsequent posts in the same thread, where you said most guys

>who post here are bitchy, old, drunk, unmedicated queens who

>have no lives outside of cyberspace.

 

Beetlejuice, beetlejuice, beetlejuice!

[Flower]

I keep forgetting just what a class act you are:+

[VaHawk]

And I keep forgetting what a clueless DUD you are! It's great that this place exists so we can reminding each other, huh? Oh, please forgive me I forgot that you put the "ass" in class. :+

[Trixie]

Geez Louise, I always miss the really good Jerry Springer-type threads! Having caught myself up on the thread in question, my mind is still reeling. Such Piranhas we have here!

But S.T.J, I do get what it was you were saying,

in your original post. Regardless whether what's

-his-name's coming out is of universal consequence or not, there were still elements of his life in the interview that you relate to. It touched your heart and mind, and therefore you had every right to celebrate it, as you saw fit.

How the thread then generated into what it did, I'm still not sure, and I read the silly thing three times! I can only quote an episode of the Simpsons wherein Marge says "Homer, you only hear what you want to hear!" and Homer replies, "why thank you, I'd love a waffle."

There will always be people who have axes to grind about something, and the right word or combo of words will get that grindstone spinning, no matter what the context.

Regarding the "bitchy old queen" remark, I take no offense at the terms bitchy and queen. They are merely neutral descriptions, such as "green" or "sticky". However, having not yet turned 40, I hope you will not consider me old, S.T.J.! This is not "Logan's Run," after all!

Oh, I had other comments to make, but I've forgotten what they were. Oh well.

Now John, please do find your way out to San Francisco one of these days so I can tickle you silly! I do so love a laugh with a southern accent.

La Belle Trixie

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

If The Shoe Fits

 

>

>I'm confused.

 

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.

 

>you said most guys

>who post here are

 

That was a typo. And a truncated sentence. He said "some guys who post here have way too much time on their hands.

 

>bitchy,

>old,

>drunk,

>unmedicated queens who

>have no lives outside of cyberspace.

 

. . . and they called it puppy love

[KY_TOP]

If I misintepreted your comments about persons on this Board in general, then I apologize to you (not ass kissing). Since some that made comments in that thread are not the ones always spreading negativity here, It seemed you Generalized this group as a whole. As a person that HAS met you, and respects you, your comment did surprise me.

 

Really all of us here with Children should relate those experiences more to each other. It seems there are more of us than maybe we realize.

[HooBoy]

The eyes have it...

 

Interestingly, I selected Small Town John as today's Coverboy while on a 10 hour airplane flight, not realizing all this brouhaha transpired. (I was without internet access for almost 24 hours - a first for me in 25 years. Grrrrr)

 

Anyway, he was selected 'cause I loved the picture. (I also like his theory about disposable camera shots as opposed to airbrush Photoshop jobs). It is rare that someone gets Coverboy more than one month in a row, but after reading his apology (whether necessary or not), I'm glad he's the Coverboy today.

 

Just don't want someone with too much time on their hands to fret that John is a favorite of mine.

 

Now, if I can just get the missing luggage the pathetic airline I used for a useless 45 minute flight -- my electric toothbrush is in it and I need to save the up and down motion for other things.

[woodlawn]

>How the thread then generated into what it did, I'm still not

>sure, and I read the silly thing three times!

 

As I recall, when stj referred to the remark by Merritt's child that "My daddy likes boys," Unicorn posted that it would be better if the child were to say "men" rather than "boys" so as to avoid the implication that the child's classmates might be what "daddy" likes. It seems that it was this post that caused stj to make the sort of bitter, insulting remarks referenced by Donnie and VaHawk about the people who post here. A number of other posters took offense at those remarks and said so. Anything else?

 

>Regarding the "bitchy old queen" remark, I take no offense at

>the terms bitchy and queen. They are merely neutral

>descriptions, such as "green" or "sticky".

 

So you wouldn't agree with Rick that any gay man who uses words like that to refer to another gay man is "self-hating"?

 

>Now John, please do find your way out to San Francisco one of

>these days so I can tickle you silly!

 

But didn't you post earlier this year that you no longer hire escorts because you are married? So why are you still brown-nosing escorts here?

[Doug69]

>But didn't you post earlier this year that you no longer hire

>escorts because you are married? So why are you still

>brown-nosing escorts here?

 

Is this really true? Did he say he was married to a woman?

 

What could be more vile than some guy who is in a sham marriage to a woman, who hides his homosexuality [or his . . . (ahem) bisexuality] from the world, standing up and proclaiming that it's perfectly okay for other people to use the terms "bitchy" and "queens" to refer to gay people???

[woodlawn]

>>But didn't you post earlier this year that you no longer

>hire

>>escorts because you are married? So why are you still

>>brown-nosing escorts here?

 

>Is this really true? Did he say he was married to a woman?

 

If you will read my post I don't think you will see any reference to a woman.

[+ Lucky]

He's Canadian? Belgian? Dutch? Otherwise, marriage involves a woman, woodie.

[Doug69]

>If you will read my post I don't think you will see any

>reference to a woman.

 

That's why I asked.

[woodlawn]

>He's Canadian? Belgian? Dutch? Otherwise, marriage involves a

>woman, woodie.

 

I used the term "married" because that is the term he used, to the best of my recollection. I have heard that there are gay men who refer to their relationships with other gay men as "marriage" even though they don't meet the legal definition of that term. You've never heard of such a thing, of course. Otherwise your post would make absolutely no sense.

[Will]

First, I thought the point of John's initial post was perfectly clear and couldn't fathom the vitriol spewed back at him. Second, in his position I might have gotten a little testy myself. Third, nothing he actually wrote comes close to the scurrilousness of the attacks against him.

 

This seems all the sadder, really, when one considers that issues of fundamental importance to gay men and lesbians everywhere are all over television news and the nation's major newspaper. For our views of that, however, you have to go to the bottom of the website and read the threads in "Politics and Religion." As we all know, nice people don't talk about Politics and Religion. Not when they have better things to do, like having a virtual cat-fight.

[BuckyXTC]

Well said, Will.

 

I never cease to be amazed that some here seem to look for something to be offended by. Maybe that's why they get labeled "bitchy old queens". As for my age, I fit the category. STJ's comment didn't wrankle with me in the slightest.

 

Why is it that we say we want escorts to participate in discussions here, then when they do and they get testy, we're ready to cut their balls off? We always here the well-worn argument that some here hold escorts up as objects of worship, but the very ones who piss and moan about this the most do something similar. They put the escort on a pedestal so they can kick it out from under them. As soon as they escort states an opinion they don't like, time to call that escort "whore", "prostitute", "hustler", whatever.......to be consistent, if this is the way we're going to communicate, maybe the escorts should always refer to clients as "johns" or "tricks". Would that elevate the level of discourse? Maybe not, but it least would seem fair to me.

 

I've never met SmallTownJohn, but I would have no reservations in hiring him. As far as I'm concerned, I think escorts should have the same right to express opinions, popular or not, as anyone else here.

[woodlawn]

>First, I thought the point of John's initial post was

>perfectly clear and couldn't fathom the vitriol spewed back at

>him.

 

I don't know of anyone who spewed "vitriol" as a result of his initial post. His initial post gave his thoughts about the cover story of the most recent Advocate. My initial post did the same, as did Unicorn's. The vitriol started when stj reacted to those posts with some rather negative remarks about people who post here. Does that make it a bit easier to fathom?

 

 

>Second, in his position I might have gotten a little

>testy myself.

 

You always seem to get testy whenever anyone here has any sort of set-to with an escort, and for some reason you always take the escort's side. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

 

>This seems all the sadder, really, when one considers that

>issues of fundamental importance to gay men and lesbians

>everywhere are all over television news and the nation's major

>newspaper.

 

But not all over the nation's oldest gay newsmagazine. Instead of those issues of fundamental importance, the Advocate chose to run a cover story about a gay stripper who had appeared in what is ostensibly a magazine for straight women. That was my point.

[Doug69]

>First, I thought the point of John's initial post was

>perfectly clear and couldn't fathom the vitriol spewed back at

>him.

 

I don't think there was any vitriol spewed at John from his original post. Personally, I thought the sentiment he expressed -- that he identified with and admired this person for being openly gay despite having children, and that STJ does the same thing - was worthwhile and interesting.

 

The "vitriol," to the extent it was spewed at all, only began once John expressed his view that this forum was "creepy" and was filled with a bunch of lonely, bitter, twisted, unmedicated freaks with no life.

 

How it is that you and the rest of STJ's defenders don't see THAT as "vitriol" - but instead focus only on the responses his venom generated - is one of the Great Mysteries of Life.

 

I guess you don't take it personally because, as you have made quite clear many times before, you are not someone who is "unmedicated." But most people consider what STJ wrote to be rather wretched, and, given that his apology was directed at other comments of his which nobody minded (rather than at the ones which causes the furor), it doesn't seem to have had the effect he intended.

 

Finally, I do want to take this opportunity to note that the comment by Utopia (or Unicorn, I forget which) about the inadvisability of a child telling his classmates that "My daddy likes boys" - and instead recommending that he say: "My daddy likes men," lest the classmates become frightened - was seriously one of the all-time funniest comments I have ever read on the Internet.

 

I don't know if it was intended to be funny or not, but the image raised by Unicorn/Utopia of some 9 year-old telling his classmates "My daddy likes boys," and then seeing the frightened look on the classmates' faces and the resulting confusion and furor that comment would certainly create, is really extraordinarily hilarious.

[Will]

>But not all over the nation's oldest gay newsmagazine.

>Instead of those issues of fundamental importance, the

>Advocate chose to run a cover story about a gay stripper who

>had appeared in what is ostensibly a magazine for straight

>women. That was my point.

 

Yes, I not only take your point, I fully agree with it. I haven't read the Advocate in years and every time I give in a little and buy a gay magazine I feel as though I've wasted my money. I do read the Gay and Lesbian Review (formerly the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review), but other than that I can't seem to locate a journal that reliably caters to the literate among us.

 

What was on my mind today is not gay journalism, but the Episcopal Church's struggle with the election of Canon Gene Robinson as Suffragan Bishop of New Hampshire. Everything was moving along nicely, despite the heated debates, until late yesterday afternoon. Then all hell broke loose.

 

While I assume that it's not a matter of personal concern to the majority of those who read and post here, it's a matter of front-page (i.e., The New York Times) political concern to all gay people when a religious body with the intellectual and cultural traditions of Anglicanism start swimming into Gay Territory. After all, ever since the colonies were first settled from England, the Episcopalians (or Anglicans) have been right at the sources of economic and political power in this country. Over the past twenty years, it's true, the church has revolutionized itself as regards its social inclusion. Even so, when the Episcopalians elect an openly gay bishop and -- at the same convention -- discuss whether or not to invent a rite for the blessing of same-sex unions, well, that's news.

 

What's not news is the flap and kerfuffle issuing from Rome. As you wisely pointed out the other day, it's no surprise when a politician says he's opposed to gay marriage. Ditto religious leaders. The surprises are those politicians and religious leaders who have the courage and character to speak in favor of equal rights.

[Doug69]

>What was on my mind today is not gay journalism, but the

>Episcopal Church's struggle with the election of Canon Gene

>Robinson as Suffragan Bishop of New Hampshire. Everything was

>moving along nicely, despite the heated debates, until late

>yesterday afternoon. Then all hell broke loose.

 

It seems to have been a very temporary and fiction-based scandal. It has now been announced that the "investigation" into these abruptly made allegations has been closed - less than 24 hours after they surfaced - and the final vote on Soon-to-be-Bishop Gene Robinson is going to take place imminently (I believe tomorrow).

 

As it turns out, hHe never had any affiliation whatsoever with the website in question, and the sudden complaint by some man to have been "inappropriately touched" at some public event years ago is, in the minds of most people, apparently discredited.

 

Ultimately, I think this will turn out better than a mere vote approving him. Although it would have been a great story without the allegations ("upstanding pastor, man of God, beloved by all, who happens to be in a gay relationship, is elected Episcopalian Bishop"), the story now is even more potent ("upstanding pastor, man of God, beloved by all, who happens to be in a gay relationship is, despite being targeted with last-minute, baseless, anti-gay smears, which are thoroughly discredited elected Episcopalian Bishop").

 

This way, the story not only illustrates the fact that gay people can be and do anything independent of their sexual orientation, it also reveals the corruption and desperation of those who are attempting to preserve homosexuality as an awful stigma which is contrary to the public good.

[woodlawn]

>>But not all over the nation's oldest gay newsmagazine.

>>Instead of those issues of fundamental importance, the

>>Advocate chose to run a cover story about a gay stripper who

>>had appeared in what is ostensibly a magazine for straight

>>women. That was my point.

 

>Yes, I not only take your point, I fully agree with it.

 

Thanks.

 

> I

>haven't read the Advocate in years and every time I give in a

>little and buy a gay magazine I feel as though I've wasted my

>money.

 

I don't often read it either. When I do, I usually find myself searching in vain for articles about gays and lesbians who are doing something interesting and significant with their lives, something that does NOT involve the arts, fashion, interior design or posing naked. I know there must be plenty of people out there who fit that description, but for some reason the Advocate seldom covers them.

 

>While I assume that it's not a matter of personal concern to

>the majority of those who read and post here,

 

Speaking for myself, I didn't post anything about this because I don't know what to say. If the allegations about improper touching prove to be true, it will be a huge setback for those who support the advancement of Robinson and others like him. If they are false, I really don't know what to say about the people who are trying to prevent his confirmation by such tactics. All I can say is that whatever divisions are caused by the candidacy of Robinson, these allegations have made them a lot worse.

 

 

 

 

it's a matter of

>front-page (i.e., The New York Times) political concern to all

>gay people when a religious body with the intellectual and

>cultural traditions of Anglicanism start swimming into Gay

>Territory. After all, ever since the colonies were first

>settled from England, the Episcopalians (or Anglicans) have

>been right at the sources of economic and political power in

>this country. Over the past twenty years, it's true, the

>church has revolutionized itself as regards its social

>inclusion. Even so, when the Episcopalians elect an openly

>gay bishop and -- at the same convention -- discuss whether or

>not to invent a rite for the blessing of same-sex unions,

>well, that's news.

>

>What's not news is the flap and kerfuffle issuing from Rome.

>As you wisely pointed out the other day, it's no surprise when

>a politician says he's opposed to gay marriage. Ditto

>religious leaders. The surprises are those politicians and

>religious leaders who have the courage and character to speak

>in favor of equal rights.

[TotallyOz]

"Shut up, stay out of their space & stick to

>travel!" Aye, aye, Captain lol

 

 

John, don't shut. Don't stay out of "their" space because it is yours too.

 

I appreciate your comments and have enjoyed listening to your point of view. You are bright and engaging. I do hope you will keep posting and posting your true opinions. This is the forum for that and at least I appreciate your opinion. I don't always agree. But, I don't agree with everyone all the time. But, even if I disagree, I think it is nice to listen to other thoughts on any subject.

 

This board scares off way too many people. I don't think it is intentional. I think it is more because of the passion that many feel. I feel passionate about many issues that will never be popular on this board. But, I'll be dammed if I let someone tell me not to post about them.

 

Hang in there. The problem with this board is simple. "If you build it, they will come." Hoo built it. They do come. They are all different and most that post more then 40 times are very passionate about their beliefs. I am thrilled that Hoo was able to build something so great where they do come. And, I want you to keep coming. And cumming and cumming.