My Apologies

[+ Lucky]

Is this the same Will that recently congratulated Devon and Rick for their intelligent discourse? Granted, these two escorts did comport themselves well, but SJT did not. he hurled insults at the whole group when it was suggested that perhaps the Advocate cover was misplaced.

So Will, it is a fair question why a man of letters jumps to the side of the escort even when his discourse is not suitable. Kinda like favoring the cute students over the homely ones, isn't it?

[Donnie]

>Kinda like favoring the cute students over the

>homely ones, isn't it?

 

Yes but let's leave Franco out of it.

[HooBoy]

Deleted message

 

No message

[BewareofNick]

>>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???

 

How about someone who posts on a message center under two separate identities, say for example, Doug69 and FFF?

[VaHawk]

Once again, the suppositions of who is who under what handles, but really it is just supposition. However, after reading some of Doug69's posts today they did remind me of FFF's posts. I can't deny that that Doug69 and myself have insulted each other before, and probably will again, but you have to acknowledge that he takes as good as he dishes. I totally respect that, and if he is FFF, I say welcome back!! and it must explain why I have liked his recent posts because I'm am definitely starting to like Doug69 as much as I liked FFF.

[Trixie]

RE: marriage, etc.

 

Let's see...where to begin. I believe I began posting here a year ago, perhaps it was a tad longer. And yes, at that time I was falling head-o'er-heels for a gentleman. I made a choice to be monogomous (the marriage I refered to) and for the several months we were together,

I was not hiring. Since you seem to be well able to keep track of my life, Woodlawn, you must recall my absence from this board for a good part of the past year.

But relationships come and go... sometimes they go back to their wives (female!) as mine did. So, after a brief grieving process, I decided to take up the reigns of my cherished old pastime again.

Regarding the use of the words bitchy and queen, I'm sure they were meant to be insulting, but who cares? I consider "The Bitchy Queen" to be one of the great icons of gay culture. It is a role that has been carefully cultivated by generations of gay men, and it is part of our society. Is it a stereotype? Sure. Is it false, or negative? In my opinion, not really.

It's not false, as it certainly exists as a notable part of gay culture. I do not consider it negative because I've known a few bitchy queens who qualify as some of the most intelligent, humorous, elegant and interesting people I've met. Stereotype or no, the world could use quite a few more bitchy queens.

 

And about your accusation that I brown-nose

escorts, if you'll kindly refer to the Post "To Rim or Not to Rim", you'll see that yes, I do indeed!

La Belle Trixie

[+ Hoover42]

I don't know...FFF's post seem a bit more thoughtful than those of Doug69.

[Will]

Yes, Lucky, this is the same Will. What I had to say about the Devon/Rick discussion was a response to the force of their arguments, to the cogency with which they made those arguments, and to the civility with which they exchanged them. All I said to John, or at least all I intended to say, is that I understood what his original post was about and that I could also understand his getting testy -- losing his temper, blowing his cool, however you want to put it. I don't see that the two cases are comparable. At all events, I'm not aware that I have to pass some consistency test. I reserve the right to change my mind and to respond differently to different situations. In any case, as it is often said, consistency is the hobgobblin of small minds.

[BewareofNick]

No dear, it's a statement of fact. The same person posts under the handle of FFF and Doug69. Granted, it may not be the same personality, but when the mouth open, the same K-mart purse falls out.

[+ Lucky]

Well thank god for that since I make no claim to be consistent myself!

[+ Lucky]

"And, I want you to keep coming. And cumming and cumming."

 

Mixed message here, Oz. Are you encouraging John to continue posting here or turning him back into a sex machine?

[Doug69]

>Once again, the suppositions of who is who under what

>handles, but really it is just supposition. However, after

>reading some of Doug69's posts today they did remind me of

>FFF's posts. I can't deny that that Doug69 and myself have

>insulted each other before, and probably will again, but you

>have to acknowledge that he takes as good as he dishes. I

>totally respect that, and if he is FFF, I say welcome back!!

>and it must explain why I have liked his recent posts because

>I'm am definitely starting to like Doug69 as much as I liked

>FFF.

 

Thanks for the kind words. Please permit me, in exchange, to share with you an important observation:

 

The surest way to be led into gross error is to listen to anything that BoN has to say. He is nothing but a confused buffoon.

 

Ever since I began posting here, he has run around desperately trying to guess "who I am." He's like a housewife with her hair in rollers with nothing to do, trying to guess who the "mystery vistior" on her favorite soap opera is. "Did he have plastic surgery? Is he wearing a disguise? Is he the twin brother?? I have to know!!!!"

 

First, why the fuck does he care? I mean, think about the idea that this adult, with finite time on this planet, has so little to occupy himself that he is consumed with trying to figure out if anonymous users on an escort site once used other anonymous handles when posting. Merely to describe his behavior is to induce pity for him.

 

Second, and more importantly, most of what he says is wildly inaccurate and just plain wrong. The more certain he is about something, the more likely it is that what he is saying is completely false. He has claimed since I started posting here that he knows who I am, and in order to make sure that he will be right, he has ventured several different guesses (in the hope that if he ever finds out, he'll forget about his wrong guesses and claim he knew all along). This "FFF" guess - which he is becoming increasingly strident with, in the hope that I will notice him - is but the latest but, I will guarantee you, not the last.

 

Third, this is the proof that BoN is a slimy, confused, lost clown. I will bet him any amount of money that his statements are - yet again (yawn) - completely inaccurate, and, as long as the amount has four digits in it or more, we can determine it with certainty, so that he can be exposed for the putrid idiot that he is, again. But he won't.

 

I do want to say that I do not believe that the reason why most of what he says is wrong is because he's lying. Although that is sometimes the case, more often than not his false statements are due to defects in his intellect, not defects in his integrity. It is only now and then that the defects in his integrity are the cause.

 

Anyhow, given your nice post, I thought I should do something in return, and I could think of no better gift than warning you against the perils of listening to the ramblings of this pitiful old imbecile.

[Doug69]

>I don't know...FFF's post seem a bit more thoughtful than

>those of Doug69.

 

You may be right about this, but one thing is for sure: both of our posts, and everyone else's for that matter, pale in comparision to the thought-provoking originality and probing insights contributed by "Hoover42."

 

I, for one, know that virutally every conversation around here has been uniquely enriched by your fascinating, intellectually potent contributions, so it is certaintly understandable that you have decided that you are the Arbiter of whose posts are Thoughtful and whose are not. After all, you ARE "Hoover42."

[woodlawn]

RE: marriage, etc.

 

>I made a

>choice to be monogomous (the marriage I refered to) and for

>the several months we were together,

>I was not hiring. Since you seem to be well able to keep

>track of my life, Woodlawn, you must recall my absence from

>this board for a good part of the past year.

>But relationships come and go... sometimes they go back to

>their wives (female!) as mine did.

 

Thanks for clearing that up. I don't make much of an effort to keep track of your life or anyone else's. But since I remembered that you volunteered, without being asked by me or anyone, the information that you were "married" and no longer hiring, it seemed odd to me that you suddenly began posting in a such manner as to indicate that this is not the case.

 

>Regarding the use of the words bitchy and queen, I'm sure they

>were meant to be insulting, but who cares?

 

I don't, but Rick has informed us that when a gay man uses such epithets to another it shows that he is "self-hating." I take it you don't agree.

[jackhammer91406]

Pack of dead horses

 

Geesh,

Now it's disecting the apology!

Look, as I see it:

John makes a harmless post about an article and cover subject that he identifies with right? We're all agreed that's all the original post was. Suddenly, there is the usual thread stealing dissention about the validity of the selection by the magazine and while not stated, the inference that John's affinity for the subject of said story and cover must somehow be degraded because of the lack of worthiness of the MAGAZINE's selection.

OK, John get's offended and his reply wasn't what I would have said. I have been the target (notice target, not victim ) of the "if you can't take the heat when you post...etc" line of reasoning, John's responses are then magnafied, and still the thread is off point of original post. Ok, so on and on goes the backlash, it gets nasty, friends turn on friends..(in the conspiracy scenario, new alliances are made). Okay, a day goes by.

John, wanting to make ammends, posts an apology which I have no doubt is heartfelt. Nothing about his previous posts shows anything but a nice guy who has strong opinions, but has never gone for the juggular on anyone. He is judged however on one outburst as though that must be his real character.

And in the exact vein that he was trying to point out, the same cast of characters get in line to flail at the apology implying that it is somehow insincere or based soely on economics.

Geesh, guys, this horse is SO DEAD!

Give it a rest. Just because someone calls it how he sees it, doesn't mean he is fawning over escorts or has gone over to the other side. Having friends on this board doesn't mean trading in your own opinions and reasoning abilities. And having been the subject of many posts about changing my position on subjects, or even inconsistent actions, I say "hey If we don't learn from our mistakes, then what's the point?" Is there no room here for growth or are were all stigmatized by any mistake forever as fodder for future attacks? Come on, you holy ones, (you know who you are) get a grip. It's a cyber message board. Have some fun, less blood, more jokes and cum.

And in case you are sharpening your pencils for a ascathing reply, here's my update: This tired old, "no life" queen (?) is dating pretty seriously, out of therapy for a couple of months now and off meds. So BITE ME.

Let it go already.

 

:+

[woodlawn]

RE: Pack of dead horses

 

>John makes a harmless post about an article and cover subject

>that he identifies with right? We're all agreed that's all

>the original post was. Suddenly, there is the usual thread

>stealing dissention about the validity of the selection by the

>magazine and while not stated, the inference that John's

>affinity for the subject of said story and cover must somehow

>be degraded because of the lack of worthiness of the

>MAGAZINE's selection.

 

Wrong. STJ expressed his opinion about a magazine article. So did I. So did Unicorn. Maybe you can explain what that has to do with "thread stealing." Or why he chose to interpret those opinions as an attack on him and to reply with a torrent of insults. I can't.

 

>Geesh, guys, this horse is SO DEAD!

 

Then why are you still posting about it? Oh, I get it. DEAD means everyone should stop posting about it EXCEPT you. Right.

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Pack of dead horses

 

Well below your normal standards

 

[TotallyOz]

Believe it or not, I have gotten more than 3 personal e-mails on this post. I want John to keep posting and keep coming back to the boards. I also want him to keep escorting. So, I guess both. I wasn't trying to turn anyone into a sex machine. I really didn't mean for it to sound that way. It was my lame attempt at humor. I am the one who sees a movie and laughs when no one else does. By the last comment, I was just trying to lighten things up a bit. I guess it didn't work. Basically, he made a mistake, he apologized, I accepted it. Time to move on.

[MiamiLooker]

>Time to move on.

 

But that would be the grown-up thing to do....

[HooBoy]

RE: Pack of dead horses

 

http://www.male4malescorts.com/images/crazyhorse.jpg

[HooBoy]

RE: Pack of dead horses

 

Oops...sorry, I thought someone said "Crazy Horse."