Circle Jerk Conversations on the Message Board

[woodlawn]

>I don't think it's discussion that people are fed up with,

>even ad nauseum on an exhausted topic so much as attacks and

>other BS which serves no purpose but to drive people away

>(though often not the person under attack). This especially

>costs us new members and often escorts.

 

 

Again, I don't see how any member here can prevent any other member from posting about anything his heart desires. If you post and don't like the way someone responds to you, you don't have to converse with him.

 

For escorts the situation is a little different. If an escort is going to post under his work name he may well run into a dissatisfied client here, as several have, or run into questions or comments about his ads or reviews. But escorts can always avoid that by posting under a different name, so what's the problem?

[+ deej]

>Maybe you should shut up and stop complaining about the fact

>that not everyone wants to talk about the same things you do

>and in the same way.

 

Your standards don't apply to you, of course.

 

This seems to be lost only on you.

[woodlawn]

>>Maybe you should shut up and stop complaining about the

>fact

>>that not everyone wants to talk about the same things you do

>>and in the same way.

 

>Your standards don't apply to you, of course.

>

>This seems to be lost only on you.

 

Show me a post or thread I've created to demand (or suggest) that posts or threads I don't like be segregated from the rest. Show me a post or thread I've created suggesting that any poster be censored because I don't like what he has to say (or for any other reason). Well?

 

You can probably find a few curmudgeonly comments I've made about some of the more inane posts from people like Rick and Lucky who keep horning in on threads that are about issues even though they have nothing to say about those issues -- in Rick's case because that's the way he advertises his escort business, in Lucky's case because he has nothing else to do. And you can also find some curmudgeonly comments they've made about my posts. And some that YOU have made about my posts. So what?

[Rick Munroe]

>You can probably find a few curmudgeonly comments I've made

>about some of the more inane posts from people like Rick

 

Hey, you can call my posts asinine, fluffy, lame, self-promoting, moronic, mildly amusing and even plain ol' dumb, but inane is really hitting below the belt (actually, I was hit below the belt with a belt once...ouch; it wasn't my thing).

 

>And you can also find some curmudgeonly comments they've made

>about my posts.

 

Curmudgeonly? I think I was better off with inane. :o

[VaHawk]

I'm sure you have noticed that no one making the accusations responds to your challenge. That is because they have nothing to challenge you with. I'm with you 100% on this thread, as all of your points are right on the mark.

 

What is all the crap about costing the board new members, especially escorts? Which ones would that be? Probably only more of the ones who would piss and moan about hijacked threads and circle jerks and spout forth more gushy inane posts about their own pet little interests that are of interest only to them and their like minded buddies.

 

It is an open forum on the internet, and if you can't handle the plethora of types who inhabit those, then find a new forum. I also notice that these types are always free to criticize and diss others but when they get the same in return, they want to run crying to Daddy to have the others banned.

[+ deej]

>Hey, you can call my posts asinine, fluffy, lame,

>self-promoting, moronic, mildly amusing and even plain ol'

>dumb, but inane is really hitting below the belt

 

(below the belt)

 

Slurp!

 

:+

[+ deej]

>Show me a post or thread I've created to demand (or suggest)

>that posts or threads I don't like be segregated from the

>rest.

 

Last I looked I don't take orders from you.

 

I observe you, I laugh at you, and occasionally I delete you.

 

I could delete you more often. Challenge me.

[Rick Munroe]

> (below the belt)

>

>Slurp!

 

Now that's how I like to be treated down there. }(

[Flower]

Well, aren't we special :-)

 

http://www.danacarvey.net/images/churchlady02.jpg

[Flower]

Doogie before he got nasty

 

http://www.photovault.com/Link/People/Caricature/FunnyFaces/PCFVolume01/PCFV01P04_18.jpg

[taylorky]

>You pompous ass. I don't know you and no sadness in that.

>However, I would bet, from your writings, that you are a nelly

>queen.

>.

>the Cajun

 

 

damn........ain't that a shitty thing to call somebody!!!

 

strange you call someone a nelly queen .....and you are the one wearing an apron,i sure hope you don't have a french maids outfit ewwwwwwww

;(

[woodlawn]

>>Show me a post or thread I've created to demand (or

>suggest)

>>that posts or threads I don't like be segregated from the

>>rest.

 

>Last I looked I don't take orders from you.

 

Especially when the orders are impossible to follow?

 

>I observe you, I laugh at you, and occasionally I delete you.

>

>I could delete you more often. Challenge me.

 

Have your threats ever had any effect on me in the past? But that's not to say they have no significance at all. Threatening me with your powers as a moderator because you can't win an argument says a lot about you.

[+ deej]

>Have your threats ever had any effect on me in the past?

 

No, but I haven't made any so what's your point?

 

Woodie, you're an odious individual and I'd love to just delete you on sight. You'd just come back, as you have before, under another name. I'd rather let you expose yourself for the asshole you are and under a name we all know and despise.

 

Flail away, baby.

[woodlawn]

>>Have your threats ever had any effect on me in the past?

>

>No, but I haven't made any so what's your point?

 

You've threatened just about all the regulars here at one time or another. Your penchant for bullying is your only memorable quality.

 

>Woodie, you're an odious individual and I'd love to just

>delete you on sight. You'd just come back, as you have before,

>under another name. I'd rather let you expose yourself for the

>asshole you are and under a name we all know and despise.

 

It wasn't too long ago that you were criticizing others for posting insults and personal attacks. But of course you can't very well do that while making vicious remarks about the people YOU hate at the same time; it has to be one or the other. I'm glad to see you've chosen the alternative that better suits your real nature.

[duke37]

>It wasn't too long ago that you were criticizing others for

>posting insults and personal attacks. But of course you can't

>very well do that while making vicious remarks about the

>people YOU hate at the same time; it has to be one or the

>other. I'm glad to see you've chosen the alternative that

>better suits your real nature.

 

 

Why CAN'T he do just that? Putting aside the merits of the issue, we all exist here on the sufferance of the owners and moderators. I have no illusion that if I become a problem on the board, or my participation is only designed to hinder debate, that I won't be deleted. Did you think this board operated any other way?

 

Jeff

[woodlawn]

>

>>It wasn't too long ago that you were criticizing others for

>>posting insults and personal attacks. But of course you

>can't

>>very well do that while making vicious remarks about the

>>people YOU hate at the same time; it has to be one or the

>>other. I'm glad to see you've chosen the alternative that

>>better suits your real nature.

 

 

>Why CAN'T he do just that? Putting aside the merits of the

>issue,

 

Why put them aside? Wouldn't that "hinder debate"?

 

we all exist here on the sufferance of the owners and

>moderators.

 

We do? Who provides the content that makes anyone want to visit this site?

 

>I have no illusion that if I become a problem on

>the board, or my participation is only designed to hinder

>debate, that I won't be deleted.

 

If every poster is free to ignore or respond to any other poster, then how can any poster "hinder debate"? Can I compel you to read or respond to my posts? Can I stop you from posting anything you wish? Seems to me VaHawk is right; the only people who want to "hinder debate" are the ones who propose to stick any posts they don't like in some cubbyhole. Was he talking about you?

[duke37]

>we all exist here on the sufferance of the owners and

>>moderators.

>

>We do? Who provides the content that makes anyone want to

>visit this site?

 

I understand that only a small percentage of people who come to this site actually look at this message center. And of that percentage only a smaller percentage actually post. Would the management of this site tell me if thats not true?

 

 

>

>>I have no illusion that if I become a problem on

>>the board, or my participation is only designed to hinder

>>debate, that I won't be deleted.

>

>If every poster is free to ignore or respond to any other

>poster, then how can any poster "hinder debate"? Can I compel

>you to read or respond to my posts? Can I stop you from

>posting anything you wish?

 

I'm speaking for myself only. And I'm going to assume your questions are rhetorical in nature.

 

Seems to me VaHawk is right; the

>only people who want to "hinder debate" are the ones who

>propose to stick any posts they don't like in some cubbyhole.

>Was he talking about you?

>

 

I'm not VaHawk. shrug

 

Jeff

[Flower]

> I also notice that these types are always free to

>criticize and diss others but when they get the same in

>return, they want to run crying to Daddy to have the others

>banned.

ummm......guess I haven't been that observant, but interesting observation. Can you think of one such dastardly disser that himself then went running and crying to daddy?

 

I can't; however I certainly agree with you and others I normally don't agree with to the effect that a message center such as this, should not be regulated as to content except for legalities.

[Guest ncm2169]

< Who provides the content that makes anyone want to visit this site? >

 

Woodlawn, always with due respect, if you think your "content" is what makes people visit this site, you have an over-inflated sense of your importance, to say the least. The same goes for any other poster here, including me. Others have noted the variance between who reads the Reviews and who reads the Message Board. Get real. x(

[Flower]

Well, as ya'al know, I ain't no Woodlawn fan, however, he's right about WE being a big part of the commercial viability of this site.

 

One basis for determining the commercial value of this or any site is the number of hits it gets hourly, daily, weekly--WE do provide a lot of hits, as well as many of the reviews, which bring in the rest of the hits. This makes the site one that can sell advertising and in case you haven't noticed, there is a lot more of that around here now than a year or two ago

 

Since our key demographics include being male, queer, sexually active, and maybe more importantly, having incomes that allow the hiring of escorts or other discretionary spending, WE make this site commercially viable to advertisers and would be purchasers.

 

We went all through this routine about a year ago when the powers at be kicked off an out spoken and contentious escort with a propensity to argue at the drop of a Sprint pin. Although he was no where near as bad or as nasty as a couple of current posters -- several of the same people were defending that action as being justified simply because it was "Hoo's site" just as now. The escort used green font and as you can see the green font at least, is still here :+

 

I objected then and would do so whenever the issue is raised. Censoring Free speech, even on a message board "belonging to someone else," is still censorship and thought control and should be avoided--even if it got rid of people I have issues with

[Guest ncm2169]

All very well and good, Flower, and BTW would you and others get off my case about censorship? -- I'm the last person to engage in or support that -- but, since many here have expressed their disdain for certain "dead horse flogging exercises" (my term), I hardly wonder if their input drives this site, their hits or not.

[Guest ncm2169]

< I hardly wonder... >

 

Sorry. x( Meant to say, "I hardly think their posts...":o

[Flower]

...well, actually, I wasn't on your case--my remarks were in response to another post and replies. I've not seen you advocating censorship--quite the opposite, actually. There! Happy?

[woodlawn]

>>We do? Who provides the content that makes anyone want to

>>visit this site?

 

>I understand that only a small percentage of people who come

>to this site actually look at this message center.

 

Who said I was referring only to the message center?

 

 

>>If every poster is free to ignore or respond to any other

>>poster, then how can any poster "hinder debate"? Can I

>compel you to read or respond to my posts? Can I stop you from

>>posting anything you wish?

 

>I'm speaking for myself only. And I'm going to assume your

>questions are rhetorical in nature.

 

As a matter of fact they are NOT rhetorical. I have been here long enough to see many complaints from people about posters who create "problems" for the message center, but I have yet to see any of them explain why it is that they can't simply ignore any posts they don't like, enjoy the freedom to read and write what they do like, and let others do the same. My questions were yet another unsuccessful attempt to get such an explanation.

 

You can dress it up with oblique terms like "hinder debate" all you wish, but you can't hide what these complaints are really about: some people simply want to censor opinions they don't like.

[woodlawn]

>< Who provides the content that makes anyone want to visit

>this site? >

 

>Woodlawn, always with due respect, if you think your "content"

>is what makes people visit this site, you have an

>over-inflated sense of your importance, to say the least. The

>same goes for any other poster here, including me. Others

>have noted the variance between who reads the Reviews and who

>reads the Message Board. Get real.

 

Who said that my remarks about visits to the site referred only to the message center? I didn't. So who does that leave?

 

By the way, I've seen remarks from the management on several occasions downplaying the readership and importance of the message center as a part of this site. If those remarks are accurate, there seems to be no good reason for them to attach so much significance (and get so emotional) about what is written here. It's quite a puzzle, isn't it?