HooBoy's New Year's Wish

[HooBoy]

It is always amusing to me how, in internet forums, people can twist subject matter to fit their own agenda. “Well, it’s kind of round, lets call it an egg!”

 

The AOL analogy does not hold water because my AOL concern is an issue of privacy. I regret posting my warning. To be sure, bringing it up to use against me is a way to deflect the focus, lose sight of my intent and miss my goal. All this wailing about censorship and grasping at weak arguments for the right to call each other names is appalling to me.

 

One thing this website accomplished over the past five years - it raised the bar for escorts and clients alike. The good guys on both sides are winning because of knowledge shared here and that was my wish when I began it. People have been playing the death knell card on me for years. If my simple wish this week of asking you to respect each other despite your differences means that readers will go fleeing for the smell of the outhouse, so be it.

 

On the contrary, I think that the majority of people who frequent this Message Center (which by the way is only around 20% of the readership as a whole) are folks that can appreciate a wordsmith who, even in heated debate, can state his case without resorting to schoolyard mudslinging. Name calling slowly numbs our sense of decency until acceptance of it becomes the norm, nothing useful is shared and the bar is lowered, not just on escorting, but on our human values.

 

If the contributors who are so passionate about their beliefs would spend more time crafting their arguments than they spend hounding me for the right to call fellow members liars (or calling each other liars), they may actually sway opinion and effect change.

[taylorky]

>>Numerous? Three have posted their concerns.

>

>This topic has come up "NUMEROUS" times and many many more

>than 3 have expressed concern on censorship over and over, so

>it is of little wonder that there isn't yet again a major out

>pouring of concern.

>

>It's funny how some here decry the actions of AOL for

>filtering email, yet see no parallel to deleting posts that

>seem to offend the sensibilities of some.

>

>There are obvious exceptions, such as racial, ethnic or

>religious slurs, child porn and the like, but for the most

>part, angry, sarcastic, caustic and name calling etc should

>not be on the "filtered" list.

>

>I have never understood who "we" are trying to protect with

>censorship here. The beauty of this beast we call the MC, is

>that we can by pass a post that we don't like and go on to

>something more gentle and lady like. I mean, my god, we don't

>even have to go there at all--just check out the reviews and

>go home.

>

> No one is forcing anyone else to read that which offends

>their sensibilities. And by offensive, I'm not talking about

>racial and religious slurs or the like--I have seen that here

>only once or twice and also feel it has no place.

>

>In my opinion, this sought after gentler-kinder world here

>will DECREASE the readership and thus the value of the site

>and in fact be the death knell of this site. It is the more

>dogmatic, controversial posts with insults and arrows slinging

>that get the most readers and viewers--is that PURE ACCIDENT

>or is there a reason? (RHETORICAL) :+ This is particularly

>true as many other sites now have their own review

>sections--true not as good or developed, but still, they're

>there, yet have nothing like the MC

>

>Civility is something that is nice to talk about and in a

>situation where you are forced to deal with a group of people

>on a regular basis, as in your workplace, it should be

>encouraged by all and maybe required--but that is not the case

>here.

>

>NO one forces anyone to read or respond to any post--those

>that respond hold themselves open for rebuttle criticism and

>if their post is particularly STUPID, then all the more slings

>and arrows--definitely not a game for the thin skinned, but

>all should be welcome to throw in their 2 cents and be

>prepared for replies, misstatements, misquotes, yells and

>names and even some preaching :+

>

>So let's not so readily delegate the decision as to what we

>can and can't read or say. }(

>

>So as the overused saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

 

 

***********----YEAH,WHAT FLOWER SAID!!!!

even though i am often a target of a couple of the resident dickheads on this board,i must hold true to my left wing liberal bleeding heart beliefs.........and say no to censor-ship............please!!!!!!

[+ deej]

>I so agree with that AOL filtering comparison.

 

So you've signed a contract with HooBoy and you're paying him $19.95/month (or whatever AOL charges these days)?

 

Cool! Thank you for your support.

[Guest random]

>

>On the contrary, I think that the majority of people who

>frequent this Message Center (which by the way is only around

>20% of the readership as a whole) are folks that can

>appreciate a wordsmith who, even in heated debate, can state

>his case without resorting to schoolyard mudslinging. Name

>calling slowly numbs our sense of decency until acceptance of

>it becomes the norm, nothing useful is shared and the bar is

>lowered, not just on escorting, but on our human values.

>

 

The above says it all for me. I agree that those who do enjoy a heated exchange of ideas should be able to do so without name calling or other obnoxious posts. Craft a post expressing your point of view not your low IQ.

[Doug69]

Hey, Flower - superbly written and argued - I would even give myself a cheerleading pic if that feature hadn't been disabled.

 

While I understand Hooboy's desire to have civil discourse, that is always a slippery term, usually in the eye of the beholder.

 

And, if you check the politics forum, Hooboy has already expanded the grounds for censorship beyond mere name-calling, so that now what he is also prohibiting now is "Hate speech" and "racial slurs" - whatever that means. What constitutes "hate speech" is, of course, a matter of great debate, and often wholly dependent upon your political viewpoint.

 

Indeed, Hooboy already deleted Axhebia's latest identity here, mocking him, to the cheers of others, as he did it - not because Axhebia said anything mean or "demeaning" about any members here (supposedly the grounds for censorship), but because of some post Axehbia wrote months ago where he said it was a good thing when Israeli military officers die. Now that is a repulsive idea - and I think much of what Axehbia wrote is repulsive - but it's still a politial idea, and Hooboy censored him for expressing it.

 

Others in that thread cheered him on - which they'll do, until it's THEM who are censored (indeed, one member here, BigGuy, used to constantly urge that others that he didn't like, incluing Axhebia, be deleted from the forum - but then BigGuy's posts got deleted yesterday and he screamed "FASCISM!").

 

That's the nature of censorhip - many people always love it when it's practiced against those they don't like (they call it "enforcing standards"), but then when it gets turned on them (and it ALWYAS does), they yell and cry.

 

But one thing Hooboy is right about - this is his forum. And he has the absolute right to censor whoever he wants for any reason or no reason. And just as is the case for using AOL mail, everyone has to decide for themselves whether they want to participate in a forum where the owner and his appointed "moderators" (did you know adults to be "moderated"?) review the content of what you write and allow you to write it only if it passes their sense of right and wrong.

[Rick Munroe]

>Perhaps, Hooboy, as a gesture of goodwill for the New Year,

>and to promote your own New Year's wish, you will restore the

>picture-posting feature that so many of us enjoy.

 

And then I'll do my part and post brand-spanking-new photos of myself.

[jimbeaux]

>>I so agree with that AOL filtering comparison.

>

>So you've signed a contract with HooBoy and you're paying him

>$19.95/month (or whatever AOL charges these days)?

>

>Cool! Thank you for your support.

 

 

Oh please! I've made about 15 posts here in a year. Don't make me the enemy. Such nonsense.

[+ Lucky]

"everyone has to decide for themselves whether they want to participate in a forum where the owner and his appointed "moderators" (did you know adults to be "moderated"?) review the content of what you write and allow you to write it only if it passes their sense of right and wrong."

 

Well, hopefully, you will make the right decision here, doug! We'll miss you!

[+ deej]

>Such nonsense.

 

Exactly.

[Guy Fawkes]

Hummm...Front, Back, or Lips?

[+ deej]

I didn't know you were into spanking, Rick. }(

[Flower]

>One thing this website accomplished over the past five years -

>it raised the bar for escorts and clients alike. The good

>guys on both sides are winning because of knowledge shared

>here and that was my wish when I began it. People have been

>playing the death knell card on me for years. If my simple

>wish this week of asking you to respect each other despite

>your differences means that readers will go fleeing for the

>smell of the outhouse, so be it.

>

>On the contrary, I think that the majority of people who

>frequent this Message Center (which by the way is only around

>20% of the readership as a whole) are folks that can

>appreciate a wordsmith who, even in heated debate, can state

>his case without resorting to schoolyard mudslinging. Name

>calling slowly numbs our sense of decency until acceptance of

>it becomes the norm, nothing useful is shared and the bar is

>lowered, not just on escorting, but on our human values.

>

>If the contributors who are so passionate about their beliefs

>would spend more time crafting their arguments than they spend

>hounding me for the right to call fellow members liars (or

>calling each other liars), they may actually sway opinion and

>effect change.

 

Well, I can't argue about anything in the above--if I misunderstood your original post, then I appologize--it was just your post with so many MESSAGE DELETED posts that stirred me in that direction.

 

I for one rely on this site a lot and likewise, feel obligated and do post many reviews. This site is invaluable for all of us -- clients and escorts -- that rely on it and pay attention to reviews.

 

And as for your statement re wordsmiths showing more class as well as getting their points across more effectively, I've always felt that way and again, agree. But sometimes it's nice to to say "liar, liar pants on fire" too :+

[Guest alanm]

This is HooBoy's site. He makes the rules. In theory I agree that we should be attacking the view point, not the person who posts it.

 

I would feel more comfortable if HooBoy were not on record as saying he rarely visited the Message Center. He can certainly stand above it all and comment. Too bad that HooBoy's own responses can get very personal in the e-mail section of the daily reviews.

[+ Hoover42]

Deej, it looks like your dyslexia is kicking in again.

[Rick Munroe]

>Hummm...Front, Back, or Lips?

 

Yes. ;-)

[Trixie]

Having been called a liar, communist and moron in my short tenure here, I can see where Hooboy is coming from. When one is giddily relating a story, or expressing an opinion, whether thought-out and heartfelt or spur-of-the-moment, one has hopes that if others disagree, they will do so tastefully. Of course, that is not always the case here.

But i must admit that this is part of what makes this such an intriguing place to visit. When someone shrieks like a foul-mouthed banshee over something one has said, well, it's shocking. But also entertaining, and educational. Educational, if not edifying.

I, for one, do not mind the tirades that frequently occur here. I do my best to counter them, when they are directed toward myself, with wit, heart and intelligence. (Wit and intelligence, as we all know, are terribly subjective.) I can only hope that, as far as Hooboy is concerned, I comport myself always as a Lady.

It is an astounding thing, I might ad, that a site dedicated to a rather narrow slice of the world (gay male escorts and their clientele) should contain such a magnificent message board. With all it's flaws, it is still one of my favorite places to come to, and to linger!

La Belle Trixie

[duke37]

Thank you for providing this space.

 

I join you in hoping for a more civil message center. I do think its possible to vigourously disagree without going over the top and engaging in personal attacks and vicious invective. I believe you should note that even the most frequent offenders do know what is and isn't responsible language. Whenever this complaint has come up the people most likely to be negatively affected by a moderation policy have NO trouble coming up with items of negative behaviour on other peoples part. If they can spot it in their never ending quest to stamp out hypocrisy it shouldn't be too difficult for you and the moderators to do the same.

 

Another positive point of a more active moderator policy is it encourages otherwise good people to NOT fall off the wagon and post things they regret or ought to regret. I think its far better for you to delete an offending post an otherwise sensible poster might make than allow a climate of ever more hostile responses. Soon it seems to people not familiar with the people involved that EVERYONE is hostile. Of course its not true. The vast majority of posters here are for the most part fine. Do they screw up occasionally in the heat of the moment? Sure. But I think its very easy to tell the difference between them and the more troubling few.

 

I believe you have a long list of people who DON'T participate here because of the negative tone. I can add a few dozen I personally know. It's possible that some people wont participate in a more moderated board. But I think their participation is outweighed by the number of people who will return or stop lurking. We have had basically free rein here for quite a while. Isn't it time to TRY a change?

 

It is wonderful that so much can be discussed in the message center. But the purpose of the place is to discuss escorts and escort reviews. Anything that limits participation of people who might have information on that subject has to defer to the primary agenda. Frankly everybody here knows how they OUGHT to behave. I bet no one here in their daily lives calls people some of the stuff written here. So its not going to be that difficult to adjust.

 

I also want to give a vote of confidence to the moderators. I think they do a good job and believe they will do a good job in the future. You all seem to be serious and devoted to the idea of free exchange of ideas. I for one have no fear of an occasional deletion.

 

Good luck to you all in the new year!

 

Jeff

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

I see the majority seem to agree with Hooboy on this issue. That's a shame.

 

Censorship is censorship whether someone has the right to do it (which Hooboy does since it is his site) or not. So some people resort to name calling when things get heated or passionate. So what. That's life. And that's to be expected when you have a collection of posters from such diverse backgrounds and ideals.

 

As far as I'm concerned, it's what makes this place so informative, interesting, and entertaining. I think some posters here should get some thicker skin rather than whining about posters "who don't post nice."

 

Can you imagine this board if everyone posted like <name deleted>? x( Now THAT would suck!

[jimbeaux]

>>Such nonsense.

>

>Exactly.

 

Well it doesn't take long to learn you are one of those posters who have to have the last word, so go to it; it's all yours ... after I say I find it interesting to note that both you and the board owner didn't bother to comment to the person making the comparison between censorship here or on AOL but instead to the "newcomer" who agrees with him. And I still do agree with him. So go play your silly little sissy games and make some cutesy comment and try to make some other new poster feel stupid and irrelevant. I suspect that's one of your good points.

[+ deej]

>>>Such nonsense.

>>

>>Exactly.

>

>Well it doesn't take long to learn you are one of those

>posters who have to have the last word, so go to it; it's all

>yours ... after I say

 

ROFL

 

(If you hadn't noticed, I was agreeing with you that this is nonsense.)

 

>I find it interesting to note that both

>you and the board owner didn't bother to comment to the person

 

Attack the issue, not the person.

 

>making the comparison between censorship here or on AOL

 

There is no comparison. You pay a monthly fee for AOL and you agreed to their TOS on signup. You do NOT pay a monthly fee for this site. Yet. Surely you can agree to this fundamental difference.

 

>So go play your silly little sissy games and

>make some cutesy comment and try to make some other new poster

>feel stupid and irrelevant. I suspect that's one of your good

>points.

 

Please re-read Hooboy's posts in this thread. His message apparently went over your head.

[woodlawn]

>Attack the issue, not the person.

 

Is that the policy you follow?

 

>Please re-read Hooboy's posts in this thread. His message

>apparently went over your head.

 

And here's the answer -- if the above is not a personal attack, then what would be? Really, deej, if you can't even follow the rule you insist on for the rest of us in the very thread in which you're insisting on it, how dare you reprove anyone else for breaking it? If you think personal attacks are wrong, stop engaging in them yourself. If you're going to engage in them yourself, who are you to lecture the rest of us?

 

For the record, I agree with Hooboy. The message center would be a better place if people often, if not always, kept on one side of the line that divides "I don't agree with what you're saying," from "I don't agree with what you're saying and that means there is something wrong with you." The fact that Hooboy himself has crossed that line on a number of occasions doesn't change that --but it should keep him mindful that the temptation to cross the line is strong and few people can always resist it -- including those who constantly call for civility here.

[woodlawn]

>I join you in hoping for a more civil message center. I do

>think its possible to vigourously disagree without going over

>the top and engaging in personal attacks and vicious

>invective. I believe you should note that even the most

>frequent offenders do know what is and isn't responsible

>language. Whenever this complaint has come up the people most

>likely to be negatively affected by a moderation policy have

>NO trouble coming up with items of negative behaviour on other

>peoples part. If they can spot it in their never ending quest

>to stamp out hypocrisy it shouldn't be too difficult for you

>and the moderators to do the same.

>

>Another positive point of a more active moderator policy is it

>encourages otherwise good people to NOT fall off the wagon and

>post things they regret or ought to regret.

 

 

Gee, I wonder which group you would place yourself in -- "the people most likely to be negatively affected by a moderation policy," or the "good people" who "post things they regret or ought to regret."

 

My own "never ending quest" is to discourage lectures on appropriate behavior from those whose own record of behavior will not bear close examination. I don't want a lecture on the evils of drug abuse from Rush Limbaugh, nor do I want a lecture on civility from posters here who have plenty of personal attacks to their credit.

 

I have my doubts about the claims that there is a vast number of unnamed people who stay away from the message center because of the small percentage of threads that become hostile. But I have no doubt we are afflicted with an abundance of people who like to make negative remarks about others whenever they please but also like to be able to deplore such behavior and portray themselves as far too civilized to engage in it except "in the heat of the moment." I've been the target of personal attacks from the "civilized" group, as well as from those "most likely to be negatively affected by a moderation policy," and frankly I prefer the latter. They're far more honest.

[+ deej]

>>Attack the issue, not the person.

>

>Is that the policy you follow?

 

He complained that I replied to a response rather than the original poster. I think my answer was appropriate and accurate. I was responding to the issue, not the person.

 

>>Please re-read Hooboy's posts in this thread. His message

>>apparently went over your head.

>

>And here's the answer -- if the above is not a personal

>attack, then what would be?

 

How is it an attack? I suggested he re-read the topic at hand because his response to me clearly ignored it.

 

Not one of your better efforts, Woodie. :9

[woodlawn]

>>>Attack the issue, not the person.

 

>>Is that the policy you follow?

 

>He complained that I replied to a response rather than the

>original poster. I think my answer was appropriate and

>accurate. I was responding to the issue, not the person.

 

What issue were you responding to when you called Ad rian a "pompous prick" because he argued that there is good reason why clients would want to know an escort's HIV status?

 

 

>>>Please re-read Hooboy's posts in this thread. His message

>>>apparently went over your head.

>>

>>And here's the answer -- if the above is not a personal

>>attack, then what would be?

 

 

>How is it an attack? I suggested he re-read the topic at hand

>because his response to me clearly ignored it.

 

That isn't what your post says. Your words are right there, above. You say Hooboy's message "went over your head." Can you not see those words? I see them. Are they just my imagination? Am I making them up? Or are they really there?

 

>Not one of your better efforts, Woodie.

 

No name-calling, please. My name is Woodlawn. I'm sure I won't have to speak to you about this again. Right?

[+ Lucky]

Woodie got you on this one deej. you can't say that something is over someone's head as that is attacking the person.