An Appeal to Hooboy

[Laurent]

Trixie, I enjoy your thoughts; please don't stop posting. I do fear, however, that "as many opportunities as they need to get things right" invites continued incivility. Some humans learn fom their mistakes; others tenaciously repeat their errors. KY TOP makes an extremely important point when he reminds us that more individuals have been driven from this site by other posters than have been banned by HooBoy.

[Trixie]

I'm so happy to see you Doug69! Glad you're still around. And you know it is ALWAYS a pleasure for me to be a source of horror and nausea to you!

La Trix

[Trixie]

Well, that most likely is true. I guess one can't go on letting the pottymouths be overly personal forever. But I always hope that even the most hot-tempered ranters could be trained to spew and rage all they please, but to restrain themselves from making derogatory personal statements against other posters.

Perhaps I should start a finishing school, and get these people some culture!

Trix

[bluenix]

>Perhaps I should start a finishing school, and get these

>people some culture!

 

Go for it.

 

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-146.jpg

[+ deej]

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. ;-)

[HooBoy]

I despise responding to every insignificant post. It makes me or anyone else who does it look like a puppet jumping through hula hoops every time someone posts anything from misconceptions, idiotic opinions for downright lies.

 

But I'm gonna respond on a bunch of these things now that I've had time to absorb it -- mainly to set the record straight as much as I possible can.

 

Trixie, you are refreshing but in my family, members who spit all other members of my family are no longer invited to my annual picnic and certainly not into my home. Sorry, these are community members you refer to, not family members. And as a community member, the VERY FEW that have been bounced did so because they were a detriment to our community.

[HooBoy]

RE: Censorship?

 

Unique viewpoints?

 

Calling for extermination of races?

 

Exulting in the death of the Columbia astronauts?

 

Telling members to fuck off? Inferring that the guy who allows me to host this hotbed of people who feel so so pretty and gay is a Nazi.

 

Yeah, that's unique. So is yelling fire in a theater.

 

sorry you are incorrect sir.

[HooBoy]

RE: Censorship?

 

DOH!

 

Isn't self editing what I have been begging for?

 

Yes.

 

Seeing this censorship word continually come up is another attempt to make things seem worse than they are.

 

Nothing has really been censored except crap that does not belong, is irrelevant, assaulting the senses of decent people or just plain illegal.

 

Just how many instances of censorship have you counted? And just what were they for?

 

Ado, ado, ado, ado, ado, ado, ado, ado, ado, ado, ado, ado, ado, ado,.........etc.

[HooBoy]

Here we go again....

 

"less censorship...blah blah blah."

 

Then, folks take up this irresponsible reporting, repeat, gloss it over and soon it is believed as being true.

 

Amazing huh?

[HooBoy]

Trixie, sweetheart....

 

 

Why don't you share with us exactly how many chances to you think we should give to people who have insulted us, lied, spread hatred in a world where there just isn't enough of that?

 

 

We're up to 3 or 4 5imes on some despicable people. You want that we should give them cart balance to demean everything and everyone and add to the misery in the world?

[HooBoy]

Another fine example of someone throwing out a balloon insinuating that I am demanding everyone agree with everyone else or even with me.

 

I never said anything of the sort. I even said I did not want the placed to become pansy ass-ed.

But what will happen is, someone will pick up on this sentence, re-tell it and soon it will be gospel around here and it's such a deception.

 

In fact, this guy just told a flat out lie.

 

Damn, you'd think a place that was rampant with censorship would cut out a lie, huh?

[HooBoy]

Doug 69, if you only knew how many influential people around here and asked or demanded for me to ban you. Yet, I stuck up for you and your right to spew your beliefs.

 

So ironic that you seem to get protection and you show your gratitude by spreading half-truths if not flat out lies.

 

Boy, wait till the censors get after this one and all the others!!

 

Sometimes your posts are so informative and I think you are entitled to your opinion and when you share it, you often have extremely valid points that may run against the populous here.

 

Then other times you just sling deflectors to take folks attention from important issues.

 

If you decide to continue to post, try and do so with some responsibility, please.

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Potty training

 

I feel like a schizophrenic when I read this thread. Let me get the thing I am sure of out of the way first:

Thanks Hooboy for returning the pic function. Now Les, Go TO WORK!

 

 

I find myself on both sides of this issue, literally.

 

On the one hand, I have felt attacked by people whose only aim was to stir me to flame (not something I am comfortable with normally). On the other, I have had an occasion recently where too many brazilian drinks and one too many comments from a master flame ignitor caused me to say things that I not only regretted, but can hardly believe came out of my keyboard.

 

Are there people in this community that I don't understand and wonder what they are thinking when they type some of this stuff? Yeah, no question, but couldn't they be feeling the same way about me? No doubt.

 

Does defaming others in word and picture actually bring down the whole? Yup, and I think that we are all demeaned when someone forgets their basic potty training and starts pissing anywhere they want inside the house. The quality of life in the house is lowered even if the guy pissing is me.

 

And when serving the cause of hate becomes more important than listening, then it's time for the father figure to take action. Having the "right" to say or do whatever one wants is one thing. But "Dad' doesn't have to let it happen in his home , he can decide to let the kid piss anywhere he wants, outside the house. We all the remember the "As long as you live in my house you will..." speeches from our youth. Does anyone really think that made our dad a nazi? Get serious.

 

This whole thread is not about censorship (a touchstone "red flag" expression) it is about house rules and potty training!

And when a "kid" shows a determination to "foul the nest", you love him and let him go.

 

I can name on one hand the guys who have consistently exhibited that kind of behavior and like the rest of you, can name several of their different handles. These few have really made their choices about their behavior here. The fact that one of the previous handles was listed just the other day as the newest member tells me that Hooboy wrestles with tough love just like any other parent.

 

Hooboy, Daddy, and The moderators are responsible for making the house a good environment for all the kids. They do great (and sometimes thankless) jobs. (insert cheerleader pic here). Seems like every other week there are new features and improvements. Not too shabby for a free Playstation. And now with the new edit function (I am looking for how to use that thing), if the pissing kids don't clean up after themselves, then someone else has too, otherwise the stink reaches to the attic. If they keep pissing, make 'em go outside.

 

Ok, that's my rant for the day (unless I am provoked, so somebody better teach me that self edit function quick )

 

}(

[guptasa1]

RE: Censorship?

 

Thanks for responding, Hooboy. I do respect you and this site, and I appreciate that you and some of the moderators are reading and at least considering these comments.

 

>Unique viewpoints?

 

For the record, I'm talking about when these posters legitimately add to the discussion, and they do sometimes, despite a lot of fluff other times.

 

>Calling for extermination of races?

 

I agree this is a terrible thing.

 

>Exulting in the death of the Columbia astronauts?

 

I also agree this is a terrible thing. No argument there for either.

 

>Telling members to fuck off?

 

This isn't a positive way to respond and is hot-headed, but at least when I've seen it, it's been at least partially provoked (and no - that still doesn't make it a good thing, but I feel it's better than namecalling.)

 

>Inferring that the guy who

>allows me to host this hotbed of people who feel so so pretty

>and gay is a Nazi.

 

I have no knowledge of what was said here or how it was said, so I can't really comment. If he was called a Nazi, I agree that was wrong, but I think it probably comes from a genuine feeling of being treated unfairly.

 

I will say I think a lot of the things often said here are done out of anger or a feeling of being targetted/discriminated against/etc. And I do think quite a bit of provoking goes on in both directions at times. I don't have any easy answers to solve this.

 

As far as the terrible things said by certain posters (and I honestly don't know how they were said - I never saw a lot of those posts), well, I still think they should be allowed to say them if not done in an extremely offensive (namecalling, etc.) way, and my reasoning is that people are smart enough to know when ideas are not something they agree with and make their own decisions about them. There are plenty of things from people still allowed to post that I strongly disagree with. For example, I strongly disagree with the notion that HIV does not exist/does not cause AIDS - I even think that it's dangerous. And there are certainly other viewpoints around that I feel are dangerous. But I still learned quite a bit from the post about this and other controversial thigns, and don't regret it being made.

 

As far as mean-spirited personal behavior, after my very first post (some questions about how to improve future escort experiences), my first response added nothing and was curt and a little mean-spirited. I wasn't called any names or anything that severe, but it still seemed inappropriate to me (and apparently others). Where's the line drawn? (I'm NOT asking for anything to be done or trying to cry victim. I'm simply trying to point out that it seems to me some inconsistencies exist.)

 

>Yeah, that's unique. So is yelling fire in a theater.

 

A bit of a different analogy in my opinion. "Fire" is a word most people feel they need to ACT on if they hear it shouted in a public place. Nobody has to act on some of the things said here if they don't want to (thank goodness), and they have the time to evaluate these things.

 

>sorry you are incorrect sir.

 

I respect your viewpoint, but I still disagree. Thanks for at least giving me your time and consideration. I sincerely appreciate it.

[AdamSmith]

>I despise responding to every insignificant post.

 

Hoo, why struggle up the down escalator? History’s wise heads have already made your case.

 

First principle:

Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. (Jefferson)

 

However:

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. (Kierkegaard)

 

Furthermore:

No man is free who is not master of himself. (Jefferson)

 

Finally, and justly:

Freedom of press is limited to those who own one. (Mencken)

 

Get back to processing reviews.

[Doug69]

>(Jefferson)

 

You're so right, Adam Smith. Thomas Jefferson and his founding colleagues absolutely thought that speech and other ideas should be limited and suppressed whenever their advocates failed to adhere to vague standards of civility when expressing them. That's why they wrote the "Civility Exception" into the First Amendment - they believed in free speech ONLY TO THE EXTENT that a majority thought that the speakers were expressing themselves with civility and decency. Otherwise, Jefferson et al. thought the speakers should be censored, banned and deleted.

 

Save the bit about how the First Amendment doesn't apply to private forums like this. I'm well aware of that and am not suggesting otherwise. I'm just pointing out that your attempt to suggest that Thomas Jefferson believed in the virtues of censorship on the grounds of civility is so intellectually dishonest that it defies proper condemnation.

[Doug69]

>I'm so happy to see you Doug69! Glad you're still around.

 

Hey Trixie - if you keep being so charming and endearing to me like this, I may have to meet you the next time when in San Fransisco and fuck you really hard as a gift/reward - or even do that whole tying-up-and-tickling thing that I know you love.

 

Oh dear - I hope I didn't offend my good friend and fellow community member from Denver, who recently announced how much he dislikes the F-word. My sincere apologies to him if I did.

[Rick Munroe]

>And I just would like to say, "Jane you ignorant slut."

 

Hey, what did I do? :o

[guptasa1]

>Why don't you share with us exactly how many chances to you

>think we should give to people who have insulted us, lied,

>spread hatred in a world where there just isn't enough of

>that?

 

I know this post wasn't directed to me personally, but I hope you don't mind me chiming in here too. First of all, I wouldn't mind seeing some more clearer and more specific rules. For example, while it may be common sense to some, a specific rule about no swearing at people or making vulgar insults might be in order. Right now, they seem a big vague and are even called guidelines instead of rules. I, for one (and maybe I'm in the minority here - I don't know), wouldn't mind some clearly set out rules with penalties if violated (perhaps a three-strike system or something?), but ones that applied to everyone equally and without bias.

 

Secondly, I guess it depends on the circumstances as to how I feel to the people banned. Were the people in question PMed my moderators and warned that they were crossing the line and to cease said behavior at once or be banned? Did they clearly break the actual RULES of the site in some way...clear rules that they should have known about? Perhaps I'm wrong, but my biggest problem with this is that it seemed like these people weren't personally warned (maybe they were by PM and I simply don't know about it) before being banned - it seems like they were just banned. And in some instances, there don't even appear to be clear rule violations. Again, I could be missing something.

 

>We're up to 3 or 4 5imes on some despicable people. You want

>that we should give them cart balance to demean everything and

>everyone and add to the misery in the world?

 

Even the word "despicable" can be considered an insult and a pretty drastic one. I agree that in my opinion some of the things said here are indeed dispicable, but it's quite a step to call an entire person despicable. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but I am trying to again point out inconsistencies. Some people are very outspoken, have bad tempers, or have some very unique and sometimes troubling ideas (or a combination of all of the above), but I wouldn't go far enough to say that makes them despicable people as a whole.

 

Please take my words as how they are meant - respectful but sincere. Thanks.

[Trixie]

Ok, Hooboy, I see your point. It's sad, but I suppose there are times when banishment is your only resource. If I were to put myself in your position, and have to keep track of all that goes on here, I'm not sure at all what I would do.

Because people can post relatively anonymously on message boards, some take it as license for abusive behaviour. It becomes a forum for them to exorcise all the hostility & frustruation they feel in Life. They've been the scourge of every message board I've ever visited.

I know of one website that even shut down completely because of the out-of-control MB.

(In defense of Ethan, I would say that he certainly did not post anonymously. I have some amount of respect for that, he truly is who he is.)

As you say, this is not about censorship. Censorship is a tool used to smother thoughts and beliefs, which obviously run freely here.

But pointless abusive behaviour mustn't be allowed free reign.

Miss Trix

[woodlawn]

>Certain members of this board make me seriously think about

>what I believe when they disagree with me. The first and so

>far most convincing to me is/was Woodlawn. I know he's had

>run ins with other members but with me he has without

>exception never initiated insults and has only answered my

>arguments with respect and logic.

 

 

I always have had and always will have a "no first strike" policy when it comes to this message board. I will not be the one to initiate personal attacks, but I will not be a complacent target for the attacks of others. I do not claim this makes me "better" than those who initiate attacks, and I have nothing but contempt for those who do make such a claim. "Defending yourself" from personal attacks by responding in kind accomplishes very little. Throwing mud at someone else does not make you cleaner. There are a few people here who never respond in kind to personal attacks and I do not see that any harm has come to them as a result, so those who claim there is some "need" to defend themselves are simply rationalizing their own desire to hit back. There's nothing more to it than that.

 

I have never used such attacks on you for the simple reason that you've never used them on me. Very few other people here are capable of disagreeing about issues of some importance without attacking the other party, and you should be commended for the fact that you are able to do so while many older (but not wiser) posters are not.

 

As Guptasa suggested in another post, there are varied motives for the complaints about personal attacks on this board. You can usually tell which are sincere -- they come from people who never indulge in such attacks themselves -- and which are bullshit -- they come from posters who rationalize their own use of personal attacks in various ways but whose real motive is to silence opinions they do not like to hear, usually opinions critical of the behavior of particular escorts or of escorts in general.

 

To me, the bottom line is this. If you have someone making a mess in your house, that's hard to ignore; but posters you don't like on a message board are very, very easy to ignore. No one has ever come up with a cogent explanation of why he cannot simply ignore the work of posters whom he KNOWS from experience express themselves in ways he finds unpleasant. Since there is no reason why they cannot be ignored, the conclusion is inescapable that the only reason to censor them is the petty motive of lashing out at someone the censor does not like.

[AdamSmith]

>Save the bit about how the First Amendment doesn't apply to

>private forums like this. I'm well aware of that and am not

>suggesting otherwise. I'm just pointing out that your attempt

>to suggest that Thomas Jefferson believed in the virtues of

>censorship on the grounds of civility is so intellectually

>dishonest that it defies proper condemnation.

 

Doug, this is either illogical or disingenuous. That Hoo's site is a private forum, and that Hoo is not the government, make the censorship charge a non sequitur.

[+ Lucky]

Finally Miss Trix gets the dust out of her eyes!

[AdamSmith]

>Not really. It may be constitutionally protected censorship

>if this is a public site and not a "public accomodation" but

>that does not mean that it is not censorship.

 

Sorry, but claiming "censorship" in this forum just seems overwrought and a bit absurd.

 

Like Michael Palin's peasant in Python & the Holy Grail -- "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

[Doug69]

>Sorry, but claiming "censorship" in this forum just seems

>overwrought and a bit absurd.

 

So, if new rules were posted here saying that . . .

 

<<Only the following views are permitted to be expressed: pro-life views, pro-death-penalty views, and anti-Dean views. Anyone advocating pro-choice views, anti-death-penalty views or pro-Dean views will have their posts deleted and will be permanently expelled from the forum>>

 

. . . would it be "overwrought and a bit absurd" to say that this forum practices censorship?

 

I'm not saying that this is what is happening in this forum, but the term "censorship" is not confined to the Government, and any forum of opinion and ideas is capable or practicing censorship.

 

Obviously, from the perspective of consequences, it's most pernicious when the Government does it, but plenty of people find non-Governmental censorship (which you seem to think doesn't exist) quite alarming. Just ask all of your ideological comrades who applied that term again and again to CBS when it decided it didn't wish to be affiliated with that misleading Reagans movie.