Not Experiencing Gay Sex/Love While Young

[Guest Tristan]

RE: Know The Path

 

Devon,

 

Very interesting perspective. I hadn't thought about living in a "gay ghetto" for the reason you mentioned. I thought about it in terms of being accepted and being free to be yourself. But you raise another issue. If something becomes an everyday part of your life, it becomes more natural wherever you are. I've already noticed that at least within the gay ghetto, my everyday conversations with merchants etc. have been very gradually changing to being more open without my thinking about accidently disclosing my sexual orientation as I do with str8 people outside a gay zone. Hopefully, some day I will be brave enough to transfer "being me" to outside the ghetto. But a few steps at a time.

 

- Tristan

[Doug69]

YFSC - LOL!!! You began by claiming oh-so-earnestly to want to honor Tristan's wishes in what you pompously called his "preamble." Here's the main point he made in his "preamble:"

 

<<But please don't anyone hijack this Post. It means too much to me. Thank you.>>

 

Completely disregarding and contradicting Tristan's plea, you dragged your ugly obssessive hostility towards VaHawk right into the discussion and completely overwhelmed and engulfed Tristan's issue with your off-topic vendetta. Worse, you did it while parading yourself around as someone who wanted to honor the request in Tristan's "preamble" - only to then vandalize and stomp on his request as thoroughly as was possible.

 

I think you owe Tristan, and the entire community here, a heartfelt apology for your behavior. I began this thread excited to read the responses to Tristan's interesting post and eager to see the insightful replies it attracted - only to find myself wading in the endless, bottomless muck of your negativity towards VaHawk - exactly what Tristan hoped to avoid.

[Guest YFSC]

DOUG69 - LOL!!!

Another typical post from you!!!

 

As usual, you misrepresent the facts and what I said (see below).

 

If you think Tristan's thread was hijacked (which it wasn't, see below), I am not the one who did it; your boy VaHawk did. And read Tristan's reply to him if you doubt it. I posted a reply on Tristan's topic, addressed my reply to him, supported him and pointed out that there was nothing wrong with what he had said. Then VaHawk attacked me for it, with his usual misrepresentations, distortions, denial of patent facts, and baseless allegations. If I am attacked, I have the right to respond, if I choose to do so. VaHawk then chose to respond with more misrepresentations and allegations, and... you get the point. In fact, I'm sure you got the point even before you wrote your flame above. Your flame was written for a different reason. Had VaHawk not attacked me, my posting on this thread would have been limited to my original post, on Tristan's topic, and addressed to Tristan.

 

Now *you* have entered from the side and have attacked me, thus extending the series of off-topic posts. I did not attack you or refer to you in any way. Your post prolonging the series is not a reply or a defense, it is an initiation. With it you are doing exactly what you have accused me of doing, and you have done that in many other threads. Can you spell "hypocrisy," boys and girls?

 

Note that I do not deny that some of my posts in this thread have been off-topic, though my original one, which engendered the subsequent exchanges, was certainly not off-topic. I pointed out only that you profess outrage that I posted off-topic, and that is exactly what you yourself are doing.

 

You claim, incorrectly,

> You began by claiming oh-so-earnestly to want to honor Tristan's

> wishes in what you pompously called his "preamble."

 

False. I made no such claim. Find it. Cite it. You distort and misrepresent what I said in so many ways all at once. I did not "begin" by referring to Tristan's preamble, and did not say anything about "honoring his wishes." I referred to Tristan's preamble only to say that he had been telegraphing his vulnerability in it, and that VaHawk had ignored that and stepped on him anyway. And I did so in my *second* reply to VaHawk, towards the end. Not that I don't or didn't want to honor Tristan's wishes, or wanted or want to hijack his post, and not that I did so, either, in spite of your allegation (see below). I just didn't say anything about that. Yet, you ignore the clear statement of what I said about vulnerability, claim I said something I didn't, and then accuse me of violating what I didn't say.

 

And there is nothing "pompous" in calling Tristan's preamble a preamble.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: pre·am·ble

1 : an introductory statement; especially : the introductory part of a constitution or statute that usually states the reasons for and intent of the law

2 : an introductory fact or circumstance; especially : one indicating what is to follow

 

That's exactly what Tristan's introductory statement is. Maybe you don't understand what a preamble is.

 

> Here's the main point he made in his "preamble:"

<<But please don't anyone hijack this Post. It means too much to me. Thank you.>>

 

Wrong again. The main point is not the part that you emboldened about hijacking. The main part is > It means too much to me. That's the part that reveals his emotional involvement and vulnerability. And that's what VaHawk violated. BTW, I have a strong suspicion that if you asked Tristan, he would not complain that I had done him a disservice or dishonored his wishes.

 

>Completely disregarding and contradicting Tristan's plea,

 

False. See above and below..

 

> you dragged your ugly obssessive hostility towards VaHawk right into

> the discussion and completely overwhelmed and engulfed Tristan's

> issue with your off-topic vendetta.

 

Wrong again.

 

Talk about "ugly obsessive hostility," it is *your* "ugly obsessive hostility," which you are projecting onto me and others. The number of people here that you have attacked with your "ugly obsessive hostility" is legion and legendary. The number of posters you have flamed against is even greater than the number that VaHawk has attacked. Everybody knows that. You are famous here for it.

 

In some of what I said to VaHawk I was responding to the misrepresentations, attacks and hostility from him towards me, but in much of what I said I was trying to get him to see how self-destructive he was being, and trying to get him to just stop berating others. And deej has also said the same thing to him since then in this same subthread.

 

It is also false that I "completely overwhelmed and engulfed Tristan's issue" with anything, either on- or off-topic. Nothing of the sort. Far from that, this thread is alive and well, and on-topic. It has continously been attracting more and more on-topic comments contemporaneously with this subthread and is extremely successful, despite your attempt to claim otherwise.

 

This entire issue has been off by itself, isolated in its own subthread, and anyone who doesn't want to follow it doesn't have to. It doesn't interrupt the flow of the rest of the thread. It is also a minority of the posts on this thread.

 

There are 15 posts before now in this subthread, including yours. 5 of them are from me. 6 are from VaHawk. 1 is from Tristan, in which he takes offense at VaHawk's post, and which is well before my first entry into this thread, supporting him. His post is #3, my first one is #10. 1 post is from skrubber, 1 is from deej, and 1 is from you, off-topic and attacking me. (I suspect that last number will grow.)

 

Your post is #51. That means that at that time there were 51 responses to this thread (not including the OP, which is not a "response"). 51 less 15 leaves 36 other posts in other subthreads of this thread, which are still ongoing in a very lively fashion, including several from Tristan thanking other posters for their replies and expressing his satisfaction with the success of the thread and the large number of responses. (An example: "Thank you for getting up the courage to reply. When I posted this thread, I never dreamed that so many people would be willing to share their very personal thoughts." -- Tristan, 2/26/04 He has also expressed his satisfaction with this thread in other threads.) In fact, before yours, the previous 6 posts had all been to other subthreads and on-topic. That does not sound like hijacking a thread to me. The topic goes on as it should, and the issues here are isolated in their own separate subthread.

 

Furthermore, the exchange of flames in this subthread seemed to have died out before you posted your attack on me. Since you were around in the message center and have been posting, I doubt that you were unaware of this thread before. While things were heated, you kept out of it. When the embers started to cool, you apparently decided to step in to stir things up again. (I'm shocked, shocked to find out that there is off-topic posting going on here!!)

 

Perhaps your problem is that you got buried in this subthread and did not see the rest (the great majority) of this thread. Or perhaps your problem is just that you wanted to keep the fire going.

 

> Worse, you did it while parading yourself around as someone who

> wanted to honor the request in Tristan's "preamble" - only to then

> vandalize and stomp on his request as thoroughly as was possible.

 

Nothing of the sort, as I have shown above. And I think that Tristan would be the first to disagree with you, as I have suggested above. But regardless of that, the objective facts speak for themselves. Look at the overwhelming majority of this thread, including the posts from Tristan himself. No rational person can say that it has been hijacked. And hijacking is not the point. Tristan made himself vulnerable, he was attacked, and I was supporting him. Your claims to the contrary do not change the facts. Nor does your desire to keep the flames going here, nor does your desire to lob attacks at me and others.

 

> I think you owe Tristan, and the entire community here, a heartfelt

> apology for your behavior.

 

Nonsense. If you really do think that (which I doubt; that's just a good-sounding rhetorical device that you decided to use), it just shows how off the wall your thinking is. *You* are the one whose behavior is out of line, and *you* are the one who owes this community an apology for all the negativism, flaming, attacking and "ugly obssessive hostility" that you display in almost every post, and have been displaying since you started posting. Very few of your posts are of a different nature. Everyone knows that, and you are famous for it. You are one of the prime examples of someone that has brought so much contentiousness and hostility to this board, and you owe the community a *big* apology for that. But you already know all that. I am not by any means the first to have said that.

 

Regarding Tristan, I'm pretty sure that he doesn't think I owe him an apology, and I don't think so either. Nor do I owe one to the community.

 

> I began this thread excited to read the responses to Tristan's

> interesting post and eager to see the insightful replies it attracted

> - only to find myself wading in the endless, bottomless muck of your

> negativity

 

ROTFL!!! Wait... let me get out my violin to accompany you.

You can't seriously think that anyone will believe that. Not with your track record.

 

And if you read the posts, the muck and the negativity came from VaHawk. The name calling, the ad hominem attacks, the distortions of facts and opinions, the rude tone, and on and on. But you don't want to read the posts. You just want to stir up trouble.

[VaHawk]

Doug69, don’t waste your time pointing out the obvious to YSFC.

 

He seems to be one of those who insist on getting in the last word, no matter how skewered of a tangent it takes to accomplish that. He sees nothing wrong with sparking the flames, as he did on this very thread, while innocently protesting that the flames just erupted out of the innate negative hostility from the poster he chooses to attack.

 

Of course he is not the least bit hostile to others, as long as they agree with his opinion or interpretation of others’ posts. After all, his interpretations and opinions are sacrosanct and are not to be questioned!

 

It only takes one disagreement, on any subject/thread, for him to BRAND you as permanently hostile and negative. Once he has branded you, everything you post that he disagrees with, will result in a tirade against you as being negative and hostile, regardless of whether the words of your post indicates otherwise. Of course, he loves to take words out of context from a post and those posts out of logical sequence from a thread to justify his hostility towards others.

 

He always uses this illogic to attack others, such as yourself, and has the audacity to call others hypocrites.

[Guest YFSC]

I'm not sure who YSFC is, but I don't think you should say such mean things about him.

 

>He seems to be one of those who insist on getting in the last word,

 

No, "he" just exposes the misrepresentations that you make. When you keep making more new ones, like now, he reserves the right to expose those, too.

 

But you, of course, never try to get the last word. You are pretty clearly on the short end of this exchange, yet you can't recognize that it is in your best interest to let this thread die and fade away. And so you keep reviving it, trying to get in a few swipes at "him," and in the process inviting more replies.

 

>He sees nothing wrong with sparking the flames, as he did on

>this very thread,

 

No, "he" didn't spark the flames. He tried to support and console Tristan. *You* sparked the flames by attacking him, just as you are sparking the flames again now with your post above.

 

>while innocently protesting that the flames just erupted out of the

>innate negative hostility from the poster he chooses to attack.

 

You keep repeating your misrepresentations and false accusations.

 

The flames erupted from your post #65702 of Feb 23, #11 in this thread. For example:

>LOL! You have to be a federal government employee to come up with

>such gobbledygook as this!...

>Perhaps you prefer to disguise your intelligence and cognizance

>behind a facade of smoke and mirrors?...

>You are so PATHETIC!...

>LOL, YET MORE BS FROM YOU!!...

>But then, again, you believe you are SO CLEVER, but in reality

>you are just as foolish as your statements of pseudo-logic.

 

And all of that is not from the reply to any post directed at or attacking you, it's from your comments on my post to Tristan supporting him.

 

(Yeah, I finally figured out that you were probably referring to me in your post to Doug.)

 

In addition, I did not "protest that the flames just erupted out of the innate negative hostility from the poster." You are again trying to perpetrate the falsehood that I brought up the term "negative hostility" in reference to you. I did not. As I have pointed out to you before -- when you made that false allegation earlier -- that reference (the phrase "your negativity and hostility") was made by *another* poster about you, not by me. Yet you refuse to recognize the facts and continue to attribute it to me and to accuse me falsely of it. (I have little hope of getting through to you on that point, but for the record, in case anyone else is wasting his time reading this thread, it is from Tristan's post #65692, #3 in this thread.)

 

And then *you* used the term "negative hostility" in your response attacking Tristan (post #65694, #4 in this thread, VaHawk Feb 23). *All* of that was *before* my first post in this thread. My first entry into this thread was #10. So you can stop trying to accuse me of that.

 

I didn't accuse you of "negative hostility," although I think that is a very accurate description of your attitude in many of your posts, and others have said the same thing or similar. deej said it right here in this subthread, and others have said it in other places. But you can be as negative and as hostile as you want. I don't care about that, and that's not what I objected to. What I *do* lay at your doorstep is your habit of making sweeping, outlandish, false accusations, your misrepresentations and distortions of facts and of what others said, your invented claims of what others said or think, your offensive and insulting remarks, your hypocrisy in attacking others for something while doing the same thing yourself, ... and the other things that I have pointed out. Read my earlier posts to you in this thread. *That's* what they say, not "negative hostility."

 

And you again try to slip the claim past that I attacked you. The attack was from you in your aforementioned post #65702 of Feb 23, #11 in this thread, commenting on my post to Tristan.

 

>Of course he is not the least bit hostile to others,

 

Well, let's see. You won't find very many other posters who think I am hostile, and you won't find very many hostile exchanges between me and some other poster. You, on the other hand, have had hostile exchanges with at least me, Tristan, Sean Lespagnol, Devon, BuckyXTC, and All Day Sucker, just in the last week or two. And maybe there are others that I have not read. (I don't count lighthouse. That's a freebie, since there is no other way to have an exchange with him.) And then there are the posters (collectively) in the South America forum that you insulted with your sweeping allegations, and whoever else from before.

 

>It only takes one disagreement, on any subject/thread, for him

>to BRAND you as permanently hostile and negative.

 

As I have pointed out both above and in a previous post, I never "branded" you "permanently <or even temporarily> hostile and negative." Besides, there's no reason for me to. You do an excellent job of that by yourself. If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

And there are plenty of other posters with whom I have disagreed or who have disagreed with me. I don't "brand" them either, and the disagreements are conducted in a civil manner, unlike disagreements with you -- other people's as well as mine.

 

>Once he has branded you, everything you post that he disagrees

>with, will result in a tirade against you as being negative and

>hostile, regardless of whether the words of your post indicates

>otherwise.

 

There you go again. I didn't "brand" you, and I didn't call you "negative and hostile" in the exchanges we were having. I quite explicitly named other things, which I have already listed above, and did so with good reason. Everything that I said was accurate.

 

>Of course, he loves to take words out of context from a post

>and those posts out of logical sequence from a thread...

 

Totally false. A complete fabrication. I have never taken your words out of context, and have never taken your posts or anyone else's out of logical sequence. Citing something that was said in the past does not mean that it is "out of logical sequence;" that's the only kind of citation that there is. And I have already refuted this scurrilous allegation in an earlier post to you, #65777 of Feb. 25 (#41 in this thread). On the contrary, I have taken great pains to present a full context and to document every quote that I use, so that you or anyone else can check the accuracy of the quote and its context. I repeat what I said to you in that earlier post: I defy you to find just *one* example where I have done what you claim. Just one. If "he loves to take words out of context from a post and those posts out of logical sequence from a thread," you should have no trouble finding many of them. All I'm asking for is just one. It's time to "put up or shut up."

 

>He always uses this illogic to attack others

 

Everything that I said to you and to Doug is accurate, well-documented, and logical. The illogic is yours, and the hypocrisy is yours.

 

Note that I am not the only one who says that to you, and who says that you have been out of line in many of your posts, especially recently. Posters in other threads, for example the Escort Rates thread, as well as Tristan and deej right here in this thread have said the same kinds of things to you about hypocrisy, insults, attitude, negativism, hostility, and the like, and others besides me have advised you just to stop doing it. Are they (or we) all just in a conspiracy? Maybe it means something if lots of people are saying the same kinds of things. Think about it.

 

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Your "Dear Doug" post, while very different in content, seems to be inspired by my earlier post consoling Tristan in its concept, design and tone. So I'm flattered that you chose to try to imitate my example. But there is an important difference in the content. While my post to Tristan was a supportive comment on his post and a defense of his choice of words, your "Dear Doug" post was from start to finish an ad hominem attack on me. Not cool.