Doug69 - Best Post of the Week

[Guest ncm2169]

OK, so I've had a few... ;-)

 

I, along with many here, have often disagreed viscerally and tangled visciously with Doug69. That said, I've rarely seen a poster here have the guts to do what Doug did a few days ago when he posted about his dismay over Bush's endorsement of the gay marriage amendment.

 

Like him or hate him (the jury's still out for me :* ), Doug gave this board some class this week. Thanks, Doug! :7

[VaHawk]

IMO, Doug69, gives this board class period!, whether that is MONTHLY, WEEKLY or DAILY. :o I have always found him to be respectful of others' opinions even though they differ from his, and I have never found him to be ______ (fill in the blank with whatever castigations he has been accused of), without justifiable provocation by others. I'm very thankful that he is a contributing member of this message board!!!!

[seaboy4hire]

I must say I have to agree with Valhawk. Although there have been more times then I can count that I don't agree with Doug it is nice to see someone else with a totally different point of view and someone who can really get my blood rushing. Doug keep up the posts and pushing those buttons hehehehe.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa [email protected]

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html http://briefcase.yahoo.com/seaboy4hire

[Guest Coney Island]

It's really great that you guys would state something positive about a poster whom many here loath. Perhaps this will start a real movement to civility here. Way to go, guys!

And Doug, congratulations!

[Rick Munroe]

>I've rarely

>seen a poster here have the guts to do what Doug did a few

>days ago when he posted about his dismay over Bush's

>endorsement of the gay marriage amendment.

 

I've always liked Doug, I think he's very smart, and I'll forever treasure the memory of watching him at Derek's feet...but I don't get this. What was gutsy about posting something critical of Bush's endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment on an anonymous gay message board? Doug does do gutsy things but this one does not compute (sorry, I've been watching Lost in Space DVD's). :o

[woodlawn]

>IMO, Doug69, gives this board class period!, whether that is

>MONTHLY, WEEKLY or DAILY. :o I have always found him to be

>respectful of others' opinions even though they differ from

>his,

 

LOL! Responding to posts from Bucky and BON by calling them "liberal dwarfs" is your idea of being "respectful"? You must be joking.

 

 

>and I have never found him to be ______ (fill in the

>blank with whatever castigations he has been accused of),

>without justifiable provocation by others.

 

Yeah? What was it that "provoked" him to reply to the recent thread by a SF escort announcing his impending marriage with a sarcastic post asking whether the kid will promise to "forsake all others"? He seems to be posing as a champion of gays rights in one thread and in another thread ridiculing those who actually exercise those rights.

 

I have agreed with Doug on some occasions. He seems to enjoy pointing out how ridiculous is the behavior of some of the clients who come here to twitter over the charms of this or that escort like so many schoolgirls discussing a boy band, and who could disagree with that? And I give him credit for admitting some of the more egregious faults of the Bush administration. But I have noticed that he is usually willing to admit such faults when it comes to policies in which he may have a personal interest, such as fiscal policy and gay marriage. When it comes to other issues, such as the fakery and hype Bush used to justify a war in which scores of thousands have been killed and maimed, that doesn't seem to bother him much.

[HooBoy]

I have been bombarded with requests to ban Doug69 from this site. But the irony is that he gets to post his opinions, no matter how outrageous they may be.

 

I may not agree with him, but he always backs up his points with facts from respected journalists and makes this site more interesting unlike the desert rats who have no agenda other than to kill all of us in the long run or the asshole who spread glee that an astronaut was killed simply because he was Israeli.

 

I know who he is, I know his home address and I know a lot about him. I could care less. He tries to come in all the time and as soon as I recognize his hate, Daddy or I delete him.

 

I feel sorry for him actually. But I will never reveal what I know about him.

 

Sorry, he is just not welcome in my club. But neither am I.

[bigguyinpasadena]

I WAS going to keep quiet on this-but Hooboy's post just pushed this too far.

As most of you must know-I despise the poster who is being lauded in this thread-I do belive ncm really just started this thread to stir up shit.

I view the subject of this thread as one of the most anoying trolls that I have encountered in any message center/chat room.

Not only is he highly abrasive to many people on the board,his main function here seems to act as a contrarian pain in the ass.

He contributes NOTHING in regards to the main purpose of this board(the discussion of escorts and where they might be located/hired and subjects pertaining to these matters)But rather hides under a bridge ready to pounce-and usually making a fool of himself in the process.

Hooboy's comment of this posters use of "respected journalist"is laughable.The journalists admired(one might say worshipped)by the subject are usually right wing hacks-including one who must be one of the most self loathing faggots in print today.

The subject gets wood by taking discussions/posts/printeed articles/quotes out of context or rearranging the above to fit his needs-this is a dispicable practice.

So no,I will not be sorry to see the dy when the subject of this thread goes too far-and finds himself banned from this board.

[buckguy]

I tend to be with Rick on this--a no brainer. Perhaps, he's less of a closet case than he often appears, otherwise. I'm not that impressed either way.

 

Doug certainly has IQ points, but that doesn't equate with smarts. He doesn't seem to have ever provided a review or dealt with the core content of the site. Mostly, seems to have adopted this board as his place to troll. I have a number of bulletin boards and blogs that I check semi-regularly. The gay ones and the ones dealing with politics, policy, or current events all have seem to have at least one person who has adopted the board and engages in the usual wingnut repertoire of arguments.

 

If I were paranoid I'd assume that someone doled out these assignments, but I rather think it tends to be lonely guys finding an unoccupied niche. Usually they post without links or with links to wingnut sites. They rarely directly respond to factual information or rational argument. They change the subject when it's clear they don't have their facts straight. It all get tedious after awhile. After reading the posts from these characters, I get more sad than angry---being a crank, on the web or elsewhere, is a lonely person's game. The payoffs in attention and the occasional "gotcha" seem pathetic in the wider world of human existence. Ignoring rather than banning makes more sense, but there's always someone who seems compelled to respond to this characters.

 

Yes, Doug I'm talking about you and not to you. It's impolite, but I think my Mom would understand.

[BewareofNick]

The gutsy part, Rick, is when you see a drone break away from the Collective and start having independent thoughts beyond what Karl Rove, Rx[/font size]ush and Sean Hannity tell you to think. For Doug to actually criticize Shrubya, after being such an ardent partisan shill, is nothing short of miraculous.

 

Having said that (and of course baiting Doug with it), I must echo Hooboy's sentiment that Doug should not be banned here just for having an opinion or even for being an ass. He makes it more interesting, unlike Auntie S who just makes you sick.

[VaHawk]

Hey big guy tell us how you REALLY feel.

 

IMO, one of the problems with this board, is that some posters “despise” other posters, and as such, let that control their response to anything posted by the object of their spite. Their spite is so enraging, that they don’t look at the words of the post, nor attack those words sensibly, they only attack the poster. It’s just an internet board, so why get so worked up with spite for another poster, who you don’t know at all!?

 

This is just what you have done, yet again, with this post.

 

All of your points can be logically disputed. As far as contributing via the MAIN function of this board, Doug69 is no more or less guilty of that than many of the posters in the mc, some who have never hired an escort or haven’t hired an escort in years. How do you know that he hasn’t submitted reviews under another handle, as some participants on the mc have also done? And since when has reviews of/discussions of/recommendations of escorts been a requirement to register and participate on this board, and in turn, since when has this board been limited solely to the discussion of escorts?

 

Yes, ONLY Doug69 cuts and pastes articles out of context to support his points! Sorry, but some of us think Doug69 has a right to speak up on issues and actually think that what he says is worthy of hearing.

 

What a boring place this would be if the only people allowed to post were all singing the same song. Different opinions and contributions should be welcomed, as long as the poster is within the limits established by this site. Doug69 has not gone over those limits, imo, but perhaps he has gone over your self-defined limits of what this site constitutes. If so, then take it up with the owner/moderators and if they don’t agree with you, then there is no need for you to come here advocating banishment of others.

[Guest ncm2169]

< I do belive ncm really just started this thread to stir up shit. >

 

Not so. :o Here's why. BON put it very succinctly:

 

< The gutsy part is when you see a drone break away from the Collective and start having independent thoughts beyond what Karl Rove, Rxush and Sean Hannity tell you to think. For Doug to actually criticize Shrubya, after being such an ardent partisan shill, is nothing short of miraculous. >

 

NOTE: None of this means I've become a Doug fan. But I do believe in giving credit where credit's due. I really do think his post showed character. On the other hand, I told him that in a private email which he hasn't acknowleged. Notwithstanding, my praise stands. }(

 

P.S. I posted this once before and it went into the Hooboy ozone. If it shows up twice, blame the server(s), blame Daddy, blame the moderators...oh who the fuck cares. x(

[+ Lucky]

The only foot I can picture in conjunction with Doug is mine, and it is up his butt!

[+ Lucky]

The only foot I can picture in conjunction with Doug is mine, and it is up his butt!

[Rick Munroe]

>The gutsy part, Rick, is when you see a drone break away from

>the Collective and start having independent thoughts beyond

>what Karl Rove, Rx[/font size]ush and Sean

>Hannity tell you to think. For Doug to actually criticize

>Shrubya, after being such an ardent partisan shill, is nothing

>short of miraculous.

 

I have never seen or known Doug to blindly follow anyone or any group. I don't always agree with him but I do admire the fact that he reads what's out there (even if it's Drudge Report ) and makes up his mind on his own. He's been an ardent supporter of Howard Dean for months, and has posted about it, so none of this comes as any surprise to me.

[Rick Munroe]

>The gutsy part, Rick, is when you see a drone break away from

>the Collective and start having independent thoughts beyond

>what Karl Rove, Rx[/font size]ush and Sean

>Hannity tell you to think. For Doug to actually criticize

>Shrubya, after being such an ardent partisan shill, is nothing

>short of miraculous.

 

I have never seen or known Doug to blindly follow anyone or any group. I don't always agree with him but I do admire the fact that he reads what's out there (even if it's Drudge Report ) and makes up his mind on his own. He's been an ardent supporter of Howard Dean for months, and has posted about it, so none of this comes as any surprise to me.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>He doesn't seem to have ever provided a review or

>dealt with the core content of the site.

 

Unless there's been a policy change that I'm unaware of, posters don't have to use the same handle here that they use to write reviews. If I am not mistaken Doug has, in fact, posted reviews under a different identity (and no, they weren't of me; we've never met).

 

>The gay ones and the ones dealing with politics, policy, or current

>events all have seem to have at least one person who has

>adopted the board and engages in the usual wingnut repertoire

>of arguments.

 

Maybe so, but I don't recognize Doug in that caricature. He certainly engages in arguments, however, and though I frequently disagree with all or part of a given post of his I respect that much of it DOES consist of an argument. Calling something "wingnut" and leaving it at that, on the other hand, doesn't constitute an argument of any kind. Doug does engage in name-calling and even outright distortion of people's views from time to time -- I've been on the receiving end of that from time to time, in fact -- but he rarely forgets to include substance, and however "mean" his persona might seem he generally respects the poster he's speaking to enough to elaborate on and clarify his views and what, exactly, he is taking issue with. (If you pay close attention, you'll notice that sometimes he does in fact concede points -- when he's been persuaded.) I've been on the receiving end of that as well.

 

Look (I'm saying this part not so much in response to you specifically as to BewareofNick and anyone who conflates conservatism with evil or stupidity or whatever else), I've only ever voted Republican in anomalous situations where the Republican was the more liberal choice, but let's get real: we NEED both major parties to compete for our votes. Yes, I still prefer the Democrats and don't anticipate that changing for quite some time, but gay Republicans, especially openly gay Republicans, make the Republican party a less scary phenomenon than it would otherwise be (that's partly why the anti-marriage ammendment lost traction so quickly in the Senate), and they make it harder for the Democrats to take our votes for granted. Can someone point to a time where there were more pro-gay Republican elected officials than there are today? (It also occurs to me that the ratio of mildly homophobic Republicans to virulently homophobic Republicans has gone up, because having to deal with openly gay Republicans, while not automatically making them supportive, has caused some Republicans to relax a little.)

 

Please think about this: one million gay people voted for Bush in 2000 (and considerably more in Florida with the "victory" margin). Bush has shocked and dismayed them by backing the marriage amendment. What's the best strategy for getting those people to cross party lines this year: persuasive arguments about why THIS YEAR they need to vote for the Democrats (not necessarily aimed at converting them for a lifetime -- there's time for that later)? Or just sticking with the same old pariah treatment, doing your best to make them feel defensive? By the way, the same goes for the Naderites (and a similar point could be made with regard to not trying to see how many Dean voters we can piss off into going for Nader instead of the Democratic nominee -- it doesn't take a lot to do some serious damage). It seems to me that the statute of limitations for second-guessing and complaining about people's votes in the last election should have run out sometime before this election year, unless the Democrats have decided that they'd prefer to blow this one off -- just as Bush is at his most vulnerable.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>He doesn't seem to have ever provided a review or

>dealt with the core content of the site.

 

Unless there's been a policy change that I'm unaware of, posters don't have to use the same handle here that they use to write reviews. If I am not mistaken Doug has, in fact, posted reviews under a different identity (and no, they weren't of me; we've never met).

 

>The gay ones and the ones dealing with politics, policy, or current

>events all have seem to have at least one person who has

>adopted the board and engages in the usual wingnut repertoire

>of arguments.

 

Maybe so, but I don't recognize Doug in that caricature. He certainly engages in arguments, however, and though I frequently disagree with all or part of a given post of his I respect that much of it DOES consist of an argument. Calling something "wingnut" and leaving it at that, on the other hand, doesn't constitute an argument of any kind. Doug does engage in name-calling and even outright distortion of people's views from time to time -- I've been on the receiving end of that from time to time, in fact -- but he rarely forgets to include substance, and however "mean" his persona might seem he generally respects the poster he's speaking to enough to elaborate on and clarify his views and what, exactly, he is taking issue with. (If you pay close attention, you'll notice that sometimes he does in fact concede points -- when he's been persuaded.) I've been on the receiving end of that as well.

 

Look (I'm saying this part not so much in response to you specifically as to BewareofNick and anyone who conflates conservatism with evil or stupidity or whatever else), I've only ever voted Republican in anomalous situations where the Republican was the more liberal choice, but let's get real: we NEED both major parties to compete for our votes. Yes, I still prefer the Democrats and don't anticipate that changing for quite some time, but gay Republicans, especially openly gay Republicans, make the Republican party a less scary phenomenon than it would otherwise be (that's partly why the anti-marriage ammendment lost traction so quickly in the Senate), and they make it harder for the Democrats to take our votes for granted. Can someone point to a time where there were more pro-gay Republican elected officials than there are today? (It also occurs to me that the ratio of mildly homophobic Republicans to virulently homophobic Republicans has gone up, because having to deal with openly gay Republicans, while not automatically making them supportive, has caused some Republicans to relax a little.)

 

Please think about this: one million gay people voted for Bush in 2000 (and considerably more in Florida with the "victory" margin). Bush has shocked and dismayed them by backing the marriage amendment. What's the best strategy for getting those people to cross party lines this year: persuasive arguments about why THIS YEAR they need to vote for the Democrats (not necessarily aimed at converting them for a lifetime -- there's time for that later)? Or just sticking with the same old pariah treatment, doing your best to make them feel defensive? By the way, the same goes for the Naderites (and a similar point could be made with regard to not trying to see how many Dean voters we can piss off into going for Nader instead of the Democratic nominee -- it doesn't take a lot to do some serious damage). It seems to me that the statute of limitations for second-guessing and complaining about people's votes in the last election should have run out sometime before this election year, unless the Democrats have decided that they'd prefer to blow this one off -- just as Bush is at his most vulnerable.

[Rick Munroe]

>however "mean" his persona might seem he

>generally respects the poster he's speaking to enough to

>elaborate on and clarify his views and what, exactly, he is

>taking issue with.

 

And...he actually seemed almost paternal in his post to you in that thread with the latin title. :+

[Rick Munroe]

>however "mean" his persona might seem he

>generally respects the poster he's speaking to enough to

>elaborate on and clarify his views and what, exactly, he is

>taking issue with.

 

And...he actually seemed almost paternal in his post to you in that thread with the latin title. :+

[HooBoy]

Dear Lucky,

 

Since this thread is actually about a member here, the "attack the issues, not the people" really is tough to enforce -- even when the attack is at me (I think it was Big Guy From Pasadena.)

 

I'd like to leave this thread in the Lounge because the censorship trolls will see that it is rarely used. This would be a good one to go. If it starts getting too political it'll have to be moved so if you want to delve into that mire, someone just start a new thread there.

 

I hardly ever go in there because it makes me sick.

 

Meantime, those who do not like to read what Doug writes, just skip it. Like the Nancy cartoon in the papers. :+

 

BTW: BON, I love your new avatar. lol

 

The edit was because I find all these mistakes and it takes me an hour to compose one sin tense.

:7

[HooBoy]

Dear Lucky,

 

Since this thread is actually about a member here, the "attack the issues, not the people" really is tough to enforce -- even when the attack is at me (I think it was Big Guy From Pasadena.)

 

I'd like to leave this thread in the Lounge because the censorship trolls will see that it is rarely used. This would be a good one to go. If it starts getting too political it'll have to be moved so if you want to delve into that mire, someone just start a new thread there.

 

I hardly ever go in there because it makes me sick.

 

Meantime, those who do not like to read what Doug writes, just skip it. Like the Nancy cartoon in the papers. :+

 

BTW: BON, I love your new avatar. lol

 

The edit was because I find all these mistakes and it takes me an hour to compose one sin tense.

:7

[+ Lucky]

Okay, Hoo, I will take my foot out of Doug's butt!

[+ Lucky]

Okay, Hoo, I will take my foot out of Doug's butt!

[Guest ncm2169]

< Since this thread is actually about a member here >

 

Yeah, I've helped make the ornery bastard a celebrity here. Think I enjoy that? x(

 

I wonder where he's been. It couldn't be that he's just sitting back watching, reveling in all the attention. Nope. That's not like him. ;-)