God Bless Rick Munroe

[woodlawn]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

>I'm a vicious hatemonger?

 

Yes. Again and again you have popped up in threads for no other reason than to insult me in conversations in which neither I nor any of the other participants addressed you. Don't lie and deny it.

 

>If so, what are you? In posting

>after posting, week in and week out you attack everyone.

 

You are a liar. There are a number of posters with whom I remain on cordial terms. The secret is simple: in my discussions with them, unlike you they confine themselves to making comments on what I have to say and avoid the insults and name-calling to which you so often descend, and I do likewise.

 

>One example. This thread is about the virtues of Rick Munroe.

>Of course, you were the only one who disagreed, bringing up

>many of the same issues you have bored us with in the past.

 

I don't give a shit whether you agree with my posts or find them interesting. As Lucky, the author of this thread, has said to others on several occasions, since no one forces you to read them, you have only yourself to blame if you do so and find them not to your liking. Stop blaming me for your own choices -- be a man and take responsibility for them yourself.

 

>When Rick responded by going even further in describing his

>sexual expoits with his parent, you lost your cool. You lost

>your cool for all to see in a public forum. Instead of really

>attacking Rick, who is much

>more witty and street smart then you could ever hope to be,

>you went after some poor guy who merely suggested you change

>your name to relentless.

 

As I said to Rick, you can and do make up a lot of shit about me, but you can never know anything about me, including what I feel. You are deluding yourself if you imagine that this subthread, which is merely a continuation of the same argument Rick and I have been having for years, has ever made or could ever make me 'lose my cool,' as you so inarticulately put it. From time to time he pops up in threads having nothing to do with him and in which no one has addressed him, for the sole purpose of needling me. He really can't complain (and he hasn't) if I do the exact same thing he does. For some mysterious reason you've never accused him of being a bully for doing the exact same thing that I do. Hypocrite.

 

As for Oliver, he too has insulted me in the past. If he's too delicate to take it, he shouldn't dish it out. Nemo me impune lacessit.

[Guest alanm]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

The most interest thing about you, woodlawn, is your sense of being so superior intellectually and morally to most everyone else. There are many bright people on this site. Except for occasional posts about legal issues, you have shown no cliam to be considered in that same category. You are not witty. You almost never write a response in full paragraphs of your own, instead just attaching quotes that you reproduce -- a starting off point for a even more attacks. A smarter person would vary his style once in a while, not you. Quote and attack is your style, time and again.

 

Of course, you are also a bully who for some reason think that people care that you have never hired an escort, or hired an escort at some point and had a bad experience. We can all guess about that bad experience, but it's time for me to go to work.... not sure if you know what it is like to go to work; you seem to have tons of free time.

[woodlawn]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

>The most interest thing about you, woodlawn, is your sense of

>being so superior intellectually and morally to most everyone

>else.

 

You are a liar. You will not find any post of mine in which I make any claim to intellectual or moral superiority. You cannot find any post of mine that makes any claims about my education or my intellectual abilities, nor any post that claims I am morally superior to any other person. Instead, you will find one consistent theme in all of my posts: I do not want to be lectured on moral issues by people whose behavior shows that they have absolutely no credibility on such issues. That group of people obviously includes you. You criticize me for jumping into a thread to attack one of the participants when you have done the exact same thing time and time again. Your first post in this thread was nothing other than an attack on me; it communicates nothing else and serves no other purpose. You are no different from Gingrich or Limbaugh or any of the other hypocrites who lash out at others for indulging in exactly the same habits that they indulge in.

 

>Of course, you are also a bully who for some reason think that

>people care that you have never hired an escort, or hired an

>escort at some point and had a bad experience. We can all

>guess about that bad experience, but it's time for me to go to

>work.... not sure if you know what it is like to go to work;

>you seem to have tons of free time.

 

 

Your busy life seems to leave you with lots and lots of time to spend reading and replying to my posts, which you claim to detest. I really do not give a shit whether you read my posts, and have never asked you or anyone else here to do so. If you don't like them, as you have spent plenty of time telling anyone who cares, then don't read them. But in either case, try to act like a man and take responsibility for your own choices instead of blaming them on me.

[Doug69]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

>The most interest thing about you, woodlawn, is your sense of

>being so superior intellectually and morally to most everyone

>else. There are many bright people on this site. Except for

>occasional posts about legal issues, you have shown no cliam

>to be considered in that same category. You are not witty. You

>almost never write a response in full paragraphs of your own,

 

I don't intend to defend Woodlawn, who (especially when it comes to responding to people like you) hardly needs my help or anyone else's, but I did just want to bring to your attention the fact that there have been several threads that I can recall over the past couple of years in which Woodlawn was the topic. Virtually everyone who posted, including many people with whom he has had rather vigorous disagreements, all seemed to agree that his posts are uniformly well-written, well-informed, and smart. That doesn't mean it's true; it just means that your opinion about the originality and intelligence of his posts - which you expressed with such certainty, as though it were a decree -- definitely appears to be a distinctly minority view here.

 

I have had many very intense disagreements with Woodlawn on a whole host of issues, and am sure I will again in the future. Even when I wanted to rip his teeth out one by one, the one thing I could never say about him - at least not honestly - is that he was stupid or wrote poorly. When you make an accusation that is so plainly false for everyone to see, it only makes you look really dumb and desperate.

 

As Woodlawn pointed out, virtually everyone here, at one point or another, writes posts that contain personal attacks or nasty insults about other posters. You are certainly a person who does it (check out this thread if you doubt that). In fact, I can hardly think of a person here who hasn't, at one point or another, done so.

 

The distinction, then, is not between those posters who engage in personal attacks and those who don't (since virtually every poster here does). The distinction is between those who are intellectually honestly enough to refrain from running around lecturing others on the evil of personal attacks while themselves engaging in those very attacks they decry, versus those disgusting hypocrites who hold themselves out as the Beacons of Civility even while spitting out personal insults towards those whom they dislike. In which category do you think you are properly placed?

 

This is yet another one of those times where one person who regularly spits out personal attacks (you) doesn't do it as sharply or effectively as someone else (Woodlawn), and therefore concludes that this must mean that the more effective attacker is just simply ruder or more mean than the ones who do it just as much, but just not as effectively (you).

 

One last thing, while I have you: in terms of who writes interesting posts here and who doesn't, I can recall several threads started where Woodlawn was the topic and scores of people had very strong opinions about him. By rather stark contrast, I can't recall a single thread ever started about you, or even a single post ever written about you.

 

In fact, other than those innumerable times when you jumped into a thread for no purpose other than to nurture your obsession with Woodlawn, I can't ever recall a single post that you ever wrote or a single thought that you ever expressed in all the time that I've been reading this Board.

 

What do you think that says about you?

[trilingual]

>>I say let's all cannonize him a saint!

>

>Hey, let's not go too far. I don't know the rules for

>sainthood but do they really allow dumb sluts?

 

Ever hear of Mary Magdalene? Prepare yourself for sainthood, hon!!! }(

[Donnie]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

>After tussling with the

>likes of Doug69

 

WOA!! DUDE!!! You tussled with the likes of Doug69?? THE Doug69?? Thats impressive bro. Not many can tussle with Doug and live to talk about it I can see why you'd brag.

[noviceny]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

>Ever hear of Mary Magdalene? Prepare yourself for sainthood, hon!!!<

 

Im surprised that VDN or Chuck didnt get to this before me...Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute...not that there's any thing wrong with that...

 

I think that Jesus either cast demons out of her or saved her from being stoned, or maybe both. Dont know how the "rumor" got started about her being a prostitute, but Im almost positive that there is no Biblical basis.

 

I know at this point Im supposed to say something like, "and I should know cause I read the whole Bible." Well I havent, but we had to read many of the books and its definitely not in the Gospels and I believe that is the only place MM is mentioned other than listings.

[woodlawn]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

>>After tussling with the

>>likes of Doug69

 

>WOA!! DUDE!!! You tussled with the likes of Doug69?? THE

>Doug69?? Thats impressive bro. Not many can tussle with Doug

>and live to talk about it I can see why you'd brag.

 

Thank you, Donnie, it's very good of you to acknowledge that -- especially since, to the best of my (admittedly imperfect) recollection, you've never had the guts to challenge any of his posts.

[Guest alanm]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

I really enjoyed both Woodland's and Doug's postings. I got some good laughs out reading both comments.

 

Doug, I may not be memorable, but I am not stupid. Woodlawn always has to have the last say. There comes a time to end any exchange with woodlawn, for me that was my last posting -- no matter how tempting it may be to respond to both of you.

 

I should not have speculated on woodlawn's success or lack of sucess with escorts. That was wrong of me, since it is none of my business. So, Doug, perhaps you can remember me as the person who admitted that he made a mistake in an exchange with woodlawn.

[Boston Guy]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

>I don't intend to defend Woodlawn, who

<snip>

>hardly needs my help or anyone else's, but I did just want to bring to your

>attention the fact that there have been several threads that I

>can recall over the past couple of years in which Woodlawn was

>the topic. Virtually everyone who posted, including many

>people with whom he has had rather vigorous disagreements, all

>seemed to agree that his posts are uniformly well-written,

>well-informed, and smart.

>

 

I'm one of those who have held this position and stated it publicly. I still believe it to be true.

 

 

>I have had many very intense disagreements with Woodlawn on a

>whole host of issues, and am sure I will again in the future.

>

 

I've also disagreed with him on a variety of topics and I'm sure we'll disagree again in the future. But I respect his judgment and opinions even when I disagree with them. He comes to his positions logically, carefully and thoughtfully and he can explain why he holds them. There's a great deal to respect in that.

 

I don't believe that I have a lock on the truth. I hold my opinions for reasons that I think are good and sound, but others I respect often disagree with me. Listening to why they disagree often helps me to understand my own positions more deeply and, in some cases, alter those positions. I often disagree with Woodlawn, sometimes strongly, but I always welcome his opinion.

 

>

>As Woodlawn pointed out, virtually everyone here, at one point

>or another, writes posts that contain personal attacks or

>nasty insults about other posters.

<snip>

>In fact, I can hardly think of a person here who hasn't, at one

>point or another, done so.

>

 

I try not to, but I'm sure I've slipped up here and there. :-)

 

>The distinction, then, is not between those posters who engage

>in personal attacks and those who don't (since virtually every

>poster here does). The distinction is between those who are

>intellectually honestly enough to refrain from running around

>lecturing others on the evil of personal attacks while

>themselves engaging in those very attacks they decry, versus

>those disgusting hypocrites who hold themselves out as the

>Beacons of Civility even while spitting out personal insults

>towards those whom they dislike. In which category do you

>think you are properly placed?

>

 

I don't recall a case when Woodlawn started the personal attacks. He will most certainly respond in kind if attacked. But I don't believe he will initiate the attacks and he is quite happy to continue discussing the issues at hand without resorting to ad hominem attacks so long as those around him do the same.

 

He can be relentless; make no mistake about that. If your arguments are weak or flawed, he is likely to point that out. But, absent personal attacks on him, he is likely to address only the issues in any given discussion, rather than the personalities of those discussing the issues. Unfortunately, many mistate an attack on their positions for an attack on themselves and respond with some sort of personal attack on Woodlawn.

 

BG

[+ Lucky]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

"There are a number of posters with whom I remain on cordial terms."

 

Okay, you two, identify yourselfs! Oh, hi Doug...

[Boston Guy]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

Lucky:

 

For reasons stated just above, I consider myself to be on cordial terms with Woodlawn.

 

Cordially, :-)

 

BG

[+ Lucky]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

Well I guess that's no surprise as you are definitely one of the most cordial guys in Hooville. I wasn't really taking roll, though, just having a little fun with woodlawn. Although I would rather lunch with alanm, I would miss woodlawn if the regulations ever forbade him to post here!

[woodlawn]

RE: My thanks

 

My thanks to Doug, BG and Lucky for their kind, insightful and humorous comments. They have enlivened what would otherwise have been merely another one of alanm's dull, repetitious and predictable tirades. This board would be poorer for the lack of any of them. If alanm were to fall down a well, on the other hand, it would be at least a decade before anyone would notice his absence. If ever.

 

If Doug will forgive me, I will borrow a point he has made on several occasions: given the fact that visitors to this website are generally people who have rejected the traditional values of the society in which we all live in order to pursue pleasures that are considered immoral, perverse and disgusting by the majority, one would think they would be the last to condemn or lecture others on how to behave. Not so. The Hooville crowd, in which so many complain so frequently and so angrily about the sanctimonious preachers of the Right who condemn their behavior, is full of characters like alanm who do the exact same thing they complain about every chance they get. Whatever intellectual powers I possess are not equal to the challenge of understanding how alanm and the rest can avoid recognizing their own hypocrisy. If anyone else can explain it, I'd love to hear it.

[+ deej]

RE: My thanks

 

>My thanks to Doug, BG and Lucky for their kind, insightful

>and humorous comments.

 

In other words, thanks for feeding the troll.

 

>They have enlivened what would

>otherwise have been merely another one of alanm's dull,

>repetitious and predictable tirades.

 

Woodlawn NEVER throws around insults. He tells us that over and over! Surely he wouldn't lie.

 

So this couldn't really be meant as an insult. It's only meant to be complimentary.

 

>If alanm were to fall

>down a well, on the other hand, it would be at least a decade

>before anyone would notice his absence. If ever.

 

Happy thoughts yet again.

 

Are you guys done feeding the troll?

[Boston Guy]

RE: My thanks

 

Deej,

 

I think of an Internet troll as someone who delights in sowing discord, likes starting arguments, and likes upsetting people. I don't think any of these fairly characterize Woodlawn.

 

He often responds strongly to threads but I don't think he can be characterized as "sowing discord" any more than most of us who are willing to write what we believe. And if stating what you believe is to be considered starting arguments then, once again, we're all guilty.

 

And I don't get the feeling that Woodlawn likes upsetting people. I see him more as a no-nonsense kind of guy who isn't going to let someone else have the last word when he thinks they're wrong.

 

Certainly, he's been involved in any number of long threads that involved a lot of give-and-take with any one of a variety of posters (including, at times, myself). But he's pretty darned cordial until attacked by others and, to my knowledge, attacks the message and not the messenger until he himself is attacked.

 

Is he relentless? Yes, at times. But I'm not sure that's a bad thing, necessarily. At times, he's almost like a kind of conscience saying "See: I told you that was going to be a mistake!" In that way, he keeps us all a little honest. And, not least, his contributions tend to make this place a little more interesting.

 

It's ironic that this is the third post I've made in this same thread defending him, because I view him as one of the most capable of all our posters in terms of his ability to defend himself. But I don't like piling on in any context and this thread started to have that kind of feel to it, at least to me.

 

This is a big enough community to allow for a variety of personalities. We're strong enough to slog through difficult threads and should collectively be wise enough to be able to disagree, strongly if necessary, and then shake hands afterwards over a drink at the bar.

 

BG

[Rick Munroe]

RE: My thanks

 

>At times, he's almost like a kind of

>conscience saying "See: I told you that was going to be a

>mistake!" In that way, he keeps us all a little honest.

 

Don't count me in "us all"; I'm pretty good at being honest all by myself. But I do appreciate woodlawn for the laughs his haughtier posts produce in my household. :+

[noviceny]

RE: My thanks

 

I think this is a very important point :

 

>given the fact that visitors to this website are generally people who have rejected the traditional values of the society in which we all live in order to pursue pleasures that are considered immoral, perverse and disgusting by the majority, one would think they would be the last to condemn or lecture others on how to behave. Not so. The Hooville crowd, in which so many complain so frequently and so angrily about the sanctimonious preachers of the Right who condemn their behavior, is full of characters like alanm who do the exact same thing they complain about every chance they get. Whatever intellectual powers I possess are not equal to the challenge of understanding how alanm and the rest can avoid recognizing their own hypocrisy. If anyone else can explain it, I'd love to hear it.<

 

I have often thought about this, not just in the context of this board, but as a gay man living in the world. It can put you in a downward spiral of relativism, where you begin to think that societal and moral constructs are all pretentious and bullshit.

 

However, when I look in to my heart, I know that there are some truths that I can not deny. I cant deny that I must extend myself and my gifts to those that I can help. I cant deny that it is wrong to take an innocent life, even if sometimes I may not know what constitutes life and what constitutes innocent. I cant deny that hate will always destroy the bearer and might also destroy the object of the hatred.

 

I also know there are things I must affirm. I must affirm an individual's right to love another person...any other person. I must affirm freedom for humanity, and acknowledge that I dont always know what freedom is. I must affirm that love exists and is to be actively searched for, instead of hidden from.

 

OK let me get off my soap boax. I actually said this cause it helps me to realize the things that are important in life and woodlawn's question made me think of those things again.

[Guest Mikel]

You know, Rick...it's such a strange sensation that it's hard to describe what it is and why I feel it...but after reading all these "testimonials" I just feel proud of you! Happy for you too, but the best way to describe it is "proud of you". Now, why should I feel that??

 

I feel in addition to saying "thanks"...I should be saying congrats!

[Traveller]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

>>WOA!! DUDE!!! You tussled with the likes of Doug69?? THE

>>Doug69?? Thats impressive bro. Not many can tussle with

>Doug

>>and live to talk about it I can see why you'd brag.

>

>Thank you, Donnie, it's very good of you to acknowledge that

>-- especially since, to the best of my (admittedly imperfect)

>recollection, you've never had the guts to challenge any of

>his posts.

 

 

Damn it. Donnie's off the reservation and nobody told me.

 

I hardly ever come into the Lounge and wouldn't have looked at this thread if it hadn't been for swallow's other thread. I will say that I am constantly amazed that Woody and Doug are always called such weally, weally big bullies for making cogent arguments. And they're usually so hilarious; especially when the target is clueless.

 

Keep up the good work men.

 

Later.

 

PS. Woody, you've posted more than me. Ever think that would happen?

[Rick Munroe]

>I have often had to reread them more than once to get

>the full meaning and that means it is even more enjoyable to

>me.

 

That's so neat to hear, Oz. I used to wonder if anyone was even reading, let alone enjoying; this has all been a great eye-opener for me (as if my ego needed a boost...oy, poor Derek). Thanks.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Do keep it UP

 

I'll do my best, Oliver. ;-)

[Rick Munroe]

>the best way to describe it is "proud of you".

>Now, why should I feel that??

 

I don't know but I think that is so sweet; I'm really touched. Maybe it's because we really do, over time, begin to feel/act like a family here. Some people use the written word online to "act out" fantasy images of themselves, and some use it to express their true feelings. I definitely fall into the latter group, and I think you do, too.

[bigguyinpasadena]

I too would like to thank Rick for fighting the good fight in a very well thought out and civil manner.While I tend to be much more strident and broad in my attacks upon certain trolls here,Rick is always there with a PROPER link and or cut and paste to back up his PC views(and I do mean CORRECT-he and I can see through the smoke and mirrors that some of the shills here put up to disguise truth!)

Keep speaking truth to power Mr.Munroe-keep on keeping on.

[woodlawn]

RE: Sex and Sodomy

 

>Keep up the good work men.

 

Trav, you know I live for no other purpose than to entertain you.

 

>PS. Woody, you've posted more than me. Ever think that would

>happen?

 

It's your own fault for absenting yourself from this board for so long. Don't be such a stranger!