Moving of Microsoft thread

[+ deej]

>You're wrong. My post was asking people to ask Microsoft to

>return its 2001 Corporate Vision Award to the LA Gay and

>Lesbian Center; there was no mention of lobbying Microsoft on

>a legislative issue.

 

What was the cause for the original call to return the award?

 

> Did you even read the post before you

>moved it, or did you just assume you knew the content?

 

Did you do any research into the background or were you just railing against Big Bad Bill?

[+ deej]

>it not only didn't get moved, it got pinned to the top of the Lounge.

 

Actually it did get moved, Rick. And then it got moved back.

 

Did you actually read Barry's reason for both moves?

[Bilbo]

I sent in an alert on a thread which had been misplaced in the Ask An Escort section the other day, and Deej sent me back a quite reasonable reply that since it was arguably in the correct section, he wasn't going to move it. So, one can see that he only moves threads when he is absolutely forced to. There is no doubt in my mind that the thread in question here was undeniably political, much as I am uneasy agreeing with Doug on much of anything.

 

Everyone has access to the Alert system.

 

"A petty consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Am I quoting that correctly? Who is credited with saying it first? I'd give a no-prize to the first correct answer, but I don't know the answer myself at the moment.

[woodlawn]

>Will you admit to everyone that you're sending me blank

>e-mails to my e-mail account with subjects like "sad and

>pathetic" and "moron," or are you going to falsely deny that

>you're doing that because you're concerned that such behavior

>will conflict with your carefully crafted escort persona

>here?

 

Doug, old boy, any regular visitor to these boards who still believes in Rick's "carefully crafted escort persona" (or his repeated denials that he engages in personal attacks) simply hasn't been paying attention.

[Rick Munroe]

How, now just watch it, you two! It has taken me years to carefully craft this carefully crafted online persona: the one who makes people roll their eyes and groan with his juvenile, adolescent, sexually suggestive jokes; the one who pisses people off with his lame attempts at political activism; the one who has been called a blatant self-promoter so many times that I plan to have the phrase tattooed to my ass; and, oh yeah, the one who likes to make people smile, as I do in real life, too. Oh and don't let me forget that other great, well-crafted aspect of my image: that of a doll collector. There's nothing hotter to a client than knowing that a muscular stud loves Barbie, is there? So please don't do anything to shatter the myth that I am a real person with a brain, compassion and a passionate love of dolls, men and...well, dolls and men. But not in that order.

[woodlawn]

>How, now just watch it, you two! It has taken me years to

>carefully craft this carefully crafted online persona: the one

>who makes people roll their eyes and groan with his juvenile,

>adolescent, sexually suggestive jokes;

 

Oh no, it hasn't. You were like that from the beginning.

 

>the

>one who has been called a blatant self-promoter so many times

>that I plan to have the phrase tattooed to my ass;

 

The number of occasions on which you have been called a blatant self-promoter is not nearly as great as the number of times you have jumped into the middle of some thread to leave a post that has no apparent purpose other than calling attention to yourself.

 

>There's nothing hotter to a client than knowing that a

>muscular stud loves Barbie, is there?

 

Perhaps that applies to your clientele. But I don't know any gay men who measure another man's sexual attractiveness by the extent of his interest in playing with dolls.

[Fit In LA]

I had a big laugh when I read you describe yourself as a " muscular stud'.

I train hard 4 or 5 days a week here in Venice and I've seen several of your pics here. I'm sure my LBM is higher and my PBF is lower

than yours in the posted photos.

I consider myself lean and fit, but not highly muscular. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your physique in the mirror or in photos.

[Rick Munroe]

>I'm sure my LBM is higher and my

>PBF is lower

>than yours in the posted photos.

 

I've never measured the LBM and PBF of a posted photo. How does one do that? I guess I'm just not that computer savvy.

[Rick Munroe]

>I don't know any

>gay men who measure another man's sexual attractiveness by the

>extent of his interest in playing with dolls.

 

You also don't know sarcasm when you see it. :7

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Broader issues re: the MC

 

>(I’m sorry … Rick and Mary are forever

>entwined in my mind.)

 

I'd rather be entwined with Lou (he seems like he has a nice fat piece and I like cuddling with a teddy bear). But great post and ideas, Pac Man.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: Broader issues re: the MC

 

>>(I’m sorry … Rick and Mary are forever

>>entwined in my mind.)

>

>I'd rather be entwined with Lou (he seems like he has a nice

>fat piece and I like cuddling with a teddy bear). But great

>post and ideas, Pac Man.

 

 

Dear God...when this puppy comes along, can we please keep him/her out of these posts. All we need now are posters comparing Rick's ass to the dogs; which is firmer, tastier and who's tail gets all the looks in the park.

[Muscle Lover]

Hello LA Boy,

I had the exact same thought when I saw Mr. Munroe describe himself as a MUSCULAR JOCK. The appropriate term for this description would be Delusions Of Grandeur.

 

I think Mr. Munroe needs to spend some time at musclehunks.com

bigmuscle.com or muscleservice.com

[Guest Derek Ross]

I know you two are trying to get Rick riled up but it's not gonna work. However, I'm not Rick. I don't like your nasty attitude. So, why don't you go f*@# yourselves? Now there's some delusion of grandeur for ya.

[dannyrossmoore]

Well Boys, I've seen many pics of Rick Munroe and Derek Ross.

Certainly Rick is no Muscle Jock, but he's no twink either.

 

It's obvious Rick is not the one in that pair who spends time in the gym. But that's his business - mayube he enjoys political crusades

more than bodybuilding crusades.

 

Peace To All

[nice guy]

I agree with Derek. A "go f--- yourself" was overdue for that Doug character and a few others making personal attacks. Make your point people without name-calling please. You all know the saying about "the first one to raise their voice loses the argument." Rick has never made personal attacks on this site that have warranted this treatment. In fact, he seems to always try to quell arguments between others. Here he is discussing a subject, which granted, I know little about, but he obviously cares deeply about. This is the first time I've gotten worked up over the tone of a thread. What is wrong with you people? Everyone's opinion matters, but how can we even hear the message when it's wrapped in a diaper filled with shit?

[uptownmike]

When Rick Munroe posted pics of himself and then called himself a "muscle jock", he invited comments.

 

I haven't been down to Chelsea in 2 or 3 years, but the pics he has

posted are not my idea of a Chelsea muscle boy or jock.

A fit looking young guy YES............ muscle jock NO

[Rick Munroe]

>When Rick Munroe posted pics of himself and then called

>himself a "muscle jock", he invited comments.

 

LOL You people keep claiming this but I'd like to know: when did I ever do that? I have never posted photos of myself and then called myself a "muscle jock." I have never used the term "muscle jock" in my life. Now, I'm familiar with your posts, and those of dannyross, Muscle Lover, Fit in LA, and you guys either (a) worship steroidal bodybuilders like Ricky Starr or (b) hold conservative worldviews or © both. All of that is fine and I respect that. However, because I post things like the Microsoft thread, and don't fit your image of the ideal man, you dislike me and feel the need to go on the attack. It's very obvious and very silly. Well, here's a word I don't usually use but it fits here: whatever. :7

 

>I haven't been down to Chelsea in 2 or 3 years, but the pics

>he has

>posted are not my idea of a Chelsea muscle boy or jock.

 

I have never called myself a Chelsea muscle boy or jock. I may be the one with the famous ass, but you're making a bigger one of yourself right now. And since you haven't been to Chelsea in a while, I'll clue you in: "Chelsea boys" now refers to infants being pushed around in their strollers by straight Mommies. :o

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Clueless in Hooville and What's Wrong with the Privy?

 

>However, I’ve received emails from members

>in-the-know tipping me off as to How Things Are, which I

>actually have appreciated, but which reveal a shadow MC beyond

>this one.

 

LOL.... thanks for the break from the tedium. This is too funny. Has the Trilateral Commission come to Hooville? Sounds like a juicy Ludlum novel -- the Scarletti Inheritance? or The Scorpio Agenda? -- maybe this time with some hot sex. }(

 

It shows how far out in left field I guess I have been all this time and it going on right under my nose. :o Call me clueless. ;( I would like to know what the In-Crowd knows and would hope they would post the details. Even if it were to get purged at least that would be an interesting fact of note. If discretion is the better part of valor for those In-The-Know then an email of the details would be most informative and appreciated. My discretion is pledged.

 

Now for a totally different and less interesting issue:

 

>... here are a couple of suggestions for Daddy and the moderators.

>(1) Ditch the Politics, Religion & War forum.

>Open the Lounge to all discussions without imposing artificial restrictions.

 

I take strong exception to this suggestion. I see no problem with the Politics, Religion & War forum other than I think it should be called the Privy... in line with the Lounge and the Deli. Occasionally there is some interesting discussion held but more often a lot of idealogue crap with people talking past each other and sometimes when not then just name calling back and forth. Often a venue of foul odors and offensive noises. Sure life can exist anywhere and some flourishes even in a privy.

 

There surely can’t be anything

>more tedious than refereeing

>differences on the appropriateness of where certain opinions

>are expressed.

 

Yes there is. Stepping over the mounds of political bullshit invective often on display in the Privy.

 

Spare yourselves, and instead of pandering to

>the whiners who worry you with this, let them be the ones to

>lump it and exercise their own self-censorship to avoid

>threads that they don’t like.

 

Seems to me there are more whiners whining about the existence of the Privy than clamoring for it to be allocated floor space in the Lounge. Some things just are best left to the back room. Foul odors and noises are prime examples.

 

I cannot understand the periodic whining to open the Lounge up to Privy functions. No one is restricted from posting their views on Politics, Religion, or War there -- I've done it myself -- or from going to the Privy to read. Anyone that wants to can. Easy as pie. So this isn't a freedom of expression issue.

 

It seems to me that the only whining going on is by those who feel that their posts deserve a wider audience. Even though the general subject matter seems of little to no interest to the the wider audience. Those elections that leave the least doubt are those where people vote with their feet. In this case the stats back that up -- interest just isn't that great and that offends those people who feel they have something important to say.

 

Finally, if someone thinks that they have a politcal nugget of overriding importance and interest to the members-at-large they can always post in the Lounge an invitation to come see what the hullabaloo is all about. It is no secret in our society that advertising builds traffic.

 

>We are all, or we all better be, adults here.

 

Would that we all acted the part always.

[Flower]

>I agree with the Moderator.

>THis thread has been moved to the appropriate site.

 

Well, that settles that! Let's just pack this thread in.

 

However, the problem with moving a thread that has wide appeal is that many of us don't go to the "politics forums" or whatever the hell they're called simply because it is just a bunch of haranguing assholes who entertain easily by reading what they write. That type of banishment should be reserved to typical political battles in general, such as the ongoing dispute over social security reform, term limits or a group of issues that has generated much rhetoric, the Palestinian vs. Israeli issues--issues with no likily solution, at least here.

 

Those are a type of political arguments that many people salivate to address with long, dramatic posts that consume undue amounts of time, energy and space without accomplishing anything!

 

Rick's call to action is not such an animal. While I didn't feel compelled to boycott Microsoft for making an obviously profit-business like decision, however cowardly, I appreciated being informed of this timely gay related issue, as Rick has done for all of us over the years. His calls to action on those occasions, while maybe not having universal appeal here, certainly are informative, timely and almost always in the best interest of gay men all over. To relegate that to the dungeons of a little read forum is in my opinion a mistake and disservice to all of us--it's simply NOT politics in the sense of the term which caused the creation of those little visited archives of boredom.

 

I think the moderators should use some wisdom, thought and discretion rather than take a knee-jerk action whenever they get an alert. As a favorite President of mine said, Rules make decisions easy, but rob them of wisdom!"

[Rick Munroe]

Flower, thanks for being the voice of reason (as usual). I do want to make some things clear, though:

>Rick's call to action is not such an animal. While I didn't

>feel compelled to boycott Microsoft for making an obviously

>profit-business like decision, however cowardly,

 

There is no boycott being organized (at least, not that I know of, and definitely not mentioned in my post). And I don't believe that Microsoft's decision to abandon support for gay rights was profit motivated; actually, many people are scratching their heads, trying to figure out exactly why it was done. But my post was merely a call to, if anyone so desired, help the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center (the largest in the nation) get its award back. That was it. Whether anyone thinks that is childish or useless or not, that was all my post was about.

 

>His calls to action on

>those occasions, while maybe not having universal appeal here,

>certainly are informative, timely and almost always in the

>best interest of gay men all over.

 

That's what I thought! But it's seeming more and more to me that few people on this site care to hear about issues which should be of importance to most gay men, so this will be my last thread of that type. Boy, have I learned my lesson. ;(

 

P.S. And for the record, I do not have any feelings about Microsoft, good or bad, one way or the other. I have Windows XP on my computer; that's about the extent of my knowlege and interest in Microsoft and Bill Gates.

[dannyrossmoore]

Mr Munroe:

See your post 4932 just above where you escribe yourself as a

MUSCULAR STUD.

 

I've seen several of your pics here. You can call yourself a

Muscular Stud or anything else you want.

I respectfully disagree with your self assessment.

[Doug69]

>I've seen several of your pics here. You can call yourself a

>Muscular Stud or anything else you want.

>I respectfully disagree with your self assessment.

 

Isn't the term "muscular" a very relative one?

 

There is a group of people - quite small, thankfully - who glorify inflated, steroid-drunk monsters who are bulging with unnaturally large muscles. To them, anyone who falls "short" of that freakish enormity has no right to describe themselves as "muscular."

 

But, to most of the population, "muscular" means someone in very good shape with clear definition and visible, hard muscles - as opposed to being, say, chubby or thin - and what passes for "muscular" at places like muscleservice.com is, to a huge majority of the population, more aptly described as repulsive and unnatural.

 

I ain't no fan, to put it mildly, of Rick's postings here - as this thread and others demonstrate - but I think it's hard to say that he's not muscular. If you're one of the drooling sycophants at Muscleservice.com who crave steroid-based aberrations, he may not be muscular, but his body objectively meets the standard that most people have for that term.

 

As for Derek, I can personally attest to his muscularity. If I had to make a list of the top 5 hottest escorts I've ever hired, Derek would definitely be on it, due in no small part to his extremely hard, defined muscles.

 

Rick's postings here are often juvenile, thoughtless caricatures of a gay liberal cliche. The postings of escorts should be fair game like anyone else's. But mocking an escort's appearance as retaliation for their postings is just stupid, and usually a sign of the person's inability to mock the content and substance of the escort's posts -- especially when, as here, the critique is so clearly inaccurate and a by-product of the very narrow, distorted fetishes of the complainers.

[danknight2005]

Dan Knight 2005

 

Rick Munroe described himself as a muscular stud. Other posters have commented that they agree or disagree with that assessment.

The only out of bounds post I've seen is Derek Ross cursing at

other posters for simply stating their opinion.

 

For the record, I agree with the above guy about Mr Munroe -

fit but not muscular. Just my 2 cents opinion.

[BuckyXTC]

But mocking an

>escort's appearance as retaliation for their postings is just

>stupid, and usually a sign of the person's inability to mock

>the content and substance of the escort's posts -- especially

>when, as here, the critique is so clearly inaccurate and a

>by-product of the very narrow, distorted fetishes of the

>complainers.

>

 

Doug, there may be times when I'd like to give you a good thump on the head, but there are also times when I want to applaud you. This is one of those latter times, so take a bow.

 

Frankly, I think Derek was well within the bounds of good taste to tell those who decided they would take us off topic by making personal attacks on Rick's physique to go fuck themselves.

 

I've had my disagreements with Rick on various issues, but I've never felt inclined to make it personal, because it has been my experience that Rick doesn't make it personal.

 

Agree or disagree with Rick on the issues, but I think the whole muscular discussion is a crock of bullshit, and has nothing to do with what this thread was about.

[woodlawn]

>You also don't know sarcasm when you see it.

 

I usually do, Rick, but when it comes to someone for whom virtually ALL of his posts seem to me utterly absurd, it isn't easy to tell which are meant to be taken seriously and which are not.

 

For example, your statement that you don't understand why calling on Microsoft to return that award would be considered political -- is that statement meant to be taken seriously or as sarcasm? I really can't tell.

 

For the record, like PACNW I see no reason why threads about or touching on political issues need to be quarantined in a separate part of the MC, when anyone who is too sensitive to endure the rough and tumble of a political discussion can simply pass them by. People who come here to read and discuss nothing more profound than the size of some escort's dick or which show-business wannabe has just been eliminated from some moronic reality show are free to limit themselves to those subjects no matter where those threads and others are placed. I would have left your thread where it was.