This IS becoming, Hitler's MC

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

Replies to this subthread

RE: BEST WISHES TO BENJAMEN NICHOLAS-GROUP HUG, skywalker, Apr 25th 2005, #26

RE: BEST WISHES TO BENJAMEN NICHOLAS-GROUP HUG, Benjamin_Nicholas, Apr 25th 2005, #28

Deleted message, ChgoBoy, Apr 25th 2005, #29

Deleted message, ChgoBoy, Apr 25th 2005, #27

 

If you look at the above info, you will see my two deleted posts of which I speak. Post #27 was prior to BN request to lock the thread.

Post #29 was my post after BN's response.....These are the two of which I speak. They were deleted as your system indicates here. The request I made for a deletion earlier in the day, HAD NOTHING to do with this thread.

[Guest 8mile]

Mr. Jay Ganymede.

 

One day same sex marriage will be legal in the state of California.

 

As Usual

Zachary

[Barry]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

Well I went back and looked at the thread and clearly #27 was deleted as it shows a gap in the reply counter. I can't tell about #29 since the last current reply is #28.

 

Since none of the moderators appear to have deleted any replies that leaves Daddy...so we'll have to wait to hear from him.

 

Barry

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>Well I went back and looked at the thread and clearly #27 was

>deleted as it shows a gap in the reply counter. I can't tell

>about #29 since the last current reply is #28.

>

>Since none of the moderators appear to have deleted any

>replies that leaves Daddy...so we'll have to wait to hear from

>him.

>

>Barry

 

Well Barry, we all know what happened to post #29 as well as my third deleted message in Rick Monroe's thread yesterday which started all of this. I find it very surprising that Deej wanted to push this all off on user error and couldn't confirm the facts that I have presented here. To quote Shakespere..."Credibility and life are inter-twined, take away my credibility and you take away my life"

[kimly982]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>Well I went back and looked at the thread and clearly #27 was

>deleted as it shows a gap in the reply counter. I can't tell

>about #29 since the last current reply is #28.

>

>Since none of the moderators appear to have deleted any

>replies that leaves Daddy...so we'll have to wait to hear from

>him.

>

>Barry

 

We wait, and we save this thread.

It is not at all personal, BN; not at all,

we do care very much.

 

the issue here is policy and tradition.

 

 

HooBoy: RIP

[Doug69]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>the issue here is policy and tradition.

>

>HooBoy: RIP

 

Recruiting Hooboy to claim support for your position when he can't speak for himself is not just offensive, but in this case, totally misleading.

 

HB had many positive attributes, but a belief in an uncensored, free-ranging board was definitely NOT one of them.

 

Although he tended not to want to involve himself frequently in the disputes on this Board, he did periodically come and defend the deletions, thread-locking, and other similar actions of the moderators which are under attack here. He also made expressly and unambiguously clear that he wanted to have a Board with a certain civility and tenor, and believed in - and, on several occasions, himself implemented - post-deletions and thread-locking.

 

As a proponent of the idea that message Boards are WAY more interesting and vibrant when uncensored - and as someone who believes that such censoring rules are almost always applied inconsistently and even corruptly - I never agreed with him on any of that, and still don't. But that doesn't change the fact that he repeatedly advocated exactly the measures here which are being criticized.

 

So invoking his name to further your anti-censorship arguments is not only distasteful, but just outright inaccurate.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>So invoking his name to further your anti-censorship arguments

>is not only distasteful, but just outright inaccurate.

 

Those were not my words nor post, just to clarify.

[kimly982]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

i stand corrected; and do believe that he would have not wanted to see BN in pain.

[Doug69]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>

>>So invoking his name to further your anti-censorship

>arguments

>>is not only distasteful, but just outright inaccurate.

>

>Those were not my words nor post, just to clarify.

 

Yes and no. Although I responded directly to Kimly, who invoked HB inaccurately to defend his anti-censorhip position, you did the same exact thing in your first post, when you wrote:

 

<<THis site has become, IMO, the last thing HOO ever invisioned it to be. When you start deleting and censoring thought....YOU CAN KISS MY ASS>>

 

I agree with the arguments you are making about the Board. But Hooboy made clear numerous times that he did not. He defended the moderators actions that you are criticizing; himself invoked the same measures; and made clear that he believed in their value.

 

So you can make the anti-censorship arguments all you want, but you can't claim - as you did - that thread-locking and post-deletions are contrary to the vision HB had for this Board. He advocated, allowed and even invoked those exact measures himself.

[Barry]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

OK...I went back again and see the post #29 you are referring to. I hadn't thought to look at the "Last Updated" column.

 

I've known Deej a long time and I can say with some certainty that he isn't hiding or pushing anything off. He asked if anyone deleted your posts in the Mod forum. If he had deleted them or knew who did he would have no problem saying so. Trust me on that.

 

His suggestion that you may have hit Preview isn't surprising at all since it has been a not uncommon cause of people wondering where their posts went. Could he have discovered that there were 2 missing posts? Yes had he spent the time and had the inclination to do so. It took me three seperate reviews to confirm what you said. BUT since neither he, nor I deleted those posts AND you started this thread referencing Hitler, why should we spend the time? You throw out accusations aimed in general at the moderators. We coddle certain escorts and censor out POV's we don't condone. I choose not to participate in your conspiracy theories because there is no conspiracy. My crystal ball is cracked and the service contract has expired so while I'm not certain, it appears Daddy may have deleted your posts. Since he doesn't get to the MC all that often maybe you should email him and ask.

 

To be honest, once you strip out all the drama from your original post, I pretty much agree with your question/concern.

 

Oh and please don't presume to know Hoo's vision for the MC. You have no idea.

 

Aside from all of this, since you're a fellow Chicagoan you can't be all that bad a guy. }(

 

Barry

[BewareofNick]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

So, they lock a thread because a favored escort asks them to.

Another thread starts to decry that locking which takes on a larger life than the original thread ever did, thus bringing renewed attention to the locked thread, as well as the favored son policies that have always ruled the MC.

 

I understand locking the thread in the Politics Forum where Ethan and I were arguing. Makes sense. This doesn't, but as Doug says, it does make it more interesting.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>>

>>>So invoking his name to further your anti-censorship

>>arguments

>>>is not only distasteful, but just outright inaccurate.

>>

>>Those were not my words nor post, just to clarify.

>

>Yes and no. Although I responded directly to Kimly, who

>invoked HB inaccurately to defend his anti-censorhip position,

>you did the same exact thing in your first post, when you

>wrote:

>

><<THis site has become, IMO, the last thing HOO ever

>invisioned it to be. When you start deleting and censoring

>thought....YOU CAN KISS MY ASS>>

>

>I agree with the arguments you are making about the Board.

>But Hooboy made clear numerous times that he did not. He

>defended the moderators actions that you are criticizing;

>himself invoked the same measures; and made clear that he

>believed in their value.

>

>So you can make the anti-censorship arguments all you want,

>but you can't claim - as you did - that thread-locking and

>post-deletions are contrary to the vision HB had for this

>Board. He advocated, allowed and even invoked those exact

>measures himself.

 

Doug, I stand corrected on what HooBoy's vision was. My comment was self-serving.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>OK...I went back again and see the post #29 you are referring

>to. I hadn't thought to look at the "Last Updated" column.

 

Thank you for that effort Barry.

 

>I've known Deej a long time and I can say with some certainty

>that he isn't hiding or pushing anything off. He asked if

>anyone deleted your posts in the Mod forum. If he had deleted

>them or knew who did he would have no problem saying so.

>Trust me on that.

 

I'd like to Barry, but I think trust might be down the road a ways for me after this...

>

>His suggestion that you may have hit Preview isn't surprising

>at all since it has been a not uncommon cause of people

>wondering where their posts went. Could he have discovered

>that there were 2 missing posts? Yes had he spent the time

>and had the inclination to do so. It took me three seperate

>reviews to confirm what you said. BUT since neither he, nor I

>deleted those posts AND you started this thread referencing

>Hitler, why should we spend the time?

 

Well Barry, Deej asked me for details. He stated he was very interested in getting to the bottom of this. I provided him details/facts that I was surprised that I found. Facts that supported 3 deletions. Deej did some "polling", which from this end, seems to have been lip service.

 

>To be honest, once you strip out all the drama from your

>original post, I pretty much agree with your

>question/concern.

 

I dont think, Barry, that it's unreasonable to be upset about having 3 posts deleted to satisy the whim of an escort. I take "our" right of free expression and speech very seriously. I'm sure you do too.

 

>Oh and please don't presume to know Hoo's vision for the MC.

>You have no idea.

 

I stand corrected on what HooBoy's vision was for this center. I have no idea. My comment was self-serving at the time and was inappropriate.

 

>Aside from all of this, since you're a fellow Chicagoan you

>can't be all that bad a guy. }(

 

I can only say that I have many friends and hold their friendships dear to my heart.

 

 

ChgoBoy

[PacNW]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>Doug, I stand corrected on what HooBoy's vision was. My

>comment was self-serving.

>

A rare enough occurrence on these boards to merit a nod of acknowledgment. Nicely done.

[seaboy4hire]

Greg as in me?

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>Greg as in me?

>

>Hugs,

>Greg

>Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

>http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html

>http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

 

Greg, that confused me too...must have been one of those "where am I" moments....lol

[Guest ncm2169]

Having just read the locked thread to see what all the fuss is about, I have to agree that the fact it was locked as soon as BN requested it be locked reflects poorly on both BN and whoever locked it. I'm not sure which is more offensive: BN's arrogant expectation that he could snap his fingers and get his way, or the combined subservience and heavy handedness of whoever locked it.

 

Vague allusions here to BN's good and valid reasons for his petulance ring hollow. By my count, BN was content to bask in the glow of 24 expressions of sympathy for his very unfortunate family situation - I'll add mine here belatedly - but as soon as he got 2 less than complimentary comments he threw a hissy fit. IMHO, any defense he had for his intemperate reaction (grieving, trauma, etc.) was no longer available to him when he left his mother's bedside to fly to London and then joked about it.

[+ deej]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

First, I owe you an apology. I've now had time to review the thread and was surprised to find your posts missing. They were there when the thread was locked!

 

>Well Barry, Deej asked me for details. He stated he was very

>interested in getting to the bottom of this. I provided him

>details/facts that I was surprised that I found. Facts that

>supported 3 deletions. Deej did some "polling", which from

>this end, seems to have been lip service.

 

You seem pretty comfortable throwing around accusations about things you know nothing about. (I'm betting that's what got your original posts deleted, too. IIRC they were pretty accusatory.) It's how you started this thread and how you continue to pursue it.

 

>I dont think, Barry, that it's unreasonable to be upset about

>having 3 posts deleted to satisy the whim of an escort. I take

>"our" right of free expression and speech very seriously. I'm

>sure you do too.

 

You have no rights here. Can that line of thought right now. This is a privately owned and operated forum and you are a guest. Posts may be deleted here at any time at the sole discretion of the site owner or his agents. Deal with it. THAT reality ain't gonna change just because you get your panties in a twist.

[PacNW]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>You have no rights here. Can that line of thought right now.

>This is a privately owned and operated forum and you are a

>guest. Posts may be deleted here at any time at the sole

>discretion of the site owner or his agents. Deal with it. THAT

>reality ain't gonna change just because you get your panties

>in a twist.

 

"You know, I invest a lot of effort fighting for YOUR posting rights here."

 

Would you please reconcile those two statements of yours from the last 24 hours.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>First, I owe you an apology. I've now had time to review the

>thread and was surprised to find your posts missing. They were

>there when the thread was locked!

>

>>Well Barry, Deej asked me for details. He stated he was very

>>interested in getting to the bottom of this. I provided him

>>details/facts that I was surprised that I found. Facts that

>>supported 3 deletions. Deej did some "polling", which from

>>this end, seems to have been lip service.

>

>You seem pretty comfortable throwing around accusations about

>things you know nothing about. (I'm betting that's what got

>your original posts deleted, too. IIRC they were pretty

>accusatory.) It's how you started this thread and how you

>continue to pursue it.

>

>>I dont think, Barry, that it's unreasonable to be upset

>about

>>having 3 posts deleted to satisy the whim of an escort. I

>take

>>"our" right of free expression and speech very seriously.

>I'm

>>sure you do too.

>

>You have no rights here. Can that line of thought right now.

>This is a privately owned and operated forum and you are a

>guest. Posts may be deleted here at any time at the sole

>discretion of the site owner or his agents. Deal with it. THAT

>reality ain't gonna change just because you get your panties

>in a twist.

 

Well Deej, your apology lasted for about 5 seconds more than my three posts did. I find your apology as genuine as your attempt to resolve my complaint. With that said, I accept your apology. If I am no more than just a guest here, than I suggest you drop the registery process you require to become part of this MC. That is simply contradictory to the whole process.

 

You know Deej, this will be my last post here as your attitude is nothing more than inflamatory here as apposed to reconciling. You apology to me then inflame the situation all over again. If I have no rights here, than neither do you. I guess from your comment, nobody here has any rights and that simply goes against anything that any legit message board would reflect. You're pissed, cause somebody stood up to you and you were found to be wrong. Not only wrong, but then condesending in your lack of credibility for how you failed a registered member of this board. Deej, you've failed on ALL accounts here, but most importantly you've failed yourself as a human being and all that entails.

 

Respectively,

 

ChgoBoy

[kimly982]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>

>You have no rights here. Can that line of thought right now.

>This is a privately owned and operated forum and you are a

>guest. Posts may be deleted here at any time at the sole

>discretion of the site owner or his agents.

 

 

 

Who does own the site, and who are his agents?

[+ deej]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>Who does own the site, and who are his agents?

 

Dunno who owns it. Last I heard, it wasn't settled yet.

 

The operator is Daddy, and the agents are the moderators.

[+ deej]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>"You know, I invest a lot of effort fighting for YOUR posting

>rights here."

>

>Would you please reconcile those two statements of yours from

>the last 24 hours.

 

I should have said privileges. I apologize for my mistake.

[+ deej]

RE: Inquiring minds want to know

 

>If I am no more than just a guest here, than I

>suggest you drop the registery process you require to become

>part of this MC. That is simply contradictory to the whole

>process.

 

Registration process? That's a hoot. All you had to do was provide a posting name, password, email address, and your gender. (And that last bit only because it's the only one we can't turn off.)

 

>You know Deej, this will be my last post here

 

We'll start a pool for how long it will take before you try to create a new ID.

 

>obody here has any rights and that

>simply goes against anything that any legit message board

>would reflect.

 

Oh? Try posting the kind of bullshit you have here in an AOL chat room. You won't last very long before AOL nukes your screen name. Or try pretty much any privately run message board. The operators have the final say.

 

>You're pissed, cause somebody stood up to you

>and you were found to be wrong.

 

Actually I admitted I was wrong and apologized for it, as I have done before. Many times over the years.

 

>condesending in your lack of credibility for how you failed a

>registered member of this board.

 

You pay about as much to use this board as I make for putting up with your bullshit. If you want service, earn it. The volunteers here might bend over backwards for you. Although you've pretty much screwed the pooch on that count by now.

 

>Respectively,

 

Entertaining malapropism.

[Chuck50]

I think we will all be surprised to see who owns it in the end. Maybe HB wanted one thing and another happended or maybe he planned it this way. HUGS Chuck