A call for Amnesty and reconciliation.

[hed4str8]

RE: More Hate Speech, Please

 

So, Woodenhead, while your pal gets his beauty sleep (already seriously overdue), I guess you're the on-duty spokesperson for the Mean Girls club. Fine.

 

>Chgo can't be accused of insulting the

>people you mention behind their backs and praising them to

>their faces because, as we all know, those very people rush

>over to the other board to read it whenever they get the

>chance -- not that they'd ever admit it.

 

Well, if you were so sure they were/are hanging on your every word, that makes ChiChi a dunce as well as a hypocrite. Why did he waste his time (and ours) with his 1,000-word tributes to civility and good sense, knowing that he wasn't fooling anyone from the get-go?

 

The answer takes us back to my very first point. The guy can't keep from grandstanding. He's gotta jump up and down, screaming LOOK AT ME!--no matter where he is or what the circumstances are. And that's his dilemma right now. Craving the widest possible audience for his rants, he NEEDS to be here. The little sandbox just won't do--except as a place where can revile the people he sucks up to here, and do so, as he thinks, with impunity. He wants to play the rebel, but won't accept the consequences.

 

Loopier still is his oddly legalistic view of things. Ranting beyond the reach of censorship, he further imagines he MUST be spared banishment from here on the technical grounds that his assaults on the moderators--and, indeed, the site itself--are committed elsewhere. You know, off-shore. . .

 

The parallel isn't perfect, but, somehow, this makes me think of people who are surprised to learn that the Roman Catholic Church

isn't a democratic institution. So, while I'm not up to parsing the rules & regulations around here, I can't understand why known--indeed, self-declared--hellraisers shouldn't just be banned 'arbitrarily'. Who would miss them? And where, pray, would they go to appeal their banishment? The World Court?

 

>

>>you'd invite the very victims of your spiteful rants to

>>see the appalling things you say about them--and expect them

>>to take it all in stride because, well, it was posted in the

>>sandbox, not over here?

>

>But that's exactly what they'll have to do -- unless they

>admit that they're actually reading what's posted on the other

>board. And such an admission would be EXTREMELY hypocritical

>of them, wouldn't it? After the huge enormous fuss they've

>made about the need to exclude "hate speech" from this board,

>to admit that they go to the other board to enjoy reading the

>very type of thing they've banned here would make them look

>like a bunch of fucking jackasses...

 

Huh?

 

Choosing to read filth and calumny heaped on one's head is not reading for pleasure--though it is, admittedly, a guilty pleasure for others. The Mean Girls doing their worst is lots of fun, especially when they start clawing one another. But who here has ever denied reading their riffs and tantrums? Where's the hypocrisy?

 

 

>I must point out that what you have already said in this post

>shows that YOU are one of those who read the other board.

>Why? If you find the stuff that is banned here so unpleasant,

>why do you go to a place where you KNOW you will be assaulted

>by it? Hypocrite!

>

 

 

Again--huh?

 

Listening to queens bitch isn't ipso facto unpleasant: as I just said, it can be fun. (And pretty tedious, too.) The real problem with having it here is that it's DISRUPTIVE of what most people come here to do.

 

So I have the perfect solution to the whole impasse. Let the moderators summarily banned whomever they please, and if anyone protests that action (highly doubtful), let them go over to the sandbox, read the postings, and understand why it happened. That guarantees pest control here and an increased viewership for the sandbox (though most of visitors there will be mute with horror), so everybody should be happy.

 

Except for ChiChi! You see, when it comes to grandstanding, only the largest available showcase will do. And even that won't be enough.

Like any true addiction, it's a craving that can never be sated.

[Guest zipperzone]

>But it's more fun that way...like an anonymous group gang bang

>in the dark (hey, if I can't do it in real life, I can

>fantasize, can't I?). }(

 

Just so long as you don't use the "W" word

[Guest zipperzone]

RE:

 

>>>Before I go out for a smoke ...

>>

>>http://www.miki-reisen.de/Japan/eur%20tusin/engrand%20smoking%20kill/smoking%20kill0133.jpg

>> :+ :+

>

>

>Hey Steven, what's up? yes it does, but no more so than

>hed4str8's behavior, which is that of an idiot.

 

I thought we were not supposed to call people idiots anymore!

[noviceny]

RE:

 

"Do you have anything you did for which you should seek contrition, or is that just something for others to do while you watch over them?"

 

Yes, these are the things for which I ask my brothers to forgive me, for I have done them through my own thought, word and deed, in what I have done and what I have failed to do.

 

1) I am sorry for living years with internalized homophobia

 

2) I am sorry that I didnt love who I am at an earlier age

 

3) I am sorry that I went in to detail about my first time and the fecal movements that may have ensued

 

4) I am sorry for the anger I felt towards trilingual as I read his posts on the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church

 

5) I am sorry for downloading and masturbating to 3 pics from BN's eye candy pics...we seem to have VERY similar tastes

[noviceny]

Contrition Continued

 

Also I have to say sorry to my mom who is probably very disappointed that I am reading and responding to this website.

 

And now for my Act of Contrition. The first line is based on a CCD class that I taught to 5th graders, where they had to write out the Act of Contrition :

 

"Oh my God I am Hardly sorry for having offended Thee

And I detest all of my sins because of Thy Just Punishment

But most of all cause others have offended me and dont deserve all my love.

I firmly resolve to sin some more and avoid all occasions of grace.

Amen

[BobbyThompson]

>How about someone, such as yourself, who calls for other

>gentlemen who are members here to be excluded from our club,

>or who applauds their exclusion in front of other members. A

>lot of people might find that speech to be pretty hateful. I

>know I do.

>

>So you do support the deletion of your own posts and your

>banishment from this forum based on how hateful your comments

>are? <EDIT> Or is it, as I suspect, that a post is only "hateful" and >"unprovoked hostility" when it's directed against people you

>like, but is perfectly fine when directed against people you

>don't like, or when spat out by you?

 

There is nothing "gentlemanly" about posting a fellow member's REAL name along with a picture of his license plate number, or maliciously posting spurious rumors/comments about others. You are a smart guy and I'm sure that you see the drastic difference between me saying that I am certainly not going to miss this kind of behavior, and the behavior itself.

 

Whomever I like and dislike on the board is moot. Don't break the rules...and the moderators will determine who do, not me.

 

Bobby

[Guest Conway]

Personally, I hope he doesn't let most of them back in. Most of them demonstrated their inability to interact civilly with other humans in such a way that no second chance is justified.

[Doug69]

>Bobby was being civil. You are being hostile. One is

>respectful, the other is not.

 

Uncle, if it was YOU whose explusion nephew Bobby was calling for and advocating, I doubt you'd find it quite as "civil" and "respectful." In a Gentleman's Club, I can't think of behavior more uncivil and disrespectful than publicly urging that one's fellow members be booted out on their ass.

 

Your post perfectly illustrates the central problem with Bobby's point about "hate speech." A post that expresses disagreement - even respectfully - with someone whom you like or lustily crave (as my post to Bobby did) will be seen by you as "hateful" and "hostile" - not because it is, but because you don't like to see the opinions of your boys aggressively criticized. But the same exact type of post - when written BY one of your boys - will be seen as respectful, nice, great, charming, and hot.

 

There was no difference in tone, substance or courtesy betewen my post and Bobby's. The only difference is that we expressed different opinions about the controversial topic of "hate speech." And the only actual difference that mattered to you, Uncle, was that he's a smooth, boyishly appealing 19-year old nephew twink whom you don't want to see criticized and whom you like to protect.

 

That's always the problem with trying to ferret out "hate speech" - it always all depends on who is doing the talking and at whom the talking is directed.

[Boston Guy]

I've been thinking about this topic ever since ChgoBoy posted it. I believe very strongly in the concept of reconciliation and often urge people to drop grudges and reconcile with those from whom they may be estranged. It's common to see family members who were once close completely at odds with each other, often over some trivial event that happened a long time ago. I think that's sad. We're only on this planet for such a short time. Why waste any of that time being bitter?

 

I also believe in forgiveness. It's healthy, especially for the one engaging in it. But we all have to have standards for what we'll forgive and what we won't. Otherwise, you just go through life being walked on.

 

BoN did something I think no one should ever do at M4M or any other similar Internet message board: he published personally identifying information about another poster. It doesn't matter, to me at least, that the information might have been available to other people had they been clever enough to ferret it out on the Internet. He published it here and he was wrong to do so.

 

But he also seems to recognize that now. He's admitted it publicly on the other site. He posted that he's dropping all attempts to do it again, won't even email the photos again and genuinely feels remorseful.

 

I like BofN and think he's a decent guy. He does seem to be capable of holding a grudge, and acting on it, for a long time. But he's hardly alone in that and, most of the time, other people don't get hurt. In fact, readers here at M4M have been the beneficiary of his actions at various times as he tracked down one problem escort or another.

 

Reading posts at the "other" site makes me far less inclined to be sympathetic toward others who are posting there. There aren't many of them and they're all pretty much familiar names from M4M. Comparing their posts here and there leads one to the inescapable conclusion that what they are saying here isn't genuinely reflective of their true feelings, to say the least. It's kind of like hosting a party and having your guests compliment you highly on the event and then going to another party and having the same people tear you down publicly while you were standing three feet away. These are not people that I would choose to invite back to my home for another dinner.

 

But choosing not to like -- or, more accurately, respect -- someone isn't quite the same thing as deciding if they're worthy of forgiveness or some kind of amnesty program.

 

Chgoboy's best argument, to my way of thinking, is not in the specific case but rather a general call for a fresh start. There's something that seems kind of healthy for that and I think M4M would benefit from it.

 

But I'm not the ones who have to deal with the grief that comes when people start causing problems. Daddy and the moderators have to take that abuse. And I'm not Deej. I didn't have my personal information spread around. He's the one who has to deal with the impact of that on his day-to-day life. Anyone who has ever had their home broken into knows well that the feeling of safety that you have in your own home can be taken quickly but is regained only slowly. I have to think that Deej must be feeling similar things.

 

Bottom line: I guess I hold with those who would recommend a fresh start, a general amnesty and a strict sticking to the new rules (which are hardly different than the old rules). If I were in charge, that's what I would do. Not for the guys who are busily putting down M4M and its members over on the bitter site, but for M4M itself. If both sides are genuine about it -- a big if -- it's a really healthy thing to do.

 

But if Daddy and the moderators feel like they've just taken too much grief and don't want to risk more of the same, well, that's a pretty human kind of decision to make. If they make that choice, I'm not going to criticize them for it. I haven't had to walk a mile in their shoes. My day-to-day life hasn't been made more difficult by the actions of the people we're talking about. I'm not trying to run a business that has been threatened by their actions. And there's no getting around that there have to be consequences for breaking the rules. Otherwise, why have rules?

 

The rules have been pretty much the same for years. Everyone knew them or at least should have. We're only discussing if transgressors should be allowed back in, not if they broke rules that called for their expulsion.

 

Bottom line: I'd go for it but will respect whatever decision Daddy and the moderators come to.

 

BG

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: A response to hed4str8

 

>Lord, how you blather on! (Both here and in your little

>EZBoard sandbox.) How do you find the time?

>

>I didn't accuse you of being a hypocrite--but, of course,

>that's precisely what you are, among so many other

>unattractive things.

>

>If you characterize someone (Boston Guy) as pompous, pious old

>windbag (and worse) when you're among your buddies, then come

>over here and praise him for his wisdom and

>'eloquence'--that's hypocritical.

 

You're a liar, hed4str8. I have not made one post anywhere about Boston Guy, calling him pompous, pious old windbag or anything else you decry here. If the best you can do is lie about someone to get the attention of others, maybe you should take up a knitting class or something. Are there posts from posters about BG on the site? Yes. So what? People have opinions, unlike you that just has lies.

 

 

>And it's even more

>hypocritical to paint someone (Daddy) as a liar and a thief

>plotting to defraud a bereaved mother and boyfriend of their

>rightful inheritance, and then, a few days later, defer to him

>'respectfully' in self-important postings to this forum.

 

Again, hed4str8, you're a liar and a pretty bad one at that. I'll just ditto my above comments about BG here to save my time.

 

What

>other word but 'hypocritical' applies here? Tell us--you who

>spew so many words in so many places.

 

You must watch Fox News.

 

>But maybe you've just gone round the bend. Or maybe those

>smoke breaks you allude to don't involve your usual Virginia

>Slims.

 

What I smoke and where I smoke is no concern of yours.

>

>Are you SO hungry for attention (READ MY POSTINGS, PLEASE!!!!)

>that you'd invite the very victims of your spiteful rants to

>see the appalling things you say about them--and expect them

>to take it all in stride because, well, it was posted in the

>sandbox, not over here?

 

http://p101.ezboard.com/frevoltrevolt20873frm2

 

 

>If that sort of self-defeating behavior doesn't prove a

>compulsion to grandstand that borders on the pathological,

>nothing I can say will.

 

Nothing you say means a thing to me. Call Dr. Phil, I think he has an opening today.

>

>

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: A response to hed4str8

 

And let me add just this one last thought. I do not associate myself with every post on the other site as you obviously do not here. BUT I do associate myself with the right for it to be said, whether I agree with it or not. There's a big difference there, perhaps you might even be able to see that.

[woodlawn]

RE: More Hate Speech, Please

 

>

>So, Woodenhead,

 

Uh-oh! This looks suspiciously like a personal attack. Guess it's time for me to hit the Alert button, right? LOL!

 

>while your pal gets his beauty sleep (already

>seriously overdue), I guess you're the on-duty spokesperson

>for the Mean Girls club. Fine.

 

It's not a duty, shitass, it's a pleasure to expose the hypocrisy of you and your ilk. I get off on it.

 

>Well, if you were so sure they were/are hanging on your every

>word, that makes ChiChi a dunce as well as a hypocrite. Why

>did he waste his time (and ours) with his 1,000-word tributes

>to civility and good sense, knowing that he wasn't fooling

>anyone from the get-go?

 

Because, numbskull, he isn't trying to fool anyone about anything. He is simply obeying the customs of one board when he is there, and the other board when he is there -- which is more than we can say for you.

 

> He wants to play the rebel, but

>won't accept the consequences.

 

The fallacy of your statement is obvious. At least one prominent poster on the other site has already announced that he has been banned from this site, not because of anything he ever posted here but because of what he posted there. So Chgo must be fully aware that he risks 'consequences' here by posting there.

 

>Loopier still is his oddly legalistic view of things. Ranting

>beyond the reach of censorship, he further imagines he MUST be

>spared banishment from here on the technical grounds that his

>assaults on the moderators--and, indeed, the site itself--are

>committed elsewhere. You know, off-shore. . .

 

As I've already explained, your reasoning is fatally defective. See above.

 

> So, while I'm not up to

>parsing the rules & regulations around here, I can't

>understand why known--indeed, self-declared--hellraisers

>shouldn't just be banned 'arbitrarily'. Who would miss them?

>And where, pray, would they go to appeal their banishment?

>The World Court?

 

 

You are not only not up to parsing them, you are not up to following them -- since you've broken them by engaging in personal attacks in this very thread. In fact, you are one of the very people whom you are proposing should be banned arbitrarily from this site. And that is fine with me.

 

As to who would miss them, I would. Among others.

 

>Choosing to read filth and calumny heaped on one's head is not

>reading for pleasure

 

Then why do they -- and you -- do it? Is someone paying you to do it? Someone holding a gun to your head? I can't think of any other reason for doing something you don't WANT to do.

 

--though it is, admittedly, a guilty

>pleasure for others. The Mean Girls doing their worst is lots

>of fun, especially when they start clawing one another. But

>who here has ever denied reading their riffs and tantrums?

>Where's the hypocrisy?

 

The hypocrisy is in making a huge fuss about banning content from this site, while sneaking off to enjoy the very same content on another site. A clergyman preaches a fiery sermon against porn; the next day, a visiting parishioner mistakenly opens a closet door in the clergyman's house, only to see a huge stack of back issues of Hustler topple out. The implication seems mighty obvious.

 

>Listening to queens bitch isn't ipso facto unpleasant: as I

>just said, it can be fun. (And pretty tedious, too.) The real

>problem with having it here is that it's DISRUPTIVE of what

>most people come here to do.

 

How do YOU know what most people come here to do? Or that they consider a certain type of content disruptive? Answer: you don't; you just like to make up shit that supports your arguments.

 

 

>So I have the perfect solution to the whole impasse. Let the

>moderators summarily banned whomever they please, and if

>anyone protests that action (highly doubtful), let them go

>over to the sandbox, read the postings, and understand why it

>happened.

 

I hate to point out the glaringly obvious, but that is exactly what is already happening. Except that the management here isn't honest enough to admit it. Why was EastBayGuy banned, for example? Can you point to any post of his on THIS site that ever violated any rule? Try it.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: A question begging to be asked

 

This question is begging to be asked, so I'll ask it. Trilingual was banished from this site just prior to its shutdown. Trilingual came over to the other site and ranted more than most, divulged personal information about Hoo's alleged drug use, finances, etc., but after all that, was granted posting and logon priviliges here. I've seen him online here. Is this simply another computer glitch or double standard happening here?

[LovesYng]

RE: A question begging to be asked

 

>This question is begging to be asked, so I'll ask it.

>Trilingual was banished from this site just prior to its

>shutdown. Trilingual came over to the other site and ranted

>more than most, divulged personal information about Hoo's

>alleged drug use, finances, etc., but after all that, was

>granted posting and logon priviliges here. I've seen him

>online here. Is this simply another computer glitch or double

>standard happening here?

 

Just a question, when are you going to give it a rest?

 

When in doubt I whip it out :+

[Boston Guy]

RE: A question begging to be asked

 

Why don't you simply ask Trilingual? I suspect he'd be happy to answer it for you.

 

BG

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: A question begging to be asked

 

>Why don't you simply ask Trilingual? I suspect he'd be happy

>to answer it for you.

>

>BG

 

BG, Since Trilingual didn't grant himself logon and posting privlidges after the banishment, I was hoping that there might be an explanation from a higher power that could address the facts and reasoning....

[Boston Guy]

RE: A question begging to be asked

 

I understand. But you'd think he'd know the facts. :-)

 

BG

[+ Lucky]

BofN, and taylor, are two examples of guys whom I used to like a lot and would love to see back here in their orginal incarnations as nice guys. Four Aces and eastbayguy are two guys I always liked and wish that they both also felt free to post here happily.

 

Doug is gonna post wherever he likes because he needs to ooze his drip over everything. And woodlawn also notoriously does not care if he is wanted, he just shows up. At least he is intelligent.

 

That leaves Chicago boy as far as I know. I think he would be happiest creating his own website, because he hasn't yet found an administrator he likes!

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>That leaves Chicago boy as far as I know. I think he would be

>happiest creating his own website, because he hasn't yet found

>an administrator he likes!

 

Actually, I've always been kind of fond of Barry!:7

[Rick Munroe]

>Doug is gonna post wherever he likes because he needs to ooze

>his drip over everything.

 

Hey, there's something to be said for guys who like to ooze and drip...

[Rick Munroe]

RE: A question begging to be asked

 

>I was hoping that there might

>be an explanation from a higher power

 

Hmm...doesn't this belong in the Religion forum?

[Boston Guy]

I got an email asking if I meant I wouldn't extend an amnesty to the guys who were posting on the other site. As far as I know, they're the only ones who have been banned so, yes, of course I'd extend it to them. All of them.

 

What I meant was "I wouldn't do amnesty because I think it would be a nice thing to do for them" but rather "I'd do an amnesty because I think it would be a good thing for M4M itself -- meaning, in my mind, all of us."

 

But I will still respect any decision Daddy and the moderators make.

 

BG

[hed4str8]

Putting things in perspective

 

Since this entire thread is woven of the same strands of spite and discontent that led to the creation of the sandbox, it's probably the best place to offer a few factoids about that forum and those who animate it.

 

At last count, there have been nearly 1350 postings over there. Note, however, more than 700 of them disappeared in the EzBoard hacking of a week ago. Of those posts (both deleted and surviving), all but a very small fraction were written by no more than ten guys! This core group includes two administrators (one of whom is banned from here), a second exile, three who haven't yet been booted (ChgoBoy, Woodlawn, and Doug--all of whom figure in the current thread), another malcontent who only recently started posting, and two follower-types who are competing for the role of group mascot. The tenth poster is their arch-antagonist--a mystery man whose droll and low-key putdowns of the rebels provides the only genuine (and wholesome) entertainment to be had over there.

 

Not surprisingly, the most prolific (and longwinded) of them all is the great grandstander himself--ChgoBoy--currently closing in on his 200th post. His megalomania is such that he seems ever poised to snatch power away from the rather more reserved (and less articulate) chief administrator. Indeed, the latter--who seems to be having second thoughts about many things--has just announced a cutback in his own participation (due to family problems), and may soon be represented by little more than the personal emblem he suddenly and inexplicably made the page header last week--to the silent embarrassment of his comrades, I would think.

 

It's probably lucky for them that the most scurrilous and provocative of their posts (alleging distressing 'facts' about Hooboy, his personal life and conduct of this site--as well as highly unflattering speculations about Daddy's past and future behavior with regard to same) were all swept away by the EZBoard collapse. But, as noted, there's plenty of similar dish still on view.

 

Despite their vaunted devotion to 'free speech' (and, in ChgoBoy's case, concern for justice towards all), their real agenda is to make as much noise (and trouble) as possible on this forum. They spell out strategies to further that aim in surprisingly candid terms--making it very easy for the moderators here to decide whether to block them pre-emptively or allow them in long enough to get booted for the rulebook transgressions they'll eventually (inevitably?) commit.

 

My own view (stated earlier in this thread) favors the pre-emptive option--something they have charmingly dubbed my 'final solution.' It only involves four or five expulsions--an action unlikely to raise the slightest murmur of protest from anyone else here. And those who miss the provocative effusions of the banned could be cheerfully steered toward the sandbox.

 

"First, I'd like to discuss exposure," ChgoBoy wrote in one of several group manifestos. "We need it and as much of it as we can get." While it would hardly bring them the degree of attention they hunger for, it's better than nothing; and, importantly, it would preserve the personal recognition they insist on. After all, sneaking back here after being banned--and having to post under a new (and un-notorious) names--would reduce them once again to existing as the nonentities they truly are.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: Putting things in perspective

 

>Since this entire thread is woven of the same strands of

>spite and discontent that led to the creation of the sandbox,

>it's probably the best place to offer a few factoids about

>that forum and those who animate it.

 

This latest rambling by hed4str8 reminds me of a trip to NYC I took a few years ago, which was sadly during a strike by the Dept. of streets and sanitation. Garbage everywhere!

 

>At last count, there have been nearly 1350 postings over

>there. Note, however, more than 700 of them disappeared in

>the EzBoard hacking of a week ago. Of those posts (both

>deleted and surviving), all but a very small fraction were

>written by no more than ten guys! This core group includes two

>administrators (one of whom is banned from here), a second

>exile, three who haven't yet been booted (ChgoBoy, Woodlawn,

>and Doug--all of whom figure in the current thread), another

>malcontent who only recently started posting, and two

>follower-types who are competing for the role of group mascot.

>The tenth poster is their arch-antagonist--a mystery man whose

>droll and low-key putdowns of the rebels provides the only

>genuine (and wholesome) entertainment to be had over there.

 

For someone who loathes us as much as you do, you seem to be spending an awful lot of time over there snooping around doing alot of reading. “Where ever do you find the time?” Please feel free to register so everyone here can see how your behavior reflects one of a hypocrite.

 

 

>Not surprisingly, the most prolific (and longwinded) of them

>all is the great grandstander himself--ChgoBoy--currently

>closing in on his 200th post.

 

My, my headgiver, you give me much too much credit. There are a good number of posters over there that are much more eloquent than I will ever be. You just have a bug up your ass about me and want to make me the center of your grandstanding, because I expressed something here that I believe and you do not. That's fine with me.

 

 

>His megalomania is such that he

>seems ever poised to snatch power away from the rather more

>reserved (and less articulate) chief administrator. Indeed,

>the latter--who seems to be having second thoughts about many

>things--has just announced a cutback in his own participation

>(due to family problems), and may soon be represented by

>little more than the personal emblem he suddenly and

>inexplicably made the page header last week--to the silent

>embarrassment of his comrades, I would think.

 

Another mind reader on this site! Isn’t that 2 now?

 

>It's probably lucky for them that the most scurrilous and

>provocative of their posts (alleging distressing 'facts' about

>Hooboy, his personal life and conduct of this site--as well as

>highly unflattering speculations about Daddy's past and future

>behavior with regard to same) were all swept away by the

>EZBoard collapse. But, as noted, there's plenty of similar

>dish still on view.

 

Let us not forget that a certain re-instated member here was at the core of those posts. Disclosing more personal information than anyone could have imagined….out of spite, too boot.

>

>Despite their vaunted devotion to 'free speech' (and, in

>ChgoBoy's case, concern for justice towards all), their real

>agenda is to make as much noise (and trouble) as possible on

>this forum. They spell out strategies to further that aim in

>surprisingly candid terms--making it very easy for the

>moderators here to decide whether to block them pre-emptively

>or allow them in long enough to get booted for the rulebook

>transgressions they'll eventually (inevitably?) commit.

 

OMG, we finally got an agenda agreed upon? Headgiver, maybe you could become my secretary and make sure I get these memos.

 

>My own view (stated earlier in this thread) favors the

>pre-emptive option--something they have charmingly dubbed my

>'final solution.' It only involves four or five

>expulsions--an action unlikely to raise the slightest murmur

>of protest from anyone else here. And those who miss the

>provocative effusions of the banned could be cheerfully

>steered toward the sandbox.

 

Wasn’t there a Tom Cruise movie a few years ago, where people were arrested before they committed a crime based on some master computer that could read the future? Wouldn’t that be a special selling point for this site. Don’t worry about breaking the rules, we’ll just can your ass when we think you’re about to do so. Lovely.

 

>

>"First, I'd like to discuss exposure," ChgoBoy wrote in one of

>several group manifestos. "We need it and as much of it as we

>can get." While it would hardly bring them the degree of

>attention they hunger for, it's better than nothing; and,

>importantly, it would preserve the personal recognition they

>insist on. After all, sneaking back here after being

>banned--and having to post under a new (and un-notorious)

>names--would reduce them once again to existing as the

>nonentities they truly are.

 

Headgiver, I think you are the best publicity and exposure anyone could have ever hoped for. Thanks for all you do, do.

[woodlawn]

RE: The Perspective of a Liar and Hypocrite

 

>The tenth poster is their arch-antagonist--a mystery man whose

>droll and low-key putdowns of the rebels provides the only

>genuine (and wholesome) entertainment to be had over there.

 

There can't be much doubt in anyone's mind by this time what screen name dear old 'Hed' is using for his (obviously frequent and intensive) visits to the other board. LOL!

 

>It's probably lucky for them that the most scurrilous and

>provocative of their posts (alleging distressing 'facts' about

>Hooboy, his personal life and conduct of this site--as well as

>highly unflattering speculations about Daddy's past and future

>behavior with regard to same) were all swept away by the

>EZBoard collapse. But, as noted, there's plenty of similar

>dish still on view.

 

Actually, the above is quite untrue. Virtually all of the information previously posted on the other board about the persons named above has now been replaced and can be read by anyone who cares to see it. Why 'Hed' wanted to lie about that -- or tell the lies he has told about the content of Chgo's posts on the other board -- I really don't know.

 

 

>or allow them in long enough to get booted for the rulebook

>transgressions they'll eventually (inevitably?) commit.

 

And what is to be done about 'Hed' in response to the rulebook transgressions he has ALREADY committed in this thread? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

> And those who miss the

>provocative effusions of the banned could be cheerfully

>steered toward the sandbox.

 

It should be painfully obvious by now that 'Hed' and numerous other veteran posters from this board are sneaking over to the other place to get their fill of the very content they claim to despise on a daily (or several times daily) basis. What are we to make of people who rail against such posts and those who create them, but run (not walk) to the other site to read them every chance they get? One clue: the word begins with "h."