The way I see things

[Boston Guy]

RE: BG, please stay home.

 

I wouldn't expect you to understand. It's not the sort of thing I'd associate with you. Your actions and statements do not seem likely to be those of a man who garners much in the way of respect from those around him, nor one who understands the value of respect -- given or received.

 

BG

[raife]

Fair enough,

 

The subtler points you made here were lost amongst your mocking, jeering and derision of BN. Life across the tracks seems to be about belittling, deriding and castigating the "befuddled old gents" or is that "sickos"... care to count how many times that word was used in the last few days? You can easily see how one can get the idea you find some problem in our community of interests.

 

What's "public" in a gay pride parade through the city center, TV cameras zoomed in tight, and what's "public" on an obscure website that you have to be really look for by searching for specific keywords amidst the sexual content of all varieties on the web is a distinction that is aparently lost in your rush to criticize. Your using the whole "gay prostitution" angle to try and shame BN to silence, only serves to reinforce the "social disapproval" stigma I was referring to.

 

Like I said in the rescinded part, I do think the turbulent effect your contrarian views have on the community here is somewhat valuable but you need to take your meds

[seaboy4hire]

Why do you condone the publishing of Hoo's i.d. but not condon Benji when he threatend to reveal someones public information if they (donnie) didn't play nice? Is that not along the same lines of revealing private information?

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

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

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[Boston Guy]

Greg, what thread were you reading?

 

It seems to me that pretty much everyone on that thread condemned the whole "blackmail" reference. Did you see any comments to the contrary?

 

BG

[seaboy4hire]

Maybe I missed the comments from the mods and um daddy.

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

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

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[Boston Guy]

Why would they comment? Or, perhaps, why would they be required to comment? They comment in very few threads and have historically commented in very few threads.

 

There was a threat to take an action that, had it been taken, would clearly have been a violation of the rules. As it was, it was simply a really lousy and unsavory thing to post. Absent a clear violation of the rules, why would Daddy or the moderators post in the thread?

 

BG

[Guest zipperzone]

>In today's climate of bitter debate and polarization, there is

>simply no way to counter a lie by simply telling the truth.

>Many accusers are predisposed not to believe the truth even

>when it is in front of them.

 

I presume you must be referring to the Michael Jackson jury.

 

>

[Guest zipperzone]

>ChgoGuy was just like the bully in the school yard. He just

>kept pushing and pushing... trying to pick a fight.

 

Well at least he had a cool tatoo.

[Doug69]

>There was a threat to take an action that, had it been taken,

>would clearly have been a violation of the rules. As it was,

>it was simply a really lousy and unsavory thing to post.

>Absent a clear violation of the rules, why would Daddy or the

>moderators post in the thread?

 

Because, as many people have pointed out, the only people with access to the private information about Donnie which Benji was threatening to disclose were the administrators of this site.

 

Many people, as a result, understandably expressed concern that the site management was giving information about users here to Benji, who has long had an extremely "friendly" relationship with them.

 

Only in an authoritarian state do rulers feel that they can ignore inquiries and criticisms directed at them of this kind, and in such states, only the most obsequious apologists and unprincipled minions of such authority defend behavior like that.

[hed4str8]

Name three of the 'many' hungering & thirsting for justice on this issue. Let's see. . . ChcgoBoy, Woodlawn & you. Am I leaving anyone out?

[Guest Conway]

Bravo, BG. Extremely well argued and written as is evidenced by the Cabal's attack on you herein! You hit the nail on the head where this group of n'er do wells is concerned.

[Guest Conway]

RE: BG, please stay home.

 

>OH NO! Time for someone to start an immediate suicide watch

>for Woodlawn. Remove all razor blades and sheets from his

>room at once!

 

 

I don't believe that the administrators at the mental institution where he resides let him have razor blades and sheets.

[hed4str8]

Seaboy, in your posts here you seem earnest but confused (about the meaning of 'condone' and 'condemn,' among other things) and

it's hard to think of you as truly in league with the hatemongers you're trying to defend. Over at their place, though, your puppydog

attempts to curry favor with them paint a much less appealing picture. For all that, I still think you're a nice if naive guy who just happens to be out of his depth. And you're looking for love (or business) in all the wrong places.

[Boston Guy]

You seem to overlook the possibility that BN wrote what he did with no information at all behind it. You seem to despise him and criticize his writings pretty thoroughly. Yet you seize on this example and assume that he's telling the truth and in possession of some mysterious personal information. I wish I had a nickel for every time someone here at M4M has accused someone else of having an alternate personality. Do you think that each one of those people were in possession of information mysteriously granted to them by M4M, Inc.? Why is this case different? Because the very real possibility that BN doesn't have any more information on Donnie than you do or I do doesn't fit into your grand claims of management run amok?

 

I don't seem to recall HB or Daddy or the moderators ever commenting before when someone accused someone of having multiple screen names. But they should now, huh? I thought you were in favor of anybody being able to say anything?

 

Any by the way: in case you haven't heard recently, this is an authoritarian state. It's called a business and it has a management that gets to decide what the rules are and what happens if you don't follow them. Don't like the rules? Fine. Go elsewhere. No one's forcing you to stay. I don't hear anyone begging you and Chgoboy and your half-dozen like-minded fellow 'revolutionaries' to stay.

 

But try this act in the lobby of your local bank or in a restaurant or store and see how long they put up with it. This may not be a bricks-and-morter business, but that doesn't mean they don't get to set the rules for conduct inside their boundaries.

 

BG

[JT Brooklyn]

IMHO..The Statement about another "Sandbox to Play In" sounds just about right! Isn't "Anybody" around here having Fun in Life--Getting Laid-Writing Reviews? All of a sudden everything is so Serious..For what end? LOL :+

[woodlawn]

RE: BG, please stay home.

 

>I could care less what anyone posts there.

 

That statement does not match the long diatribe you have already posted here on the subject of the other board. You seem to be spending an increasing amount of your time reading and writing about a message board about which you "could care less."

 

>It takes barely a

>few minutes scanning the posts there to make it perfectly

>clear that there's not a thing worth reading.

 

Nothing worth reading, but the posts you have written about that "nothing" here make it clear you've spent quite a bit of time reading it. How odd.

 

>virtually the entire content of that site is one long diatribe

>against M4M, it's not likely to draw anyone's attention for

>long.

 

In that case I expect you will stop lurking on that board, as you apparently have been doing on a regular basis since it was first established.

 

>Finally, I have posted here many times that I respected you.

>I have defended you and stood up for you, at times when no one

>else would. But, having read what you have written over the

>course of the last month, I find I must withdraw my statements

>of respect and support.

 

I am, of course, devastated to learn that I no longer have your respect. Since you have been reading the other board assiduously, you know that I recently posted there that you are one of the few longtime M4M posters for whom I have had some respect. I do NOT withdraw that statement, which was based on your behavior over the years I have read this board and still represents my opinion of that behavior.

 

But I must say that your recent behavior, which includes posting conspiracy theories worthy of the Black Helicopter crowd and engaging in the sort of cat fights with other posters that you used to avoid like the plague, make me wonder what has happened in your life to bring about such a drastic and unfortunate change. Have you suffered a head injury recently? Some sort of personal trauma? Whatever the explanation may be, it has resulted in the kind of behavior that I do NOT respect. I do hope you get back to normal soon.

[woodlawn]

>There was a threat to take an action that, had it been taken,

>would clearly have been a violation of the rules. As it was,

>it was simply a really lousy and unsavory thing to post.

>Absent a clear violation of the rules, why would Daddy or the

>moderators post in the thread?

 

 

The existence of this message board is based on an agreement among all concerned that identifying information about members will NOT be disclosed by management to anyone. Unless BN lied in the post in which he threatened Donnie with such information, however, management HAS disclosed such information. BN's threat wasn't a violation of the MC rules. Rather, it was a statement that the most fundamental rule of this message board had already been violated by someone else. Either BN was lying, or every member here now has reason to fear that his personal data has been compromised.

 

I find it very difficult to understand why management does not consider that a subject worthy of some comment. The most recent issue on which management commented that I recall is whether some escort in California whom many of us have never even heard of does or does not bareback. That is hardly an issue of such universal concern as the issue of whether the personal data of MC members is secure.

 

But I can think of one reason why management would not comment on this issue: the reason that BN was telling the truth. If he was, then the least that should be said is that it's quite absurd for anyone here to be complaining of the disclosures made on the other board.

[jackhammer91406]

Some time ago, there was a warning thread by a longtime poster on this site. The gist of the thread was that a well loved escort from this site had been found to be identifying previous clients at length and in detail with other clients. This knowledge was not gained from any admin sources, but by having these people as clients. Those clients alerted several people as to the activity privately, much like someone would brag about a hot date. At the time of the original thread, the warning was for that escort; that if he continued to reveal ANY information about clients, then he would be identified here.

 

Because some people seem to have a predisposition to believe what they want, any other options of how private information could be obtained are apparently non existent or ignored.

 

As for escorts who reveal personal information, either in passing or as a threat, those escorts should be considered to be untrustworthy and avoided like the plague.

[Donnie]

>Some time ago, there was a warning thread by a longtime

>poster on this site. The gist of the thread was that a well

>loved escort from this site had been found to be identifying

>previous clients at length and in detail with other clients.

 

He ain't so well loved anymore these days!

[Doug69]

>Name three of the 'many' hungering & thirsting for justice on

>this issue. Let's see. . . ChcgoBoy, Woodlawn & you. Am I

>leaving anyone out?

 

Donnie, for one, appears to be quite upset and angry about the fact that Benji believes he has obtained personal, private information about Donnie from the site administrators - information which Benji, in turn, threatened to disclose if Donnie didn't snap into line.

 

Given that Donnie is the victim of this privacy invastion, the fact that he finds it objectionable ought to be sufficient.

 

As someone who derives sexual arousal exclusively from being exploited and abused by "straight" guys, you may find Benji's blackmail, apparently aided by site administrators, to be hot, but most people - EVEN BG - have made it clear that they find it to be highly distateful.

 

There aren't many principles which can be said to be almost universally held among Internet users, but the belief that administrators of a website have the obligation to safegurad personal data about users - rather than dole it out indiscriminately to their friends and favorite hookers for use in vengence campaigns - would defintely be one such widely shared belief.

[Donnie]

>Donnie, for one, appears to be quite upset and angry about the

>fact that Benji believes he has obtained personal, private

>information about Donnie

 

Dude, like I said before, blackmail is ugly but I ain't "quite upset and angry". It can only be funny when Blackmailin Benji starts to spin out of control.

[duke37]

>

>There aren't many principles which can be said to be almost

>universally held among Internet users, but the belief that

>administrators of a website have the obligation to safegurad

>personal data about users - rather than dole it out

>indiscriminately to their friends and favorite hookers for use

>in vengence campaigns - would defintely be one such widely

>shared belief.

 

Can we come back to earth for a minute and see if perhaps we cant find a simpler explanation. The most likely source of BN's comment about Donnie's alternate screen name is in fact woodlawn. Check the archives woodlawn pretty authoritatively id'ed Donnie's more respectable persona. So unless woodlawn got special access to all of our personal information from the management of this site, I think the simplest explanation is Ben doesn't know anything more than what has been posted on this site. I remembered it why couldn't BN?

 

Extra bonus pleasure in seeing woodlawn wax indignant over a topic he knows very well is bogus.

 

Jeff

[noviceny]

OK I understand shit more cause I saw the other site...

 

I wont bother to argue either side but I will say that this is some weird shit

 

My question is :

 

How the fuck do you get Hoo's ID and a picture of Deej next to his car ?

[seaboy4hire]

>Seaboy, in your posts here you seem earnest but confused

>(about the meaning of 'condone' and 'condemn,' among other

>things) and

>it's hard to think of you as truly in league with the

>hatemongers you're trying to defend. Over at their place,

>though, your puppydog

>attempts to curry favor with them paint a much less appealing

>picture. For all that, I still think you're a nice if naive

>guy who just happens to be out of his depth. And you're

>looking for love (or business) in all the wrong places.

Hed4str8 your right I am not in the same league as the other guys in the other message board. I am not that tech savvy and at time witty. I am NOT looking for love. Incase you didn't know I have had the same bf for just over 7 years now who I love and he loves me. And who are you to say where I should and should not look for business? Sure I have posted on the other board and that is my right. There I feel I am more able to express my views and feelings without having a thread locked, moved, deleted or myself being kicked from the board. Imo both boards have something to give and I see nothing wrong with posting on both boards. If you don't like it too bad. It is my computer, my internet and so forth.

 

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

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

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[woodlawn]

>Can we come back to earth for a minute and see if perhaps we

>cant find a simpler explanation. The most likely source of

>BN's comment about Donnie's alternate screen name is in fact

>woodlawn. Check the archives woodlawn pretty authoritatively

>id'ed Donnie's more respectable persona.

 

Who, me?

 

So the "simple explanation" you posit is that this escort, with whom I have hardly exchanged two words since he first began posting here, has been so impressed with my posts to others that he has been searching the archives to see what else I've had to say in years past? I hardly know how to react to such a compliment. How about, "Aw, shucks, you guys!"