Evolution

[BewareofNick]

RE: Deep thoughts

 

>Unless there is some issue that you have all resolved to destroy this

>site over? I mean it. What's so important about coming over

>here and ripping everything and everyone? And who appointed

>you guys as the demolition team anyway?

 

This is perhaps the third or fourth time that someone has put forth this notion of "The Mean Girls Club" having some sort of hidden agenda. It's fascinating that this high level of paranoia exists over something that simply isn't true.

 

The ripping everything and everyone hasn't been an exclusive to TMGC. Several of the church ladies here have been more than proficient at it.

 

I suspect what's at play here is that the return of the banished posters has impacted the sense of entitlement that you felt after an out of control admin banished posters for no reason. You felt that this was YOUR place and the other site was OUR place, so when we came back here, it ran contrary to the belief that this place was now your domain.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Revolution

 

I am curious as to whom you see under which category.

[Guest mbarz]

RE: REflections

 

"But don't you think it would happen less often if

everyone tried to be civil instead of ripping and shredding."

 

Jackhammer, this is exactly the point, the people calling for civility are not being civil. They may not rip into someone one, but being condescending and overbearing is not being civil.

 

You say that people are coming here specifically to attack other posters, that is just not true, my first postings here were comments on an escort in the Deli forum, they weren't attacks on anyone. BON's postings have been very civil, but in the majority of threads he post in, someone is attacking him. You can not call someone uncivil for merely defending themselves.

 

If the problem is to be resolved then all sides have to agree to be civil, not just one.

[woodlawn]

RE: Stupid Conspiracy Theory

 

>My, we ARE crusty this morning. And a bit sanctimonious as

>well. Welcome to the club.

 

You and your pals are certainly in no position to complain about sanctimony. In fact, you're the last people on earth who should do so. Or next to last, after Jimmy Swaggart.

 

>Feel free to correct my behavior all you want, as I certainly

>feel free to comment on yours. I don't think it has ever been

>an issue (at least not with me) as to whether there are

>offenders on both sides. Really, do you get that impression

>that someone is in denial about that?

 

Yes, you folks are in denial. The fact that your denials are so transparent and unconvincing does not mean they are not denials.

 

 

>But there is a difference between saying there's a behavior

>that is unpleasant and calling someone a dickless cunt.

>That's just crap for crap's sake.

 

There is a difference between saying "I find your posts unpleasant," and saying "Your posts amount to bullying and your behavior is like that of barnyard animals." One is a comment on what is written and the other is a comment on the writer. The distinction is so simple that anyone of at least average intelligence should be able to grasp it.

 

> But since there is now a

>place where people can say that stuff freely, why isn't that

>enough for you and your friends? I mean, really? Unless

>there is some issue that you have all resolved to destroy this

>site over? I mean it. What's so important about coming over

>here and ripping everything and everyone? And who appointed

>you guys as the demolition team anyway?

 

Who appointed you and your pals as the arbiters of civility? No one, so far as I know -- you appointed yourselves. Given the fact that you have often been uncivil yourselves, why the hell should anyone take your complaints seriously?

 

As to why I come here, I have been reading this board since long before you showed up. Why should I justify my interest in it to the likes of you?

 

It really is time for you and your ilk to drop this nonsensical cant about a plot to destroy this site. The plain truth is that during the very worst of the arguments over posting style, the rest of the site and the rest of this board went on as normal, with posters asking for info about their favorite escorts, escorts posting their travel schedules, and reviewers sending in reviews. This argument has never been of any interest to, or of any consequence to, more than a small handful of the people who use this site, so the suggestion that anything written about it or as a result of it could destroy this site is utterly idiotic.

[jackhammer91406]

RE: REflections

 

I am in total agreement that everyone needs to be more civil. And said so in the post you responded to and inferred it in my original post. However, your characterization of condescending is your impression. As your opinion, that gets to be stated without being called name calling. Agree?

 

IF you assume someones intent is to be condescending, you get to say that, in my opinion. But not being an admin or moderator, I don't get to say when it is enforced and when it isn't. I think that when someone starts calling people names, collectively or individually, that's crossed an invisible line in my book. In my mind I can see a clear difference.

I don't care for the name Mean Girls club anymore than I care for any characterizations that I hear about on the other website.

 

But whether you can see it the same way or not, if we all keep yelling at each other, nothing much gets better.

[woodlawn]

RE: Stop Preaching!

 

> But shouting hypocrite

>at every poster and post doesn't advance the discussion much,

>does it?

 

You started this thread to complain about a practice of which you are every bit as guilty as the people you are accusing. What exactly is the appropriate reaction to such hypocrisy, if not to call it hypocrisy?

 

>I always thought of you as our resident consumer protector. I

>have no beef with you other than the repetitive nature of the

>party line about hypocrisy. That's kind of tired and needs a

>freshening.

 

If you are tired of being called a hypocrite, then stop being one.

 

>But hey, we have all at one time or another responded to a

>goad and crawled down in the gutter to play nasty. Is that

>what you wanted to hear? If so, I have no problem saying

>that. But don't you think it would happen less often if

>everyone tried to be civil instead of ripping and shredding.

 

No, I don't. I don't care if people on this board are civil or nasty. Either is fine with me. What I do care about is being lectured on good behavior by people like yourself, people whose own behavior will not bear close examination. Stop the lectures, stop telling the rest of us how we need to behave, and you need fear no more accusations of hypocrisy.

 

 

>My take on gay life is that it's tough enough fighting off the

>perceptions of the ultra-conservative str8 world. I don't

>want to have to watch my back too. I am hoping my gay

>brothers and sisters have that.

 

No, I do not "have your back." What you do not seem to get is that I do not want to be told how to behave by other gay men any more than I want to be told how to behave by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. When you start acting as they do then as far as I'm concerned you have crossed over to their side.

[jackhammer91406]

Preaching to the choir

 

You know Woodlawn, your reasoning might resonate more if you were not as guilty of preaching as anyone. I have only to look at your response to see you preaching as loudly about my conduct as you say I have been.

What's up with that? Do you have no other ammo stocked away in that brain of yours? I know it is a good brain because I have seen you pull tiny posted bits from eons ago. If you want me to behave in a certain way, then show it to me. Act that way, oh great one, and let me emulate you if you are such a good example.

 

You often speak as though you are well versed in law, morals and behavior.

But if you aren't coming on to these threads only to spoil for a fight, then how come you ranted almost immediately about the London post. If that kind of thing annoys you, do what you have told us all to do many times, DON"T READ IT. But no, instead of practicing what YOU preach, you have to come in just to call the original poster ridiculous (among other things.) And that does what useful thing besides feed your ego and give you delight in shredding someone, eh?

 

By the way, contrary to your memory, the Supreme Court ruled in SCHENICK V UNITED STATES (1919) that not all speech is guaranteed. Specifically if the speech causes harm or presents a clear and present danger, you are NOT protected by the first amendment , so says Justice OLiver Wendell Holmes.

 

You can continue to call me anything you like. I will still be waiting for the day when you have some new material. Until then, expect to get what you give.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Preaching to the choir

 

>You can continue to call me anything you like. I will still

>be waiting for the day when you have some new material. Until

>then, expect to get what you give.

 

Then where does it end? Shouldn't the self proclaimed gentlemen of the self proclaimed gentlemen's club be the ones taking the high road?

 

Wouldn't it make more sense, from your point of view, just to ignore woodlawn rather than continue to perepetuate this?

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Preaching to the choir

 

That's a good question BoN. Nothing has worked so far. If the high road is taken, we are called hypocrites for all past posts. If we post in the same vein, we are still demonized. You tell me?

Anyway, I pretty much have finished with this , so you guys can reply and have the last word.

 

But it was fun and enervating to have this discussion.

 

See you tomorrow.

[taylorky]

RE: Preaching to the choir

 

LOL hey bon it is cheap entertainment,now isn't it.

 

and i geth he told you, you...you thilly thavage you.ROTFLMFAO. god...if i live THAT long i hope i never become that much of a downer,but than again i'm well adjusted and healthy in both body AND mind,so nothing too worry about i guess.

 

 

when in rome do as....etc:,etc:.

why even try.....these people don't care about civilty.

[joel304]

RE: Devolution

 

"You really cannot continue to lecture people on the importance of obeying rules that you yourselves do not obey. And while you may break these rules less often than some others, is there some magic number of transgressions that makes you 'better' than they for that reason? If you are not going to be honest with others here then at least try being honest with yourselves."

 

Woodlawn is among the best writers on this board. How is it that he NEVER wins with you guys? Woodie has far more patience than I, when it comes to walking some of you through logical reasoning. As adept as he is with written argument, how is it that NONE of you ever admit that you're wrong? Pig headed or dumb? Just wondering.

 

Something else on my mind ... Why are soooooooooo many of you guys down with censorship, rules and decorum? Isn't this a bunch of homos that hire escorts? This is weird. Very!

[Guest JohnPela]

Evolution or Devolution

 

>Something else on my mind ... Why are soooooooooo many of you

>guys down with censorship, rules and decorum? Isn't this a

>bunch of homos that hire escorts? This is weird. Very!

 

I have only skimmed this particular thread, but the above statement makes alot of sense. I have from time to time on this site taken a few hits and also given a few in return. But sometimes its more fun to not follow the rules a bit and get rowdy-- that probably includes posts on this site. Otherwise, this site could and will become boring (or more so maybe). Just a thought.

[taylorky]

RE: Evolution or Devolution

 

but the upside is ....you can get a discounted subscription to "needlepoint for the sad and lonley" with prove of membership in m4m.

[joel304]

RE: Evolution or Devolution

 

It has become boring. There was always room for the punks like me before, and it was fun. At the same time, there was always room for the BN fan club, One Finger's goofy news ads (which are fun too), the old trolls combing the rough trade on the corner, Tri promoting Brazil, etc. What was the big deal? This reminds me of the bitches that complained about the "bad boys" in school so much that we all ended up with MORE RULES to hinder EVERYONE, and each of our joys. Be careful what you wish for. I think we got it here. Promote change fellas. You're all acting like Bush Republicans, and even the Republicans are scared by him. I ask you all to think about this overnight. Admittedly, it will take several of you longer than that.

[taylorky]

RE: Devolution

 

,

>how is it that NONE of you ever admit that you're wrong? Pig

>headed or dumb? Just wondering.

>

 

oh oh you oh you you mean and hurtful thing you.

[joel304]

RE: Devolution

 

>oh oh you oh you you mean and hurtful thing you.

 

 

Don't "Alert" me please. I'll have nobody to talk to then ;(

[joel304]

I'm truly exhausted. Why do you guys want to promote a tattle tale button and moderators?????????????? What the fuck dude??? I'm speechless. And I do it for a fucking living. I want to cry now. I should "alert" you. I feel that I get attacked in everyday life under the Bush dynasty, and then you guys even constipate a hooker site????? Jesus Fucking Bush man. Uggggh.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Evolution or Devolution

 

Whether the church ladies (Boston Guy, Tampa Yankee, OneFinger, jackhammer, Conway et al) admit it or not, they need the Mean Girls Club to keep the site interesting. You can only prattle on about movies and hairy men so long before people begin to lose interest.

[Traveller]

RE: Stupid Conspiracy Theory

 

>There is a difference between saying "I find your posts

>unpleasant," and saying "Your posts amount to bullying and

>your behavior is like that of barnyard animals." One is a

>comment on what is written and the other is a comment on the

>writer. The distinction is so simple that anyone of at least

>average intelligence should be able to grasp it.

 

God, you know how much I love it when you mention barnyard animals. Anyhow, this paragraph pretty much sums up this thread. The fact that certain posters can't grasp it and, in fact, wish people to follow Elvis out of the building is both mildly amusing and moderately cheering (given the fact that they probably vote Democratic).

 

Later.

[joel304]

RE: Evolution or Devolution

 

"You can only prattle on about movies and hairy men so long before people begin to lose interest."

 

This is further evidenced by the fact that all of the "church ladies" read each and every post that offends them. This reminds me of my mother's hate for Howard Stern. Why the fuck do you continue to listen to him mom; just to remind yourself?

 

If people were truly "OFFENDED," they would ignore certain posters entirely. That's why the kids always get their own table on Thanksgiving. The simple fact, is that people on here enjoy the drama, and always will.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Evolution or Devolution

 

>If people were truly "OFFENDED," they would ignore certain

>posters entirely. That's why the kids always get their own

>table on Thanksgiving. The simple fact, is that people on

>here enjoy the drama, and always will.

 

Indeed they do. Now if they could just be honest with themselves and admit it.

[woodlawn]

RE: Preaching to the choir

 

If you

>want me to behave in a certain way, then show it to me. Act

>that way, oh great one, and let me emulate you if you are such

>a good example.

 

You still don't get it. The only sermon I preach is the one that exhorts people like you to stop preaching what you do not practice. But you keep doing it. And as long as you keep doing it I will keep calling you on it.

 

>You often speak as though you are well versed in law, morals

>and behavior.

>But if you aren't coming on to these threads only to spoil for

>a fight, then how come you ranted almost immediately about the

>London post. If that kind of thing annoys you, do what you

>have told us all to do many times, DON"T READ IT.

 

I never said it annoyed me. I asked the original poster why he wrote something that seemed ridiculous to me. And, as you know, calling a post ridiculous is NOT a violation of the rules here.

 

> But no,

>instead of practicing what YOU preach, you have to come in

>just to call the original poster ridiculous (among other

>things.) And that does what useful thing besides feed your

>ego and give you delight in shredding someone, eh?

 

If I enjoy shredding some of the sillier posters here, at least I do not play the hypocrite by starting a thread that complains about the same behavior I indulge in. But you and the other Church Ladies do start such threads. Why?

 

 

>By the way, contrary to your memory, the Supreme Court ruled

>in SCHENICK V UNITED STATES (1919) that not all speech is

>guaranteed. Specifically if the speech causes harm or

>presents a clear and present danger, you are NOT protected by

>the first amendment , so says Justice OLiver Wendell Holmes.

 

I hate to break the news to you, but the Supremes and the other federal courts have said a few other things about what is and is not protected by the speech clause of the first amendment since 1919.

 

 

>You can continue to call me anything you like. I will still

>be waiting for the day when you have some new material. Until

>then, expect to get what you give.

 

What I expect is that you and the other self-appointed arbiters of civility will continue to bemoan personal attacks here while continuing to engage in personal attacks yourselves whenever you feel like it. If you want to see a new description of your actions, try doing something new. As long as you lot continue to do the same old thing, expect to see the same old response.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Devillution

 

You can always talk to ChgBoy, joel! At least he has a sense of humor!

[joel304]

RE: Devillution

 

>You can always talk to ChgBoy, joel! At least he has a sense

>of humor!

 

 

He scares me a bit. I can envision him showing up at my door :-)