Members Lucky Posted September 4, 2006 Members Posted September 4, 2006 Well, he amuses me too and I hope he joins the posters here soon. Quote
Members marcanthony Posted September 4, 2006 Members Posted September 4, 2006 >Well, he amuses me too and I hope he joins the posters here >soon. And in the spirit of expressing diverse opinions in a civil and respectful way, I HOPE NOT!!!!!! :7 Quote
Guest FourAces Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 >Let's not take this discussion down to that level. Lucky and >others have expressed their thoughts and opinions. Nothing >wrong with that. > >Since I started moderating 6 years ago people have been >telling me what I think, what I mean, my intent and how I >should moderate. Nothing wrong with that. > >Several years ago a couple of posters at M4M told me in no >uncertain terms that I was over-moderating. Nothing wrong >with that. They were right. > Barry it is a no win situation for you. Lucky feels you should have deleted this thread. if you delete the thread ChgoBoy will freak out. Regardless of what you do there will always be an element who will cry like a baby. I on the other hand am completely level headed :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 Quote
Guest TakeTwo Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 >>Well, he amuses me too and I hope he joins the posters >here >>soon. > >And in the spirit of expressing diverse opinions in a civil >and respectful way, I HOPE NOT!!!!!! :7 Lucky...what are you?? friend or foe? Now you call taylor a person you welcome. Personally, If I were your boyfriend, I wouldn't now whether to fuck you or let you fuck me. Could you posibly be more conflictive to people who might want to be your lover or friend? I think not. My God, how horribly conceded can you publicly be? Is BN available? Quote
Guest TakeTwo Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 >I on the other hand am completely level headed :7 :7 :7 :7 :7 ROTFLLMFAO!!!!!!!! You've gotta be a freak Quote
Members marcanthony Posted September 4, 2006 Members Posted September 4, 2006 >Lucky...what are you?? friend or foe? Now you call taylor a >person you welcome. Taketwo: I think if you read the interchange between twinklover, Lucky, and myself, you'll see that Lucky was hoping to welcome twinkboylover28 (the subject of taylor's post, not taylor himself). Now that we have gotten to the point that we can't keep any of this straight, I think it's time to look at Francois! Quote
Guest TakeTwo Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 >Taketwo: I think if you read the interchange between >twinklover, Lucky, and myself, you'll see that Lucky was >hoping to welcome twinkboylover28 (the subject of taylor's >post, not taylor himself). > >Now that we have gotten to the point that we can't keep any of >this straight, I think it's time to look at Francois! I say good for you MarcAnthony. You see good when it does not exist. I see otherwise because of this post. See, Lucky's opportunity to put closure to his rapid dog bite was a waste of time. Closure was within his grasp, yet outside of his reach of wanting to do. I'll just repeat my org statement........Oh why the hell should I, anyone interested can do it on their own.... It's all about self interest....... Quote
Guest beemerboy Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 LOL....damn....vanilla or chocolate...is that benign enough??? anyway thanks to take two,mbarz,marcanthony and barry for their reasonable and rational thoughts,i guess some people are just not happy unless they are causing trouble. original question do y'all think the TBL28 is for real,can anybody be that irational...(ummmmmm yea i guess some can) but do y'all think he is or is it all just a big put-on????? TAYLOR........ Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted September 5, 2006 Members Posted September 5, 2006 >Leave it to taylor to try to revive escortspeak here in the >MER forums. Shame on the management for letting him do it. You >guys purport to want to leave the past behind, to let other >message centers handle their own problems, to avoid personal >attacks and only attack the issue. > This paragraph could not make clearer that you have many bags at your feet as you preach in the premises. I grant that you have been the subject of ferocious personal attacks elsewhere in the past. You also gave pretty good too as I recall. If we were to act solely on past behavior then bodies of all stripes would be stacked like cordwood at the door. We don't ask that you forget. We don't ask that you forgive. We ask that you leave it at the door when stopping by. In Pubs people tend to gather with friends not antagonists. When they do interact with antagonists the purpose is usually to antagonize. I saw beemerboy's post before I left on holiday. While the subject of the post was clear, the purpose was ambiguous. Possibly more so if viewed in past light. I attempt to overlook past light if that baggage is left at the door. Thus I adopted a wait and see... to see who brings what baggage. It was my assessment that the tone of this thread would be dictated not by any underlying potential implication of the post, but rather by the inferences of those responding. Any 'required action' by moderators would be in response, directly or indirectly, to those inferences. This was born out, in spades. Several members saw the post as a simple discussion of personal quirks of an anonymous individual who had put himself 'out there' on several occasions. I am not going to cast judgement on the propriety of discussing individuals whether or not they post here, other than to say they will not be banned. Both sides have been adequately aruged and I see nothing to add. Nor does it matter. Such discussions will be permitted as long as personal information is not disclosed and the discussion remains within acceptable bounds. Comments by several posters have been made in this thread, some with which I agree, others with which I do not. I don't have the time or inclination to address each individually at this point. My personal opinion is often irrelevant to my role as an admin and moderator anyway. >I agree with Vox Pennae that this site must be of its own >and not rely on gossiping and disparaging other >sites for its content. Until it can move >forward without that, it cannot grow. > I agree. I look forward to the day when any other site is far removed from the thoughts of our participants. However, if I may put on my Social Science cap for a moment ( I am really loathe to do this) this phenomenon is explained, in part, by the dynamics of loss or change. Loss, in that some conclude that they really 'can't go home anymore', HooBoy is gone for good, his crib is gone for good, and that they must move forward. Change, in that moving from one nest to another or buying a new car instills a sense of excitement, maybe a little uncertainty, cetainly a new beginning. This becomes a salient, if temporary effect in one's life at whatever level of importance that component of life is to the person experiencing it. And sometimes it's like the weather... it simply offers a topic of conversation. Those that don't perceive a 'change' in their life are not to be expected to discuss how that lack of change is a salient feature exuding excitement or uncertainty in their lives. Ok, the hat is off now. >Just look over the weekend posts, so few as they were, and >wonder where the contributors to this board are. Hopefully enjoying their holiday weekend. Of course some were pumping out their basements. I fault neither group for being AWOL. >The threads >that thrive are the threads about Hooville, its contributors, >its problems, and its competiveness. It definitely is a topic interest but cetainly not the only one. >When someone starts a new >thread here on a different subject, it usually dies. I think that is a bit of an overstatement. Some topics die others succeed. A message board is a very democratic institution. We are young, we attract new voters everyday. More participants translates into more ideas, theoretcially, and more corner soap boxes, practically. Quote
Members Lucky Posted September 5, 2006 Members Posted September 5, 2006 Post moved to intended response position Quote
Members Lucky Posted September 5, 2006 Members Posted September 5, 2006 #35. "RE: IS HE INANE ????" In response to Reply # 33 "I agree with Vox Pennae that this site must be of its own >and not rely on gossiping and disparaging other >sites for its content. Until it can move >forward without that, it cannot grow." Well, now that we agree, I would point out that I have started as many or more threads here than most that do not have anything to do with the past conflicts, other boards, or ongoing vendettas. They don't draw so much attention, maybe I am too boring a guy. But if you are going to have rules to help nurture this site along, then pleae enforce them consistently. KyTop's posts yesterday reminded me why I come to these boards in the first place. So call me to task when, and if, necessary, but give credit where credit is due. Quote
Guest straycat Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 >#35. "RE: IS HE INANE ????" >In response to Reply # 33 > > > > > "I agree with Vox Pennae that this site must be of its >own >>and not rely on gossiping and disparaging other >>sites for its content. Until it can move >>forward without that, it cannot grow." > >Well, now that we agree, I would point out that I have started >as many or more threads here than most that do not have >anything to do with the past conflicts, other boards, or >ongoing vendettas. They don't draw so much attention, maybe I >am too boring a guy. But if you are going to have rules to >help nurture this site along, then pleae enforce them >consistently. > >KyTop's posts yesterday reminded me why I come to these boards >in the first place. So call me to task when, and if, >necessary, but give credit where credit is due. > > I've been following these threads for the past few days. Lucky when you say give you credit, what should you receive credit for? If I'm correctly reading your comments it appears you want credit for starting new topics and if true that is pretty childish. Many of us have created new topics some take some don't but certainly we're not looking for any type of pat on the back for voluntarily participating in a message center we enjoy. If I've misread your remarks please accept my apology. Quote
Members Lucky Posted September 5, 2006 Members Posted September 5, 2006 "If I've misread your remarks please accept my apology" Accepted!. Quote
Guest BewareofNick Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 I'm sorry, did I miss when you were appointed moderator or admin? If you don't like that discussion, stay out of it. You are deliberately baiting taylor and trying to cause a problem. As for escortspeak, it doesn;t need to be revived since it still exists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/escortspeak Practice what you preach. Quote
Members Lucky Posted September 6, 2006 Members Posted September 6, 2006 I can imagine the fun you are having at your escort speak group. Thankfully I haven't read it. I am accepting the invitation others here are making to move on and try to enjoy a new atmosphere at MER. Mistakes will be made and there are past differences clouding things. I didn't like taylor's post and I said so, perhaps stronger than I might have had not those past clouds existed. But it is as it is. I doubt anyone wants to see me turn into a pollyanna. Nice to know that you still read my posts. Quote
Guest BewareofNick Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Escortspeak is about one thing and one thing only, free speech. Always has been always will be. I am glad that you are going to join the MER pub in the manner in which it was presented. For a minute there, you were starting to sound like a certain overbearing obnoxious admin from another site and that would be a true shame. Quote
Members Buddy2 Posted September 7, 2006 Members Posted September 7, 2006 I am I the only person who thought that Escortspeak no longer existed until i read you message? Am I correct that Escortspeak is now a yahoo group? What is your position on moderating on the Internet in general?. Yesterday I wrote a response to a New York Times blog suggesting that very cute US Open Tennis player Richard Gasquet leg messages on court by the trainer seemed almost like a sexual high to Gasquet. The message waited in line for hours "waiting for a moderator" but was finally posted on the Times website. Should I had been upset if the Times refused to post my comments about Gasquet? If they had not posted it, I was really to object strongly with the argument that women in sports are allowed to be sex object, but not men . What would you have done? Quote
Guest beemerboy Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 howdy bon,hope alls well with you. i've found the best way to deal with antagonists with an obvious agenda is to just ignore them...in all cases their agenda becomes clear to all, and is responded to in the appropriate manner. TBL just cannot be for real.........at least for his sake i hope he's not......lol. TAYLOR Quote
Guest BewareofNick Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 I am for free speech period. If the Times had refused to post it, I would have protested, called, etc etc until they did. Now, I understand that everyone has their little sandbox and certainly that allows you tos et rules for it, but there are no rules at escortspeak other than not violating Yahoo! TOS. Quote
Members Buddy2 Posted September 8, 2006 Members Posted September 8, 2006 Thanks for the fedback. To be fair to the Times, I don't know how many other messages were waiting in line for a moderator's approval. I do know that dozens of other messages were posted while I waited. The subject was women players' clothes at the US Open, not trainers' leg rubs of men players. A year or two ago, I am almost certain the Times would not have posted my message without a strong agument from me -- that is progress. Quote
Guest CheekChecker Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 Totally Agree...So True..So True... :P Quote
