Guest ArVaGuy Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 >> >>Jesse, >> >>I'll do it for 5 and 10% >> >>Competitively yours, >> >>BigK }( > > >Sold! ;-) > >hehe Wait a minute! I did not get to counter offer. I will throw in a full year of free web hosting, plus platinum status on the airline of your choice. And I will settle for a 3% and 5% commission agreement. How's that? }(
TotallyOz Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 >I will throw in a full year of free web hosting, plus platinum >status on the airline of your choice. And I will settle for a >3% and 5% commission agreement. How's that? }( Wait a minute here. Platinum status? That is unfair. Totally. How does one do this? Is there a trick to the trade? Inquiring minds want to know.
Guest ArVaGuy Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 >Wait a minute here. Platinum status? That is unfair. Totally. >How does one do this? Is there a trick to the trade? Inquiring >minds want to know. Inside information. I work with each of the major airlines related to my job - status upgrades come my way from time to time.
Guest Conway Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 If BON understood betting on the ponies, he never would have used the term "trifecta" tro describe someone (purportedly) being wrong three times. A trifecta is when you pick the first three horses to finish a race. So, if one picked a Trifecta, he would have been right three times, not wrong three times. Then again, when one spends his days stalking escorts year after year, he probably doesn't have time to get to the track. So, we can understand his "faux pax".
Guest ArVaGuy Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 >Obviously, Arva went to the Sean Hannity school of >Hanctimoniousness. His whole post smacks of the same twisted >pretzel logic that Hannity uses to try and justify the things >his President does. > >There's no outrage on my part. If you find ATM attractive, >and perhaps kissing Ben's mouth afterwards and tasting the >remains of his feces, then you go, girl. > > 1. The last time I checked, in this morning’s Washington Post, there was only one President of the United States. As outlined by the Constitution it’s a position elected once every four years. Furthermore, it’s the only elected position in this country chosen by the entire eligible electorate. Consequently there is no dual presidency and the reference “his President” is rather absurd. 2. I presumed I made it clear that I had no interest in Ben and so will not be kissing him in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, I don’t care if his mouth does or does not taste of fecal matter. However, if one is into such a fetish that’s up to them and if they want to taste Ben’s fecal matter, or anyone else’s for that matter, that’s their business. Hmmm, I wonder if Ben charges extra for that…..um…service. 3. BON, for such a liberal, you watch a lot of Fox News. 4. How’s that for Hanctimoniousness? 5. I guess this thread is worth another 1500 hits on 15 Minutes.
Guest BewareofNick Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 >If BON understood betting on the ponies, he never would have >used the term "trifecta" tro describe someone >(purportedly) being wrong three times. I guess I understand betting on ponies as well as you understand the law, being a trial lawyer and all (WINK) >A trifecta is when you pick the first three horses to finish a >race. So, if one picked a Trifecta, he would have been right >three times, not wrong three times. Trifecta is a term that has been used in association with President (sic) Bush and always meaning he fucked up three times. Sometimes words have meaning beyond their meaning, but being a trial lawyer (WINK), I am sure you understand what the meaning of is is. >Then again, when one spends his days stalking escorts year >after year, he probably doesn't have time to get to the track. >So, we can understand his "faux pax". Perhaps you could share with us the name of said escorts. I'd be fascinated to know what I've been doing over the years. Perhaps I need a good lawyer (WINK)
Guest BewareofNick Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 >>you don't make the rules here. > >I do. Be nice. Yes, Da...I mean Oz, sir. Thank you, sir. May I have another? >>If you need a >>litter box to piss in, I am sure you have several >overflowing >>at home. > >Again, be nice. I did laugh at this one till I almost pissed >in my pants. But, again, be nice. Well, the guy's name IS straycat....I just pictured a lonely old octagenarian with 40 or 50 cats milling about the place.
Guest BewareofNick Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 >1. The last time I checked, in this morning’s Washington Post, >there was only one President of the United States. As outlined >by the Constitution it’s a position elected once every four >years. Furthermore, it’s the only elected position in this >country chosen by the entire eligible electorate. >Consequently there is no dual presidency and the reference >“his President” is rather absurd. Well, Bush certainly isn't MY president, and while that may be what the Constitution reads, it certainly doesn't match up with the election of 2000 where Bush won 5-4. Of course, as of comments made recently by Sandra Day O'Connor, it seems that she has come to regret that. My President, Al Gore, had the election stolen from him. Sigh. But that's really no different from what Hannity or the Drug Addict on the EIB network said about President Clinton 42, and no doubt what they'll say about President Elect Clinton 44. >2. I presumed I made it clear that I had no interest in Ben >and so will not be kissing him in any way, shape, or form. >Therefore, I don’t care if his mouth does or does not taste of >fecal matter. However, if one is into such a fetish that’s up >to them and if they want to taste Ben’s fecal matter, or >anyone else’s for that matter, that’s their business. Hmmm, I >wonder if Ben charges extra for that…..um…service. I am sure skrubber could tell us quite quickly. >3. BON, for such a liberal, you watch a lot of Fox News. http://www.newshounds.us And it's Fox "News", to be correct.
TotallyOz Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 >Yes, Da...I mean Oz, sir. Thank you, sir. May I have >another? Reminds me of my college days. I had an initiation of sorts. I love it when someone speaks so pleasant and brings back such fond memories. Thank you! BTW: the guy's name who was doing the initiation was Clay. He was hot and sexy. I think of Italian decent. From NJ if I remember correctly. And had a nice cock that rose to the occasion when he took public showers. Such memories. Thank you!
Guest ChgoBoy Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 A few final thoughts about this thread before moving on, as there doesn’t really seem to be much more to say on this topic. Oz. If you promote and advertise this website with the vigor and energy you have just promoted and advertised BN in your earlier post; there is no question in my mind that your traffic numbers will increase to that level which you are targeting. I don’t for the most part dispute anything about your points made about BN in paragraphs 3-5. Of course, there’s really nothing to dispute, as there’s not one reference within your remarks addressing the actual subject matter of this thread. I can see Oz, where that could be a conflict for you. I really can and do respect that conflict. It would be a conflict of conscience, I suspect, to challenge, support and/or defend statements of safer sex practices on this website, while at the same time promoting unsafe, bareback fucking on the other. As a business person, it’s probably the lesser of two evils to simply ignore the actual subject matter at hand here, and instead, spin some off topic support for Ben as a response, irregardless of the fact that, that spin was never in dispute to begin with. As a business person, I’m sure Oz that your first and foremost interest and concern is that of your membership. As well it should be. The review section of this site is a delivery mechanism for information and guidance for your membership to utilize and action, in assisting them to make informed choices for themselves. No one, of course, can guarantee the authenticity or truthfulness of that information all of the time. But when one can, and when you know that your membership is being subjected to less than accurate information; what role does and should ownership play in correcting that information, so that the valued membership is protected from false claims and misrepresentation? I ask this Oz, because that’s what we’ve been talking about here. Nothing more, nothing less. Had Ben’s escort profiles across the net (and here) reflected that fact that he sometimes engages in less than safer sex with clients, then this thread would have never been born to the light of day. And that’s just a simple fact. I’m sure that Ben bends over backwards to satisfy his clients and make sure that their well taken care of. And as well he should, for the money he charges them. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. Ben promotes himself as a first class, full service, safe sex only escort. Fine, and I’m sure that some clients find that to be very true. But somewhere between those three references, integrity and credibility must find their place as well. So Oz, where do you stand on truthfulness, when it comes to escort profiles and the information contained within them? And, do you feel that the ownership, of any given website, has an obligation to its membership to ensure to the best of their ability, that the information on their website is accurate and forthcoming? P.S. Did you really not have sex with Danilo? Inquiring minds want to know. }( }(
Guest jessedane Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 >Wait a minute! I did not get to counter offer. > >I will throw in a full year of free web hosting, plus platinum >status on the airline of your choice. And I will settle for a >3% and 5% commission agreement. How's that? }( Ok, you win! I'll take American please. :-) But I do like the story Oz was spinning up. Maybe we can work that into the deal somehow.
Members TampaYankee Posted March 11, 2006 Members Posted March 11, 2006 We are not in the business of punishing members or nonmembers for their offsite activities. We are in the business of providing information and a venue for discussion. We hope the information is accurate but we have no way of knowing how accurate the vast majority of it is. We strive to verify what we can verify. That is very limited by the nature of the online world -- an anonymous world for the most part. Our philosophy is to present all sides of an issue if rationally and respectfully put forth. Escorts provide informational profiles to advertise their services. Reviewers provide information about an encounter that is, at best, colored wholy by their experience. We don't know most of the escorts that list. We are not present at the encounters that reviewers post. Who knows where truth lies? The fact of the matter is that, in this world, truth for each of us lies with our experience. Experiences differ thus there are many potential truths to be told. The global truth is seldom glimpsed my most of us. All we can really rely on is our experience versus what we understood we were given to believe by the individual, not by third parties. (The image of real-world resumes comes to mind here.) All the rest is hearsay. As individuals, we may choose to believe hearsay or not. As a site, we strive for an even-handed level playing field for clients and escorts alike. To repeat, we present all sides of an issue that are rationally and respectfully put forth. Sometimes we make the assessment that information is suspicious depending on what and how it is presented. The history of the internet is replete with stalkers and vendettas. Other times, legitmate issues are pressed way beyond reason, crossing a line that makes one wonder how personal the motives are. We won't lend out the site for the purpose of vendettas. We are in no position to promulgate our opinion as truth, to substitute our opinion for the reader's opinion. We feel the reader should make the judgement about all information, be it reviews or profiles. In the end this business is strictly caveat emptor. A separate thought to all... This comment is inspired by this thread but it is presented with future threads in mind as this thread seems to have run its course. I received some interesting comments regarding this thread from a few members. To put forth the essence of these comments I will combine and paraphrase into the following... [em]Even though the primary character of this thread has been hashed and rehashed adnauseum over the last year, and even though I have made up my mind about this individual, to my suprise I found the discussion of the different points of view an interesting read rather than the previously usual and always boring ad hominem exchanges. While I don't agree with all that is stated, each side has legitmate points for discussion worth following....[/em] The point is there is no need to be disagreeable in order to have interesting discussions. In fact, that gets in the way of interesting discussions which soon fall by the wayside as personal exchanges take over. This thread seemed to wander onto that slippery slope as characterization of individuals started to creep in. If posters want to keep readers interest then stick to your guns -- argument guns that is. If you want to engage in personal exchanges then please take the exchange off forum. We provide private messaging in addition to the email possessed by all members. Keep personal exchanges personal. Thanks.
Guest BewareofNick Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 >We are in the business of providing information and a venue >for discussion. We hope the information is accurate but we >have no way of knowing how accurate the vast majority of it >is. We strive to verify what we can verify. That is very >limited by the nature of the online world -- an anonymous >world for the most part. Our philosophy is to present all >sides of an issue if rationally and respectfully put forth. But the problem lies with that small contingent who believes it is sacrilege to write anything that even remotely makes BN look bad. All CB or I was doing was providing information about a review that shows BN engaging in some highly questionable and certainly unsafe practices. If you choose to hire BN after reading that, great. At least you know you are putting your health at risk. If you don't like reading criticism of BN, why do you read the thread? Why do you comment upon it?
Guest Conway Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 Actually, the problem lies with those of us who are completely tired of hearing you two harp upon the matter here and anywhere else you're still allowed to post. We got it the first time. we understand that for some reason, the two of you loathe a man that you've never met. We recognize that your fascination with him borders on obsession. And, finally, we're tired of hearing you two boring old drones go on and on about it forever. You've made your point. Now kindly shut the hell up.
Guest ArVaGuy Posted March 12, 2006 Posted March 12, 2006 Bravo!! http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c262/cpa...ns/applause.gif
Members TampaYankee Posted March 12, 2006 Members Posted March 12, 2006 >And, finally, we're tired of hearing you two boring old drones >go on and on about it forever. You've made your point. Now >kindly shut the hell up. You effectively made your point prior to this paragraph. This unnecessary and incendiary personal characterization added nothing but the back of your hand. Keep personal exchanges OFF FORUM.
TotallyOz Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 >I suspect, to challenge, support and/or defend >>statements of safer sex practices on this website, while at >>the same time promoting unsafe, bareback fucking on the >other. There are many ways to practice safe sex. Sexuality.org has a list of them. It is more than just bareback fucking. Some I just can't deal with, such as monogamy. Unprotected oral sex is also another area that many have a conflict with. That is also unsafe and yet not many discuss it as being unsafe. How many clients hire for repeats if an escort uses a condom to suck? I can tell you the answer to that, but you may already know. Personally, I am not a dildo person. I have never had one up my ass. I have no desire to do so. I don't eat ass. I consider someone that has a dildo shoved up his ass and then down this own mouth as something I would not do. I guess I consider it the same as I do unprotected oral sex. But, in this review you seem to love, I keep reading it over and over and it seems to me that he shoved his own dildo up his ass and then into his mouth. Is that correct? I guess that is a form of unsafe sex. Is also self sucking a form of unsafe sex? I saw this done recently by a guy I met. I guess each person has to determine where to draw the line on what they call unsafe sex. I have always thought that most agree that it is unprotected anal intercourse. >So Oz, where do you stand on truthfulness, when it comes >to >escort profiles and the information contained within >them? I want us all to be truthful. Both in profiles and in agendas. >P.S. Did you really not have sex with Danilo? Inquiring minds want to know. haha. I really did not have sex with him. He slept in my bed many nights and not even one touch. He is a special guy and I respect him and his boundaries. PS.. This thread is now one of the most popular on the site. I see that BN got the press again. As for me, I think I have answered about as much on this topic as I possibly can. I'll move on to other issues. Anyone see the pictures of Jared from Toronto? Hot. Oz
Guest ChgoBoy Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 >> This thread is now one of the most popular on the site. This just goes to support my long time theory that if you keep the likes of SouthernMan, Conway and Straycat locked in the basement with their chew toys and sniper comments; adult men, can engage in adult conversations and interactions with other adult men. Oh sure, the frisky rascals will always find a new way out, but that’s what makes them so endearing I suppose. >>There are many ways to practice safe sex. There is indeed Oz, and many of them, as you noted with your “oral sex with a condom” example, is one of them. Not very appealing at all, I agree. Abstinence anyone? Unlikely, and probably not even a reasonable alternative for most gay men. Monogamy would probably be the best bet, but for me, monogamy has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with personal restrictions, conditions and unrealistic commitment. Any one of the three seems to spell doom for most relationships, whether they are gay or straight. The fact is, that sex, between any two consulting adults, is always going to carry an element of risk with it. And, of course, then the question becomes; how much risk am I willing to take, and, how do I personally ensure that I’ve done all that I can do to minimize those risks? For me, it comes down to education and truthful information. >>I want us all to be truthful. Both in profiles and in agendas. So here we are, full circle, back where this thread began. That being truthfulness and credibility in profiles. As I mentioned earlier in this thread; all we really can do as sexually active individuals is arm ourselves with the best and most accurate information out there, to base our hiring and sexual activities on. There is no guarantee, that the information you ultimately choose to rely upon to make those decisions will be accurate or at best, even truthful. But, as responsible human beings, who are collectively and individually seeking the truth; don’t we have the responsibility to ourselves and each other, to correct, when the opportunity presents itself, misstated and untruthful representations of such information? Turning ones head, from what one knows to be true, will never be looked upon as the right thing to do. Based upon what we know to be true; I would like to respectfully suggest that the ownership of this site do the right thing and identify itself, by action, as a true resource for the gay community, when it comes to our health, entertainment and well being. I would like to see the opportunity given to Benjamin Nicholas to amend his previous statement of “safe sex always” to either: “sometimes,” “never,” “let’s talk,” or “no response.” This opportunity, would no doubt correct inaccurate information currently posted, and, subsequently ensure that the current and future membership of this site has, at best, truth when the truth really matters. Setting this moral standard, for current and future enterprises such as this to follow, will only help to assure that our community reflects the values and ideals that we as individuals seek and hopefully bestow upon one another.
Members TampaYankee Posted March 13, 2006 Members Posted March 13, 2006 >This just goes to support my long time theory that if you keep >the likes of SouthernMan, Conway and Straycat locked in the >basement with their chew toys and sniper comments; adult men, >can engage in adult conversations and interactions with other >adult men. Oh sure, the frisky rascals will always find a new >way out, but that’s what makes them so endearing I suppose. > From post #40 with a simple word replacement... [em]You effectively made your point prior to after this paragraph. This unnecessary and incendiary personal characterization added nothing but the back of your hand. Keep personal exchanges OFF FORUM. [/em] Apparently people are not reading post #40, comprehending the post or understanding that it applies to all even if a response to one. My request was simple, plain spoken. Hopefully this clears up any confusion or uncertainty. Another comment in that post about a slipperly slope seems unappreciated. The Message Center will not go down that slope. >adult men, can engage in adult conversations and >interactions with other adult men. This is what we are about and we have gotten off to a pretty good start. We intend to observe the adult etiquette that gives this atmosphere legs. We hope that everyone is onboard. Keep personal characterizations and exchanges OFF FORUM.
Guest ChgoBoy Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 >>This just goes to support my long time theory that if you >keep >From post #40 with a simple word replacement... > >[em]You effectively made your point prior >to after this paragraph. This unnecessary and >incendiary personal characterization added nothing but the >back of your hand. Keep personal exchanges OFF FORUM. [/em] > >Apparently people are not reading post #40, >comprehending the post or understanding that it applies to all >even if a response to one. My request was simple, plain >spoken. Hopefully this clears up any confusion or >uncertainty. >Keep personal characterizations and exchanges OFF FORUM. Having five bullet holes in me at the time from "the boys" I was delerious with confusion and consciousness and didn't realize my actions. I'm picking up what you're putting down here TY and am onboard with it. ;-) :-)
Guest ChgoBoy Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 <> Oops. I failed to include my comments regarding “truth in agendas” yesterday along with my post. My bad. Btw, thanks Oz, for including this item in your response. I take Oz’s quote here, to reflect the “agendas” of people like me, who are publicly expressing their discontent with the inappropriate and irresponsible behaviors of Benjamin Nicholas. And, it’s a very valid topic to bring up and explore. I’m not certain that I specifically have an “agenda” when it comes to Benjamin Nicholas; but it most certainly is a truer reflection of my actions, if I do, than what some have been calling a vendetta, witch hunt, obsession etc. I don’t have the time, desire or interest to entertain those emotionally draining and generally fruitless type activities. But with that said, I have in the past, and will continue in the future, to jump at the opportunity to call Benjamin Nicholas on his shit, and respond to that shit in any format available, when his reckless, cavalier and irresponsible behavior impacts and affects the lives of innocent victims and by-standers. About a year ago, and prior to the Great-Meltdown of the M4M Message Center, I became introduced to Benjamin Nicholas by Benjamin Nicholas with a bitch slap to the face, coupled with a condescending remark about how if I could travel first class, the way he always does, then I too, could avoid the pitfalls and travel nightmare which I was sharing with others in an ongoing thread. “Wow,” I thought. “Who’s this princess, and where does she get off assuming that my or anyone else’s ability to travel first class was any less than hers?” I didn’t respond back as I was new and just trying to get a handle on participating in message centers. But others did respond and boy did they ever. It was fascinating reading, if you like ego based, self righteous reasoning in defending ones superiority over another. Suddenly, it seemed as though every other thread was about Benjamin Nicholas. It got quite ugly at times and through subsequent postings by others, I learned of his blog and what has been coined as his Yahoo “Cult Info Group.” Being the curious sort that I am, I traveled over to these sites to see what all the hoop-la was all about. What I found initially was a pretty average blog, which was written entirely in the first person and a Yahoo group of members that appeared to be more from Stepford than from their respective home towns. As time passed and new blog entries were published, I began to see what all the controversy for some was all about. I can generally smell bullshit a mile away, but being almost 1700 miles away was a new experience for me. It was apparent, at least for me, that the blog entries were turning much uglier, into blatant lies and those lies into personal attacks upon a variety of people, both public and private. And then one day, for me, it became too much. Last spring, Benjamin Nicholas publicly published the first, of what would be three, descriptive innuendo outings of people allegedly infected with HIV. Benjamin Nicholas was now using HIV and those infected with it, not only as a marketing tool to promote himself and his blog, but also as a weapon against those he apparently did not like. Imagine, if you can. Some have called Benjamin Nicholas a “great” and “brilliant” businessman. His behaviors suggest otherwise; that he’s nothing more than a self-centered, self righteous, insecure and deviant human being with no real regard for anyone in life, but himself and his own personal self interests. I consider Benjamin Nicholas a tragic example of what people can become, when they live so self absorbed within themselves that they can no longer see the humanity around them. Imagine. Using HIV as a weapon against someone who is infected with one of the most deadliest diseases this community has ever known; just for the sake of feeding his own ego with self imposed power, worth and importance. Imagine it, if you can. HIV hits very close to home for me. I’ve attended way too many funerals in my short time on this planet, for some dear friends and a treasured lover. I watched them all live, as they were dying. I cared for and comforted them when they were too sick to care for or comfort themselves. I cried with them through their fear of dying and watched their courage emerge from those tears, only to continue living for as long as they could. A piece of me died with each one of them. A piece of them will remain with me forever. Imagine. Using HIV as a weapon against someone who is infected with one of the most deadliest diseases this community has ever known; just for sake of feeding his own ego with self imposed power, worth and importance. Imagine it, if you can. Sometimes, people are rallied to a cause in the most peculiar of ways. Since Benjamin’s first reckless outing of his first HIV victim, Benjamin Nicholas’ pen has been my rallying call. Whether it is his untruthful safe sex encounters with clients or subsequent HIV outings, I feel the need to at least send the message that reckless and hateful behavior toward others, by him, will at least not go unanswered. It’s a small thing I realize, but it feels like the right thing to do. Maybe you can't unring a bell, but you can always ring one of your own. So yes, Oz, I suppose I do have an agenda, when it comes to Benjamin Nicholas. Is it a truthful agenda? I believe in my heart it is. Is it a blind agenda? Absolutely not. Should Benjamin Nicholas ever stand up like a man and do something for the betterment of mankind, I will be the first one standing, with applauding hands over head. Agenda? Yes. Guilty. Every time Benjamin Nicholas puts pen to paper in an attempt to harm someone who is HIV positive or makes claims of safer sex practices when that is less than truthful, Ben can expect to hear from me in one form or another. He can probably also expect some future satirical pieces from me as well, just for the fun of it. Vendetta? No. I hate blood and vendettas are way to consuming to the human spirit to even entertain. I love going weeks on end not even hearing the name Benjamin Nicholas. Too much Ben gives me gas. Obsession? No. The only obsessive behavior I have (or recognize) is playing too much lacrosse (even in 3 feet of snow), eating way too much deep dish pizza, figuring out my pc when something goes wrong with it, damn water spots on my car, and my latest; figuring out a way to get Danilo to Chicago and into my bed. So there you have it. My truth. Thanks to all who have put up with this thread. It was important to me.
Guest Funseeker22 Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 >DO you ever get tired of yourself?? Agree. An absolute pyscho stalker in our midst. P.S. When I met BN in FL he selected a flight and coach fare for the meeting. No mention ever made about 1st class requirements. Shows you can`t always believe what you read.
Guest beemerboy Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 not very nice to insult fellow posters. are personal attacks allowed here? i thought they were not,but calling a poster a "psycho" sounds a little personal to me. hope their are not two sets of rules...like the other place...where some people are called for their boorish behavior,and some are not.
Members TampaYankee Posted March 15, 2006 Members Posted March 15, 2006 It would have been nice to see your concern posted much earlier in this thread. It certainly would have been appropriate then. Nevetheless, the comment you referenced was uncalled for, as were some others earlier. We are still in a startup period where some of us are getting reacquainted after a fashion and learning to reforge our posting style to fit this community. In addition, it seems there is a need for some to have one last revisit of a bit old business before they put it behind them. Hopefully this will pass and we move on to fresh topics and issues. The management will apply the rules to whomever when it becomes necessary to resolve our problems. We are not a court of law -- don't look for us to dispense justice and equity. If your want that then find 12 men tried and true and a judge to hear your case. It would take that at a minimum. We are more akin to our model Pub. Pubs don't tolerate fights on the premises. The try to defuse situations before that arises. If they cannot then they remove them. Pubs cater to those that don't brawl.
