Circle Jerk Conversations on the Message Board

[Guest ncm2169]

Does anyone else think HB should expand the Politics, Religion and War forum to include other mainly non-escort-related topics/dialogue? :o

 

If that happened, I'd gladly post my rants about porn-producers who portray barebacking there. Yes, maybe they'd be read less, but then so would certain posters' (no names, of course :* ) ENDLESS dead-horse-beating responses. :+

 

NO big loss there, IMHO. }(

[Flower]

I think it is too bad that you feel you're better off posting to a less read section rather than incur the verbal abuse and name calling that a few here engage in.

 

This board long ago lost it's exclusivity to escort related topics and in so doing made it more interesting. If you let the few abusers here push you into the corner then you let them win--and we all know that shouldn't happen.

 

I'm not talking about the criticism or challenging of ideas and the controversy that ensues in the process--that's interesting, entertaining and educational. You've taken opposing positions to mine a few times and maybe I to yours--I don't think that's the kind of stuff you're talking about--I'm not.

 

A few people, however, are so frustrated by their limited communication skills that they can't express their ideas except through epitaphs, name calling and insults, and that gets old and tiring. Not only is it childish but boring and unpleasant. It's one thing to say an idea is dumb or nonsense, but quite another to call a poster a fat slob, demented or whatever, just because you disagree with his statement -- rather than just put up a cogent and well thought out reason(s) for your disagreement.

 

Civility is of course too much to ask for here, but just ignoring the verbally abusive would go a long way in sending them away--children have short attention spans and if ignored will soon take up other amusements :+

 

On one hand you might be tempted to let them drive you off to avoid the unnecessary abuse, but then the undeserving win. I'd rather have you post your stuff where ever you feel like it and just ignore abusive posters, as you see fit.

[Uncle Bill]

... and it's a good story, so you should stick with it.

[Will]

Off and on, I've thought about the same possibility. For example, there's a new thread this morning from a member who's been lurking for a while. Although he doesn't mention escorts or sex, the very fact that he chose M4M as a place to air his problems indicates that he thinks he might get some intelligent and sympathetic answers from gay men in his age cohort. Frankly, I think that's a wise assumption, because I myself have made a number of on-line acquaintances here, and I correspond with them from time to time about all kinds of things, most of which have nothing to do with escorts or even with sex.

 

As a long-time booster of this site, I continue to be surprised that M4M seems to be the only place on the entire world-wide web where gay men whose opinions I value come together. As for readership, the more interesting the threads, the more readers there will be. (I usually avoid the "Politics..." forum because I'm interested in ideas, not in being caught in angry, ideological cross-fires that succeed only in killing my interest in reading further.) Thus, I think it would be great if there were a forum that featured non-escort topics.

 

I'd be the first to acknowledge that such a forum is not what Hoo had in mind when he established M4M. On the other hand, M4M has become an institution in the online gay world, and I hope that Hoo is proud of that. So, if it wouldn't be an added expense to his overhead, I'd be very happy to see a more general forum opened up. And I'd do my best to make regular contributions.

[axebahia]

>... I'm interested in ideas, not in

>being caught in angry, ideological cross-fires that succeed

>only in killing my interest in reading further.)

 

Ideas without ideology, that's an interesting concept?!

[Will]

It's not only a concept, it's an epistemological fact. Look it up in the dictionary.

[axebahia]

>It's not only a concept, it's an epistemological fact. Look

>it up in the dictionary.

 

"Epistemolgical fact"? I think that would depend on what your philosophy of language is, and whether you believe in teleology or hermeneutics, n'est ce pas?

[Doug69]

It's so nice to see that Great Defender of Civility, "Flower", protest against those who - to use his eloquent words - "can't express their ideas except through epitaphs, name calling and insults". Flower really loathes incivility.

 

But, could someone explain how it can be that Flower, the Great Defender of Civility, is the same person who authored the following highly civil, elevated contributions to this forum in the last month alone, in numerous different posts:

 

<<This is simply too stupid for words. It represents a new low in your cognitive disability, and makes no sense whatsoever.

 

You have to be pretending to be this stupid, as you seem to know how to use a spell checker!

 

Regardless, you very seldom make sense, and have poor reasoning and low cognitive ability, and obviously frustrated with life and your lot in it

 

ummmm, as they say, you can take the boy out of the teacher, but you can't take the teacher out of Woodlaw

 

If you lecture to your students with the same imprecision as with which you write your posts, then god bless 'em.

 

Whoa, big guy--you really have gone off the deep end on this one. If I hit a nerve about psychiatric counseling or being FAT, I really appolgize--I didn't realize you were so sensitive about those things

 

You need to chill a little hawk--deep breaths and relax man. Life is good and no need to become so frustrated that you start belittling yourself by calling names. After reading this post, I realize more than ever that if you had half a brain, you'd be dangerous.>>

 

The person who authored this green adolescent hatred is the same person who, in this thread, is lecturing against the evil of personal insults and name-calling. I guess civility is in the eye of the beholder, or it's just a product of which end of it you're on.

 

Keep up the civil discourse, Flower!

[+ deej]

The description of the Lounge is "A place to gather and exchange ideas." It doesn't get much more "general purpose" than that. ;-)

 

We had a forum at one time specifically intended for flame wars and bitch-slap sessions. People complained when threads got moved there.

[JamesK840]

That's kind of the problem, many of the circle jerks start out completly innocuous, then the thread gets hijacked and turned into a never-ending flame war (unfortunatly every 'hot topic thread' seems to be one, that icon means 'don't bother reading' to me, instead of the opposite it's supposed to mean) by the bad apples.

 

Some boards force people to stay on topic within a thread, but the wandering is fun when it doesn't turn to BS, so I don't know there are any easy solutions.

 

Ignoring the children screaming for attention is unpleasant for everybody within earshot, but may work if we keep at it. Still, something to be said for the old days when the Daddy would haul off and belt the kid... }(

 

Now, let's have a conversation about circle jerks! :+

[+ Lucky]

RE: Circle Jerks

 

One of my regrets in life is that I was never involved in an adolescent circle jerk. How exciting that must be to jack off with several other hot guys when you were in school. It is hard to believe that "straight" boys would gather around to jerk off with a bunch of other guys.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Circle Jerks

 

>It is

>hard to believe that "straight" boys would gather around to

>jerk off with a bunch of other guys.

 

Harder still to believe that they wouldn't want a cocksucker in the middle to blow 'em all instead. :9

[chrismac]

Over on the MSS boards (muscleservice.com) they have such a set-up on the forum page. There is a board for escorts and muscle worship (Muscle Logbook), one for work-out (and steroid mostly) related topics (Muscle Weightroom), one for posting personal ads (Muscle Locker Room), one for posting hot pics (Muscle Life and Lust), one for general discussion of any topic except those which fit more neatly into the others (Open Topic), and one which is devoted to politics and religion (aptly named, Politics & Religion). There seem to be more posters over there, thus a greater variety of conversation, especially in the Open Topic forum.

 

While flame wars are not unheard of in any of these forums (and are the raison d'etre of the Politics & Religion forum), for whatever reason the discussions by and large seem to be devoid of some of the childish and churlish dialogue that often, IMO, plagues the Lounge here. Once a flame war does ignite, people seem to lose interest quickly, and the thread drops to page 2, then into oblivion, all pretty much within a day.

 

The Politics and Religion forum is quite another story, but everyone is pretty aware of that and unless someone wants to get into that mess (and I sometimes do if a topic piques my interest, though I avoid getting into the name-calling), and stays away if it's not their cup of tea.

 

Where disagreements do occur in the Open Topic, or anywhere else (and there have been some doosies), Ace eventually gets around to telling people to knock it off, or he bans them if they don't get the message. Otherwise, disagreements are usually a lot more civil, and to a large degree people try to focus on the issues, not the personalities.

 

I find there are fewer and fewer topics here where I would like to post, and when I do have a serious question (as I did in the I can see dead fat people), it gets ignored in favor of continuing the never-ending back and forth of cannon shots, which like a Greek mythology tale, the participants seemed doomed forever to hurl fireballs at each other, but since they are largely immune to each other's weapons - the battle goes on without end.

 

Sure, the advice goes, "if you don't like it, just skip over it" - very true. But as someone in this thread stated, a thread often begins with a serious question but then gets hijacked into a personal death-lock, and useful conversation on a topic is killed.

[axebahia]

>I find there are fewer and fewer topics here where I would

>like to post....

 

Then why not start more of your own threads?

[Doug69]

>Sure, the advice goes, "if you don't like it, just skip over

>it" - very true. But as someone in this thread stated, a

>thread often begins with a serious question but then gets

>hijacked into a personal death-lock, and useful conversation

>on a topic is killed.

 

Different people use this board and post here for completely different reasons. Some people come here to talk only about escorts. Other people come to exchange cutesy little one-liners about light, frivolous topics with each other. Other people come here to engage in more extensive discussion and debate about more serious topics.

 

Whichever group you're in, you're not likely to enjoy the discussions of the people in the other group. Personally, I despise the cutesy little one-liner chats about frivolous topics. But I would never seek to have such chats banned or moved. I just don't read them. I know who the people are who do this, and if I see their names, or see a topic that strikes me as frivolous or silly, I'll just skip it. Sometimes, I miscalculate and read it by accident, but I recover quickly from this trauma.

 

Who cares if people here have discussions that you don't like? Just ignore them. There's no Message Board on the Internet which is going to have all discussions that appeal to you. Certain posters here make me a little ill - so I either skip what they write, or read it and refute it, or just skim it. Why would I care to have it elimianted?

 

The claim that such discussions "hijack threads" is just untrue. Usually, lengthy discussions between the same people get confined to the same sub-thread, so they're easy to recognize and skip if you want to. Simliarly, the frivolous silly exchanges end up in the same place in a thread, so they are also easy to find or skip if you want to dot hat. In the "fat" thread, for instance, there is one sub-thread devoted to lengthy discussions; one sub-thread devoted to cutesy exchanges; and one sub-thread that is just chatter about fatness. Just pick the one you like and read it; ignore the rest.

 

All this is about is that certain people here want to control what other people say and how they say it, because they can't stand to be exposed to things they don't agree with or people they dislike. They masquerade their complaints under the banner of "civility," but as I demonstrated above, the people complaining about incivility are among the worst offenders.

 

A message board is only interesting if it has a diversity of veiws and personalities. If you want to talk only to yourself, go to the mirror. If there are people or discussions that you hate so much you can't bear to be exposed, just skip them. Why would anyone want, or think they have the perogative, to demand that everyone else talk about what they want to talk about, and do so the way they like?

[axebahia]

I could not have said it better myself?

[woodlawn]

>when I do have a serious question (as I did

>in the I can see dead fat people), it gets ignored in favor of

>continuing the never-ending back and forth of cannon shots,

 

>a

>thread often begins with a serious question but then gets

>hijacked into a personal death-lock, and useful conversation

>on a topic is killed.

 

What I don't understand is why you blame others if you post a question in a thread and no one wants to address it. How is that the fault of the people who are talking about something else in the thread? How can they "kill" what you consider to be "useful conversation"? They have no power to stop others from posting, do they?

 

The truth is, as Doug suggests, that no one can "hijack" a thread. If everyone has the same ability to post comments on whatever topic he likes, the direction of each thread will always be determined by the people who want to participate in it. You can't blame the other participants because they don't care to talk about the same things that interest you.

 

I have seen the sort of complaints you and ncm are making many, many times on this board. And Doug is right: they always come from people who want to limit this board to the topics THEY happen to like. They remind me of the Soviet government; in Soviet Russia the opera, the ballet and the symphony were always packed, but that was in part because the government placed severe limits on other forms of entertainment.

 

If you don't see many threads on topics that you like, then start some. If you find that too few people want to discuss those topics, maybe you are in the wrong place.

[chrismac]

>If you don't see many threads on topics that you like, then

>start some. If you find that too few people want to discuss

>those topics, maybe you are in the wrong place.

>

 

How true!

[Rick Munroe]

>Personally, I

>despise the cutesy little one-liner chats about frivolous

>topics. But I would never seek to have such chats banned or

>moved.

 

Thanks, Doug. That's a relief.

 

>I know who the people are who

>do this, and if I see their names...

>I'll just skip it.

 

Oops, spoke too soon. I guess you won't see my "thanks" above. :-(

 

>Sometimes, I

>miscalculate and read it by accident

 

Oh, good. Thanks again, Doug.

[Guest ncm2169]

No one's driving me away, Flower, I was just pondering "conversational circle jerks." And yes, I make a point of ignoring at least one of those "dead horse floggers" and his lying personal attacks (from which he always backs off at even the hint of a challenge, which proves that he's both a demogogic weasel and an utter coward). :o Maybe I should have suggested a "Dead Horse Floggers" Forum, with entrance only available to 2 or 3 posters here.

 

To Deej: yeah, the Lounge is for the discussion of ideas, but war, politics and religion involve ideas too, and those posts got moved. So, this is just fodder for discussion.

 

As for convo about "real" circle jerks, hey, let's go for it! }(

 

The closest I ever got to that in college back in the '70's (aside from a few one-on-one "circles") was when 3 of us were wasted and horny late one night and one of the other guys said, "Well, we could have a circle jerk." (Several years later I found out he was gay). The other guy (who's totally str8) said, "Why waste it?" My response, as a VERY curious guy was, "Well, it's not like you have a limited supply." :9

 

Somehow the conversation drifted off...x(

[Rick Munroe]

>The truth is, as Doug suggests, that no one can "hijack" a

>thread. If everyone has the same ability to post comments on

>whatever topic he likes, the direction of each thread will

>always be determined by the people who want to participate in

>it. You can't blame the other participants because they don't

>care to talk about the same things that interest you.

 

Exactly. Complaints about "hijacking" are really silly and pointless. But we wouldn't ever want to stop anyone from posting their anti-hijacking posts. We can just skip over 'em. ;-)

[Guest ncm2169]

What? No stories about you and Rick having circle jerks in college? }(

 

Oops. Maybe we both should shut up and let the dead horse floggers take over this thread too. x(

 

Too bad. Coulda been a hott hijack! :9

 

Especially if they'd been "str8-acting." (The jerkers, not the floggers). :o

[woodlawn]

>Oops. Maybe we both should shut up and let the dead horse

>floggers take over this thread too.

 

Maybe you should shut up and stop complaining about the fact that not everyone wants to talk about the same things you do and in the same way. That really is all your posts in this thread amount to, isn't it? How on earth can it harm you if a few other people want to talk about a topic you think has been exhausted? I have heard many complaints like yours on this message board, but none of the people making them has ever explained why it's necessary to his well-being to control what other people talk about.

[JamesK840]

I don't think it's discussion that people are fed up with, even ad nauseum on an exhausted topic so much as attacks and other BS which serves no purpose but to drive people away (though often not the person under attack). This especially costs us new members and often escorts.

[kjun]

You pompous ass. I don't know you and no sadness in that. However, I would bet, from your writings, that you are a nelly queen.

.

the Cajun