A call for Amnesty and reconciliation.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

I would like to propose to the renewed and re-energized management of this MC that they extend an olive branch to those that have been banned from participating on this board. With all of the eloquent writings from Boston Guy, Doug6969 and others about civility and growing beyond the past of personal attacks and petty behavior, I can’t think of a better way to begin this new journey forward, than to extend to those we have left behind an opportunity to be reunited with this community. I have always believed that if individuals are not permitted to learn from their past and exercise what they have learned, then as a society we are doomed to fail, as none of us are without mistakes and misjudgments in our past. For those who have been banned I suspect there is much pain and disappointment. Although I speak for none of them, I can imagine how it must feel to be cut off from a community that some called home for many years and were passionate contributors on this board. What happened in the past is the past. There was dysfunction on both sides of the fence; management and members. What we have learned from all of this is that it takes all of us to make this board successful and if we are to be fair in our reflections of the past, those banned were trying to function in an environment that did not function very well at times. Should we hold those we have left behind responsible for everything that contributed to their departure? I believe not. I believe that to move forward and to heal what has been a painful experience for many; we need to extend a welcome back to those who wish to return. I propose that Daddy reset all user names that have been de-activated during this period of unrest and all those who wish, have the opportunity to participate with the new rules that have now been clearly defined and authored by the moderators of this site. In my mind, it’s the right and fair thing to do.

 

 

Respectfully,

 

ChgoBoy.

:-)

[Donnie]

>I believe that to move forward and

>to heal what has been a painful experience for many;

 

Dude, its a message board, not ground zero the day after 9/11.

[BigK]

I agree. Proper thing to do is let them back knowing the new rules. From then on whatever happens happens.

[noviceny]

>>

>Dude, its a message board, not ground zero the day after

>9/11.

 

 

Although I think Chgboy has a great sentiment, this quote made my day

[BobbyThompson]

It was a little dramatic, but I understand the sentiment.

 

Though, I support the moderators' decision to ban whomever they feel strangles the message board. Hate speech is something that I think hinders the flow of ideas, and personally wouldn't mind seeing the board free from such unprovoked hostility.

 

Bobby

http://www.AllAboutBobby.com

[Doug69]

>Though, I support the moderators' decision to ban whomever

>they feel strangles the message board. Hate speech is

>something that I think hinders the flow of ideas, and

>personally wouldn't mind seeing the board free from such

>unprovoked hostility.

 

How about someone, such as yourself, who calls for other gentlemen who are members here to be excluded from our club, or who applauds their exclusion in front of other members. A lot of people might find that speech to be pretty hateful. I know I do.

 

So you do support the deletion of your own posts and your banishment from this forum based on how hateful your comments are? After all, "hate speech is something that I think hinders the flow of ideas," as does "unprovoked hostility" like this.

 

Or is it, as I suspect, that a post is only "hateful" and "unprovoked hostility" when it's directed against people you like, but is perfectly fine when directed against people you don't like, or when spat out by you?

[Guy Fawkes]

"Please remember that the moderators are unpaid volunteers who give of their time to help ensure that this Message Center runs smoothly If you have concerns about the actions of a moderator, please send an email to daddy@male4malescorts.com."

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>I would like to propose to the renewed and re-energized

>management of this MC that they extend an olive branch to

>those that have been banned from participating on this board.

>With all of the eloquent writings from Boston Guy, Doug6969

>and others about civility and growing beyond the past of

>personal attacks and petty behavior, I can’t think of a better

>way to begin this new journey forward...

 

I believe in redemption. It goes hand-in-hand with contrition. If bygones are really bygones then that provides a foundation for a new beginning.

 

>I have always believed that if individuals are not

>permitted to learn from their past and exercise what they have

>learned, then as a society we are doomed to fail, as none of

>us are without mistakes and misjudgments in our past.

 

A reading of postings at the alternate site that you posted a hyperlink to the other day leads me to infer that not all posters are contrite about their past behavior, individually or collectively. Or ready to come together in a new spirit of cooperation without rancor. A definite difference in tone, depending on the site, seems to prevail for some individuals. I have no problem with them being themselves and posting their true feelings. I only mention it because your statement about learning from the past.

 

 

>For

>those who have been banned I suspect there is much pain and

>disappointment. Although I speak for none of them, I can

>imagine how it must feel to be cut off from a community that

>some called home for many years and were passionate

>contributors on this board.

 

This doesn't comport with comments made prior to the shutdown and comments on the other site after the shutdown or even after the reopening.

 

I appreciate that things are said in the heat of the moment. Allowances can be given. Such allowances are more difficult to come by in the face of continued hard feelings after the flames die down.

 

those

>banned were trying to function in an environment that did not

function very well at times.

 

The true measure of any of us is how we act in difficult times not how we act in easy times. And, yes it was not all one-sided and no one gets all the blame.

 

 

Should we hold those we have left

>behind responsible for everything that contributed to their

>departure? I believe not. I believe that to move forward and

>to heal what has been a painful experience for many; we need

>to extend a welcome back to those who wish to return.

 

Nice sentiment and I agree generally. However, redemption requries contrition -- not capitulation but a willlingenss to share responsibility for the past, put that past behind, and move forward in the spirit of the commmunity and its rules. It is not clear that everyone feels that way.

 

Also, IMO there are two circumstances that may be beyond redemption Certainly not in the short term, maybe not ever. Those are circumstances of ultimate transgression against an individual and ultimate transgression against the site itself.

 

The ultimate transgression against an individual is the WILLFUL publication of personal information. All the worse if done multiple times. BG has already enumerated the risks in the 'Welcome Back...' thread. Things ARE done in the heat of the moment. But some things are just too grevious to be given a pass. That is why society metes out harsher penalities for coldly premediated actions or those meditated in heat in contrast to the more reflexive response in the heat of the moment.

 

The ulltimate transgression against the site is the attemped hacking of site servers and compromising site security. Daddy announced a few nights back that a site security issue was diverting him from the review process and that the MC was going to be up and down all night .

 

Neither of these transgressions can be easily overlooked IMO.

[hed4str8]

ChgoBoy is much less interested in amnesty, reconciliation, and other such lofty matters than he is in grandstanding. Instead of waiting for him to 'respectfully' address his concerns to them in private, the moderators really ought to read what else he has had to say on EscortSpeak over the past two weeks. (That's the un-Hooboy message board launched during the MC's downtime by and for some of the disaffected--and, in some cases, banished--denizens of this place.) Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall BostonGuy being cited for his eloquence there; nor would I describe the extensive coverage given Daddy and his colleagues as notably 'respectful.' But that, no less than CBoy's noble call for justice, is for them to judge.

[orlandoguy]

Hmmm...WELL SAID!

[Doug69]

>I believe in redemption. It goes hand-in-hand with contrition.

>If bygones are really bygones then that provides a foundation

>for a new beginning.

 

I agree totally. But you've been spending a lot of time so far castigating others and calling for them to express contrition. How about you? Do you have anything you did for which you should seek contrition, or is that just something for others to do while you watch over them?

 

>>I have always believed that if individuals are not

>>permitted to learn from their past and exercise what they

>have

>>learned, then as a society we are doomed to fail, as none

>of

>>us are without mistakes and misjudgments in our past.

 

So you've spent a lot of time so far since the MC returned chronicling the "mistakes and misjudgments" of others. But that's easy for people to do. How about your "mistakes and misjudgments" that contributed to the problem. Shouldn't you point those out first before pointing out others' mistakes and demanding that they show they are contrite?

 

>A reading of postings at the alternate site that you posted a

>hyperlink to the other day leads me to infer that not all

>posters are contrite about their past behavior, individually

>or collectively.

 

What a coincidence. A reading of your posts here so far leads me to believe that you are not contrite about your past behavior either.

 

>A definite difference in tone,

>depending on the site, seems to prevail for some individuals.

 

Well that's to be expected, isn't it? This place has decided to adopt a code in order to compel people to speak in a certain tone. Other places don't have such rules. As someone who has defended these new rules on the ground that they will foster a new tone, wouldn't you naturally expect that people are expressing themselves differently here than in other places? Isn't that what you want?

 

I mean, you don't act the same in a strip club for hookers as you do in your office, because different rules of conduct and propriety prevail. So wouldn't you expect people to conduct themselves differently in a Gentleman's Club than they would in a forum for adults to freely discuss issues? Isn't that the whole point of hte new rules that you love (except to the extent that you think they aren't stringent and punitive enough)?

 

>The true measure of any of us is how we act in difficult times

>not how we act in easy times. And, yes it was not all

>one-sided and no one gets all the blame.

 

While you're doling out the blame, I was wondering if it was possible for you to identify the part that you shoulder?

 

>The ultimate transgression against an individual is the

>WILLFUL publication of personal information. All the worse if

>done multiple times. BG has already enumerated the risks in

>the 'Welcome Back...' thread. Things ARE done in the heat of

>the moment. But some things are just too grevious to be given

>a pass. That is why society metes out harsher penalities for

>coldly premediated actions or those meditated in heat in

>contrast to the more reflexive response in the heat of the

>moment.

 

But aren't there differing degrees of this conduct? For instance, isn't posting, say, someone's name, home address and work address that you gained in confidence much different than, say, posting a website that the person himself has linked to in his own profile?

 

And doesn't a person's prior behavior have some role to play in how the conduct is assessed? If, say, someone shows up out of the blue for no purpose except to divulge personal information about someone here, isn't that profoundly different than someone who does it after years and years of positive contributions here and only in response to being booted out on his ass without warning or cause?

 

I ask these questions of you because you appear to have appointed yourself as Arbiter of Blame and Punishment, and I seek answers in your department.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>I ask these questions of you because you appear to have

>appointed yourself as Arbiter of Blame and Punishment, and I

>seek answers in your department.

 

Me? I, like you, just expressed an opinion. Free speech, respectfully presented without discourtesy.

[Guest LG320126]

I, for one, don't look forward to the return of any of the banished and am somewhat looking forward to the day you disappear also.

[Doug69]

>Me? I, like you, just expressed an opinion. Free speech,

>respectfully presented without discourtesy.

 

So are you to blame for anything with what has happened here? Do you have anything to express contrition for? Or are you going to stick to blaming others and demanding that they repent?

 

As for discourtesy, I personally think it's pretty discourteous to come and post a long opinion on a public message board that heaps blame and guilt on other people; have someone come and respectfully pose inquiries and questions about the strong opinions you have expressed; only for you to ignore them all and brush them all aside with some trite, non-responsive reference to free speech.

 

But we were all raised differently and all have different moral codes, so the fact that I think such behavior is discourteous doesn't mean that you do.

[+ glutes]

####?

I believe this is what Hooboy would have wanted. Why the censorship when a certain rentboy here can use w*h*o*r*e in his writtings here, and we can't?

[woodlawn]

>Neither of these transgressions can be easily overlooked IMO.

 

Just when I thought your posts could not possibly get any more pompous, you have surprised me and outdone yourself.

 

Perhaps you would care to explain to the rest of the members why it is, if you find the hateful posts of certain people on another site as obnoxious and unpleasant as you claim, you are frequently observed lurking on that site and reading those dreadful posts. You don't need to explain it to me. I already know the answer.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: A response to hed4str8

 

>ChgoBoy is much less interested in amnesty, reconciliation,

>and other such lofty matters than he is in grandstanding.

 

That’s a pretty lofty accusation right there hed4str8. Perhaps you’ve had some experience in this area?

 

>Instead of waiting for him to 'respectfully' address his

>concerns to them in private, the moderators really ought to

>read what else he has had to say on EscortSpeak over the past

>two weeks.

 

Well, hed4str8, that's a pretty one dimensional view on life you have shared here with us. Let me see if I can provide you with an additional dimension to work from. It is my right to express my views of choice, as I see fit, so long as I am not in violation of agreed upon “Rules of the House”, or responsible for putting another person’s safety and well being at risk. If I visit a friend’s home and the rule within that home is “No Smoking,” I will not smoke. That does not mean that I will not go elsewhere and smoke, where I am welcome to do so. I would be short minded if I thought that one stop shopping is really a life fulfilling strategy for happiness and wholeness. I find value in many diversified venues. If one provides me a broader spectrum of conversation and entertainment that I enjoy, I’ll probably spend more time there. That does not diminish the value that the lesser environment might provide and I have every right to value that as well. There is value in most everything in life but ignorance, censorship and self righteousness. So yes, hed4str8, I have entertained my thoughts and opinions with my friends on http://p101.ezboard.com/brevoltrevolt20873. I am not ashamed of that and extend to you an invitation to visit more often. Bring your friends.

 

You should, however, be ashamed of attacking my sincerity in my post of which you speak. A healthy, multi-dimensional thinking individual would never be as arrogant and pompous as to assume that because people who have been saying things you don’t like, elsewhere, have no validity or reasoning in what they are saying. There is a reason that this board stumbled, then closed. I think that has been recognized by most and the result has been a new vision that some, unlike you, have chosen to embrace. Is it for everyone, all of the time? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on you, it should be your choice, as it is mine.

 

Before I go out for a smoke; I have to go outside, it’s a house rule. I’d just like to ask you one last question. I’m wondering, hed4str8, do you talk about your escorting romps with your fellow employees or employer at work? No, probably not, that would be breaking a rule. So you come here, where you can and do the very thing you accuse me of being a hypocrite for. Now, who’s grandstanding?

[hed4str8]

RE: A response to hed4str8

 

Lord, how you blather on! (Both here and in your little EZBoard sandbox.) How do you find the time?

 

I didn't accuse you of being a hypocrite--but, of course, that's precisely what you are, among so many other unattractive things.

 

If you characterize someone (Boston Guy) as pompous, pious old windbag (and worse) when you're among your buddies, then come over here and praise him for his wisdom and 'eloquence'--that's hypocritical. And it's even more hypocritical to paint someone (Daddy) as a liar and a thief plotting to defraud a bereaved mother and boyfriend of their rightful inheritance, and then, a few days later, defer to him 'respectfully' in self-important postings to this forum. What other word but 'hypocritical' applies here? Tell us--you who spew so many words in so many places.

 

But maybe you've just gone round the bend. Or maybe those smoke breaks you allude to don't involve your usual Virginia Slims.

 

Are you SO hungry for attention (READ MY POSTINGS, PLEASE!!!!) that you'd invite the very victims of your spiteful rants to see the appalling things you say about them--and expect them to take it all in stride because, well, it was posted in the sandbox, not over here?

 

If that sort of self-defeating behavior doesn't prove a compulsion to grandstand that borders on the pathological, nothing I can say will.

[menrus]

PLEASE POSTERS TO THIS THREAD:

I don't come here daily, so probably that is part of the problem.

However, all of you that are responding to some other poster above you just use the work " YOU " to agree or disagree with someone above.

I can't tell who you are agreeing with or attacking.

PLEASE PLEASE identify the person you are responding to.

THANKS

Men R Us

[Rick Munroe]

>I can't tell who you are agreeing with or attacking.

>PLEASE PLEASE identify the person you are responding to.

 

But it's more fun that way...like an anonymous group gang bang in the dark (hey, if I can't do it in real life, I can fantasize, can't I?). }(

[Steven_Draker]

RE:

 

>Before I go out for a smoke ...

 

http://www.miki-reisen.de/Japan/eur%20tusin/engrand%20smoking%20kill/smoking%20kill0133.jpg :+ :+

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE:

 

>>Before I go out for a smoke ...

>

>http://www.miki-reisen.de/Japan/eur%20tusin/engrand%20smoking%20kill/smoking%20kill0133.jpg

> :+ :+

 

 

Hey Steven, what's up? yes it does, but no more so than hed4str8's behavior, which is that of an idiot.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

RE: A response to hed4str8

 

>Lord, how you blather on! (Both here and in your little

>EZBoard sandbox.) How do you find the time?

>

>I didn't accuse you of being a hypocrite--but, of course,

>that's precisely what you are, among so many other

>unattractive things.

>

>If you characterize someone (Boston Guy) as pompous, pious old

>windbag (and worse) when you're among your buddies, then come

>over here and praise him for his wisdom and

>'eloquence'--that's hypocritical. And it's even more

>hypocritical to paint someone (Daddy) as a liar and a thief

>plotting to defraud a bereaved mother and boyfriend of their

>rightful inheritance, and then, a few days later, defer to him

>'respectfully' in self-important postings to this forum. What

>other word but 'hypocritical' applies here? Tell us--you who

>spew so many words in so many places.

>

>But maybe you've just gone round the bend. Or maybe those

>smoke breaks you allude to don't involve your usual Virginia

>Slims.

>

>Are you SO hungry for attention (READ MY POSTINGS, PLEASE!!!!)

>that you'd invite the very victims of your spiteful rants to

>see the appalling things you say about them--and expect them

>to take it all in stride because, well, it was posted in the

>sandbox, not over here?

>

>If that sort of self-defeating behavior doesn't prove a

>compulsion to grandstand that borders on the pathological,

>nothing I can say will.

>

>

 

It's late and I just caught your desperate plea for help. Everything you claim in this post is as false as you are. I will rebut your fat ass remarks when I wake up in the morning, but for now, I am going to bed. Btw, If you cant come up with anything more than "our little sandbox", perhaps you should try sucking harder OR spreading your ass wider. Either way, your argument has a sucking sound that only the deep south could recognize as bullshit, with all due respect, may it please the court.

[woodlawn]

RE: More Hate Speech, Please

 

>Lord, how you blather on! (Both here and in your little

>EZBoard sandbox.) How do you find the time?

 

Some of us are better at managing our time than others. You shouldn't judge everyone else's abilities by your own.

 

>If you characterize someone (Boston Guy) as pompous, pious old

>windbag (and worse) when you're among your buddies, then come

>over here and praise him for his wisdom and

>'eloquence'--that's hypocritical.

 

Well, not exactly. Chgo can't be accused of insulting the people you mention behind their backs and praising them to their faces because, as we all know, those very people rush over to the other board to read it whenever they get the chance -- not that they'd ever admit it.

 

>you'd invite the very victims of your spiteful rants to

>see the appalling things you say about them--and expect them

>to take it all in stride because, well, it was posted in the

>sandbox, not over here?

 

But that's exactly what they'll have to do -- unless they admit that they're actually reading what's posted on the other board. And such an admission would be EXTREMELY hypocritical of them, wouldn't it? After the huge enormous fuss they've made about the need to exclude "hate speech" from this board, to admit that they go to the other board to enjoy reading the very type of thing they've banned here would make them look like a bunch of fucking jackasses -- right, Tampa Yankee?

 

>If that sort of self-defeating behavior doesn't prove a

>compulsion to grandstand that borders on the pathological,

>nothing I can say will.

 

I must point out that what you have already said in this post shows that YOU are one of those who read the other board. Why? If you find the stuff that is banned here so unpleasant, why do you go to a place where you KNOW you will be assaulted by it? Hypocrite!

[Uncle Bill]

Bobby was being civil. You are being hostile. One is respectful, the other is not.