Body2See
- Thread starter rodpeters2001
- Start date
- Status
Well, isn't the point really that people should feel free to express their opinions, so that johns can make informed decisions concerning which providers to see and providers can find clients for whom they fit the bill???
When you attack anyone who voices an opposing view, you discourage prospective contributers from offering any sort of commentary that is inconsistent with the "party line". This essentially dilutes the value of the commentary, since it all becomes one-sided. In that manner you are advocating policies that are very consistent with TBD.
Of course, you may disagree with me, but then why can negative reviews/comments be found on JAG about several of the providers who have been mentioned in or who have contributed to this thread, but nothing but glowing praise is heaped upon them here? Do UG members simply have better sessions or is it perhaps that those johns felt too intimidated to make any sort of negative comment about a popular provider?
To address your quote above and to put it as simply as possible, I don't think this is supposed to be a majority rules type environment, where we count the votes and adopt the position if the majority. I think the point is to encourage a variety of views and opinions in order to figure out if the provider in question is someone who you might like to see.
--WSB
When you attack anyone who voices an opposing view, you discourage prospective contributers from offering any sort of commentary that is inconsistent with the "party line". This essentially dilutes the value of the commentary, since it all becomes one-sided. In that manner you are advocating policies that are very consistent with TBD.
Of course, you may disagree with me, but then why can negative reviews/comments be found on JAG about several of the providers who have been mentioned in or who have contributed to this thread, but nothing but glowing praise is heaped upon them here? Do UG members simply have better sessions or is it perhaps that those johns felt too intimidated to make any sort of negative comment about a popular provider?
To address your quote above and to put it as simply as possible, I don't think this is supposed to be a majority rules type environment, where we count the votes and adopt the position if the majority. I think the point is to encourage a variety of views and opinions in order to figure out if the provider in question is someone who you might like to see.
--WSB
Actually, I liked them both (the 4:26 for the humor (which is how I took it), and the 4:57 for the content).
We all just gotta lighten up, respect other's opinions, and remember what this board is all about.
Can't we all just get along (while being able to voice different opinions)?
Regards,
ScottieDS
We all just gotta lighten up, respect other's opinions, and remember what this board is all about.
Can't we all just get along (while being able to voice different opinions)?
Regards,
ScottieDS
i gave my opinion of brenda...
if it sounded like she was the best thing since sliced bread, then to me she was. i didn't ask the guy after me to say the same thing nor the guy after him nor the next 10 guys....
as for bashing tommy...well maybe the two or three who did the bashing were privy to certain information about *her* that most of you weren't. i don't randomly bash people for negative reviews of providers.
now i'm done here.
if it sounded like she was the best thing since sliced bread, then to me she was. i didn't ask the guy after me to say the same thing nor the guy after him nor the next 10 guys....
as for bashing tommy...well maybe the two or three who did the bashing were privy to certain information about *her* that most of you weren't. i don't randomly bash people for negative reviews of providers.
now i'm done here.
humble narrator,
may i ask you how long have you been posting on the internet boards? many of us here know what went on, but many of us also know not to say anything at all. i had been a TOO active poster when i started out a year ago, but learned to do the opposite now (still type once in awhile but lurk most of the time), and i find it more fun this way!!!
may i ask you how long have you been posting on the internet boards? many of us here know what went on, but many of us also know not to say anything at all. i had been a TOO active poster when i started out a year ago, but learned to do the opposite now (still type once in awhile but lurk most of the time), and i find it more fun this way!!!
Perhaps this was one of those times to "say nothing at all" because I honestly don't understand the relevance of your post.
Should everyone defer to individuals who purport to be privy to all sorts of inside information or should this be an open forum for discussion??? Should we only be privy to the information that they feel is suitable for our viewing or that accurately represents the providers in question???
This isn't about any one particular provider. It is about the consummate conflict between those who wish to see a free flowing and open discussion and those who constantly wish to spin the discussion to protect providers who they favor or who have this constant need to engage in that same sort of faux chivalry that makes many of TBD's boards so unreadable.
What providers never seem to realize is that this sort of thuggery is actually more detrimental to their businesses than any potentially negative or even false comments. The impression of being "in bed" with someone engaged in online spin/damage control clearly discourages many clients from seeing certain providers.
--WSB
Should everyone defer to individuals who purport to be privy to all sorts of inside information or should this be an open forum for discussion??? Should we only be privy to the information that they feel is suitable for our viewing or that accurately represents the providers in question???
This isn't about any one particular provider. It is about the consummate conflict between those who wish to see a free flowing and open discussion and those who constantly wish to spin the discussion to protect providers who they favor or who have this constant need to engage in that same sort of faux chivalry that makes many of TBD's boards so unreadable.
What providers never seem to realize is that this sort of thuggery is actually more detrimental to their businesses than any potentially negative or even false comments. The impression of being "in bed" with someone engaged in online spin/damage control clearly discourages many clients from seeing certain providers.
--WSB
relevance?
Reading or posting is an entirely voluntary endeavor. I respect Ozzy for contributing good information when he does so, which is often. That doesn't mean I would be willing to let him decide who can and can't post with impunity. His decision to use innuendo rather than frankly stating what he personally knows (or perhaps thinks he knows) is not in keeping with the spirit of democratic discourse, on which it seems to me this board was founded.
I have had this discussion before with self-appointed guardians of Truth. Their arguments are impervious to logic, since they don't actually have to say what those arguments are based on. The old saw, "If you knew what we know" doesn't really work, since it depends on my acceptance of someone else doing my thinking for me. No thank you.
Let's try an experiment. Let's pretend that Ozzy knows that Tommy is actually another provider (or an agent thereof). If he really knows this, why would he not simply say "Tommy is really <prov_name>"? Also necessary would be Ozzy's explanation as to how he knows this. Perhaps IP address mapping, perhaps writing style, but in the end, he would still have to be fair and say how he arrives at this opinion. (FYI, IP mapping is a tricky thing, which is not always as irrefutable as we may be led to believe).
Barring this blunt accusation, how about if Ozzy, for purely altruistic reasons (work with me here) still wants to defend Truth and decides to simply argue with the false poster in an attempt to get others to see through the sham. How effective might that be? Probably not very, since it will look to the uninitiated like he is simply using playground rantings to make a point.
So, what should Ozzy do? If he really does know Tommy's identity and motive, then he has a problem, unless of course he is willing to disclose that he has information that could only be obtained via complicity of the board owner, throwing suspicion and fear on the entire enterprise.
Luckily, this is all pretend. The truth (little "t") is likely not as lurid, but we may never know.
Reading or posting is an entirely voluntary endeavor. I respect Ozzy for contributing good information when he does so, which is often. That doesn't mean I would be willing to let him decide who can and can't post with impunity. His decision to use innuendo rather than frankly stating what he personally knows (or perhaps thinks he knows) is not in keeping with the spirit of democratic discourse, on which it seems to me this board was founded.
I have had this discussion before with self-appointed guardians of Truth. Their arguments are impervious to logic, since they don't actually have to say what those arguments are based on. The old saw, "If you knew what we know" doesn't really work, since it depends on my acceptance of someone else doing my thinking for me. No thank you.
Let's try an experiment. Let's pretend that Ozzy knows that Tommy is actually another provider (or an agent thereof). If he really knows this, why would he not simply say "Tommy is really <prov_name>"? Also necessary would be Ozzy's explanation as to how he knows this. Perhaps IP address mapping, perhaps writing style, but in the end, he would still have to be fair and say how he arrives at this opinion. (FYI, IP mapping is a tricky thing, which is not always as irrefutable as we may be led to believe).
Barring this blunt accusation, how about if Ozzy, for purely altruistic reasons (work with me here) still wants to defend Truth and decides to simply argue with the false poster in an attempt to get others to see through the sham. How effective might that be? Probably not very, since it will look to the uninitiated like he is simply using playground rantings to make a point.
So, what should Ozzy do? If he really does know Tommy's identity and motive, then he has a problem, unless of course he is willing to disclose that he has information that could only be obtained via complicity of the board owner, throwing suspicion and fear on the entire enterprise.
Luckily, this is all pretend. The truth (little "t") is likely not as lurid, but we may never know.
one more thing wsb, so that you know that's exactly what i'm getting at! can't agree with you more, but since you are barking at the wrong tree, i feel no need to say anything more.
and as far as HN, my post was meant for your encouragement of the type of behavior that wsb had described above. after reading your repost, i see your point which i didn't get from your original post. but i still stand behind what i said, being a lurker is much more fun, and that's just my thinking, take it for what it's worth....
now you can close it slinky!
[Edited by badz on 07-10-2001 at 09:04 PM]
and as far as HN, my post was meant for your encouragement of the type of behavior that wsb had described above. after reading your repost, i see your point which i didn't get from your original post. but i still stand behind what i said, being a lurker is much more fun, and that's just my thinking, take it for what it's worth....
now you can close it slinky!
[Edited by badz on 07-10-2001 at 09:04 PM]
Humble, but aren't you and I just as guilty of defending Alex when someone was complaining about the fact that she needed to keep her bra on during a session because of her injuries?
While I had mentioned it in my initial review, you chose not to, then immediately defended her, stating that the session was so good that it didn't matter, when he said that had he known that in advance he would have waited.
We're all entitled to our opinions. It's fairly safe to say that if you, or Ozzie, or myself, or anyone here has had what we consider to be an incredible experience with a particular lady, that we'd go out of our way to rebutt any suggestion that she's less than wonderful. It's the nature of the connection that some of us form with the ladies we see.
Likewise, I (and I'm sure others) have refrained from mentioning things publicly after having a nice, but not stellar experience with a lady who has generally received good reviews on this and other boards. In my particular case, I was distracted for other reasons that day, and just didn't click with the lady in question, but could see how I might have if I'd been in a different state of mind. I didn't feel that what I'd experienced was anything more than YMMV in action. I probably won't see that lady again, but I have no ill feelings towards her.
I have a feeling that those of us who would go out of our way to defend a lady are the same ones who are less likely to give a negative review of a lady who is generally well received.
Just my 2 cents.
While I had mentioned it in my initial review, you chose not to, then immediately defended her, stating that the session was so good that it didn't matter, when he said that had he known that in advance he would have waited.
We're all entitled to our opinions. It's fairly safe to say that if you, or Ozzie, or myself, or anyone here has had what we consider to be an incredible experience with a particular lady, that we'd go out of our way to rebutt any suggestion that she's less than wonderful. It's the nature of the connection that some of us form with the ladies we see.
Likewise, I (and I'm sure others) have refrained from mentioning things publicly after having a nice, but not stellar experience with a lady who has generally received good reviews on this and other boards. In my particular case, I was distracted for other reasons that day, and just didn't click with the lady in question, but could see how I might have if I'd been in a different state of mind. I didn't feel that what I'd experienced was anything more than YMMV in action. I probably won't see that lady again, but I have no ill feelings towards her.
I have a feeling that those of us who would go out of our way to defend a lady are the same ones who are less likely to give a negative review of a lady who is generally well received.
Just my 2 cents.
- Status