GREED- is this a good or bad thing!
- Thread starter Carl M
- Start date
jmcurry,
by way of backround, the last time i posted a message to you, in an attempt to offer you some solace, you practically bit my head off: http://www.utopiaguide.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2880#post2880
yet, when a stranger on tbd made a comment to you that is well within the ambit of the "fighting words doctrine", you were as calm as a cucumber: http://209.164.24.17/newyork/posts/21364.html
it's all a little 'ierd' to me.
....Phantom, I hope that GC is pulling your chain. If he is not, then your indignation is not only appropriate, but rather mild.
that statement would not have been an appropriate to direct at Hitler or Stalin, much less a client kidding around with an escort. that's my opinion. but to say it was 'relatively mild', in any context, is not a matter of opinion. it is plainly false.
....GC, Phantom has been through a great deal. I have as well, recently, along similar lines. Playing a role can wear on one's nerves, even if you are doing it in good fun. Some of us have actually become infatuated, or even more attached, to a "provider." That affects all aspects of our nexus to the hobby.
i was already aware that you and Phantom think that your romantic disappointments are a subject of general interest for the board -- an interest i don't share. but, frankly, the above statement suggests a level of self-absorption i did not suspect. do you think that puts either of you in some special category that the rest of aren't also in (without using it as an excuse for having a public tantrum)?
....I have recently refrained from putting my own personal feelings and relationships on this, or any other, board. The last time I did, someone attacked my mother.
i alone called that poster on his remark to you (see above). and, i didn't make excuses for him. btw, that you no longer post about personal matters (which you have done in the past with great eloquence and sensitivity) confirms the 'de facto' censorship i have complained of here and elsewhere. in my own case, i haven't posted my personal feelings about escorts (for the most part) since i posted my first set of reviews to jag more than a year-and-a-half ago, for reasons not too dissimilar from yours. likewise, all but the newest escorts (who aren't yet fed up with 'taking crap' from boors) have been similarly censored.
Are we as evil as the religious right thinks we are?
Rather than attack each other, maybe we should unite against those who vilify us.
clients vying for the attention of escorts, imo, is not the problem jag members find it to be. i agree that what we do here is 'grist' for the religious right's 'mill', on the issue of internet censorship. but, in terms of keeping our eye on the (real) prize -- legalization -- it's the political left that must be won over.
by their very nature, the 'religious right' can never be 'neutral' on this matter, even if every client/escort interaction from now to the end of time were perfectly wonderful. however, the political left can be neutralized, at least to the degree we can show that this thing of ours is not "inherently degrading to all women", as they insist it is.
you have been unfailingly (much more so than i) exemplary in this matter. but, there are those fools who insist on publically insulting the whole class of escorts in any way their baser instincts move them to, as long as the dictionary allows wiggle room to believe that there exists some noninsulting way of using the same vocabulary (at least that seems to be their latest rhetorical gambit). such behavior is of great benefit to our many enemies on both the left and the right. likewise, in effect censoring postings from clients like yourself, and escorts who won't put up with the insults, deprives us, by that portion, of an "artistic or redeeming social value" defense that the left would otherwise be only too eager to embrace (unlike the religious right).
guy
[Edited by guy catelli on 02-28-2001 at 01:31 PM]
by way of backround, the last time i posted a message to you, in an attempt to offer you some solace, you practically bit my head off: http://www.utopiaguide.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2880#post2880
yet, when a stranger on tbd made a comment to you that is well within the ambit of the "fighting words doctrine", you were as calm as a cucumber: http://209.164.24.17/newyork/posts/21364.html
it's all a little 'ierd' to me.
....Phantom, I hope that GC is pulling your chain. If he is not, then your indignation is not only appropriate, but rather mild.
that statement would not have been an appropriate to direct at Hitler or Stalin, much less a client kidding around with an escort. that's my opinion. but to say it was 'relatively mild', in any context, is not a matter of opinion. it is plainly false.
....GC, Phantom has been through a great deal. I have as well, recently, along similar lines. Playing a role can wear on one's nerves, even if you are doing it in good fun. Some of us have actually become infatuated, or even more attached, to a "provider." That affects all aspects of our nexus to the hobby.
i was already aware that you and Phantom think that your romantic disappointments are a subject of general interest for the board -- an interest i don't share. but, frankly, the above statement suggests a level of self-absorption i did not suspect. do you think that puts either of you in some special category that the rest of aren't also in (without using it as an excuse for having a public tantrum)?
....I have recently refrained from putting my own personal feelings and relationships on this, or any other, board. The last time I did, someone attacked my mother.
i alone called that poster on his remark to you (see above). and, i didn't make excuses for him. btw, that you no longer post about personal matters (which you have done in the past with great eloquence and sensitivity) confirms the 'de facto' censorship i have complained of here and elsewhere. in my own case, i haven't posted my personal feelings about escorts (for the most part) since i posted my first set of reviews to jag more than a year-and-a-half ago, for reasons not too dissimilar from yours. likewise, all but the newest escorts (who aren't yet fed up with 'taking crap' from boors) have been similarly censored.
Are we as evil as the religious right thinks we are?
Rather than attack each other, maybe we should unite against those who vilify us.
clients vying for the attention of escorts, imo, is not the problem jag members find it to be. i agree that what we do here is 'grist' for the religious right's 'mill', on the issue of internet censorship. but, in terms of keeping our eye on the (real) prize -- legalization -- it's the political left that must be won over.
by their very nature, the 'religious right' can never be 'neutral' on this matter, even if every client/escort interaction from now to the end of time were perfectly wonderful. however, the political left can be neutralized, at least to the degree we can show that this thing of ours is not "inherently degrading to all women", as they insist it is.
you have been unfailingly (much more so than i) exemplary in this matter. but, there are those fools who insist on publically insulting the whole class of escorts in any way their baser instincts move them to, as long as the dictionary allows wiggle room to believe that there exists some noninsulting way of using the same vocabulary (at least that seems to be their latest rhetorical gambit). such behavior is of great benefit to our many enemies on both the left and the right. likewise, in effect censoring postings from clients like yourself, and escorts who won't put up with the insults, deprives us, by that portion, of an "artistic or redeeming social value" defense that the left would otherwise be only too eager to embrace (unlike the religious right).
guy
[Edited by guy catelli on 02-28-2001 at 01:31 PM]
well, that does not explain the wholly inappropriate rage above, nor the "headache", nor the heaping of one insult after another -- to no point or issue -- just flaming for the sake of flaming.
i've all but ignored you since our second exchange. yet, you continue with one attack after another. i think it says a lot about your maturity level.
i've all but ignored you since our second exchange. yet, you continue with one attack after another. i think it says a lot about your maturity level.
Guy: Your rebuttal is, as I expected, erudite and complete. What strikes me at first glance is, do the normal contributers to the board really care to read this? Isn't your point by point critique of my post rather tiresome to most hobbyists?
You suggested that the infatuation that Phantom and I have experienced for individual providers is not a subject that you care to read about on UG. I take that criticism to heart, and I apologize for sharing my feelings about the one provider, whom, in my long involvement in "this thing of ours," captivated my heart. That is over, and I fully realize that I played out my own feelings for her on UG. That will not happen again, at least if I can be rational. I apologize to all of you who have endured my emotive posts.
But, I also want to thank everyone for making me understand that, at bottom, this entire enterprise can be boiled down to "money for sex." Somehow, I forgot that, at least in this case. I doubt that I will ever again be lured into believing that I can have a "relationship" with a provider, apart from the sexual one.
Regarding legalizing the hobby, we seem to be in agreement. What troubles me is, in our postmodern world, we, as hobbyists, face an overwhelming opposition. I wish I could concur that the left would support us, but, Bill aside, I see little evidence to make me optimistic.
Finally, I thank you for your kind words about my perception and defense of providers. They are, obviously, the sine qua non of the hobby. I take their side because I have rarely been disappointed by a woman in this business and because I recognize how formidable the obstacles to their success can be.
Sorry if I "bit your head off" earlier. Invective and discursive polemics are a natural part of my writing and thinking. It was not warranted, but I was too immersed in my "relationship" to be objective. Further, I was a "cucumber" regarding our errant poster on TBD, because I seldom correspond with primates. If my mother was not in intensive care as I write, perhaps I could have been more crass. But, that particular idiot's invective paled in comparison to the real life situation I continue to confront. I ignored him, explaining his existence as proof that Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents had some validity.
I doubt this answers all your concerns. If it doesn't, let's get together at a bar to talk in more depth.. I do not want to put the rest of the hobby to sleep.
You suggested that the infatuation that Phantom and I have experienced for individual providers is not a subject that you care to read about on UG. I take that criticism to heart, and I apologize for sharing my feelings about the one provider, whom, in my long involvement in "this thing of ours," captivated my heart. That is over, and I fully realize that I played out my own feelings for her on UG. That will not happen again, at least if I can be rational. I apologize to all of you who have endured my emotive posts.
But, I also want to thank everyone for making me understand that, at bottom, this entire enterprise can be boiled down to "money for sex." Somehow, I forgot that, at least in this case. I doubt that I will ever again be lured into believing that I can have a "relationship" with a provider, apart from the sexual one.
Regarding legalizing the hobby, we seem to be in agreement. What troubles me is, in our postmodern world, we, as hobbyists, face an overwhelming opposition. I wish I could concur that the left would support us, but, Bill aside, I see little evidence to make me optimistic.
Finally, I thank you for your kind words about my perception and defense of providers. They are, obviously, the sine qua non of the hobby. I take their side because I have rarely been disappointed by a woman in this business and because I recognize how formidable the obstacles to their success can be.
Sorry if I "bit your head off" earlier. Invective and discursive polemics are a natural part of my writing and thinking. It was not warranted, but I was too immersed in my "relationship" to be objective. Further, I was a "cucumber" regarding our errant poster on TBD, because I seldom correspond with primates. If my mother was not in intensive care as I write, perhaps I could have been more crass. But, that particular idiot's invective paled in comparison to the real life situation I continue to confront. I ignored him, explaining his existence as proof that Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents had some validity.
I doubt this answers all your concerns. If it doesn't, let's get together at a bar to talk in more depth.. I do not want to put the rest of the hobby to sleep.