Originally posted by wsb
I'm afraid I must disagree....is no more appropriate than you attacking myself, Mr. P or A1N for issues you had with any of us in another forum.
that's silly. people in general, and those who write for publication (formal or informal) especially, are accountable for their past words and deeds, whether they move on to another school, publication, public service job, etc. just ask Bork and Guanier.
moving from one url to another doesn't confer absolute immunity for all prior words and deeds, especially with respect to the
same parties!
Although I haven't read all of her posts, as far as I can discern, Candide was going about her business on UG when this matter was brought up by others.
her 'business' is obviously deception at many levels, getting men to fight with one another, making wildly untrue, vicious, and unfair accusations against a man who is a true friend of escorts (is
that your 'problem' here?), and at the same time claiming she is being persecuted for her age and looks.
her attacks have extended not only to clients, but to the entire male gender (with the sole exception of mr. p, perhaps due to the 'self-pity connection').
I also disagree with your assessment of her posts as "gender bending", but that is really beside the point.
no;
she has repeatedly made gender (her own and ours) an issue. she started a thread
http://www.utopiaguide.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=320 to which she posted, in relevant part,
"I've often heard comments from men about wishing they could command the adulation and attention (and subsequent financial rewards) that popular strippers and dancers do. How many of you would trade in your manhood to be women if you could be stripper material?
Does the pursuit of beautiful women and the enjoyment of them have anything to do with admiration for their power over other men?"
if that's not "gender bending", what is? she's got a right to attempt to gender-bend. i welcome her doing so. but, we have a right to know which gender is attempting to do so. and the reponsible parties on this board, or any other publishers, have an obligation to protect their readers from what they have very valid reason to believe is gross deception, of one form or another.
it was
this very post that prompted an obligatory query as to whether UG readers wanted to be made
aware of very valid bases for suspecting gender-deception. and then, it was 'Candide'
herself who got in the APM's face and challenged him to name names.
and now,
you show up to blame others for the inevitable consequences of Candide's latest farce. are you actually
reading the posts upon which you base charges against others? or, are you just wildly (and irresponsibly) flailing your verbal fists at people who don't share your enthusiasm for jag's version of 'objectivity', a representative example of which you have presented here for all who have never been members of jag.
The bottom line is that she is as entitled to privacy as you or I and her outing by those who were privy to certain info and used it against her was simply wrong.
the 'bottom line'? the
bottom line is that she is an (admitted) 'drama queen' who mainly succeeds at creating farce. {enter wsb.}
I would feel exactly the same way if any of the other UG contributers who had made the effort to chose a different handle for their contributions to this forum, presumably for the purpose of maintaining some form of anonymity, were wrongly identified by their JAG or other {asp} board handles.
to my knowledge, she didn't show the respect of emailing the responsible parties at UG, explaining her 'situation', and requesting their cooperation and confidentiality in making a 'clean start' here. she
couldn't, because she wanted to continue her deception at jag. thus, such a disclosure would have made a jag member here complicit in her deception there.
her deception there, and her ineptness (or caluculation) here, created a situation that the responsible parties here were
morally obligated to untangle for the sake of their own integrity.
Lastly, I'll refrain from addressing the issue of who was ganging up on Candide, but I do find it curious that this attack was allowed to occur in the first place. I've seen several more benign posts deleted, so it does lead one to wonder as to what exactly the editorial standards are.
look, you once showed yourself to be a true man of honor by speaking in my defense, at a time when no other client would. but, men of honor can sometimes behave foolishly. i was engaged in no small folly myself on one occasion (at the prompting of another instigatrix).
here at UG, you acted like a fool with one of the most beloved escorts in the country as soon as you arrived (paralleling what, to my knowledge, was your debut on tbd, which became the first occasion for my addressing you).
after much prompting on my part, you later returned here to behave in a reasonable fashion.
now you are back for round three, with a bizarre and ludicrous spin on events that someone's own bad faith brought upon herself. along the way, you have made some pretty nasty noises in the direction of someone respected by most people of goodwill in the asp online community.
(again, to my knowledge) there is no 'vast right-wing conspiracy' arrayed against you here. rather, there is a certain amount of justified annoyance that, in this instance, you're being a fool.
[Edited by guy catelli on 02-25-2001 at 03:27 PM]
