Who should have to become paying members in order to post on UG?

[JackT]

oh no, not who-know-you!

in all fairness slinky, the fact that (pre-retirement) i "ended up not being anonymous" was not my choice... it was a result of backchannel and gossip on other boards. this is a small community. *i* wanted to remain anonymous.

For the record, and before slinky gets sidetracked by this and goes into even more of a tizzy, my proposed rule says NOTHING about the "intention" of a supply-sider to remain anonymous.... Once a supply-sider is no longer anonymous (even through no fault of his or her own), the ONLY way to avoid paying is to stop posting under that non-anonymous handle and create a new, REALLY ANONYMOUS one.

 

[JackT]

And if you don't like the way this place is run, you can leave now.

Bye.

Funny that we've gone from what I thought was a sincere poll asking a (rather) simple question to THIS.

 

[JackT]

you've only been "pretending"? that hurts.

Jack,
I'm done humoring you and pretending to give your silliness any more attention.

Okay then... Does anyone ELSE want to try to CALMLY explain what is so wrong with what I proposed?

 

[retired]

and how do we retrieve our refund when we get banned?

 

[justlooking]

********* was pretty good at keeping her business identity a secret.

 

[justlooking]

On a different board, so was The Wasp (I understand she got really pissed off when I deduced who she was and outed her on still another board).

 

[justlooking]

(I guess Slinkybender will argue that that proves supply side posters can't stay anonymous.)

 

[Slinky Bender]

and how do we retrieve our refund when we get banned?

We have to actually receive a payment before we give a refund.

 

[Slinky Bender]

(I guess Slinkybender will argue that that proves supply side posters can't stay anonymous.)

And successfully, too.

 

[justlooking]

So you know what that means?

 

[justlooking]

CO-ED WHOREBOARDS CAN'T WORK.

 

[JackT]

So, the reason Slinkybender seems to dislike my suggested rule is that it's impractical? because supply-siders always eventually become un-anonymous and therefore will eventually threaten his $?

And so can I imply that he thinks that my proposed partial cure for that (i.e., pay to post or cease using the now-tainted handle immediately) doesn't go far enough then? While obviously not perfect, it all seems so sensible to me.

((I think he's going a huge step further than that though... because he's not only saying that "supply siders" can't remain anonymous (and are therefore threats to his $)... but that ALL POSTING WOMEN, supply-sider or not, should be treated the same for these purposes))

His words were: "The concept of "females shouldn't be charged simply for being female" is fundamentlaly flawed " (!!!!!)
Anyone want to CALMLY explain that one to me?

 

[Slinky Bender]

So you know what that means?

CO-ED WHOREBOARDS CAN'T WORK.

Please show how you come to that conclusion from the prior statements. because it's not evident from what you've argued in this thread to this point.

 

[justlooking]

If supply side women can't possibly post anonymously cuz some guy's always gonna out them (even if it's against their wishes), and so if active supply-siders must be charged to post even if they try to remain anonymous cuz we all know their attempt won't be able to succeed, then it seems to me that co-ed boards can't function as a venue for non-promotional discussion between the supply side and the consumer side.

 

[JoeyP]

A lawyer once said "Don't ask questions unless you already know the answers"

A clergyman once said "Ask and you shall recieve"

A wise old man once said "The meaning of your communications is the results (not the intententions) that you get"

A shrink said "ask not in anger or expect the same in return"

and finally a pollster once said "the results are skewed by the questions asked"

 

[Slinky Bender]

I think you're making an extreme jump, which to some extent is saying that either women and men can't have any honest discussions unless they remain anonymous, or that any service supplier can't have any honest discussions with any service consumer unless they remain anonymous, and I'm not so sure that has been proven (yet, anyway).

 

[Slinky Bender]

Joey,

I agree with all of those.

But what's your point?

 

[JackT]

it's not impossible.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if a supply-sider TRULY wanted to post anonymously here, and she made sure not to have any of the dots connected between her UG posting handle and her trade name and contact info, that she could do it. She'd have to put up with the buffoons who endlessly wanted to 'out' her and find out who she was, but I'd bet that if she TRULY wanted to, she could do it.

I'm also gonna go out on another limb and say that if a female non-supply-sider wanted to participate in discussions on UG, and brought an intelligent, unique and challenging viewpoint to this board, that she would be an asset to the discussions on UG. (and therefore, her posting should not be discouraged via the levying of "posting fees")

 

[Slinky Bender]

BTW It's not that I think it's impossible for a supply side women to remain anonymous. I think it's that they are incapable of doing it.

 

[Slinky Bender]

I also want to say that if any female Martians come down to Earth and decide they want to post on UG, they won't be forced to pay for membership here.