"You can't handle the truth!" and other modern myths

H

Humble Narrator

#1
#1
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the concept of freedom of expression as it applies to this board. Along with freedom necessarily comes responsibility. How does that apply to us here?

Here are some questions for consideration:

1 - If Poster A feels Poster B is being untruthful in his/her posting, how much latitude should Poster A have to "out" Poster B?

By "out", you could assume everything from simple statements that "Poster B is probably not telling us the truth" to "Poster B is really <insert_name>, is lying because <insert_reason> and should be banned from this board!", or some such inflammatory statement.

2 - If Poster C feels she/he has inside information, is it fair to make statements on the basis of that information without giving anything in support?

3 - Should Poster D mount a campaign against Poster E when Poster E says something unfair or unjust about other posters/providers/hobbyists? If not, what should Poster D do or not do?

4 - Can Poster F question Poster G's motivation for posting? If yes, should Poster G start investigating ways to discredit Poster F? Why or why not?

5 - When Poster H seems to contradict majority opinion on a subject, is it fair for Poster I to demand an explanation? Is it fair to insinuate less-than-honorable motivation on the part of Poster H without supporting information?

And finally:

6 - What role, if any, should the APM play in all this?
 
C

Candide

#2
#2
H.N.

I need to take a logical reasoning exam tomorrow and I need to pass it...it's for a programming class I need to take for work. If I don't pass the test (1 hour)...they don't let me take the class. Are you busy tomorrow? Wow :)
 
C

Candide

#3
#3
I also want to say...that as someone who went through item number 1 on this board...the APM, in my opinion, is getting really good at his job and is showing some pretty good people skills :)
 
Slinky Bender

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#4
#4
1) No outing of anyone will be tolerated here, period.

2) In general, no, but there are probably some special circumstances which it would be appropriate. That doesn't mena everything is a special circumstance.

3) No. No one should be "mounting campaigns" against anyone.

4) Yes. No . Because.

5) Yes. No.

6) As little as possible.
 
C

Candide

#6
#6
Poor Puppy! Quitting smoking and also intense weather like hail storms can give you a headache too

You need a massage Hotpuppy :)
If all else fails, sit back, have a cappucino and put your feet up - Feel better - you're doing great smokeless!
 
H

Humble Narrator

#11
#11
Into the maelstrom...

Originally posted by Ozzy
HN

tell you what, let me copy this post and paste it on tbd under any alias's you choose. wanna bet it lasts on this board longer than it does over there. at least the APM responded to you fairly and he'll leave this up for everyone to post their own opinions. freedom of speach? we do have that over here since slinky really doesn't know how to delete or edit anything.

[Edited by Ozzy on 07-11-2001 at 08:52 AM]
Click to expand...
1 - I have no interest in confusing this discussion by involving another board. The topic is important and should, I believe, remain focused right here.

2 - Yes, the APM did give a thoughtful response, albeit brief. I would have expected nothing less, given that this thread was his idea.

3 - I would wager that SB can do pretty much whatever he wants, given sufficient motivation.

Originally posted by Ozzy
don't preach any freedom of speach crap over here and accuse any wrong doing by the APM. i'd put him up against anyone on tbd any day.

[Edited by Ozzy on 07-11-2001 at 08:52 AM]
Click to expand...
1 - Your "freedom of speech crap" is truly a priceless quote. It requires no response.

2 - SB is indeed a singular fellow. How you infer an accusation is beyond me.

Originally posted by Ozzy
if not then do us all a favor and go away. go back to tbd...it's soo much more honest than this place. everything on your list pertains to tbd....did you know that. why not champion your cause over there too. oh i forgot...they won't let you critisize their board like you just did here.

[Edited by Ozzy on 07-11-2001 at 08:52 AM]
Click to expand...
Since you chose not to answer any of the questions from my original post, I can only assume answers based on your comments above. Here's what I surmise your answers to be:

1 - A lot
2 - Yes, for pretty much any reason
3 - Absolutely, in fact it's required.
4 - Yes / yes / Because he has a mandate or moral imperative
5a - Yes, but it's easier to simply slander her/him nstead
5b - Absolutely (see 4)
6 - Irrelevant, since he can't do anything in the first place

Your remaining comments appear to be irrelevant to this thread, unless they could be used as examples of your policies. I won't comment on them.

What I will say is that I have been involved in many online discussion forums over the years and I find this one refreshing and valuable. I think this thread can only help us.
 
H

Humble Narrator

#14
#14
programming class

Originally posted by Candide
H.N.

I need to take a logical reasoning exam tomorrow and I need to pass it...it's for a programming class I need to take for work. If I don't pass the test (1 hour)...they don't let me take the class. Are you busy tomorrow? Wow :)
Click to expand...
Sorry for not responding sooner, but I was otherwise engaged ;-)

Unfortunately I've used up my brain quota for the week, so good luck on the test.
 
Slinky Bender

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#15
#15
Reposted to bring this thread back to where it should be:

Originally posted by Humble Narrator
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the concept of freedom of expression as it applies to this board. Along with freedom necessarily comes responsibility. How does that apply to us here?

Here are some questions for consideration:

1 - If Poster A feels Poster B is being untruthful in his/her posting, how much latitude should Poster A have to "out" Poster B?

By "out", you could assume everything from simple statements that "Poster B is probably not telling us the truth" to "Poster B is really <insert_name>, is lying because <insert_reason> and should be banned from this board!", or some such inflammatory statement.

2 - If Poster C feels she/he has inside information, is it fair to make statements on the basis of that information without giving anything in support?

3 - Should Poster D mount a campaign against Poster E when Poster E says something unfair or unjust about other posters/providers/hobbyists? If not, what should Poster D do or not do?

4 - Can Poster F question Poster G's motivation for posting? If yes, should Poster G start investigating ways to discredit Poster F? Why or why not?

5 - When Poster H seems to contradict majority opinion on a subject, is it fair for Poster I to demand an explanation? Is it fair to insinuate less-than-honorable motivation on the part of Poster H without supporting information?

And finally:

6 - What role, if any, should the APM play in all this?
Click to expand...
Let's keep to the subject and off the personal issues this time around, please.
 
D

Dr Fell

#16
#16
Ozzy --

All this talk of eating you is starting to make me hungry. I'd be happy to oblige if you would be so kind as to supply some fava beans and a nice Chianti, though I suspect that's doubtful.

On a more serious note, I am having a hard time making sense of your nonsensical rants and attacks on HN, wsb, Candide and just about everyone else whose opinion differs from yours. While there may or may not be some reasonable basis for your beef with the aforementioned, it is completely obscured by your apparent inability to form any sort of logical argument (not to mention poor grammar, spelling and punctuation, coupled with a copious amount of foul language).

The one point I am able to glean from the sum of your rants is that you seem to demand that everyone who wishes to participate in any sort of discussion on this board must have done his or her research on this and a variety of other boards concerning the topic at hand.

Indeed, the vast majority of your posts are filled with obscure references to past events on a variety of boards. To say the least, this is a preposterous position, since for the vast majority of johns, reading these boards is, at best, a part-time endeavor. We have lives that consume the majority of our time and interests that go far beyond prostitution and prostitution related discussions. I'm sorry if you don't.

In any event, even if you are the keeper of the official oral history of whoredom on UG, I think most of these discussion boards function in the present tense and if a topic is up for discussion on the board then it is up for grabs for all of the board's participants. If a provider, such as Brenda, prefers to maintain a low profile or avoid becoming the center of attention due to past difficulties, then she shouldn't post on the board. Moreover, I don't really understand how it is your responsibility to weed out all that may speak against her or any of the other hookers that you seem to like. You seem to do more harm than good.

Lastly, I don't know why the APM permits your vulgar language and blatant attacks on others, while he seems to police the others more closely, but in any event you may wish to consider trying some thorazine as you seem to need to relax.

H.
 
Slinky Bender

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#17
#17
For the record, thebrand new member "Dr.Fell" has the same IPas WSB ( and no one else ). However, that really is not conclusive of anything.

He did, however, make that post dirictly after I specifically asked ( nicely ? ) for a return tothis discussion, which is, in the least, looking simply to stir up trouble.
 
W

wsb

#18
#18
As a general response to HN's initial post, I think board contributors should have sufficient lattitude to keep other contributors honest.

Let's face it, the majority of false or misleading posts made on this board, TBD or any of the other boards are geared toward convincing consumers (johns) to buy products (time with providers) that they otherwise wouldn't purchase if all the facts were disclosed. I think johns who know information to be false or misleading should speak-up.

Now, this isn't a court of law, so I don't feel the standards of proof need to be based upon the rules of civil or criminal procedure, but I do feel that one should limit themselves to making statements in the interest of keeping others honest that are true based upon a preponderance of the evidence, so as to limit all of the baseless and hearsay accusations that seem to make up the majority of these pissing matches. Indeed, Ozzy's rants are almost always based strictly upon heresay, sometimes two or three times removed.

With respect to providers, I think johns should simply refrain from trying to "protect" them. I think that is how the majority of these board wars start. For the most part I think the ladies do a fine job of protecting themselves and many also seem to have become more savvy and have learned to simply look the other way when negative posts are made. Legitimately good reviews and good service will always prevail in the long-run over slick marketing and spin.

Lastly, the board moderator should obviously have the final say in determining if any given post is blatantly defamatory and should use his power to edit or remove information from the board judiciously.

--WSB
 
Slinky Bender

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#19
#19
"With respect to providers, I think johns should simply refrain from trying to "protect" them. I think that is how the majority of these board wars start."

TRUTH RATING ( scale 1 - 10 ) : 12.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top