Baht-Stop: I see you have taken me to task for my defence of Earwig in your thread on Earwig's suspension .I accept that as it's your board you can do whatever you want. There are a couple of points that I would like to clarify:
1. is this a democratic board in which any member is entitled to hold their own point of view and express that view even when it may differ from the owners/moderators (or even Heddas for that matter) ?. I point out that I have commited no act of plaigarism but expresed my opinion that I consider others to be wrong in their opinion on a certain matter. I also resent the term "collaborator" and view that as quite insulting. I express my own views and do not need to consult others to do so. To link me with Earwig in that post in that manner is to accuse me of guilt by association. Is that your view ?.
2. Am I entitled to know who the host of this board is and who my accuser is ? It apears to be a competely annonymus board. It is not neccessary to know of course but I would like to know whether I am being assessed by annonymous moderators and owners unlike the other Thai gay boards.
Over to you.
0
a couple a questions
Started by Guest_Joan Crawford's Ghost_*, Dec 18 2006 07:10 PM
13 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Members
-
- 1,683 posts
Veteran
Posted 18 December 2006 - 08:33 PM
QUOTE
I also resent the term "collaborator" and view that as quite insulting.
I would too, if it was Ear Wig I was accused of collaborating with.
In fact, that's about all you've done on this board since the haunting started.
Hehehe.....
#3
-
- Members
-
- 759 posts
Veteran
Posted 18 December 2006 - 08:50 PM
QUOTE
To link me with Earwig in that post in that manner is to accuse me of guilt by association.
Look honey, anyone who runs around calling themself Joan Crawford's Ghost should not expect to be taken seriously.
Unless I'm mistaken, you've been telling everyone for the past two days that nothing wrong happened and that you were going to contact the newspaper from whom The Wig stole the article to prove it was all just a big nothing.
All of a sudden, you say you're being accused of "guilt by association" by being "linked to Ear Wig." If nothing wrong happened, as you've been insisting since you arrived, why are you suddenly so upset about being linked to it ?
You picked your wig, now wear it.
#4
-
- Members
-
- 492 posts
Veteran
Posted 18 December 2006 - 09:10 PM
I want to congratulate Bahtstop on having the guts to tell Wig & Co. where to get off.
That apology was a bigger joke that the Ghost who got invented to try and take the heat off Ear Wig.
That apology was a bigger joke that the Ghost who got invented to try and take the heat off Ear Wig.
#5
-
- Members
-
- 2,972 posts
Veteran
Posted 18 December 2006 - 09:56 PM
QUOTE
Am I entitled to know who the host of this board is
His name is Bahtstop. I'm Sexpat. You're Joan Crawford's Ghost.
over to you.
#6
-
- Members
-
- 1,233 posts
Veteran
Posted 18 December 2006 - 10:02 PM
In my view, message boards are not democracies. These are privately owned message boards. If the people using the message boards were asked to pay any fees for the privilege, then I could see where it would be reasonable to consider it to be a democracy. It always amazes me that people come to message boards, have an opportunity to read the rules, receive warnings from board owners and moderators, and still think they can defy the rules or just make up their own with impunity.
I used to be heavily criticized for running my message board the way I did when I had it. But if I were to place another message board online tomorrow I would do it exactly the same way. The owners of the current message boards have far more patience than I ever did. Those who knew my methods know this whole issue would never have taken place on my board. At the first sign of trouble, the one causing the problem would receive a warning. If he persisted after the warning, then he would be gone. Very simple and I never had any problems. The people who tried to abuse the board or defy the posting rules were the ones who had the problems.
Some say my board was a failure because there were few people posting on it. It was not meant to have many people posting on it. I can't help but notice that a significant number of posters on the current boards never have anything at all to contribute other than flames, accusations, and criticism. If any in that group actually have any useful information, they have yet to post any of it. All they seem to be capable of doing is being as nasty as possible to others and trying to tell the board owners how to run their boards. That's why it has always been my belief that numbers of posts are absolutely meaningless. Look at the amount of nonsense that gets posted. That's what accounts for the high numbers of posts. That's something good? Not to me.
I provided my board solely as a means of disseminating information and answering questions. It was not meant to be a gossip board. Besides, it was mine. My money paid for it and nobody else's. That entitled me to run it any way I wished.
The same applies to the owners of the current boards. My advice is so simple: If you have someone causing problems for you, give him a warning. If he continues to cause problems, get rid of him. No ifs, ands, or buts and you have no need to justify it to anyone at all. If some people don't like the way you run your board, tough luck. It doesn't take board owners very long to learn that no matter what they do, somebody doesn't like what they do.
The current subject of controversy seems to spend an inordinate amount of time sitting at his keyboard. I don't know why he doesn't just start a board of his own. Then he can boast, brag, self-aggrandize, threaten, write incoherent messages, name drop, put down other people, and plagiarize to his heart's content. Then he and his entire fan club, all three of them as far as I can tell, could post whatever they want.
I used to be heavily criticized for running my message board the way I did when I had it. But if I were to place another message board online tomorrow I would do it exactly the same way. The owners of the current message boards have far more patience than I ever did. Those who knew my methods know this whole issue would never have taken place on my board. At the first sign of trouble, the one causing the problem would receive a warning. If he persisted after the warning, then he would be gone. Very simple and I never had any problems. The people who tried to abuse the board or defy the posting rules were the ones who had the problems.
Some say my board was a failure because there were few people posting on it. It was not meant to have many people posting on it. I can't help but notice that a significant number of posters on the current boards never have anything at all to contribute other than flames, accusations, and criticism. If any in that group actually have any useful information, they have yet to post any of it. All they seem to be capable of doing is being as nasty as possible to others and trying to tell the board owners how to run their boards. That's why it has always been my belief that numbers of posts are absolutely meaningless. Look at the amount of nonsense that gets posted. That's what accounts for the high numbers of posts. That's something good? Not to me.
I provided my board solely as a means of disseminating information and answering questions. It was not meant to be a gossip board. Besides, it was mine. My money paid for it and nobody else's. That entitled me to run it any way I wished.
The same applies to the owners of the current boards. My advice is so simple: If you have someone causing problems for you, give him a warning. If he continues to cause problems, get rid of him. No ifs, ands, or buts and you have no need to justify it to anyone at all. If some people don't like the way you run your board, tough luck. It doesn't take board owners very long to learn that no matter what they do, somebody doesn't like what they do.
The current subject of controversy seems to spend an inordinate amount of time sitting at his keyboard. I don't know why he doesn't just start a board of his own. Then he can boast, brag, self-aggrandize, threaten, write incoherent messages, name drop, put down other people, and plagiarize to his heart's content. Then he and his entire fan club, all three of them as far as I can tell, could post whatever they want.
#7
-
- Members
-
- 1,683 posts
Veteran
Posted 18 December 2006 - 10:13 PM
QUOTE
Then he and his entire fan club, all three of them as far as I can tell
It's called the Dirty Trinity. The Wig, The Pearl and Crawford's Ghost.
Hehehe....
#8
-
- Members
-
- 1,972 posts
Veteran
Posted 18 December 2006 - 10:39 PM
QUOTE(Gaybutton @ Dec 18 2006, 03:02 PM) 
The current subject of controversy seems to spend an inordinate amount of time sitting at his keyboard. I don't know why he doesn't just start a board of his own. Then he can boast, brag, self-aggrandize, threaten, write incoherent messages, name drop, put down other people, and plagiarize to his heart's content. Then he and his entire fan club, all three of them as far as I can tell, could post whatever they want.
How succinctly put! I am in full agreement. As for paying for his own board, a metaphor regarding flying pigs springs to mind
"Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence...Speak your truth quietly and clearly..."
"Desiderata" (1927), Max Ehrmann (1872-1945).
"Desiderata" (1927), Max Ehrmann (1872-1945).
#9 Guest_Joan Crawford's Ghost_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 December 2006 - 01:06 AM
people must be dreaming if they didn't think I woulld receive a stream of ghostly tipped replies with a name like that but come on girls you can do better than the purile efforts you've come up with so far although I'm not so sure someone called Dolly Lamma should be taken too seriously either.
yes D.Lamma I was going to do as you said but as Earwig stepped in and apologised in his own way I decided why should I research something that would surely waste my time and earn more scorn from you and giggles from that other fool incapable of little else, no matter what the result . It's clear we even disagree on the degree of Earwig's apology , hence my question to the moderators and this thread which if you are incapable of comprehending is an entirely different matter then it confirms that some members are as indeed as thick as I believe they are.
Uncle Sam as usual lived up to his name sake's , blunders in with no policy just wreaking havoc and always getting it wrong.
Gaybutton at least brings to the thread his opinion which is what I asked although I would disagree that that is the manner in whch a board should be run.
In contrast I would have thought should be a very clear set of rules ( an extended Code of Conduct) and that when a member abides by those rules they should remain a member no matter what. If rules are "discovered" as one goes along...and for D.Lamma's sake I point to Baht-Stop's claim that I am a "collaborator"...it's a recipe for disaster. Others may cheer (Uncle Sam would he he he himself sick) but eventually the axe may fall on others for similar reasons. So Gaybutton is correct. It's not a democracy-it's a little dictatorship and that is fine as this the internet and if somene wants to set up their own little princedom they have every right to do so. I just think we should be told .
I mean I should be, as others obviously couldn't care less.
But this board doesn't seem to be attracting a lot of posters and I believe that is a shame and needs to be corrected and that's not a problem that can be blamed on Earwig.
yes D.Lamma I was going to do as you said but as Earwig stepped in and apologised in his own way I decided why should I research something that would surely waste my time and earn more scorn from you and giggles from that other fool incapable of little else, no matter what the result . It's clear we even disagree on the degree of Earwig's apology , hence my question to the moderators and this thread which if you are incapable of comprehending is an entirely different matter then it confirms that some members are as indeed as thick as I believe they are.
Uncle Sam as usual lived up to his name sake's , blunders in with no policy just wreaking havoc and always getting it wrong.
Gaybutton at least brings to the thread his opinion which is what I asked although I would disagree that that is the manner in whch a board should be run.
In contrast I would have thought should be a very clear set of rules ( an extended Code of Conduct) and that when a member abides by those rules they should remain a member no matter what. If rules are "discovered" as one goes along...and for D.Lamma's sake I point to Baht-Stop's claim that I am a "collaborator"...it's a recipe for disaster. Others may cheer (Uncle Sam would he he he himself sick) but eventually the axe may fall on others for similar reasons. So Gaybutton is correct. It's not a democracy-it's a little dictatorship and that is fine as this the internet and if somene wants to set up their own little princedom they have every right to do so. I just think we should be told .
I mean I should be, as others obviously couldn't care less.
But this board doesn't seem to be attracting a lot of posters and I believe that is a shame and needs to be corrected and that's not a problem that can be blamed on Earwig.
#10
-
- Members
-
- 103 posts
Veteran
Posted 19 December 2006 - 01:23 AM
QUOTE(UncleSam @ Dec 18 2006, 07:43 PM)
It's called the Dirty Trinity. The Wig, The Pearl and Crawford's Ghost.
Hehehe....
Oh darling, and here I was thinking they were the three ugly sisters.
#11 Guest_Joan Crawford's Ghost_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 December 2006 - 03:29 AM
QUOTE(Old Slapper @ Dec 19 2006, 01:23 AM)
Oh darling, and here I was thinking they were the three ugly sisters.
Such Pearls of wit. I don't where someone called Old Slapper finds the time to come up with them.
#12
-
- Members
-
- 103 posts
Veteran
Posted 19 December 2006 - 02:51 PM
QUOTE(Joan Crawford's Ghost @ Dec 19 2006, 12:59 AM)
Such Pearls of wit. I don't where someone called Old Slapper finds the time to come up with them.
Oh it's easy daarling, when you're not obsessively cleaning the underside of pots.
#13
-
- Members
-
- 759 posts
Veteran
Posted 19 December 2006 - 05:43 PM
I for one don't have any doubt that the Crawford Ghost is Pearl69, who was Fanny of thailand too, and should be banned as promised when her earlier manifestations were canned.
Why suspend Ear Wig and put up with this other jerk who's probably worse in the nasty department ?
Why suspend Ear Wig and put up with this other jerk who's probably worse in the nasty department ?
#14
-
- Members
-
- 1,972 posts
Veteran
Posted 19 December 2006 - 10:41 PM
QUOTE(DollyLamma @ Dec 19 2006, 10:43 AM)
I for one don't have any doubt that the Crawford Ghost is Pearl69, who was Fanny of Thailand too, and should be banned as promised when her earlier manifestations were canned.
Why suspend Ear Wig and put up with this other jerk who's probably worse in the nasty department ?
Quite right, but there is nothing to say that the barrack-room lawyer will not resurface with another identity - let' face it, he has had three in the short time this board has been running.
It seems Earwig has also cottoned on to this fact. In one of his latest rants on GT he writes "I have been told I can go there in another name as many do when they are banned, so as the owner and Hedda does not loose face....."
That seems to be something the Moderators and Bahtstop himself should be on the lookout for. At least the dreaded one is giving us prior warning.
If he comes back with his usual sociopathic behaviour and is allowed to remain under a new handle I for one will be out of here.
"Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence...Speak your truth quietly and clearly..."
"Desiderata" (1927), Max Ehrmann (1872-1945).
"Desiderata" (1927), Max Ehrmann (1872-1945).
