RE: Fakes and Liars on CM

RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pshornyguy -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:37:03 AM)
Another straw-man argument which totally misrepresents what I have suggested. Apparently, you prefer arguing over non-issues more than actually addressing the specifics of what is actually being proposed. Being "incompatible" has nothing whatsoever to do with what I have suggested. I explicitly stated from the beginning of this conversation that the issue is DISHONESTY not incompatibility. Examples of dishonesty: (1) You claim to be 43yo when you actually are 59yo. (2) You claim to be 175# when you actually are 235# (3) You claim that you want to become a slave -- when you have no interest whatsoever in becoming a slave (4) You claim to be a submissive -- but you never want to be given direction or requirements (5) You claim you want extreme chastity but, in reality, you want daily orgasms quote: ORIGINAL: Delilya quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Ya, I've been told I wasn't a true submissive after telling a guy no sex on the first date. Better add myself to the list too. I need to add him, as well, cuz he was way too focused on vanilla sex to be a TWUE DOM. See how that works, OP? We just weren't compatible, but neither of us was a fake. Scoots over and offers popcorn. So nice to no longer be here by myself.

mnottertail -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:37:04 AM)
Steven, I have reported you at least a thousand times, why don't you think you are getting any? Is your self-confidence starting to crumble yet? competition for the market doesn't happen on my watch.

stef -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:38:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pshornyguy Well, Stef, I use caps and bold when people make false assertions or present straw-man arguments. I have written probably a dozen times that I am not proposing any adverse action be taken against anybody for any reason --- but, nevertheless, I keep getting messages based upon the premise that I want someone to be denied access to this site or otherwise prevented from doing what they want to do. Write it a dozen more times if you like, it doesn't make it the truth. If the ability to post unsubstantiated, erroneous reviews of people exists then that is very much an "adverse action." quote: How about explaining to me as precisely as you can, what would be (in your judgment) the most terrible thing about my proposal if it were enacted? Asked and answered. No caps or bold text necessary.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:41:15 AM)
No adverse action? Really? You think putting someone's name on a list would not cause any adverse action for them? Look at the reasons you would want someone on such a list... Doesn't send a picture like they said they would. Doesn't contact you again like they said they would. General dishonesty (as opined by the receiver) So obviously, this IS about things that have happened to you and bothered you. Yet you refuse to consider the reality here. First, men get contacted by scammers much more than women. Especially when they have a screen name that indicates their first interest is sex (i.e. "psHORNYguy"). Now look at your profile. Have you ever asked yourself how many people simply skim it and miss your comment, made almost in passing, about your HIV meds? Then when talking through email or IM, either you mention it or they look at your profile in more detail and discover that not only are you HIV positive, but your desires are almost ALL about fluid exchanges that you wish to engage in. Do you really not understand why people might be a little apprehensive about that? I don't want to get into a discussion about how HIV is or is not passed from person to person, but based on your profile, it certainly doesn't appear you care one bit about that. Yet you don't understand why people just "poof" and disappear on you. Look, I understand your health is going to make it more difficult for you to find a partner, and I also understand that you likely have gone without for quite a while and are becoming desperate. But you really need to get a grip, and understand that YES, you are suggesting a blacklist and then understand that based on your profile, there are multiple people who would likely put your name at the top of the list. Finding a partner under normal circumstances is difficult. In your case, it is even more so. So go have some rocky road ice cream with hot fudge, whipped cream and a cherry on top, take a deep breath and realize that this site has run successfully for a long time without your suggestions, and will continue long after you are gone. It isn't perfect, but it is free and it does work for the majority of people here.

GreedyTop -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:41:19 AM)
Bita!! I have been addicted to Netflix (currently, an awesome Brit show caled MI-5, but with new episodes of Dr. WHo in the offering!!!) still ignoring the blacklist advocate who is clearly CLUELESS nice to see you all again.. Hugs to Bita's Himself!!

BitaTruble -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:41:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pshornyguy BY DEFINITION, a genuine blacklist PREVENTS people from participating or becoming members or being employed -- simply because their name appears on a blacklist. black·list /ˈblækˌlɪst/ Show Spelled[blak-list] Show IPA noun 1. a list of persons under suspicion, disfavor, censure, etc.: His record as an anarchist put him on the government's blacklist. You are calling for a list to be compiled of screen names who are suspected of being liars or fakes (based on a 30 min conversation no less!) - the exact defintion of a blacklist and blacklists are against site policy. You don't get it. That's fine. You're not going to get what you want either.. and that's even better. Joe McCarthy thought he was doing good things, too.. he wasn't. He targeted 159 people, 150 of whom were innocent of his levied charges. How many are innocent of your levied charges, Ernie? Is one too many? What if 'you' are that one? Is it too many then? I'm not into necro or beastiality, so I am bowing out unless you have some counter-argument to make that is actually logical. Coming up with your own defintions to try to fit things into little boxes just isn't going to cut it and I have better things to do on a Saturday morning in San Diego. Have a nice day, Ernie and I hope you fail miserably at what you are trying to accomplish here because "I" might be your next target.

Yachtie -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:41:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pshornyguy Fakes and liars might decide to leave the site What about Trolls? [sm=sigh.gif]

Lockit -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:42:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pshornyguy Another straw-man argument which totally misrepresents what I have suggested. Apparently, you prefer arguing over non-issues more than actually addressing the specifics of what is actually being proposed. quote: ORIGINAL: Delilya quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Ya, I've been told I wasn't a true submissive after telling a guy no sex on the first date. Better add myself to the list too. I need to add him, as well, cuz he was way too focused on vanilla sex to be a TWUE DOM. See how that works, OP? We just weren't compatible, but neither of us was a fake. Scoots over and offers popcorn. So nice to no longer be here by myself. Who are you to determine what constitutes an argument or answer based on the topic? I thought the first answer very on topic and the response to that an agreement of the silliness I've seen here on this thread. What you suggest is problematic. You have made your mind up and anyone that disagrees with you isn't properly addressing things. You are failing to see the error in your assumptions that all would be fine and good and you are trying to take an easy/lazy man's way to quickly getting what you want. So sorry you actually have to take the time to weed people out, but that is the way it is. Get over it.

amaidiamond -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:46:53 AM)
Am bored of trying to educate the uneducatable now... Sooo.... Who wants a Cyber-Orgy Opie has made me realise cybersex is where its at :D

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:48:27 AM)
Totes on board for the cyber orgy! Who wants to squish me?

pshornyguy -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:49:07 AM)
OK, so your ultimate objection is that you think such a list would consist of subjective perceptions which cannot be proven? Then you still don't understand my proposal. For example: suppose a profile here on CM states that the person is 35yo but you discover that the same person posted a profile on another website stating his/her age to be 47yo. Would that be what you consider "unsubstantiated erroneous reviews" ?? What if 5 different people, on 5 different occasions, report the exact same problem? For example: if someone promises to send his/her pics but never does? Wouldn't it be good to know that the person you are chatting with has a habit of making explicit promises but then does not follow-through on them? Isn't that a useful tool for evaluating character? Or would that also be "unsubstantiated erroneous reviews"? The key point here remains having information to make informed judgments about people -- rather than wasting time (sometimes hours) chatting with people who have no genuine interest in you and may not even have genuine interest in BDSM. quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: pshornyguy Well, Stef, I use caps and bold when people make false assertions or present straw-man arguments. I have written probably a dozen times that I am not proposing any adverse action be taken against anybody for any reason --- but, nevertheless, I keep getting messages based upon the premise that I want someone to be denied access to this site or otherwise prevented from doing what they want to do. Write it a dozen more times if you like, it doesn't make it the truth. If the ability to post unsubstantiated, erroneous reviews of people exists then that is very much an "adverse action." quote: How about explaining to me as precisely as you can, what would be (in your judgment) the most terrible thing about my proposal if it were enacted? Asked and answered. No caps or bold text necessary.

mnottertail -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:52:42 AM)
No.

BlueEyedSubinDE -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:53:52 AM)
This message board is the property of the fine mystery folks at Collarme. It belongs to them, it's their sand box. Because it's their sand box, THEY get to make the rules for THEIR sand box. THEY have decided that there will be no blacklists. So seems to me, you have two options - #1 follow their rules while playing in their sand box or #2 ask for a refund and use that money to build your own sand box

amaidiamond -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:54:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus Totes on board for the cyber orgy! Who wants to squish me? I'd squish you any day LadyHib.... the big bewbies have their uses!

Deliena -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:55:59 AM)
Me too, been ages since I got any but I haven't got time to make lists of people that piss me off and I'm sure there's plenty of people out there whom I ain't twue enough for either...

pshornyguy -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:56:09 AM)
Lockit: I made an observation based upon the substance of what you wrote. You then replied with an observation. Your original message suggested that incompatibility could be used to describe someone as a fake. I explictly stated that incompatibility IS NOT a criterion. So, that means your concern is not relevant to what I am proposing. If you have any objection which is based upon what I am actually proposing -- then let's hear it! I very much want to hear objections to my suggestion. I have not made up my mind nor do I dismiss disagreements. But as I have pointed out repeatedly, many of the comments here are based upon false predicates. Surely, you don't expect me to agree with people who are mis-representing what I am proposing do you? If someone misrepresents something you propose, would you just immediately affirm their comment because you would be afraid to be told that your mind was made up and you did not want to hear any disagreements? quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit quote: ORIGINAL: pshornyguy Another straw-man argument which totally misrepresents what I have suggested. Apparently, you prefer arguing over non-issues more than actually addressing the specifics of what is actually being proposed. quote: ORIGINAL: Delilya quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Ya, I've been told I wasn't a true submissive after telling a guy no sex on the first date. Better add myself to the list too. I need to add him, as well, cuz he was way too focused on vanilla sex to be a TWUE DOM. See how that works, OP? We just weren't compatible, but neither of us was a fake. Scoots over and offers popcorn. So nice to no longer be here by myself. Who are you to determine what constitutes an argument or answer based on the topic? I thought the first answer very on topic and the response to that an agreement of the silliness I've seen here on this thread. What you suggest is problematic. You have made your mind up and anyone that disagrees with you isn't properly addressing things. You are failing to see the error in your assumptions that all would be fine and good and you are trying to take an easy/lazy man's way to quickly getting what you want. So sorry you actually have to take the time to weed people out, but that is the way it is. Get over it.

stef -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 9:57:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pshornyguy Then you still don't understand my proposal. You're wrong.

pshornyguy -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 10:02:09 AM)
I have no problem whatsoever with their rule. I am not proposing a blacklist. I am proposing an information list. A blacklist (by definition) prevents designated people from participating. I propose no such thing. Everything I propose is voluntary. A blacklist (by definition) is mandatory. Nobody is penalized in any way by what I propose. A blacklist (by definition) requires explicit penalities in order to prevent certain designated people from doing what they want. I have stated explicitly, at least 5 times, that there would be no penalities of any kind whatsoever taken against either the fakes and liars or the people who wish to engage them in conversation. In my proposal, everybody is totally free to do whatever they want. How does that become a blacklist?? Can you point me to any blacklist in human history where everyone was totally free to do whatever they want? quote: ORIGINAL: BlueEyedSubinDE This message board is the property of the fine mystery folks at Collarme. It belongs to them, it's their sand box. Because it's their sand box, THEY get to make the rules for THEIR sand box. THEY have decided that there will be no blacklists. So seems to me, you have two options - #1 follow their rules while playing in their sand box or #2 ask for a refund and use that money to build your own sand box

pshornyguy -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 10:05:04 AM)
Saying "you're wrong" doesn't make it so. Your unwillingness to address my questions (for example) reveals more about you than me quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: pshornyguy Then you still don't understand my proposal. You're wrong.

sincelo -> RE: Fakes and Liars on CM (6/9/2012 10:11:15 AM)
So i come to you and say that bob is really 60 but says he is 38 (this isnt true im just pissed off at bob and want to get back at him) another reader reads that about bob but decides to keep talking to him. Bob pisses off the new reader and then he or she come and say ya bob is really 60. You expect honesty from other users but butthurt dickheads will always be screaming so and so is fake. Why have you not responded to the fact that there already is a list of fakes on another site? Lets say we are talking and im liking you and tell you i will send pics but then you say something that creeps me out? I stop talking to you and dont send my picture. You scream foul and boom i am on the list because YOU creeped me out. You idea is flawed all over the place.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

7.421875E-02