quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHugs

Dear Rover, Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
As far as Jay Wiseman's works, I will hold them in higher standing as there is wonderful personal history and Mr. Wiseman has good intent and is also ethical.  So, indeed I would recommend others reading the link you have posted.  I would additionally recommend that he be offered more opportunities to present to larger conventions, gatherings and or conferences.
 
As for Jack Rinella's written works.  They have made good fire starters.  Having personal experiences with ... what I have witnessed, what I have heard him utter have been most vile and contrary to his writings ...and, they have not been an occassional manifestation of such, one being at the Master-slave conference the most despicable and shocking to where an assembly of individuals witnessed this along with me.  His treatment of others in my presence was equally and independently vile on a more personal level, although I was not a target and was civil, respectful and a gentleman with me, I cannot associate, condone, support and or assist and or share with him knowing his true colors.  And, that is why I must admit my prejudices and bias against him.  Being a fair person I state my bias/prejudice up front so that others can be independent of my bias/prejudice and go about seeking what they must and once personally interacting with him can come to their own conclusions.
 
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: aSlavesLife

I see an incredible amount of hostility and derision here, and it all seems to be radiating from the camp which insists that anyone who, for whatever reason, cannot or will not provide references is to be treated as a pariah.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aSlavesLife

I see an incredible amount of hostility and derision here, and it all seems to be radiating from the camp which insists that anyone who, for whatever reason, cannot or will not provide references is to be treated as a pariah.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aSlavesLife

After all, if these people were really concerned, would they not advocate that people contact the department of motor vehicles in order to access the person in questions criminal record?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline
You are irrationally against this where it might benefit some people... so you open yourself up to being picked on.

quote:

{PS: Your last paragraph had me misty eyed. The way you stand up for the underdog!}

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

Let's have a closer look at these two gems....  When you're the supposed lone voice of reason, this is you: "This has nothing to do with "hive speak" I seldom agree with anyone (I can be quite the disagreeable individual)." 
Very noble - the lone wolf personified.
 
But when someone else speaks out, such as myself, I'm this:  "This has nothing to do with your battered sensitivities or your inability to let this go. That you are injured that someone would actually dare to ask this of you is rather a silly thing to get pissy about."
That the only real difference is the individual's perspective makes you quite the posturing hypocrite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline
You are irrationally against this where it might benefit some people... so you open yourself up to being picked on.

"Irrationally against" what, references?  You're wrong, I said *I* don't believe in them, nor do a vast number of people; you or anyone else can make your own arrangements.  All I've done is present a different view point - is what msg boards are for, no?  But pick away, I'm having a ball....  It's not that I'm armour-plated or even thick skinned - you're shooting blanks!

quote:

{PS: Your last paragraph had me misty eyed. The way you stand up for the underdog!}

Your words have also brought tears to my eyes, just not for sentimental reasons....  Lol, it's all good!
 
Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

You seem like a genuinely nice guy, Stephan.  And I've enjoyed reading many of your posts.  But what business or concern is it of yours what someone else's relationship objectives are?  I hope not to be the first to tell you that some folks want to be objectified in their relationship.  Others want an emphasis upon service.  Not everyone is seeking a relationship based upon the "traditional" social values.  We're not all the same, nor are we all seeking the same relationship dynamic.  You can't persist with this point of view without appearing to be incredibly short sighted, or a devotee of "the one true way". 

quote:

Like it or not, we live in a litiguous society, and people sue for any reason at all.  I have already heard of successful lawsuits regarding personal relationships in which material facts were misrepresented.  The only new aspect of your example is that it would involve a lifestyler, most of whom wouldn't want the public scrutiny.

quote:

There are some people who claim to be able to do just that.  Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the recently deceased Jon Jacobs.  There was even a recent effort to establish some sort of online "BDSM Certification".  I think it's all quite silly, but people are regularly known to be silly.  Doesn't stop them though, nor you and I (evidently) from having (or expressing) an opinion about it.

quote:

I think you'll find that most women who meet someone online desire a more substantial "getting to know you" period before meeting real time.  There's no standardized time frame, of course.  When I was new to the net, I was an advocate of "not rushing" things, as I heard of all the awful things that seemed to happen regularly to poor defenseless submissives meeting crazed lunatics from the internet.  It only made sense.... until such time as I realized that it didn't make sense.  There were no accompanying newspaper articles or expose on 20/20 or Primetime Live, no corresponding string of real time victims in any of the (many) places I traveled, no death notices, no police investigations... you get my drift, don't you? 
 
Point is, genuine or fraud, many folks are influenced to take an inordinate amount of time prior to meeting.  Often this influence is from less than honorable sources. 

quote:

Because a bunch of online do-gooders has convinced her that she should wait months before meeting, since Dominants are frequently axe murderers.  You know another good reason for references?  Anyone out in the community knows this is utter BS, and simply uses good judgement about where and how to meet.

quote:

It's true that many folks claiming to desire a real time relationship are just fibbing in hopes of manipulating someone into an online relationship that they can draw out for an extended period of time.  If your expectations are genuinely for a real time relationship, whose expectations are unrealistic?  What is unrealistic is to take people that you meet online at their word because... hold on to your seat... people on the internet lie about themselves and their intentions (*gasp*).  Knowing that someone is out there in the community, is single, gender appropriate, etc. goes a long way to ensuring that your not the victim of someone who might fabricate the truth.

quote:

There are a few fundamental flaws in your example, Stephan.  In your example you know the woman's gender, what she really looks like, have spoken to her on the telephone, can reasonably ascertain that she is single (no one else answers, she doesn't ask you not to call in the evening or to leave messages that unwanted ears might hear, etc.), you know something about her personality, decorum, how she dresses, interacts with others, etc.  And despite the fact that there are no guarantees that she (or you) will want a relationship with each other, you can reasonably assume that she wants a real time relationship with someone. 
 
Contrast that with meeting someone online who may require weeks of tedious emails and IM's before speaking on the telephone (it's ok to give out your number to a stranger in a bar, but a Dominant you meet online could be an axe murderer), assuming that they actually want a real time relationship at all (versus an enjoyable online fantasy), you don't know their actual gender or whether the photo received in email is actually her, whether she is single or married with three children, whether she has overpowering BO, brushes her teeth or hair, wears clownish clothing, swears like a stevedore... are you catching my drift? 
 
To equate meeting someone face to face with "meeting" them on the internet is flawed at the outset.

quote:

Really, you sound a bit jaded.  Now I'm not suggesting that I would intentionally ignore obvious signals, but like most people who have run into interesting potential partners online, I have surely been strung along only to find out that it was all a fabrication.  And for every time I've been strung along, the effort to do so has been made twenty times.  I'm not complaining, mind you.  I realize this problem is inherent to the internet (and given that I am "out there" regularly, and over a rather substantial geographic area, the internet is far from my sole source of potential partners).
 
Now, define for me what is a "reasonable time" to meet?  Ask ten people and you'll get ten answers.  If your first meeting is simply to "authenticate the basics" (ie: gender, appearance, etc.) then a reference can do so much more easily and quickly. 
 
Personally, I prefer to meet sooner rather than later for many reasons, some of which have been mentioned in this post.  If I'm interested in someone, I have no problem flying out to spend the weekend somewhere to share some good food and conversation.  If they're active in their local community, I enjoy attending a munch, workshop, etc. with them and to meet their friends.  Seriously, what is so unrealistic about that?

quote:

Why would you assume such a thing?  Who said anything about a kinky date?  Are you inferring that anyone willing to travel to meet someone of interest is simply looking for a "kinky date"?  Are you saying that such a person should hire the services of a prostitute?  Really, Stephan... that sentiment is more than a little objectionable.  In fact, it's downright offensive and says quite a bit about you.

quote:

 
Even if most people aren't sincere online, I am

quote:

 
Post # 21 SirDominic " Any Dominant that is insulted to be asked for references, or who believes that asking them about these issues is stepping on their delicate Dominant toes are either players without the knowledge or confidence to know what they are doing; or someone with a god complex. In either case, I would run the other way. "

quote:

 
Post # 38 LordODiscipline " It is never wrong to ask for references where you intend on exploring an intimate, personal, or business relationship with someone

quote:

 
Post # 42 Archer " I'll pare the question down a bit to make it a bit more clear as to what I read there.
"you aren't know by someone as a Dom then you aren't trustworthy." "

quote:

 
Furthermore, how is it that these orginizations are able to disclose references when to do so is contrary to their non-disclosure policies?

quote:


Please take note of the link below concerning TES' confidentiality policy

quote:

ORIGINAL: aSlavesLife

I take it from your misplaced ridicule that you are unfamiliar with law enforcement officers preferring to not place their lives in undue danger. The DMV database is nationally linked in order to provide officers with quick data on any traffic stop. The officer needs to know not only if the person has any outstanding trafic warrants, but also if the person is a criminal with convictions other than moving violations. Perhaps the mass murderer sees fit to obey traffic ordinance. For this reason, their database contains all criminal records.

This information can be obtained by any civilian at any police agency in America  due to the freedom of information act. I mentioned the DPS only because you will get the fastest results with them. The link below is a DMV.org site which makes it quite easy.

Your sincere apology is graciously accepted.

http://www.dmv.org/criminal-records.php

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Not only have you taken those quotes out of context, but you've implied hostility and derision where none exists.

quote:

 
Post # 21 SirDominic " Any Dominant that is insulted to be asked for references, or who believes that asking them about these issues is stepping on their delicate Dominant toes are either players without the knowledge or confidence to know what they are doing; or someone with a god complex. In either case, I would run the other way. "

He's right, anyone that's insulted by being asked for information does give good reason to run the other way.  There's nothing wrong with telling the truth, saying no references are available, and then letting people decide for themselves how crucial they are in that particular instance.  But feigning insult?  Sorry, that is a red flag.
 
I said previously that anyone not subscribing to your cults standards was met with hostility and derision. I was here responding to the post in which you asked to identify and quote where anyone without references be treated as such. How can " run the other way " be taken out of context? He clearly believes that anyone who does not have references is to be avoided. Please read where you requested examples, as I gave them.
 

quote:

 
Post # 38 LordODiscipline " It is never wrong to ask for references where you intend on exploring an intimate, personal, or business relationship with someone

Seriously, what hostility or derision exists in this quote?  References may not be available, but how can it be "wrong" to ask for them?  Honestly, you're being disingenuous.
 
Again, I was responding to the request to show where others said non referencers were to be shunned. Ironic that you claim that I am taking things out of context when you have here failed to provide the following sentence ( the one that I retained IN context.
 
" there is no legitimate reason someone cannot provide them. "
 
No reason, really? What about an upstanding member of a community that does not wish to be ostracized by his or her vanilla peers?

quote:

 
Post # 42 Archer " I'll pare the question down a bit to make it a bit more clear as to what I read there.
"you aren't know by someone as a Dom then you aren't trustworthy." "

I tried to find this quote at post #42 and it doesn't exist there.  Perhaps you found it elsewhere, but at a glance it appears to be a contrived coupling of several different thoughts.  I cannot tell for sure without reading the original.
 
My mistake, it was post # 43, not 42. But I suppose that it is easier to accuse someone of lying rather than read the name attached to the quote and check for the nearest post which matches the name.

quote:

 
Furthermore, how is it that these orginizations are able to disclose references when to do so is contrary to their non-disclosure policies?

We lifestylers value our anonymity to the whole of society, our families, our employers, etc. but we are not hiding from each other.  By way of example, we are all "here" in Collarme sharing ourselves with others, sometimes with full names and photographs.  You greatly misunderstand the issue of privacy as it relates to the lifestyle.  But then, perhaps you are not "out there" to understand or appreciate it.
 
Or then, perhaps I find no need to adhere to the dogma presented by some.

 

quote:


Please take note of the link below concerning TES' confidentiality policy

I cannot be completely certain, but I do seem to recall that TES requires references in order to attend their annual TES Fest.  At least, that is my recollection based upon my last attendance a few years ago.  Kinda negates your misapplication of their policy, doesn't it?
 
Perhaps I should state it again, for greater emphasis.  We are not hiding from each other, and being a reference for other lifestylers is not considered "outing".  If you were "out there" you'd understand that.

Rather than jump to the conclusion that you are lying, a curtesy you seem incapable of extending to anyone outside your cult, I took the liberty of checking on tesfest. As the event is over for the year, it is difficult to tell by their onlinre regristration whether or not they require references. However it looks as though you simply pay a fee for 1, 2, or 4 day passes to the event. Nothing more.

And for the record, to " out " someone means to acknowledge knowing them within a BDSM community. The link to the Sanctuary specifies this in no uncertain terms.

1. You never, either directly or indirectly, reveal that you know someone is a member of the S&M community or practices the S&M lifestyle, even to someone else in the scene. This is referred to as "outing," and it is always and exclusively their choice to "out" themselves - never yours.
2. You never, either directly or indirectly, reveal the "vanilla" or "real" identity of someone in the S&M scene, even to someone else in the scene.
3. If you know someone only through the scene, you never indicate, either directly or indirectly, that you know them at all when you are not both in an S&M scene or lifestyle context. For instance, you may accidentally meet a good friend whom you know only through the scene while the two of you are in the grocery store one day. The correct thing - the only correct thing - is to treat them as if they were a total stranger, letting not even the casual observer have any clue that the two of you know each other.
 
The Sanctuary For Lifestyle Arts will not tolerate the intentional violation of any of these rules and accidental violations will be looked upon with great disfavor.

https://www.tesfest.org/registration/
John

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: aSlavesLife

I take it from your misplaced ridicule that you are unfamiliar with law enforcement officers preferring to not place their lives in undue danger. The DMV database is nationally linked in order to provide officers with quick data on any traffic stop. The officer needs to know not only if the person has any outstanding trafic warrants, but also if the person is a criminal with convictions other than moving violations. Perhaps the mass murderer sees fit to obey traffic ordinance. For this reason, their database contains all criminal records.

This information can be obtained by any civilian at any police agency in America  due to the freedom of information act. I mentioned the DPS only because you will get the fastest results with them. The link below is a DMV.org site which makes it quite easy.

Your sincere apology is graciously accepted.

http://www.dmv.org/criminal-records.php

It's not often that someone is so anxious to display their ignorance so publicly.
 
This information is not provided by any state or government agency.  It's from a private company that simply wants you to part with $ 100 (or whatever the going fee is) for them to provide what limited information is legal for them to access, possess, and forward to you (which probably ain't much).  There are a thousand such companies available on the net.
 
Just proof that a fool and their money is soon parted. 
 
John

I used to do criminal background checks at a previous job, but called a highway patrol friend of mine on this one just now. He says that each state has different procedures, but that it is possible to be obtained in any state. The one for Texas is https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/DPS_WEB/APP_SUPPORT/index.aspx?PageIndex=CreditInfo
The other link looked legit, and not having the rolodex from my last job handy, was unsure of the name other than knowing that it involved dmv/dps.

By the way, I do so love the way you floated a banner attributing to your own ignorance concerning tesfest. Are you sure that you are active in your community? lol

I think that I might be more inclined to check my own claims before bashing others. Oh, but no ridicule and derision from the cult of references, is there?

Seriously, if you can't see the multiple posts of ridiculing Focus50, I don't think that a bumper jack could pry your eyes open enough to see it.

quote:


Post # 21 SirDominic " Any Dominant that is insulted to be asked for references, or who believes that asking them about these issues is stepping on their delicate Dominant toes are either players without the knowledge or confidence to know what they are doing; or someone with a god complex. In either case, I would run the other way.

quote:

 
He's right, anyone that's insulted by being asked for information does give good reason to run the other way.  There's nothing wrong with telling the truth, saying no references are available, and then letting people decide for themselves how crucial they are in that particular instance.  But feigning insult?  Sorry, that is a red flag.

quote:


I said previously that anyone not subscribing to your cults standards was met with hostility and derision. I was here responding to the post in which you asked to identify and quote where anyone without references be treated as such. How can " run the other way " be taken out of context? He clearly believes that anyone who does not have references is to be avoided. Please read where you requested examples, as I gave them

quote:

 
Post # 38 LordODiscipline " It is never wrong to ask for references where you intend on exploring an intimate, personal, or business relationship with someone

quote:

 
Seriously, what hostility or derision exists in this quote?  References may not be available, but how can it be "wrong" to ask for them?  Honestly, you're being disingenuous.

quote:

 
Again, I was responding to the request to show where others said non referencers were to be shunned. Ironic that you claim that I am taking things out of context when you have here failed to provide the following sentence ( the one that I retained IN context

quote:

 
" there is no legitimate reason someone cannot provide them. "

quote:

 
No reason, really? What about an upstanding member of a community that does not wish to be ostracized by his or her vanilla peers

quote:

 
Post # 42 Archer " I'll pare the question down a bit to make it a bit more clear as to what I read there.
"you aren't know by someone as a Dom then you aren't trustworthy." "

quote:

 
I tried to find this quote at post #42 and it doesn't exist there.  Perhaps you found it elsewhere, but at a glance it appears to be a contrived coupling of several different thoughts.  I cannot tell for sure without reading the original.

quote:

 
My mistake, it was post # 43, not 42. But I suppose that it is easier to accuse someone of lying rather than read the name attached to the quote and check for the nearest post which matches the name.

quote:

 
I'll pare the question down a bit to make it a bit more clear as to what I read there.
"you aren't know by someone as a Dom then you aren't trustworthy."

quote:

  
Furthermore, how is it that these orginizations are able to disclose references when to do so is contrary to their non-disclosure policies?

quote:

 
We lifestylers value our anonymity to the whole of society, our families, our employers, etc. but we are not hiding from each other.  By way of example, we are all "here" in Collarme sharing ourselves with others, sometimes with full names and photographs.  You greatly misunderstand the issue of privacy as it relates to the lifestyle.  But then, perhaps you are not "out there" to understand or appreciate it.

quote:

 
Or then, perhaps I find no need to adhere to the dogma presented by some.

quote:

 
And for the record, to " out " someone means to acknowledge knowing them within a BDSM community. The link to the Sanctuary specifies this in no uncertain terms.

1. You never, either directly or indirectly, reveal that you know someone is a member of the S&M community or practices the S&M lifestyle, even to someone else in the scene. This is referred to as "outing," and it is always and exclusively their choice to "out" themselves - never yours.
2. You never, either directly or indirectly, reveal the "vanilla" or "real" identity of someone in the S&M scene, even to someone else in the scene.
3. If you know someone only through the scene, you never indicate, either directly or indirectly, that you know them at all when you are not both in an S&M scene or lifestyle context. For instance, you may accidentally meet a good friend whom you know only through the scene while the two of you are in the grocery store one day. The correct thing - the only correct thing - is to treat them as if they were a total stranger, letting not even the casual observer have any clue that the two of you know each other.
 
The Sanctuary For Lifestyle Arts will not tolerate the intentional violation of any of these rules and accidental violations will be looked upon with great disfavor.