Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/web/public_html/bb/printthread.php on line 119
CRUISING for SEX - Promoting Censorship
CRUISING for SEX

CRUISING for SEX (http://web.cruisingforsex.com/bb/index.php)
-   Sexual Politics (http://web.cruisingforsex.com/bb/forumdisplay.php?f=151)
-   -   Promoting Censorship (http://web.cruisingforsex.com/bb/showthread.php?t=12707)

16th January 2001 10:43 PM

"Defamatory speech is regulated through libel torts."

What an interesting comment coming from one who has defamed me by alledging my actions at a public event were foolish and then he doesn't have the decency to tell us what he meant by this comment. Bongo has used the word 'evade' at least 3 times by my count and yet he is the one evading.

If you are going to publicly call me a fool, impuning the integrity of another person, at least have the decency to back it up with an explanation (especially if the person who feels their integrity is on the line asks you for clarification) -- even if you will not give us your real name.

The same goes for the Scott O'Hara remarks. I'm still waiting to read how it is you better understood what Scott was about and what Steam was about. Again, I ask you to at least, if you're not willing to give us your identity, at least explain your remarks.

Just like Bongo said to Red, try "addressing the issues." And not just the issues you choose to focus on but all the issues you yourself have raised.

------------------
Cruisemaster
cruisingforsex.com

16th January 2001 11:05 PM

Wow, Bongo, you are one cool dude.
Thanks for expressing my frustration with the censorship here so eloquently!

The topic that was removed was not that awful or out of line. It was not taking over the board and many appreciated the discussion. Perhaps the moderator could have stepped in to keep things on topic?

17th January 2001 12:40 AM

I have read through the posts at this place (past and present). I see that others have been closed. I do not know how many others have been deleted.

I think that this place has potential. But, like bongo suggests, it can only be as good as the guy running it. Just like anything else, the posts and people who dominate posting here are probably a reflection of the man running the place. He, in a lot of ways, sets the tone.

Keith, you claim that you feel slighted by bongo's comments. Yet, you do not acknowledge how others here may have felt equally slighted by having their posts ceremoniously erased without a warning or an explanation. I understand that CFS allows all cruisers to remain anonymous. Why is that rule suddenly up for grabs since your vanity has been wounded? Now, you are demanding explanations and that people identify themselves. You do not see how hypocritically you are behaving? You undeniably apply one set of values to yourself as the head honcho while you clearly ignore the same feelings of others who participate at CFS. Bummer.

I do not know what happened at the incident bongo is talikng about in his post. But, based on your reactions, I can easily see how you don't get it -- in more ways than one. That also goes for the guys here who are implying that no one has a right to bitch or challenge you because you are the bigshot. SHEESH! I guess none of us should ever challenge our boss, question our peers, or challenge any authority figure, huh? We should all play follow the leader and act like sheep, right? You don't have to be a hen to know a rotten egg when you see it, and you don't have to own a web site in order to challenge the actions of the owner of one. Then again, maybe the guys defending you are just fellow Republicans or they actually do feel that it is unwise to challenge authority. Sorry, guys. "BAAAAAH -BAAAAAAH," is not in my vocabulary.

Aside from the freedom of speech and political stuff, this seems basically about common courtesy. It was just plain rude to erase a post without offering a warning or even an expanation as to why it was deleted. Offering this forum after the fact is a day late and a dollar short. The damage was already done. So far, I don't see Keith even attempting an apology. This shows no respect at all for the guys who claim that they were insulted and slighted by what happened. Yet, Keith is going on and on about defending his own image in response to another cruiser's comments.

Your priorities are clear to me, Mister.

17th January 2001 07:32 AM

I feel it is essential that I state some facts for the record. Posts like Jake2001 remind me that somebody seems to have forgotten a few things and perhaps many don't know because of course they wouldn't know since I RARELY participate on this Message Board. I personally don't much enjoy this type of forum -- threaded discussions -- but obviously I'm in the minority since the Message Board is extremely popular. Of course I imagine it is popular in no small part because it is more narrowly focused and not often allowed to simply go all over the place in terms of what can be discussed. Guys know they aren't going to be asked to support an anti-whaling measure when they come to this Message Board and were I a more frequent user of the forums, I'd actually appreciate that point.

First fact is this: I have not removed, edited or deleted any post by anyone in this thread on censorship. Jake2001 says I have, but he is beginning to sound a great deal like Bongo: making claims he can't back up.

Second fact: The original thread that caused the creation of this thread was NOT removed, edited or deleted by me. Indeed I never knew about the thread or read the thread while it existed. As I said earlier, I fully support the moderator who decided to stop the thread. He was making a judgement call in figuring out how appropriate a thread was in his forum and that is all one can ask of a moderator. I've heard no one claim that the Oregon moderator is unfair or unreasonable and since he has been doing this volunteer job for a very long time, guys must be satisfied. Believe me guys when I say that if users don't like a moderator they let me know about it.

I was called into this after someone asked me to loook at this thread on censorship and after reading the opening threads, I explained why a moderator would do what he did: remove a posting in the Oregon forum that wasn't about finding dick.

Third fact: I have rarely, and I mean rarely removed, edited or deleted any postings on this Message Board. I frequently send messages to the Moderators asking them to remove spam from their forum. I have removed remarks from or about sex with kids, and no doubt a few others over the years like when someone posts a guys phone number as a way to harass them. Oddly, given all the angst about my Republican affiliation, the most I've ever done in the area of deleting was to remove a flurry of pro-George Bush crap that popped up prior to the November election. I removed perhaps 50 postings since of course the Gore people responded in kind to the Bush postings. All were removed if I found them.

For those who feel that political organizing about sex needs to be allowed, I am baffled that anyone would claim I feel otherwise. I have spent years writing editorials published on this website essentially begging fellow cruisers to think political and organize resistence against police crackdowns, sensational journalism on TV, etc. I appreciate the importance of political activism as much as the next cruiser, but I also know that I don't want someone screaming about politics when I'm in a sexclub looking to get off. That is essentially the same way I view this issue as it relates to this Message Board. This leads to the next fact:

There are forums on this Message Board that encourage political discussion to a degree. While there is no forum that expressly allows for someone to talk about NAFTA, the forum 'Cruiser Crackdown' which has existed for at least a year would have been the ideal place to start a thread about a police crackdown in Portland, Oregon (by the way, that was the nature of the thread that started all this, or so I've been told). To some it may seem practical that such a thread appear in the Oregon forum, but since very, very few of the people who read this Message Board ever visit the Oregon forum, it makes more sense to me that a discussion about any police crackdown show up in a more broadly focused forum such as 'Cruiser Crackdown' so more than just those who live in a particular area can see the degree of the police crackdowns that are happening around the USA and the world at large. Part of the way activists organize is sharing experiences and the Web allows people all over the world who can't easily sit down around one conference table to share experiences and learn from one another. Persons who want to make sure that Oregonians know about this discussion could easily have posted a note in the Oregon forum directing fellow Oregonians to the thread in the 'Cruiser Crackdown' forum.

This very forum on 'Sexual Politics' was created as a direct result of a suggestion from a moderator a few days ago about a thread that had gotten too political in his forum. The timing dovetailed nicely with this discussion of censorship which was moved from Oregon to this forum.

I'm sure there are more than a few more things that need to be covered, but since so many of the posters in this thread are listed as 'future cruisers' that implies they are new to this Message Board and thus don't have the history many of us have with this website (By the way, 'future cruiser' is a distinction the board makes to show if someone has recently registered. After posting a certain amount of topics they automatically become a 'cruiser'.).

I'd like to think these facts might help settle things down, but I suspect that isn't going to be the case for some. While I expressed earlier that this is in fact a private enterprise and posters have no 'free speech rights' as such, I feel it important to explain exactly how little 'censorship' actually goes on here, especially since a few people are making it appear that I stand over every thread and edit and delete at will. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm going to shut up for now and await some clarifications from Bongo.

------------------
Cruisemaster
cruisingforsex.com

17th January 2001 09:24 AM

Keith, you state;

"First fact is this: I have not removed, edited or deleted any post by anyone in this thread on censorship. Jake2001 says I have, but he is beginning to sound a great deal like Bongo: making claims he can't back up."

Read my post carefully. I said that, after browsing through past and present posts, I noticed that several threads had been closed. Then, I stated that I did not know how many others had been deleted. You are misrepresenting things as you simultaneously claim that others are maligning you. The proof is there for anyone to check with their own eyes regarding posts that have a closed bolt on them. This is easily observable.

Now, you are trying to avoid responsibility by implying, "I didn't do it! The moderator did it!" Then, you back up his actions (deleting the thread)by defending his ability. So, you obviously support his decision. Stop whining and start taking responsibility! You are the boss.


17th January 2001 02:52 PM

There isn't any "clarification" left on my part to do, Keith. I'm not identifying myself in order, as Jake correctly put it, to appease the curiosity of your wounded vanity. Your performance in San Diego, your followup commentary to it, and your "association" with Scott are public record. Nor do I need to reiterate my points, all of which I stand by. But if it makes you more comfortable, I'm not alluding to any major assault against those of us working for sexual liberation. My impression in those contexts, like this context, is that you just don't "get" that this is about more than the freedom to suck cock without interference.

This string would not have been created and it would not have been joined by others if there wasn't the real experience of you, or your moderators, controlling expression in ways some of us find objectionable. (I guess you think we are suffering a collective hallucination.)

I think when you said that you don't enjoy these kinds of threads, you made adequate explanation of why it's so easy for you to dismiss what is important to the rest of us. It is pure assumption on your part that people object in great measure to the insertion of political material in the same place they look for sex -- or that they object more than many of us do, to, say advocacy in the LA room of barebacking. To generalize allowing Portland's difficulties pertinent to sex to be aired to opening the door to posts promoting "whaling measures" is just specious and pointless argumentation. We GET that it's your board, your preference and the rest of us be damned.

Perhaps instead of pursuing my identity, evading issues and defending yourself so vehemently, you could take a look at your rules and their enforcement. As I said, you have never struck me as having a committment to sexual politics that had much depth -- I think it's clear even in this particular forum it's just about sucking cock freely to you. But I never regarded you as a serious enemy of free expression either.

You've made your opinion known. Some approve, some don't. It's obvious you're not engaged in any rethinking of it and I have utterly nothing more to say on the subject.


17th January 2001 10:30 PM

Good words, bongo. Profound insight. I cannot say the same thing for the CFS founder.

Keith, I don't get much from your responses other than that you have gotten your panties in a bunch over side issues rather than focusing on the original issue that stirred up the conflicts in the first place. Namely, some guys who posted a thread at CFS did not like the way one of your moderators handled removing it. You never intervened or offered an explanation from what I gather. It took a challenge from one of the cruisers who initially posted the thread that was removed in order to get you to finally respond.

As this thread here progressed, your main focus became finding out the identity of one of the cruisers here and making him explain himself for what he said about you. You casually dismissed the original conflict and poo-pooed the concerns of the cruisers who questioned your actions (or lack of them). Instead, you have made battling the guy who ruffled your feathers the focus of your concerns. Again, you clearly couldn't care less about the other issues that have been raised here.

You don't see the significance of any of your reactions?

It's encouraging that you allowed this thread to progress without closing or deleting it. You have taken some real heat. I think that this is a step in the right direction. An important dialogue is taking place in which you are allowing some honest feedback. I see that as a good thing.

But, you have to take the next step. Maybe an apology is in order from you? No matter who did what initially, you are inevitably responsible as the owner of this place. If you do nothing but suggest that its your site, and you can do what you like -- then you are revealing a bias and a lack of fairness. You have the right to do this, and others have the right to observe it and denounce it.

It's that simple.


18th January 2001 12:52 AM

Right on bongo & jake2001! I've had the same problems with Keith only in private emails about an issue I had deleted (by his moderators) from the Southern Calif. boards....syphillis outbreaks. Keith is definitely only in this for the money...and the rest of us be damned! Those of us who refuse to be sheep thank you for your integrity & articulative responses.

18th January 2001 05:44 AM

Yeah, same here, and I should have said that early on. I've had a bunch of posts deleted by a moderator who then even deleted the posts questioning the propriety of the deletions. Then he retaliated by attacking me personally. When I contacted Keith, I had the same experience of defensiveness and indifference we've had here.

Keith's attitude is not a bit different from those bar owners who banished safe sex education from their venues because they didn't want to bring "down" their patrons. ("Of course, we don't disapprove of safe sex education. Why, we've given lots of money to AIDS organizations. It's just that this isn't the place.") It turned out it had much more to do with THEIR values -- economic -- than their patrons'.

Most of them woke up and maybe Keith will one day, too. It ought to be evident from the INCREASE in oppression of queer sex that the time to turn up the volume is NOW. This is not the time to compartmentalize, to Balkanize the struggle for sexual freedom.

Mmmmkay, I'm done. I think. http://web.cruisingforsex.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by bongo (edited January 18, 2001).]

18th January 2001 08:39 AM

Bongo:

So I'm gathering you don't really know what you're writing about with all those assertions you made earlier about me? That you weren't in San Diego at Sex Panic to witness anything? Can't imagine what foolishness I engaged in since I was pretty much an observer. I would occasionally perk up to urge activists to focus on the sex panic rather than nationalizing health care, but that was about it.

As for Scott, you obviously didn't know him personally or understand Steam the way you imply you did. I feel that I can speak with some authority about Steam since I edited every single word that appeared in that publication. And I know exactly how complicated Scott was as a person, including his politics.

I also know the fundamental reason he started Steam: for business purposes, he needed a tax write-off. The politics that flowed came after that fact so please don't tell me about how I just don't get it. I helped created it so I certainly got it.

Meanwhile, Bongo can continue to whine about how he is being censored. All the more remarkable since of course if that were really the case no one would have ever read a word he wrote here.

My apologies to those who resent that I have taken a role in this thread to defend myself. It has fortunately been rather rare that people have used my free website to attack me personally. Maybe my skin isn't thick enough.

Keith

------------------
Cruisemaster
cruisingforsex.com

18th January 2001 09:32 AM

LOL...Nice try, Keith. You still avoid the issues. The only reason we're reading what we're reading is because you and your mods were effectively called for once on the issue and it's contained in the way YOU want it contained. That you don't get how backward it is to marginalize a city's particular sex politics in the back of the board because it turns you or a few other people off to read it in the city's own room is astounding.

If you just set aside the issue of my attendance in San Diego -- I was there -- and my friendship with Scott, you'd have nothing to talk about, would you? You're just using your objections in that respect to cover your ass elsewhere in the way anyone uses a smokescreen. I wish I had not raised the two points because they've become your excuse to avoid the issues and I'm not willing to disclose my identity to someone who has no interest in conversation.

Lemme get real clear for you, Keith. Put San Diego and Scott aside. MMkay? Your mods kill posts with your approval. They do it rather frequently. You have the idea that everyone shares YOUR sentiment that politics should not be injected at the same place cruising takes places. Some of us think this policy is backward and that its enforcement represents censorship and is in fact damaging. You say no. We say yes. You won't leave it there. Fine. You're not interested in rethinking anything -- fine-- but PLEASE SPARE US your obnoxiously circular logic that because you haven't killed this string our complaints about OUR OWN EXPERIENCE have no basis. (In the same way, you earlier argued that because you are private you have the "right" to censor and it's therefore "right" in itself.) There is a word for that kind of thinking. I won't bother to share it with you.

I'll continue to read CFS but with the same attitude I've read it for a year or longer -- that it's kind of sexy but also an example of how the very people who claim to be working for sexual liberation often work against it.

Now, I REALLY am done. Have a nice blow job.

18th January 2001 12:45 PM

Keith. As this website has proven time and time again, you can't please everyone ... especially those who come to this site, have free access to use it, and then they still bite the hand that feeds them. You can't please some of the malcontents that migrate to this free access site.

My best wishes for you and your continued success in 2001 with CFS. The moderators do a fine job given the fact they are volunteers and do exercise a great amount of restraint and patience. If CFS had competition, Bongo would not be here. Go figure.

18th January 2001 03:11 PM

Hello, will you wise up?

This is the internet, not pay teevee. This is not a porn site. Nobody of note -- Squirt, PlanetOut, Gay.com or any of the big personal ad services -- charges for discussion and hookups. So, can your silly argument. One can just as well argue -- and many do -- that the free use of the internet by people like Keith SHOULD require greater regulation.

I'm not for that, but get a damn clue. This is not Catholic Social Services and we're not getting a handout. It's a cruise board that is also a portal to paid services. Or haven't you noticed?

Christ.



[This message has been edited by bongo (edited January 18, 2001).]

18th January 2001 06:06 PM

You keep goin', bongo! That lame excuse of "this is a free site" shit is typical of irresponsible, uneducated, follow-the-leader mentalities. Did it ever occur to anyone that along with the growth and breadth of ANY website comes a level of responsibility and integrity to the community to which that website serves????? But that statement in itself is probably too deep for the likes of Keith & his mods.
Oh, and Keith, please keep rambling about that oh-so-important San Diego crap because it is SOOOO on topic. Even politicians dodge the issues better than you!

18th January 2001 11:13 PM

*(sighing)*

Keith, this is only going to get worse the more you obsess on defending your vanity in order to avoid dealing with those cruisers who posted the thread that was deleted. Examine the order of your prioroties, please. The people who claim that they feel slighted by the actions you defend (having a thread deleted here by one of your moderators) come second to preserving your vanity. Either you really don't give a shit, or you are totally clueless as to how you are coming across right now.

The operative word here is clueless. Bongo suggested that you were clueless in how he saw you come across at some function. I was not there. So, I cannot form any conclusions on that incident. But, your posts in this thread do not disprove a tendency towards cluelessness on your part.

As far as the guys here who defend your right to do what you want go, they may have more at stake than the obvious. I don't recall that anyone in this thread denied your right to do what you care to do at your own club. It is your actions and the values that motivates them which is being challenged. The cruisers who defend bias and selectivism and sex devoid of political discussion (or any reference to those damn radicals and liberals) may have a lot to lose if all of the above is allowed to have freer reign around here. Maybe they need a playground in which sex is leered at and profited by instead of openly discussed or seriously promoted as a means of challenging fucked-up systems of repressiveness.

Now, I get it. This is a (wink! wink!) dirty place that doesn't really take gay sexual behavior seriously. It tiptoes around it. But, it is really about how naughty and bad it is even while the cash flows in endlessly. Making it "serious" and open would take away all the fun. The majority of people get off on the shame aspect of all of this. Screw liberation and free speech and all that other globbal-dee-gook.

Is that what this is all about, Alfie?

Got it.

19th January 2001 09:31 AM

<Y-A-W-N> ....

Repressed queers from the Left Coast - Unite!

Meanwhile.... Anybody got any spare electricity for environmentally-challenged folks on the West (Left) Coast?

Maybe "WEHO" residents will have a SoCal Telethon to raise some bucks to keep the utility companies from going bankrupt...right Bongo? http://web.cruisingforsex.com/ubb/smile.gif

19th January 2001 05:03 PM

HUH?

19th January 2001 09:19 PM

????????????????????????????????????????????

Is this guy trying to say that there is some liberal or left front based in one certain area?

TO QUOTE ME;
"The cruisers who defend bias and selectivism and sex devoid of political discussion (or any reference to those damn radicals and liberals) may have a lot to lose if all of the above is allowed to have freer reign around here. Maybe they need a playground in which sex is leered at and profited by instead of openly discussed or seriously promoted as a means of challenging fucked-up systems of repressiveness."

RESPONSE TO BONGO;

SunDogg
Cruiser posted January 19, 2001 10:31 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....
Repressed queers from the Left Coast - Unite!

Meanwhile.... Anybody got any spare electricity for environmentally-challenged folks on the West (Left) Coast?

Maybe "WEHO" residents will have a SoCal Telethon to raise some bucks to keep the utility companies from going bankrupt...right Bongo?

--------------------------------------------

I think that this guy's response to bongo proves my original point about "cluelessness" that I outlined in another post. Exactly what is the point that you are trying to make with your comments to bongo? Frankly, I don't see the message or pertinance of your post.

In the meantime, I think that everything that can be said has been said to Keith regarding the original post here. I am putting my posting to rest in this thread.



[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited January 20, 2001).]

21st January 2001 04:02 PM

GENTLEMEN: Early on in this thread I made a suggestion to Mr. Keith that maybe it would be better if he moved this topic to another forum, Coming back a few weeks later I see that not only did he move it, but he started a whole new forum. So he can't be as bad as some of you are trying to make him out to be,He works hard keeping CrusingforSex going, WOULD YOU DO THE SAME?

------------------
The Older the Violin, the sweeter the music
6'2" Br/Blue 6.5-7" uncut

21st January 2001 04:27 PM

Did you completely miss the point?

No, i would not do the same. I'd leave the posts where they originated and understand that my personal feelings about politics and my dick don't apply to everyone else.

21st January 2001 07:36 PM

Actually, the thread disappeared for some tyime before turning up here. And, as Bongo said, it belongs in the Oregon area where it started and is applicable.
I have no doubt that this discussion would have disappeared forever had some of us not caused such a ruckus. I've seen it happen here before.

7th February 2001 10:35 AM

The removal of the post was not censorship. It was simply removing something which should have been placed someplace else in the first place. A note could have been placed in the Oregon box to state the existance of the post in the other forum and the note probably not have been removed.

Why do some posters in these forums have a tendency to "over intellectualize" any subject which they "attempt" at address....

Also....censorship can ONLY be practiced by the government...not by an individually unless acting FOR the government. I do not believe that this site is owned by the US government therefore it is NOT possible for censorship to exist. This site is a privately owned property and any use of it...you or me...is solely by the permission of the owner (Keith). Rules and regulations by which use is allowed are available to anyone who will read them. Maybe some people should take some time to read the rules instead of posting long and extremely convoluted postings on the various forums...

Thanks.

7th February 2001 06:36 PM

No, censorship cannot only be practiced by the state. Go read any text on the Fourth Estate. If the daily paper in your hometown refuses to print, say, the news of a series of gay bashings, that's censorship. Jesus, what could be more fucking self-evident?

As for your complaint about the way some posters "over intellectualize": Perhaps it has more to do with the way you read.


8th February 2001 02:13 AM

Hey guys...we have another sterling example of the "genius" Bongo...and of course there is no sarcasm implied...LOL..

I think that "BONGO" exists only to be a pain in the ass of the rest of us who attempt to have a good time on the boards and follow threads. He is lurking around someplace ready to stick his nose into everyone else's business and add his very arrogant "two-cents worth". In Bongo's case...maybe its more like one and one half cent's worth...anyway.....
he will not go away...or make sense....either one would be very acceptable in my opinion..

The Fourth Estate.....Everyone knows what the Fourth Estate is but must you mention it in every post you make.....Please..it grows a bit tiresome...as do you!!

Censorship can ONLY be practiced by the GOVENRMENT. The last time I read the US Constitution I did not notice Keith mentioned in it. He is not one of the Three Branches of Government (note...no Fourth Estate there)...to my knowledge he is not President Bush or a member of the Supreme Court.....he is PROBABLY not even Attorney General John Ashcroft.......BONGO will probably argue that webmaster Keith is an alien controlled by the CIA to convolute everything that he (Bongo) attempts to get across to us....(LOL)

You need to give it a rest........This is not
censorship...This so-called "problem" is simply a businessman trying to enforce the rules which he has established in order to efficiently run a business. This website is a business.....not a stage for a group of Eleanor Cliff want-a-be's to make a name for themselves...

Get over it...and give it a rest...

GOOD WORK KEITH......Please keep up the great job which you have been doing...and PLEASE remove another other nonsense which need to be removed.....or placed in its proper forum.



8th February 2001 05:18 AM

Oh yeah, you're making a real case for your argument...and yourself. My feelings are hurt.

8th February 2001 03:59 PM

At the risk of making a few people mad I have decided to close this topic because I feel we have gotton off target. I don't like doing this and I thought about it all day, but I don't like the direction it is going. Keith runs this web site and if he wants to make any changes he can do whatever he want's. I don't believe for a minute that Keith believes in censorship or promotes it. As with any thing in a free county if you don't like something make a change. There are other web site out there that list sex sites but I feel that this is the best one. Let's just try to keep this forum on topic and try to remember as a people we can be our own worst enemies and I think we need to direct our energy to the people who really want to shut us down and censor the web. Thank-you


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0