Let me get this straight. I'm censoring people? Oh yeah that is exactly what this thread proves with no doubt.

Reading the tasteful notes from above is such clear evidence of why it was silly of me to create rules about topics that can and can't be discussed within some of the forums and to actually have the nerve to have a moderator who was willing to enforce those rules. I take it all back.

Bongo and others have absolutely proven how people can be counted on to not allow forums to deteriorate into name-calling, flaming, and other things that interfere with the real reason for most of the forums on this board: finding sex.

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

Nice evasion, Keith.

You don't get it. You never will. Go back and read your response: You can do anything you fuckin' please, even if it contradicts your own behavior (i.e. protesting free enterprises), cuz you're the owner. Your own attitude, your inflexibility and selective enforcement of your own rules (according to your pleasure), to say NOTHING of your weird definition of censorship (as if it is only significant if practiced by the government; get a book on the Fourth Estate, buddy)...all of that is why your boad deterioriates into name calling so frequently. You set the example.

How complicated is it? You kill posts because you want sex stripped of political significance in the state rooms. Your cock can't bear it, apparently. People object to your killing their posts because FOR THEM sex has a political context right where they are cruising. Killing their posts is control of expression and that's censorship. They complain. You tell 'em tough shit, go find another place, cuz you're a private enterprise. And then you wonder why you get nasty reactions. DUH.

"He made a colossal fool of himself at the Sex Panic convention in Southern Calif. a few years ago."

Mr. Bongo please clarify exactly what you mean by this statement. What did I do? Who were you? Given that you've made this charge, I'm sure you'll be willing to tell us your real name and what you did at Sex Panic.

"In his 'association' with Steam Magazine, he never got what Scott was attempting, which was far more than the right to shove your cock through a glory hole or to make money in the sex industry."

Exactly what was your relationship with Scott? It would be helpful to know how it is you feel so confident to speak about what Scott was about and what he was doing with Steam.

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

[This message has been edited by Keith (edited January 15, 2001).]

Nunya business, Keith. You're not addressing the issues -- just as you didn't in the original post that initiated this string. You claim to want to avoid ad hominem attacks and here you are demanding my name instead of addressing the issues.

You're a unrelenting hypocrite who demands for himself precisely what you refuse others.

Right on, bongo!

Keith doesn't need to know identities and such in order to effectively address the issues presented here. The only thing that demands naming names is his ego right now.

The issue is not necessarily whether certain posts should or should not be deleted. The real issue is how Keith allowed this to be handled. No explanation. No attempt at diplomacy. Not even a disclaimer as to why he allowed this post (or any others) to get deleted or closed. The message is clear. He is the boss. This is not about ethics or genuineness. It is about Keith playing with his train set the way that he wants to play with it.

That about sums up the radical significance of CFS and its founder. Too bad.

I agree with Keith on many points he made in his Jan 7th response. CFS is his private website, and since he does not charge anyone for access to this website, following the spirit and intent of the rules is not difficult for us to do (at least most of us try to follow the rules). The rules, in case you might have missed them, are very easy to understand. Most of us can live with those rules. Deleting inappropriate or expressively prohibited material is not censorship. If you are not paying for access to this site, why are you complaining about having to abide by some of the rules of conduct if you choose to become a contributing user of this free access site?

Being a registered Republican has nothing to do with operating a website that is provided free to access the many areas. There are a lot of unhappy registered Liberals who are using this free access site for their own self-serving purposes. I strongly suggest to those unhappy Liberals who are using this free access site to go to another comparable site...that is, if there were another free access site like this one. If you are unhappy and a registered Liberal, you can always try to spend your own money to come up with a free access site which is owned and operated by a registered Liberal, right?

I think Bongo needs to spend less time at free access commercial websites editorializing on censorship. Cruising for Sex is a privately owned, operated, and managed website that we, the public at large, have access to ... free of charge. In exchange for providing free access to this website, the Cruisemaster and his volunteer corps of Moderators administer the various subject boards with few rules to guide and moderate the various boards.

It's time to stop biting the hand that provides free website access to everyone. Bongo has been given free access to this site so that he can vent his particular viewpoint. Bongo still doesn't understand why CFS has no competitor on the internet while the rest of us figured it out a long time ago.

I would like to offer my comments from a slightly different perspective:


I believe that differences of opinion between readers of a publication or broadcast and those who create it will always exsist. The CFS website is no execption, and the opinions, feelings and viewpoints among the viewers, moderators and our Cruisemaster will naturally clash on occasions. If you may, please allow me to offer my opinions in the following peaceful fashion: Even though I DO agree wholeheartedly that we should be able to have unbridled freedom to post our views -- even on a free website called "Cruisingforsex.com" (my apologies to you IrishRedHead) -- we also have to take into consideration that Keith is the proprietor of CFS and has the absolute control to moderate as he so desires. Keith really is no different than any journalist or editor who is in charge of a daily newspaper or monthly magazine, if we take some time to think about it. My local newspaper will NOT allow certain language or viewpoints to be published because the managing staff has developed certain guidelines within that publication. Even gay publications and websites (for example, PlanetOut) have guidelines...the fact is, there will be some control over how we present our views, even on free discussion boards around the 'Net from time to time. I'm not defending Keith or the CFS viewers, I'm only describing things as I have observed them to be. Keith, may I propose a couple of ideas to you, and would you think them over, perhaps? 1. Would it be acceptable to you to feature a guest column from fellow cruisers each week, to give them an opportunity to air their sentiments and feelings on the current events at hand? I believe this may bridge the gap between sides and help some cruisers feel that their Cruisemaster is agreeable to sometimes controversal viewpoints. It would also allow cruisers to post in an appropriate area and give everyone an opportunity to "speak freely" in a cooperative way. What do you think about this idea? 2. Would it be a good suggestion to have a "political forum" thread under each state listing, to help everyone stay abreast (not my breasts!) of political happenings in each state? For example, in North Carolina, attempts are being made to consider reform of our state's sodomy statutes...but that may not happen anytime soon! These state forums would help -- I believe -- cruisers and others expound on the political sides of the cruising issue without detracting from the "cruising for sex" aspects of each state's listings. Would you see a possibility in such a forum on CFS? I'm asking you in a respectful way because I do remember perhaps a few years ago when you wrote to me privately a couple of very sweet letters and I have never forgotten your kind words. I can see both sides of this issue and it would sadden me to see such a wonderful service change in a less-than-favorable direction. I don't know how I first discovered CFS, but I can say that it's still the best site for cruisers anywhere. I hope that everyone can reach an agreeable compromise on this issue.... Peace to all!

[This message has been edited by blackguy469 (edited January 16, 2001).]

Try reading the posts, Red, instead of reacting reflexively. You still aren't addressing the issues. You're simply concurring with the assertion that an ability to do something, kill posts, makes it okay. And , like the love-America-or-leave-it types, you argue that we should leave or shut up if we don't like it. In other words, you want to control expression. ....which is the ISSUE. (You don't need to reply, if you are just going to reiterate the point that Keith has the right to do what he's doing and that if I don't like it, I should go elsewhere. I get your point.)

And by the way, media, though privately owned, are regulated and, in the case of electronic media, cannot unilaterally deny expression to opposing points of view (such media are also free). Defamatory speech is regulated through libel torts. And, beyond that, most media are governed by ethical rules of their professional associations.

I agree, as I already said, blackguy, that most media have rules that attempt to make debate civil. But in actuality, civility is not protected or mandated under the law, which recognizes that free expression often results in heated exchanges that include "hyperbolic invective."

Also, the internet is a more democratic medium where many voices can make themselves heard. Nobody here has advocated that people should be allowed to overtake the entire board with their agendas. What I am advocating is permission to politicize sex WHERE IT OCCURS, rather than shoving it off to the side because the political sentiments or the language offend someone.

I can't see how this isn't totally obvious. I mean, do you really think it makes sense to protect someone's posting a fantasy about mounting a dog or a teenager, but to say it's not okay to mount a soapbox about sexual politics? Nobody kills or banishes to the back of the board posts on the disgust factor that I know of...but they do kill (or reasssign) posts on a political basis. Don't you see the obscene irony?

"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

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?

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.

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

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.