Is blatant deception ok

[a447]

I have been in contact with Surfcrest over the past few days regarding what I consider to be a breach of basic board ethics. It has been suggested that I refer the matter to the members.

I am referring to the series of posts made by a fellow member in which he falsely claimed to have travelled with me to Cambodia and Malaysia.

I started a thread - Putting the Record Straight - in which I explained that the trips didn't happen and we're basically a figment of the poster's vivid imagination. Most, but not all, regular members were aware of that fact, although new members, of which there appear to be many, would have no reason not to believe we really travelled together and that I really behaved in the way portrayed in the reports. Now they, too, knew they were fake.

And that was that ; end of story. No harm done and time to move on. Under normal circumstances, the "trip reports" would have disappeared into oblivion and been forgotten. New members would then free to judge what kind of person I am based solely on what I post, not on a series of fabrications by someone else.

However, they resurfaced recently when said member posted a link to them in another thread. And he will no doubt continue to post links to them.

I don't want to mention the poster concerned, (although I'm sure regular nembers know who it is) because it's not really about him. The crux of the matter is this : should a member, any member, be permitted to fabricate posts in order to denigrate another member. And should the subject of such posts be forced to continually follow the OP around the board in order to deny their veracity to new members.

I don't believe they should. This is where I disagree with Surfcrest who believes members should be able to post whatever they want. And the fact that there is nothing in the present guidelines should not be an excuse for inaction. Change the guidelines.

If we are to take Surfcrest's line that such sham posts are acceptable on this board, then we are at the top of a very slippery slope; it's open slather - any member can post whatever lies he can think of about another and then post links to those lies forever and a day.

For this reason, I suspect, such behaviour is considered unacceptable on the other two gay boards. So why should it be acceptable here? Because we are "edgy"? I hardly think so. When is deliberate deception ever acceptable? And what does that say about a moderator who thinks it is?

We are a closed board, in the sense that you have to register as a member before you can participate. As such, I think it is encumbent upon the person who accepts someone's registration to set some basic, common-sense standards so as to maintain some order and integrity on the board and protect the reputation, good or otherwise, of its members. It is not the job of the moderator to protect posters from criticism, but in my view, he has a responsibility to protect members from posts my others which are blatantly untrue.

I have little interest in a board that fails to do so.

To me, it is a black and white issue. It's motherhood and apple pie stuff. Deliberate deception is totally unacceptable. I'm surprised at the suggestion that it should even need to be put to the board.

I welcome any comments.

[Manforallseasons]

Your issue has no credence unless you name said poster!

[fountainhall]

Personally I don't think it matters who the poster is. I agree with Nirish that there is a principle here - or there should be. If any poster can make up what are tantamount to lies about another poster and freely get away with it, it is the start of a slippery slope - one that ends up where the various incarnations of the Bitchboards began. The guidelines should be changed in my view.

[Surfcrest]

This is where I disagree with Surfcrest who believes members should be able to post whatever they want. And the fact that there is nothing in the present guidelines should not be an excuse for inaction. Change the guidelines.

If we are to take Surfcrest's line that such sham posts are acceptable on this board, then we are at the top of a very slippery slope; it's open slather - any member can post whatever lies he can think of about another and then post links to those lies forever and a day.

For this reason, I suspect, such behaviour is considered unacceptable on the other two gay boards. So why should it be acceptable here? Because we are "edgy"? I hardly think so. When is deliberate deception ever acceptable? And what does that say about a moderator who thinks it is?

We are a closed board, in the sense that you have to register as a member before you can participate. As such, I think it is encumbent upon the person who accepts someone's registration to set some basic, common-sense standards so as to maintain some order and integrity on the board and protect the reputation, good or otherwise, of its members. It is not the job of the moderator to protect posters from criticism, but in my view, he has a responsibility to protect members from posts my others which are blatantly untrue.

I welcome any comments.

The thread is titled, "Is blatant deception okay?"...a closed ended question, to which comments are welcomed?

First, let me say that I have no bias in this "dispute" and would support a change in our Posting Rules & Guilelines to protect members from what a447 feels he's been victimized IF the membership agrees.

In this case, however, while I can clearly see the "what if" threat that a447 describes, I'm not so sure the membership believed any of Kommie's sojourn posts were real OR that a447 would go anywhere traveling with his nemesis kommentariat.

It's not that I believe anyone should be able to post whatever they want and that "sham" posts are acceptable, but rather that we have our Posting Rules & Guidelines and that what I am asked to enforce is not a part of these Rules....yet.

If this is what the membership wants, by their comments then I'd be more than happy to amend the Rules to accommodate this revelation.

Surfcrest

In this case, however, while I can clearly see the "what if" threat that a447 describes, I'm not so sure the membership believed any of Kommie's sojourn posts were real OR that a447 would go anywhere traveling with his nemesis kommentariat.Are we gonna forever have one of them "he says", "she says" boards where the Moderator has to decide based on what I might ask who is right? If a447 says something didnt happen and kommie says it did how is Surfcrest gonna decide? Noone else was there were they?

The longer a447 carries on about this the more ridiculeous he becomes. He needs to grow a pair.

[PeterUK]

Through his many incarnations over the years I've noticed that 'kommentariat' takes particular pleasure in targetting self-important posters for his ridicule (a small irony of which is that he can be pompous at times himself). I can imagine him rubbing his hands with glee at the tone of this thread's OP. With regard to the matter of deception, I would draw a distinction between a statement made in a straight factual way accusing another poster of some crime or inappropriate behaviour, without supporting evidence, and a piece which has an obviously satirical intent. The first kind of post could be libellous and should not be acceptable. The second kind, while perhaps displaying a warped sense of humour and possibly hurtful to the 'victim' if he takes himself rather seriously, is a standard form of literary device. Kommentariat's KL posts clearly fall into that latter category. Horror of horrors, I found them mildly amusing to read.

[goji]

That kind of deception is not OK and should be banned, along with the perpetrator. The board would be better for it.

[joe552]

Peter, I think you've summed it up perfectly. How many members actually believed that a447 was on holiday with kommie? storm in a teacup in my view.

[a447]

Your issue has no credence unless you name said poster!

The principle involved has nothing to do any individual poster. It's not about him. It's about fundamental ethics; I.e. allowing any member to post a series of lies about another and whether such posts should be allowed to remain after it has become known that there is no truth to them.

I believe the guidelines need to be modified to address this new situation. I can not recall such posts ever appearing on this board (or the other two boards) in the past , although they were prevalent on the now-defunct bitchboards.

Surfcrest will not act without the support of the members. So I guess I'm asking members to tell him what side of the fence they stand on regarding this issue.

A few posts have appeared since I started writing this.

Surfcrest wrote:

I'm not so sure the membership believed....

That is not the point. However, some did. But as I made clear to you over and over again, it's not the regular members I'm really concerned about, as many (but not all) are aware of the situation between the OP and myself. It's the new members who do not know the background I was talking about.

PeterUK, how would a new member be able to distinguish what is satirical and what isn't? Why would the contents appear to be obviously satirical to them? The "reports" were well-written. And Peter, I'm guessing you didn't read my reply just after the posts appeared:


when I first started reading his trip report, I thought it was quite funny, but it wasn't long before the comments became nasty. Shame, because it was an interesting concept and we could have had lots of fun with his fantasy post. I was more than willing to play along.

Joe, you have also missed the point, narrowing it down to me.

But again, the contents of the posts and who made them are not the main issue here. I'm merely addressing the comments made by other posters in this thread so far. It's not about whether the regular members believed them or not. It's not even about those specific posts; it's about whether or not new members could construe any false post made by any member about any other member to be true. Just because you know them to be satirical doesn't mean to say that everyone does. And if posts used to denigrate another poster are proven to be fabricated, should they remain on the board?

Is deception ever acceptable?

That's the question Surfcrest needs answered before he can modify the guidelines. Please stop bringing the conversation back to whether or not members believed them or whether or not I'm "self-important." it's not about me and it's not about the poster. They are different issues and I'd rather address them elsewhere so we can stick to the topic at hand, rather than be sidelined.

[PeterUK]

It's not about whether the regular members believed them or not. It's not even about those specific posts; it's about whether or not new members could construe any false post made by any member about any other member to be true.

So you wouldn't allow satire in case it was misconstrued by a newcomer? Every message board has its own set of characters with their varying interrelations, its own in-jokes and running themes. If every post had to meet the requirement of being crystal clear to a newcomer, what a boring board it would be. You really do have a propensity to go on and on about things of little importance to anyone but yourself (and crucially - apparently not realising that you are doing it), thereby adding grist to the mill of those wishing to make fun of you. Who was it who posted that splendid image of you as a terrier endlessly shaking some piece of rag? Ah yes, kommentariat, wasn't it?

[joe552]

it's not about me and it's not about the poster.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. It's all about you and kommie. Any newbie browsing the forum would quickly discover many threads where you've locked horns with him, so wouldn't be fooled by his trip reports.

I can understand if you personally feel attacked by him, and I think on many occasions, he's gone too far. But I don't see that as a reason to change the guidelines.

Why don't you just ignore him?

[a447]

Oh dear, you've both brought it back to me again.

But at the risk of sounding "self-important" and going off topic again, I'll reply.

According to the front pages of SGF, we have 71 new members as of now. It was 80 a few days ago, if I recall. They would be unaware of our "own set of characters with their varying interrelations, its own in-jokes and running themes." The posts in question were written with one purpose on mind - to denigrate another member and attribute to him a certain type of behaviour which is not true.

So I do not want new members to think I behave in such a way. And to bring it back to the issue in question, I don't want new members to think that anyone behaves in a manner that is not true. Many of us saw what happened on the Bitchboards, where false reports and lies were posted about certain members of this board. Some of us were aware the reports were untrue, but others weren't. The owner allowed the reports to be posted and allowed them to remain for all to see.

As for "going on and on about things of little importance to anyone but yourself" I would have thought emulating what occurred on the various bitchboards would be of importance to others as well. And how have I been "going on and on" considering this is the first post I've made on the topic since 6 April and considering it was suggested that I put the topic on the open forum?

And Peter, I'm amazed that you totally missed the irony in those terrier posts, considering they were made by someone who has been obsessed with me since the beginning of the year and has never let go. He even dragged up a 3 month old thread on Bali.

Who is the real terrier, Peter? Is it really so difficult to figure out?

Joe, I enjoy the "banter" between myself and Kommie. That's why I take part in it. But apart from those trip reports, I don't think he has gone too far at all and do not take it personally. It's just banter by two adults who perhaps should have better things to do with their time. But can you point to any post of mine where I have complained about his "attacks?" Why don't you PM Surfcrest and ask him if I've ever complained? I can assure you, I haven't.

And neither of us knows if newbies would go back and check the posts between the two of us. But then, why would they?


Why don't you just ignore him?

I've already told him why in a previous post.

And Joe, please!! I'm not asking that the guidelines be changed because a poster has "attacked" me!

[paulosussex]

Hi,
OK, just for the record, I think this kind of thing should be banned which is sad, but if there are members on here who think it's funny to just be libellous in the name of humour then it would be better to make it clear so the petty disputes and grievances don't get out of hand.
I was one of those who PM'd a447 to ask the obvious and I didn't find the supposedly fake reports amusing, just arch and offensive and bloody inaccurate.
Sorry to bring this up but if...

a447 bored the pants off them тАУ literally in one case I believe. I hear tell they drew lots and the loser and he mutually masturbated тАУ a447 wore a condom to be on the safe side - to get rid of him. Getting through his incontinence gear was a major challenge.
... is anything other than a personal attack then I should go back to law school.
The problem is that it sows a seed of doubt. If it was genuinely funny and clearly a piss take then who would complain? But it's the vindictive and repetitious nature of the posts that grind in my opinion and I see a447s point here.
Cheers

[joe552]

I'm sorry that I found kommie's fictitious trip reports amusing. I'm also sorry that I sometimes find a447's reports a bit too graphic and detailed.

a447, I really believe you are your own worst enemy in this - if you didn't respond to him, he would soon let it go. I can imagine he's sitting in his little bedsit somewhere rubbing his hands and chortling at all the attention.

[a447]

Ok, back to me. Again!

I am aware that you, as a regular on the board, knew the posts in question were satirical in nature. But I'm saddened that you'd find the nastiness funny. Some people have the ability to write excellent satire without resorting to nastiness. Anybody can get cheap laughs. That's easy.

I've misjudged you. Oh, well...


if you didn't respond to him, he would soon let it go

Wrong again.


However, they resurfaced again when said member posted a link to them in another thread

The original posts were made back in January. It is now May. You do the maths.

Said poster can chortle in his bedsitter as much as he likes if he thinks the post is about him. But it isn't, although some here seem to think it is.

You've told us what side of the fence you are on when it comes to the specific posts. What side of the fence are you on when it comes to the issue of deceptive posts in general? That's the original question.

[scottish-guy]

As someone who has been a target (here and elsewhere) of completely untrue and malicious posts by a cunt whose former identity it's unnecessary to mention, I do have sympathy with a447's complaint.

Having said that, I draw a clear distinction: I don't think Kommie's intent is to be malicious at all, and when members start throwing about terms like "libel" and (completely incorrectly) "slander", it becomes a bit OTT in my opinion.

I'm sure Kommie sees and intends his comments as satire and playful poking of fun at a447 - and a447 has "played along" to an extent.
However it seems a447's patience has run out and he is no longer prepared to accept the possibility that others may take Kommie's imaginary "joint-trip" reports seriously. That's his perogative and he ought not to have to put up with imaginary content being published about him which he finds offensive.

There is also another aspect - in my case, I benefitted from the fact that I am completely anonymous on this board - so whilst some pretty vile things were said, there was no possibility of them sticking, as there was no identifiable person for them to stick to.

A447 though, I understand, is personally known to a number of the members here and whilst you might think that, knowing him, they'd laugh the content off - theyre must inevitably be a degree of 'irk' that someone he knows might just believe some of it - and thats quite apart from how believeable it may seem to "newbies"

So, whats to be done? Change the rules?

Firstly, changing the rules, presumably along the lines of "no posting of untrue content" risks (as others have said) the disappearance of all such satirical content - which both parties (and other readers) may well be having a good chuckle over. So I would not like to see that happen if it can be avoided.

But secondly, even suggesting a rule change is necessary to deal with this storm-in-an-egg cup dispute, and the members need to indicate they want one, is a bit of a cop-out by Surfcrest in my view. I assume Surfcrest's analysis is that no current rule has been broken, so he's trying to be even-handed - but surely the bottom line here is that irrespective of any "rules", a certain degree of common-sense and discretion can be exercised by the Admin. Here, the posted content is untrue (and I'm sure the poster will admit that), and the subject of the untrue content finds it offensive.

So, surely the obvious answer is for Surfcrest to deal with this very isolated instance where one poster believes another has gone well past being amusing, on a case by case basis - i.e. the "subject" of the joshing finds it offensive, therefore just use his discretion as Admin to remove it and "warn" the poster concerned, without any need for a rule change which disadvantages others.

Or is that too simple and undramatic for SGT? :))

[arsenal]

Makes you wish the age of duelling would return.

[colmx]

In my opinion the moderator should edit the title of each of Kommies fake trip reports and pre-pend: [Fiction] to the title

Problem of people believing the stories is thus easily solved

Same precedent should be used on all future posts of a similar nature...

[Smiles]

Agree with Scottish Guy very much. Long-windered for sure, but his last paragraph makes a lot of sense.
If one takes a look at the board's posting guidelines The Boss indeed has, arguably, a couple of options: guideline #2 specificly mentions trolling and harassing behaviour (courtesy of the Dear Departed) and Kommintariat's continual nonsense regarding having a447 as his on-the-road fuck buddy could easily be construed as breaking the guidelines under either or both of those restrictions. If so, then Surfcrest should be able to act without criticism?

On the other hand, I do really think a447 is being a bit over sensitive on this. (a447 will disagree, I'm sure).
K's Traveling Will Berries stories regarding his obsession with a447 are clearly meant to be tongue in cheek (A metaphor of secret desire perhaps? Setting up a Butch Cassidy/Sundance Kid legend?) that I can hardly imagine any sane person taking them in any other way, notwithstanding the odd newbie becoming confused. All newbies who tip toe onto this board are totally confused anyway. Often horrified ... 8-}

[peeseua]

At the end of the day, the issue is a simple one. Should anyone be allowed to post lies about another member?

I should have thought the answer to that question was equally simple and obvious.

[catawampuscat]

I've disagreed many times with the moderation here but only have to recall the nightmare reign of Neal, to see that
surf is doing a fair job of moderating.
Nobody seems to mind stalkers, unless they are the target of the obsessed stalker.
Komi overdid it on a massive level, but kept it amusing and satirical.
too many rules kills a forum but stalking is no fun to the victim and can deter new posters.
Maybe a poll is the way, if surf really wants a consensus.
Possible options might include: limiting the number of times one poster can post about another poster.
That would stop obsessive stalkers in their tracks but would mean more work for the moderator.
Proving what's true and what's a deception is difficult, if not impossible.

[peeseua]

I should be surprised at the number of posts saying either "Yes, it's okay to post lies about someone," or "No, it just isn't right BUT..." however why am I not?

[a447]

Scottish-guy, you've hit the nail on the head...well, sort of.

I did start to play along until I realised some were fooled by the reports. Had the reports been only for the consumption of regular members who "got it" I wouldn't have a problem at all. Throwing around insults at members is part of the said poster's persona on this board we - all know that. I've been on the receiving end since the start of this year but have never uttered a word of complaint to the poster concerned or to the members in any forum. Nor have I complained to Surfcrest in a PM. I only complained to him in a post on the forum when I realised some had believed the reports to be true.

But at last! Someone who understands my concerns about newbies!

And I would also hate to see satire disappear from the board.

The content of said posts was nasty, but hardly offensive, considering who wrote them.

Any content about any member which is patently untrue should not be allowed, especially if it has the potential to mislead others. That's my point.

Cat, in this case, proving what's true and what isn't is easy. All Surfcrest would have to do would be to check my isp address when I was supposed to be travelling. He'd quickly find I was in Australia. But again, that's not really the issue here. If a rider were placed at the beginning of such posts, there wouldn't be a problem. Members could post whatever they wanted about another member and no harm would be done. Now, I'm not suggesting we all go out and write nasty lies about each other and put "fiction" at the start - I can't see how the board would benefit from that. But if nastiness is the poster's main purpose, so be it.

And Colmx, I made a similar suggestion to Surfcrest. That way, no one can be mislead.

Peeseua wrote:

At the end of the day, the issue is a simple one

That's what I would have thought! But some posters are not discussing the issue. They are discussing specific posts and ignoring the principle at hand.

The trip reports are merely an example of the issue. They are not themselves the issue.

[joe552]

I think Scottish-guy's post is the most sensible I've read for a while. Sorry, a447, if I missed your original point.

[Manforallseasons]

I think this whole thread is a petty crock of shit.

[Brad the Impala]

This is a childish game of deception that has gone on too long and has now, understandably, started festering.

A "joke" is a "joke" but repeated ad nauseum it is no longer funny. It then becomes adversarial bullying, when it seems that almost every post by Poster A is continually mocked by Poster B, or poster B regularly includes in his posts off topic digs at Poster A for the primary and secondary purposes of mocking and provoking a response. I think that any of us under such an unprovoked onslaught would start to feel less enthusiastic about visiting and posting here.

Isn't that trolling? It isn't even as if Poster B limits his stalking to one poster at a time as he currently seems to be conducting a vendetta against Poster C for the sole purpose of getting under his skin, by revisiting his posts to attempt to find something that he can be blamed for. Again for the purpose of provoking a reaction from Poster C. "Adultery" indeed, are we all prim Victorian matrons?!

The repetition of these lies has nothing to do with satire and to me is unacceptable. Of course people need to be able to poke fun on occasions at other posters, but this has gone too far. We should be encouraging people to post, not allowing people to be routinely abused.

I agree with SG that the way it should have been handled, with the benefit of hindsight, would have been in a private message to the abuser, that enough is enough. By doing nothing we reached the point where Poster A has to appeal to us.

Surely rules already exist that allow this to be dealt with already.


Sawatdee occasionally has to deal with breaches of Board etiquette known as
тАв 'trolling -
тАв 'flaming' -
тАв тАШlink dumpingтАЩ -
тАв тАШpersonal attacks and harassing behaviourтАЩ -
тАв and тАШspammingтАЩ -



I understand that this is a judgment call, but, imho, the wrong judgment call has been made to date.

[Nirish guy]

For the record and my two pennys worth I agree entirely with Brad above and others who have expressed a similar view, the idea that K flew that he and A447 had holidayed together could have been / was funny when it was first suggested and it should have ran for one or two posts maybe, but it has continued WAY to long now and it's purpose is IMHO no longer to be "funny" but to annoy or get a rise out of A447 and he like all members shouldn't be subjected to that form of bullying just because some member has decided HE thinks it's funny, worthwhile or appropriate.

Of course A447 is more than a match and can quite happily stand his ground all day long in the spats between the two posters but a) he really shouldn't continually have to correct such a simple basic "Iie", that is reinforced regularly to encourage others to perhaps believe it ( If you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it according to Joseph Goebbels anyway !). However as A447 has already pointed out several times now the question being discussed here isn't about him and the other poster, that's not the point, it's about should we as a board allow people to blatantly lie about something involving other posters for their own purposes, whether that be humour or something more sinister - the humour I'd like to think we could all both take a bit of a joke and also know when to stop when it becomes unfunny ( such as in this case), but should that not happen and a quiet word from either the member concerned and or the board moderator isn't enough to stop the person then in my view there should be some method open to the board that that poster be dealt with accordingly to ensure the smooth running of the board ( and I'm not talking about any individual poster here by the way, more just in general at this point).

I know I had personal experience of something similar when Neal was trying to do his worst when he announced to Timmberty at the time something along the lines that I was a failed businessman with several failed businesses and was a past bankrupt and also was currently bankrupt. I'm happy to report that absolutely NONE of those statements were or are in any way true and Neal was of course FULLY aware of this, but that of course didn't stop him in his trying to spread the lie in the hope that shit would stick, thankfully like everything else in his life he totally failed and it ended up a non issue for me. But it certainly wasn't for the lack of trying and as things stand there's nothing I can see in our rules that prohibit such malicious stories being spread by one member about another as they will currently have nothing to fear from the Boards moderator if I'm right ? If this IS the case then I think it's not a bad idea to maybe include a few words in the rules somewhere just to give that moderator the power to speak to someone about their behaviour should he feel he needs to re that and then equally importantly the teeth to do something about it if they refuse to cease and desist.

Thankfully, as already pointed out by others this particular case is just one that has gotten a little out of hand and hopefully the poster will now quit from blatant lie telling about another poster (joking or not) and switch to something a bit funnier again, as hopefully even he see now from several members posts that what started out funny has now perhaps run it's course and should be wound up voluntarily without any "rules" being needed to be written by anyone in the first place. But re the longer more general view, then maybe it's not such a a bad / crazy idea that to draw up a short form of words to perhaps help to protect each and every one of us from the next crazy Neal type who's floating about out there Neal if nothing else !

[peeseua]

Trolls quit? Really?

[lurker]

One of my favorite hobbies that I try to do whenever I can get away from the restaurant is fishing. Nothing beats playing the fish on the end of the line. What beats me is that a477 does not realise that he is the fish being played on the end of kommentariat's line. A477 quotes a "zinger" that he thinks kommentariat has made. Sooner or later kommentariat repeats the zinger and embellishes it.

Kommentariat's posts are the first ones I read whenever I look at the Board. When I read his trip reports I thought "Gulliver's Travels". Like PeterUK and joe552 I appreciate kommentariat but maybe I go further than them. He is in his own small way a comic genius in the tradition of Defoe, Swift, Dryden and Pope.

[a447]

Lurker, you have totally misunderstood the intent of this thread. By demonstrating such poor comprehension skills I find it hard to believe you'd get much out of reading Defoe, Swift, Dryden and Pope. I have a feeling they'd be lost on you.

Your description of me as a fish being reeled in again suggests you haven't been paying the least attention to my replies to said poster. Or is this another example of poor comprehension skills, perhaps? I haven't responded to the content of those posts at all -I've used them as an excuse to point out his many errors. And Lurker, I don't "think" Chavez was the president of Venezuela. I know it.

But back to the topic at hand.

Lurker, read my original post again. It was not intended to praise or denigrate any poster in particular. I have gone out of my way to emphasise that point. I was merely asking members to comment on a fundamental issue of board ethics, not the posts of any one member. The trip reports are just an example of the behaviour I'm writing about. It's behaviour I'd complain about regardless of who is responsible. Why do you find that concept so difficult to comprehend?

It is true that other members have referred to those reports, but maybe that is because they feel they are inappropriate and have taken this opportunity to express their views on the matter. And, of course, I appreciate their comments on the matter.

However, as I have stated before, I do not feel in any way insulted or hurt by any comments by the "comic genius." In a PM I sent to Surfcrest late last week (the trip reports were posted at the end of January) I pointed out to him:

A) As far as I was concerned, Kommentariat can write whatever he wants in his regular posts
B) I have never asked for Kommentariat to be banned or suspended from the board
C) I have never asked that Surfcrest in any way censor or moderate his usual posts

I also told Surfcrest:


It's not about Kommie. It's never been about Kommie. He just happens to be the member who composed the trip reports and put them on the board. Those reports could have been written by any member of the board, and you still would have heard from me.

Surfcrest can verify the above,if he wishes to do do.

Hopefully, that puts paid to any suggestions that I've been "over-sensitive" or am "self-important."

Recognise this, Lurker?


and he who hath truth on his side is a fool as well as coward if he is afraid to own it because of other men's opinions

[bobsaigon2]

At the end of the day, the issue is a simple one. Should anyone be allowed to post lies about another member?
I should have thought the answer to that question was equally simple and obvious.

This thread could have stopped with Peeseua's solution. Why drag it out? If a member lodges a complaint because he objects to the lies another has posted about him, the moderator should simply delete the offensive thread. And in this case, one would hope that the offensive poster would be "deleted" as well.

[lurker]

... his ... the "comic genius." ... Kommentariat ... Kommentariat ... his ... Kommie ... Kommie. He ... It's not about Kommie ... LOL. We believe you =))

In less than twenty words today kommentariat has given his judgement. If only you were as economical.

[a447]

Kommie has "given his judgement?" Really?

Wow! We were all hanging out for that! Lol

A shame he didn't use this skills of judgement to recognise when a joke is stale. That's the least I would have expected from a "comic genius."

Perhaps you should tell him, considering his "literary colleague" forgot to.

Afterall, that's one of the responsibilities of a lapdog, isn't it?

So, lurker, seeing you've joined this thread, what side of the fence do you stand on concerning the issue I raised? Should members be allowed to post lies about other members - lies than can be misconstrued by unsuspecting readers?

Do you have your own opinion, or do you have to rush off and consult someone before you reply?

[Manforallseasons]

I-)

[PeterUK]

Blah blah blah... etc etc etc

Oh my good Gawd. You really are an almost irresistible object of comic attention: yank a447's chain and see how long it takes him to come running (not that he's oversensitive or self-important, mind).

[a447]

Peter, you joined this thread after, I presume, you read the title.

Yet you've answered a different question; namely "Are the satirical trip reports by Kommentariat acceptable?"

I never asked that.

Why not just answer the original question? As moderator, that's the question Surfcrest also wants answered. That's why he suggested I make this post on the open forum. He needs to know where the membership stands on the issue before he can decide what to do.

[Manforallseasons]

@-) [attachment=0:g9ju425b]image.jpg[/attachment:g9ju425b]

[Surfcrest]

I'd like to thank a447 for taking the time to ask this question of the membership, some good points have come out of the discussion so far.

I'd like to explain now, from a moderator's point of view where I stand on this and how we might work this into the Posting Rules & Guidelines, if need be. First, let me say that I don't feel comfortable enforcing a Rule that does not exist at the request of a member, whether that is seen as a cop out or not. I have tried doing this in the past and have received even more of a debate (if you can call it that) from doing what I thought, was the right thing despite it not being one of our few Rules. As such, it has been quite some time that we've seen any thread locked or moved to the Holding Room? I also see the work that members spend, writing posts and posting replies...as a member myself, I don't feel comfortable having someone erase that work. Whether you enjoyed the sojourn series or found it offensive or distasteful...kommie did spend some time to share with us for the laugh and for me the laughs certainly weren't at a447's expense from the narrative. From my perspective, I see this as little different from starring in a fictitious role in one of the Sunday Funnies...and I know even this is a sensitive topic for some who've been immortalized on the bangkokbois before.

Like PeterUK, I think I've seen the many manifestations of kommentariat over the years under the many different user names that he chooses when he returns after being banned. He's never been banned while I've owned the Board and so I only know him now as kommentariat. I believe jinks may have known him by other names. That might be an interesting thread to begin to put kommie into perspective ;)

As for "libellous in the name of humour" and even though some may have met and know a447 personally, a447 is just a handle of an anonymous member. Points were raised about Neal and the bitchboard and how this could have fit that, but again...we are talking about things said about our anonymous handles. I believe I was the only one Neal actually posted the first and last name of in a story, over the real name of an individual apprehended in Canada for questionable conduct with minors in Thailand. As this happened to me, no one is more concerned about preventing this from ever occurring again. It never happened here and steps were taken to address it happening there, as they would again and again should that problem ever reappear.

So, back to the Sojourn Series...what would you have me do with it? Erase those threads? Lock them? Leave them be?

Whatever I do...Do you want that into the Posting Rules & Guidelines once it's done, as they way things are handled going forward?

Surfcrest

[fountainhall]

From the discussion it is clear there are very differing views. I maintain my position as expressed earlier -

"If any poster can make up what are tantamount to lies about another poster and freely get away with it, it is the start of a slippery slope - one that ends up where the various incarnations of the Bitchboards began. The guidelines should be changed in my view."

The heart of the issue isn't about specific posts and posters. It isn't about whether a poster is known to some others or is totally anonymous. It isn't even about satire and providing amusement for others - for that can easily be incorporated into posts which do not constantly involve lies about another poster. Nor is it about lying as such. And nor is about about certain individual posters who may be thought to be over-sensitive.

The issue is surely whether it is acceptable or not to make up patently false posts which target specific individuals and to keep doing so as a sort of running joke. I believe that should be unacceptable. My analogy to the Bitchboards may be stretching the point, but was not the raison d'├кtre of that filth the deliberate denigration of specific individuals time after time after time? Was that excusable in the name of satire? We should remember that that 'baiting' was also directed at largely anonymous handles.

Permit lying and the constant 'gentle' baiting of a specific poster (no matter how 'clever' some readers perceive it to be) and what happens when it starts down that slippery slope? How will you draw the line? It could become open season - for precedence has been established!

[PeterUK]

Well, that was an anti-climax. Here was I steeled in anticipation of your verdict, Surfcrest, and you've simply thrown the matter back to the jury. Haven't we all said what we want to say by now? You're just inviting people to repeat themselves, as with fountainhall above. I would say don't erase the KL posts or ban satire in general whatever you do or you'll be on a slippery slope to another kind of board - a crushingly boring one. As for the question of ongoing links to said posts, I can see the arguments on both sides and think you should make up your own mind about that and act accordingly (as perhaps you should have done in the first place). Leave the referendums to David Cameron!

[Brad the Impala]

The issue is surely whether it is acceptable or not to make up patently false posts which target specific individuals and to keep doing so as a sort of running joke. I believe that should be unacceptable.

Agreed

[Surfcrest]

The last thing I'd like to be seen as doing is trolling for the same responses I've received already.

Since jinks passed away and I took up he moderating, I've essentially limited my influence as a moderator...I move topics to the correct forums, I correct you.tube links and I respond as best I can to complaints from individual members. Most of these complaints are handled behind the scenes privately between the parties having the dispute. Sometimes these disputes are moderated and when they are noticeable to the Board, I make an announcement.

I will add a Rule that no member can talk about the individual behind a handle, about anything they do outside of this Board without their specific permission or unless that person has mentioned whatever it is that they have done, here on this Board already. One of our esteemed members rewrote the Posting Rules & Guidelines for us a year or more back and so I will ask him to assist by providing the most fair wording, if he would be so kind.

The Soujourn Series will stay unless a447 would like them removed.

Hopefully this will address any outstanding points and I will also consider any more that will fully resolve the question.

Surfcrest

Why done we make Gaybutton the Moderator hes good at it in he? I think Surflover will be very busy with all this new work.

[Surfcrest]

Why done we make Gaybutton the Moderator hes good at it in he?
How is it you do so well with the big words, and yet struggle with the small ones BrisbaneGuy?

Surfcrest

[Brad the Impala]

Surfcrest, limiting your influence as a moderator has been great and what this forum normally needs.

I don't think that we need more/new rules. The actions seem to fall into the category that already exists in the rules of "personal attacks and harassing behaviour" that require a warning from the moderator. It is the sheer repetition of the attacks and comments that turn it from humour to harassment.

If warning not listened to, then deletion of comments and ultimately banning. It won't be the first time. I would also say that cdnmatt is also being harassed.

[PeterUK]

The Soujourn Series will stay unless a447 would like them removed.
Surfcrest

Why is it up to a447? I thought there was agreement by most that they were satirical in intent. Satirical content is not 'patently false' (fountainhall) in the sense of lying. It does not claim that something is literally the case as a lie does, only plays with the possibility for comic effect. Most people have said they realised this and didn't really believe that k and a447 had holidayed together, so I don't see how the 'patently false' claim applies. If a few newcomers are misled, so what? They won't be misled for long if they decide to hang around. I can understand annoyance about ongoing links to such posts, but if you're going to give someone on the receiving end of a satirical post the right to have it removed, based on their hurt feelings or oversensitive fears about how some newbies might react to it, then you might as well ban satirical posts altogether because their power to debunk self-importance etc will be gone. This board will be much the worse if you decide to do that and we might as well get out the teacups and cucumber sandwiches and prepare to be super-polite to each other from now on in that case.

[a447]

Thanks to all those members who have taken time to express their opinions on this matter, whether I agree with them or not.

Take a chill pilll Peter. I do not want the trip reports erased or locked. So yes, Surfcrest, leave them on the board. What's happened has happened. But what I am asking you to do is to prevent them from forever and a day being dragged up again by having them linked to other posts. That way, they will quickly drop down the board and disappear into oblivion. If members wish to read them again, they can do a quick search. Unlike Peter, I do not believe deception or misleading people, whether they be newbies or not, is in any way acceptable.

I am in favour of a simple addition to the guidelines, as you have suggested. Or maybe just a note saying that posting any false and deceptive information about another member is unacceptable without the consent of the member. That then addresses the larger question I was asking and also allows for satirical posts. The original question was lost somehow amongst the references to Kommentariat's trip reports.

I don't want satirical parts banned from the board. I don't have any problem with such posts, even if they are about me and are written in a nasty fashion, so long as it is made clear to all who read them that is just a joke. That way, any false or misleading information would be seen for what it is. No harm done.

I don't think that satirical posts of a nasty nature bring anything positive to the board, but if that's what people want to do, so be it.

I think I've demonstrated over and over in my many trip reports down the years that I can laugh at myself - for example, when I describe how unattractive the guys must find me, or how we had sex and one of us had a good time. Self-important posts? No. Self-indulgent? You bet!

Going down the path I never wanted this thread to take (but it inevitably did), I'd like to address the issue of constant harassment mentioned by some posters here.

Regarding Kommentariat's many obsessive posts about me over the past few months, I've not found them to be anything more than an annoyance and as such, I've never written one word of complaint about them. They do, however, constitute a blatant form of harassment, but I have never asked Surfcrest to apply the rules to deal with it - I merely asked him in a PM what on earth a member would have to do to have the rules applied. So much for me being "over-sensitive"!

Kommentariat appears to be confusing this website with Facebook, where 16 year old girls get online and harass and make up stories about the girl who is now on the outer. The posts become obsessive and the perpetrator can not let go. Since when has stalking ever been acceptable? Now, as Brad has pointed out, cdmatt has become a target. And for what reason other than to bully him? Since when has bullying been acceptable?

None of Kommentariat's behaviour would be considered acceptable anywhere else. So why should it be acceptable on an internet board, especially this one?

Surfcrest, what possible benefit does such behaviour bring to your board? How does that encourage people to want to post here? How does that encourage new people to join if they feel they could also become a target?

Maybe it's time to act afterall.

The Soujourn Series will stay unless a447 would like them removed.
There's absolutely no need to worry Sook's empty little head on this score, Surfcrest. I've saved them all off and will happily send the relevant text off via PM to any poster making enquiries of any of the cities visited.

By the way, even in North America I think it's only spelt "sojourn".


I can imagine he's sitting in his little bedsit somewhere rubbing his hands and chortling at all the attention.
I really must protest, joe552, and under the Sook Amendment to the Posting Guidelines I believe comments about my bedsit are totally out of order. Surfcrest - action please!

[fountainhall]

I thought there was agreement by most that they were satirical in intent. Satirical content is not 'patently false' (fountainhall) in the sense of lying.
Sorry PeterUK but I do not think the posts, however cleverly written, fall into the accepted description of what many term "satire".

Look up whatissature.com and you find the following definition -

тАЬSatire is generally considered as a literary form in which humor, exaggeration or ridicule is used to bring to the forefront an individual or societal vice, folly, abuse or shortcoming. Its purpose, ideally, although humorous and entertaining, is to shine a light on the subject and invoke change.тАЭ

Ongoing untruths have little place in satire.

There is an excellent book about the satire boom of the 1960s in Britain тАУ тАЬThat Was Satire That WasтАЭ by Humphrey Carpenter, the title being a reference to the unique and revolutionary BBC TV satirical series тАЬThat Was The Week That WasтАЭ. This gives many definitions of satire. One of the earliest is from Michael Flanders, not someone one would immediately characterize as a satirist. He says: тАЬThe purpose of satire . . . is to strip off the veneer of comforting illusions and cosy half-truth.тАЭ

Of all the definitions of satire, it suggests that this from the Preface to the Oxford Book of Satirical Verse comes closest. Admitting that satire is тАЬfamously difficultтАЭ to define, it suggests тАУ

тАЬOne can say gravely that satire postulates an ideal condition of man or decency, and then despairs of it; and enjoys the despair, masochistically. But the joke must not be lost тАУ the joke of statement, of sound, rhythm, form, vocabulary, rhyme, and surprise. Without the joke, everything goes, and we may be left only with complaint, invective, or denunciation.тАЭ

Again the object of the satirical comment is considered a person and generally his habits, but not put into a context of an ongoing series of untruths.

Mind you, a lot of people in the early 1960s did not understand what satire was. Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who was to be the butt of a great deal of satirical jibes, famously said to the BBCтАЩs Director General on a visit to its new Television Centre, тАЬI hear that you have some sort of saturnalia out here on Saturdays!тАЭ

[marti]

a447, I don't know either you or Kommie but truly believe that you are correct in your feelings. It is easy for Joe and those like him to say just forget it but that is not realistic. Your concern about newbies not knowing the story here is real. Few posters ever check back to see histories relating to a topic. That surfcrest practices a double standard relating to members here has always been apparent to me. As an example, he has his favorites and gives them more leeway in what they can do and he is able to bend the rules for them. This is part of your problem with this issue and he should have taken care of this.

[a447]

Few posters ever check back to see histories relating to a topic.

Or in this case, histories not relating to a topic.

I think Joe had imbibed one too many whiskies when he made the comment you refer to. No harm done.

The harassment issue is a serious one and perhaps Surfcrest should have just followed the guidelines. The breach of said guidelines was patently obvious. If constant harassment discourages members from joining in, then I would have thought it to be in the board owner"s interests to act. For whatever reason, he chose not to.

But as I said, I never bothered to mention it to him as I was ok with it. I saw those posts as a chance to have a dig at Kommie and pull him down from his pedestal. They also were a perfect indication of the sad, drab life he must lead, sitting in his room, logging on to the board every single day and behaving like a teenager to get some kind of thrill. I guess some people are easily pleased.

Now Kommie, clear that inbox. You're going to be absolutely inundated with requests! Lol

[Surfcrest]

I will add a Rule that no member can talk about the individual behind a handle, about anything they do outside of this Board without their specific permission or unless that person has mentioned whatever it is that they have done, here on this Board already. One of our esteemed members rewrote the Posting Rules & Guidelines for us a year or more back and so I will ask him to assist by providing the most fair wording, if he would be so kind.

The Soujourn Series will stay unless a447 would like them removed.

Let's not read more into this than what's there. We are talking about one member writing something fictitious about another member. I will adjust the Rules to apply this and I will continue to respond to individual complaints about posts, as they apply to the Posting Rules & Guidelines.

I have no intention of being the referee or fighting anyone's battles outside of administering the Posting Rules & Guidelines.

Rather than adding a bunch of Rules up until now, I've had much more success getting rid of the problem makers like kjun12, khortose, Zebedee and smoothlegs and perhaps I've been too relaxed with the new membership and have allowed one or more to return on a trial basis as is evident from the peanut gallery.

Surfcrest

[Surfcrest]

Few posters ever check back to see histories relating to a topic. That surfcrest practices a double standard relating to members here has always been apparent to me. As an example, he has his favorites and gives them more leeway in what they can do and he is able to bend the rules for them. This is part of your problem with this issue and he should have taken care of this.
Then, why not provide an example of this double standard marti! If what you say is true, this should be easy for you to check back and provide an example to prove my guilt with administering the Board inappropriately.

Surfcrest

[joe552]

I think Joe had imbibed one too many whiskies when he made the comment you refer to. No harm done.

a447, you think that is a fair comment? I enjoy a drink, like many others, but I find that unnecessary. Maybe I'll complain to Surfcrest.

[goji]

I will add a Rule that no member can talk about the individual behind a handle, about anything they do outside of this Board without their specific permission or unless that person has mentioned whatever it is that they have done, here on this Board already. One of our esteemed members rewrote the Posting Rules & Guidelines for us a year or more back and so I will ask him to assist by providing the most fair wording, if he would be so kind.

The Soujourn Series will stay unless a447 would like them removed.


Job done. A good rule change & a447 has the option to get the offending posts removed.

[Smiles]

Few posters ever check back to see histories relating to a topic. That surfcrest practices a double standard relating to members here has always been apparent to me. As an example, he has his favorites and gives them more leeway in what they can do and he is able to bend the rules for them. This is part of your problem with this issue and he should have taken care of this.
Then, why not provide an example of this double standard marti! If what you say is true, this should be easy for you to check back and provide an example to prove my guilt with administering the Board inappropriately.Surfcrest
Surfcrest, I would like to request official permission to mercilessly harass Marti at every opportunity.
As Marti is such an utter jerk approximately 87.5% of the time I believe this to be a quite reasonable request.
(Full disclosure: I'd really like to fuck his avatar.)

Thank you in advance,
Your admirer,
Smiles B-)

[Yraen]

I have read only the first page of the to's-and-fro's on this topic. I couldn't handle any more than that. i-)

To me, there seem to be several issues here.

1. If the original post was intended as satire, then the poster should ensure that it will be read by others in that context. Especially given the demonstrated absence of goodwill between the two people concerned.
"A communication is not complete until it is read and UNDERSTOOD" (in context).

2. a447, if you feel sufficiently aggrieved - and it seems that you do - that your reputation has been damaged in some material way, then take your case to the courts and sue kommie for defamation.

3. Other posters have commented that kommie's posts can be "over the top" on occasion - a view that I sometimes share. However, it is the "nature of the beast" - I believe kommie likes dropping a line in the water to see if the fish are biting and to stir readers into becoming posters. :).

I believe Surfcrest's board-goal of freedom of speech is laudable. But let us never forget that with the privilege of freedom of speech comes the responsibility to use that freedom wisely to the benefit of the wider community (in this case the board and its members).

If any reader dislikes what any poster writes then that reader has the ability to block the poster and never see anything the poster has to say.
That said, I suggest to Surfie that this topic has been "beaten unto death" and could now be closed.

Cheers, Yraen.

[francois]

If I were a447 I would feel the same as he and ask Surfcrest for relief from further teasing aka harassment.

If I were Surfcrest I would honor such a request from a447.

If I were kommentariat I would behave as a gentleman and cease and desist from further provocation.

[a447]

francois, the "teasing aka harassment" found in Kommie's day to day posts doesn't bother me personally, especially considering its source. They are no more than a harmless annoyance so I have no problem whatsoever with them continuing. As peurile and sad such behaviour is, a the end of the day, the posts are "the nature of the beast," as has been regularly pointed out.

There is a "report this post" button on every post and if it concerned me I'd have clicked on it many times since the start of the year. But I haven't. And I won't. (Yet some posters insist on referring to me as being "over-sensitive." ....lol) I'm sure Matt, and now Paul, won't be clicking on it either. Sorry Kommie!

Kommie uses this board like he does his personal Facebook page. How many people have dumped Facebook after it morphed into a tool for bullying others?

The internet is also used by those who lack the intestinal fortitude to approach others face to face in real life to air their grievances, so they take out their frustration online. Kommie is hardly the first example of this. The sheer number of his denigrating posts points to someone who is very frustrated indeed. That's all we've ever learnt from them.

Why allow something that conceivably harm the board? Don't we want new members who can bring new life to the board and put a new perspective on things? Don't we want to encourage existing members to post freely? Not everybody is willing to accept being attacked day after day.

That's the problem I see with the harassment. It does the board no favours at all.

[Manforallseasons]

#-o
[youtube:1lvain0o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRZZC-DH7M[/youtube:1lvain0o]

If I were a447 ...
If I were Surfcrest ...
If I were kommentariat ...
If I were you maybe I wouldn't have come to the conclusion (although how one can be a member of any public Forum and not reach it) that most people are really, really, really stupid. It partly springs from their failure to learn the most basic lesson in communication (http://www.inc.com/lee-colan/avoid-the-explanation-gap.html).

[marti]

Surfcrest, I would like to request official permission to mercilessly harass Marti at every opportunity.
As Marti is such an utter jerk approximately 87.5% of the time I believe this to be a quite reasonable request.
(Full disclosure: I'd really like to fuck his avatar.)

Thank you in advance,
Your admirer,
Smiles B-)

Hee, hee, as many of you may know Smiles and I have been close friends for many years and we like to tease each other often. This recent humorous post is just that so don't let it bother you. The old boy is just bored from living in the desolation of Hua Hin.

[francois]

If I were a447 ...
If I were Surfcrest ...
If I were kommentariat ...
If I were you maybe I wouldn't have come to the conclusion (although how one can be a member of any public Forum and not reach it) that most people are really, really, really stupid. It partly springs from their failure to learn the most basic lesson in communication (http://www.inc.com/lee-colan/avoid-the-explanation-gap.html).

Did you just call me stupid ?

I really must protest, kommnetariat, and under the Sook Amendment to the Posting Guidelines I believe comments about my intelligence are totally out of order. Surfcrest - action please!

[a447]

Sorry, francois. You can't demand any action from Surfcrest yet. As far as I can see, the Sook Amendment still hasn't been passed. These things take time....lol

[christianpfc]

"Blatant deception" and "lies" is a bit much for what I would call "humor".


So, back to the Sojourn Series...what would you have me do with it? Erase those threads? Lock them? Leave them be?
(Assuming this question is directed at all board members:) Label all threads with "Work of fiction".

More general than just the issue mentioned by the op: I would like to have all works of fiction labelled as such (for Beachlover there is little doubt; for others it's not that obvious) and all quotes labelled as such with link to the source.

[Manforallseasons]

Everything you want in the way of guidelines already exists Only On That Other Board, is that what you want this board to become? Be careful what you ask for.

[lurker]

I don't "think" Chavez was the president of Venezuela. I know it.
That's a real game-changer a477 and one I had completely overlooked. Was kommentariat arguing something else? Can you give me the link?

[lurker]

More general than just the issue mentioned by the op: I would like to have all works of fiction labelled as such (for Beachlover there is little doubtHow do we KNOW that? Who decides?

[goji]

Full disclosure: I'd really like to fuck his avatar.

The hot guy in the avatar bears more than a passing resemblance to Nicholas Hoult. If it IS him, you will do well to get in there.

(Full disclosure: I have had similar thoughts)

[paulosussex]

The hot guy in the avatar bears more than a passing resemblance to Nicholas Hoult. If it IS him, you will do well to get in there.

(Full disclosure: I have had similar thoughts)

Taylor Lautner, and you're not alone...

Taylor Lautner, and you're not alone...
Are we allowed to use someone else's likeness in this way?

I notice this new rule makes no reference to links to external sources, nor to PMs. There's a long-standing Forum dedicated to the (now out-of-date) Sunday Funnies which lampoons a Board member who, to the best of my knowledge, has not resigned. When I started up the FatBoySawatdee blog on Wordpress during the unlamented Neal's regime he had it taken down - he said because he'd complained to them about it; they said because I'd used his logo of Fred Flintstone which was copyright (but not to Neal). The legal action he threatened they were undertaking was just bluster, as I knew as soon as it was uttered.

What will Surfcrest's policy be if I start a blog called - just plucking a name at random out of the air - The Sook Travel Diaries. Would I be allowed to include a link to it in my Profile? If not, what would Forum policy be on publicising it through a targeted PM campaign?

Did you just call me stupid ?

I really must protest, kommnetariat, and under the Sook Amendment to the Posting Guidelines I believe comments about my intelligence are totally out of order. Surfcrest - action please!
You've never listened to someone for a few minutes or read a couple of their posts and thought "How does he manage to tie his own shoelaces?"? There's a code phrase in our Common Room "I'm off for a bit of NST" which refers to the need for one or other of us to go assist the shoelace tying requirements of our colleague, N.

[a447]

There's a code phrase in our Common Room "I'm off for a bit of NST" which refers to the need for one or other of us to go assist the shoelace tying requirements of our colleague, N.

Which only demonstrates the quality of the institution you allegedly work for!

How much is left of your foot? Lol


When I started up the FatBoySawatdee blog......
if I start a blog called - just plucking a name at random out of the air - The Sook Travel Diaries.


a targeted PM campaign

And Paul, you still think the terrier video doesn't refer to Kommie?

His desperation is hilarious.

Kommie, let me help you out here - but just this once, ya hear? After this, you're on your own.

Why don't you become a sandwich man? You could stand in the middle of Trafalgar Square all day long with a sign strapped to your front and back advertising this website and a link to your travel diaries.

Of course, some people would think you're a total fruitcake, but then that hasn't deterred you in the past.

Or better still, employ one of those pilots who write messages in the sky. Then you could cover Greater London.

Hey, you could even have a T-shirt printed - pink, of course.

Come on, Kommie! Think! I've given you a few suggestions but the list is endless.

Remember, I'm only here to help.

Lol

[Manforallseasons]

In this case, however, while I can clearly see the "what if" threat that a447 describes, I'm not so sure the membership believed any of Kommie's sojourn posts were real OR that a447 would go anywhere traveling with his nemesis kommentariat.Are we gonna forever have one of them "he says", "she says" boards where the Moderator has to decide based on what I might ask who is right? If a447 says something didnt happen and kommie says it did how is Surfcrest gonna decide? Noone else was there were they?

The longer a447 carries on about this the more ridiculeous he becomes. He needs to grow a pair.



Bravo! Surfcast will you please put an end to this monotonous, childish thread!!!!

[a447]

MFAS, you have been a member of this board for a long time, long enough to know that threads, even "monotonous, childish" threads, sink into oblivion after people stop posting.

Thanks for keeping the thread going.

[francois]

Bravo! Surfcast will you please put an end to this monotonous, childish thread!!!!

Jeers to that MFAS! This is not Gaythailand forum where a thread is shut down as soon as it becomes fun.
So far the fat lady has not sung and no mention of Hitler and the Nazis or pooh. ;)

[Brad the Impala]

Bravo! Surfcast will you please put an end to this monotonous, childish thread!!!!

No such childishness from Mfas. His contributions to this discussion always elevate the intellectual content.



I think this whole thread is a petty crock of shit.

Surely some amongst our literary posters will shortly be comparing him to Voltaire, didn't he once write something similar?



TIP: If you are going to appeal to the Moderator, it might be a good idea to spell his name right!

[Manforallseasons]

This is not Gaythailand forum where a thread is shut down as soon as it becomes fun.

Tell me when it gets to the fun part. So far it's been fools fodder, Brad the whatever being a perfect example. :ymparty:

[youtube:3uwf006r]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1HOYUj3W_s[/youtube:3uwf006r]

[francois]

This is not Gaythailand forum where a thread is shut down as soon as it becomes fun.

Tell me when it gets to the fun part. So far it's been fools fodder, Brad the whatever being a perfect example.



A typo on my part, I meant to say Gaybuttonthai. :D

[Manforallseasons]

This is not Gaythailand forum where a thread is shut down as soon as it becomes fun.

Tell me when it gets to the fun part. So far it's been fools fodder, Brad the whatever being a perfect example.



A typo on my part, I meant to say Gaybuttonthai. :D

Now I get your point and in this case it can't be disputed!

[ChelseaNY]

If the board manager knows that a post is false then the post should be removed. Seems like a straight forward (excuse the term) responsibility.

It seems that Jonah is not the only person who has problems with satire. Jack Warner, a former vice president of world soccerтАЩs governing body, FIFA, defended himself against corruption charges on Sunday (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/world/americas/ex-fifa-official-jack-warner-cites-onion-article-in-defense.html) by citing an article from The Onion, apparently unaware that it was satire.

Perhaps Jack should hire Jonah as his media adviser, and urge him to introduce a new law making it illegal to make up stories about other people

Anyone watched any good videos on YouTube recently? Woof, woof