Very Possibly My Final Post

I am saddened that this board has permitted 3 individuals to make accusations against a good business for 1 1/2 months and then when 3 SGF long time members come forward to view what happened, within hours, the thread is locked. Within just a few hours, 133 people viewed that thread, most likely to see what these people had to report.
Was the bar incorrect or the Veteran SGF member trying to make the bar look bad to bolster his position. I have appealed asking that the thread be reopened so that the people who were nice enough to take their time and report on what actually happened since they viewed the tapes and were prepared to do so without revealing names or identitiesexcept their own usernames as they were reporting what they saw.

To not allow this but to allow 1 1/2 months of attacks is just something I cannot comprehend or allow. Should my volunteers not be allowed to post their findings, well I will have to say goodbye as this is not a place where I wish to be nor will I wish to support.

Thank you

[thonglor55]

[This thread was originally called Unfair Practices]. Surely you realise that many of us are much more interested in what have been traditionally called "unnatural practices" than unfair practices? However I for one - and others have written likewise - am grateful for the Beachcrest/Surflover spat, rolling through and disrupting multiple threads, as a source of amusement over my cornflakes. Whether the original incident is true or not I neither know nor care, and you can rest assured that its report in no way influences whether I patronise your particular brothel to indulge in those unnatural practices - although arguably my curiosity might be piqued to the extent of visiting the scene of the alleged crime, if only to ensure that my image is captured for posterity on your estimable CCTV system :hiding:

[Khor tose]

To not allow this but to allow 1 1/2 months of attacks is just something I cannot comprehend or allow. Should my volunteers not be allowed to post their findings, well I will have to say goodbye as this is not a place where I wish to be nor will I wish to support.
Thank you

Why not either: a. Start a new thread
b. State you now have the evidence of who did what and let it go at that. Unless some members see the CCTV
they will not believe you anyway.
c. Send Elephant Spike or Jinks a PM and see if you can get them to allow this.

To quit the board in a huff over a supposed false accusation seems futile at best.

To not allow this but to allow 1 1/2 months of attacks is just something I cannot comprehend or allow. Should my volunteers not be allowed to post their findings, well I will have to say goodbye as this is not a place where I wish to be nor will I wish to support.
Thank you

Why not either: a. Start a new thread
b. State you now have the evidence of who did what and let it go at that. Unless some members see the CCTV
they will not believe you anyway.
c. Send Elephant Spike or Jinks a PM and see if you can get them to allow this.

To quit the board in a huff over a supposed false accusation seems futile at best.

A. I started a new thread to allow the people who vunteered to be judges, to view the tapes and report. The thred was immeadiately locked.
B. I have syou should not be allowed to liable a business and then the business not be able to show its side.tated who saw what and how, and the three volunteers to view the tapes WERE SGF members of many years.
C. I have sent Elephantspike and JINKS a PM to share my views about locking a thread after allowing 3 threads, maybe 4 to go on and on for 1 1/2 months of these same accusations from one alleged incident. But within HOURS of me posting that I will have a thread for these witnesses to come forward and state what they see on the tapes without revealing names, it was locked.

I dont feel this is going off in a huff but appreciate what you think. It is standing for what I believe in and that is that

[gerefan2]

whether I patronise your particular brothel

Mmmm... not sure you are right there thonglor ...you see sex has to take place on the premises for it to be defined as a bothel. I can provide the reference, if required, but a few seconds googling will do it for you.

Anyway I do not believe that happens. Well they dont advertise it. Maybe justme would know?

Are you are mistaking his place with an establishment near Sunee Plaza, with a very similar name, that may well fit the definition?!

Jesus, Mary and Joseph dear, calm your gay nerves. Except for you, Beachlover and perhaps Surfcrest, no one actually gives a shit what happened.

[elephantspike]

Justme: Start a new thread.

jinks: don't lock it.

Once in A While: I agree.

[thonglor55]

whether I patronise your particular brothel

Mmmm... not sure you are right there thonglor ...you see sex has to take place on the premises for it to be defined as a bothel. I can provide the reference, if required, but a few seconds googling will do it for you.

I'd be most interested for you to argue for such a narrow definition. A "few seconds googling" turned up on the first Search page results the definition that I would take as mine: "a building where prostitutes are available". Availability does not require sex with the prostitute to be carried out in situ. As you can see I have thoughtfully provided the hyperlink to the Google results for you. However before our bush lawyers get carried away, I'd take the principal purpose test for the building, as prostitutes are available in some bars and indeed shopping malls but that is not the principal purpose of those buildings. It's a bit like guns; their principal purpose is to kill, despite the nonsense the gun lobby spouts about "people kill, guns don't kill". Indeed one might argue the sole purpose test for guns, although there are those who think shooting at some sort of inanimate target constitutes a "sport".

[Beachlover]

1. Why didn't you just wait for that person to start a thread, Justme? If someone reviewed the footage and said they would post a review later, it'd be a cleaner and less cluttered process if they start the thread. Now there's all this clutter leading up to the main event.

2. Who are the "3 individuals"? I know there's Surfcrest and possibly Scottish... who's the third?

3. I don't think you should go nuts and take Scottish literally. He's attacked you using personal details on you almost from day one. I enjoy his posts but he obviously has some arsehole axe to grind against you - what or why, I don't know. He's using the event to take a jab at you, which would be fair enough, except that his assertion that the footage "doesn't exist" because you won't post it on YouTube is illogical. There are several well justified reasons for not posting the footage for all and sundry to see.

4. If you enjoy posting here, don't let an incident like this ruin it. I suspect Jinks doesn't read into everything. He just looks at the mass of posts and does whatever's easiest (e.g. minimum effort) to keep it under control. No point going nuts because whatever decision he made, he probably hasn't gone and understood the situation fully.

Why not either...

Justme already stated that he has the evidence. Police have reviewed it but he was advised the process of locating and identifying Surfcrest, confiscating his passport and then bringing criminal (attempted fraud) civil (libel) proceedings against him would be long and expensive and chose not to go ahead because of this and his health issues.

Not sure if you followed the threads leading up to this but what happened was
(1) Surfcrest made a series of personal attacks on this bar owner...
(2) then went to visit his bar for the first time...
(3) at the bar he claimed he was shortchanged...
(4) staff checked the CCTV footage, told him he was wrong and offered to show him the footage on the spot...
(5) he refused to see the footage and left the bar...
(6) within an hour or two, he posted a story here claiming the bar scammed him...
(7) the bar owner reviewed and described the footage showing what Surfcrest said was a lie and asked him to return to the bar to view the footage and retract the story...
(8) Surfcrest has done neither... instead he's continued to attack the bar, trying to badmouth it for having cameras (all bars do) etc.

Obviously, he can't go and post the footage here so what he's been wanting to do is for either Jinks or another unbiased member of this site to go and review it and offer their opinion on the evidence. Really, none of this would be necessary if Surfcrest just retracted the story and stopped claiming to be innocent.

none of this would be necessary

None of this is necessary. Nobody cares. Can't imagine why you think it's any of your concern. When are you going to see someone about that OCD?