Broadly offending content ~ what is it for *you*?

But doesnt LL have some rules against 'ageplay' in their TOS? I think your ageplay does not use nude child avatars.


Aginm its perceptions outside of our insulated world that can come back and cause us trouble. Craigs List was recently forced to remove their mature postings in New York due to the 'Craigs List' murders that happened over here. And no law was passed - no rulings againts Craigs List - just the media calling the serial Killer the Craigs List Murderer and constantly doing stories on it. We have seen similar things happen with MySpace and FaceBook.

.

It doesn't matter; enough people read the other thread to know the situation and person you were talking about. They are safe to assume that there are more people who also know. Your depictions were more than sufficiently specific enough to be considered targeting.



Not hardly. Insinuative remarks, even ones without specific details, are more than enough to be considered "calling someone out".

In a future thread, someone could return the favor and refer to "that nincompoop who blathered on for pages that virtual nudity at a nude beach was 'pedophilia'". They don't have to name names, either, but it is more than clear to a significant number of people that you're being called out; whether you respond or not is irrelevant to that fact.



Nor did you have to bring it up in the first place. You could have stated your belief and left it at that. You are as complicit in creating this "discussion" as anyone. Deny it all you want, though. Denial seems to be your modus operandi in many things.



Thanks for the confirmation.



Except you didn't just give a general example, like so:

"I find nude beaches with nude child avatars mixing with adults broadly offensive."

You don't have to point out anything more specific than that to get your point across. That you did proves you were going for more than simply stating your belief.

You're right, though, it WAS as vague as you COULD get, because your intent was to stir up something that doesn't smell too good. Just remember that stirring things up often causes them to splatter.

Well, that shouldn't matter to you anyway; after all, you're already covered in "tephlon".

I cannot be responsible for knee-jerk reactionaries. If they needed me to clarify (which I have, ad nauseum) then they should have asked.
saying I find nude child avatars interacting with nude adults offensive should not make these folks go crazy. If they read into it an attack on some beach and some guy - then that's their perception. But I was just answering the thread and some people just need negative attention and like to bully lone people on the net.

.

It wasn't "some beach and some guy". You made it very plain that it was the beach mentioned in the SLX thread and the guy was a mentor. You brought the negative attention to them... not the other way around.

This is the way Lias operates. Do a search for the thread about the Bear Infohub, it's hilarious. Or sad, because some people need to be protected against themselves

Her reply to my post does say enough, ignoring anything that is to hard to find arguments against, repeating the same nonsense again and again, and worst of all: showing complete ignorance about the subject. Good examples:

1 - Pictures that show a nude man and a nude child equals childporn.
2 - Ageplay equals childporn.

1 - Tell that to the sites with nudist pictures. Tell that to the parents owning photo's with their offspring in bath or in the backyard. All legal as it can be,yet childporn to you.

2 - Hilarious if it were not that sad. I happen to know some ageplayers. Not my piece of cake, but completely harmless. Adult guys having the time of their life wearing diapers and drinking out of bottles. Daddydoms with their "little girl" of 42 years old. THAT is ageplay.

Feel free to ignore the above Lias. It illustrates your ignorance. But hey, you are just an innocent victim being bashed for merely responding to the OP, aren't you. Almost funny.

I made my point on page 17. The rest is just forum fodder.
I could have started this as its own thread if I wanted to discuss it. I chose to just state, in a thread that was appropriate, that it was an offensive roleplay to me. Imnotgoing decided to turn it into a debate.
Well these people can be quite crude. I do believe you can forum mute them. But since your still following a thread that 'makes you cringe' or 40 pages I think it may be a car accident you cannot turn away from.
No one is forced to post here or read it. This thread is not a debate about nude child avatars interacting with adult avatars. But some think it is.

.

Sexual ageplay, yes.

Nudity is not automatically considered "sexual". I know, it has been said a thousand times to you already if it has been said once, but it bears repeating as long as you continue to repeat the same baloney.



Nice spin on that story.

The facts of the matter are these:

1) They did voluntarily (though under pressure and threat from a DA, not an actual court case) close their UNMONITORED "Erotic Services" category.
2) AT THE SAME TIME, they opened up a "monitored" "Adult Services" category.
3) They changed their terms of use for said category to comply with the law. Not MORE than the law, just the law.

A found this rather pertinent as well:



Net effect on "adult" services and crime rates? Nil.

Ring around the rosies
Pocket full of posies
Pedo - Pedo
We all call Lias!

You have, and your clarifications make it clear that my initial interpretation of your comment was completely accurate. As far as I can tell, you really have a problem with nudism.

I don't care whether you were attacking one guy, ten guys, or zero guys. You were in that message and in many subsequent messages treating nudists as perverts.

You haven't said anything that indicates you even understand why people might consider this attitude a problem.

If it was a misunderstanding, you haven't acknowledged it.

...

If that’s not an invitation to comment I don’t know what is.




So he is a pedo even though he claims he's not and has rules set out to protect his adult guests from virtual ageplay. Not knee jerk at all.



What a great spokesman Lias is for the thought police.

To you, being kicked in the head and fighting back must be a "knee jerk" reaction.

It wasn't necessary to clarify anything. Your stance (and the obvious attack you launched to exemplify it) were more than clear. No one has asked you for clarification because none is needed. Your tact and intent are stupidly obvious.



Yeah, but you didn't JUST SAY that. If you HAD just said that, we wouldn't be here for 40 pages addressing a Ferrous Cranus.

No one needs to "read" anything "into it". It's beyond trivial to perceive what is actually there.



Well, you're getting plenty of "negative attention". I hope it was all worth it.

Oh my!

Then why would they fan the flames and make sure even more people knew about it? Odd behavior.My anonymous post would have just gone away without them responding - Just as these fabled ejected pedophiles from that group went away . They have never posted in defence of themselves - making it a non-issue. Smart people. As opposed to Imnotgoing and ASCIIrider.
Yes 'a beach' will definitely direct folks straight at the accused. Utter nonsense.
No mention of any names or locations. More utter nonsense. The xstreet thread was deleted for calling someone out. This has gone on for 30 pages. You figure t out.
I do not suugest you try to defend yourself against that title and then no one will know they are talking about you. And it goes away.
Well, Des asked and we answered. Tell him not to ask anymore. See how that goes over.
Well if you feel that there was a diabolical plan to bait you - then I cannot ease your mind. I did notice you did not chastise any of the other posters directly (desperately pandering to the internet mob for acceptance).

.

I read to learn. Most often it is a study in human nature....but did pick up a ton of interesting info here. Your behavior should not get in the way of someone learning.

I watched you run over a few people in another thread. You made them feel terrible. All I can do is send a note to them and say "hey...don't let it bother you"....

I'm just watching it play out again, to see if you have softened your style....or if any notes need to be sent.

Lias, take a break from the keyboard.

Are you really claiming to be the victim of a 91 word post that was not about you? You sir, have persecution issues.
After my post Imnotgoing said what I just posted was false information. Which of course it was not. I did not appreciate her attack. Her pals piled on after that.
Well the thread was about what we don't like. Negativity was implied from the onset.

.

iPhone.

.

Seriously, stop typing.

Ahhh now because Immy and I don't agree with her our intelligence is questioned.

Sorry to burst your bubble there Lias but my IQ is probably higher than yours, high enough to qualify for Mensa membership.

Also when I served in the US Navy (which I may add, helps defend the United States against countries run by people with attitudes such as yours). I was an electroincs tech. That school is one of the 10 hardest in the country with a 70% drop rate. Made it through with no problem.

So unless you have proof that I have below average intelligence, you have another instance of slanderous accusations here. I wonder what other derogatory remarks you're going to post now?

Also calling names doesn't make you more right.. just lowers yourself to a new level of ignorance and destroys what little credibility you had left.

Now I'm not only being called a pedophile, but one who lacks intelligence as well, and both accusations are far from the truth.

Also you admitted in a post you were one of the ones to AR me.... based on secondhand evidence, how can you AR what you haven't seen? You've posted that you have, nor will never go to the beach. Even your remarks saying "ASCIIrider told me" is still hearsay.

You all STILL feed her?
This simple and very obivous cry for attention should have been ignored already about 30 pages ago.

In 4 to 6 weeks noone will even remember about all this and the fuss is far too heavy.

No acknowledgment, no apology, nothing.

Page 48...

...had I any idea that this would rage into a forum flame fest, this thread never would have been started.

It was meant to be full of short, clear opinons and maybe insightful in that regard, to everybody. It has gone horribly wrong.

I'm not one to report threads or silence anybody regardless what their views are.

Yet, I would ask this, if there's anyone who has any respect for me here: make your final statement, or better yet: don't make a final statement, and just bow out of this thread.

Not because it's censorship, but because it's the classy thing to do. This whole thing has been creating more problems than progress, as far as I can tell. If there's something actually beneficial or redeeming to all this, then by all means carry on but I just don't see it.

Now I'll take my own advisement and leave this thread permanently myself. Des out.

I'm not sure I would categorize their response to being called out as "fanning the flames". YOU called them out. THEY responded. It is not rational to presume that someone is going to ignore being slandered in public, even through insinuation. You knew this when you did it. You're the source of the problem and the discussion over it. Own up to it or not as you like, but you're not going to get out of responsibility for being the instigator.



Yes, you're saying utter nonsense, since you said a HELL of a lot more than "a beach". It's not even a believable attempt at minimalism.



I've already figured it out, thanks. You're the source of the problem. There's nothing left to figure out.

I'm afraid that all that's left to you at this point is the kindergarten-level responses of "nuh uh" and "is not". Very convincing, those.



We'll see if you take your own advice.



Please show me where he asked for specific details or examples. Oh, that's right, he didn't. Silly you.



Why do I need to address those who are getting splattered on? As far as I can see, one only needs to address the source of the problem. I'd still do it even if no one else posted, and with the same veracity. Unlike you, I don't require "groupthink" to bolster my arguments.

I don't see it as a diabolical plan to "bait me". I see it as a pathetic attempt at self-justification and grandstanding. Like you said, some people just need negative attention. In that, you are 100% correct, even though you'll never consider that you were actually speaking for yourself.

Still want some more? I'm here all week...

If you did not want to be seen in the light of my post - why would join in to clarify what kind of beach it was? Quite baffling. Imnotgoing has several times called the ex-members of yours Ageplayers and that they break the TOS with their activities. People may know who they are - but that has not motivated them to post here in defense of themselves. That would be stupid. Because then many more peopel would know that they are accused pervs. Common Sense.
Sir, I can refer to a post that no longer exists. If it was still there naming names then it would have been an issue. And I am appalled that a mentor would be involved. Since there are 3000 active mentors - your anonymity was secure - until you opened your mouth.

.

Talarus, this never occurred. No one - including me, knew who 'they' were until 'they' posted.
lol
If it was so clear then post the slurl to the beach.

.