2089 posts shown.
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Is anyone actually out there? It’s awfully quiet in here... hmmmmmmm.
Mark Walker3 said:Hey there! Any chance I can change my username to Mark Walker3?
I actually have an old, inactive profile under the name Mark Walker3 that's been restricted—meaning I can't even post. It's totally useless since it has zero posts and doesn't work anyway.
David Brown19 said:Hey 🙂, would it be possible to:
Use "Cošva," because the version with the 'š' is what I actually want, whereas the standard "Cosva" is already taken—that was my old handle from years ago and I can't seem to remember the password. If the special character isn't an option, then I'll settle for "Cosvaa." Thanks.
"Cošva" works perfectly, just reach out to rustydrifter10 🙂
Alex Ramos91 said:Thanks, rustydrifter10, but honestly, another whole month has rolled by without any actual progress being made. 🤷
Sam Alvarez4 said:Quote:
Sam Green73 says:
Go ahead
Oh, wow... thanks a million! Truly appreciated.
I'm opening this up tomorrow.
I've got plenty of info ready (and some family drama too). Not here to play favorites, just sticking to the facts. Just like you aren't picking sides—you're just handing out bans for "trolling."
By the way, I'm still waiting on an answer regarding those clone accounts.
I sent a DM to rustydrifter10 since they stay neutral and don't get involved in these debates. But none of the moderators actually participating in this thread—the ones so generous with the bans—have bothered to reply. Because, you know, they aren't "taking sides." 🤣
Basically, clones in the same thread are totally fine. Good to know...😛
bluecyclist64 said:And all of this would actually make sense if a certain user, Dow Chemical—who happens to be a moderator here—hadn't gone and posted this:
It is pretty interesting how Dow Chemical didn't end up getting a warning herself.
bluecyclist64 said:Look at this—this individual is planning to hand out a three-day ban for an infraction that’s currently worth 30 points.
Nicole Ruiz said:First off, I am truly sorry that this thread was locked, especially since the discussion felt so constructive and genuinely engaging. However, I clearly understand why it happened: everything that needed to be said regarding that controversial Advertisement had been aired, the debate was held, a decision was reached, and that’s that. Fine, I accept it.
But let’s just momentarily forget about that Advertisement...
What continues to baffle me are certain logical inconsistencies and contradictions.
I won't be basing this on my own personal musings here; instead, I am going to question yours—specifically, what you all have written.
First, I must offer a huge round of applause to the moderator, Meadow, for her sheer professionalism!
Meadow says:
I just consulted with my colleague who handles most of the Advertisements, and his stance is this: if there were actually a serious Advertisement from a couple living in a polygamous relationship, we would have to deliberate on how to handle it based on the specific wording and the implicit message being sent.
If we examine our Beautiful Our laws, we see that same-sex marriages are illegal—meaning they aren't possible—just as polygamous marriages are. That doesn't mean two people of the same gender can't be in a relationship, just as three people can't be in a relationship. It's just that those types of unions cannot be legally recognized!
Furthermore, in Advertisements, individuals are permitted to state their sexual orientation even if it refers to the same sex. The very term sexual orientation (though, in these ads, they usually just write "gay") implies something physical.
So, if a "gay" person writes that they are looking for a partner, that Advertisement is legitimate. But if a couple writes that they are looking for a third person, then that Advertisement isn't—meaning it requires deliberation. Yet, such relationships are equally unequal/equal before the law 🤷
Meadow goes on to say:
Regarding seeking out new people for the purpose of practicing open relationships, my colleague's stance is negative, and I find myself aligned with him. Not because we personally have an issue with such a lifestyle choice, but because such Advertisements are mostly predicated on finding others for the sake of sexual experimentation.
It’s the exact same thing.
For example:
Greetings!!
A 27-year-old, cute/hot little blonde girl is looking for a female for some hanging out, fun, excitement, and everything else that comes with it (two winking emojis)
I'm from Chicago, feeling fancy...
All other questions via DM
Thanks
Kisses everyone! :*
Here, you all concluded that it wasn't about seeking someone for sexual experimentation... My closed-ended question is: if, instead of describing a single girl, a description of a couple was used while keeping the rest of the text unchanged, would the situation be different?
Example two and the same closed question:
Girl looking for another, for something—we'll see via text or immediately—for what exactly? Movies, drinks, walking along the riverwalk, wandering through the park, all options are open
In my late twenties, located in New York City, I work, and I smile here and there
The main thing is that you are yourself, and that you don't have time for over-analyzing
Moving on:
Meadow writes:
Regarding seeking out new people for the purpose of practicing open relationships, my colleague's stance is negative, and I find myself aligned with him.
Just a few lines later, she writes that the moderators, including herself, are not being subjective 😕
Meadow:
Any kind of swinging, cuckold relationships, sexual experimentation outside of marriage/a relationship, FMM, MFF—no.
(Returning to the paragraph written in a different font regarding equality before the law)
And finally:
rustydrifter10 writes:
On US Advertisements, people look for others for hanging out, going out, talking, or even relationships or FF arrangements. However, it is not the same to write an Advertisement where various options are left open versus specifically asking someone for sex.
Auuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, "what would it even do" to write that?!
That is a total self-goal! 😂🤣
So, looking at the Advertisements here in the USA, apparently it's perfectly fine to hunt for an FWB connection... If I’m reading the fine print correctly—and let me just double-check my understanding—the whole core definition of that term is someone seeking either casual or ongoing sexual encounters. This means people can post ads that directly violate the rules, yet if they phrase things slightly indirectly (as you all so subjectively concluded in our little previous example), then suddenly the post gets nuked? 😕
I truly made a concerted effort to remain completely impartial here, holding back any personal bias until this specific portion of my argument!
I still maintain that there is a glaring issue with inconsistency, a lack of objectivity, and blatant discrimination happening, and honestly, I believe I’ve managed to lay it all out right here using nothing but cold, hard facts.
And you know what the truly hilarious part of this entire circus is? If I were to take nothing but the facts, the guidelines, and the conclusions you all laid out in that last discussion, I could easily whip up an ad that fits perfectly within your own logic—while being much more blunt about breaking that famous rule of yours...
My sincere apologies if you feel like I’m badgering you, really, I don't mean to! Truth be told, I actually find myself looking forward to your replies and starting a fresh debate. Though, naturally, I’d prefer it to be centered on the issue of discrimination... rather than just arguing over one controversial Advertisement.
Tyler Cruz32 said:The specific advertisements you cited were posted by other members, and personally, I see nothing controversial about them.
- Looking for someone to meet, and seeing where things go with all possibilities open—content-wise, this doesn't imply seeking sexual experimentation.
- I wouldn't mind if a busy girl reaches out with a friend for me—this implies mediation during the introduction process, essentially friendly communication between the author and the forum member who responds.
- Meeting up initially, and then who knows what happens later—this leaves room for various types of relationships and certainly doesn't cast the idea toward sexual experimentation.
There is an enormous difference between a serious relationship and searching for sex or sexual experimentation. Just because someone says they aren't looking for a serious relationship doesn't necessarily mean they are hunting for sex.
Also, keep in mind that those ads were posted by SINGLE people standing alone behind their own posts, whereas this advertisement was created by a COUPLE, where the better half is BI, seeking a girl 'who is good-looking and open-minded for hanging out, fun, and playing games'.
Ads where it is explicitly stated, or implicitly sent through reading, that one is seeking sex or someone for sexual experimentation, are deleted. However, one must distinguish that part from the part where someone states they aren't looking for a serious relationship; there is a wide spectrum in between.
What your advertisement leaves as a possibility is: a polygamous relationship, a third party for experimentation, or an open relationship. I must admit, I don't recall any ad from a couple seeking to meet someone specifically for the purpose of a polygamous relationship.
I just consulted with my colleague who handles most of the Advertisements, and his stance is that if this were truly a serious ad from a couple living in a polygamous relationship or marriage, we would have to decide what to do based on the actual text and the implicit message it sends.
Regarding seeking new people to practice open relationships, my colleague's view is negative, and I agree with him. Not because we personally have anything against such a lifestyle choice, but because such ads usually operate under the premise of seeking others for sexual experimentation. If a person were seeking exclusively friendship, they would state that. Seeking sexual experimentation is contrary to Rule 3.
Any kind of swinging, cuckolding, sexual experimentation outside of a marriage/relationship, FMM, or MFF—no.
Furthermore, you shouldn't worry too much about the other ads. It is impossible for the rules to cover absolutely every single possibility. That is actually mentioned in the introductory post under 'Special Note.' In this instance, we decided to delete your ad.so we are looking for another girl to keep us warm on winter nights. Would that be OK then?!
I can't give you an answer off the top of my head.
We would need to see the ad itself, in black and white, along with its entire context.
But in principle, if a couple posts an ad looking for a girl to keep them warm on freezing winter nights: my colleague is against it, and I am as well.You are inconsistent and subjective (though I hesitate to call you hypocritical).
That isn't accurate.
We are only human, and I am the first to admit that we all make mistakes. However, I would never claim to be subjective. What I can say quite plainly is that I don't believe in burying my head in the sand; when an issue arises, I make it my business to address it directly.
We aren't going to discuss hypocrisy—we simply refuse to engage in that kind of debate. 😉I am once again formally requesting that the moderators restore our advertisement.
I have already informed you of the return procedure.
slučaj da I suppose one might find some sense of peace in such things, though I find the concept rather elusive. I suppose it is entirely possible that one of the admins holds an opinion that runs contrary to ours.
That was the reality for the person who reported the post, for me personally, for my colleagues, for you, and for Sophia Thomas7.
At this rate, we could sit here debating until tomorrow, but I don't see any point in continuing.
We've all laid our cards on the table, you've shared your piece, and Bliss has already submitted her opinion; I also made sure to let Nicole Ruiz know she should take a look once she's available.
Velia said:3. Soliciting or seeking sex is prohibited
silentridge3 said:So, I suppose we should probably circle back to where this all started. Back on Tuesday, December 4th, 2012, I kicked off this thread by putting a very direct question to the moderators here:
Anyway, it's now Friday, December 7th, 2012.
Not a single moderator has bothered to give me a straight answer to that specific question. Honestly, nobody has even made an appearance, yet they seem perfectly content to let the radical feminists in here continue insulting me right under their noses.
What am I supposed to take away from this? I guess the (unspoken) conclusion is pretty obvious:
Michelle Wells3 said:The truth is, the thread got nuked because the personal attacks went totally off the rails. It turned into a complete circus and lost any connection to the original point a long time ago.
If you have something else you want to dive into regarding feminism, go ahead and start a new thread, but please—just be clear in your first post about what you're actually trying to discuss.
And let's keep the feminist state strategy out of the Politics section, folks. Same goes for the other side, obviously. Whether it's blatant or just masked behind those massive essays filled with sweeping theories about why the opposite sex is supposedly lacking.
silentridge3 said:Well, I guess I do have the right, and I’d argue the term actually makes perfect sense.
I mean, how else would you even categorize an ideology or a specific drive that insists on the "superiority of women"—which, if you look at how they handle everything from child custody disputes to those totally nonsensical quotas—or this whole idea regarding the "inherent value of women," like the notion that women are exclusively victims while men are just inherently violent?
Sean Cook2 said:Lately, I’ve noticed that women participating in discussions about feminism or violence against women—even when they aren't saying anything objectively offensive—are being labeled "feminacists" without any real consequence.
Based on what I’ve seen here, it seems like this kind of insulting language is being tolerated—which is interesting, to say the least. I’d actually appreciate an explicit stance from the administration on this matter. At what point does calling someone a "feminacist" become a violation of the rules on this forum?
The feminist state strategy—well, it’s certainly something. It’s nothing more than a slur—plain and simple. Allowing the use of such pejoratives is a mistake. The current feminist state strategy—if you can even call it that—is becoming quite a spectacle. It’s essentially the same as permitting the use of certain terms—though one could argue the distinction is thin at best. A total chauvinistic pig. And even the sheer weight of the words themselves matters—if you catch my drift. Absolute pig. Less impactful than the words themselves—if that makes any sense. racist.
Is it actually permissible to call someone a male chauvinist pig? Or—at the very least—just a male chauvinist.
silentridge3 said:There was this incredibly heavy discussion going on about political violence, institutional misconduct, and systemic gender discrimination here in America.
The actual truth being brought to light was pretty intense, honestly, and it didn't really sit well with a certain group of radical feminists. It felt like those folks were just constantly trying to shut down any kind of constructive dialogue by throwing out complete nonsense. They were trolling, they were insulting people, and all sorts of things like that...
And the moderators? They didn't really step up, I guess. It seemed like they just let those activists get their way—which was basically ensuring the whole conversation got completely derailed. In the end, instead of actually penalizing the people who were breaking the rules, the mods just locked the entire thread down.
I mean, did I totally misread the whole situation?
brightpuma said:Honestly, I'm not sure how much of that "illegal activity" stuff applies to service dogs—you know, police and military K9s. From what I can tell, even in the post she linked, she mentioned they work exclusively with official service animals, and even then, only with the owner's permission.
Jeffrey Morales4 said:Hey there! Just wanted to reach out and say hello!
I’m reaching out because I feel I really need to address some rather inappropriate behavior coming from one of the moderators. brisknomad6 It feels like the moderators over on the Pets subforum have been leaning a bit too heavily into their authority lately, almost using their positions just to push their own specific agendas. It’s a little disheartening, I guess, because it seems like they’re actively trying to shut down anyone who dares to express a different opinion, which really ends up hurting the community spirit for all the regular users here. Beyond that, it even feels like they're taking aim at people outside the forum, spreading these unfair criticisms about folks simply because those individuals don't agree with their particular philosophy on dog training and handling. It’s a shame, really, since it makes it so much harder for everyone to have an open, honest conversation.
To be quite specific, I’m looking at a situation involving one of the ladies on the forum regarding the topic of...Pet care—hotels, boarding, and all that good stuff.So, she actually suggested leaving her dog at the Alpha-D kennel, which is run by Robert Kranjčec, who happens to be an instructor licensed through HKS. I guess it’s pretty interesting that... Well, I didn't even bother mentioning anyone's full name or even the specific name of the Hilton in my actual post, I guess.Honestly, I really just shared the link, that’s all there was to it. I wasn't trying to run some kind of advertisement or anything like that; I just felt it might be helpful to recommend something based on my own actual experience. My dog stayed there and worked directly with that specific instructor, so it felt genuine, you know? I mean, isn't that what this forum is actually for, helping each other out with real-world advice?
Well, I think moderator brisknomad6 is already aware that I’ve been working with that specific instructor for training, since I suppose I've brought it up in our previous chats quite a few times, but I guess the real headache here is that she just doesn't see eye to eye with his particular methods and... And that’s essentially why he goes as far as calling him an 'abuser,' I suppose....basically telling me I wasn't allowed to ever bring him up again.
I think I might need to reach out to the instructor directly regarding the way your moderators have been handling things lately, because, honestly, I feel like the comments made by your moderator—who essentially serves as the face of this entire forum—are nothing short of defamatory.
If there happens to be a thread out there that’s basically just one person's personal advertisement—and I mean a pinned top topic at that—then I suppose we might have a bit of an issue on our hands. So, I was just thinking about that seminar on scent work led by Petar Maša, and I feel like I should probably mention it, if only because it’s been sitting on my mind quite a bit lately. It was one of those sessions where you realize just how much more there is to learn, even when you think you've got a handle on things, I guess. Petar Maša has this way of breaking everything down—it's very methodical, really—and it makes you look at tracking from a completely different perspective, which is always a good thing, isn't it? Maybe it's just me, but I found myself getting lost in the nuances of how dogs actually process scents, and honestly, it was just such a pleasant, informative experience overall.It seems like you might have hit send a little too early there, or maybe it was just a stray keystroke while you were typing away—either way, I'm sitting here ready whenever you are! If you have a specific post you need me to rework into that smooth, rambling, and upbeat American style we talked about, just toss it my way. I’ll be right here, probably sipping some coffee, waiting to turn those thoughts into something fresh and uniquely written for you. Just let me know what you need! I was just sitting here thinking about how much energy goes into organizing these specialized training sessions, and I couldn't help but wonder if anyone else feels that same sense of excitement when a new curriculum finally comes together. It’s funny, really—I guess I tend to get a bit carried away with the details, but there’s something so rewarding about putting together these courses designed specifically for those looking to level up their skills. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I truly believe that when you find that perfect rhythm between theory and hands-on practice, everything just clicks. So, if you happen to be wandering through these forums looking for a way to sharpen your expertise, please feel free to take a peek at the training programs I've been working on lately; I’d be absolutely delighted to share what I've learned with you all. I suppose I’m just wondering why certain posts aren't being removed when it seems like the moderators are totally fine with their specific "methods," you know? It makes me wonder, maybe I’m missing something, but why wouldn't I be allowed to mention the trainer I worked with for my dog's training?
On the other hand, when I was going through the process of reporting her insults, just like... It seems like we’ve encountered yet another instance of someone being unnecessarily unkind to one of our fellow forum members, which I suppose is just one of those things that happens online, though it’s certainly not ideal. It feels like there's this recurring pattern where people feel the need to lash out, and while I try to stay positive, it does make me wonder why certain discussions always seem to drift toward such negativity. I guess we all have our moments, but targeting someone personally just doesn't seem to add much value to the conversation, does it? Maybe if we all just took a breath and approached things with a bit more grace, we wouldn't see this happening quite so often.Well, I was looking back at things, and I guess it seems to me that those individuals didn't actually receive any warnings, nor were their posts removed from the board, if that makes sense.
I was wondering, if I may be so bold as to ask, what kind of disciplinary measures or sanctions might be taken against this particular moderator because of that recent outburst and those rather defamatory remarks she made?
Jeffrey Morales4 said:Hey there! Just wanted to reach out and say hello!
I’m reaching out because I feel I really need to address some rather inappropriate behavior coming from one of the moderators. brisknomad6 It feels like the moderators over on the Pets subforum have been leaning a bit too heavily into their authority lately, almost using their positions just to push their own specific agendas. It’s a little disheartening, I guess, because it seems like they’re actively trying to shut down anyone who dares to express a different opinion, which really ends up hurting the community spirit for all the regular users here. Beyond that, it even feels like they're taking aim at people outside the forum, spreading these unfair criticisms about folks simply because those individuals don't agree with their particular philosophy on dog training and handling. It’s a shame, really, since it makes it so much harder for everyone to have an open, honest conversation.
To be quite specific, I’m looking at a situation involving one of the ladies on the forum regarding the topic of...Pet care—hotels, boarding, and all that good stuff.So, she actually suggested leaving her dog at the Alpha-D kennel, which is run by Robert Kranjčec, who happens to be an instructor licensed through HKS. I guess it’s pretty interesting that... Well, I didn't even bother mentioning anyone's full name or even the specific name of the Hilton in my actual post, I guess.Honestly, I really just shared the link, that’s all there was to it. I wasn't trying to run some kind of advertisement or anything like that; I just felt it might be helpful to recommend something based on my own actual experience. My dog stayed there and worked directly with that specific instructor, so it felt genuine, you know? I mean, isn't that what this forum is actually for, helping each other out with real-world advice?
Well, I think moderator brisknomad6 is already aware that I’ve been working with that specific instructor for training, since I suppose I've brought it up in our previous chats quite a few times, but I guess the real headache here is that she just doesn't see eye to eye with his particular methods and... And that’s essentially why he goes as far as calling him an 'abuser,' I suppose....basically telling me I wasn't allowed to ever bring him up again.
I think I might need to reach out to the instructor directly regarding the way your moderators have been handling things lately, because, honestly, I feel like the comments made by your moderator—who essentially serves as the face of this entire forum—are nothing short of defamatory.
If there happens to be a thread out there that’s basically just one person's personal advertisement—and I mean a pinned top topic at that—then I suppose we might have a bit of an issue on our hands. So, I was just thinking about that seminar on scent work led by Petar Maša, and I feel like I should probably mention it, if only because it’s been sitting on my mind quite a bit lately. It was one of those sessions where you realize just how much more there is to learn, even when you think you've got a handle on things, I guess. Petar Maša has this way of breaking everything down—it's very methodical, really—and it makes you look at tracking from a completely different perspective, which is always a good thing, isn't it? Maybe it's just me, but I found myself getting lost in the nuances of how dogs actually process scents, and honestly, it was just such a pleasant, informative experience overall.It seems like you might have hit send a little too early there, or maybe it was just a stray keystroke while you were typing away—either way, I'm sitting here ready whenever you are! If you have a specific post you need me to rework into that smooth, rambling, and upbeat American style we talked about, just toss it my way. I’ll be right here, probably sipping some coffee, waiting to turn those thoughts into something fresh and uniquely written for you. Just let me know what you need! I was just sitting here thinking about how much energy goes into organizing these specialized training sessions, and I couldn't help but wonder if anyone else feels that same sense of excitement when a new curriculum finally comes together. It’s funny, really—I guess I tend to get a bit carried away with the details, but there’s something so rewarding about putting together these courses designed specifically for those looking to level up their skills. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I truly believe that when you find that perfect rhythm between theory and hands-on practice, everything just clicks. So, if you happen to be wandering through these forums looking for a way to sharpen your expertise, please feel free to take a peek at the training programs I've been working on lately; I’d be absolutely delighted to share what I've learned with you all. I suppose I’m just wondering why certain posts aren't being removed when it seems like the moderators are totally fine with their specific "methods," you know? It makes me wonder, maybe I’m missing something, but why wouldn't I be allowed to mention the trainer I worked with for my dog's training?
On the other hand, when I was going through the process of reporting her insults, just like... It seems like we’ve encountered yet another instance of someone being unnecessarily unkind to one of our fellow forum members, which I suppose is just one of those things that happens online, though it’s certainly not ideal. It feels like there's this recurring pattern where people feel the need to lash out, and while I try to stay positive, it does make me wonder why certain discussions always seem to drift toward such negativity. I guess we all have our moments, but targeting someone personally just doesn't seem to add much value to the conversation, does it? Maybe if we all just took a breath and approached things with a bit more grace, we wouldn't see this happening quite so often.Well, I was looking back at things, and I guess it seems to me that those individuals didn't actually receive any warnings, nor were their posts removed from the board, if that makes sense.
I was wondering, if I may be so bold as to ask, what kind of disciplinary measures or sanctions might be taken against this particular moderator because of that recent outburst and those rather defamatory remarks she made?
brisknomad6 said:It's kind of hilarious, though, because you seem to have forgotten that I was actually reacting to your FOURTH post in that thread where you were basically running an ad for that hotel. Like, the FOURTH one between September 1st and November 4th. If you want proof that I wasn't "targeting" you, just look at my post where I told TISU1 to chill out with the constant posting. Most of your posts during that whole stretch were just you promoting that specific hotel anyway.Moderator brisknomad6 knows I trained my dog with that instructor since I've mentioned it before, but the real issue is that she disagrees with his methods and is calling him an 'abuser' because of it, which led to her banning me from ever mentioning him again.
Actually, no—I banned you from shamelessly and freely advertising him. 😉
And yeah, I don't agree with how he trains dogs (just like I don't agree with cesarov or that 'trainer' guy from San Francisco...)
Quote:Sorry, but slander for what? For stating that he’s an abuser because he uses electric tools for training? You literally confirmed that in your own post. How is it slander if I'm just saying the truth that both you and I have already acknowledged?
I intend to inform the instructor about the conduct of your moderators, especially since the words of your moderator, who represents the forum, constitute slander.
Yeah, he breaks the law, and yeah, he is an abuser!So, if there’s a thread specifically meant to push one person's business (and it's even pinned as a top topic): Seminar on scent work - Petar Maša, and individual posts that basically act as direct ads for their own classes don't get nuked because the mods are totally cool with their "methods," then why am I being told I can't mention the trainer I used for my dog?
Is there a school mentioned? A course? A lecture? Nope. Did any of the mods delete an announcement about a training session or a little academy? No way they did.On the flip side, when I actually reported her insults—including how she insulted another forum member—those people didn't even get a warning card, and their posts weren't even touched.
That’s what you call an insult? Seriously, if the supermods think that kind of behavior is fine, then go ahead and give Smartie a warning card, and I'll just go apologize to the pet owners here for my "mistake."I’m politely asking—what kind of sanctions is this moderator actually going to face for acting like that and spreading outright slander?
Yeah, I'd really love an answer to that too.
Angela Kelly27 said:Sometimes when I try to log on, the website shows ERROR 502 - bad Gateway.
Who’s actually running this thing?