Trip Reports General Discussion and Poll

[Admin]

First off that's not true I have refused to talk to several members. Dan I never stated that I represent  "consensus" of opinion at RWD. Actually Dan their are many members I would have nothing to do with off the board. I will never understand why you are so cruel.

"cruel" ?!?

Robert - that is almost the last word I would think of to describe myself - but I am not interested in derailing this topic further, so please send me a PM and we can 'discuss' this privately.

- Dan

[OlgaH]

I've had any number of knumbnuts call me, or try to call me, on the phone.

Sorry to hear about your troubles, my sincere sympathy, may be should be more cautious.

In fact, I discourage the exchange of real life contact information (including telephone numbers) unless our members feel REALLY comfortable with the other person. Fact of the matter, there are a bunch of internet crazies, and it is just as well that we keep things at a distance for some time.

- Dan

Very good advice, Dan, today even children know the rule "don't talk to strangers", and  I think adults on this forum are enough adults to decide themselves who they chose to invite into their social "inner circle" 

Best regards,
Olga

[Ade]

I have been restraining myself.  No longer.  I hope I do not sink too far, yet I really don't care.

Well, you could sink as far as you'd like and even swear a little if you want.

SeriouslyJaded, as intelligent as you are, I don't understand why you are so rude.  Yes, you are rude as well as cold and smug.

No, you read that into my words, easy to do I guess. Edit I recall that you're somewhat a fan of Blue's Fairy who is as blunt and as critical as any here; perhaps you think that's okay as long as the bluntness comes from someone that tends to hold the same viewpoint as yourself? Also, as someone pointed out earlier, Eastern Europeans (and some Western Europeans for that matter) tend to be rather blunt... that doesn't bode well for those seekers that require every other statement to be coated in sugar.

Do you remember Mars?  He started a trip report about the 27 women he met over 45 days while working on a mission to help orphanages.

The vast majority of the readers encouraged Mars to keep writing.   Only two RWD members went overboard with their criticism:  you and Sculpto.  

You were the first to post, a mere two hours after Mars got started with what would have been his version of the Iliad and the Odyssey.  Your post is captured by these few words of yours: "...many things that are wrong with what you say and your attitude..."  The man was just getting started - why didn't you give him a break?

And why exactly should I give him a break? I found the man and his attitudes to be repugnant and, as far as I'm concerned he and men like him, is the stereotypical MOB type that gives the whole international dating scene a bad name.

vwrw disagreed with your criticism of Mars and explained her reasoning in a scholarly manner.  Your response to vwrw's argument:
 

I find this uncalled for.  It was rude, a personal attack, had no scholarly merit,  and had nothing to do with the point being discussed, a point which never should have been raised by you so early because it was interruptive.

Rude? Uncalled for? You mean an absolutely true and valid statement? A person's credibility on any given subject is based on many things; the fact that vwrw is in a relationship with a huge age gap (30+ years) has a bearing on a lot of her views and people should know that. And their relationship and her attitude to men is very far from the norm. Now, perhaps you'd like to give me scholarly rebuttal to that?

Oh, and I guess the fact that you are just out from an equally huge age gap relationship has nothing to do with you opinion either right?

Pretend RWD was a club and we are sitting at a bar talking about RW.  If you said something to me like you did to vwrw, I would have punched you in your long nose.

Of course, you'd be welcome to try but it'd probably raise more of a chuckle than anything.

AJ and Jooky are Americans and you are English.  Are you an example of English civility?

Actually, I'm half Welsh, half Cornish and I've lived outside of the UK for the past 20 years in various countries. It seems that Scandinavian bluntness doesn't sit well with Americans though. Is that because you put spin and sugar on every statement you make?

Most of the points you make about ecr's mistakes are valid.  If you were indeed interested in teaching newbies, I believe you would have been more constructive in your delivery, something ecr requested.   BTW, I still asert that ecr for the most part already knew his mistakes.  

And I still assert from reading his replies here and elsewhere that he is making excuses and is living in denial. I have made a number of constructively critical statements in this thread and in his TR. Perhaps you would like to reread what I said to confirm that? That I said them in my usual blunt but truthful fashion is neither here nor there; personally, I find some other posters to be far too accommodating, indirect, and soft in their delivery, but that is their choice.

You have a good day now.

[Ade]

No it wasn't aimed solely at you.

First TR post: September 01, 2010, 09:26:12 PM
First interruption: September 01, 2010, 10:41:34 PM
Second interruption: September 01, 2010, 11:07:30 PM
Third interruption: September 02, 2010, 08:50:44 AM

and so on....

Actually this is disingenuous at best. Your report was posted elsewhere a long time before it was posted here and as there are a number of shared members between boards that had already read it I'd say you should start the clock at the original posting which was May 30th at 08:11 CET and it resides here http://ruadventures.com/forum/index.php?topic=11275.0. The last post of the TR there which corresponds to the last here (strangely enough  ) was posted on June 19th at 23:04 CET and can be seen here http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=12357.25.

The posts, as far as I can tell with cursory checking, are the same there as here. The same thing happened on that forum and people, "said it as they saw it" and although some were blunt, the criticisms were as valid there as they have been here; you stopped posting because of those interruptions there too. Why did you expect any different treatment here? I'm betting you didn't but that then beggars the question of why you posted it unfinished if you didn't want interruptions when any halfway intelligent person would know it would be interrupted...

[Ade]

Going back and looking at the TR I see that I posted well over 2 days after the first interruption. Of course I was critical, but hey, that TR needed a critique and the author certainly wasn't doing it. It seems to me that I'm getting most of the flack for the interruptions though and this goes back to what I've said previously that no one seems to mind the "atta boy, go get them, nice report" type interruptions - how you doing, AJ?

The flaming and chiding came with SeriouslyJaded and SMS60, neither of whom has ever written a trip report or disclosed much of anything about their experience with RW. 

Yet another disingenuous post. No, I've never written a formal TR but I have stated several times how and when I met my wife. I've also stated several times why I would never write a TR and also mentioned my experience concerned with international dating and marriage. It is your problem if you've not read my posts, but please do not use that to undermine my credibility as it's really impolite. 

[felix8787]

SeriouslyJaded
I for one thoroughly enjoy your "bluntness" style of writing, it's very entertaining. 

[Lazarus]

What confuses me is how a member with all of 56 posts can credibly judge and convict another - when
he's in fact avoided revealing even a shred of his own experience and credentials...

Lazarus, what does appearance of affiliation have to do with the subject matter ? Be honest. Try very hard
to ditch the know-it-all style of delivery - then visit the Introduction Section - and tell all of us how you've
earned your stripes and the right to criticize. Personally - I'd like to know who you really are before I could
assign an ounce of credibility to your, for the most part, short and acidic jabs.

"I have only come here see­king know­ledge
Things they would not teach me of in college" 


Laz

[Lazarus]

I have spoke to many members over the past five years and the consensus is....

Speaking to someone on the phone does not make them any more credible than anyone else.

Sounds like the same rules that apply for internet dating FSUW?
Until you get your butt on a plane.......

Laz

[ecr844]

Actually this is disingenuous at best. Your report was posted elsewhere a long time before it was posted here and as there are a number of shared members between boards that had already read it I'd say you should start the clock at the original posting which was May 30th at 08:11 CET and it resides here http://ruadventures.com/forum/index.php?topic=11275.0. The last post of the TR there which corresponds to the last here (strangely enough  ) was posted on June 19th at 23:04 CET and can be seen here http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=12357.25.

Asked and answered

[GQBlues]

OY, this thread!

Caution: Mountain out of Molehill apparently currently under Construction

[Admin]

SeriouslyJaded
I for one thoroughly enjoy your "bluntness" style of writing, it's very entertaining. 

"Entertaining" has its place - and there is little doubt that an internet 'dust-up' creates traffic as people seem to enjoy witnessing such things.

OTOH, and the bigger question is - how is it constructive? RWD does not lack for traffic. We are fine without the need to create rancor for the mere sake of some increased pageviews. It is VASTLY more important that we build VALUE in the content of what is posted here - and rancor for rancor's sake does not achieve that objective.

SJ - as has been observed previously, the very choice of your moniker is telling. You do seem "jaded" - though I confess to not recalling the circumstances that led you to become so - if you posted those. What is clear is you have a biting style of interaction for most, nearly all, of your posts. You seem to revel in it and are impervious to the complaints others raise about it. I suppose that is OK to a point, though you are, IMO, losing credibility for your persistently over-harsh responses.

You mention Blues Fairy as being blunt - and she can be. Ultimately it is about balance, and while BF can be quite direct, she is also one of the (maybe THE) most insightful members at RWD - and she offers many many posts that are not at all sharp. Hers is a grand example of someone who contributes with balance - at times she is sharp, and at others she is gentle and caring. It should come as no surprise that you are unlikely to be the recipient of her softer side, as you simply do not engender that characteristic in others. Quite the opposite as evidenced by your exchange with Gator who is among the most genteel of all RWD members.

- Dan

[Admin]

OY, this thread!

Caution: Mountain out of Molehill apparently currently under Construction

I agree.

I wonder if those who would justify their mid-TR disruptions on the basis of the OP seeking "validation" would post links to those TRs demonstrating such behavior? I am interested in seeing which TRs are claimed to be posted merely for the sake of the OP seeking to validate themselves.

- Dan

[Boethius]

SJ has explained his moniker came from a period after his divorce, when he was "jaded" with life, and he's kept it since.  He has also stated that he is no longer jaded.

I find a lot of logic in SJ's posts.  He is direct in the way most FSU individuals I've met are (but most North Americans aren't), and I appreciate that candor.

[Faux Pas]

I agree.

I wonder if those who would justify their mid-TR disruptions on the basis of the OP seeking "validation" would post links to those TRs demonstrating such behavior? I am interested in seeking which TRs are claimed to be posted merely for the sake of the

OP seeking to validate themselves

.

- Dan

ERC"s TR has all the ear markings of just such a TR. However, I agree with Gator that there is likely more to it than we have seen thus far. OTOH, I have never read a TR, IMO that was a cliffhanger and to me, this one is no different. My observation thus far is ERC's TR is well written and does/can contain immense value. It would appear to me ERC opened up this line of shots over his bow. Regretfully to the point that his fine TR is near moot and side stage

[Admin]

SJ has explained his moniker came from a period after his divorce, when he was "jaded" with life, and he's kept it since.  He has also stated that he is no longer jaded.

I find a lot of logic in SJ's posts.  He is direct in the way most FSU individuals I've met are (but most North Americans aren't), and I appreciate that candor.

I agree, there is sometimes logic in SJ's posts - however - upthread is an example of faulty logic combined with an ad hominem attack. Reference Reply # 127, in which the issue of age gap is addressed relating to vwrw and Gator - yet, no substantive argument is offered. More to the point, it is not enough to claim that a 30+ year age gap colors a member's opinion (maybe it does, maybe it does not), and to drop that fact sans rationale is nothing more than an attack on the member. Further, to claim justification for announcing the age-gap fact to all members because SJ believes it distorts their perspectives is a leap in 'logic' that is . . .  not logical. It is, I believe, mean-spirited and inconsequential to many/most of the issues.

Just my $.02 worth.

- Dan

[Jumper]

I do not for the ,life of me, see the relevency of a TR author having thick enough skin, *(as deterrmined by "the few the proud the blunt") thin skin, medium skin,or them being a perceived good match for RW in marriage ,,
to the value of the trip report itself.

Can "The few, the proud, the blunt"
imagine that some of us  can enjoy some guys TR's,
 who is very thin skinned and who might not be a good match for RW in general??
because there are millions of personalities in the FSU, he just may find someone that is perfect for him..
and his experiences in the FSU are still quite interesrting .

Reading a TR , is about the TRIP ,
the experiences of the person,the actions , the actions of the  romantic interests,  thier personalities, and perceptions,  
are exactly what makes a TR interesting to read..
if we all had the same exact experience to report, it would be fairly pointless.

There is simply no good excuse for derailing a TR.
none.

Al C is a great example,
I already knew Al C was late to the airport his  RW's first  visit..
most reading did. certianly the hecklers did.
So did the group really need to go over this detail , relentlessly , and end his TR regarding a completely different trip?

to shrug it off that he was too thin skinned , is not relevent.

He started a TR, and actions from a different TR were beat into the ground yet again,
 to the point he did not finish what would have been of interest to a lot of members,
a RW visting the mans home country.

Those who had a hand in that should feel what? some sense of  * illumunating the truth?*
Sure they might have been "right' about some minor point in another TR..
 so %$% what!??
Even if i agree completely with the point being made, i would MUCH RATHER read the persons TR and
complete story!!

It has become a pack of a few jackyls that at the first and slightest sign of blood pile on.
ridiculas at best.

Going back and looking at the TR I see that I posted well over 2 days after the first interruption. Of course I was critical, but hey, that TR needed a critique and the author certainly wasn't doing it. It seems to me that I'm getting most of the flack for the interruptions though and this goes back to what I've said previously that no one seems to mind the "atta boy, go get them, nice report" type interruptions - how you doing, AJ?

SJ -

I'm doing well,
and thank you for asking in an appropriate manner that is accepted on both sides of any ocean.

It is too bad you self admittedly choose  not to exercise the same control, in replies to a TR.
 
I do not buy for one second the *european bluntness* excuse for poor behaviour,.
i've lived long term in  many cultures and countries ,certainly including europe, and there are some fairly universal ways to deliver a messsage that are accepted as polite.
You choose not to do so, and up to the point of violations of the TOS , it is your choice here.

In the context of disrupting TR's, I feel you ,and others,  make some truly piss poor choices.
Perhaps that is  blunt enough for you?

It is very interesting  that you pick  my "attayboy" out of the others ,and almost as a sarcastic example?

Lets see?
I replied in a way that had some critism, but encouraged the author to future installments..

He responded that he would indeed expound on the various points in question as he finshed his report..

What a noval approach  to *discussion*??
and you use that as some sacrastic example of candy coating ..

 Really to me this  illumninates a forum mentality of "the few .the proud, the blunt"
that is indeed detrimental to TR's (unless in  the sans response section, where they simply can't be disruptive)

The overall view from *The few, the the proud ,the blunt* ,  is that  *exposing "your"  truths*  ,
regardles if it is disruptive ,is somehow more important ,  
than the context of an entire and complete trip report.

I find the soapbox of : disruptive posts- to reveal personal versios of *the truth* -  you and few others are standing on, is very shaky.

*The truth* is that a few of you are making quite lame excuses for what is poor behaviour.

And it really sucks to be called out on it ,doesn't it?
so as a group you continue to justify it..
this thread is a great example of just that.
The *guilty dogs* are barking the loudest for dang sure..

and to what?
 a simple suggestion to allow TR's to be moved from one section to another..

this justification of poor  actions or behaviour , is what *the few, the proud, the blunt*,  often accuse TR authors of doing..

the irony ..



I see 6 pages of mostly justifications for a  few displaying poor behavior -


but hey  lets hear a few more .............

 so far we have:
i can act poorly in the TR section because:
1.I  choose to do so (up to the poinrt of violating the TOS)
2.I am enlightening new guys to *the truth* TM (thanks daveman)  as i see it.
3.The authors are too thin skinned,seeking only justification,  or not good RW material anyway, so i'm doing them
and everyone else a favor.


none of which, by the way , whether accurate or not,
has any real relevency to a TR , being a good TR.

when  *the few , the proud ,the blunt*  can seperate the story itself,
from thier own perceptions of the author, or his actions , we might get somewhere
and have more TR's, and more completed ones.

my bad,  for wanting to see that.

[OlgaH]

Is it a fact that the number of TR's has significantly decreased over the years?  I honestly don't know, but something I will investigate. The replies (even in the past) have rarely been completely innocuous, but it seems that currently posted TR's (within the last two years or so) have often devolved into mayhem and in some cases, I'd say even character assassination.

Daveman I agree with you bill and Gator. I have spoke to many members over the past five years and the consensus is its not worth it to do a TR due to the hostile responses and character assassinations.  

At the end of the day - those who look for new TRs and their authors as if they are raw meat ready to be devoured and torn apart are creating an environment where fewer and fewer members are willing to share their TRs.
- Dan

Well said, Dan

[Admin]

ERC"s TR has all the ear markings of just such a TR. However, I agree with Gator that there is likely more to it than we have seen thus far. OTOH, I have never read a TR, IMO that was a cliffhanger and to me, this one is no different. My observation thus far is ERC's TR is well written and does/can contain immense value. It would appear to me ERC opened up this line of shots over his bow. Regretfully to the point that his fine TR is near moot and side stage

Could it also be that readers are reacting to the style of TR?

ecr has already announced that he is no newbie. He has responded to some criticisms with what I referenced as an 'ascerbic' response - that may be simply due to others not honoring his request to wait till the end of the TR. ecr has posted at RWD in the past and has, at times, been quite vigorous with his responses - that 'ascerbic' word keeps coming to mind. That style of responses may (emphasis on MAY) be leading some to expect the worst of ecr. Is it possible THAT is what readers are reacting to?

It could also be that ecr planned all along to get to this point in the TR and then stop - leaving everyone wondering. That would not be very considerate of our membership, and RWD being a community site, would probably result in our members having a 'bad taste' with respect to future interaction. And yes, I recognize that some of this may be occurring due to the spillover in membership between RUA, where the TR was previously posted and left hanging.

BC often used to issue a reminder to focus on the message rather than the personalities (his quip was far more succinct than this - maybe he will re-post it). RWD is composed of MANY types of personalities. Some we will 'click' with and others we will not. There needs to be 'room' for all of them, and our members need to find their way to interacting productively with all of them - even the ones they don't 'click' with.

- Dan

[Boethius]

AJ, since I'm the one who brought up the interplay of TR vs marriage, I will point out, I never stated this had anything to do with bluntness.  What I posted was that if a poster gets so upset at a TR interruption, which, in the grand scheme of life, is pretty minor, how will he deal with marriage?

[Admin]

Well said, Dan

Thank you Olga - and yes, it is abundantly clear that you and LEGAL have your knickers in a twist over my comments upthread about passing out telephone numbers.

Feel free to contact me via PM rather than disrupt this topic further.

- Dan

[Admin]

AJ, since I'm the one who brought up the interplay of TR vs marriage, I will point out, I never stated this had anything to do with bluntness.  What I posted was that if a poster gets so upset at a TR interruption, which, in the grand scheme of life, is pretty minor, how will he deal with marriage?

Hmmmm . . . there is certainly some truth to the notion that a person needs to be able to fluidly respond to life's disruptions. Anyone who has been married for a while and intends to remain so would probably agree. I wonder if this would be a productive topic separate from this one - to explore the frequency with which disruptions intrude into a cross-cultural marriage (more or less than a domestic marriage) and how our members respond to those disruptions *successfully* ?

Just a thought.

- Dan

[tim 360]

AJ, since I'm the one who brought up the interplay of TR vs marriage, I will point out, I never stated this had anything to do with bluntness.  What I posted was that if a poster gets so upset at a TR interruption, which, in the grand scheme of life, is pretty minor, how will he deal with marriage?

A good observation.  All this from a tiny molehill too.  If one gets rankled over posters interrupting a trip report how will a marriage go?  This trip report gets stranger and stranger and I wonder if ecr is going to continue or if it will end now like it did 2 months ago on another board?  Eric,  whats up Doc?

[Faux Pas]

Could it also be that readers are reacting to the style of TR?

ecr has already announced that he is no newbie. He has responded to some criticisms with what I referenced as an 'ascerbic' response - that may be simply due to others not honoring his request to wait till the end of the TR. ecr has posted at RWD in the past and has, at times, been quite vigorous with his responses - that 'ascerbic' word keeps coming to mind. That style of responses may (emphasis on MAY) be leading some to expect the worst of ecr. Is it possible THAT is what readers are reacting to?

It could also be that ecr planned all along to get to this point in the TR and then stop - leaving everyone wondering. That would not be very considerate of our membership, and RWD being a community site, would probably result in our members having a 'bad taste' with respect to future interaction. And yes, I recognize that some of this may be occurring due to the spillover in membership between RUA, where the TR was previously posted and left hanging.

In my mind there is no doubt where the negativity spills from. Just as you mention here. Perhaps ERC could have avoided "some" of it by prefacing where he knew his behavior would raise ire with some sort of explanation. There was none. Almost to the point of baiting his naysayers to come forward IMO. He's been around and not so new at this. It could easily be perceived as intentional. That's armchair quarterbacking at this point and immaterial.

BC often used to issue a reminder to focus on the message rather than the personalities (his quip was far more succinct than this - maybe he will re-post it). RWD is composed of MANY types of personalities. Some we will 'click' with and others we will not. There needs to be 'room' for all of them, and our members need to find their way to interacting productively with all of them - even the ones they don't 'click' with.

- Dan

Agreed. A message I learned relatively recently and it was BC that pointed it out. I would also add "better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt"  

[OlgaH]

Thank you Olga - and yes, it is abundantly clear that you and LEGAL have your knickers in a twist over my comments upthread about passing out telephone numbers.

Feel free to contact me via PM rather than disrupt this topic further.

- Dan

Dan, you are welcome.    Sorry, but you are mistaken about  "knickers in a twist over your comments"   Though it is just your own perception as a reader, I present my apologies for any inconvenience you feel due to our comments and your own perception.  

Best regards,
Olga

[Shadow]

Sometimes it seems that boht bluntness and maturity of teenagers will never settle when they become older.

I have seen countless instances of ' This is *my* topic any only those who I choose should post' , which are usually either fully ignored or call out all varieties of trolling in response.

The best way to attract attention and let people start posting opinions is asking them not to. As already noted, a trip report, unless you write while it happens, can be completed fairly quick from notes after the trip. If you wish to have little comments, the best way I have seen is telling :as the story develops you will find answers to many questions you will have, so I will answer any remaining questions after the TR is complete.
That does not come over as a warning to the reader that the OP will stop is he feels interrupted, and give the OP all space to ignore any intermediate opinions, chatter and bluntness.

While people make references to RWD as a bar, at times it resembles a kindergarten.