Acceptable Behaviour and Trip Reports

[ScottinCrimea]

When I look, I see a post by DanC at 11:57:57 and the next post by me at 12:32:45 on the 26th.  the post you site just ain't there.  If it is and I'm missing something, please quote it with the appropriate headers.

[KenC]

Daveman,  I agree.  This board cannot be everything to all people.  We need to decide what our focus is and delete those that do not fit with our stated goal.

Sorry I didn't know how to do it before.
KenC

[I/O]

"good people" in Australia

A rare animal.

I/O

[ScottinCrimea]

Thanks KenC, I got it now.  You are correct to use this quote as an example, and I apologize for the accusations because there was obviously a misunderstanding.  Now let me take a little time to clarify what I meant.  Daveman's comment was this: "I agree here with CaptB in that the morality of the T/R isn't as much of an issue as whether or not it fits into the focused spectrum of the board's acceptable colors. "  He was not speaking specifically about Pike's post.  Do you disagree with what he said?  So when I responded "Daveman,  I agree.  This board cannot be everything to all people.  We need to decide what our focus is and delete those that do not fit with our stated goal."  This was not referring specifically to Pike's post as you want to imply and it was certainly not making the case for extreme censorship.

I would hope you would see from other comments that I have made beyond the one I sited in my previous post that strict censorship is not my goal and that I am open to various views of all of this.  But we have both seen instances where certain posts have been deleted by the administrators because they were obviously beyond the scope of this forum  The point that I was trying to make was that this forum is not open to any and all points of view.  As a rather extreme example, if a pedophile came on writing about his exploits in the FSU this would quickly be censored and deleted.

You mistakenly applied my comments to the specific Pike thread and assumed that I wanted to have it deleted.  If you had done your homework, you would have seen that this was not the case.

[Kuna]

Nice to see a lot of activity here over the past few days...


So, vast age differences seem to be the "in thing"...  (but of course only for those who's "situations were different")   

Casual sex tours of FSU are "thumbs up" too...   

The main supporters of casual sex tours don't have a problem when fantasies of 16 yr old girls are documented in RWD... 

... and some men don't care what the broader community think of the women we love or our relationships with them 


All of the above is still strange to me, but we'll see what Dan defines RWD's mission as in around 30 days.

If RWD exists to give advice and support to men that are planning casual sex tours of FSU, then I can't remain a member here out of respect for My Girl and her country. 

If the guys that support such behaviour really wanted a "foreign experience" why aren't they traveling to Sweden, Italy, Ireland, Austria or France?

It's because their money and citizenship doesn't impress women in Western countries.  They rely on economic advantage to get them the "hot stuff" they are incapable of getting at home...  and then they have the hide to complain about pro-daters...

Sheeesh, talk about wanting cheap thrills! 

In hindsight these men aren't sex tourists... at least a sex tourist is prepared to pay a hooker. These guys are looking for a low cost way to live out their fantasies and that is probably how they should be measured as men.

I think RWD should exist to support men and women seeking genuine long term relationships, otherwise we should accept pro-daters who come here looking for gifts and trips to tropical islands in exchange for sex.  What's the difference huh?  As long as she only looks for victims that understand they're just an ATM machine.

Think about it...  what sort of community do we want to be?

[Mir]

If the guys that support such behaviour really wanted a "foreign experience" why aren't they traveling to Sweden, Italy, Ireland, Austria or France?

Well why are the ones looking for foregine marrige not looking in Sweden,Italy,Ireland,Austria or France?

[Kuna]

Well why are the ones looking for foregine marrige not looking in Sweden,Italy,Ireland,Austria or France?

I can't speak for the others mir but a big attraction for me was finding someone with a similar family heritage to me.  (I'd also dated a few German girls over the past 3 or 4 year for the same reason)

My Girl gets quite a kick that she'll marry an Australian and still have a common Ukrainian name.

By the way...  I didn't date anyone in FSU who was "out of the league" I would normally date at home.

The girls that I met were much older than the girls I was dating at home too.

You may pick one line out of my post and use it for whatever purposes you choose but I maintain men that are on casual sex holidays in Ukraine do it because they're not capable of getting hot girls at home... or in the west.  By the way during my holiday in January I also met girls in Germany and Latvia but not off dating sites...  One was in a chemist (drug store) and the other in a bar.

Hell...maybe it's true that most men go there full stop because they are just looking for someone more physically attractive than they can get at home, but if that's the case they should stop crap about values, character, intelligence and personality. 

Just admit they want fresh meat and an economically disadvantaged country is the only place they can get it!

Provocative??? Maybe.. but men that focus on the physical are more likely to fail! (IMHO)

[Mir]

Kuna

I understand that you can only speak for yourself, and I am sure you understand that the discusion is not about your intentions.
Hardly anyone will have family links as the major reason.
The reason men look there is to find something better, it is debateable if better is with regards to age,looks, attitude,values etc. but I think the age/looks do play a significant part in it though many would insist that it is the attitude/values that are more important. I don't feel I am qualified to pass judgment on them.
The point remains that many WM-FSU marriages can be taken as WM taking advantage of economic conditions in FSU and the same is true for the sex tourists going there. This does not mean that I think they are both the same but that if someone wants to put them in a similar bracket specially when the ones seeking marriage are in that process by visting many times, dating a few each time etc. it is quite possible to do so.

[Lily]

Well why are the ones looking for foregine marrige not looking in Sweden,Italy,Ireland,Austria or France?

Well, probably a number of people are looking wherever they can. A good attitude, IMHO, would be that your man/woman could be located wherever in the world.

If a man would post his matchmaking announcement at an international site and a nice French or German woman replies, I don't think he would reject her.

 

[Mir]

If a man would post his matchmaking announcement at an international site and a nice French or German woman replies, I don't think he would reject her.

Do any get proposals from German/French ladies?

[SANDRO43]

Do any get proposals from German/French ladies?

Rarely, but I do get letters I do not open from 20-24 y.o. US girls through Mega Dating :noidea:.

[catzenmouse]

Rarely, but I do get letters I do not open from 20-24 y.o. US girls through Mega Dating :noidea:.

I did not realize that your reputation had made it all the way across the pond! 

[KenC]

Thanks KenC, I got it now.  You are correct to use this quote as an example, and I apologize for the accusations because there was obviously a misunderstanding.  Now let me take a little time to clarify what I meant.  Daveman's comment was this: "I agree here with CaptB in that the morality of the T/R isn't as much of an issue as whether or not it fits into the focused spectrum of the board's acceptable colors. "  He was not speaking specifically about Pike's post.  Do you disagree with what he said?  So when I responded "Daveman,  I agree.  This board cannot be everything to all people.  We need to decide what our focus is and delete those that do not fit with our stated goal."  This was not referring specifically to Pike's post as you want to imply and it was certainly not making the case for extreme censorship.

I would hope you would see from other comments that I have made beyond the one I sited in my previous post that strict censorship is not my goal and that I am open to various views of all of this.  But we have both seen instances where certain posts have been deleted by the administrators because they were obviously beyond the scope of this forum  The point that I was trying to make was that this forum is not open to any and all points of view.  As a rather extreme example, if a pedophile came on writing about his exploits in the FSU this would quickly be censored and deleted.

You mistakenly applied my comments to the specific Pike thread and assumed that I wanted to have it deleted.  If you had done your homework, you would have seen that this was not the case.

Scott,
I kind of wish you could had found your way to apologize for the unnecessary name calling too. 

Whether your comments were or were not specifically directed toward Pike's post is irrelevant.  You are still promoting increased censorship which I strongly oppose.  Listen to your own words "extreme" or "strict" censorship is not your purpose. Just who decides what constitutes what censorship is "extreme" or "strict"?  YOU and your pious compatriots?  Your pedophile example is already covered under the current TOS and no matter how you try to sensationalize your examples, the current TOS is just fine.

What I do find amazing is your last lines in your post:
"You mistakenly applied my comments to the specific Pike thread and assumed that I wanted to have it deleted.  If you had done your homework, you would have seen that this was not the case."

You still are trying to infer that I somehow made a mistake and make a condensending remark about me not "doing my homework."  Unbelievable!!!!!!!!  Coming from a guy that challenged me to find where he condoned censorship in a derogatory way with calling me a hypocrite.  When the evidence was posted, denied accountability and accused me of lying and fabrication.  My advice to you is the next time you want to make an "impact statement" with all the gusto and bravado you can manage, make damn sure you know what you are talking about and can substantiate your claims.  Because, I certainly do.
KenC

[ScottinCrimea]

KenC, the problem is that I still think you're a hypocrite.  You blast other members for making assumptions about posts but you continually do the same thing and see nothing wrong with it.  Here are a few examples from this thread, and I'm looking forward to your substantiation based on facts, not assumptions:

You claim I promote increased censorship.  Show me where I specifically mentioned increased censorship.  Also show me anywhere that I requested that any post be deleted that fit the TOS.  I have seen many instances of members asking for specific posts to be deleted and I don't see you jumping up and crying foul about them.  In those cases the evidence was very clear.  In mine, it's based strictly on your erroneous assumptions.  Please explain your selective cries of censorship.

You infer that I want that I and my "pious compatriots" should be the ones to decide what gets censored.  Show me the post where I even suggested that I wanted to get involved in leading that process. And just who are these compatriots of mine?  A compatriot is someone born, residing in or holding citizenship in the same country as another.  Under that definition, you are included and many posters here are excluded.  If you mean the second definition, colleague, it means an associate in a profession or in a civil or ecclesiastical office.  I certainly don't hold any civil or ecclesiastical offices.  I know there is at least one other physician on this board.  Apparently Mir needs to step up and ask for an apology as you seem to have made a big assumption about him if this is the case.

You feel the current TOS is just fine.  Again, have I ever said anything to suggest that it was not?  Have I ever even mentioned the TOS?  I asked this same question before and you conveniently chose not to respond, because you couldn't substantiate it. So once again, show me where.  If, as you say, you can substantiate every claim that you make, stop picking and choosing which challenges you reply to.

Now, for the record, I do NOT promote increased censorship.  That was only an assumption on your part.

Not once did I suggest that Pike's post should be deleted.  My concern was that I felt censorship was applied to me by not being able to comment.  Doesn't it sounds like I was asking for less censorship, not more?  If you had read my posts clearly you would have not made the wrong assumption about my intent and then merely passed it off as "irrelevant".

I have no problems with the TOS as they now stand, nor have I ever made any comment otherwise.

I agree with many of the members here that our focus and goals should be better defined.  Even Dan agrees with this as he is looking at resolving this concern. He is also one of those who chooses which posts to delete in compliance with the TOS. Have you ever seen me object to any of these instances?  If so, please show me. Apparently I'm pretty comfortable with the standards that he uses. Is Dan one of my "pious compatriots"?

I have to take back my claim that you don't do your homework.  It must take a lot of work to search through posts to select the one isolated example that can be assumed to support your claims while carefully leaving out any that don't.

Okay, substantiate away my friend.

[KenC]

Scott,
Don't you tire of being wrong?  I have handed you your azz here over and over again in this debate and you still come back for more.  It is bordering on self abuse now.  Take a break man!

KenC, the problem is that I still think you're a hypocrite.

Again with the name calling? 

You blast other members for making assumptions about posts but you continually do the same thing and see nothing wrong with it.  Here are a few examples from this thread, and I'm looking forward to your substantiation based on facts, not assumptions:

You claim I promote increased censorship.  Show me where I specifically mentioned increased censorship.  Also show me anywhere that I requested that any post be deleted that fit the TOS.

  I have already quoted your examples of "extreme" or "strict" censorship.  You go look up where you said it, I am tired of proving to you what you said.  But by saying you are not advocating "extreme" or "strict" new censorship, you are also saying that you are advocating new censorship that you deem not "extreme" or "strict."  Get it?

I have seen many instances of members asking for specific posts to be deleted and I don't see you jumping up and crying foul about them.  In those cases the evidence was very clear.  In mine, it's based strictly on your erroneous assumptions.  Please explain your selective cries of censorship.

You have fast become my favorit, aint you lucky?

You infer that I want that I and my "pious compatriots" should be the ones to decide what gets censored.

 I didn't "infer" it, I wrote it in black and white.

Show me the post where I even suggested that I wanted to get involved in leading that process.

You have proven this by your numerous and boisterous posts on this thread.  Go back and read them because as already proven, you cannot remember what you wrote.

And just who are these compatriots of mine?  A compatriot is someone born, residing in or holding citizenship in the same country as another.  Under that definition, you are included and many posters here are excluded.  If you mean the second definition, colleague, it means an associate in a profession or in a civil or ecclesiastical office.  I certainly don't hold any civil or ecclesiastical offices.  I know there is at least one other physician on this board.  Apparently Mir needs to step up and ask for an apology as you seem to have made a big assumption about him if this is the case.

  Thanks for the vocabulary lesson.  I was referring to Kuna and Batman not Mir.  You three seem to be the ones with the bunched up panties over Pike.

You feel the current TOS is just fine.  Again, have I ever said anything to suggest that it was not?  Have I ever even mentioned the TOS?  I asked this same question before and you conveniently chose not to respond, because you couldn't substantiate it. So once again, show me where.  If, as you say, you can substantiate every claim that you make, stop picking and choosing which challenges you reply to.

Here you go again putting your own foot into your big mouth.  I have answered this question when asked the first time.  Go look for it yourself.  Don't you ever get tired of running your nasty mouth at me only to be proven wrong again and again?

Now, for the record, I do NOT promote increased censorship.  That was only an assumption on your part.

Already addressed.

Not once did I suggest that Pike's post should be deleted.  My concern was that I felt censorship was applied to me by not being able to comment.  Doesn't it sounds like I was asking for less censorship, not more?  If you had read my posts clearly you would have not made the wrong assumption about my intent and then merely passed it off as "irrelevant".

  I specifically said that because your quote may have not been directed at Pike, was irrelevant.  The ignorance of your quote stands tall without it being directed at any one specific person.

I have no problems with the TOS as they now stand, nor have I ever made any comment otherwise.

Already answered again.

I agree with many of the members here that our focus and goals should be better defined.  Even Dan agrees with this as he is looking at resolving this concern. He is also one of those who chooses which posts to delete in compliance with the TOS. Have you ever seen me object to any of these instances?  If so, please show me. Apparently I'm pretty comfortable with the standards that he uses. Is Dan one of my "pious compatriots"?

Already answered. but no.

I have to take back my claim that you don't do your homework.  It must take a lot of work to search through posts to select the one isolated example that can be assumed to support your claims while carefully leaving out any that don't.

But I wasn't the one to claim I never said something when I did, now did I?  I wasn't the one to call another member names and berate him as a lier when he was correct, now was I?  The fact remains that you, Scott, did post exactly what I quoted, isn't that a fact?

Okay, substantiate away my friend.

Done.
KenC

[Kuna]

Scott,
Don't you tire of being wrong?  I have handed you your azz here over and over again in this debate and you still come back for more.  It is bordering on self abuse now.  Take a break man! Again with the name calling?    I have already quoted your examples of "extreme" or "strict" censorship.  You go look up where you said it, I am tired of proving to you what you said.  But by saying you are not advocating "extreme" or "strict" new censorship, you are also saying that you are advocating new censorship that you deem not "extreme" or "strict."  Get it? You have fast become my favorit, aint you lucky? I didn't "infer" it, I wrote it in black and white.  You have proven this by your numerous and boisterous posts on this thread.  Go back and read them because as already proven, you cannot remember what you wrote.   Thanks for the vocabulary lesson.  I was referring to Kuna and Batman not Mir.  You three seem to be the ones with the bunched up panties over Pike. Here you go again putting your own foot into your big mouth.  I have answered this question when asked the first time.  Go look for it yourself.  Don't you ever get tired of running your nasty mouth at me only to be proven wrong again and again?Already addressed.
  I specifically said that because your quote may have not been directed at Pike, was irrelevant.  The ignorance of your quote stands tall without it being directed at any one specific person. Already answered again.
 Already answered. but no. But I wasn't the one to claim I never said something when I did, now did I?  I wasn't the one to call another member names and berate him as a lier when he was correct, now was I?  The fact remains that you, Scott, did post exactly what I quoted, isn't that a fact?Done.
KenC

I for one am tired of reading this guys posts...  I KNOW many others are too!  (They PM me... surpise surpise)

Maybe it's time for a cluebat!

Of course - he's old and has a very young wife (he hit the "jackpot" remember... "ching chingggg") but "he is different..."   

Different from what??? Who else does he denegrate???  Read the history of this dudes post and you'll see supreme arrogance...  Incredible really for someone in his position.

He claims to be better than everyone but he has never explained is why it's acceptable for a western man to travel to an economically disadvantaged country for a casual sex tour other than claiming it's "normal dating".

If old men see this as normal dating why aren't they doing it at home???  Why resort to FSU for their "Hot Stuff" if they were getting it at home???

Oh, I know... because they weren't getting "hot stuff" at home.

Ken,  forgive me for not reading all of your post... you're just too predictable and too pathetic to dedicate the time to.

*kiss kiss*... and that wasn't for your a$$ like you expect. Some of us just aren't impressed anymore!


Go on... tell us why men like you can justify casual sex tours???  You must have a good reason if a man of your standing and enormous wealth had to resort to those poor impoverished girls instead of finding someone just as "freakishly compatible" at home?


No, go on.. you were just too irresistible and you had to give them all what they wanted (or needed).

Dude... time for a reality check!

Ching chinggg... was that the sound of money again?

 

[Kuna]

By the way.. I know one or two bleeding hearts will defend Ken and his type... but I've watched this character for almost 12 months and seen this bully rip shreds of people in extraordinary circumstances.

If he wants to debate reality it's time he opens his own disgraceful behaviour to debate rather than imposing his views on others...

How about it Ken...  No holds barred?

I'm game if you are!

I don't care if I get banned and I dont care what people think... You wanna act like an a$$ so it's time youre treated like an a$$.

[Kuna]

aa

Kuna

I understand that you can only speak for yourself, and I am sure you understand that the discusion is not about your intentions.
Hardly anyone will have family links as the major reason.
The reason men look there is to find something better, it is debateable if better is with regards to age,looks, attitude,values etc. but I think the age/looks do play a significant part in it though many would insist that it is the attitude/values that are more important. I don't feel I am qualified to pass judgment on them.
The point remains that many WM-FSU marriages can be taken as WM taking advantage of economic conditions in FSU and the same is true for the sex tourists going there. This does not mean that I think they are both the same but that if someone wants to put them in a similar bracket specially when the ones seeking marriage are in that process by visting many times, dating a few each time etc. it is quite possible to do so.

mir,

Let me ask you this..  

1. What proportion of men do you think are heading to FSU simply for the physcial upgrade they can get compared to their capabilities at home?

2. Do you think men (and the marriages) would be more successful if they could look past the girls physical appearance/age/etc and take enough time to understand who they are about to marry?

We know some old men can sustain a marriage with a young girl for 5 years or so but how likely is it that a high proportion of men can have such "dumb luck".

Personally, I would have never considered a relationship wtih a girl that was simply too young to even have an education but others will pass it off as a unique situation.  A girl so young isn't even mature yet... how could she know what she wnts?

 I know some men are simply looking for a "looks" upgrade... but I wonder how many get terrible surprises when they discover that looks aren't everything.

It's like most men are either blinded by the agency marketing OR spending most of their time trying to justify why they're different.

If relationships fail at home because of communication and personality problems why will a relationship with a"hot girl" be any more successful than a man's last divorce?

[ScottinCrimea]

Wow!  More assumptions and not a single substantiation.  You are failing even your own standards.  This old, "I'm just too tired to go look them up" crap doesn't cut it.  You were quite diligent in finding the one quote of mine in question, even when even I had difficulty locating it.  Apparently finding anything else to back up your assertions is just too much work, which makes sense because they just ain't there!  You bet I'm coming back for more because I'm not going to let you get away with your bullying tactics and your failure to substantiate your claims and accusations.  You make such a big deal about it but think you are above having to do the same.

Lets look at your copouts one by one:


"I have already quoted your examples of "extreme" or "strict" censorship.  You go look up where you said it, I am tired of proving to you what you said."

You showed one quote where I discussed deleting posts that don't fit in with the forum guidelines.  That is not "examples" (plural), nor does it even come close to being extreme or strict.  You never have shown the examples you claim because you can't and you know it.  Because you can't do this, instead you refer to my "numerous and boisterous posts" on this thread as proof that I want extreme censorship.  It makes me laugh to think that you have to stretch this far to support your accusations and that you believe anyone will fall for it.

Now this statement really had me rolling on the floor, "But by saying you are not advocating "extreme" or "strict" new censorship, you are also saying that you are advocating new censorship that you deem not "extreme" or "strict."
What a bizarre leap of logic!  Remember this statement from my last post? "Now, for the record, I do NOT promote increased censorship.  That was only an assumption on your part."   What part of that didn't you understand?  But wait a minute!  Now you change things by saying I am advocating "new" censorship.  So if you lose the debate the solution is to change the definitions?  I'm growing tired of repeatedly asking you to substantiate accusations and having you repeatedly refuse to do so, but what the heck, since it's a new accusation, here I go.  KenC, show me anywhere that I advocated new censorship or even mentioned the word new in the same sentence as censorship other than to reject the idea.

"I was referring to Kuna and Batman not Mir.  You three seem to be the ones with the bunched up panties over Pike."   IIRC, you had your panties so bunched up over that Art guy that you needed a dentist to remove them.  We all are entitled to express our opinions and approval or disapproval of certain individuals and their actions.  Sorry you find that offensive in others.


Here's a great one: "Don't you ever get tired of running your nasty mouth at me only to be proven wrong again and again?"  I'm accused of having a nasty mouth because I called you a hypocrite and used specific examples to support my opinion.  Let's look at some samples of your nasty mouth from this thread alone.

"What is your problem?  Did you get laid in Ukraine?  Are you jealous because Pike got more trim than you did?"

"Please quit acting so childish and just discuss this like a man."

"Whew! Batman,
You almost had an outbreak of being human!"

"I have handed you your azz here over and over again"

"You three seem to be the ones with the bunched up panties over Pike."

"Here you go again putting your own foot into your big mouth"

"YOU and your pious compatriots"

"I guess only you have the super secret powers to see what is not written."

"And you too have shown yourself for who you really are.  A man willing to crucify another based solely on the figment of his own imagination.  No sense confusing you with the facts"

"The view must be a lot more clear up in that ivory tower you and Kuna sit in."

"First of all you know nothing about being a gentleman from your condensending and rude post.  Being a "gentleman" is not only for the ladies lady"

"Don't get your tights in a wad about this, OK?"

Do you recognize these statement? It sounds like another example of hypocrisy to me.

Moving on:

" I specifically said that because your quote may have not been directed at Pike, was irrelevant.  The ignorance of your quote stands tall without it being directed at any one specific person. Already answered again."   More nasty words and more avoidance of the challenge to prove your claim that the quote was directed at Pike. Instead, you say, well, that doesn't really matter and call that proof.

KenC, earlier I called you a bully.  I'm sure you will take offense at that, but I was just going by your own definition as stated in Reply #279 of this thread:

"Kuna,
You know, you and Jazzy are a lot alike.  You think just because you state your opinion with bravado it makes it true.  Of course everyone is entitled to have an opinion.  Like my Father used to say "Opinions are like azzholes, everyone has one."  But an unsubstantiated opinion has no value.  You can say it with all the gusto in the world, but if you cannot support it with logic and facts, it is meaningless.

I didn't "bully" Jazzy, I mearly questioned and challenged her opinion, much like I have to you.  To me "bullying" someone is to berate them, call them names, make unfair conclusions about them and put words they never said into their mouth.  You Sir, are the master bully here.
KenC"
Both paragraphs give a perfect description of yourself.  You, Sir, are the master bully here.

[Turboguy]

This thread is unbelievable.   We have two thousand some odd members and out of those we have had one avowed sex tourist and one now who might be if we could figure out what a sex tourist is.   So over this two, at best, sex tourists you guys have RWD going to the dogs and speaking of dogs you are going at each other like cats and dogs. 

To me anyone who gets that upset over something that really sets no new standards of low class has been leading a little too sheltered life and reading to many romance novels.   I am not condoning anything I just think think you guys need to take a deep breath and realize that there are a wide range of guys going to the FSU.   This one is on the edge compared to a lot of us but so what. 

[Kuna]

This thread is unbelievable.   We have two thousand some odd members and out of those we have had one avowed sex tourist and one now who might be if we could figure out what a sex tourist is.   So over this two, at best, sex tourists you guys have RWD going to the dogs and speaking of dogs you are going at each other like cats and dogs. 

To me anyone who gets that upset over something that really sets no new standards of low class has been leading a little too sheltered life and reading to many romance novels.   I am not condoning anything I just think think you guys need to take a deep breath and realize that there are a wide range of guys going to the FSU.   This one is on the edge compared to a lot of us but so what. 

Good grief... he pops up again...  the voice of reason... and deception.

[BC]

How about it Ken...  No holds barred?

I'm game if you are!

I don't care if I get banned and I dont care what people think... You wanna act like an a$$ so it's time youre treated like an a$$.

Sounds like one of those 'lets go duke it out' contests from high school...

Really...

[KenC]

This thread is unbelievable.   We have two thousand some odd members and out of those we have had one avowed sex tourist and one now who might be if we could figure out what a sex tourist is.   So over this two, at best, sex tourists you guys have RWD going to the dogs and speaking of dogs you are going at each other like cats and dogs. 

To me anyone who gets that upset over something that really sets no new standards of low class has been leading a little too sheltered life and reading to many romance novels.   I am not condoning anything I just think think you guys need to take a deep breath and realize that there are a wide range of guys going to the FSU.   This one is on the edge compared to a lot of us but so what. 

Turbo,
Come on now guy, what you say is way too logical or practical for these "zealots."

Main Entry: zeal·ot
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'ze-l&t
Etymology: Late Latin zelotes, from Greek zelOtes, from zelos
1 capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century A ·d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine
2 : a zealous person ; especially : a fanatical partisan

I guess I am a little slow to catch on!  It "only" took me 25+ pages to understand that Kuna and Scott are members of a fanatical sect that cannot be reasoned with.  They are fanatical in their pious and self righteous claims and anyone with a dissenting view is to be ridiculed and called names.  A couple of "classy" guys with very "open" minds.   No sense confusing them with the facts or evidence because even that is unacceptable to them.  It is not bad enough to persecute other members for what they write, but for what these two "think" they really meant.  Of course it is only due to their overwhelming secrete powers to see what was not written.  
KenC
PS to Kuna- I seriously recommend an anger management class before your fiancee arrives.

[Sohkay]

KenC,
An excellent post.

[ScottinCrimea]

KenC,  So unable to back up anything you have claimed, you resort back to bullying and name calling.  A real class act!