Old Steam room stuff

28 Sep 2005

Quote by SunBunny

Take a peek at the Chams thread.... all is clear ........ I back Postie on this one .. we don't wan't petty big fish / little pond politics here.. SH is about sex & swinging...
........Anything else is just small people trying to be big people wearing oversized clothes.

'We' being whom? You or the people in charge?
Who says all people going to Chams aren't after sex? Is there a knitting circle there we are unaware of?
Why do you have to make the Chams thread something that resembles a munch with 'only people you like' allowed on the list? Is it to make you feel you have more friends? Or less?
If its 'all about sex and swinging' why include some and not others on the list? Who's being petty now wishmaster? Do the people you don't like have less rights to have their names mentioned?
fuck... here we go again...
For those not in the know.. here is a brief outline... the above person was asked to be added to the Chams meet by another person..thread herel
also asking to include a banned SH member who a lot of people didn't want to associate with. Wishmaster stated on the open thread.. as you can see, that it wasn't up to him to exclude people from a public venue. Yet he reserves the right to exclude people from a private meet he is organising....as is anybodies right.
If anyone has been following the recent munch kick-off... and i expect a few Mods and Ops have... where a member was temp' banned for associating with a banned member in a private place... doesn't this just say the same thing ? regular SH member not wanting to associate with a banned member, in a meet up organised on SH???
Personally I feel that the only reason those 3 decided to interject into that thread was knowing that it would put a lot of people off of going....therefore disrupting a meet. To that end they have succeeded. ( just to be clear...they changed their "normal" night...6 weeks ahead of schedule...)
It's the above posts kind of comments, that made me post the rant in the first place... pure vindictive vitriol.. not in the spirit of the site, but certainly just within the AUP's... and most certainly waiting for someone to post something just to pounce on it... even for the smallest thing...
do i still need to go look stuff up Mal??? Or will Sunbunny's comment suffice?

28 Sep 2005

I have met both Mal and Postie and they are both nice people. In fact I spent a large portion of a recent munch in Posties company and he is a top bloke.
Now I am not going to take sides in whatever is going on in the background as I have no idea what the hell it is. Maybe some things I heard relate to it, or are not true. I did get told some stuff at the munch which I kept to myself. (Not by postie, we were too busy watching the scenery) but obviously something is going on here and there that is ruffling feathers. Hey ho, shit happens and it will pass in time.
However I am going to respond to your post Mal, as another member. Posties original post did not mean anything underhand to me, and I saw what he was talking about in my own way. (Don't ask me to list posts, this far on I have no idea) The point is it was a throwaway, non personalised comment. He never targeted anyone, and it was most likely misread by everyone and meant different things to different people.
Now you say he should be able to back it up, but it was his opinion, nothing more. Look at his first words "I seem to be noticing". He is putting his opinion, and seeing if others agree. He may be wrong in his opinion, argue with him. However he is allowed to have one.
I might think that I can fly, and when I try it I will get a shock. However if I post I think I can fly, I might be wrong about my ability, but I am not lying posting in my belief that I can. Something like that anyway... After all that is what the steam room was for, rants, ideas, constructive or otherwise. The mods keep us safe from AUP breaking, and clear out if it gets too heated.
His post never said it was happening, only he felt it was. He may show you the same posts, and to you they do not lead you to the same belief. You are different people. If you disagree simply say so at the time and put your belief, such is debate.
I think the request to PM him was to ensure that anyone who thought he was talking about them and felt hurt could PM for reassurance that he was not talking about them. It is a hard thing to rant without naming names, everyone can panic so you have to PM a good few people to set minds at rest. I did after my rant about SarcySue being harassed at a munch, even the sweetest peeps thought I meant them...
At the end of the day Mal he did not personalise it, this left loose ends. However he had a belief and wanted to express it in the steam room. I wonder why you chose to personalise your own post at Postie and not let old ground be buried as the steam room is meant to do? Could you not have made your point without dragging postie into it?

28 Sep 2005

Isn't it about time certain members on this site "Just let things go".....what is done is done,move on and just ignore each other if you have to,it's getting boring now!!

28 Sep 2005

I'm sorry this is like listening to people hold a conversation in a foreign language that I don't understand. Possibly fascinating or intriguing but ..... dunno

If it's really that important sort it out privately or if it is really that serious then it should be dealt with by moderator action.
(What choon calling fer the Mods :doh: ??)

28 Sep 2005

Quote by westerross
If it's really that important sort it out privately or if it is really that serious then it should be dealt with by moderator action.

I think that's the point Tune. The mod's *were* and *are* dealing with it privately, but some members have chosen to bring it out on here and in the chatroom and talk about it publicly rolleyes

T-J

28 Sep 2005

Quote by RedHot
If it's really that important sort it out privately or if it is really that serious then it should be dealt with by moderator action.

I think that's the point Tune. The mod's *were* and *are* dealing with it privately, but some members have chosen to bring it out on here and in the chatroom and talk about it publicly rolleyes

T-J
Yep! I can confirm this.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

28 Sep 2005

Sorry Red, was it not a mod (posting as a member) who started this latest spat with a personalised moan about a specific members actions in the steam room? Then again this is the steam room and if they want to rant a bit at each other in here in a public debate we should not be trying to stop them inside the AUP... thats what it is for I thought?

28 Sep 2005

Sorry Jags, TE and Red,... and I agree with TnH.... this has been ignited by Mal, please don't let me not defend myself when a Mod writes a thread aimed directly at me.... after threatening in PM to write a "pointed " thread if i don't answer his questions... up till now I have kept quiet on this whole business, with the exception of my rant.

28 Sep 2005

I have a theory that all this dissention is attributable to lead contamination of the water supply in SH Towers. :shock: :shock:
Therefore starting tomorrow, from 8am to 5pm every day for the next few weeks the water supply will be subject to unspecifiable disruption as the old lead piping is stripped out and replaced. :twisted:
If anyone wants to moan about this please submit your handwritten complaints in triplicate, sealed in a plain brown envelope, and leave at the porter's lodge.
Thank you.
ES
bolt

28 Sep 2005

Quote by Jags
If it's really that important sort it out privately or if it is really that serious then it should be dealt with by moderator action.

I think that's the point Tune. The mod's *were* and *are* dealing with it privately, but some members have chosen to bring it out on here and in the chatroom and talk about it publicly rolleyes

T-J
Yep! I can confirm this.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
So now we know it's being sorted in public and private - that should do it then! lol

:lol: :lol:
This place gets more and more like a fantasy theme park. People talking in riddles. The cognoscenti uttering coded messages in whispered tones to those who may understand.
Still that sort of stuff always gave me a good laugh. :roll:

28 Sep 2005

Quote by postie
If anyone has been following the recent munch kick-off... and i expect a few Mods and Ops have... where a member was temp' banned for associating with a banned member in a private place

Please don't presume why someone was issued a temp ban. There was a whole lot going on at that time, the ban was issued for more reasons than that!
Lets pick on one small reason, a very trivial reason, the OPs n mods sometimesneeda bit of breathing space - remove people from the situation and deal with it, deal with all the reasons, and try to sort it out.
Hmmmm not sure if I'm being presumptuous here, cos not really been directly involved with this at all (excluding discussions in the lounge), but hasn't the situation now been dealt with? Haven't decisions been made? The only thing keeping it all alive is the one sided stories (ie " a member was temp' banned for associating with a banned member in a private place").
Remember that whenever the Mods and OPs act upon something, we will always be wrong in at least one persons eyes (ok, in a fair few more eyes than that with half my ummmm.... helpful actions :undecided: confused

). I would say it's a pretty safe bet to say that practically all the gossip is initially fuelled by the person(s) who feel wronged, therefore only issuing one side of the story.
Damn mad

I've wandered off me train of thought and that's not what I was gonna post at all rolleyes

Buggered if I can remember what I was actually gonna say tho blink

Postie, I picked up on your quote, but I don't want anyone to think this is a unique thing - it's just an example of what happens a lot with half of a one sided story.

28 Sep 2005

I have a suggestion that I have made before - and this seems to be the place to put it.
Is it time for the site-sanctioned munches to stop? It seems to me that policing and dealing with issues of security and all the rest is causing a lot of trouble for the mods in one way or another.
Maybe all meets whether they be social, parties or club meets should simply be organised as people see fit? There have been some very successful large social parties organised which didn't qualify as munches but seemed to be just as popular.
It seems at the moment the mods are trying to police the behavior of people in real-life and decide if this or that merits a site ban etc. I would have thought their job was to enforce the site's AUP - if people behave unacceptably in real-life we already have a real police force for that.
Roger the Dragon.
P.S. - I am not saying that the socials should stop - just that the site should no longer take responsibility for them.

28 Sep 2005

Quote by MISSCHIEF
If anyone has been following the recent munch kick-off... and i expect a few Mods and Ops have... where a member was temp' banned for associating with a banned member in a private place

). I would say it's a pretty safe bet to say that practically all the gossip is initially fuelled by the person(s) who feel wronged, therefore only issuing one side of the story.
Damn mad

I've wandered off me train of thought and that's not what I was gonna post at all rolleyes

Buggered if I can remember what I was actually gonna say tho blink

Postie, I picked up on your quote, but I don't want anyone to think this is a unique thing - it's just an example of what happens a lot with half of a one sided story.
And I can confirm that too!!
biggrin

28 Sep 2005

Quote by rogerthedragon
I have a suggestion that I have made before - and this seems to be the place to put it.
Is it time for the site-sanctioned munches to stop? It seems to me that policing and dealing with issues of security and all the rest is causing a lot of trouble for the mods in one way or another.
Maybe all meets whether they be social, parties or club meets should simply be organised as people see fit? There have been some very successful large social parties organised which didn't qualify as munches but seemed to be just as popular.
It seems at the moment the mods are trying to police the behavior of people in real-life and decide if this or that merits a site ban etc. I would have thought their job was to enforce the site's AUP - if people behave unacceptably in real-life we already have a real police force for that.
Roger the Dragon.
P.S. - I am not saying that the socials should stop - just that the site should no longer take responsibility for them.

I don't really want to get into the discussion that's been going on but I have to say that I think Roger's got a very valid point there.
Well done that dragon!! wink

28 Sep 2005

Quote by postie
Sorry Jags, TE and Red,... and I agree with TnH.... this has been ignited by Mal, please don't let me not defend myself when a Mod writes a thread aimed directly at me.... after threatening in PM to write a "pointed " thread if i don't answer his questions... up till now I have kept quiet on this whole business, with the exception of my rant.

Ahem, I think you put me in the wrong list there mate. wink

I was not suggesting that you should keep quiet in the face of the 'publication' this time round. Mind you it has to be said that your cryptic original public post has certainly come back to haunt you. As a really beautiful person once said to me - post it and it's likely to be there for all to see for ever!
Still who am I to say anything rolleyes

I've been haunted by more ghostly posts than I care to remember!
As usual TnH talks good sense 'round these parts - respect!

28 Sep 2005

Whilst I also agree this matter should be put to bed. I feel I do have the right to reply â€“ seeing as everyone else seems to have had their two-pennies worth.
Well, well, where do I start on this one?
Yes, apparently I am one of the accused. I had to check that I was at the time. But it didnâ€™t take long to find someone who postie had been pushing my name forward to. I thought this subject had dropped along time ago - when postie refused to discuss his views with me in PM. At which point I personally gave him no credibility as he could not or would not stand up and say â€œyes I was talking about you and this is whyâ€.
Tallnhairy â€“ if you truly believe the original thread was written to be â€œa throwaway commentâ€¦. He never targeted I think you should consider that not everyone else read it that way.
I believe people will see what they wish to see in anything which is written. The very same thing which makes one person laugh will make another persons blood boil. There is often more to some things than meet the eye and less in other cases.
It is also easy for another party to imply a post means one thing and slant the views of others. I refer to the Chams thread. I wonder if we look at the PMâ€™s which were exchanged following the original post whether we will see a woman ranting bitterness and hate or a woman suggesting it is time some people put the past behind them. I wonder if we will see the gentleman calmly repeating his comments from the post or will we see the gentleman refusing to negotiate any form of reconciliation and stating certain matters where none of my business?
But these things never do come out at the time and we are always left with a one-sided perspective. So yes, please do as Wishmaster has requested and â€œtake a peak at the Chams threadâ€¦all is clearâ€ â€¦ (once you also read the PMâ€™s).
Yes I guess some people have been put off from going â€“ I know of at least 3. They have said they wonâ€™t be going if I am not there. So it would appear to swing both ways, to coin a phrase. As I explained to one disappointed couple â€¦ I doubt if I will be there as I donâ€™t wish to cause a problem.
So back to the Steam Room threadâ€¦.
As far as I am concerned a thread was posted aimed at myself and another person. I gave two opportunities to discuss the matter via PM, they lacked the bollocks/conviction to answer in a sensible manner.
But now the subject appears to have evolved into something elseâ€¦.
The banning of Libra+Love. Hmmmm yes, I wrote lots of posts about that didnâ€™t I. I ranted my heart out on that matter â€“ NOT!
Swinging Heaven business is Swinging Heaven business â€“ and I for one am capable of separating that from my personal life and swinging.
But if you expect me to forget a person I know IRL because they are banned from this site (and not for sexually harassing or assault might I add) or think I shall now disown them or pretend they never existed â€“ you are fucking loopy! And I certainly wonâ€™t write a post saying how great it was being with them and having a first 3some experience and then slag them off as soon as they are gone â€“ unlike some individuals might.
I then read â€¦

Quote by postie
even when involved in bolloxed up rumours started by one of these two

That must be the other person then â€“ because I havenâ€™t a clue what you are talking about.
The only time I have started something about you was to complain about your avatar which later became your signature. I complained as I felt that was one step too far.

Quote by postie
months of sly comments

then I am sure everyone will be able to spot 100â€™s of them in just a few clicks of the search button!
As for this all started when you offered to Chaperone at the Leicester Munch â€“ what the fluck has that to do with anything â€“ you have really lost me there. I am aware all sorts of crap went around about me at that time. So much so, I had to request the munch details not be sent to me. I had no idea you were getting shit over it too. As far as I am concerned, when someone comes forward with something more substantial than the fact I know someone â€“ then I will listen to them. I mean the FACT that one of the birthday boys was on the phone to the banned person on the days running up to the munch didnâ€™t get him named as prime suspect, but then it was just easier to name me as I wasnâ€™t going, had recently made a post which was unpopular with some people and had a falling out with said birthday boy. People can say what they want really â€“ it is KNOWING which is important.

Quote by rogerthedragon
you were not the only person to know what they were up to

â€˜perceive their actions that wayâ€™ â€“ would have been a better term than â€˜knowâ€™. It is impossible for you to KNOW as it wasnâ€™t what was happening.

Quote by rogerthedragon
at least one of the â€œladiesâ€ in question knew she was being talked about and was particularly smug about it

Yes I knew, I knew because I was told by someone else who he had already been told it was me. The author refused to tell me when I PMâ€™d him. And I assure you I was not smug about his post â€“ I was laughing at the realisation that the person behind this BIG post didnâ€™t have the conviction to address it with me in person when given the opportunity.

Quote by postie
And if you think it is you, feel free to PM!

One more thing roger â€“ you now say I (we) were being more subltle â€“ that is not what was being stated in the original post. I donâ€™t know how to do subtly nasty, vicious, vindictive guerrilla warfare.
So in summaryâ€¦..
If you perceive anything I have written as an attempt to undermine SH, your perception is wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion.
If you wish to discuss anything I have saidâ€¦ feel free to PM. I will of course reply with more than a one word answer (â€œnoâ€).
If you want to start a rumour about me â€“ have the bollocks to say it to me also.
I am sarcastic â€“ always have been and you will find many posts where I admit it.
I do rip the piss â€“ I just canâ€™t resist it when someone leaves the door open. But I also believe in equal opportunities = everyone is fair game to have the piss taken out of them, as long as it is not selective.
If I have something â€˜viciousâ€™ to say about someone â€“ they are usually the first to know about it.
Now unless anybody has something else to add on my behaviourâ€¦ I think we have all had our say and I will leave you to finish whatever you want to finish in private.

28 Sep 2005

Well now I am really confused, but let sleeping dogs lie... Polo I would never have thought the post was aimed at you, and you were not someone anyone has ever talked about in public or private to me... so I am off to be confused....
However to add light to my post the comment remains, why Mal did you rake this up? Has this made polo, postie, you, or anyone else involved feel better or has it made things worse. What a tangled web we weave... Deep breaths people please, a lot of you are my friends and I hate to see you fall out.

28 Sep 2005

I apologise for to Pololady for using the word "know", as she pointed out it was my opinion that her and Sunbunny were shit-stirring at the time not my actual knowledge.
Just as it is my opinion that this was all better left alone and that Mal is simply shit-stirring now.
It is also my opinion that at the time the incident first came to a head that Pololady's comments on Wishmasters thread plus a comment in her own Supermarket thread and some other throw away lines in the Steam Room, (along with Sunbunny's fixation with making some comment whenever Wishmaster posted anything she disagreed with) were deliberately meant to cause trouble.
It is also my opinion that given the low opinion Pololady and Sunbunny seem to me to have of most of the people on here that Postie's original rant was quite justified.
I apologise for not putting things quite so specificaly last time I posted.
As for taking things to PM - no thank you, I am quite happy to post my opinions in here and stand by them.
Roger the Dragon. cool

28 Sep 2005

Quote by rogerthedragon
I apologise for to Pololady for using the word "know", as she pointed out it was my opinion that her and Sunbunny were shit-stirring at the time not my actual knowledge.
Just as it is my opinion that this was all better left alone and that Mal is simply shit-stirring now.
It is also my opinion that at the time the incident first came to a head that Pololady's comments on Wishmasters thread plus a comment in her own Supermarket thread and some other throw away lines in the Steam Room, (along with Sunbunny's fixation with making some comment whenever Wishmaster posted anything she disagreed with) were deliberately meant to cause trouble.
It is also my opinion that given the low opinion Pololady and Sunbunny seem to me to have of most of the people on here that Postie's original rant was quite justified.
I apologise for not putting things quite so specificaly last time I posted.
As for taking things to PM - no thank you, I am quite happy to post my opinions in here and stand by them.
Roger the Dragon.

:worship: :worship: :worship:
and if i didn't have the memory of a goldfish with Alzheimers i would have written that earlier.....
and i still stand by my rant.
It may all be dust by next week..... but i didn't bring this up...
So Mal... justify why you needed to... or was it bullying?

28 Sep 2005

And lastly, before i go to bed after a completely shit day...
Can i just say this.... I aint often nasty...very very rarely do i post in haste.
Today has been crap as i heard about what was written while i was out on delivery.... I have had supportive PM's. Regular members and newbies don't understand why one post has solicited such a response from a Mod. When no other Mod has gone off at me like that in the weeks previous...
I am confused... a bit worried but you know what... I am chuffed to bits with the things people have said either in here, or in pm....
Thanks to all those who wrote... each one meant more than you can imagine!
Paul.

28 Sep 2005

Quote by rogerthedragon
I have a suggestion that I have made before - and this seems to be the place to put it.
Is it time for the site-sanctioned munches to stop? It seems to me that policing and dealing with issues of security and all the rest is causing a lot of trouble for the mods in one way or another.
Maybe all meets whether they be social, parties or club meets should simply be organised as people see fit? There have been some very successful large social parties organised which didn't qualify as munches but seemed to be just as popular.
It seems at the moment the mods are trying to police the behavior of people in real-life and decide if this or that merits a site ban etc. I would have thought their job was to enforce the site's AUP - if people behave unacceptably in real-life we already have a real police force for that.
Roger the Dragon.
P.S. - I am not saying that the socials should stop - just that the site should no longer take responsibility for them.

At the moment, pretty much anything that isn't restricted to private invitation is classified as a Munch and the admin team sort of feel obliged to sticky it on that basis. The result is that we have an "official" Munch every other week and it's very difficult for the mods or anyone else for that matter to keep track of them all.
Personally I would like "official" Munches to remain part of the social calendar, but in a less random way than at present.
I've floated an idea for a process which I think could help rationalise the whole thing, but I'll see what the feedback is before posting it because I want to see how Mark and the mods feel about the general idea before opening it up to argument about the finer details. ;)

28 Sep 2005

Personally I think the idea of official Munches is good as it offers the newbies and less experienceced members of the site the opportunity to dip their toes in the water in a supposedly safe and controlled manner. If the Mods are put-upon at these events that is wrong - it is up to the organisers to run the Munch event and let the Mods run the forum/chatroom.
Maybe Munch organisers need to be site approved? That way the conduct of the munch could be controlled.
If folk want to have non-munch meets aswell then why not? As far as I am concerned I would not even try to be invited to a private party unless I had met the persons previoulsy or thought I knew them well enough through the site (which to be honest in umlikely).
Consequently, I support the official munches and look forwrd to attending them in a controlled manner - after that who knows what I may or may not want to do?
McC

28 Sep 2005

FGS

Quote by rogerthedragon
I apologise for to Pololady for using the word "know", as she pointed out it was my opinion that her and Sunbunny were shit-stirring at the time not my actual knowledge.
Just as it is my opinion that this was all better left alone and that Mal is simply shit-stirring now.
It is also my opinion that at the time the incident first came to a head that Pololady's comments on Wishmasters thread
OK we have one comment which keeps popping up - but - ask to read the PM's see if I was shit stirring there and if they reflect Wishmasters 'polite' veiws. You can read it anyway you want.... you will have your opinion tinted with your own bias as others will have a different tint with theirs.
plus a comment in her own Supermarket thread and some other throw away lines in the Steam Room
I'd like to know which as they are unrelated - and at the time did you not say it was one of the funniest posts you had read in a long time????????????? Surely you would not find a vicious, nasty attack funny?
, (along with Sunbunny's fixation with making some comment whenever Wishmaster posted anything she disagreed with) were deliberately meant to cause trouble.
I can not answer for another person
It is also my opinion that given the low opinion Pololady and Sunbunny seem to me to have of most of the people on here that Postie's original rant was quite justified.
I have a low opinion of 'some' - it was you that said my comments about 'sad sheep' referred to 50% of the forum, not me! But of course everyone else has such a high opinion of everyone else - don't they! Nobody ever complains about anyone else - except for me! Bollocks!
I apologise for not putting things quite so specificaly last time I posted.
As for taking things to PM - no thank you, I am quite happy to post my opinions in here and stand by them.
The let me ask you this.... why? What is your motive? What mission are you on?
This is not about what has been said earlier today is it?
Roger the Dragon.

edit: and personally - yes - I do think it would be better in a PM.

28 Sep 2005

boy there's some tough women on here wink

28 Sep 2005

As I was the one who started this whole thing off I sneaked in to reply. No doubt this will be deleted (and I'll be banned but that's a given lol)
I was banned from SH WITHOUT having broken the AUP!
I corresponded with Mark who left the decission of unbanning me to the mods, who sent me an email of no explanation for my banning but let me know they didn't "have the will" to unban me. See, they do have a hit-list lol.
That got my hackles up, I retaliated and told them I'd get even. The mods response was, we don't care. So I showed them they would! It was from THAT point that I plotted to fuck with the mods and you guys.
(Now, how long after?, I hear rumour it was a temp ban on me. Bull-Shit!)
I found an opening and advertised my site in the chatroom. Hey they ban me without me breaking the AUP so I had to!
And from there....
Yes, I phoned the Leicester Council to inform them they needed to be aware of the 200+ ( slight exaggeration goes a long way) coming to the city as they were about to be set on with queries regarding this event from members of the public.
Yes, I phoned 4 churches in the area too, got them doing the Jesus dance over swingers in their town!
And finally I called the Leicester Mercury to let them know "Good ol' Stan's" swinging site was coming to town!
Unfortunatley (well, not really, was a fantastic payday) I had an overnight booking the night of the Leicester munch so couldn't be there myself. If I could have made it the venue would have been exposed once again.
During all this I let everyone on my msn know what I was doing.
I was angry at the mods who run this place so I targeted this place as a whole. I did NOT target individual SH members or individual mods. And God knows I could have abused a certain mod who's phone number I have. But it just aint worth it. That's when things become personal and I don't think I'd like myself much if I intentionally violated someone.
Total disregard I CAN do.
Why did I do it?
For the same reason the mods banned me that day.
They fucked me off so I pushed some buttons of my own! See, it works both ways.
Seems there's been more bannings and munch incidences again and only now is this area of moderation being called into question and the SH bong-drums being exposed
Anyway, that's what I am accountable for. If there are other misdemeanors you may feel I'm responsible for, please feel free to accredit to me.
I WAS DONE WITH YOU LOT.
STILL AM.
Just kept a few good friends and fobbed off a few faux ones.
Ok, delete away mods. Hide the truth again.
And yes, I know, I'm banned.
Don't worry, I'm already headed for the door.
lol...I wouldn't be a good whore if I couldn't find THAT hole and wood!
Libra+Love (Take note Postie, it has a + in the middle...focus on the positive for a change)
And she keeps on loving wink

No longer swinging on MingingHeaven wave

29 Sep 2005

:sigh:

So it's true then . . . Hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned rolleyes

T-J

29 Sep 2005

Well there you go. A time bomb that eventually went off.

29 Sep 2005

Quote by rogerthedragon
Sunbunny's fixation with making some comment whenever Wishmaster posted anything she disagreed with

There are two sides to every story, as we all know.
My gripe with wishmaster stems from the fact that I am STILL waiting for him to return my private property, that he said he would post (I offered to pay postage) to me about 3 months ago now.
I have PMd him many times requesting he return my things.
I have offered alternative methods of delivery/collection.
He was told, on the Chams thread, that one of the reasons I wanted to go that night was to collect my stuff. He seems to have ignored that fact and instead made out I intend to sabotage his little party.
Up until now I havent mentioned it on the forum because I was hoping he would have the decency to return what is mine. He leaves me no option now.
I thought I would clear that up - seeing as everyone else is putting themselves on the line. And quite rightly so. Maybe now the rumours can stop, as well as Posties accusation that I have been spreading 'bolloxed up' rumours.
Anyone who knows me will know that I I am about as honest as they come. I have no reason to lie - and would be an idiot to lie on the forum, unlike so many others.

29 Sep 2005

I can't really see the connection with messing up a munch and getting back at the mods/site.
Out of all the people who were attending, there was one Mod I think, it made not a blind bit of difference to us, cos we weren't the organisers either dunno

All that happened was Steph, who was aware of what you were doing, changed the venue.
If it had gone belly up then it wouldn't have affected the running of the site or the Mods, so I can't really see your reasoning, unless of course you just wanted to ruin the fun of those who haven't been banned.
Given the circumstances Libra, I know which motive I've ascribed to you.
Jas
XXX

29 Sep 2005

Im pretty shocked that anyone would deliberately put this site and its munches under the spotlight from the local council, churches and press. I dont care what wrongs were done in whoever's eyes but this is not a way to go about seeking justice. Two wrongs dont make a right. It just seems pretty spiteful and bitter.
My main beef with this action by L+L is it affects totally unrelated people. Im new here really and reasonably nervous about going to my first munch next week. This amount of bad feeling is really not helping.. and if there was even the slightest chance that a feckin picket line of bible bashers was outside with a photographer from the local paper ..i'd be pretty mortified.
I personally am not ready yet to have my face splashed over the paper as a swinger and i'm really pissed off that anyone from here could have put anyone else in this potential situation.