Verification

18 Nov 2004

verification,verification thats what you need.
if you wanna be the best
and you wanna shag the rest yeah
ver_ific_ations what you need
if you wanna be a chatroom shagger yeah.
sorry sat here bored and thought these words would go well to the theme tune to recordbreakers lol

:lol: :lol:

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Jewcy_Joanne
As you are a + Denisebabe can i ask if you asked for verification .. the same to you MrD and you wishmaster?

Since you asked... at the time you posted that, I didn't have a + (the system is still being 'rolled out', so not everyone eligible has one yet).
After you posted, someone offered to verify me, and I said yes.

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Jewcy_Joanne
I wish i could draw cos i have a great cartoon in my head of this scenario...
A girl laid on a picnic bench. spit roasted .... a queue of 20 men with pants round ankles and dicks in hand all lined up.. and her hubby stood at her side with a paper and pencil saying
" RIGHT THATS YOU TWO VERIFIED..... MOVE ON PLEASE WE AINT GOT ALL NIGHT!"

Should I????? Go on, someone dare me........
Someone verify me, and I'll show you all what bollox the system really is cool

8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
I'll be the champion of the single male......................................
Something tells me I wouldn't be welcome in the chat room for very long as the already verfied males would soon complain once a shit load of newbie (yet genuine and players) guys get verified, one after another.
confused

:? :? :?

18 Nov 2004

Quote by shireen-steve
But I will ask this.... Have the people with a + ever been in a chat room with this system before??... I think not!!....

I just ran all my join scripts and...
Out of 31 active channels on 6 servers that I currently have acess to, all but 8 use 'voice' to indicate something, ranging from clan membership, clan officer status, ownership of a particular car, being a 'verified' fan of a particular singer, being a channel regular, or simply being 'one of our mates'.
Of those 8 that don't use voice, 5 are on a private server that's harder to get into than fort knox, and everyone able to connect is 'trusted', and 2 use mass opping (ie if you are trusted, you get an @ not a +), leaving a grand total of one channel that doesn't use voice fr anything.
This is a fairly biased sample, since most of my channels are related to game clans and are therefore very security conscious, but you did ask!.

18 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
Someone verify me, and I'll show you all what bollox the system really is 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
I'll be the champion of the single male......................................
Something tells me I wouldn't be welcome in the chat room for very long as the already verfied males would soon complain once a shit load of newbie (yet genuine and players) guys get verified, one after another.
:? :? :?

No, that's actually the best thing you could do for the system, because it would weed out the non-genuine single blokes who don't turn up for meets, which is exactly what this system is designed to do.
I dare say if such an offer was made, we'd see quite a few of the new-ish unverified couples suddenly admit to being single blokes and therefore prove themselves non-genuine, in the hope of meeting you, which would also be a good thing and hlpe the system work better.
The + means (to paraphrase the rules) "this person is what they say they are, and they will turn up to a meet". It's not an anti-single male measure, it's an anti-misleading discription/timewaster measure.
If all the genuine single males in chat were verified:
1) It would be a very good thing for the small number of single males currently verified (myself now included) since it would remove the possiblity of us being accused of abusing our status.
2) It would be a very good thing for anyone in chat interested in single males (it does happen sometimes!) because they will know where a good supply of real ones can be found
3) It would be good for people not interested in single males, because the verfied ones would not want to risk their verified status by harassing peopel who are not interested.
4) It would be good for everyone who is just there to chat, or to make up their own minds about swinging (and we do get a LOT of both these types in chat) because they would be able to tell who is a newbie and who is a regular.

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
Someone verify me, and I'll show you all what bollox the system really is 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
I'll be the champion of the single male......................................
Something tells me I wouldn't be welcome in the chat room for very long as the already verfied males would soon complain once a shit load of newbie (yet genuine and players) guys get verified, one after another.
:? :? :?

No, that's actually the best thing you could do for the system, because it would weed out the non-genuine single blokes who don't turn up for meets, which is exactly what this system is designed to do.
:
r.
So its only single blokes who are none genuine and timewasters then :?:
We have come across many couples and some single females who are the biggest timewasters and dreamers there are..

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
4) It would be good for everyone who is just there to chat, or to make up their own minds about swinging (and we do get a LOT of both these types in chat) because they would be able to tell who is a newbie and who is a regular.

Not at all. I could get blokes verified who very rarely use the chat room... therefore they are newbies. I thought the system was not about who was a regular vs. newbie, rather about being a player? I could get blokes verfied who no-one knows, including myself. I could collect a gang of blokes, speak to none of them, but shag them, then afterwards tell them to log on to the chat room. As long as I knew what they had logged on as, I could verify them perfectly legally, couldn't I? Nothing in the rules says I have to vouch for the personalities of the people I verifiy. They could be total toss pots for all I know, but provided they abide by the site rules they stay, complete with their +, even though they have nothing to add to SH really.
However, I could not verify regular users who are very genuine if they are not interested in actually having sex with me. I might have met them many times, have had many in depth discussions with them, and they might be very good at putting newbies at their ease and explaining how the scene works. Yet they are unverifiable cos none of our meetings were intended to be sexual.
Therein lies the bizarre paradox of this system
Therefore, for new genuine users to the room, under this system, the + does not tell them who are trustworthy and who are regulars at all...... does it???? And if the + was meant to denote a "regular" it adds further to the idea of a clique, does it not?

18 Nov 2004

Quote by steve-shireen
So its only single blokes who are none genuine and timewasters then :
We have come across many couples and some single females who are the biggest timewasters and dreamers there are..

Not at all, I was just taking blue's example and running with it... If she does the single males and you want to do the couples then I've got the clipboard and pen! lol

18 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx

4) It would be good for everyone who is just there to chat, or to make up their own minds about swinging (and we do get a LOT of both these types in chat) because they would be able to tell who is a newbie and who is a regular.

Not at all. I could get blokes verified who very rarely use the chat room... therefore they are newbies. I thought the system was not about who was a regular vs. newbie, rather about being a player? I could get blokes verfied who no-one knows, including myself. I could collect a gang of blokes, speak to none of them, but shag them, then afterwards tell them to log on to the chat room. As long as I knew what they had logged on as, I could verify them perfectly legally, couldn't I? Nothing in the rules says I have to vouch for the personalities of the people I verifiy. They could be total toss pots for all I know, but provided they abide by the site rules they stay, complete with their +, even though they have nothing to add to SH really.
However, I could not verify regular users who are very genuine if they are not interested in actually having sex with me. I might have met them many times, have had many in depth discussions with them, and they might be very good at putting newbies at their ease and explaining how the scene works. Yet they are unverifiable cos none of our meetings were intended to be sexual.
Therein lies the bizarre paradox of this system
Therefore, for new genuine users to the room, under this system, the + does not tell them who are trustworthy and who are regulars at all...... does it???? And if the + was meant to denote a "regular" it adds further to the idea of a clique, does it not?
Ooops redface

yes, you did catch me getting my words wrong there. I should have said :
4) It would be good for everyone who is just there to chat, or to make up their own minds about swinging (and we do get a LOT of both these types in chat) because they would be able to tell who is known to be 'a genuine person who is what they say they are' and wants this fact to be known and who is isn't, doesn't or doesn't want it to be known that they do.
(pause while I let my keyboard cool down a bit after all that exertion... anyone with realtives who expired through trying to say that last sentence aloud without first taking a very deep breath please contact my solicitors in writing).
As I said before, I'm prepared to sit here and defend the concept, reflect the more positive mood in the chatroom, and make factual corrections, but Ii'm not keen to be the self-appointed defender of the exact wording or implementation confused

I think my points 1), 2) and 3) were valid though!

18 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx

4) It would be good for everyone who is just there to chat, or to make up their own minds about swinging (and we do get a LOT of both these types in chat) because they would be able to tell who is a newbie and who is a regular.

Not at all. I could get blokes verified who very rarely use the chat room... therefore they are newbies. I thought the system was not about who was a regular vs. newbie, rather about being a player? I could get blokes verfied who no-one knows, including myself. I could collect a gang of blokes, speak to none of them, but shag them, then afterwards tell them to log on to the chat room. As long as I knew what they had logged on as, I could verify them perfectly legally, couldn't I? Nothing in the rules says I have to vouch for the personalities of the people I verifiy. They could be total toss pots for all I know, but provided they abide by the site rules they stay, complete with their +, even though they have nothing to add to SH really.
However, I could not verify regular users who are very genuine if they are not interested in actually having sex with me. I might have met them many times, have had many in depth discussions with them, and they might be very good at putting newbies at their ease and explaining how the scene works. Yet they are unverifiable cos none of our meetings were intended to be sexual.
Therein lies the bizarre paradox of this system
Therefore, for new genuine users to the room, under this system, the + does not tell them who are trustworthy and who are regulars at all...... does it???? And if the + was meant to denote a "regular" it adds further to the idea of a clique, does it not?
Thats why the system we used in another room was better because you could gain verification by meeting anywhere and sex didnt have to be involved....You just had to be who you said you were and to turn up and be all of the things we expect....polite and be of genuine character..

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet

4) It would be good for everyone who is just there to chat, or to make up their own minds about swinging (and we do get a LOT of both these types in chat) because they would be able to tell who is a newbie and who is a regular.

Not at all. I could get blokes verified who very rarely use the chat room... therefore they are newbies. I thought the system was not about who was a regular vs. newbie, rather about being a player? I could get blokes verfied who no-one knows, including myself. I could collect a gang of blokes, speak to none of them, but shag them, then afterwards tell them to log on to the chat room. As long as I knew what they had logged on as, I could verify them perfectly legally, couldn't I? Nothing in the rules says I have to vouch for the personalities of the people I verifiy. They could be total toss pots for all I know, but provided they abide by the site rules they stay, complete with their +, even though they have nothing to add to SH really.
However, I could not verify regular users who are very genuine if they are not interested in actually having sex with me. I might have met them many times, have had many in depth discussions with them, and they might be very good at putting newbies at their ease and explaining how the scene works. Yet they are unverifiable cos none of our meetings were intended to be sexual.
Therein lies the bizarre paradox of this system
Therefore, for new genuine users to the room, under this system, the + does not tell them who are trustworthy and who are regulars at all...... does it???? And if the + was meant to denote a "regular" it adds further to the idea of a clique, does it not?
Ooops redface

yes, you did catch me getting my words wrong there. I should have said :
4) It would be good for everyone who is just there to chat, or to make up their own minds about swinging (and we do get a LOT of both these types in chat) because they would be able to tell who is known to be 'a genuine person who is what they say they are' and wants this fact to be known and who is isn't, doesn't or doesn't want it to be known that they do.
(pause while I let my keyboard cool down a bit after all that exertion... anyone with realtives who expired through trying to say that last sentence aloud without first taking a very deep breath please contact my solicitors in writing).
As I said before, I'm prepared to sit here and defend the concept, reflect the more positive mood in the chatroom, and make factual corrections, but Ii'm not keen to be the self-appointed defender of the exact wording or implementation confused

I think my points 1), 2) and 3) were valid though!
See, that's exactly the problem..... when the concepts within this system are challenged the exact meaning of the + changes to fit the situation! Is that cos no-one really knows what the hell the + is meant to mean in the first place....??????
Some poeple think it means it denotes a genuine person, some think it denotes someone known to the regulars, and some think it means that you are a shag-bunny..... so which one is it?
I am aware, Mr D, that you have been left to defend this concept alone and unguarded by the powers. I fear that this is cos they are too embarrassed to come and defend it themselves. If they had come and answered the questions that people have I'm sure the subject would have long since died down..... but hey, long may it reign...... I'm lovin' this thread, it's the best entertainment there's been on the cafe for a long long time

18 Nov 2004

Quote by steve-shireen
Thats why the system we used in another room was better because you could gain verification by meeting anywhere and sex didnt have to be involved....You just had to be who you said you were and to turn up and be all of the things we expect....polite and be of genuine character..

Now that sounds sensible!
OK, any system is open to abuse, and the above one would be no exception, and yes it would still create a clique of sorts.... but at least it is exactly what it says on the tin - there is no ambiguity on what the + would mean, and newbies would know at an instant that they are talking to someone genuine. The system as it stands now does not do that at all, and to my knowledge, that was not what was intended for it to be......
BIZARRE!

18 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx

Thats why the system we used in another room was better because you could gain verification by meeting anywhere and sex didnt have to be involved....You just had to be who you said you were and to turn up and be all of the things we expect....polite and be of genuine character..

Now that sounds sensible!
OK, any system is open to abuse, and the above one would be no exception, and yes it would still create a clique of sorts.... but at least it is exactly what it says on the tin - there is no ambiguity on what the + would mean, and newbies would know at an instant that they are talking to someone genuine. The system as it stands now does not do that at all, and to my knowledge, that was not what was intended for it to be......
BIZARRE!
:thumbup:
Thats why I'm not anti verification......Just the way it's been done and most of all the qualifying criteria......And thats coming from somebody who has a +...

18 Nov 2004

Quote by steve-shireen
:thumbup:
Thats why I'm not anti verification......Just the way it's been done and most of all the qualifying criteria......And thats coming from somebody who has a +...

That just about sums up my opinion too... It's the way it's been done and the definition of how people qualify that has been ballsed up. We did reject the idea of verifying genuine people on the forum some time ago, but I can see how on the room where things are more transient that a system that denoted genuineness would be useful..... at least the pros would outweigh the cons.
Maybe the creators of the curent system would tell us all why they decided to use it as a verification of "players" rather than a system that verified "genuineness"??????
I thought not. confused

18 Nov 2004

Quote by steve-shireen
Thats why the system we used in another room was better because you could gain verification by meeting anywhere and sex didnt have to be involved....You just had to be who you said you were and to turn up and be all of the things we expect....polite and be of genuine character..

I would be inclined to agree, if it wasn't for the following reasons...
Firstly, we are in the unique (as far as I know) posiion of having Munches, for which the entry criteria is pretty much 'join in a little bit on the forum, and don't act like a reporter'. It would put a lot of pressure on munch organisers, since they would effectively have the validation burden put on them, if anyone they accept automatically qualifies for verification.
Secondly, a requirement to actually play (or intend to play) before verification removes the possiblity of reporters gaining verification, which is a bigger issue for SH than for other sites, since SH is the biggest and best, it's also the natural target.
Thirdly it's a lot easier to revoke a validation based on an untrue fact (did play, didn't play) than on an opinion (not polite, etc), and the Ops have so much to deal with in chat that they need hard and fast rules to apply.

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
Thats why the system we used in another room was better because you could gain verification by meeting anywhere and sex didnt have to be involved....You just had to be who you said you were and to turn up and be all of the things we expect....polite and be of genuine character..

I would be inclined to agree, if it wasn't for the following reasons...
Firstly, we are in the unique (as far as I know) posiion of having Munches, for which the entry criteria is pretty much 'join in a little bit on the forum, and don't act like a reporter'. It would put a lot of pressure on munch organisers, since they would effectively have the validation burden put on them, if anyone they accept automatically qualifies for verification.
Secondly, a requirement to actually play (or intend to play) before verification removes the possiblity of reporters gaining verification, which is a bigger issue for SH than for other sites, since SH is the biggest and best, it's also the natural target.
Thirdly it's a lot easier to revoke a validation based on an untrue fact (did play, didn't play) than on an opinion (not polite, etc), and the Ops have so much to deal with in chat that they need hard and fast rules to apply.
The site i speak of held regular parties hosted by the site owner which could be likened to munches...
Dont see how the intention to play would stop reporters gaining verification and at the time I am talking about Sh wasnt as big as it is now....
The fact that you have to shag someone is basically a crock of shit.....INo way should you have to divulge you intimate secrets to anyone....The golden rule.....as far as I belive.....in swinging is discretion.......This new system just disregards that entirely..

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
As you are a + Denisebabe can i ask if you asked for verification .. the same to you MrD and you wishmaster?

Since you asked... at the time you posted that, I didn't have a + (the system is still being 'rolled out', so not everyone eligible has one yet).
After you posted, someone offered to verify me, and I said yes.
Mr D, at least you were in the position where someone had the decency to ask if you wished to have +..You had the choice to say yes!! some of us have not had that choice!! Therefore don't have a clue who has vertified us... :confused:
Lucy

18 Nov 2004

Oh lets forget about all of this.... do you want some Cheese?
lol

(apologies to those who don't watch/like Alan Partridge, people who don't like cheese, people who don't like smiley emoticons and anyone else who might (sigh) take umbridge to my post.... wink

)
Mxx

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
Firstly, we are in the unique (as far as I know) posiion of having Munches, for which the entry criteria is pretty much 'join in a little bit on the forum, and don't act like a reporter'. It would put a lot of pressure on munch organisers, since they would effectively have the validation burden put on them, if anyone they accept automatically qualifies for verification.
Secondly, a requirement to actually play (or intend to play) before verification removes the possiblity of reporters gaining verification, which is a bigger issue for SH than for other sites, since SH is the biggest and best, it's also the natural target.
Thirdly it's a lot easier to revoke a validation based on an untrue fact (did play, didn't play) than on an opinion (not polite, etc), and the Ops have so much to deal with in chat that they need hard and fast rules to apply.

1. In my veiw, munches are the PERFECT tool for verification. The onus is not on the organisers at all. People don't stand around at munches not speaking to each other! Take the NW munch - how many people were there last time? About 200 was it? Therefore, not only does one person get to meet a newbie and see that they're an OK, genuine person, but they are met by shit loads of people! What better credibility is that, to be verified by 200!
2. The idea of reporters being the reason why playing is a necessity is bollocks, pure and simple. Steve-D said that playing was not actually necessary - just the intention to play. Therefore a reporter could easily go to a meet and then say "sorry, I don't fancy you after all", and still get verified! How to you think the news of the world get their stories about swingers clubs? They pose as players and go in! Jeeeez!!!!! Trusting aren't you Mr D!
3. Again, as playing is not actually necessay to get verified, this point is not valid either.

18 Nov 2004

Quote by redstilletto
has anyone seen me grandad i think wishmaster has pinched him again

ive been in the chatroom loads of times and have had some lovely chats with nice people
never had a problem in there myself

He got wind of what we ......... er ...........you ......... were planning and now he's buggered off to Tenerife for the winter! Some people are such spoilsports!!!!!
Wishmaster

18 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
I wish i could draw cos i have a great cartoon in my head of this scenario...
A girl laid on a picnic bench. spit roasted .... a queue of 20 men with pants round ankles and dicks in hand all lined up.. and her hubby stood at her side with a paper and pencil saying
" RIGHT THATS YOU TWO VERIFIED..... MOVE ON PLEASE WE AINT GOT ALL NIGHT!"

Should I????? Go on, someone dare me........
Someone verify me, and I'll show you all what bollox the system really is cool

8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
I'll be the champion of the single male......................................
Something tells me I wouldn't be welcome in the chat room for very long as the already verfied males would soon complain once a shit load of newbie (yet genuine and players) guys get verified, one after another.
confused

:? :? :?
Go for it blue.
Add me onto your list of single guys needing varification.
lol

:lol::lol:

18 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
See, that's exactly the problem..... when the concepts within this system are challenged the exact meaning of the + changes to fit the situation! Is that cos no-one really knows what the hell the + is meant to mean in the first place....??????

Well, the definition has never changed, the problem is that it's a very long definiton that can't easilly be summed up in a word or two withought being misleading... which I think is where a lot fo the confusion is coming from.
Here is what the relevant pages say:
"A verified user is one who is active on the swing scene and who actually meets others on the scene for consensual, recreational sex... known as genuine and meet the definition above to a member who is already verified.... Munches and Parties are specifically excluded from the verification... You may sign a user as genuine even though you decided not to take things further. If you are satisfied that they acted in good faith and it's simply a case of, "we really didn't fancy each other" - this is provided you have actually met them."
What's not explicitly stated is that you can be genuine but not verified, for any number of reasons.
I'll try to paraphrase it...
"A verified person has met someone who was already verified for the purpose of having sex (even if they didn't fancy them and said no) at a meeting that wasn't a munch or a party."
It's never changed, but it is horribly unwieldy to drop into conversation, which is why it's been abbreviated in ways that don't actually reflect it's wording accurately, such as "newbie", "genunie" etc.

Quote by bluexxx
I'm lovin' this thread, it's the best entertainment there's been on the cafe for a long long time

Agreed, and I'm glad to see I'm not offending you by carrying on a lively debate smile

If things start to die down, I've still got "does soft swinging count?" and "how far do we have to go to qualify as having sex?" in reserve ready to fuel the fires! :twisted:

18 Nov 2004

Verification......
I have read the first page of this thread and very little else - so I am unaware of the content of the vast forest of comments and opinions that adorne the 28 pages in between.
From what I did read on the 1st page I feel that Verification is a bit like communism - a nice idea but wont really work!!! wink

Unless there is a standard criteria that EVERYONE agrees on the scheme will fall flat on its face.
The scheme will need to be 'owned' by all of people in it and unless everyone believes in it, it wont work - and it would appear that not everyone believes in the scheme.
I think that as there are so many variables involved in swinging that it cant really be controlled or verified. There are no guarantees - and that kind of adds to the fun (sometimes!!!).
If you want to be involed in an underground scene - and this is still very much an underground scene - you have to take the rough with the smooth.
If that means getting blown out every once in a while then so be it.
Dxx
( I am aware that I could have gone over old ground and none of what I have said could be relevant anymore and I may have missed the point entirely and some people my not care about my opinion - but I am not wading through 29 pages!!!)

18 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
1. In my veiw, munches are the PERFECT tool for verification. The onus is not on the organisers at all. People don't stand around at munches not speaking to each other! Take the NW munch - how many people were there last time? About 200 was it? Therefore, not only does one person get to meet a newbie and see that they're an OK, genuine person, but they are met by shit loads of people! What better credibility is that, to be verified by 200!

I take your point to some extent (I don't think I've have excluded parties or munches where 'play' took place, but that would either mean a formal admission that play does happen at munches, or an even more unwieldy definition that play areas near munches are 'not muches', which I attempted to write a dozen or so pages back), but it does raise 2 difficult issues:
1) How do you survey those 200 people's views? Does the one shy woman who got an unwanted grope and will leave SH if the groper gets verified have enough of a say to offset the 199 who were too drunk or busy to notice that?
2) Munch organisers do filter out people based on a very small amount of evidence, with no formal method dispute resolution, and the filtering is done by different people with different criteria (after all letting someone into your house is different to letting them into someone-else's pub). Is this fair?

Quote by bluexxx
2. The idea of reporters being the reason why playing is a necessity is bollocks, pure and simple. Steve-D said that playing was not actually necessary - just the intention to play. Therefore a reporter could easily go to a meet and then say "sorry, I don't fancy you after all", and still get verified! How to you think the news of the world get their stories about swingers clubs? They pose as players and go in! Jeeeez!!!!! Trusting aren't you Mr D!

Hmm. Well I guess it excludes good looking reporters only lol

I'm in two minds about the playing requirement, but writing it this way does stop the 'give me a blowjob or I won't verify you' scenario.

Quote by bluexxx
3. Again, as playing is not actually necessay to get verified, this point is not valid either.

hmmm, it's either that or allow "give me a blowjob or I won't verify you", I think this is the lesser of 2 evils?

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
I'm in two minds about the playing requirement, but writing it this way does stop the 'give me a blowjob or I won't verify you' scenario.

Ummm... no, it doesn't, because verification is not compulsory. Mr could very well verify someone if they don't give him a blowjob, but because he's (well) a bastard, he can still refuse to verify them unless they give him a blowjob.

18 Nov 2004

I've been having a bit of a further look around and have decided that I really dont care about this verification.
I have also decided that I do not wish to be verified.
And on that note I have decied to flounce out of this thread and wont come back.....
Unless I see something that tempts me to come back.....
And then I really really will flounce off......for good this time (but just from this thread)
Unless.....
wink

:wink: :wink:
Dxxxx

18 Nov 2004

*tries to tempt surreycouple2003 back by flashing her boobs and winking seductively* silly

hwoar:

18 Nov 2004

Quote by surreycouple2003
I've been having a bit of a further look around and have decided that I really dont care about this verification.
I have also decided that I do not wish to be verified.
And on that note I have decied to flounce out of this thread and wont come back.....
Unless I see something that tempts me to come back.....
And then I really really will flounce off......for good this time (but just from this thread)
Unless.....
:wink: :wink:

I don't believe you!!!
Afterall I dont know whether you have flounced consentually previously. Wheres the proof, have you flounced before? From what and whom??
I think you are a flounce wannabee and they are the lowest of the low
:wink: :wink: :wink:
Dxxxx

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Happy Cats
I don't believe you!!!
Afterall I dont know whether you have flounced consentually previously. Wheres the proof, have you flounced before? From what and whom??
I think you are a flounce wannabee and they are the lowest of the low

My Dearest Happy Cat
Unfortunately I am not able to respond to your accusations of my wannabee flouncing due to the fact that I have flounced off (from this thread only...!!!) and will not return, ever, and I mean it this time, for good.
I hope you understand my motives for flouncing off (from this thread only) and I want you to know that I will miss you but due to my ethics I just cannot be a part of this (thread only) anymore.
wink

:wink:
Dxxxx
(ps this is my inagural - is that how you spell inagural??- flounce. TBH I wish I tried it ages ago, its quite good fun!!!!)

18 Nov 2004

Quote by roger743
I'm in two minds about the playing requirement, but writing it this way does stop the 'give me a blowjob or I won't verify you' scenario.

Ummm... no, it doesn't, because verification is not compulsory. Mr could very well verify someone if they don't give him a blowjob, but because he's (well) a bastard, he can still refuse to verify them unless they give him a blowjob.
Hmm, the way I read it was that you could verify someone you didn't fancy, not that you could verify somene who didn'; fancy you, which is an interesting distinction.
In your example, I assume the person Mr A. Bastard was saying that too could get him unplussed (and hopefuly banned) by reporting it.