Quote by Calista
we're all adults and therefore capable and having opinions and concerns and expecting them to be addressed in an adult manner.
Sadly, this statement would, given some recent postings here, appear to be false
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Verification
Quote by zootle
we're all adults and therefore capable and having opinions and concerns and expecting them to be addressed in an adult manner.
Sadly, this statement would, given some recent postings here, appear to be false
I don't know who exactly you're talking about here zootle, but I would say that a lot of people are getting annoyed now because they have voiced concerns in an adult manner only to have them ignored. I've mailed a few times now and am yet to get any answers to the questions I've asked. Being ignored is so frustrating, particularly when you are complying with "their" wishes.
And I still haven't seen any good reason as to why a different forum ID hasn't been arranged so that questions can be answered on the public forum. There is evidently an email address for verification (pun not intended lol) purposes, so what's the problem?
So far, this thread has 842 replies, 14,270 views and STILL no answers from List Admin. I think that in itself speaks volumes. It just makes it look as though they don't have any argument and know they're in the wrong IMHO
Quote by Angel Chat
I don't know who exactly you're talking about here zootle, but I would say that a lot of people are getting annoyed now because they have voiced concerns in an adult manner only to have them ignored.
There should be enough of a clue in that I've already stated my reservations about the system, about the divisions it will create, etc.
If you suspect it's directed at folk such as Neil and blue (being two of the most vocal on the issue that spring to mind as I write), it's certainly not as my opinions are the same as theirs on this issue.
Quote by dambuster
Why are so many people who "don't use the chatroom anyway/much" getting their knickers in such a twist about this?
Or - am I missing something.
Straight question.
Well speaking as one who was verified originally, I firstly got my "knickers in a twist" about the inferrence that I am an active swinger (which you know I'm not)
Further down the line I got annoyed at the fact that my questions weren't being answered. I'm still annoyed about that because I'm still being ignored (although I have mailed again this morning and may yet receive a reply to that mail so I'm reserving judgement for now)
In general, I'd say that people who don't use the chatroom at all or very much are concerned about the changes this could bring to the site. It's always been very welcoming of anyone who abides by the AUP. I think (and I'm not alone in this) that a two or more tier system is being implemented, whereby those that either don't actively participate in swinging in a physical sense are no longer going to feel as comfortable about being here.
I did used to use the chatroom on a fairly regular basis but would now feel uncomfortable going in there, because a) I've voiced an opinion against the + scheme and b) it could be assumed that I'm not actually a genuine member of the swinging community because I've chosen not to play at the moment. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that I don't want to play right now doesn't stop me from being genuine.
And zootle, I wasn't having a go at you or even making any assumptions about who you were originally referring to, I just genuinely didn't know who you were talking about
Quote by dambuster
Why are so many people who "don't use the chatroom anyway/much" getting their knickers in such a twist about this?
Or - am I missing something.
Straight question.
Briefly, and not all encommpassing: The concern is that division there, as well as reflecting badly on the site as a whole, may start to cause division here, too.
Quote by zootle
Why are so many people who "don't use the chatroom anyway/much" getting their knickers in such a twist about this?
Or - am I missing something.
Straight question.
Briefly, and not all encommpassing: The concern is that division there, as well as reflecting badly on the site as a whole, may start to cause division here, too.
Note to self: work on becoming more concise
Everything I attempted to say above, in one simple sentence
Quote by Angel Chat
Note to self: work on becoming more concise
Everything I attempted to say above, in one simple sentence
My english teacher was always telling me the complete opposite.
"Yes", she'd say, "You have answered the question correctly and precisely, but I marked you down as I didn't feel you were being verbose enough".
Quote by zootle
My english teacher was always telling me the complete opposite.
"Yes", she'd say, "You have answered the question correctly and precisely, but I marked you down as I didn't feel you were being verbose enough".
At last!! An explanation as to why I did so well in my English O level. Who'd have thought I'd get an answer to something in this thread of all places? :shock: ;)
Sex God
Quote by zootle
Briefly, and not all encommpassing: The concern is that division there, as well as reflecting badly on the site as a whole, may start to cause division here, too.
Exactly. It is already causing divisions in here, is it not? The reason why this has gone on so long is cos the admin refuse to acknowledge people's concerns.... and I think it is disgusting btw that Angel Chat is not even being replied to having gone through "proper" channels, but that is another story
........ That, and people are concerned about the principle of having a split based on "players" (when "player" is imposibel to define) and non players.... and ultimately how this affects the dynamics on the chat room, and how people view SH as a whole.Indeed, plenty of chat room people ARE contributing to this thread - it is not just forum members by any means who have a problem with this.
Quote by bluexxx
and I think it is disgusting btw that Angel Chat is not even being replied to having gone through "proper" channels, but that is another story
Just to point out, I DID get a reply apologising that I had been verified, and they contacted the person who verified me to ask them to explain why, so I did get ONE answer. It's the other questions that I've asked that I'm getting annoyed about. Just so you know
Sex God
Quote by Angel Chat
and I think it is disgusting btw that Angel Chat is not even being replied to having gone through "proper" channels, but that is another story
Just to point out, I DID get a reply apologising that I had been verified, and they contacted the person who verified me to ask them to explain why, so I did get ONE answer. It's the other questions that I've asked that I'm getting annoyed about. Just so you know
Yes, I know that.... but what some of the ops on this thread have said is that ALL the questions within this thread should be directed to the relevant email address and that they will be answered via that route. I assume that they are so overwhelmed with emails that they haven't got round to answering them yet?
So the problems we had, have now increased.
The divisions are becoming apparent.
Adult conversation over a simple "+", are causing debate which is a circular debate, in that its not getting anywhere. So the division itself is caused.
The introduction of the "+" for whatever reason, or for whatever it means, is causing a division not just within the confines of the chatroom. You can read the beginnings of the division, you can see, the dividing lines becoming apparent in there nature.
What for?
Who wins?
Even if, there was a full scale solid argument published on this forum on behalf of the "+", the "+" has achieved, by its nature, the division it was evidently never meant to make.
There is no question in my mind, that the "+" being introduced for whatever reason, for whatever validation is, by the very fact of its introduction a division of some sort.
Go back to the ethos of this site.
Tolleration.
Of who? what? why? What is the purpose of the ethos?
Respect.
Of who? what? why? What is the purpose of the ethos?
The "+" signifies SOMETHING. The significance of the something, is in itself almost irrelevant. As adults, we will find, and make use of all of our abilites to find holes, split hairs etc. We will make a point of attaching significance to things which we identify as being true and real.
SOMETHING is therefor flawed. "Something" is going against what some individuals feel to be the ethos of the group.
Just becuase i may not claim to understand it, doesn't mean that i am wrong/ right. Just because those who are "for" the system, don't understand why others are "against" the system, DOES NOT mean that the argument against is wrong. It means that all our interpretations of SOMETHING is different.
This post is neither for or against any argument, i have made my views and opinions known elsewhere in this thread.
The essence of my argument is the SOMETHING. Quite simple in its nature. Quite relevant to me. Just because you may read this, and not understand it, does not mean, that i am wrong, neither does it mean, that you are right. It simply means that we don't understand one another.
If we can agree that we understand, that we each have differences, then we are moving forward. The circle is no longer a circle, but instead, takes on a bigger persona. It could even become spherical in nature.
To agree to disagree is an adult thing. To be adult, means that you have an objectivity about you. I believe i am being objective in my opinions. I believe i am open minded to everything.
Whilst the SOMETHING remains in place. The chatroom has no alternative but to be, in some form or another, an expression of division of something.
And if i'm talking pish, in your opinion, which is fine, then the arguments and the divisions will only intensify. If anybody understands the points above, then they will also see where the "againsts" are coming from. If you can't understand, it doesn't mean you are wrong, it just means that you can't see it.
The only solution to prevent divison from increasing in its nature, is for us all to listen to one another and agree to disagree. However, the only step for a reconcilliation is to look at the source of the initial division.
With all my love, hugs and kisses
Little
XXX
The divisions are becoming apparent.
Adult conversation over a simple "+", are causing debate which is a circular debate, in that its not getting anywhere. So the division itself is caused.
The introduction of the "+" for whatever reason, or for whatever it means, is causing a division not just within the confines of the chatroom. You can read the beginnings of the division, you can see, the dividing lines becoming apparent in there nature.
What for?
Who wins?
Even if, there was a full scale solid argument published on this forum on behalf of the "+", the "+" has achieved, by its nature, the division it was evidently never meant to make.
There is no question in my mind, that the "+" being introduced for whatever reason, for whatever validation is, by the very fact of its introduction a division of some sort.
Go back to the ethos of this site.
Tolleration.
Of who? what? why? What is the purpose of the ethos?
Respect.
Of who? what? why? What is the purpose of the ethos?
The "+" signifies SOMETHING. The significance of the something, is in itself almost irrelevant. As adults, we will find, and make use of all of our abilites to find holes, split hairs etc. We will make a point of attaching significance to things which we identify as being true and real.
SOMETHING is therefor flawed. "Something" is going against what some individuals feel to be the ethos of the group.
Just becuase i may not claim to understand it, doesn't mean that i am wrong/ right. Just because those who are "for" the system, don't understand why others are "against" the system, DOES NOT mean that the argument against is wrong. It means that all our interpretations of SOMETHING is different.
This post is neither for or against any argument, i have made my views and opinions known elsewhere in this thread.
The essence of my argument is the SOMETHING. Quite simple in its nature. Quite relevant to me. Just because you may read this, and not understand it, does not mean, that i am wrong, neither does it mean, that you are right. It simply means that we don't understand one another.
If we can agree that we understand, that we each have differences, then we are moving forward. The circle is no longer a circle, but instead, takes on a bigger persona. It could even become spherical in nature.
To agree to disagree is an adult thing. To be adult, means that you have an objectivity about you. I believe i am being objective in my opinions. I believe i am open minded to everything.
Whilst the SOMETHING remains in place. The chatroom has no alternative but to be, in some form or another, an expression of division of something.
And if i'm talking pish, in your opinion, which is fine, then the arguments and the divisions will only intensify. If anybody understands the points above, then they will also see where the "againsts" are coming from. If you can't understand, it doesn't mean you are wrong, it just means that you can't see it.
The only solution to prevent divison from increasing in its nature, is for us all to listen to one another and agree to disagree. However, the only step for a reconcilliation is to look at the source of the initial division.
With all my love, hugs and kisses
Little
XXX
Orgasminator
just a quicky always is from us hehehehe
We have a + and yes its nice but i dont think it will make much diference, but 1 thing it has done is its given you all somthing to chat about.
We couldn't care less about the + thingy whether we had one or not - we like to make our own minds up about somebody we chat to, we may have been very lucky but all the peeps weve chatted to and met have been genuine and very lovely too. One thing we have noticed is when regulars from the forum go into the chatroom it seems to be "us" and "them" and vica versa, we go into chatroom the most and any peeps who say HI to us we always acknowledge, but it dosent always happen in the forum in return.
Both can be very cliquey - and this is not fair to anyone
:yinyang: (black and white = 2 halfs of the same thing)
heheheheWe have a + and yes its nice but i dont think it will make much diference, but 1 thing it has done is its given you all somthing to chat about.
We couldn't care less about the + thingy whether we had one or not - we like to make our own minds up about somebody we chat to, we may have been very lucky but all the peeps weve chatted to and met have been genuine and very lovely too. One thing we have noticed is when regulars from the forum go into the chatroom it seems to be "us" and "them" and vica versa, we go into chatroom the most and any peeps who say HI to us we always acknowledge, but it dosent always happen in the forum in return.
Both can be very cliquey - and this is not fair to anyone
:yinyang: (black and white = 2 halfs of the same thing)
Quote by dambuster
So the problems we had, have now increased.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Little
XXX
Sorry to edit you little.
I think your post has just put something into perspective for me. Thank you.
Apologies for being in a shallow frame of mind today. I just wanna shag.
Edit away Dambuster.
A shag. Thats all i want too hon. :twisted:
Lots of love, hugs and kisses
Little
XXX
well it's been implied that i somehow have a personal crusade, am engaged in an "all about me" thing, and that i am arrogant enough to try and speak for site users? and that somehow every single idea put forward in 800+ comments was somehow wrong because of that. and that cos i was putting forward complaints that others have made here, then somehow all the points others have raised here should be dismissed cos i can be dismissed like that.
the whole point of this, is that verification is purely an op tool. it was voted in by ops and admin can only be an op so can noone see why that looks wrong? and i'm not saying that is the intention, but +V will have applications once it's in place.
the application of +V, even if it's not used, is to police the room in some way, cos those with a + won't want to lose it, and those without it will want to have it, and so it is in effect a way to control the room members. it's not about saying who's genuine at all, cos if it was, the systems would look very different. it is that there is an element of compulsion here that we object to it on priciple.
the purpose of of it still hasn't been explained, and it's at the expense of others who will lose out. others will lose something from the site that we take for granted. they will find it harder to click with what will be a clique.
it took some daft stunts from me and push after push, but we still haven't seen how this helps anyone? and some people are relly disturbed by it, as can be seen by the mass of comments made by others than myself.
we're saying it'son trial to see if it's successful. well since people are saying they don't like the idea, but better have it and sign up cos we have it, can you not see how that in itself has an element of compulsion to it, let alone that it was brought in solely by ops? and obviously it will be claimed to be successful cos people sign up even against their better judgement if they object to it on priciple but accept it in practicality.
it's been admitted the vote wasn't unanimous, so some ops clearly weren't in favour, and some ops no doubt had their objections overcome and they went for it? all we're asking, and i dunno why it's taken this much, is what are the benefits then that so outweigh problem after problem?
chatroom users have already proved why it's wrong, cos the've proved it does make a difference to the room, and made that obvious here..
why did it take some that amount of pushing, and some daft stunts, that i know full well has put me in a bad light to get a simple explanation of where we're going with this? what is the problem that this provides any kind of solution to, and yet splits the site?
neil x x x ;)
the whole point of this, is that verification is purely an op tool. it was voted in by ops and admin can only be an op so can noone see why that looks wrong? and i'm not saying that is the intention, but +V will have applications once it's in place.
the application of +V, even if it's not used, is to police the room in some way, cos those with a + won't want to lose it, and those without it will want to have it, and so it is in effect a way to control the room members. it's not about saying who's genuine at all, cos if it was, the systems would look very different. it is that there is an element of compulsion here that we object to it on priciple.
the purpose of of it still hasn't been explained, and it's at the expense of others who will lose out. others will lose something from the site that we take for granted. they will find it harder to click with what will be a clique.
it took some daft stunts from me and push after push, but we still haven't seen how this helps anyone? and some people are relly disturbed by it, as can be seen by the mass of comments made by others than myself.
we're saying it'son trial to see if it's successful. well since people are saying they don't like the idea, but better have it and sign up cos we have it, can you not see how that in itself has an element of compulsion to it, let alone that it was brought in solely by ops? and obviously it will be claimed to be successful cos people sign up even against their better judgement if they object to it on priciple but accept it in practicality.
it's been admitted the vote wasn't unanimous, so some ops clearly weren't in favour, and some ops no doubt had their objections overcome and they went for it? all we're asking, and i dunno why it's taken this much, is what are the benefits then that so outweigh problem after problem?
chatroom users have already proved why it's wrong, cos the've proved it does make a difference to the room, and made that obvious here..
why did it take some that amount of pushing, and some daft stunts, that i know full well has put me in a bad light to get a simple explanation of where we're going with this? what is the problem that this provides any kind of solution to, and yet splits the site?
neil x x x ;)
Quote by Angel Chat
I did used to use the chatroom on a fairly regular basis but would now feel uncomfortable going in there, because a) I've voiced an opinion against the + scheme and b) it could be assumed that I'm not actually a genuine member of the swinging community because I've chosen not to play at the moment. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that I don't want to play right now doesn't stop me from being genuine.
You really have no need to feel this way Angel Chat.
I have not only voiced my opinions on the system, I have also requested that my + be removed, which it was immediately. Being an op's wife, I did think both Jon and I would be in for some flack, but this has not been the case. We are treated no differently, with or without the + against our names.
I know I am a genuine member of the swinging community and having the + against my name informing the world at large of such, was to me in bad taste. I do not feel the need to inform ANYONE of my sexual habits.
Anyone in the room who knows me, also knows I am genuine. I'm sure they don't think me less genuine just becasue I choose not to retain a symbol beside my nick
If however the + had other more relaxed meanings - regular room user, known regular SH member or others along these lines, I would have retained the +. As it stands I choose not to.
I'm sure you won't get anyone treating you differently. Do pop in sometime and see for yourself
Tracy-Jayne
Because of the choice of others I do not swing .
Does that make me less genuine than others ??
I have been in the chat room nearly every day since I arrived on the site.
Attended every NW Munch.
I am told by most I am liked and respected in the Chat Room .
So why am I classed as being not genuine ? and not verifiable ?
The reason is = because no one will shag me.
Fred(aka medic1) VERY GENUINE but not verifiable = makes me wonder where the brains of the site are. Sod the preview it goes as is
Does that make me less genuine than others ??
I have been in the chat room nearly every day since I arrived on the site.
Attended every NW Munch.
I am told by most I am liked and respected in the Chat Room .
So why am I classed as being not genuine ? and not verifiable ?
The reason is = because no one will shag me.
Fred(aka medic1) VERY GENUINE but not verifiable = makes me wonder where the brains of the site are. Sod the preview it goes as is
i just wanna comment on the suggestion that flooding the room was done out of petulance, or arrogance . . . and on a few more recent comments.
it's been said that this is a chatroom issue, so there's no point going round the houses on forum. and forum members really have no place to make comment on it anyway.
it's been said it's up to chatroom users to decide on this themselves.
it's been said we need to talk to ops or to admin.
it's been said it's working cos people are signing up. it would appear to be a success.
it's been established by comments on this thread, that discussion of this in chat is out. it get's stamped on. i have the odd pm of chat logs from other users that show that too. we also know many room users never even look at the forums. i didn't for many months as a chat user. lots of other chat users never look here either. they won't see this discussion at all unless they are aware of it and interested.
if ops are gonna impose something, that has an element of compulsion to it, and then ask people to accept it and sign up, then surely room users need to know what they are being asked to sign up to. if there can be no debate in chat on this, then they aren't getting a free and open debate on exactly what +V might mean. it's already been said some newbies don't even know what the + is, so it is not helpful if they don't know what it is that is supposedly there to help them. i think it's been established by god knows how many members that haven't "flounced" and yet share exactly the same concerns, and argue exactly the same points, that there are some pretty big holes in this, on all kinds of levels, bringing in all kinds of issues.
there are any number of ops and ex ops on SH. some used to op SH, some have opped elsewhere. some have seen from both sides what +V can do, and what it might do, as far as splitting the room goes. it's been said already by those that this has had a negative effect at times as they have seen it elsewhere. they speak out of genuine concern on genuine issues here.
i freely admit that flooding the room was a stunt, but it was not done to flame, or show off, or show anyone up. i freely admit i was a touch angered by the non-progress of this debate despite questions raised in 900+ posts, cos this is of real concern to lots of us, who have made their anger quite clear on this thread. ban evasion means i will never now be unbanned. but at least for a few seconds everyone logged into SH was presented with at least one side of the discussion. it also meant for a few seconds that this was presented in chat as a free and open exchange of views.
i know exactly how it will be seen by many, and that means i'll be seen in a certain light because of it. we've established that on this thread since. i got a response back here fairly quickly that we have been asking for for the last 40+ pages. it shouldn't have been necessary to mount a stunt to achieve that.
neil x x x ;)
it's been said that this is a chatroom issue, so there's no point going round the houses on forum. and forum members really have no place to make comment on it anyway.
it's been said it's up to chatroom users to decide on this themselves.
it's been said we need to talk to ops or to admin.
it's been said it's working cos people are signing up. it would appear to be a success.
it's been established by comments on this thread, that discussion of this in chat is out. it get's stamped on. i have the odd pm of chat logs from other users that show that too. we also know many room users never even look at the forums. i didn't for many months as a chat user. lots of other chat users never look here either. they won't see this discussion at all unless they are aware of it and interested.
if ops are gonna impose something, that has an element of compulsion to it, and then ask people to accept it and sign up, then surely room users need to know what they are being asked to sign up to. if there can be no debate in chat on this, then they aren't getting a free and open debate on exactly what +V might mean. it's already been said some newbies don't even know what the + is, so it is not helpful if they don't know what it is that is supposedly there to help them. i think it's been established by god knows how many members that haven't "flounced" and yet share exactly the same concerns, and argue exactly the same points, that there are some pretty big holes in this, on all kinds of levels, bringing in all kinds of issues.
there are any number of ops and ex ops on SH. some used to op SH, some have opped elsewhere. some have seen from both sides what +V can do, and what it might do, as far as splitting the room goes. it's been said already by those that this has had a negative effect at times as they have seen it elsewhere. they speak out of genuine concern on genuine issues here.
i freely admit that flooding the room was a stunt, but it was not done to flame, or show off, or show anyone up. i freely admit i was a touch angered by the non-progress of this debate despite questions raised in 900+ posts, cos this is of real concern to lots of us, who have made their anger quite clear on this thread. ban evasion means i will never now be unbanned. but at least for a few seconds everyone logged into SH was presented with at least one side of the discussion. it also meant for a few seconds that this was presented in chat as a free and open exchange of views.
i know exactly how it will be seen by many, and that means i'll be seen in a certain light because of it. we've established that on this thread since. i got a response back here fairly quickly that we have been asking for for the last 40+ pages. it shouldn't have been necessary to mount a stunt to achieve that.
neil x x x ;)
little 
thanks for encapsulating the entire thread into one post.
i'm still playing catch up on this thread, but . . .
why do we object so strongly to +V . . .
+V denotes difference. it can only denote difference, no matter what the grounds or criteria or whatever else. you either have it, or you don't. the fact you either have it or you don't can only signify difference, no matter what the basis of the assertion that somehow *this* group of users, is different to *that* group of users.
even if the +V serves no purpose, and actually denotes nothing whatsoever, at least in that regard it serves to distinguish 2 camps of SH members!
whether you add +V cos someone has red hair, blue eyes, or has shagged someone with +V, makes no difference. well actually it does make a difference cos for whatever reason a difference is being made, and that designation is made for us!.
SH is founded on the belief that difference is to be celebrated. no matter who or what you choose to be, or what you choose to do, we celebrate your right to choose, and your difference! we also celebrate your right to be treated equally, and to claim equality on your own terms, in your own right, by your own efforts!
we do not need to give you that difference! you have it already in your own right, on your own terms. you define your self at every stage. it may be that at some point it becomes clear that you aren't what you say you are, but that is entirely up to you. we do not seek to establish that till you give us personal grounds to say *you* aren't what *you* said you were.
+V gives others that right, and that right is assumed for you, to assign you that difference. i.e. someone somewhere is quite able to say that *you* are not *that*
well i deny you the right absolutely to say that i am anything other than what i say i am, or what i choose to be at any point! i don't need it, i don't want it, i absolutely refuse in the strongest possible terms to allow you that, no matter what the basis of that assumption!
+V allows others to define you! you are not allowed to object to the right of others to assume the right to define you. they have the right to define you and that is all. you no longer have that right, but we will not discuss that with you.
if you cannot claim +V from another +V, you are defined as being different to someone who can claim it. please allow us who know best to do that for you! we will suffer no argument! we do not have to explain ourselves! but we can say *you* are not *that* at our discretion!
neil x x x ;)
thanks for encapsulating the entire thread into one post.
i'm still playing catch up on this thread, but . . . why do we object so strongly to +V . . .
+V denotes difference. it can only denote difference, no matter what the grounds or criteria or whatever else. you either have it, or you don't. the fact you either have it or you don't can only signify difference, no matter what the basis of the assertion that somehow *this* group of users, is different to *that* group of users.
even if the +V serves no purpose, and actually denotes nothing whatsoever, at least in that regard it serves to distinguish 2 camps of SH members!
whether you add +V cos someone has red hair, blue eyes, or has shagged someone with +V, makes no difference. well actually it does make a difference cos for whatever reason a difference is being made, and that designation is made for us!.
SH is founded on the belief that difference is to be celebrated. no matter who or what you choose to be, or what you choose to do, we celebrate your right to choose, and your difference! we also celebrate your right to be treated equally, and to claim equality on your own terms, in your own right, by your own efforts!
we do not need to give you that difference! you have it already in your own right, on your own terms. you define your self at every stage. it may be that at some point it becomes clear that you aren't what you say you are, but that is entirely up to you. we do not seek to establish that till you give us personal grounds to say *you* aren't what *you* said you were.
+V gives others that right, and that right is assumed for you, to assign you that difference. i.e. someone somewhere is quite able to say that *you* are not *that*
well i deny you the right absolutely to say that i am anything other than what i say i am, or what i choose to be at any point! i don't need it, i don't want it, i absolutely refuse in the strongest possible terms to allow you that, no matter what the basis of that assumption!
+V allows others to define you! you are not allowed to object to the right of others to assume the right to define you. they have the right to define you and that is all. you no longer have that right, but we will not discuss that with you.
if you cannot claim +V from another +V, you are defined as being different to someone who can claim it. please allow us who know best to do that for you! we will suffer no argument! we do not have to explain ourselves! but we can say *you* are not *that* at our discretion!
neil x x x ;)
Quote by Ian_Mids
Venus it did't get 'nasty' as the chatroom admins wouldn't even debate it initially, our good Mark did, but no one in the first 4 pages (skimmed through) has been from the chatroom ops. When we started getting replies, they were along the lines of Us and Them.
FYI
Steveg_NW, Jon_TJ and myself are chat room ops, and we DID post within the first four pages.
Ian
I must apologise to the ops for skimming the first few pages trying to type a quick response to venus as I was going out. I withdraw the comment, especially as it could be read that I feel the ops are to blame for the bad feeling, this is not the case, specific individuals became personal in the last few pages. I apologise to the ops for inferring they were involved.
My case and reason for following this thread so closely is one of identity, I thought I had found myself in SH, as a voyeur, and social animal. Now I find I do not meet someone else's definition of a genuine swinger, and that hurts. So while the system revolves around some poorly defined act of casual sex, I will oppose it, as will many others. As others in the last few posts have said, make this a 'Genuine person' mark, nothing to do with our sexual preferences and you will have a lot more support including mine.
Sex God
Quote by Fred
Because of the choice of others I do not swing .
Does that make me less genuine than others ??
I have been in the chat room nearly every day since I arrived on the site.
Attended every NW Munch.
I am told by most I am liked and respected in the Chat Room .
So why am I classed as being not genuine ? and not verifiable ?
The reason is = because no one will shag me.
Fred(aka medic1) VERY GENUINE but not verifiable = makes me wonder where the brains of the site are. Sod the preview it goes as is
This is exactly the point made pages and pages ago. What about players who can't get to play?
This thread has now been going almost a week. I take it the admin are sitting tight waiting for the fuss to die down..... trouble is, knowing the people from SH as well as I do, threads might go quiet but if the problem is not resolves it WILL NOT go away!
Firstly........
The use of the + has never been intended as a means to introduce another op tool by the back door. This just simply isn't the case and anyone who thinks otherwise is barking up totally the wrong tree.
Secondly..........
Having witnessed several incidents last night which I think are directly attributable to the attitudes behind this scheme I am now 100% opposed to it. When someone changes the name of this site to then people can give a + to whoever they like and and I'll disappear to play on another website. At the moment though this site is still called www.swingingheaven.co.uk and in my opinion two of our greatest principles are open-mindedness and tolerance. Principles that some people seem to want to throw out of the window but principles that I'm prepared to fight for.
The sooner this trial is brought to an end and I can have my say about recommending the idea to the dustbin the better.
Steve
The use of the + has never been intended as a means to introduce another op tool by the back door. This just simply isn't the case and anyone who thinks otherwise is barking up totally the wrong tree.
Secondly..........
Having witnessed several incidents last night which I think are directly attributable to the attitudes behind this scheme I am now 100% opposed to it. When someone changes the name of this site to then people can give a + to whoever they like and and I'll disappear to play on another website. At the moment though this site is still called www.swingingheaven.co.uk and in my opinion two of our greatest principles are open-mindedness and tolerance. Principles that some people seem to want to throw out of the window but principles that I'm prepared to fight for.
The sooner this trial is brought to an end and I can have my say about recommending the idea to the dustbin the better.
Steve
Sex God
In case I've missed something along the way.
Could someone please tell me:-
1. how long the trial period is? i.e .weeks, months or years
2. When the trial period end? i.e actual date
Could someone please tell me:-
1. how long the trial period is? i.e .weeks, months or years
2. When the trial period end? i.e actual date
Quote by Sarah1448
In case I've missed something along the way.
Could someone please tell me:-
1. how long the trial period is? i.e .weeks, months or years
2. When the trial period end? i.e actual date
These are amongst the questions that I have asked via email (as requested) but am still waiting for an answer to
