The Millennium Project

[Laurel]

The way I see this thing is that Laurel, the boss, has set some guidelines for
proper behavior on HER site. Mostly common sense stuff about treating others like
you would like to be treated. Most of us have real jobs and real bosses where we
have to conform to some standards of behavior, do we not? If XX still wants to
play he has to follow the rules. It's very simple really.

Thank you, deborah. I didn't know how to say that without coming across wrong, but it's the truth. I do my best to be cool... I accept criticism, I utilize reader's ideas where I can because I realize that without readers this board would be lame. Many webmasters delete posts that are negative towards them or their site, or that they don't agree with - I think that's stupid. I tried to frame my request in the form of a suggestion: get permission before you ask to write about someone. I said many authors do this - I didn't say all because I know not everyone did. However, it isn't necessary to ask permission if you're going to use common sense. When Xxplorher wrote something to the effect of "if someone gets offended then too bad, because that's not my intention", I had to respond because it isn't just "too bad".

I get enough grief for publishing celebrity fiction, but I do so because the courts have shown that celebrities are public property in that respect - you can write about them without legal risk. Private people - tht's another ball of wax. Should someone get a big hair up their ass about something someone writes, me and Manu may have to spend time & $$ to defend ourselves in a frivolous lawsuit - whether we win or now, it's still time spent better elsewhere. Sounds silly, but that shit happens. Besides that, the last thing I need to waste my time posting story after story of attack as someone decides to respond to one attack, then someone writes a story to attack the person who attacked second, etc.

And the plain fact is this - this is a privately owned site. Manu and I make rules that we feel are in the best interest of everyone, but they're still our rules. As deborah said, most situations in life are governed by formal or informal rules of some kind which people accept without question. We're not here to be dictators, but we do have an idea of how we like the site run. I appreciate critiques and concerns, but certain policies will stand regardless until someone can show me they aren't good policies, and this has not been shown to me here. Not one person has given me a good reason why they should be allowed to slander someone else in a story on my site. Until they do, the policy stands. If you don't like it, then send me your address and I'll refund your member subscription.

 

[Michael]

"Michael, I must say, although I agree with you much of the time and think I like you, you just took a cheap shot at Eve. You said XX owes Laurel an apology. I totally agree. But I also think you owe Eve an apology. Was I condoning rudeness and should I be ashamed of myself and do I need some starch in my backbone because I didn't jump up and defend Laurel? And she sticks up for me more than Mrhappy sticks up for Viagra, or so XX says."

Deborah, the difference, as I see it, is that no one is in any doubt about your willingness to take a stand, if need be. Eve, on the other hand, not only makes it clear she is copping out, but tries to get OTHERS to do so too. And I have absolutely no respect for such a position.

Laurel is the web mistress, and none of us has any more of a "friendship" with her than what is afforded by internet contact. But the fact is that many of us do like and respect her, and for good reasons. We are also concerned for the integrity of the site, which means, among other things, concern that boorish types will not undertake to publish fiction in which other members appear in a bad light, without their consent, in the name of "free speech." Laurel has upheld this principle.

Now comes a situation in which someone we know and like, and to whom we at least owe some degree of thanks and goodwill, is unreasonably and publicly attacked, called "drunk with power," and all the rest.

What should the reaction be?

In my book, anyone with any decent human instincts would feel like standing up for the one being attacked. I am sure you feel the same.

One person does not feel that way. Not only does she not feel like standing up for her friend, but so far from merely abstaining, publicly ANNOUNCES that she will not do so, and even characterizes the efforts of others to censure the bad behavior as "jumping on a bandwagon of hatred."

That is sheer nonsense. What grounds are adduced in its favor? That "Laurel knows I think she's tops." Very well, then things that are tops are worth speaking up for; if someone will not do so, their approval must be pretty tepid. That "Laurel can take care of herself." So she can, but that begs the question of whether feelings of friendship toward her should, as a corollary, become feelings of outrage toward someone who insults her. If the second doesn't follow, the first must not have been very strong.

"That you can just scroll past a message you don't like." Yes, you can, but an equally pertinent issue is whether, if you continue to turn a blind eye, such objectionable messages are likely to multiply. I could also ignore the occasional hornet that gets into my apartment, on the grounds that we are not personal enemies, but instead, I reach for my can of Black Flag.

"That no one should gang up on the objectionable person." That is perfectly inane. What is the logical result of such an attitude? That only one person at a time is entitled to object, or else it is unfair? Nonsense.

That "I don't have to prove my loyalty to anyone." I would say that someone who says that after urging others to STOP defending the friend creates, themselves, the unavoidable NECESSITY of proving their loyalty, on the part of any fair minded observer.

I agree with you in one regard, Deborah. Even as YOU are not OBLIGATED to speak up here, no one OBLIGED EVE to speak up. She undertook to do so herself.

But when she did so, what did she, in effect, do. She effectively confessed to cravenness, and, moreover, proceeded to PREEN herself on it, a species of folly that I find perfectly nauseating.

I like and respect you too, Deborah, and am sorry, all things being equal, to have to persist in disagreement. But part of being human is to have courage to stand up for your friends--and to be ashamed if you do not have the courage to do so. Even seems to be trying to take her shame and advertise it as though it were some sort of superior VIRTUE on her part. That is absolutely not so.

Yes, I say such cravenness is worse than what XX did. XX is at least honest in his hatred. But such "friendship" as we have been urged to show Laurel here--"just let her take care of herself"--is shameful in its lukewarmness, and frankly, from what little I DO know of you, I refuse to believe you could ever be guilty of it yourself.

 

[Mrhappy]

whoa...Whoa...WHOA!!! "Hold 'em Newt, They're headed for the barn!"
Someone once wrote, "The closest thing to love and sex is hate and anger." (I know I got the quote wrong so don't come back at me with a bunch of...well, you know.) This mudslinging, namecalling, bitchin' and moanin', is starting to sound like a Southern political campaign!
Someone else wrote, "Can't we just all get along?"
Viva la difference!!! and let bygones be bygones??!!!
This is starting to sound more like a Jerry Springer Show than an Erotic Stories site. (Personally, I prefer the latter.) There are plenty of other forums out there where venting of this nature is welcome. I'm sure we all could be channeling our efforts more positively and using our time more effectively.

Laurel...please close this thread; it's cancerous!

Thanks...(mrwannastayhappy)

 

[Endlessly]

I love you all, and I mean this in the nicest, sweetest, kindest and most wonderful way possible..

This is sick. Really, really sick. On both 'sides.' (Christ, SIDES.. I can't tell if I walked into a war zone or my old high school..)

Please, PLEASE Laurel.. Mrhappy is right.. Close this thread. I'm finding myself getting all disillusioned about people I've grown to respect.

 

[Deborah]

Mrhappy and Endlessly, you two better shut up and go back to playing "Oh Daddy." Really, you two are too sweet! BUT ... don't tell me to shut up.

Michael, I do not agree with what you said about Eve. I think you are reading her all wrong. Perceptions, misperceptions.

And Michael, you came on board too late for the real nasty stuff where Helle and I were subject to some of this same sort of rhetoric. This is getting nasty but pales in comparison.

Anyway, I think Eve is cool and what you are saying is all bullshit. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Hey SpellCheck, did you get it about meta-orgasms instead of mega-orgasms? Just wondered. What the fuck? Doesn't anybody want to have any fun anymore?

Hey, if you can't find some humor in all this, GO BACK TO READING THE FUCKING OBITUARIES!!!