Marquis
Jack Dawkins
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2002
- Posts
- 10,462
bg23 said:a tasteless thread?
My point exactly.
So what was your raging hard-on all about?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
bg23 said:a tasteless thread?
Marquis said:My point exactly.
So what was your raging hardon all about?
bg23 said:*shakes head
you can't seriously be asking me that.
you know exactly why i took issue with your thread in the beginning.
Francisco & Catalina 
babiesmiles said:Well done Marquis !
I like people who fight for their ideas when they believe are right !
). drown said:a question?
then an answer....
we seem
to be left with...
a smug
backpedaling
cyberdom.
quite attractive;
though
contradictory
in so many ways...
no power
in this display.
WriterDom said:Proof doesn't hide from the sun.
Equinoxe said:I took no part in this whole incident up until this point, though I observed it; I shall endeavour to make my response brief.
I don't ever post on this board, since I personally have no interest in BDSM (I'm a bit conservative, I prefer my sex be romantic and my political prisoners be in dungeons and not vice versa), but if we take the beginning and end of this controversy, in a general sense, I'm rather pleased. The middle part, the clannish bickering and self-righteous indignation of groups that had no reason for enmity, was not so pleasant (though it was terribly amusing, but we must laugh at man to keep from crying for him), but in the end I think, as Marquis did have permission to use the picture, the correct outcome was served. I'm think it's a good sign that a) people were willing to question it, because I think it is important to sometimes b) that Marquis did make a point of standing up for his right to post it and c) that the issue was settled in favour of responsible free expression.
Regarding the issue of proof of the picture, the question was not really whether the picture was given to him (as the writing of his name clearly identified), but whether or not he had permission to post it on here. It's not an easy issue on the internet, because it's a bit fluid of a medium. However, if Laurel accepts that permission was granted unto Marquis to post the picture, then as I, rather prematurely, said in the thread on the GB: Laurel locuta, causa finita. It's a benevolent autocracy, Literotica, so whilst one has the right to petition, the word of the administration is rather final.
A bit of forewarning though, so long as people on either side continue to regard themselves as inherently distinct from and superior to the other, a contentious relationship will continue to remain. So long as people make this into an issue of sexual preferences, rather than the issue of permission to use a picture that it was, there will be a problem. It was not and never truly has been an issue of BDSM vs. non-BDSM, or the BDSM board vs. a non-BDSM board. So long as people on this board or the GB continue to regard it as such, nothing will have been learned from the entire incident.
And I would have to add that, throughout the whole incident, I think Marquis has reacted very well and handled himself in rather dignified manner; the same cannot be said for other people, even some people I'm rather fond of.
The moral of the story is some combination of "Can't we all just get along?" and "A plague o' both your houses!" Er... "Can't we all plague both your houses?"
Sadly, yes, this is brief for me.
TaintedB said:Why is taking a questionable post down, asking the owners of a forum whether it actually breaks their rules, getting a definitive answer of "no" from them, and then re-publishing post, contradictory, smug, or backpedalling? You try to hide the illogic and emptiness of your conclusions behind the screen of a poetic form, pathetically executed, by the way.
If what you're referring to is Marquis's apology, I understand much better. Every single time somebody sincerely apologizes for something on the GB, twenty or so cynics--who are cynics not because they think the least bit critically minded but because they have this pathetic desire to appear kewl to others--jump in screaming about how fake that apology is, how stupid and henious the individual is, how it's clearly "backpedalling" (one of the most overused words on the GB). BIG YAWN! Empty online cynics with nothing real or factual to back up their cynicism are such bores. But if you want to see them come skittering out of the online woodwork like disease-bearing cockroaches, all you have to do is something honest and sincere and positive, like say "I'm sorry."
Marquis said:The most amusing thing to me is, despite the outcome, I'm the only one who has apologized for anything.

!!for the life of me i dont know why that just reads so damned hotKillishandra said:mahalo a nui loa

Killishandra said:I was trying my best to just casually read on this subject (of Marquis' thread and the controversy that surrounds it, lol) because I feel like I _still_ have the headache from that first night... I have too much going on in the real world, not the least of which is preparing for His visit out here on Sunday, to be stressing myself out by getting involved again in the banter. Oi-yoi-yoi.
But I just wanted to say...
Taint, Catalina, I adore you guys. These are for you ==>![]()
![]()
Also, mahalo a nui loa to everyone else who has stuck up for Him. I know He appreciates it, and I do too. Despite my GB rep in their thread as a repulsive "doormat", I do have my own opinions. Anyway... Thank you.![]()
!!
Hope you have lots of fun come Sunday, enough to make this fade away like a bad memory and better still, a seriously bad comedy.
And as to having your own opinions, that is one of the best features of the many I am beginning to appreciate your possessing. 
catalina_francisco said:. . .as to having your own opinions, that is one of the best features of the many I am beginning to appreciate your possessing.![]()
Catalina![]()
Netzach said:I'm just wondering what the future of ampics and pics in general is going to be when the new 2257 comes down on June 23. Has anyone else given this some thought/reading?
It's going to make "proof" of any kind now look like a cakewalk. I have some sites I am taking down for a bit.