#41
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OOT rules clarification
[ QUOTE ]
2+2 as an internet dating site [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] I want my membership fee refunded. I came here for masturbation advice and such. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OOT rules clarification
Probably your worst post ever. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OOT rules clarification
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] jason_t is mine. [/ QUOTE ] Bi[/i]tch, please. [/ QUOTE ] Both you shut up, He is mine!!! Someday we will be a happily married christian couple. [/ QUOTE ] Mrs. Utah is still a whore. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OOT rules clarification
what is OOT good for if we cannot mindlessly speculate about other posters while showing pics of naked women?
Posts like this should only be locked or deleted - and only as a result of the interested parties objecting to the thread. Otherwise, who gives a fcuk?? This is an interenet message board where anonimity is found in a user name. Is a mod secretly dating a "normal" user and they don't want any showing of inprorpiety or favortism?? I just don't get it sometimes. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OOT rules clarification
nolan,
To clarify my previous response to you. I'm simply saying the following two statements are imo very different: "I heard Dominic hooked up w/ Traci Lords - any comment!?" and "I heard Steve Thompson (JA Sucker) hooked up with this undergrad chem student Kim Wong (Stanford, junior) - any comment!?" Of course, these things are largely a judgement call and depending on who/what you know, your perspective re: their appropriateness is likely to be different. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OOT rules clarification
[ QUOTE ]
I was banned yesterday for asking a question about whether or not two members of this forum were dating. [/ QUOTE ] El D, No, no you're not PITTM. bwana |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OOT rules clarification
[ QUOTE ]
"...that it's perfectly reasonable for people who use 2+2 as an internet dating site and then hook up publicly while drunk at Magoo-fest to expect some modicum of privacy afterward. Shame on you and the rest of the rumor mongers!" [/ QUOTE ] This was my initial problem with removing the original post. There is credance to the arguement that any relationship that there may be is A) already within the public domain when it comes to 2+2 and OOT and B) that it is in the public domain as a direct result of the parties involved, either through actions or telling other 2+2ers. I think if anyone were to look at it reasonably they would have to come to the conclusion that the parties are not entitled to a blanket privacy policy when it comes to their relationship because of this. This would be similar IMO to something that may occur if TT were to date Jessica Beil or Gonores and his personal assistant. Now you could argue that they posted the information and the couple in question did not but I would counter that the vegas trip was advertised as a 2+2 and OOT get together and that its reasonable to expect any results of said trip to make its way to 2+2 and OOT. This of course is the forum where we all communicate regularly. Now obviously this only goes so far and posts that are blatantly offensive, vulgar or with an otherwise meanspirited intent concerning any relationship would go to far and should be dealt with. But this was not the case IMO. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OOT rules clarification
All I know is if I ever hook up with Mrs. Utah and she is too embarrassed for it to be public knowledge, I'm gonna be really bummed out.
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OOT rules clarification
[ QUOTE ]
I heard Steve Thompson (JA Sucker) hooked up with this undergrad chem student Kim Wong (Stanford, junior) - any comment!? [/ QUOTE ] I heard they went to Chipotle and drank a bottle of hot sauce. Confirm? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OOT rules clarification
[ QUOTE ]
I'll actually answer this seriously. The difference I think between your post, and some of the other things mentioned, is that the latter items are usually details that the posters in question offer up voluntarily. That's a lot different than speculating about someone or posting personal info that they wouldn't want to be public. I'd bet for example that you wouldn't want J.A. Sucker or Boris to create a thread with your company name, or your picture, right? I'm sure there's funny ways they could work that info in, but there's an expected level of privacy that people should be able to expect. IMO. [/ QUOTE ] wow are these two things not even close to comparable I agree with [censored] |
|
|