RE: REMINDER

RE: REMINDER (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 4:38:11 AM)
I am right on time, I think. STET. Ron

Brosco -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 4:42:56 AM)
smiles.... it must be wonderful to know ya perfect and always right:)

mnottertail -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 4:46:07 AM)
LOLOLOLOL, It is a great comfort to me, Brosco. Ron and a great tagline, BTW.

Brosco -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 5:05:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail LOLOLOLOL, It is a great comfort to me, Brosco. Ron and a great tagline, BTW. TY... and i'm sure it is. all the best Brosco

ShiftedJewel -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 5:11:48 AM)
*(fast reply)* It isn't that we cannot talk about our nestlings, we do it all the time. We (as a group) actually talk about a few things that are on the edge of taboo quite often. The big deal are of course... the words. There are words that government agencies have tagged, not necessarily the proper words either, they use slang as well. Anyway, those words that are tagged show up in a search of the internet, your cell phone.. whatever... and big brother looks it over to see if it appears to be a threat of some sort, or, you know, something that should be looked into. Depending on the context in which the word is used they then have the option of "looking in to it"... and that, boys and girls, brings unwanted attention to this site. Collarme is doing a wonderful job of flying just under the radar in a time when "adult" sites are having some pretty serious issues, or should I say, the world in general is having some pretty serious issues with these kinds of sites. Thus the use of "unmentionables", "short people" and in my case... nestlings along with other "code" words for some iffy subjects just helps keep the wolves at bay. *Jewel*

IrishMist -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 5:12:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brosco So, I ask again, why did a thread about saying 'no children' get pulled into this category? Pay attention now. [&:] You said the "C" word, which is taboo. On the other hand, I often talk about my UNMENTIONABLE here with no problems at all [:)]

IronBear -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 5:23:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist quote: ORIGINAL: Brosco So, I ask again, why did a thread about saying 'no children' get pulled into this category? Pay attention now. [&:] You said the "C" word, which is taboo. On the other hand, I often talk about my UNMENTIONABLE here with no problems at all [:)] But that is because you are such a sweetheart lass.......

Brosco -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 5:25:53 AM)
uuuummmmmmmm so lets see... a discussion about a profile that mentions that 'no children' is a requirement is unmentionable? sorry, i just don't get it. A profile that states 'no children' ... and not as a kink... but purely as 'baggage' is not allowed? A discussion about whether potential partners should state acceptance or not of having children is against a TOS. More to the point, one that states openly that children with a potential partner rules them out is against TOS WOW - I musta really lost the plot here

TxBadMan -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 5:28:40 AM)
edited

IrishMist -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 5:34:34 AM)
quote: But that is because you are such a sweetheart lass....... LOL it's very kind of you to say so Master Ironbear [:)] Fortunatly, we both know that to be an untruth [8D] quote: uuuummmmmmmm so lets see... a discussion about a profile that mentions that 'no children' is a requirement is unmentionable? sorry, i just don't get it. A profile that states 'no children' ... and not as a kink... but purely as 'baggage' is not allowed? A discussion about whether potential partners should state acceptance or not of having children is against a TOS. More to the point, one that states openly that children with a potential partner rules them out is against TOS WOW - I musta really lost the plot here /sigh If you start a post about unmentionables, and use the "C" word instead anywhere in it, it will get pulled. Certain WORDS are against the TOS. Very simple.

Wolfspet -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 5:40:37 AM)
I am a mod on another bdsm site. How we handle it is mentioning children in passing is OK, but they cannot be the content/focus of the posting. If the thread had to do with wanting someone who has no children, that makes children the target and content of the post, which is a taboo subject. I know there are quite a few yahoo groups that discuss parenting issues within the "lifestyle".

feastie -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 6:30:25 AM)
The C word is a flag. It hits in a webcrawl, which will mean possible investigations into the site. Avoiding trouble for the site is the purpose for the ban.

Wulfchyld -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 6:32:16 AM)
Eyes feastie suspiciously Agent Smith?

feastie -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 6:46:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wulfchyld Eyes feastie suspiciously Agent Smith? Smiles enigmatically and winks

windchymes -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 7:21:15 AM)
We're assuming that Big Brother won't ever catch on that we use the word "unmentionables" to mean a taboo subject. Do you think Big Brother can't create an id and browse the boards here? Hell, maybe they already take part and someone we all know and love is one of "them"? How do you know they haven't already flagged the word "unmentionable"? So then what? Create a new code word once a week that means "unmentionable"? I think the mods here do a bang-up job in keeping the boards clean and legal. There is no way to keep Big Brother from doing spot checks whenever they want to, whether we actually send up a flag to attract attention, or just go about our posting business.

Slipstreme -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 7:21:29 AM)
quote: I know there are quite a few yahoo groups that discuss parenting issues within the "lifestyle". Mind posting some you find helpful, if the mods agree, that way any mention of how to keep it quiet come up, people can be referred to these groups? I don't know why I even care about this subject, cause honestly, I don't want any, but I believe the info should be out there for those that need to know.

IronBear -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 7:31:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes We're assuming that Big Brother won't ever catch on that we use the word "unmentionables" to mean a taboo subject. Do you think Big Brother can't create an id and browse the boards here? Hell, maybe they already take part and someone we all know and love is one of "them"? How do you know they haven't already flagged the word "unmentionable"? So then what? Create a new code word once a week that means "unmentionable"? I think the mods here do a bang-up job in keeping the boards clean and legal. There is no way to keep Big Brother from doing spot checks whenever they want to, whether we actually send up a flag to attract attention, or just go about our posting business. Have you seen my comments on another thread and forum when I commented that 99.99% of CM membership consists of CIA and Homeland Security who are checking out the other 00.01% members who are just normal kingsters in case they are playing with Explosive Dildos, Wire Guided Vibrators and But Plugs and the like as well as sending students to learn the latest in torture usable for interrogating the latest suspects held as terrorists...... One source has it that CM is owned by the Whire House and is secretly funded and staffed so they can in turn keep an eye on all covert opperations run by Homeland Security and the CIA. Not sure where the FBI comes into all this but they will have their fingers in somewhere judging by their new appropriation budget for additional condoms....

feastie -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 7:34:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes We're assuming that Big Brother won't ever catch on that we use the word "unmentionables" to mean a taboo subject. Do you think Big Brother can't create an id and browse the boards here? Hell, maybe they already take part and someone we all know and love is one of "them"? How do you know they haven't already flagged the word "unmentionable"? So then what? Create a new code word once a week that means "unmentionable"? I think the mods here do a bang-up job in keeping the boards clean and legal. There is no way to keep Big Brother from doing spot checks whenever they want to, whether we actually send up a flag to attract attention, or just go about our posting business. It's up to Collarme what words they designate as off-limits, regardless of the fact that we could (and probably are) even now infiltrated. The C word is definitely a flag word, unmentionable may be, as would be nestling or any other. However, it is known that the C word is...take what's known, in other words.

kittinSol -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 8:02:00 AM)
The debate is interesting in the context of the collarme.com forum: we still have to hear from the powers that be. (PS: there were a couple of threads started in the middle of the week by the very sick person ModXi mentions in her original post.)

marieToo -> RE: REMINDER (6/25/2006 8:22:31 AM)
For those of you who may not know. There was a thread pulled, only minutes before this "Reminder" was posted. It was a heated discussion. One in which I spoke strongly, thats why I remember this whole situation. The thread spoke of the buying/selling of human beings, and the "breeding" and raising of children as slaves (that was my take on it anyway). Im not contesting the removal of that thread. Im only shedding light on the fact that this reminder was posted to Kedikat's OP (about why people dont say in their profiles that they are parents with dependents) right after they pulled a very heated thread about "breeding" and raising children into the lifestyle. I think Kedikat sort of took the brunt for that, since he was simultaneously posting about the mention in profiles of people having children. Just my take on it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125