So, as Will in the previous comments section suggests, from here on out, barring a post concerning him (which I'm NOT inclined to write), the mentioning of "Robert Wagner," "Robert," "RW," "BioBoi" and any other recognizable nickname or moniker referring to him will put your post on the fast track to deletion.
2) It's abundantly clear to me that the vast majority of readers here are mightily sick and tired of hearing, as Luzerne County District Attorney Melnick so succinctly put it, "False Accusations Against Robert Wagner, Grant Roy, and Sean Lockhart." These false accusations have been disproven over and over and over again. Even the Kocis family now tacitly admits this, as evidenced by the previous post.
It's time to move on.
Update: Off topic (which I'd say is a good thing), but someone needs to tell Jason Sechrest that his third most favorite website in the whole wide world, listed on his newly redesigned home page, is sorta dead, and has been that way for months. He'd probably be interested to know that, as it is so high on his list.
Update 2: LOL! of the week -
And The Sword chimes in too...Update 3: Brent grabs the Grabbys -
Update 4: A rising star - "...Another of my faves who isn’t from a military background is Brent Corrigan, who is one of the nicest guys in the world and a true pro in all his films."
Update 5: So, how would you unwind the weekend before a big trial somewhere? If you're Brent Corrigan, you help out a friend on a book tour!
43 comments:
But what are we going to talk about now?
>>>crickets<<<
But seriously folks, I would just like to say that I do think people should feel free to say whatever they want, EVEN regarding the new Unmentionable One, as long it has some relevance. I am always interested in anything anyone has to say if it sheds some light on this case or related matters. I wasn't trying to stifle the free flow of discussion in these threads in any way. It's just when it crosses the line into personal vendettas that I think it becomes pointless.
I'd also like to mention that I think something has gotten very short shrift, and that is the really excellent job you did in those "anniversary" posts, Jim, walking us down memory lane. For somebody like me it was very informative and enlightening to see all of the various threads woven together like that in a succinct but comprehensive way, and you should be congratulated on the excellent job you did in those posts.
Thanks Will.
Yes, if something is both relevant and NEW to the topics above, by all means, they'll be discussed here.
Very appropriate post title unfortunately. While it is the prerogative of every Blogger to set the terms and conditions in which people may comment,,,
I have no interest in a Blog that will only accept one point of view allow only one deranged voice to be heard.
It is time to move on (from here and thanks for all your hard work Jim)
Have fun guys!
DeWayne In San Diego said...
Very appropriate post title unfortunately. While it is the prerogative of every Blogger to set the terms and conditions in which people may comment,,,
I have no interest in a Blog that will only accept one point of view allow only one deranged voice to be heard.
It is time to move on (from here and thanks for all your hard work Jim)
Have fun guys!
----
But I am not sure you got it right, not sure the deranged voice is going to be alowed to continue anymore.
While I am distrubed that a certain poster has been alowed to contine for two years here posting insulting and personal atacks on Sean and Grant, it might finally end.
I don't know how it went on for so long (they'd have bounced me right outta here had it been me), but I think we are heading into the more interesting few weeks/months of the whole ordeal. And if that person has been blocked, then this is not the time to bolt, not just yet.
Ok!
PS why was BB allowed to continue for years?
"PS why was BB allowed to continue for years?"
Because before Grant begun posting until very recently, technically, BB hadn't been personally attacking "a fellow poster."
http://silenceofthechinchillas.blogspot.com/2007/10/rules.html
Jim~
I have never written on this blog before but I am an avid reader. I have always felt that you handled the different personalities and agendas with integrity and grace, given each poster the chance to share their thoughts and opinions even if they haven't coincided with your own; which is highly commendable.
I Guess that is why your new post has stumped me so. Any mention of Sean/Brent or Grant and BB or any of his monikers will be deleted from further comments. If you look over your posts Brent/Sean or Grant don't come to your blog spewing vacuity, what they do is comment on the topic at hand, within the confines of the rules you so clearly stated.
BB......well, not so much. Even his most innocuous posts have a way of accusing Sean/Brent or Grant as having blood on their hands. It is a continual bombardment on their integrity. morals and their person. How many times has BB called Sean/Grant a whore? How many times has he lied about Sean's true age? Oh,let's not forgot when someone final gives him proof that he was underage, well, what do you expect is from a whore?
There is no winning with BB.
If his behavior isn't repugnant enough how in the name of decency does anyone think it is OK that BB cherry picked bits and pieces of Dewayne's own rape which he shared with other Gay men in the hopes of helping them deal with the aftermath. But no, the esteemed BB has used it to hurt to make DeWayne's ungodly experience into something to degrade him with and laugh about. Who does that?
BB/RW comes to these blogs for one reason to spread discourse amongst people who get along for the most part here. People who come to discuss issues and the topic's at hand. Even in events when people get angry the conversation stays on topic. You add BB in all hell breaks loose, he attacks people personally without provocation and it ALWAYS starts with the subtly propaganda even Himmler and Heydreich would be imprerressed with. Then with out fail he attacks. Not the topic but DeWayne, Rob, Albert, Sean and Grant.
I ask you, what should they do in those instances? They try to blow him off and that just incetes him. We have all seen this,more times that ANY of us should have. As a silent observer/follower I have watched this play out many times and as much as I respect you I must ask why not take steps to rid the person who is behind the discourse, why let BB stay when he IS the problem?
Does he honestly add ANYTHING to this blog besides hate and discourse? Has he ever carried on a meaningful discussion about any post with out reverting back to "the blood on the hands" rhetoric? I'm welling too bet the answer is NO! But in case one should forget lets look at the TYPICAl writings of BB:
http://amurderisannounced.blogspot.com/
Now let's look at Brent/Sean and Grant'......even with them holding true by maintaining silence about certain issues, they have added to the conversation as have Dewayne and Albert. The last two especially, think about this blog and what they have added to it. Now think about one thing you have NEVER gotten from BB.........both Dewayne and Albert have apologized for words written and Booth have been man enough to won up to mistakes and pubically air them for all to see. How many have you gotten like that from BB?
Please Jim, think about a few of these things before you make any final decisions. I think losing albert, DeWayne, Grant and Sean /Brent from this blog would be very said. As much as I love reading your blog I can't in good conscience continue reading it without the integrety and insight DeWayne etal bring to the discussion while BB is able to stay and spew his propaganda and smear campaign. In case you need a refresher of how DeWayne conducts himself look here: http://dewayneinsd.blogspot.com/ and http://purplerantsandviews.blogspot.com/
Only one of the three uses hate for EVERY POST. How anyone can see BB as a victim is beyond me........
CC
What fun is there in a blog in which commenters may not pick a scapegoat and drive it into the wilderness?
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. It's not my intent to stop mention of "of Sean/Brent or Grant and BB" just this guy named Robert Wagner.
Every post I do, RW immediately comes up, thread gets immediately derailed, and subject of the post gets lost. And it's been getting really annoying as of late, as Will noted.
I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to ask if someone has nothing to do with a post, you not needlessly bring his name into EVERY discussion.
As to BB, well what can I say. He is what he is. You may have have noticed that I tend not agree with him much. But that being said, as long as he refrains from personally attacking fellow posters here, well, he seems to be the leading online proponent of his particular POV (indeed, practically the only one), and as such interesting in a sort of academic way. Kind of like a business school putting The Communist Manifesto on it's assigned reading list.
With the more or less recent arrival of Grant as a poster here, however, BB will have to cease personal attacks against him. We'll see how that goes.
jim said... As to BB, well what can I say. He is what he is. You may have have noticed that I tend not agree with him much. But that being said, as long as he refrains from personally attacking fellow posters here, well, he seems to be the leading online proponent of his particular POV (indeed, practically the only one), and as such interesting in a sort of academic way. Kind of like a business school putting The Communist Manifesto on it's assigned reading list.
With the more or less recent arrival of Grant as a poster here, however, BB will have to cease personal attacks against him. We'll see how that goes.
I missed your point here Jim, you HAVE the power to stop it dead in it's tracks, everyone is sick of it, yet you still find it "interesting in a sort of academic way".
It is either end-game for this kind of character assignation, or it is not. There is no academic way here.
Let us know soon please.
The fascination is that RW has a story to tell if only he would tell the truth. Waterboard him.
"It is either end-game for this kind of character assignation, or it is not. There is no academic way here.
Let us know soon please."
You may be right; there may well be no way for BB to communicate here w/o character assassination vs "fellow posters" now. We'll see.
Oh and one more thing, weather Grant, or anyone else posts here does not make an attack personal more or less personal. A personal attack is a personal attack regardless if the person responds or is signed on, or has ever posted.
In the abstract, thats true; but as I wrote the original rule, it wasn't.
Ther original rule was designed with an eye to towards promoting civility between discussants. And thats it. Hence it's narrower focus.
Kind of like a business school putting The Communist Manifesto on it's assigned reading list.
As a (retired) business school professor who has read, I think it's a good idea to have my students read and discuss The Communist Manifesto.
If I have attacked anyone on this blog, it has ALWAYS been in response to their attack or threat.
Look at Jims previous post to this one, read the first comments, there is the proof many scream for.
As far as the RW names I am often called on here without provocation, I really have no clue why it is done. Many know for a FACT I am not RW or connected to him in any way. Anytime I say that on this blog, they scream louder with more crazy RW name calling.
As for Dewayne... he made a very loud and clear threat to me. I do not take kindly to threats on my life. I did some research to find out exactly what kind of person I was doing this. I shared what I found. What I found was in the public domain, in his own words, unaltered.
"With the more or less recent arrival of Grant as a poster here, however, BB will have to cease personal attacks against him. We'll see how that goes."
BB really has nothing to say if he can't attack Grant or Sean. So I don't think we'll be seeing much of him here now (although now I see he just posted). But I just wanted to add that his "hit list" doesn't stop there, as we all know. IMO the same rule has to apply to the stink-bombs he throws at DeWayne, Albert and Rob. And if that rule is enforced, I have a feeling RW's name will never come up, at least not so incessantly. His name is invoked mainly as a way to retaliate against BB, as far as I can tell, not to add anything really pertinent to the discussion.
But as I said on DeWayne's, there is no reason that anybody's "point of view" should be a problem here. There should be a way to debate BB without tagging him as RW every time. If BB chooses to remain anonymous, as I do and many others do, i really don't see why that can't be respected. No matter who people think he really is.
Jim~
I must apologize I mistook your comments. The thing is that even though people here can disagree on the topics and have differing opinions, that is all it is. We aren't disparaging anyone no matter how intense the topic is.
This can and should be expected. However, when one brings up rape to hurt DeWayne or someone brings up Brent Corrigan doing porn underage and then lopping on he got pimped out.....well, where is the conversation in that? No, that is just malicious and spiteful, meant to humiliate or demean someone. OTOH, I was molested at the age of 9. I never had someone laugh at me about it happening. But BB seems to think differently. Having been a rape advocate eons ago I can tell you unequivocally someone laughing about sexual abuse is humiliating, especially to someone who has lived it! I suppose I could be the adult and look a way when BB torments people but that just seems to encourage him besides why in the hell should I or any of us hide from BB's hate filled tirades. How long should we turn the other cheek to his personal insults before we may something back to him, to be able to defend ourselves verbally? As for the RW fight I propose we'll call him BB or RWIASAHT......
Thank you for your well written and objective blog Jim.
CC
CC
This seems a little heavy handed as the menace is the one being looked out for here.
I will always be respectful of a blog owner and his wishes for his blog.
I understand not wanting bullying, name calling etc. and I personally do not condone it-
There is an exception to that rule IMO and that is when someone is allowed FREELY to SAY anything that he pleases-
in a -
beyond disgusting and inhuman way-
that seemed to go on with no "issues" from blog owners.
Now it is a problem that people are talking about "him"
I do not understand that-
why the problem now?
That creton should have been unearthed a long, long time ago- IMO
but blog owners chose "right to say anthing one pleases" - I guess.
I DO know that I do not have to understand everything as it is not my blog.
Last time I will speak of it.
Oh,
btw,-
If my previous comment makes it to the "fast track to the delete file"
Big deal.
"No, that is just malicious and spiteful, meant to humiliate or demean someone."
Yeah. Tells a lot more about BB when he does this, than it does about DeW or Sean, IMO.
Jim~
That was the point I was trying to convey. Thank you for clarifying it
CC
"jim said...
"No, that is just malicious and spiteful, meant to humiliate or demean someone."
Yeah. Tells a lot more about BB when he does this, than it does about DeW or Sean, IMO."
What does it tell you about Rob and Dewayne when they go on about RW lacing drinks and raping underage teen boys with no shred of evidence?
Not once have I laughed at Dewaynes assault.
Face it, if it was the other way around you'd all applaud and us it as an excuse for something.
Dewayne revealed Sean was pimped out. I repeated it. Everyone said it was a lie. I argued back it was the truth.
Sean then confirmed he was an escort.
Rob was the instigator in that on this blog. Nobody complained, they just agreed with the lie Rob told. Jim, you know that to be true.
You told everyone to stop the name calling, we all did for a while. Then Rob and Dewayne started breaking that rule. When they did, I did NOT resort to name calling here. Again, you know that to be true.
Now they are giving you shit, you do not deserve it, you did nothing to deserve it.
Hopefully they (probably) will put what you say into context.
I think we would all prefer a sociable, polite, respectuful and well reasoned maybe even humorous gentleman in a nice suit to be our personal head chopper.
With huge bulging oiled muscles. Thick throbbing veins covering his well tanned torso and that clearly defined bulge pulsating in his otherwise loose white sweat pants.
Signed,
Fred
V.J. said... "the menace is the one being looked out for here.
There is an exception to that rule IMO and that is when someone is allowed FREELY to SAY anything that he pleases - in a -
beyond disgusting and inhuman way-
that seemed to go on with no "issues" from blog owners.
why the problem now?
That creton should have been unearthed a long, long time ago- IMO
----
I agree my friend V.J.
There might be something behind the scenes we are not aware of.
The other forums I belong to do not tolerate this kind of thing for very long at all.
"There might be something behind the scenes we are not aware of."
That's my impression too.
When a principal with first person knowledge and involvement like Grant Roy offers elsewhere that his comments are being blocked from posting, I take notice.
Many threads, the main posts here and elsewhere, have been focused around one topic and it is the commentators who have moved the discussions elsewhere. That is the free flow of ideas.
Little of substance is to be had from BB. He has been asked repeatedly to explain his statements. He has not.
CC's remark is exactly right. Many people who could have stopped Hitler with rhetoric chose to remain silent and many people, great and small, died as a result of not throwing the spotlight on the Leader.
I am always suspicious of anyone promoting the free flow of ideas and then surreptitiously censoring. I do not refer to Jim.
A particular blogger is supposedly interested in all aspects of this murder case. Yet, that blogger has said he will not hear from two principals because he feels they have lied. I do not make this statement lightly. He so stated not just to me but to another as well. The same blogger introduced a witness who was patently hostile to other state's witnesses. Not only that but attempted to back the contradictions, inflammatory statements, and fabrications. Amazingly, others decided, finally, that was the case as well.
But then I am doubtful when a blogger implies a copyright for material copyrighted by another publication. That can't be done.
The majority here believe in the free flow of ideas. That is how free speech in America works. It is not a platform for hate speech without basis in facts. Facts, not hateful opinion. If the blogger the center of discussion here actually answers questions without degenerating into a routinized spew of personal attack it would be different.
Go back and read Grant Roy's comment in the immediately preceding thread. He clearly states "civil litigation and criminal prosecution." I would like to know more about that. Not that a certain blogger roof hops for a hobby and that stated publicly in MySpace.
Bottom line. Dewayne knew the dead man and his business practices and much of that through the dead man's own words in communications to him. That makes Dewayne valuable and even more so since he knows Sean and Grant personally.
Grant, and by extension, Sean know of the dead man and his associates through first hand experience. When they feel compelled to write here, I want to read their remarks in their entirety when either man chooses to comment. For example, a certain blogger had spin for an account mentioned in the RS article regarding the July 4th, 2004 NYC trip. Sean commented in detail about what really transpired and that is what I am talking about. That kind of exchange moves us down the block in understanding, not the umpteenth chorus of "they have blood on their hands" without elaboration, just spew.
I side with Dewayne and Grant in this matter.
roflmfao!!!
I assume you just read Update 2... :-)
OMG -- I think Geoff was right! BB IS BRENT!
http://www.dumparump.com/view.php?id=Wph6kOw
"I assume you just read Update 2... :-)"
and 3 :)
Disgusting, but funny, bb.
So much for the prediction of a failed adult entertainment career. Co-hosting the Grabby's. Seems that Sean Lockhart is a hot commodity.
Which leads to the question "Where's ___________?
Congratulations Sean on the grabby thing, well done.
Treat yourself to a nice cocktail and think of it from me.
Again, well done!
That was nice of you bb. Thank you.
You know, I've narrowed my choice of Grabby co-host with Brent from the ten listed, down to two: Erik Rhodes, or Jason Ridge.
But between those two...gee, I can't decide. Both would be so good up there with Brent. For example, picture these on-stage exchanges:
1) Brent: "OK Erik, here's the envelope. I'll hold the list. The envelope is better for you, it doesn't have as many lines in it.
After I say "And the nominees are..." and read off the list, you say "And the winner is..." and then open and read the line in the envelope.
If you need help with your lines, Erik, please let me know!
2) Brent: "Jason, feel free to use my celebrity to come up with witty things to say tonight. The audience IS listening!"
"That was nice of you bb. Thank you."
I am myself when not under attack :)
OK I just have to add my 2 cents to the whole "cum-dumpster" "controversy."
I think people who have a serious problem with this, just don't read The Sword often enough. Coming from anyone else, yeah, I can see how it might be seen as offensive, but from the Sword...it's actually a term of endearment.
Honestly, I think they'd plop this label indiscriminately on any porn star it would fit...including Brent Everett.
That's just the Sword for ya, they excel at this kind of roasting. It's their style. So, this is all a big deal out of nothing, IMO.
OK I just have to add my 2 cents to the whole "cum-dumpster" "controversy."
what controversy?
Exactly. But over on Just One Hot Minute, it seems to be.
Sounds like Mike Donner has a lot positive to say about Dink Flamingo and those with him.
Post a Comment