Comment on Forum Rules Here

Ok, I have to review my statement on a potential mandatory 1st report to gain membership.

It is true that if we request new members a full report in order to receive their membership, they may write whatever, which would maybe be not true at all, and therefore it would not help us.

On the fact that we should post picts to be able to see pics ? I do not agree. I do not carry my camera all the time, and many girls do not allow pics. Moreover I do not want my wife to find my digital camera, and see a woman naked on some pics !

Maybe the last solution is to ask 10$ for people who want to see the forum and the pics...

Rene02,

"they may write whatever, which would maybe be not true at all, and therefore it would not help us."

There will always be a senior member who will detect a BS post...

Yes I agree...
well, then I think there is nothing we can do.

Or remove the pictures section, but this would be a shame.

Or another idea. When registring, a member has to state where he lives and in which country / place he is interested. Then he can't browse the reports and pics from his place and the single country / place in which he has interest. Then let's say that after 2 posts and 1 month of active browsing, he can see the whole forum.

The logic of the last post utterly escapes me -- why would you prevent someone from seeing things about their areas of interest and locale, when it's most likely they'd have information to contribute about those areas?

In any event, this is all too complicated. Simply restricting picture viewing to members, and having a process of culling regular members who haven't posted or logged in after X amount of months of membership would save substantial bandwidth and simplify everything.

Joe Zop, I agree with you. I think restricting the viewing of pictures to members only is a good idea. I also like the idea kicking members who have never posted or who haven't posted in X number of months. That would help get rid of all the damn lurkers!

That would save bandwidth for all the truly depraved mongers like us! lol.

I've just about given up on trying to get people to post photos in the photo gallery. I know Jackson has also made a valiant effort several times.

No matter how many reminders get posted that this is a "photos only" section, there is always a hundred newbies that want to impress everyone with their brilliant erudition on this or that inane topic. That prompts someone else to impress us with their opinion, and it goes on and on...

Wouldn't it be great if the program could select for jpg images when people tried to post? No jpg, no post. I know it does this for message size and even banned words. This wouldn't restrict the comments, but it would make the inclusion of a photo the "price of admission" for posting comments to the photo gallery. Oh well, probably just wishful thinking.

Cronin

I would agree with Cronin that the Photo Sections be jpg posting restricted, with minimum descriptions added. Maybe make the "minimum" standards used for senior status upgrade requirements the standard for photo gallery viewing.My two monetary units.

But do not forget that some people have no pics to post...

For example myself, I have made some post on the Saudi board, but trust me there is no way one can take a pic of those women...

Rene,

So if they don't have photos, then why post anything at all on the Photo Gallery? If you/they don't have a photo to put on the gallery, why do people feel they have some burning need to register their opinion. And you can plainly see, its not just their opinions of the photos. Its pages upon pages of arcane nonsense.

Are their family photo albums at home filled with pages of comments about grandma's latest surgery complications or sister's problems interacting with people of different races? No. They're filled with photos...right?

Thank you's can be PM'd. Comments can be PM'd. Discussions can be posted to general discussions. Just possibly there could be another section added for Photo Discussions. But frankly, I for one would never log into it. They are NEVER as interesting as the photos themselves.

Just my arcane opinion.

Cronin

I would suggest relaxing the prohibition of repetitive posting when it comes to something relatively non-temporal. Examples include 'hot' districts, legal issues, local custom or [i]modus operandi[/i] etc.

Most forum users are expected to read back no more than 10 pages without compelling reasons. When time passes, postings scroll down at various rates. If a particular article scrolls beyond a certain point, the author may feel the need to re-post it. The prohibition should be relaxed more if more additions or revisions of the information are made.

You have to make it a complicated enough process to become a "picture viewer" that people can't just post a series of photos or posts some day and wait for it to happen. But simple enough that all the main people who post here (generally defined as senior members) have access.

I think the senior member method as suggested below or even something a little more demanding is the best.

That may have a side effect of making us a slightly more exclusive club in the long run by having a few less regular members (those who don’t really want to post more than once in a LONG time but keep coming here for the pictures) of course those are probably the people costing more than they are worth.

I would like to suggest that the forum rules be changed to reflect the legal age of consent (LAC) in the area of the report. For instance, the LAC in Alabama is 16, but is 18 in Tennessee. If the activity is not illegal, then I believe that people should have a right to post about it. Here is a link to the LAC for different countries and states. I use this like a bible when I travel just in case something is in question. Many countries LAC is as low as 13 for females.

I myself do not participate in sex tours or mess with individuals under the LAC. I believe that this forum should reflect the laws that are enforced in each country.

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

[blue]The existing Forum rules shall remain in effect. There shall be no discussion of any person or persons under the age of 18 on this website.

Jackson[/blue]

Gee Jackson,
I know how you feel about child molestors. Any comments on Mr E's stated personal preferences? I personally find the need to carry such a reference while travelling quite repugnant.

LoveLOS

LoveLos,

Needless to say I totally agree with what you're saying.

The E said: "I believe that this forum should reflect the laws that are enforced in each country."
Does The E mean that illegal activities in general can not be mentioned on these pages?
That would mean a nice little clean up, leaving only the Singapore and The Netherlands sections...

Child abuse is child abuse, the LAC is not meant for grown ups to see how low they can go and definitely not for paid sex with minors, it is meant for people of similar age to get together without too much hassle.

I very much doubt the reasons behind making sites that show 'legal ages of consent'.

my previous post was not meant to offend anyone, nor was it meant to show my "personal preferences". being in my 20's i am probably one of the younger posters on this board. i have been in the hunt since i was 16 years old. i do it for the sheer thrill. i am not a child molester, nor do i have an interest in **** girls. but younger guys may be interested in finding younger girls. i was a member of this board back before it was in this great format and i wanted to find "younger" girls becasue i didn't want to mess with old farts. but at the time i was like 19 or 20 so i was always looking for girls that were around my age. and like i said, the lac in alabama is 16, so i was always looking for girls between 16 to about 20. i love my freedom too much to break any laws conerning the lac. i am positive that almost every guy, at least once in his life has meet a "younger" girl and he should be aware of the lac where he is.

i mean, why turn down perfectly good pussy if it's legal? and i have read many post time and time again where they wanted to and the girl solicited them, but they turned it down because she was 17 and he failed to realize that she was the lac.

and as far as the comment concerning this forum reflecting the laws associated with each country/ state... i was referring to the lac (like you didn't already know that). being caught with a prostitute is one thing... being caught with an **** prostitute is another.

and one last point. i'm not sure if you guys are aware of this, but there are some places in the world where the lac is above 18. 18 is a standard that american's just have stamped onto thier brain, but the truth is that it doesn't apply to many states or to the rest of the world. that's why i made the suggestion. no need to start a flame war about it. this website is all about posting information. i only wanted to add more useful information to the site.

E,
Thank you for clarifying your position. I agree it is one matter to have sex when you were a child also, but I have to think back to my teenage years and reflect the maturity and decision making abilities of my conquests of those days:

My conclusion is that, despite the LAC, a sixteen yr old girl is still a child in a woman's body, and an adult needs to respect how fragile she is at that stage of development. Now that you are an adult, I seriously urge you to consider the effect your actions have. A child will likely be more deeply affected by your actions than would another adult who has the mental and physical maturity to deal with a sexual situation.

Hell, 18 is probably too young also, as you note, but that is where the line is drawn in much of the world, and, significantly, that is where Jackson drew the line for us.

And I thank Jackson for clarifying his position in the matter also...

This does not constitute a flame, just a statement of a strong opinion. [b]Just becaue something is legal, does not make it acceptable, and visa-versa[/b]. Nobody much gives a rats ass about legality on this forum anyway, in case you haven't checked the local laws in most states in the USA, [b]PROSTITUTION is illegal[/b] here; but that is still the topic of the day on this forum!

You also make note that 16 year olds are not in your "personal preferences," unless, of course, they happen to be in Alabama, where they are at top of the list ("perfectly good pussy"). Somehow that just does not make sense to my feeble reasoning.

LoveLOS

LoveLOS

Truthfully... pussy is pussy to me. Whether it's 18 YO pussy or 35 YO pussy.

If I am attracted to the female, she's the LAC, and she let's me fuck her, I most likely will. I am not going to go to jail over pussy and therefore I follow the established laws, whether they be in Alabama or Pakistian.

We can sit here and debate when a female is old enough to make her own decisions about sex. Some may think it's younger, some may think it's older... heck, I have female friends that consider girls under 21 stupid, dumb, and vernable regardless of what the law states. But if you fucked a willing 20 YO does that make you a bad man? It's all a matter of opinion. You say 18 and I say LAC, whatever that may be. But I will again warn you...

The LAC in some places is ABOVE 18. So please don't go on the rest of your life thinking that 18 is the golden number. You may end up behind bars and have to register every time you move into a new neighborhood.

E-ster,
I am very clear on the OVER 18 in some localities issue. Perhaps you would be good enough to catalog and post a warning for the localities in which 18yos are considered jailbait? That would be helpful.

I previously agreed with your assessment that some women are still childish and immature at 21. However, in most places they are still considered a woman, not a child.

I also agree with the statement that pussy is pussy in the 18YO - 35YO catagory.

Where we seem to disagree is in your comments that 13YO to 17YO pussy is also fuckable pussy if she is unfortunate enough to reside in a locale that has lawmakers that are not particularly protective of young girls. My opinion is that she is a child, your opinion is that she is fair game for fucking.

I think I have stated my concerns as well as I can, and I feel I understand your thinking. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree since we have little common ground on our points of contention. Others may be less charitable. Also be aware that Jackson has now made his ruling on your comments and you are advocating a position that is not in agreement with his preferences and forum rules.

Be safe,
LoveLOS

Jackson,

You have clearly stated your opinion on this matter, yet [b]The E[/b] still insists upon discussing sex with girls under the age of 18 -- reference his comments in several posts below:
[i]"If I am attracted to the female, she's the LAC, and she let's me fuck her, I most likely will"[/i]
[i]"why turn down perfectly good pussy if it's legal?"[/i]
[i]"It's all a matter of opinion. You say 18 and I say LAC, whatever that may be."[/i]
[i]"pussy is 'pussy"[/i]

Frankly, I'm shocked that LoveLOS, skinless, Freeler, and others haven't already turned him into smoking cinders, but the flaming is sure to escalate unless this kiddie-fucker is stopped NOW.

Please remove this pervert from the forum.

Thanks,
- Atlanta Monger

I am going to move my comments to the complaints about other members section. The E-hole is at it again, and he must be stopped!

Dear Atlanta Monger,

The E no doubt is a kiddyfucker, but exposing one before didn't help - he did not get banned and is now paying a premium for something special in Bangkok.
We are no fools and we know what he means by that.
These sickfucks will always find a way to convince themselves that they are not sickfucks - but they are.

Freeler: Read TFF to see where Atlanta Monger stood on this issue. He should be monitored closely.

i totally support jackson's stance on this issue - no discussion of children under the age of 18!

some posters seem to have forgotten that it's not just a moral issue or jackson's personal beliefs, it's also a legal issue. if wsg ever starts to discuss **** sex in earnest, then the forum will open itself up to legal scrutiny and possibly be shut down for good. and if wsg is shut down, then we all lose out.

if "the e" wants to go someplace where the lac is lower than 18 (as low as 13 in some countries, if not lower), then he is welcome to do so quietly, on his own time. but i don't need or want to read about it here on wsg.

EHole,
I remember you from the past on this board, probably in the NOVA forum as being particularly obnoxious in your presentation of contrary viewpoints. While I am in support of the basic premise of "freedom of speach", that does not extend to this subject, not because I have some self-appointed young girl guardian delusions, but rather because it brings unwanted and unecessary attention from LE who specifically scan these type boards for illegal activity discussions. By so doing, you are not only in violation of Jackson's rules on this subject, but are more importantly potentially endangering fellow members.
You are very well aware of the majority of the members viewpoint on this sensitive subject so my question for you is "Why bring it up at all?" Is it merely to get a rise out of people so that you get what I perceive to be the attention you crave, but do not get? Well, it's the WRONG kind of attention dude! I have no problem with you having any personal predilictions in the sexual department, just learn to keep your mouth shut when they will cause problems. As you can see by the number of negative posts here alone in this slightly obscure little corner, this is NOT a subject that many are interested in. Drop it!

The E,

With all the distinguished attacks you've been subjected to of late, let me urge you not to rise to the bait.

Also remember the famous phrase:

[i]Illegitimi non carborundum.[/i]

And personally, I think there is a world of difference between 18 year old and 35 year old pussy. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Best to sample both on a regular basis.

-Uncle Otto

[quote]And personally, I think there is a world of difference between 18 year old and 35 year old pussy. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Best to sample both on a regular basis.[/quote]Well spoken, I am pleased that we agree on something - LOL

Have a great day,
LoveLOS

Rev. Skinless,

To save y'all time RTFF, here is my one and only post (dated 2-22-2004) regarding the "under 18" subject prior to The E recently bringing it back to light:

[url]www.wsgforum.com/vforum/showthread.php?s=&postid=179789#post179789
[/url]
[quote]Jackson,

I agree 100% with ChicagoBoy23. I think your previous policy of the topic being completely forbidden in any context is the safest choice for all concerned.

If the WSG forum is truly for "men seeking women...", then there is no real need to ever mention children here.

I advocate the removal of all posts related to the topic, including the dedicated forum thread.

I don't consider this to be an infringement of free speech, just smart moderating - something you do quite well.

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,
Atlanta Monger[/quote]
But thanks for keeping an eye out for me!

- AM

Freeler: As only one example, check out this Letter to the Editor from Atlanta Monger on 18 February. Some of us do RTTF and some of us do fuck legal age only. And we do not want to be associated with AM and others who are in denial of their own (criminal) tendencies. AM is not a serious person. Same same BJ.

nta Monger
Senior Member
Reports: 133
Jackson (editor),

While I fully support your efforts for this fine forum, I think most members (senior and otherwise) have had about enough of the Skinless rant.

Not content to flame away in the special forum you provided, he has now moved his personal battle to other forum threads, including this one. None of his recent posts belong here, as they are NOT 'letters to the editor'.

I understand that Skinless has been a frequent and valuable contributor in the past, but no more - he's merely become a nuisance.

Please act on the behalf of all forum members to reduce the impact of this tirade - perhaps ban him to his own personal rant thread, i.e. Samus Aram?

Thanks,
Atlanta Monger

Gee, so now daring to disagree at any point with the tactics of the great Skinless automatically means one is a closet pedophile, no matter whatever else one posts. What a crock.

Watch yourself, AM.

Skinless,

DAMMIT: You're on vacation.
Go fuck 'Tet', Dah1, Dah2, Dah3 , Dah4, Nik, CC, Toothlady, Som and the rest of 'em!

[b]jackson: please note, yet again, the dismissive attitude zop and the other suspects adopt to having sex with minors. this is the slippery slope. as i have read zop's "work" and as i cannot help but to fall over his posts which pepper the entire site, i stand over my comments. the fact that that lump of shit labels fucking legal age women with under age girls is the very same tactic nambla adopt. but what ese can we explain from a wanker?[/b]

freeler: i now see zop, the most disgusting of all our contributors, has surfaced here. this would be poet, said he was finished with me as if i was one of the **** "women" who stock the blow job bars and who he can dismiss with a small baht bill. the fact is every single one of the assholes who took the traveller road have serious cases to answer. none more so than el sicko himself, the m muse.

am flames away defending advocates of child sex prostitution and like bill clinton, he cannot remember. some of us do rtff - and some of actually cotnribute information.

zop meanwhile, has most recently helped to fuck up the pattaya board with lbj,. the great lawyer and defender of traveller, and a few other geniuses.

zop, stick to your hypocrisy. go write a fucking poem. or, to put it aother way, please jerk off somewhere else. you disgust me more than anyone else here. so please fuck off you bald headed fake.

freeler: no sign of toothlady. you must have spoiled her. also, in nong khai, the deaf and dumb one left the white brothel. avoid her replacement.

skinless, get a life.

my position on the **** issue is crystal clear, and in total alignment with that of jackson's.

in my 'letter to the editor' post, i didn't defend traveler; i expressed an opinion regarding your nonstop and overzealous tactics that were polluting the forum at the time.

although your purpose at the time may have been lofty, your chosen approach was the low road, full of fabrication and lies (very similar to what you're doing again now).

anybody with a brain who can read tff knows that, and your current lies about me won't change anybody's mind.

you see, there is more than one way to skinless a cat. i don't need to be a ranting and lying fool to get my point across.

- am

Jackson, please note again that Skinless cannot understand the difference between disliking with his hyperbolic lynch mob posts and being against sex with minors. He feels one cannot possibly be against sex with minors and still manage to disagree with his disgusting and divisive McCarthy-like smear tactics.

Skinless, I said I was finished with you because you stopped being the reasonable and delightful poster with whom I had many interesting back-and-forth discussions over the last couple of years and decided instead to lash out at anyone who at all disagreed with you in the slightest way. Your last post simply reinforces that fact.

Rev,
I see now why you are pissed at AM, but AM is not defending your antangonist (the T word), nor child prostitution in his comment. On the other hand, he is in complete agreement with you on those matters. I don't see the conflict?

I ask you, as a friend on this forum, to back down on this one.

LoveLOS

in the midst of rows about sex with **** i have noticed that jackson has banned at least 3 users in a row because of their responses to the photos of muslim women. i think the policy of posting photos of muslim women needs serious review.

Brownout,

Jackson has already given the matter of posting Muslim photos serious review, as evidenced by his policy statement below dated 03-13-04:

[url]http://www.wsgforum.com/vforum/showthread.php?s=&postid=189236#post189236[/url]

Personally, I think he sums it up quite well.

- AM

I urge Admin to refine the already-existing policy about posting photos of women in Islamic countries and about treatment of repetitive postings.

[blue]What would you suggest?[/blue]

I know I'm flogging a dead horse here, but I have a wonderful picture that says it all about the filtered word that spelled phonetically would be: Bee Eye Tee Sea eightch.

This was found on an SP's website; http://www.westsidepet.com and is cross-posted with permission. I found it a refreshing example of a sexworker 'reclaiming' a derogatory word to make it something complimentary.

What's "draconian" about asking people to use correct capitalization and puncutation?

I wouldn't go as far to say it's draconian, but it has a certain Niles Crane quality to it. I can see you fliting around the room your face red, because someone forgot to add a period at the end of a sentence. : -)

Just a small suggestion:

Forums are generally full of messages between two members that are really not giving any information on how to find pros or non-pros in the given area. I think those messages should be forbidden as the members can send Private Messages to each other.

Ryck