Children and Munches (93)

From the AUP:

"Flaming" Robust debate is a feature of many adult internet environments. However, you may not use IC to call other users names ("you're a twat!"), or falsely attribute statements to other users, especially when presented as direct quotations.

You just broke it yourself. It's perfectly possible to have a robust debate without being aggressive. I managed it. I'm sure you could too with a little effort,. Some of us might even take your POVs more seriously then.

Aut disce aut discede. Manet sors tertia caedi

In fact Docklands had it's youngest ever attendee who arrived at the munch in sunday best and slept through most of it at the grand old age of about 30 days

Even when she was alive and wanting to chew on a thigh boot stilletto, both her and her Mom stayed in one corner and their friends and every man and woman with any paternal instinct went over to fight for the chance to make goo goo noises at her.

The majority of people at munches are either old enough to have common sense along with children, or young enough to have no common sense and no children.

It seems to be only the nilla ones that have no common sense and children too.

Perhaps I just attend really good munches but whilst we may talk about scene things it's not by shouting them across the room with pictures and if any children ever did attend then I'm certain either their parents could deal with the issue with the munch organisers without all this debate.

If someone chose to attend a munch with a child,in a public rather than private venue, and the child was well behaved then I wouldn't presume to tell the munch oganisers or the parents what they should or shouldn't do with children.

Wayne

Politicians are like nappies
They should both be changed frequently
And for the same reason
(Barry Crier radio 4)

Fair enough - you have me there and if on reading how you have all made accusation after accusation about me, with no evidence at all to back it up, Admin decides to ban me - fair enough, his site and his choice.

The fact that my statement was made by way of proving a point (ie that if I wanted to attack him I would) doesn't excuse it.

See that's something you can't argue with me. I accept when I am wrong. I am human and make mistakes. My thoughts on the man do not change, but I will gladly retract the statement from the thread.

Yes, if having a robust debate without being aggressive is defined as including remarks about how IC is like a kindergarten.

"Nothing saves anyone's life, Sir. It just postpones their death." - Posner , The History Boys.
All it takes for bad English to prevail is for literate people to do nothing.

I think everyone should like everybody ..... Andy Warhol

All this said the meaning of adult to me is, any persons who has reached the age of 18 years, hence the holding of most munches in a public bar/pub or club, which at their inception of said munches the licensing laws did not permit uner 18s into them unless eating a meal, laws are somewhat more relaxed these days. Also to add to this point, to avoid any legal recriminations ie: grooming or corrupting a minor, I was led to believe that munches & such events were to have a lower age limit of 18?

I do have a child myself, well he is 18 now, and would not openly or knowingly discuss my personal activities any where near him or with him, that said if he came asking questions about any activity, I would talk to him openley about that subject but not my own participation or lack of in said subject.

At times I'd like to break you and drive you to your knees At times I'd like to break through and hold you endlessly *Dan Hill*
There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary & those who don't

Heaven forbid that a munch organiser should fail to warn people that children may be present. We are normally talking about pubs so children may well be in the area. Or should it be a standard warning. "Its a vanilla venue so be warned children may be present."

You are the person that started the fighting. You lifted a quote from another thread, that quote did not contain all the facts yet you used it as the basis of your discussion. That is misrepresenting me, my opinion and my beliefs, by presenting one short answer as my entire opinion on a matter.

You didn't come to me for clarification, you didn't give me a chance to explain myself, you didn't try to get the facts.

In effect you portrayed me as someone who would welcome children actually attending a munch where BDSM issues would be discussed.

You smeared me and whatever reputation I might have.

Do you expect my friends to stand by when I'm not even invited to defend myself? Do you expect me to not defend myself.

Obviously you do, because you didn't let me know you were going to base a discussion on something I said. What is worse is that in one point you said.

If you had asked me away from the other thread you would have got the answer that would allow you to realise you did miss something.

Iinstead you state that it stinks on non-consent. You effectively accused me of grooming children. Are you really surprised that I responded? Are you really that unaware of what you said and the implications of it?

I really cannot believe that you are so stupid that you cannot understand why people are pissed off with you.

"We're all living in a freakshow Man, it's called life. Buy a ticket and enjoy the ride." Foamy The Squirrel