Munch Attendees

22 Apr 2007

Quote by Jags
I have to say this ......... and I know some people aint gonna like it but ......................
I assume the SH 4 Tops were honest and said that the editor of the SH Magazine and a friend were going to attend a munch???
Why did they bother?
They should have just sent them under bogus nicks and not been honest ..... then no-one would have been any the wiser and this shite wouldn't have happened!!!

Amazingly enough that's exactly what I've just said in PM though I know it wasn't to you!!
Now that would have been cause for debate and outrage and high moral ground.
The list was full - NWC made the decision, or so i presume, to allow the SHM duo to attend - I do not think that she would have ever considered lying.
To suggest that to deceive is better than to cause a debate of this manner, in my opinion is downright disgraceful !!!
Yes, we all know there are tricksters out there, but we do not expect it from the owners, admin, mods etc nor for it to advocated. :shock:

22 Apr 2007

Quote by blonde

All I am saying is they were honest ........ and were hung drawn and quartered for it!
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm sorry, Sam kiss

I'd like to think that if they are being hung, drawn and quartered - it isn't for being honest.

22 Apr 2007

Quote by blonde

as unknown 'newbies' with new accounts, and with an organiser like NWC who knows what she's doing, they wouldnt have got in the Munch anyway
and i know i'm being pedantic hun, but surely the 'permission' to attend a Munch ultimately rests with the organiser, not Admin (4Tops)

Darkfire
Nicks have been registered here for Years and have never been used ......... they could have picked one of those!
All I am saying is they were honest ........ and were hung drawn and quartered for it!
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
but in theory, even an old name...fabricated name/ length of account/post count/ whatever ...would still be down to the organiser/guestlist organiser to ..."V" :giggle: (:uhoh smile

....and with the 'current and active' clause plus a vouch by someone more regular/known would still mean they wouldnt get on the list (i did say in theory lol

, but its stuff like this that underlines, for me, exactly why we have those rules)
imagine the uproar if Admin/SHMEditor/NWC hadnt been honest, somehow got on the list and all this had come out in the wash after the event :shock: :scared:

22 Apr 2007

I don't what the hoo har is all about....so this person called Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers...if i'm not mistaken the admin team are not swingers either,but they were being openly invited to munches and socials not so long ago when they took over!

22 Apr 2007

Quote by kbuk
Thanks Jags ( and for the Spelling corrections!)
My Post was just a voice of frustration, generally. I honestly grieve when I come back to visit here. What used to be my home, has now become somewhere I no longer really recognise, nor feel comfortable. It's because the whole site appears to be over-regulated, over controlled, rules for anything and everything that a lot of people like myself don't post here these days. I guess I've just used this post as an outlet! I sincerely hope someone up above is paying attention! ( I apologise if it is Off Topic)
kbuk
p.s - yes - this is purely my perception - which, as Polo Lady has already mentioned, Is a funny thing!

Spelling corrections didn't quite work out as I planned. redface

My perception is that people have the same amount of freedom as ever. The trouble is that the site has grown tremendously out of all expectation (and for whatever reason) and some people have no control over their mouths, minds or typing fingers. Opinions of all varieties have always been welcomed here, it's when the opinions are articulated in an abusive or nasty manner where rules are enforced.
I am not going into the reasons why I posted my 'official complaint' post as it would 1) be entirely unfair and 2) only serve to open the original argument again which is entirely inappropriate but it was me at the end of my PERSONAL tether with the situation. As a Mod I could have very easily and without much thought or guilt hit the 'ban' button. I found it unfair that because I didn't I still get jumped on. Can't win!
However, tensions are around because of many other reasons other than that particular problem and it seems that it became a something to hang complaints on.
I do hope that your next experience of the site is more rewarding. You often had very positive contributions to the site and it one of my PERSONAL regrets that you left in the manner you did last year whilst also appreciating and recognising my role in it!
:P

22 Apr 2007

Quote by Juniper_couple
To suggest that to deceive is better than to cause a debate of this manner, in my opinion is downright disgraceful !!!

I think you may need to re-read my post ........ I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort!
I was simply stating that they were honest and said they were going to attend .......... and were hung, drawn and quartered for being honest ...... if they had been trying to deceive they could have used a pre-registered nick and just turned up ....... as long as they didnt bring a camera crew with them ....... no-one would have been any the wiser!!
But you are allowed to think I am being disgraceful ... if it floats your boat!
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

22 Apr 2007

Quote by Juniper_couple
The list was full - NWC made the decision, or so i presume, to allow the SHM duo to attend - I do not think that she would have ever considered lying.
To suggest that to deceive is better than to cause a debate of this manner, in my opinion is downright disgraceful !!!
Yes, we all know there are tricksters out there, but we do not expect it from the owners, admin, mods etc nor for it to advocated. :shock:

WHOAH... no-one said it's BETTER to cause a debate about dishonestly! To suggest that is, in my opinion, downright disgraceful!!!!
Sorry, Dammie, have never had to spell whoa, whoah, woah before!

22 Apr 2007

Quote by Mr-Powers
I don't what the hoo har is all about....so this person called Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers...if i'm not mistaken the admin team are not swingers either,but they were being openly invited to munches and socials not so long ago when they took over!

Which is Where I think the Allegations of Cash cow come into it. The admin were Invited because they held the future of the site in their hands, and of course I think it is fair to say that people were genuinely curious as to who was now in charge ( at the time) The SHM editor thing has become an issue because, from what I can see, generally the whole SHM thing is unwanted, and is just another futile, and I'm afraid to say - desperate, attempt to squeeze a bit more money from us.
Again - Just my perception!

22 Apr 2007

Quote by Mr-Powers
I don't what the hoo har is all about....so this person called Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers...if i'm not mistaken the admin team are not swingers either,but they were being openly invited to munches and socials not so long ago when they took over!

" . . . . Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers"
THAT'S the issue.
They are not "members" - as such. In my opinion.
They are not swingers.
Their interest in Swingers is one from a commercial/journalistic angle.
They don't "just happen to be" part of the SHM. They/She are staff/editor/employees of the now commercial venture which is Swinging Heaven.

22 Apr 2007

Quote by dambuster
" . . . . Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers"
THAT'S the issue.

We dont swing (at the moment) ......... does that mean we shouldnt be there either?
If the answer is "yes" ...... there is gonna be a huge soggy wet patch next to this PC :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

22 Apr 2007

Quote by blonde

" . . . . Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers"
THAT'S the issue.

We dont swing (at the moment) ......... does that mean we shouldnt be there either?
If the answer is "yes" ...... there is gonna be a huge soggy wet patch next to this PC :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Isolate the electrics quickly :shock:

22 Apr 2007

but they are not any part of the swinging community other than being paid to be here, its a job.
they are not members in the true way i think the community views members.
or maybe its the way i view what a member is?
but its not a paid member of staff who is attending a private members munch just so they can observe the actions of swingers
xx femxx

22 Apr 2007

Quote by Mallock2006
Isolate the electrics quickly :shock:

I think I did that the other day when I stuck the knife in the toaster :giggle:
Hi Mallock
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

22 Apr 2007

Quote by blonde
We dont swing (at the moment) ......... does that mean we shouldnt be there either?
If the answer is "yes" ...... there is gonna be a huge soggy wet patch next to this PC :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm glad you raised that Sam.
Although - tbh - you've already answered it yourself.
You two "don't swing (at the moment)"
There are other members (as arrogantly defined by me redface

) that don't swing at all. And those like you that are "taking a break" dunno

- Just the same as I/we did a while ago. That "break" could easily become permanent, short lived, or take a good long while to pass. But your mindset - attitude (tm bluexxx) would hopefully remain.
If you and Steve never fucked anyone else except each other, you would still be very welcome in my home (bathroom sink now fitted) and at any swinging related function I was either organising or attending.
Journos and gawpers are not.

22 Apr 2007

Quote by blonde

To suggest that to deceive is better than to cause a debate of this manner, in my opinion is downright disgraceful !!!

I think you may need to re-read my post ........ I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort!
I was simply stating that they were honest and said they were going to attend .......... and were hung, drawn and quartered for being honest ...... if they had been trying to deceive they could have used a pre-registered nick and just turned up ....... as long as they didnt bring a camera crew with them ....... no-one would have been any the wiser!!
But you are allowed to think I am being disgraceful ... if it floats your boat!
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I did read it several times and that is how it reads to me dunno

Nothing to do with floating my boat blonde - it does distinctly say "they should have" as below.

Quote by Juniper_couple
I have to say this ......... and I know some people aint gonna like it but ......................
I assume the SH 4 Tops were honest and said that the editor of the SH Magazine and a friend were going to attend a munch???
Why did they bother? :dunno:
They should have just sent them under bogus nicks and not been honest ..... then no-one would have been any the wiser and this shite wouldn't have happened!!!

Amazingly enough that's exactly what I've just said in PM though I know it wasn't to you!!
Now that would have been cause for debate and outrage and high moral ground.
The list was full - NWC made the decision, or so i presume, to allow the SHM duo to attend - I do not think that she would have ever considered lying.
To suggest that to deceive is better than to cause a debate of this manner, in my opinion is downright disgraceful !!!
Yes, we all know there are tricksters out there, but we do not expect it from the owners, admin, mods etc nor for it to advocated. :shock:
But if i am reading it wrong, i will stand corrected wink

22 Apr 2007

Quote by dambuster
When is a door not a door ?

Jim Morrison died in 1971
NWC has said that she has been in contact with Annie over this, I have no idea if that has happened since this discussion has started, but I'm sure that as Annie is a member here (regardless of how or why that membership was attained), then in the interests of research, will read or have read this thread?
And bearing that in mind, does that mean a previous comment about us not knowing anything about Annie will now be addressed, i.e. is Annie a swinger who happens to be a journalist, or a journalist here to do a job, and gaining membership is a means to an end?

22 Apr 2007

Quote by dambuster
If you and Steve never fucked anyone else except each other, you would still be very welcome in my home (bathroom sink now fitted) and at any swinging related function I was either organising or attending.

Dammy & HLB
I dont want to stay at your house again until you and Steve have both sorted your OCD teatowel and shopping trolley fetish!!! tbh :giggle:
You have a fitted sink? :shock:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

22 Apr 2007

Quote by essex34m

When is a door not a door ?

Jim Morrison died in 1971
NWC has said that she has been in contact with Annie over this, I have no idea if that has happened since this discussion has started, but I'm sure that as Annie is a member here (regardless of how or why that membership was attained), then in the interests of research, will read or have read this thread?
And bearing that in mind, does that mean a previous comment about us not knowing anything about Annie will now be addressed, i.e. is Annie a swinger who happens to be a journalist, or a journalist here to do a job, and gaining membership is a means to an end?
It would be a shame if it took discussions such as this to get someone to answer questions that were asked of them.....
They could have so easily be answered a long time ago sad

22 Apr 2007

essex i think this question was asked in a thread on another forum here.
i watched for a while but im sure although asking plenty about "us" when anyone asked anything in return nothing was forthcomming. which is fine but works both ways.
xxx fem xx

22 Apr 2007

Quote by Jags

The list was full - NWC made the decision, or so i presume, to allow the SHM duo to attend - I do not think that she would have ever considered lying.
To suggest that to deceive is better than to cause a debate of this manner, in my opinion is downright disgraceful !!!
Yes, we all know there are tricksters out there, but we do not expect it from the owners, admin, mods etc nor for it to advocated. :shock:

WHOAH... no-one said it's BETTER to cause a debate about dishonestly! To suggest that is, in my opinion, downright disgraceful!!!!
Sorry, Dammie, have never had to spell whoa, whoah, woah before!
I never suggested it - blonde said "they should have" ;

Quote by blonde
They should have just sent them under bogus nicks and not been honest ..... then no-one would have been any the wiser and this shite wouldn't have happened!!!

but maybe i read it wrong dunno

22 Apr 2007

Quote by Juniper_couple
But if i am reading it wrong, i will stand corrected

Can I pretend that I didnt write that??? :giggle:
I know I did write it ......... but I didnt mean I wanted them to be dishonest ......... I meant....... I can understand why being honest isnt always the best way to be on here ..........
Damned if you do and Damned if you dont ........ I just think sometimes the 4 Tops & Mods just cant win ... and I actually dont think they are out to get us ....... but maybe I aint as paranoid as I should be? :giggle:
Right ........... where do you want me to stand for my slap?
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

22 Apr 2007

Quote by blonde
Right ........... where do you want me to stand for my slap?
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You have to go to the naughty step :giggle:

22 Apr 2007

Quote by dambuster
I don't what the hoo har is all about....so this person called Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers...if i'm not mistaken the admin team are not swingers either,but they were being openly invited to munches and socials not so long ago when they took over!

" . . . . Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers"
THAT'S the issue.
They are not "members" - as such. In my opinion.
They are not swingers.
Their interest in Swingers is one from a commercial/journalistic angle.
They don't "just happen to be" part of the SHM. They/She are staff/editor/employees of the now commercial venture which is Swinging Heaven.
perhaps if they were there...maybe they would have reported the event in a positive way...something that never seems to happen in the tabloids!

22 Apr 2007

Quote by blonde

But if i am reading it wrong, i will stand corrected

Can I pretend that I didnt write that??? :giggle:
I know I did write it ......... but I didnt mean I wanted them to be dishonest ......... I meant....... I can understand why being honest isnt always the best way to be on here ..........
Damned if you do and Damned if you dont ........ I just think sometimes the 4 Tops & Mods just cant win ... and I actually dont think they are out to get us ....... but maybe I aint as paranoid as I should be? :giggle:
Right ........... where do you want me to stand for my slap?
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gawd hun :kiss: Ok ur blonde im a wanna be blonde so i think we are equal :giggle:
I dont want to slap you - im just after a jag slap lol

22 Apr 2007

Quote by HornyLittleBlonde
Right ........... where do you want me to stand for my slap?
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You have to go to the naughty step :giggle:
Are you going to spank me too??? :rascal:
Sorry if my typig id a bit joggy ///////// but I am running to the naughtuy step! :kiss:
Sma xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

22 Apr 2007

So . . . . . .
To recap - from my point of view.
And to clarify my questioning.
Are the staff and employees of Symbios - with regard to this website - members ?
The obvious technical answer is YES. Because they have accounts here. Whether they paid for the account, or the account was opened for them by 4T/Admin is irrelevant.
WHY they have accounts is, to me, relevant. What they do with those accounts is relevant.
By gaining an account, do they then become eligible to things that are only, or should be, available to "non-commercial" members. You and I.
Such as eligibility to attend Munches.
If they talk to me and I ask them if they'd like to fuck me - their actual "Yes" or "No" answer is pretty much irrelevant. There attitude to the question being asked is relevant.

22 Apr 2007

Quote by Mr-Powers
I don't what the hoo har is all about....so this person called Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers...if i'm not mistaken the admin team are not swingers either,but they were being openly invited to munches and socials not so long ago when they took over!

" . . . . Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers"
THAT'S the issue.
They are not "members" - as such. In my opinion.
They are not swingers.
Their interest in Swingers is one from a commercial/journalistic angle.
They don't "just happen to be" part of the SHM. They/She are staff/editor/employees of the now commercial venture which is Swinging Heaven.
perhaps if they were there...maybe they would have reported the event in a positive way...something that never seems to happen in the tabloids!
In that case, why cant Annie set up a SHM meeting munch/social - where people can choose to go to meet her if they so wish. wink

22 Apr 2007

Quote by kbuk
I don't what the hoo har is all about....so this person called Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers...if i'm not mistaken the admin team are not swingers either,but they were being openly invited to munches and socials not so long ago when they took over!

Which is Where I think the Allegations of Cash cow come into it. The admin were Invited because they held the future of the site in their hands, and of course I think it is fair to say that people were genuinely curious as to who was now in charge ( at the time) The SHM editor thing has become an issue because, from what I can see, generally the whole SHM thing is unwanted, and is just another futile, and I'm afraid to say - desperate, attempt to squeeze a bit more money from us.
Again - Just my perception!
but i'm not having any money squeezed from me and neither are you....and if they want to produce a magazine...so what...no one is telling you to buy it

22 Apr 2007

Quote by Juniper_couple
I don't what the hoo har is all about....so this person called Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers...if i'm not mistaken the admin team are not swingers either,but they were being openly invited to munches and socials not so long ago when they took over!

" . . . . Annie was coming along to one of the munches....and they just happended to be part of the SHM....and they are non-swingers"
THAT'S the issue.
They are not "members" - as such. In my opinion.
They are not swingers.
Their interest in Swingers is one from a commercial/journalistic angle.
They don't "just happen to be" part of the SHM. They/She are staff/editor/employees of the now commercial venture which is Swinging Heaven.
perhaps if they were there...maybe they would have reported the event in a positive way...something that never seems to happen in the tabloids!
In that case, why cant Annie set up a SHM meeting munch/social - where people can choose to go to meet her if they so wish. wink

this munch was sooner to do that i guess and the fact it was being organised by respected Mod...people would have given the benefit that she had made the right choice!

22 Apr 2007

Quote by Mr-Powers
perhaps if they were there...maybe they would have reported the event in a positive way...something that never seems to happen in the tabloids!

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that would have been the case.
Anything other than that would be similar to The Conservative party commissioning MORI to run an opinion poll with a bias toward showing the virtues of The National Front.
rolleyes