Ethics, ITP's, definitions of, & what is acceptable thre

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:04 pm

luncheon meat is the pits.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:08 pm

@ Foss

I'm sure you are right about the artificial insemination aspect...but isn't it typically done by people qualified who know how to do it properly. Your average lad certainly would not be qualified, except maybe those university student ones, but then they are too busy with their studies to do such things.There is NO WAY you could have guarenteed that no harm would have come to the dog because you'd have no control over the skills of the lad performing the uhh extraction. My knowledge of animal breeding techniques is limited, but I do believe that it's done by machine. What you were contemplating was beastiality by having a lad perform a sex act on the dog...for whatever ultimate purpose you led him to believe it was being done.

But it seems silly that the same person who cooked up a dog wanking bait is so up in arms about a song & dance routine. Video/pics of lad jerking off a dog vs. Video of lad & recruits singing songs...c'mon now Foss, I know that had to make you giggle, maybe just a little bit? Laughing

edit to add:

Foss wrote:

slowfreddie wrote:

As to the ITP question, doesn't w**king a dog rather shoot yourself in the foot?

Yeah, but like i said, I contemplated it, but didn't go through with it. For me it was an ethical issue, because I was wondering if it went too far.

WONDERING if it was too far?!?! But you know for certain making a CHOIR SING is definitely going too far. Tres intriguing... Confused

Now I know you're ROTF Foss, you gotta be! We all have to be able to laugh at ourselves sometimes. Embarassed

Use the edit button, Luke. TS

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:14 pm

Quote:

Your average lad certainly would not be qualified, except maybe those university student ones, but then they are too busy with their studies to do such things.

Oh, they get as much practice as anyone, just not on dogs.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:17 pm

LOL

I was refering to the dogs. Laughing

Just cuz they get a lot of practice doesn't mean they're any good at it either. I'm willing to put money that the dog bites them. Laughing

thx TS for editing my post, sorry I was too busy ROTF to think about the edit button. Embarassed

Sure thing. I've asked Rover to make a mod to the PHP coding- whenever a poster is about to make a successive post within the space of a few minutes the edit button will start flashing wildly.

He hasn't gotton back to me on this. TS

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:21 pm

thefife wrote:

@ Foss

I'm sure you are right about the artificial insemination aspect...but isn't it typically done by people qualified who know how to do it properly. Your average lad certainly would not be qualified, except maybe those university student ones, but then they are too busy with their studies to do such things.There is NO WAY you could have guarenteed that no harm would have come to the dog because you'd have no control over the skills of the lad performing the uhh extraction. My knowledge of animal breeding techniques is limited, but I do believe that it's done by machine. What you were contemplating was beastiality by having a lad perform a sex act on the dog...for whatever ultimate purpose you led him to believe it was being done.

But it seems silly that the same person who cooked up a dog wanking bait is so up in arms about a song & dance routine. Video/pics of lad jerking off a dog vs. Video of lad & recruits singing songs...c'mon now Foss, I know that had to make you giggle, maybe just a little bit? Laughing

In all honesty, I posted that on a whim as I was writing up a plan at work. Thought i'd chuck it out there, which in hindsight wasn't great. There are plenty of other evil things I've thought of suggesting which I haven't done either, but such is life. I can pretty much guarantee that the dog wouldn't have been harmed because that would have never eventuated, after I had weighed up the options. Oh, and the removal of semin from a majority of animals is still performed manually. The use of machines scares them, and doesn't get them into the scenaio for optimum results.

Again, the difference is that I considered the outcomes of my actions, prior to the event, and then made the decision that it is wrong. I think that is something that falls well within our social responsibility as baiters.

As for the video, YMCA is always humerous, and I'm not suggesting that it wasn't. Maybe I'm making too much of a song and dance about a song and dance.

EDIT:

Quote:

WONDERING if it was too far?!?! But you know for certain making a CHOIR SING is definitely going too far. Tres intriguing...

Now I know you're ROTF Foss, you gotta be! We all have to be able to laugh at ourselves sometimes.

Believe me, I laugh at myself all the time. Like I said, i contemplate all the angles I can think of. this one had me chuckle at first. In hindsight, not so much. Could be funny, but a wee bit inappropriate which is why it won't be done. At least not by me.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:26 pm

Foss wrote:

Maybe I'm making too much of a song and dance about a song and dance.

I think you're right.

And thanks for enlightening us all about the workings of premium semen extraction. Laughing

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:29 pm

@Foss: You know, as a matter of fact at least ONE another member of the choir is a scammer too. Back when SP started his bait, I received this message from one of my lads:

Quote:

My Beloved,

Hence, you dont want to send the payment information as i instruct you, it is better we forget all about it entirely. I am a good christain and a choir menber of my church here for the past ten years now. So there is nothing you will tell me about church proceedures.

Me and some menbers of my choir will be in America to render a song to President Bush soonest. I will never believe untill the $2000.00 get to my hands here.

I wish you the best of Luck.

And NO, it was NOT the same lad (confirmed this with SP). So, that much about all the poor innocent choir members.

You know, I am quite certain, that the rest of the people of the choir KNOW how the lads "earn" their money, cause usually they don�t make much of a secret out of them being yahoo yahoo boys. And I am pretty sure most of the rest of the choir doesn�t mind about what they do.

And in the end it comes to this: The choir did what they love: make music. So there is no harm done with them recording it on video for SP. No broken legs, no broken arms, no nothing. Just some high hopes destroyed. You know, in german we have the saying: "Wer sich mit Hunden ins Bett legt, wacht mit Fl�hen auf" ("Who sleeps in bed with dogs, wakes up with fleas").

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:33 pm

thefife wrote:

Foss wrote:

Maybe I'm making too much of a song and dance about a song and dance.

I think you're right.

And thanks for enlightening us all about the workings of premium semen extraction. Laughing

You should see what I deleted from what i was just about to submit. It would have raised a few eyebrows. If you really have a desire to know, maybe in the offchance it pops up in a pub quiz question, send me a PM.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:40 pm

^^ Pub quiz question? I was shooting for it being the Final Jeopary question when I'm one of the contestants. Laughing

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:43 pm

@ Breadcrumb.

How many others are though? I personally always get torn between the 'everyone knows that they are scammers and therefore just as bad argument', and the 'they are innocent bystenders in the operation' argument.

Personally I like to consider that people are inherently good, so while you get one other message from a scammer it doesn't mean that the rest of the outfit are.

I have to admit that when I read that someone else believed it I thought that was pretty funny, because SP conned another scammer, but then I also think that if a scammer believes that its right, and they spend their lives manipulating people over the net and should be a bit dubious from the outset, how would the non-scammers in the choir be feeling.

Personally, I don't think i can take the risk that I'm scamming innocents. Would no doubt come up with all sorts of Dick Dastardly plans involving them, but wouldn't follow through with them. Just doesn't sit well with me.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Foss wrote:

Personally, I don't think i can take the risk that I'm scamming innocents. Would no doubt come up with all sorts of Dick Dastardly plans involving them, but wouldn't follow through with them. Just doesn't sit well with me.

Well, I'm pleased as punch that we devoted three pages to your self-absorbed navel-gazing in order to allow you to make this ground-breaking proclamation.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 5:47 pm

In Pacific Grove California it is a $500 fine for molesting butterflies.
banghead

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 7:13 pm

@Foss (Un)fortunatly the only consensus I have ever seen an ethics thread here reach is "If it makes you uncomfortable, don't do it". A little unsatisfying to some as it doesn't resolve the ethics questions some seem to have a big deal with (such as those who don't want to lie when baiting). On the up side it does mean we can all do a little Rolling Eyes

when an ethics thread pops up and be fairly reasonable than the alternative, which is tear strips off each other, instead of the lads.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:50 pm

Tsnerd wrote:

we devoted three pages to your self-absorbed navel-gazing

It's strange, any other type of thread simply disappears as it slides down the list of posts. Not so ethics threads.

Why do people get so worked up about this topic? Some, I think , can be put into the "I think she doth protest too much" category, which is why I would like to see an ethics thread that deals with the issue in abstract rather than 'attacking' or 'defending' a particular bait.

It is a hard one for the ultra-ethical to argue - after all, as has been said, don't we start this off with a lie?

In the end I personally see it as war, where the strike should be precise. Where is the glory in collateral damage by mistake, let alone on purpose (and the best that can be said here is that the choir wandered into the firing line - although no attempt was made to shift the aim)?

Yes I do have friends who have lost money - two of them flew to J'Burg for a spot of laundry that cost them $40,000 - so I could feel more inclined to vengeance. But I've also travelled to a lot of these places and I know that the perception of 'us' that the ITPs have is not going to be enhanced by including them in any bait. No-one likes a criminal except other crims. If I'm one and you take me out, my neighbours will applaud you; include them in the strike and you've just made enemies. Is that the desire Question

And FWIW I have almost always found that the ITPs are a damned sight nicer than I was ever led to believe by the press, governments and popular 'knowledge'. I travelled alone through Iran in '83 not long after the US Embassy siege and at a time when they were at war with Saddam. None of the Western governments (or the USSR) liked them and it was mutual, but I've never met a nicer bunch of ITPs in my life.

It's not just noobs and 'lad huggers' that need to re-evaluate their ethics and their preconceptions - this is an area where, more than any other I've come across, it's all smoke and mirrors and the common currency is lies.

We believe what we believe - some, I feel, believe what they believe because it's convenient.

But playing the man rather than the ball is never going to be clever.

TS, I was genuinely surprised at you.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 10:30 pm

The reason people get so worked up about these is because the people who start these ethics threads generally haven't been around that long. And I don't say that to say that because you haven't been around X months that your opinion doesn't matter. I say it to make the point that if we seem cynical, it is because we have seen these scum time and time again. They would rob you for the $10 you have in your pocket and not think twice.

I do a lot of church baits. Why? So when people say "That's mean" I can tell them that the mugu was on his way to kill/rob/beat a pastor for his money. How can anyone possibly feel sorry for that?

I get a lot of PM's saying that some of the things I do are mean to mugus, as I am sure a lot of others get around here too (YW, SP, BW, Bomb, etc). It is annoying, but I simply reply back that when you stick around for a while, you'll understand why. Typically the people who complain don't stay around long.

Call me Machiavelli, but I think the means are justified by the end- a miserable little mugu.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:46 pm

A Spaghetti Marinara recipe submission.

Quote:

SPAGHETTI WITH ZESTY MARINARA SAUCE

Recipe By :
Serving Size : 8
Categories : Pasta

Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method
-------- ------------ --------------------------------
1 tb Olive oil
2 Large cloves garlic
- crushed
1 Large onion, finely chopped
1 cn No-salt-added tomato paste
- 6-ounce can
2 tb Minced fresh parsley
1 1/4 ts Italian herb seasoning
1/2 ts Dried basil
1/8 ts Salt
Freshly ground black pepper
2 ts Sugar
1/8 ts Hot red pepper flakes
- or to taste
1 c Water
1/4 c Red wine *Lambrusco is excellent
1 Bay leaf
1 cn No-salt-added tomato sauce
- 8-ounce can
1 cn No-salt-added tomatoes
- crushed, with liquid
- 16-ounce can
1/2 c Grated Parmesan cheese
- or to taste

Heat oil in heavy non-aluminium skillet over medium-high heat. Add
garlic and onion and saut� until limp.
Stir in tomato paste, parsley, herbs, salt, black pepper, sugar and
pepper flakes. Cook 3 or 4 minutes, stirring often.
Bring water, wine, bay leaf, tomato sauce, tomatoes and liquid from
tomatoes to a boil. Reduce heat and simmer 1 to 1-1/2 hours. Remove bay
leaf.
Cook spaghetti according to package directions, omitting salt. Drain
and serve with sauce. Sprinkle dish with Parmesan cheese.
NOTE: The sauce freezes well.
Makes 8 servings (2 ounces spaghetti and 1/2 cup sauce per serving).

Serve with garlic bread and a fresh Continental salad.

Drinks: Chianti or Lambrusco. San Pellegrino for those averse to alcohol.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:47 pm

Foss wrote:

Don't have any plans for him to find me a large collection of dogs or anything, just to make him think that I need him to, so that he can go around getting a whole bunch permits and things.

Potentially - and somewhat ironically - involving a third party.

Foss, a lot of what you have said is very valid. SP's bait makes for good reading, but it is something that I could never pull off (much like that poor dog), due to the fact that a) it's not my cuppa, and b) I don't have the skill/time/patience. I am a reasonably straight baiter (and I don't mean bisexual), and am happy to waste the lads' time in that fashion.

Bu there is a lot of conclusion-jumping from both sides as well.

For example, we don't know whether the entire choir is involved in the scam (unlikely, but possible).

If they are NOT involved, they may well have been paid up front (again, unlikely, but possible).

Hell, it may even be the scammer's birthday, and the entire choir has decided to provide their services for free.

My point is that in most cases, the scammer takes it upon himself to involve others in an attempt to line HIS own pocket. You can argue until you are blue in the face about the ethics of a baiter who "sways" a scammer into involving a third party, but ultimately, the scammer is the one who decides whether or not he will involve others.

Mod edit - edited to add an " to the quote tag to make it work - SP

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:48 pm

Great - looks like my coding is dodgy too.... Sad

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:17 am

Quote:

when you stick around for a while, you'll understand why

This is very true, but I wonder if it's because people get desensitised after a while.

@JJ is that cadaverous avatar Iggy Pop?

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:52 am

First off, I thought the Iggy Pop comment was towards my avatar. I was ging to have to hunt you down and issue a beating. But I see JJ did not refer to JoJo.

Yes, you do get somewhat desensatised. When you see dirtbag after dirtbag go to any length to steal, what shall you do? Of course it makes it easier. That isn't a bad thing.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:33 am

Becoming desensitized can work both ways, for instance, becoming desensitized to the weekly (sometimes daily) ethics debates has possibly saved several individuals from a good flaming.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:55 am

^^^^^

BWHAHAHAHAA! I feel like a mugu who has standard scripts. WHen I see an ethics thread I just go to my scripts and cut and paste.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:47 am

I've kind of gotten to the point where if I am not getting people bitching about what I am doing to the lads, I feel like I am not baiting hard enough.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:49 am

And their is the ethics thread starter himself. You should get a signature icon for every time a bait starts an ethics thread. If that isn't a trophy, I don't know what is!

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:51 am

@YW
I catch your drift! Smile

Ethics, ITP's, definitions of, & what is acceptable thre	View next topic View previous topic