Shane has suddenly disappeared: listing is gone, web site non functional, e mail not operating. A few days ago, someone posted asking about her. She had been around and popular a few years ago and reappeared thinner and sounding more mature a little while ago. She is, I believe, a certified accountant.
When something like this happens, there is always concern that something unpleasant may have happened. I have lost track of some favorites and later been happy to find they have married and settled happily down, but this is always worrisome until there is news.
If anyone has news, let us know.
Check your mail...I am fine~ Just hiding low.
I explained everything to you in an email on here.
Its all good! NO need to be worried.
Thanks~
Sorry to hear you are haveing a problem with the ex.
Good to know you are OK other wise.
Thank You
XLIII = 4
few of us have heard from Shane, she is fine.
More Shane drama. I was just happy she went away and was off of this board, now she is back with an undercover secret, blah blah blah, give me a fucking break. I thnk last week she had started like 3 threads on the same page. Skanks laugh at her. Go the fuck away for good.
had gotten him/herself in a bad situation (hurt? forced out of town abruptly? etc.) so I was relieved that she is well.
Yes doc. glad to know she is OK.
Also I think these two, enoughalready and vincent-vega should be the first to be outted under the new policy.
Thank You
XLIII = 4
... the below is that to which I think you refer:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=16802&boardID=33&page=
Will be interesting to see how this is enforced, not just here but on many of the boards.
The particular section at the above link - with particular note to the last few lines below - is excerpted :
Guidelines for Posting Messages on TER Discussion Boards
IMPORTANT:
While it is anticipated that vigorous debate of ideas and opinions may occur within a forum, it is expected that civility in discourse will be maintained.
Criticizing ideas and opinions is a normal process of debate and each person should expect to have ideas challenged.However,
Personal attacks such as denigration of another person’s character or value have no place in such discussions
Posting personal information of other members/providers, including their emails and Private messages on public boards is ground for BANISHMENT from TER.
Posting mean and rude comments ,or links to other providers' reviews/site under a provider's AD is prohibited
.
**** WARNING ****
*****Posting rude and mean comments while hiding under an ALIAS, will be reported to the moderator and the post will be modified to EXPOSE your USERNAME. Aliases are not to be abused for such purposes*****
-- Modified on 11/12/2008 6:40:18 PM
The following is also part of the policy that you reference, and has actually been in place for a very long time prior to the policy update.
"Discussion of delisted providers/agencies is not allowed (except for rip-offs, ROBs, etc.)"
It doesn't matter why the provider is delisted for discussion of her not to be allowed. Therefore, this whole thread is in violation. So, if you want one part of the policy enforced, you should, in all fairness, ask for all of it to be and support the taking down of the thread.
If you think about it, the lady arguably had a very good reason to have her profile taken down, and it seems, from the responses she has made, to be one of safety and exposure. So, threads like this, although well intentioned, may actually be inadvertently harmful to her. Just something to ponder.
First, at the time of the first question of her disappearance it was not known that she was delisted as Shane.
Second she may have been delisted as Shane but has posted under another handle explaining she is UTR for a while but is still available through TER , therefore she may not be listed as Shane she has not totally gone. So I would not consider it being delisted, just changing user name.
Third she apparently has no problem being mentioned on the board or she would have said so, therefore, there must not be any danger to her, and being mentioned is not of any harm.
So there is nothing wrong with this thread nor is it in violation of the rules.
Well nothing wrong with the thread except the two alias posts who are rude, nasty and insulting to the lady.
Thank you
XLIII = 4
BTW why the alias on your part ....what do you have to hide ?
-- Modified on 11/12/2008 9:52:32 PM
and, as stated prior, the delisting can be for a variety of reasons, including at the provider's request. As you know, when a provider changes her name, it is ADDED (not shouting, but emphasizing) to the profile - she is not given a brand new one.
Therefore, when the previous thread went up, everyone should have known that she was delisted for whatever reason, good or bad. Same holds with this thread.
As far as her having no problem being mentioned on the board, there are two things to consider. First, your own reply to her new name referenced "problems with your ex" which indicates that she is trying to remain hidden. Her posts on this thread are so cryptic that they do not counter that indication.
Second, and more applicable to this discussion, she doesn't have a choice. That choice belongs to TER. The policy states that a delisted provider cannot be discussed on the boards.
Let's be clear, I really don't care whether she is discussed or not. My first post was, as the alias suggests (which is why I used it), pointing out that if some members want the policies to be enforced, they shouldn't pick and choose which part of the them are just because they have a problem with aliases. Although the two alias posts were crude and not something I support, they were expressions of opinion relevant to the topic. This board is moderated very well by Fuzzy, and I believe we should leave it up to him.
she dies, we are not allowed to express sympathy?
when someone dies, but if the profile is pulled subsequent to the death, it might very well be for a good reason such as trying to protect the provider's privacy from family and friends who didn't know she provided.
I don't know of any recent provider's who fit the situation, but there were two recent hobbyists who recently passed that can be considered. The Chicago hobbyist was universally celebrated, remembered and discussed on the different boards without the issue of privacy. In fact, the people who knew him best obviously considered it a non-issue. The New York hobbyist, on the other hand, was initially celebrated, remembered, and discussed on the boards until the hobbyist closest to him on a personal level asked that he not be discussed any more for privacy reasons. So, even though those of us in the community very much wanted to express our sorrow and actively remember him, we should not in order to preserve his privacy.
Other than the obvious business related purpose for prohibiting the discussion of delisted providers (and I'm not too sure, but I think banned members), there are these other, more serious reasons for doing so for those providers who have chosen to be delisted. Since there is no possible way to control and evaluate each provider on a case by case basis within the confines of an internet discussion board, there is a need for this kind of clear cut policy.
I guess the bottom line would be that the policy is the what it is, and is applied by the Moderators. I, for one, am more than content to let Fuzzy apply the rules as he sees fit.
-- Modified on 11/13/2008 2:16:54 PM
Someone so erudite should post using the TER-birth handle; not for my benefit because I know who this is, but for the benefit of the rest of the board.
My reply referencing a problem with her ex had to d with a comment the lady made in a previous thread in which she stated a problem and in fact said what the problem is.
Since you either cannot or have no interest in getting your facts right, and are posting under an alias I see no benefit in continuing further discussion.
So go ahead and put you inaccurate and dishonest spin on it and have the last word.
XLIII = 4
He shouldn't have called her less than a Skank but for the most part he had a valid point. I will go on the record and say it seems Shane posts to see her name on the board and she seems to drag out the drama as well. I would support a Shane-less board. Just my $0.02
R2T
I only posted the fact that she is fine after getting her specific permission by PM. I would never risk someone's need for anonymity unless I was sure she was OK with it. I should have made that clear in my post to avoid folks' laudable concern for her safety.
-- Modified on 11/13/2008 4:16:00 AM