chestnut.!!

[momo5768]

marronnier. tous les ans, à la meme epoque, les journaux font les memes sujets, comme les regimes, les vacances... en france, on appelle ça un marronier.
Ici, nous avons aussi le notre.
toujours "monsieur je sais tout"  pour accuser certaines filles d'etre des escorts girls. Bien sur, sans jamais aucunes preuves. je veux bien que la parole soit libre sur ce forum, ou le chat, mais la diffamation releve de la loi..
Alors, apportez des preuves, ou fermez vos gueules.

 

chestnut. Every year, at the same time, the newspapers make the same subjects, such as regimes, holidays ... in France, they call it a marronier.(chesnut)
Here we also have our own.
Always "mister y now all" to accuse some girls of being girl escorts. Of course, without any evidence. I want the speech to be free on this forum, or the chat, but defamation comes under the law.
So bring evidence, or close your mouths.

[iloner]

We also use the phrase 'old chestnut' to mean something regularly raised but not truly believed.

If  everything repetitive or tedious or without proper foundation is banned from chat or forum we might find ourselves with very little to talk about.

But we could insist that posters who make questionable claims have to provide their reasons or 'evidence'.

Most such claims are made in chat - by its nature ephemeral - but what if we allowed anyone to make a Challenge which puts that post into a Reputation Forum and invites the original poster to justify their claims and the rest of us to scrutinise and comment.

The Challenger would also be obliged to give their reasons for challenging - 'he's a dickhead' would not pass muster.

Could be fun.

We could do this ourselves to test it out without the need for any new facilities in Forum or Chat. I have set a new topic Reputation Challenges in General Discussion.    If claims are made that you want to challenge lets try entering them here, stating when and where and who made them, PM them an invite to respond with their reasons or evidence and open the claim to scrutiny and comment by all.

[momo5768]

10 minutes ago, iloner said:

We also use the phrase 'old chestnut' to mean something regularly raised but not truly believed.

If  everything repetitive or tedious or without proper foundation is banned from chat or forum we might find ourselves with very little to talk about.

But we could insist that posters who make questionable claims have to provide their reasons or 'evidence'.

Most such claims are made in chat - by its nature ephemeral - but what if we allowed anyone to make a Challenge which puts that post into a Reputation Forum and invites the original poster to justify their claims and the rest of us to scrutinise and comment.

The Challenger would also be obliged to give their reasons for challenging - 'he's a dickhead' would not pass muster.

Could be fun, and we could do this ourselves to test it out without the need for any new facilities in Forum or Chat. 

The reputation of your chat or forum is reached as soon as the assholes make affirmations without evidence. Especially since these "chators" do not share any images, except in particular. They are only parasites.

 

la reputation de votre chat ou forum est atteinte dès l'instant ou des abrutis posent des affirmations sans preuves. d'autant plus que ces "chateurs" ne partagent aucunes images , sauf en particulier. ce ne sont que des parasites.

[iloner]

5 minutes ago, momo5768 said:

The reputation of your chat or forum is reached as soon as the assholes make affirmations without evidence. Especially since these "chators" do not share any images, except in particular. They are only parasites.

 

la reputation de votre chat ou forum est atteinte dès l'instant ou des abrutis posent des affirmations sans preuves. d'autant plus que ces "chateurs" ne partagent aucunes images , sauf en particulier. ce ne sont que des parasites.

Hi Momo,

Sometimes things happen which are hard to explain.    Several of the girls in the past have been pictured counting out large sums of cash, for instance.   Sometimes there is an innocent explanation - e.g. Stella? sold a phone to the Fat Man who gave her cash.

So making a claim without evidence is only a problem if, when challenged, the claiming poster is unable to give sensible reasons for his claim.

I agree that damaging the reputation of the girls without cause should not be acceptable.

[momo5768]

59 minutes ago, iloner said:

Hi Momo,

Sometimes things happen which are hard to explain.    Several of the girls in the past have been pictured counting out large sums of cash, for instance.   Sometimes there is an innocent explanation - e.g. Stella? sold a phone to the Fat Man who gave her cash.

So making a claim without evidence is only a problem if, when challenged, the claiming poster is unable to give sensible reasons for his claim.

I agree that damaging the reputation of the girls without cause should not be acceptable.

where are the pictures of stella and fatman? never sean!!

[robuk]

I've got to be honest but getting in a fix about girls being called escorts seems a bit of a waste to me when in the very nature of RLC girls are appearing on the website hoping to make money,often getting longer stays in the apartments provided they perform or appear topless/naked.

Lets be honest we have all seen some odd looking men spending time in the Barca apts...maybe they are the girls uncles or dads..and maybe not.I'm pretty sure one at one time one of he girls left Barca in the past because she found a sugar daddy.

As far as i'm concerned RLC is a voyeur site that borders on the pornographic scene and sells itself in that way,so the girls are out to make money here,doesn't make them escorts but sure as hell doesn't make them Mother Theresa either

[gironimo]

3 hours ago, robuk said:

I've got to be honest but getting in a fix about girls being called escorts seems a bit of a waste to me when in the very nature of RLC girls are appearing on the website hoping to make money,often getting longer stays in the apartments provided they perform or appear topless/naked.

Lets be honest we have all seen some odd looking men spending time in the Barca apts...maybe they are the girls uncles or dads..and maybe not.I'm pretty sure one at one time one of he girls left Barca in the past because she found a sugar daddy.

As far as i'm concerned RLC is a voyeur site that borders on the pornographic scene and sells itself in that way,so the girls are out to make money here,doesn't make them escorts but sure as hell doesn't make them Mother Theresa either

I agree with the premise of the original posting. The idea of making claims without substance is wrong.

Whether an unsubstantiated claim is defamatory is not always going to be a foregone conclusion though. In many cases, this would be down to the viewpoint of the reader.

If any of the girls ARE escorts, which is of course a claim without any proven basis, then good for them. Very good money to be earned from such a vocation and, most importantly, it has actually got nothing to do with us. The detrimental affects that such a vocation could have on their presence on RLC, either through regular absences from the apartments or lack of activity within the apartments owing to sexual satisfaction elsewhere are separate issues altogether.

With the aforementioned absences from the apartments a more regular occurrence with all the girls than ever before and not to everyone's liking, the frustration that this brings to a lot of the regular viewers is just the sort of thing that will see the creation of more and more false rumours.

[robuk]

I do agree Gironimo if any of the girls are escorting then good luck to them,i would imagine a good number of the girls in the Barca apts operate on the edges of the adult industry,we have seen girls camming while staying in the apartments,some of the girls have done modelling,and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are dancers in clubs and most seem happy to show their naked bodies,i don't have a problem with any of that as the girls are here to make money and have a good time....and I get to watch them