Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

And you're both banned.  It's a shame.  You've both made valuble contributions to the board over an extended time.  But the place has been looking like a school yard fight for too long.

Perhaps after a time I'll allow you both back if I'm convinced that you can contribute without the constant fighting, but right now, that's obviously not the mode either of you are in.

... in response to Looks like you're both right, posted by Patrick on Oct 14, 2002

I understand where you were coming from but, IMHO when you said any comment even if mild would qualify to be banned, you were drawing the line too close. I think that it should be for any repeat behavior of equal quality or lack of quality as you might put it.

I want to find out if Mark ever really does this FSU thing from start to finish and what approach will finally work for him.  

As for Jack, he has had some great posts that tend to give people some very good perspective on this whole process.

So, why don't you compromise and let them both back in say ten years? No questions asked. What ya think?

Better yet, how bout two weeks? If you do not want to have to take back your words on your warning I have a great option for you that gets you off the hook --- you could get out of that dilemma by having us vote on it. I mean I think that you made your point. Also, I do think that you do a great job on handling the site.

... in response to Hey Patrick, posted by thesearch on Oct 15, 2002

The post above this

... in response to Hey Patrick, posted by thesearch on Oct 15, 2002

If you let them back, you need to let spike back, too... and DavidSD and... and... and...

Do the words "Slippery Slope" ring a bell?

... in response to I vote for ten years..., posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

I would be curious to see a list of who would be banned if you were King. LOL

... in response to /, posted by thesearch on Oct 16, 2002

Frankly, I think that Patrick does a damn fine job.

I have no complaints with his current list of the "banned."

There are a couple of guys who have made posts I disagree with... but I wouldn't ban them for it.

Frankly, if more guys would speak up, less bannings would be needed. This group has the capability of policing itself. It's just that too often good men say nothing, and the confrontations escalate out of control...

... in response to I vote for ten years..., posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

After all, it's Patrick's sandbox we all play in here. He, alone, makes the rules - and he can let back in anyone he wishes - at whatever time he wishes -- or not.

In any case, he certainly doesn't "need" to let those other nutcases back in if he should choose to allow Jack and/or MarkH back on the board.

- Dan

... in response to Looks like you're both right, posted by Patrick on Oct 14, 2002

I have been one of those lurking in the background for quite a while off and on and finally feel I should comment regarding the banning of Jack and MarkH.

See my profile so you can know my history.

As those of you who have been on this board for quite a while know that Jack has been 'usually' quite helpful to everyone, but he lets his emotion get too involved and allows those who know how to push his buttons do it and gets caught up in the petty stuff. Maybe this banning will help him to reflect better and learn to not go off on those who just like to antagonize and don't reallly have much useful informations to share. This is what I have observed from MarkH over the past year and this is what caused the problems between so many individuals. He is not the only one who has done this, but he and Jack went over the limit in their last squabbles.  

The people out here still need to refer any new people to
First Dreams as this appears to be a legitimate place to find the beautiful, kind and loving RW. He has done more good than bad for this board and now it is just time for a cooling off period and reflection on what is important.

Through the 2 years or so total I have been lurking, I have offered some help and advice when I felt I could help and still maintain some correspondence with a couple of guys I have met out here. I say this only so you don't think I have never responded to anyone or anything before. Most of the people out here have done a great job in sharing their knowledge of experiences and that is what this board is for,
helping others who need help. We should do this with an open non-judgemental mind and heart and feel glad that we are able to help your fellow amn in his quest to find love and happiness with that wonderful creature we call RW!!

Now here is the famous closing so many people make out there yet it seems to be appropriate here as this is my opinion only based on just observing for quite a while. Just as everyone has a 'butthole', so does everyone have an opinion. This is mine and take it for what it is worth.

Play nice and enjoy what you have to offer each other.

DonP

... in response to Re: Looks like you're both right, posted by DonP on Oct 15, 2002

I'm trying to help you guys out here.

I know that you all are very interested in making sure that no one attacks someone who isn't here to defend themselves.

I mean... I BELIEVE you when you say you are only looking out for ANYONE who can't defend themseleves...

So... I guess you must have just missed it when DonP (in his post) said this:

"Maybe this banning will help [Jack] to reflect better
and learn to not go off on those who just like to
antagonize and don't really have much useful
informations to share. This is what I have observed
from MarkH over the past year and this is what caused
the problems between so many individuals."

Let me break that down for you... DonP said that MarkH "Just likes to Antagonize" and "Doesn't have useful information to share"

Sounds like an "Attack" to me.

So... go get him boys! Go on! Defend the defenseless.

Let's see you jump on DonP like you jumped on me for attacking the guy who can't defend himself...

You only want to do what is right... after all... right?

I mean... surely your taking me to task didn't have anything to do with personal bias for Jack... right?

... in response to BTW, Dan... Oscar... Et Al..., posted by MarkInTx on Oct 16, 2002

n/t

... in response to Yeah Mark - You're Just the 'Victim' LOL..., posted by Dan on Oct 16, 2002

Never claimed to be a victim. Dunno where you get that. The fact that you apply a double standard affects me not in the least. If anyone is the "victim" here it is Mark H, and I'm sure he doesn't care, either.

You, however, are a fraud.

You speak up for Jack when he is attacked, and yet remain strangely silent when Mark H is attacked.

Admit it... your "indignation" had nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of my post. It was just because Jack was your buddy.  In fact... don't admit it. No one is fooled, anyway.

I daresay even the Good Doctor can see through this one...

Clearly if all you cared about was fair play, then you would take up for Mark H too. But you won't do that. Neither will Oscar.

Not that I am at all surprised. It's just nice when it becomes so clear...

... in response to No, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 16, 2002

It was a very small sentence or two about Mark H., and from what I remember (which isn't much) it was only about that the poster thought Mark was baiting Jack, or something to that effect, where you seemed to go on post after post about Jack.  No, I don't think it's ok to attack Mark H. either for what it's worth.

You really need to let some of this stuff go.. Geez, get out a little more or something..

... in response to No, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 16, 2002

I have, indeed, spoken up for MarkH - on more than one occasion - as he has done for me.

No wonder that your (selective) reading skipped over that. You consistently 'see' whatever it is you want to see - and more importantly, are blind to those things you choose not to look at. The unfortunate part of it is that you are so massively-egotistical that you don't seem to be able to consider the value in what others offer. Even worse is that others will likely suffer from your myopia.

As for the "victim" statement - that is pretty obvious. It is your whining about me, Oscar "et al" who you claim are one-sided in their attacks on you. Exactly what a person with a victim-complex would do - in spite of the facts.

Cheers Mark. It's a new day!

- Dan

... in response to Re: Looks like you're both right, posted by DonP on Oct 15, 2002

Well, the term is "banned" and it is (as always) Patrick's call... but I didn't get the sense that this was a cooling off period.

I got the sense it was more of a: "You're gone unless you can REALLY convince me that it's never going to happen again ... and even then I'll have to think about it..."

Yes, Jack helped some guys on here. Yes, he had some good insight because he DID spend a lot of time over there.

But it is also true that he would attack people incessantly. He ran off several other Agency owners. And the fact that he couldn't let go of his feud with Mark H is nothing short of amazing. It isn't like Patrick didn't give him every chance...

Frankly, his childish behavior makes me think twice about EVER recommending him again. (I have in the past... but not any more...)

You say we should send all new guys to FirstDream?

WHY?

Why not LifeTime Partners? Why not A Kherson Rose? Why not RW's terrific service?

There are other agencies that guys have used and raved about.

Why should we send everyone to Jack?

Is he an honest agency owner? I believe so, yes. But he CERTAINLY hasn't cornered the market on it.

There are many agencies worthy of recommendations. And, increasingly, guys are finding it possible to do this without the help of an agency at all.

Why should we shill for Jack?

I don't agree with that at all...

... in response to I don't agree, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

I am one of those people Jack got into it with. I simply don't like the man or respect him. However, I disagree about one issue. I have recommended to people that they use his agency, in spite of the fact that he fabricated crap about me here and on the RWL site. I went after him too! I just didn't make up lies about him or his agency. How can I do it? Simple! It is in the best interest of everyone involved - Not just Jack! I have never used his serivices! I only know personally of some who have. I have seen some success. So I don't think the opportunity should be lost. I don't think Jack's agency is the only opportunity. I just think it is probably a very good one. Jack may have some personal issues, but I think he has to be given credit for the things he does well.

Steve

... in response to Re: I don't agree with the condemnation!, posted by Quasimoto on Oct 15, 2002

Wow!

I certainly never meant to CONDEMN Jack. I don't think that my not recommending him is the same thing as condemning him... is it?

I was just trying to say what you said: "I don't think Jack's agency is the only opportunity"

Maybe it came out wrong?

Hey, if someone came to me and said: "I'm thinking about going with Firstdream, what do you think?" I wouldn't say: "Oh no! Not THEM!"

I would give them the same advice that I gave Frank O (what seems like 100 years ago): "Jack is an honest agency, but understand that he has a methodology, and you need to understand it, because he will expect you to abide by it. If you can, then go ahead, he's one of the best. If you can't, find someone else."

Is this condemnation? I don't think so.

I agree with you that board politics and customer service are two different things.

But... Isn't it somewhat alarming that he attacked you? Aren't you a LITTLE concerned about sending a friend to a foreign land and putting them in the hands of a man who can be, at times, so darn petty? (Which I never understood, because I always thought that those outbursts MUST have hurt his business... It made me think twice. To be honest, it made me cancel a tour with him...)

Me personally, if I were starting over from scratch, I would contact RW, and use her services. That was if I had any sense of a "I want to be married relatively soon..."

If I were starting over, and just wanting an adventure... I would probably go with A Kherson Rose. Unless I had my heart set on Russia. Then I would probably use LTP if I went to Tver or Jack's if I went to St. Petersburg. He has good people in St. Pb. He also has good people in Kiev, I hear, so I might go with him if I decided I wanted to go to Kiev.

Anyway... I certainly didn't mean to condemn him. I just don't feel morally obligated to throw any business his way.

If you feel good about doing it, God Bless you... go right ahead... won't hurt my feelings any...

... in response to Condemnation?, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

I appreciate your explanation. I just think Jack is able to separate business on his turf, from the personal issues. At one time I think I would have liked to kill the man! Thankfully SLC is a long way from Dallas. But regardless of his character flaws, I think he must do a good job once you are on board.

Steve

... in response to I don't agree, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

Why don't you take this opportunity to let some of this stuff with Jack go?  I just feel it's a little cowardly to be dinging a guy when he can't be here to defend himself..
You were a really nice guy here a while back but in the past few weeks you have really changed.  You have picked fights with just about everyone here lately, pretty much since you got back from Kiev.  One can only ask what is going on in your life right now that would be making you so testy??

My opinion..  Do your worst.

... in response to I don't think it's very cool Mark, to at..., posted by Oscar on Oct 15, 2002

n/t

... in response to Now THAT is Something We Agree On Oscar ..., posted by Dan on Oct 15, 2002

He could say that the sky was green, and as long as he was disagreeing with my post... you'd agree with him.

How utterly predictable...

... in response to Really? What a shocker!, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

n/t

... in response to No More So Than Your Inane Reply  LOL  n..., posted by Dan on Oct 15, 2002

inane ------ had to look it up ---- could not remember exactly how Webster defined it -------- empty, senseless, silly

... in response to /, posted by thesearch on Oct 15, 2002

n/t

... in response to I don't think it's very cool Mark, to at..., posted by Oscar on Oct 15, 2002

How is that an attack?

I'm just saying that I don't think we need to make some sort of a pact to send business Jack's way...

How is that an attack?

Unless you're counting the fact taht I called him an honest agency owner an attack...

... in response to Atack???, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

As a few others have noted lately Mark, you seem to have a very selective memory, you really have been quoting people incorrectly and also take things way out of context, giving them your own spin..
This below (that you happened to leave out) IS an attack and could not be considered otherwise.  If you have a feud with Jack, that's certainly your business, it's not like myself and others haven't had any, but to kick a guy when he's not even here to defend himself is I think a cheap shot.  I just think you might take the time instead to let it go.. and if that is not possible, you might wait to take your shots at him when he is here to respond, that's all.
From your post (that is supposedly NOT an attack)-

"But it is also true that he would attack people incessantly. He ran off several other Agency owners. And the fact that he couldn't let go of his feud with Mark H is nothing short of amazing. It isn't like Patrick didn't give him every chance...
Frankly, his childish behavior makes me think twice about EVER recommending him again. (I have in the past... but not any more...)"

... in response to Re: Attack???, posted by Oscar on Oct 15, 2002

An Attack...?

Hmmm... Well, I guess some might think so.

I stand by it though.

He DID attack certain people constantly. He would attack anything Mark H said for example. He also attacked anything I said -- only after I said something he perceived as derogatory about Firstdream, though. There were others who were probably before your time that guaranteed an attack from Jack.

He DID run off other agency owners. Of course, he called them scammers, and what not, but there were some guys on here who would support them and say that they were not scammers. Jack simply accused these guys of being shills. Again, this might pre-date your time on here, but I'm sure that some of the guys on here remember it well.

I did find it amazing that he couldn't let go of his dispute with Mark H.

And as for calling his behavior childish, I was merely echoing Patrick's own words when he banned him.

I don't consider these things attacks... but I guess I can see that if I were prejudiced in favor of Jack, then I might see it that way.

I thought I was being fair and balanced. I gave him credit for the good things he contributed, while pointing out some of the things that were hard to take at times -- and in fact eventually would get him banned.

As for me "attacking a guy who can't defend himself..."

I have only three things to say:

One, it is hardly MY fault that he can't defend himself, now is it?

Two: Everyone felt VERY justified to take parting shots at others who were banned from here. Why is Jack exempt?

Three: I didn't say a single thing until someone posted something that said in effect: "You know, Jack was a great guy. It's a Shame he was banned. We still need to make sure we send business his way..."

And all I was TRYING to say was: No, we don't. Jack had his plusses... and he had his minuses. (Like ALL of us on here, and yes that includes me.)

He was fairly warned... and he was fairly banned.

And if we are going to send business the way of an agency, I suggest we pick someone who was not banned.

That's my opinion.

And despite your (and your new-found friend Dan's) feelings to the contrary, I am entitled to it.

It is amazing to me, though, that you think it is UNFAIR to take a shot at Jack who cannot defend himself, but thought NOTHING of taking a shot at Ken's wife...

... in response to Re: Re: Attack???, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

Mark --- attack?

To me it is all in  how you define it and where you draw the line in the sand as to what constitutes such.  

Since it was a post you did not start and it was about the issue, I did not view your post as any wrong doing.

However, if you did such on a repetitive basis, well then that is another story - always taking the opportunity so to speak. So, you have had your say on this, it should be over.

Others will draw the line closer on the issue with less latitude. And, that is ok if they live themselves within the guidelines they verbally support.

I can not disagree with them as this is where they draw the line. It is valid for them. It is a more altruistic stance then mine but that does not make me and you wrong on this either.

As for Dan agreeing with Oscar just because the post disagreed with your post? No, I do not see it. You simply have that feeling because you and Dan have had your share of disagreements. By stating such, you are essentially calling him a liar about his agreeing with Oscar and that his post is purely revengeful in its intent and has nothing to do with his opinion on the topic.

It is true that two people if they have disagreed might be more motivated to post that they disagree with that person but, as a sole motivation - I do not see it at all. There were too many other opportunities that Dan did not take the option on.

So, although no one cares, I agree with you that you did nothing wrong, and agree with Dan that your response to him was inane but, there is nothing wrong sometimes in saying something inane. It still gets your point across as you see it. Sometimes it works better than being nane. I don't know but it just seems that if the word inane exists the opposite should have been nane.

... in response to /, posted by thesearch on Oct 15, 2002

Repetitive posting would be an attack.

It would also be baiting, and has little or no place on the board. I have no intention on posting daily "Jack Bashings." I really didn't dislike him. I just thought sometimes he skirted the board rules.

Reasonable people can disagree with me on that... but that is my opinion...

As for my comment about Dan... you and I will have to respectfully disagree. I think Dan ONLY agreed with Oscar because his was a response to a post from me. Had Oscar written that to anyone else, Dan would have not commented at all. (I also disagree with you that Dan passed up other opportunities. I think he has chimed in with an equivalent of "me too" on every negative post about me. I haven't done an exhaustive search... but it surely seems that way. He was even chiming agreement with joe/yoe, for cryin' out loud! Anyone who said anything bad about me is OK in Dan's book! That's why I called it predictable...)

Now, do I think that he wouldn't have commented on Oscar's post because he didn't feel that way? No... Dan is clearly a fan of Jack's. But he wouldn't have said anything because before Dan and Oscar came together united in their feelings about me, he wouldn't have agreed with anything Oscar said, simply out of principal.

However, having said that, I think that their current lovefest is good for the board. If they stay united by a common enemy (me) then at least we don't have to see another one of their "inane" battles.

And, I've got a "three post" rule. If I can't get my point across to someone in three posts, I drop it. For some people, I lower the posting number (Some are down to zero, for instance). So, I won't get into stupid name-calling, school-yard fighting, and inane bantering... I promise!

BTW... I think that a post that got its point across so succinctly is hardly inane... but then again, I guess that is simply in the eye of the beholder...

... in response to I agree...., posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

Traveling this week allows me a bit more time for posting - and today, for some reason, I felt a bit more energy to direct towards the board than normal.

It only happens to coincide with your profligate posting today.

Lucky you.

- Dan

... in response to /, posted by thesearch on Oct 15, 2002

The antonym for 'inane' - according to the reference site www.synonym.com - is "wise"

Cheers Greg!

- Dan

... in response to Re: Re: Attack???, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

So instead of just simply saying that yes, it really isn't very cool to take pot shots at a guy who cannot be here to defend himself, you simply justify it and continue..  What the helll happened to you Mark?

You and I both know that Jack has helped a lot of guys here in their quests.. Is he perfect?  No, but I do think he is honest.  Let me reiterate, I just think you are a being a jerk for attacking him when he is not here to reply, it's as simple as that and I would say the same to someone attacking you if YOU were not here to reply..

And you can hardly hold Mark H. up as an example Mark, he went to great extremes to taunt Jack, at least that is how I saw it..

As far as others being attacked after they were banned, I have not seen it done so I cannot comment on that.  I only know that I do not feel it is right.

And I guess at this point I would expect you to take another cheap shot to defend your views by bringing in my "shot at Ken's wife" comment..  That is something that I publicly apologized to him for Mark.  How long should I expect you to bring that up after making a public apology?  I believe this marks a new low for you Mark.  At least I know when to apologize for something.  You have never ONCE apologized for all the misquotes and taking things out of context with peoples comments here..  
And this after my having saved you a few hundred dollars on your flat in Kiev.. I guess I should be a little more careful next time in who I attempt to help..

Why can't you once just admit that for the past few weeks (ever since you got back from Kiev), you have just been out of control here?

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Attack???, posted by Oscar on Oct 15, 2002

Actually, it has nothing to do with my trip to Kiev. I explained my post, and I am done explaining it. No, I didn't apologize for the simple reason that I don't feel I did anything wrong.

I don't expect you, Dan, LP, or Barry M to agree with me. You are all "friends" of Jack, and you will see it your way.

So be it.

I am done on this topic.

I will say this though:

I missed your public apology to Ken's wife. I am sorry about that.

If you did apologized, then I will let it drop.

Anyone can say something on here that they didn't mean. But I really don't remember the apology... I will take your word for it though and stop bringing it up...

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Attack???, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

...The problem with the post wasn't the content, it was beating on the guy when he wasn't able to respond (the true sign of a coward btw), as Oscar pointed out. Fwiw, I have never met Jack, I have never spoken to him in person, and I have never utilized any of his services.

I have emailed him a time or two, the most involved time was while doing *you* a favor. Seems he didn't pass it on, no wonder your clueless.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Attack???, posted by Oscar on Oct 15, 2002

Oscar,
I see nothing wrong with Mark's reply to DonP's post.  Don gave his opinion and Mark gave his.  They were different, so what?  I see no "attack", just a different point of view.  If Mark is guilty of anything, so is DonP.  They are only guilty of having an opinion.  Don't make such a big deal out of nothing.  It IS a forum to express your opinions (along with an occasional fact or two).  Chill - EVERYONE.
KenC

... in response to nothing wrong with Mark's post, posted by KenC on Oct 15, 2002

I use a couple people on here as a barometer... You and the Good Doctor are two of them, because you both have proven to be very reasonable.

I appreciate the comments...

And, as I said above... I am done on this thread.

(BTW, no hard feelings DonP... you are certainly entitled to your opinions, too...)

... in response to Thanks Ken, posted by MarkInTx on Oct 15, 2002

Mark,
I am not "on your side" for the sake of being "on your side".  Oscar can debate your opinion as much as he wants, but he cannot debate your right to have your opinion.  I could see his point (a little) if you had started the thread with a negative post on Jack, but you responded to a post that was in favor of Jack.  
KenC

... in response to better read my post above first, posted by KenC on Oct 15, 2002

I'm not asking you to agree with me

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Attack???, posted by Oscar on Oct 15, 2002

...ther are times you be a weenie Oscar....OK, me too. But 98% of us get over it and realize the error.

This simply isn't the case here. You'll never get this guy to change his behavior, his posting history shows time and again his extraordinary capacity to blind himself. A perfect example is how he thinks lies are being spread about "his" girl. He's being lied to alright, but not by me. The very fact that this is inconceivable to him only proves my point.

Best to give up. As I've said, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

... in response to Well said...., posted by LP on Oct 15, 2002

It's not that big a deal.. I just think he ought to save his criticism of a poster for when that poster is around to be able to defend themselves..
Something is sure going on with him..  He's been like this ever since he got back from Kiev a few weeks ago..      

... in response to Well said...., posted by LP on Oct 15, 2002

n/t

... in response to No "Weenies" Allowed!!   --smi..., posted by Dan on Oct 15, 2002

.....98% ;-)

... in response to Looks like you're both right, posted by Patrick on Oct 14, 2002

and not suffer the same fate.

... in response to Re: May our other feuding pair take note..., posted by Alfred on Oct 14, 2002

So Alfred,

So how many trips have you taken?

What have you gleaned from your trips if I might ask?

Greg