discussion comment
16 years ago
MisterGuy is right. If everyone persistently ignores Bobby's multiple personalities, eventually he will give up and go away.
discussion comment
16 years ago
CL has long been LE's target of choice. Anyone who does anything illegal there is just not thinking clearly.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Agreed
discussion comment
16 years ago
clubman: I had no idea you lived in NJ. Small world.
My sense of PH is that it was becoming a bit of a HJ factory. You?
discussion comment
16 years ago
Merely providing an explanation for what you noted, namely, that his lone review is singularly lacking in substance. Bobby and David9999 stand out for their reluctance to post reviews. But I agree with you on one point -- I won't bother responding to Bobby anymore (even with his attacks on my family members).
discussion comment
16 years ago
Jablake & Arbeeguy
Your critiques of Bobby's "review" are valid. The review is very lengthy and has no substance. However, I do not think you have identified the source of the problem.
The problem is not that Bobby is wordy or egocentric. True, he is both of those things, but they are not the problem here.
Rather, the problem is that the review is phony. Bobby has never been to this club.
Bobby was cornered into posting a review. But because he hasn't been to a strip club, he had to post a fake review.
His choice of the Spearmint Rhino for his fake review was inspired, for two reasons. First, it's in Las Vegas. Why does that matter? Because Las Vegas is a largest tourist and business/convention destination. So by posting a review about a club there, Bobby does not reveal where he lives. He needs to keep his state of origin secret, or he would easily be exposed. If he said he lived in Arkansas, for example, he might be faced with questions about clubs in Arkansas, and he wouldn't know how to answer them (because he's never been to a strip club). By picking a Las Vegas club, he can be a visitor, and keep his home state a secret.
Second, the Spearmint Rhino is a large and very well known club. There are tons of reviews, and the club has its own web site, complete with detailed pictures and a comprehensive layout of the club.
Everything Bobby said about the club can be gleaned from the club website, or from the snippets of reviews that even a non-reviewer like Bobby can have access to. But because Bobby isn't too sure on any details, he had to keep his review very, very vague. You will notice that frequently on the few details he gave, he hedged his bets a bit.
That's why the review is so lacking in substance. Why is it so wordy?
Because by loading up the review with tons of meaningless prose that has nothing to do with the club itself, Bobby can camouflage the fact that he does not actually know anything about the club itself (because he has never been there).
Indeed, when you read the review, Bobby's story ends up sounding just like that -- a story, that is, a work of fiction. Arbeeguy noticed that Bobby forgot to mention whether he got laid. I noticed a more telling detail missing -- not one word about what any girl in the club looked like -- not her age, physical description, ethnicity, anything.
Frankly, nothing Bobby has done on this site has convinced me more that he is a troll, than this blatantly phony review. Bobby posted this only because he had to. But when you read it, it is one of the most glaringly fake reviews on tuscl.
Other people have had the insight that Bobby and David9999 may be the same person. I don't really know if that's true, although some of the similarities are striking. They both incessantly posted about their "themes" that were deliberately provocative (David9999 re "seed spreading," and Bobby re sexually transmitted diseases). Both did their utmost to disrupt the board, and went on attacks against anyone who challenged them. (Parodyman tries to suggest that Bobby is a loyal follower of Shadowcat, but that is clearly not true. Bobby has attacked Shadowcat when he wanted to cause trouble, particularly after Shadowcat said Bobby was full of shit. Curiously, the only person Bobby was always loyal to was David9999.) Neither one would post reviews (and now Bobby has posted a blatantly false review). And, interestly, they both joined tuscl within a month of each other.
But even if they are not connected, they certainly are both internet trolls. I will admit I am pretty naive about the internet generally, and hadn't even heard of internet trolls until I read this article in the NY Times. If you are internet savvy, then I guess I must seem behind the curve. But if you are as naive as I am about these things, then I would highly recommend reading this article. It is pretty disturbing actually. Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html
The most troubling thing (to me) is that the internet trolls do not content themselves with disrupting discussion boards. They also engage in prolific identity theft, and attempt to harass people offline. This made me think back to David9999's attempt to get other tusclers to communicate with him offline somehow. I don't know if that was an attempt to hack into people's email, or otherwise engage in identity theft. But I for one am glad I don't have my actual email posted on this site. And I am certainly going to do my best to avoid Bobby and anyone who appears to be his double. It's one thing to be harassed by flames, it's another thing to be harassed offline.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Bobby: a legend in his own mind.
discussion comment
16 years ago
(a) Easy: you said you put me on ignore, and then immediately responded to one of my posts; you repeatedly state that my father is an alcoholic; you state that parodyman is gay; you state that wondergrl is trying to have sex with other people on the site; you state that MisterGuy is gay; you state that I emailed you that I had trouble with my marriage; you state you have had repeated acts of sex with 5 strippers and an unspecified number of civilians, and had a girlfriend (a girlfriend you spent so much time with she wanted to marry you), all in the space of one year, yet claim you always wait 4 months of abstinence before testing for every known disease, and then fully disclose your sexual history. (Mathematically impossible. There are only 12 months in the year, which would limit you to 3 different sex partners in the year.) I think that's enough lies for one day.
(b) Also easy: you're a troll. Everything you say about your offline life is potentially fabricated, hence nothing you say can be trusted. Maybe you're 13 years old. Maybe you're a pathetic 68 year old geezer on social security. Maybe you regularly have unprotected sex with strippers. Maybe you're a virgin. Who knows? Asked to identify where you supposedly had sex with a stripper in 2008, and conveniently you identify one of the most famous and largest clubs in Vegas. Wow. Also conveniently, you've never identified a single fact about yourself that would allow anyone to estimate whether anything you say adds up: your approximate age; where you live; what you do for a living, etc. Sounds like a guy trying to avoid being trapped in a lie. By the way, only one of the descriptions of you in your post is inconsistent with the others, namely, that you have had sex with strippers. Funny thing, that's the very claim I most doubt to be true.
Remember Bobby, I only responded to your inquiries because you asked. If you don't want to hear an answer, don't ask the question.
Admittedly because of my age, I was not familiar with the concept of internet trolls. I am now, though. And you clearly are one. In just the last week or so, you've tried to launch attacks on me, shadowcat, parodyman, MisterGuy, wondergrl, chandler and other posters to boot. Perfectly matches the profile of a troll, whose goal is to disrupt the board. Curiously, the one guy you defend loyally is David9999. Interesting.
Does that answer your question?
discussion comment
16 years ago
wondergrl: I believe what they all have in common is that they are internet trolls. So shadowcat and chandler are theorizing that they are the same person. That may or may not be true. I don't see why it is not possible that tuscl could attract more than one internet troll over time. But I do agree that they are all classic internet trolls, and so in that regard act very similarly.
For those of you out there who don't know what an "internet troll" is, I didn't either, until the NY Times Magazine ran a really fascinating article about them a couple weeks ago. Wikipedia has a pretty good definition of them, which matches the description in the Times article:
"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."
That pretty much fits the description of David9999 and Bobby. The other guys mentioned I don't know. Interestingly, in the Times article, it appeared a lot of the trolls are young single guys who basically have no life; indeed, many of them are teens.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Bobby's theory is that if I don't answer this with a "yes" or a "no" devoid of any explanation, then I have not answered the question. He acts, essentially, as if I am on the witness stand, and he's the prosecutor. That's bullshit, of course, and is just Bobby's way of avoiding admitting that he can't post a review. In any event, I will give him his yes/no response, but I will also give a full explanation of my views.
The problem with the question is that it is comparing apples to oranges. In other words, the question presumes that Bobby always tells the truth in his off-line life. If that were true, then Bobby would be right: It would be morally less cuplable to lie all the time on the internet to strangers about meaningless nonsense, than to lie even once to people in your real life.
So if we go with your assumption, then you are right: it is worse for me to lie offline than it is for you to lie online.
The problem with the question, of course, is that I challenge the assumptions underlying the question, on several levels. First, I don't agree that just because you say so, it must be true that you never lie offline. As far as I know, you may be one of the most persistent liars in the world. For example, you claim that you would never have sex with someone unless you tested yourself for every known disease, and you waited 4 months after each sexual encounter, and you also fully disclosed to the person your sexual history. Respectfully, Bobby, I have a pretty hard time believing you are being even vaguely truthful about that. For one thing, you lie on line regularly, and it has been very easy to catch you in your lies. Precisely because this is a place to let it all hang out, your propensity to lie on line suggests you would readily lie in "real life." For another thing, you have stated other things, repeatedly, that suggest you have very little respect for your fellow human beings, and very little regard for their well being. A guy who thinks it's ok to have unprotected sex with strippers, in my view, is not a guy I would trust. A guy who regularly calls strippers "degenerates" is not a guy I would expect to treat them with any concern.
So, for all I know, you are far less honest in your relationships with others than I am. For all I know, you are far less respectful of the safety and well being of others than I am. What do we have to go on to believe otherwise? Nothing but your word -- and that's the whole problem, because we have no reason to believe anything you say.
(By contrast, you have a good reason to believe I am being completely truthful. I have been very candid and honest about being married. If I wanted to avoid any flack on this board, I could have just lied and said I was single; or lied and said my wife/girlfriend knows all about the strippers and is fine with it; or whatever. My candor, even on an issue that is bound to make me unpopular with some of tuscl's moralists, is a good indicator that I am being straightforward all around.)
So once we begin comparing apples to apples, and oranges to oranges, your entire moral comparison between the two of us falls apart. Online, I am truthful, and you are a liar. Offline, I cheat on my wife, and you ????? Well, we don't know what you do offline. You could be a child molester for all I know. So there is no way anyone can make a comparison between my offline behavior and yours. The only thing we can compare is our online behavior.
More fundamentally, however, I reject your entire moral calculus. I reject the idea that you judge the moral worth of a human being by focusing exclusively on one thing they've done or one aspect of their lives. My view is that you need to look at the entire fabric of a person's life. You can judge me all you want (again, as I've told you, I am firmly convinced that your entire expression of outrage is just your way of being a troll, and in reality you don't care about anything at all). But I think people have to be judged on the context of their entire lives. And you don't know much of anything about my life.
In my view, I don't assume that a man who cheats on his wife is necessarily a bad person, and I don't assume that a man who never cheats on his wife is necessarily a good person. It depends on how they conduct their lives as a whole. I've known people who cheated on their wives who were on the whole good people, and I have known people who were scrupulous in sexual matters who were rotten people. Frankly, I think it is a peculiarily American point of view to judge people so harshly on sexual matters. In most of the rest of the civilized world, there is a good deal more tolerance for a variety of sexual behavior.
Whether you like it or not (or whether as I suspect you don't care at all), I am comfortable with my relationship with my wife. She's very happy, very glad we found each other, and we have a great life together. She suffers no harm from my extracurricular activities. Would she be upset if she found out? Sure. But if she doesn't find out, she suffers no harm.
I know, you'll go on one of your disease rants now. For someone who says its ok to have unprotected sex with sex workers, it's pretty hard to take you seriously. Contrary to what you claim to do, I've always practiced safe sex, and in doing this for 25 years, have never caught so much as a cold. Is there some theoretical risk? Sure. There's also a risk that when I take my family out in a car, we'll get in a car accident (and no, I don't always obey traffic laws). Life is full, absolutely chock full, of calculated risks, including risks that we subject other people to on a daily basis (e.g., every time we get behind the wheel). The only way you could live a risk free life would be if you cut yourself off from most people and lived a very empty life. (Gee, but that's probably the life you live, right?)
If you are really concerned about lowering the risk level in the world, especially for other people, I suggest you wear a condom. That will do a lot more to protect others from harm than your lectures. (Your idea that a stripper "consents" to being exposed to disease would only be true if it were informed conssent -- and that would require you to give her a detailed sexual history, which obviously you never do.)
What about the importance of never lying to people? Great in principle, but I am convinced it is followed by no one in real life. All people (especially the most self-righteous judgmental people on earth) lies to other people, and again, on a daily basis. The person who is always honest with everyone he ever meets would soon have no friends. ("Hey, do you think I should lose some weight?" "Oh god yes, you're really fat.") I can love my wife without always telling her the truth about everything (just like I love my children, even though I do not always tell them the truth about everything either.)
What about sexual fidelity? I have no objection to someone who wants to live that way, but I think anyone who thinks that's the only possible way to live is a little naive. For me, it is possible to be truly in love with one woman, but be sexually involved with more than one woman. My sex drive does not turn off the minute I leave my house. For some guys, absolute sexual monogamy is a moral imperative. For me, it's not. I just don't think there's anything wrong with having sex with more than one woman. And obviously, I'm not alone. At least 25% of all married men cheat on their wives. Most people who study that issue think the figure is actually higher (because the guys lie about it), and further the figure for unmarried men in LTRs is higher still.
The only difference between me and most of the married guys on this site who cheat on their wives is that I don't lie about it here on tuscl. For the guys who are not married but who swear they'd never cheat, why don't you try getting married and then report back. I'm betting there is a good chance you'll learn something new about yourself.
(And while we're on the subject: for me, sexual fidelity is less important than emotional fidelity. We have a particularly moralistic poster here on tuscl who thinks it's great to cuddle up to naked young women -- but not fuck them -- and it's also ok to pay an ex-stripper to be his friend. And, on top of everything else, he says the ex-stripper is his very best and closest friend. Gee, that must make his wife feel great. Personally, I would find that a much greater betrayal than merely having sex with someone. My wife is my best friend, not some girl I pay money to.)
Bobby, don't worry, I don't mistake you for a second as someone who has any morals at all, so I don't think of you as someone who is genuinely judging me about anything. I realize it's all an act on your part (see below). But for anyone on tuscl who does judge me about this, you know, I don't care. I have a strong sex drive and a large sexual appetite, and I always have. I am not going to limit myself to having sex with one person for the rest of my life. My wife is very happy with our life together, and the girls always leave the room with a smile on their faces. As long as I'm keeping everyone happy, I fail to see why it is the concern of anyone on tuscl.
But like I said Bobby, I don't really suspect you of genuine moralizing. You are -- as everyone knows -- an internet troll. The rest of us are here because we are interested in strip clubs. That's why we actually go to them, and that's why we post reviews about them. You go online solely for the purpose of being a provocative jerk, and trying to yank people's chains. You've failed to yank mine. I've given this detailed answer, solely so that anyone reading this will see that I have been forthcoming in every possible way. And thus everyone will see that you have no excuse for not posting a review.
If you finally do post a review, and it turns out that you actually go to strip clubs, you know what, I will be the first to say "welcome to tuscl." But if you don't, then everyone will see you are just a troll, and no one will ever pay attention to you anymore. Bye, bye Bobby.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Bobby you can always ask any question, and if it's a reasonable one, I would answer it anyway, without expecting anything in exchange from a dirtbag like you. (Remember Bobby, I'm convinced you are totally untrustworthy, so it's really not possible to make a "deal" with you.) But I don't need to agree in advance to answer a question I've never seen. That's absurd. Again, my actions here are all above board. You're the one evading, not me. Whether I answer your mystery question or not (we can't tell, because you won't say what the question is), that still leaves you failing to identify any strip club you've ever visited.
Ask yourself who is being straightforward and who is being evasive. I ask simple, straightforward questions that I have already answered for myself. I ask you to do what everyone on this site has already done (except you): post a review. You won't do that, unless I agree in advance to answer some mystery question, but you won't even say what the mystery question is. Sorry Bobby, but you're the one who looks like he's trying to hide something, not me.
By the way, did you actually just make chicken noises? Bobby, if you are really trying to convince us that you are a mature adult, trust me, that's not the way to go. I'd expect better from my kids.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Ha ha, you lose. Sure, Bobby, I have to tell you my social security number, before you identify one club that you've ever visited. Give me a break.
Tell you what, Bobby, I will answer the very same question I've asked of you, and unlike you, I won't put any pre-conditions on it. I will tell you exactly where I've had sex with strippers ITC in 2008. Guess what? I've already answered that question, because it's spelled out in my reviews.
You ask why I say you "cannot" write a club review. Simple: you've proven you cannot, by your consistently evasive response to these very simple questions.
I've been very straightforward on this board about my life, and haven't pulled any punches. If you don't like the fact that I cheat on my wife, that's your choice of course, but I've been very above board about it, from the outset. (As you know, you don't really give a shit one way or the other. You knew it all along -- I never hid it -- and you never criticized me for it. You only brought it up when I upbraided you for your pathetic attacks on wondergrl.) Like everyone else on this board, of course, I am not going to reveal personal information about my life, so that trolls like you can call me at home. But I've posted reviews of active strip clubs that anyone can read (well, anyone who is a member), and anyone who visits the clubs can see my descriptions of the clubs are accurate down to a "t".
In your case, you repeatedly talk out of both sides of your mouth, and make increasingly ridiculous and incredible claims. Plus, you never post a review. That makes you pretty suspect in the eyes of everyone here.
All I'm asking you to do is do what I (and hundreds of other people) have already done: identify the clubs you've allegedly visited. Read my reviews, and you will see I have already answered (in exacting detail) the simple question I am asking you to answer.
Go ahead. Evade some more. Bob and weave. You're just proving my point.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Uh, huh. And from what club?
discussion comment
16 years ago
Prove me wrong Bobby. Tell us the strip club where you've fucked a stripper. Better yet, post a review of the place.
Oh, I thought Bobby wasn't going to respond further. Hmmm, kinda like when he supposedly puts people on ignore.
MisterGuy: Don't pick on Bobby for having a dead dick. If he damaged his prostate (and we can imagine a few ways that might have happened), then it's understandable. Poor guy.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Convenient that Bobby's decided to cut off debate at this point. That's because he knows he just reached a dead end.
Bobby says he hasn't had a girlfriend since "last year." He also says he's never been to an escort. He also says he would never, ever risk infecting a "civilian" (he doesn't care about strippers). So he would wait 16 weeks (that's 4 months) after having sex with a stripper before having sex with a civilian. And he would fully disclose to the civilian about his prior unprotected sex with strippers.
All of which means Bobby could not have had sex with a civilian in 2008. No girlfriend. And, obviously, he would not pick up a chick in a bar and say, "hey baby, come back to my place. Oh, by the way, I've had unprotected sex multiple times with strippers in the past year. You're cool with that, right?"
That leaves strippers. So if Bobby is claiming he's had sex in 2008, then he would have to have had sex with a stripper.
Ah, and there's the rub. Because the next question, of course, would be to ask Bobby to identify the strip club where he's met a stripper that would have sex with him.
And that Bobby will not (and cannot) do, for the same reason he will not (and cannot) post a strip club review.
That's Bobby's whole problem. He's caught in a web of lies, and he can't come up with a coherent story anymore. That's why he doesn't want to talk about it anymore.
Bobby, I accept your unconditional surrender.
It would be nice if Bobby would disappear at this point. But as chandler and shadowcat have pointed out, Bobby will just return under a new name. His vocation as tuscl's troll is his avocation.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Bobby: Simple question: Have you had sex even once with a female in 2008?
discussion comment
16 years ago
Gee, Bobby, all I did was tell you that I hope you enjoy yourself while you masturbate to internet porn. Since you admit yourself that you never have sex, I figured the assumption that you whack off was charitable. I didn't know at the time that you couldn't get an erection. You did not admit that you suffer from erectile dysfunction until a week or so later. So, anyway, I do apologize if I accidentally struck a nerve. It was not my intent. I was not trying to make fun of you for the fact that you cannot even get an erection. But really, don't be so sensitive. What difference does it make, given that you never have sex anyway?
Well, gotta go; you know, I have "obligations". Have a nice evening. By yourself. Alone. (I wonder what that's like? Must be sad.)
discussion comment
16 years ago
MisterGuy: As you can see, Bobby has made a big step forward. He's moved on from saying "njscfan's IQ is 13" to "njscfan's father is an alcoholic." Yes, he keeps repeating the same lie incessantly, but hey, that's his style. For Bobby, this is "progress." (He does seem a little stuck on that "gay" thing though.)
Clubman: I actually went one better. I wrote the individual privately and asked him to retract his post. He refused and instead attacked me on the board.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Let's be real: Bobby's incessant whining about my marriage is just his way to attack me, nothing more, nothing less. When several other married men on this site have admitted to cheating on their wives (including David9999, who Bobby insists is a "decent" person), Bobby has said not one critical word about any of them. All his venom is directed at me, and its solely because he has nothing else to attack me with. Remember, this defender of women's health is the same guy who thinks it's perfectly sensible to have unprotected sex with strippers.
Bobby's whole meltdown has been due to his being exposed as a cretin. I guess he blames me for this, and I guess it is true that I have cruelly pointed out what a loser Bobby is. But what Bobby does not grasp is that no one would be picking on him if he was not such a little prick. He doesn't seem to get that people here dislike him not due to anything I've said (or anything parodyman or MisterGuy have said). Rather, Bobby has been exposed entirely due to his own words. Just read his incessant attacks on wondergrl, and you know everything you need to know about Bobby. Nobody made Bobby post that garbage. He did it on his own.
Bobby: I will give you a helpful hint to make you seem a little less obsessed. You've now started three threads all with my name in the title (and a fourth thread that was in reality all directed at me). Given how few discussion threads you've actually started during your time at tuscl, this reveals behavior that borders on cyber-stalking. I would suggest you find some other approach. As parodyman has pointed out, you are exhibiting several symptoms of homosexual panic. That is, you are apparently afraid you might be gay. Believe me, I really think that's ok if you are gay. I have always had lots of gay friends, and I have nothing against gay people. Nonetheless, I would rather not be the object of your desire. Please don't take it personally. It's just that I'm heterosexual (hint: that's why I have sex with women, something you apparently don't do with any frequency).
I still would appreciate if someone would point me to the thread where I supposedly called Dudester names. I know my memory is getting worse as I get older, but I honestly don't remember ever thinking about Dudester, much less talking about him.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Dudester: Thanks for conceding 90 percent of your post is fabrciated. Let's deal with the remainder. On what date did I supposedly make any statement about you?
discussion comment
16 years ago
Wow, like I said, Bobby continues to lose it. All this spittle from a guy who *claims* to have unprotected sex with strippers. (Yes, I know, all of his claims are pretty dubious.)
As for Dudester: Sorry, but I can't even recall acknowledging your existence. When exactly did I "call [you] names"? I know I have never mentioned anything on tuscl about Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, Margaret Sanger, global warming, trail mix or wheat germ. (I think I did say once that I thought Nixon was a bad president. I don't think I'm alone in that estimation.) Are you Bobby's doppleganger -- you just make up lies and use them as the basis for an attack? If not, would you care to back up one word in your post by citing to a specific thread where I said anything you've attributed to me?
discussion comment
16 years ago
How humorous that Bobby responds to an accusation that he is lying and acting demented with a post where he lies (again) and acts demented. Thanks for proving my point, Bobby.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Well, Bobby lies about everything. His idea of a witty insult is to make up a false claim about other people on the board, and then assert it as fact. But I agree his posts are becoming increasingly demented over time.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hmmm, help us out Bobby, so we can understand the point of the OP.
Are you making this inquiry because you become sexually aroused by contemplating the sex acts committed by other men?
Or are you planning on becoming a stripper yourself, and you want to know in advance what to expect?
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hey Bobby, is that you? Nice try.