Comments on: PORN

By: artemister

artemister — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:04:33 +0000

I wanna know what Andy did at his brother’s wedding when he “got drunk on four glasses of champagne and made a fool of myself in the process”.

)

By: christian

christian — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:49:37 +0000

has anyone else noticed tha toms sole critisism here is of what he maintains is a glorification of drug use. but nowhere here does he critisise the fact that the porn that gets posted on this blog is frequently condom-free. i find it curious that tom would rant at scott about drug use glorification and use the (valid) arguemnet that it frequently contributes to increased hiv rates but then he completely and conveniently ignores the videos themself (that i assume hes enjoying) that show unsafe sex.

tom seems to think that everyone who sees drug use like this will go out and become an addict like him. but thats just as riduiculous as saying that everyone who watches a bareback movie is too stupid to know that in real life its not smart to bareback.

does anyone else see the disconnect here in toms argument?

By: Ryan Kosa

Ryan Kosa — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:07:53 +0000

This posting did get very hot! But I’ve got to say that I fall down squarely behind Scott and the other commenters like Philly Dawg. First I don’t see any glorification here, except maybe on the part of the guy in the video. But posting that here doesn’t mean Scott was glorifying it. He was just posting it for us to see and then make up our own minds about how we should view it. And his description of his past drug use is honest, plain and simple. But Tom seems to have a real problem with that for some reason.
And Tom Tom Tom! If you are indeed in recovery you of all people should know that just because you object to something because it makes you uncomfortable doesn’t mean its in the least bit objectionable to others. The problem with people like you Tom, people who are in recovery and who have zero tolerance for anything drug or alcohol related, is that you think your attitudes about those things are what everyone else should have. And you try to force them on all of us. You think your 100% right about the issue of drugs and for you theres no acknowledging that other peoples opinions carry just as much weight and validity for them as your do for you.
And if you dispute that then you need to read some of your very own words in this thread Tom. You call Scott a liar but he never lied about anything that I can see. You claim that his posting of this is irresponsible and promotes drug use — maybe in you it does Tom. Maybe in someone who can’t resist the lure of it and who needs to stay far away from it. But in the rest of us it has no such effect. It is simply a slice of life that we can watch and take away as much or as little as we wish. And its not Scotts responsibility to worry that maybe just maybe there this guy named Tom out there who can’t bare to see this stuff and might relapse because of it. No that’s your responsibility.
I feel really bad for Tom because as an earlier poster said here, in his obvious desire to push his narrow and crabbed world view and agenda off on the rest of us Toms totally lost sight of what he needs to be doing for himself.
And as Lyndon said in an earlier post her, if you object to so much of this then why are you reading this blog if it bothers you so much? I think the answer to that question will give you a major insight into what your all about Tom. At least I hope that it would.

By: Lyndon Evans

Lyndon Evans — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:04:11 +0000

Having only becoming aware of this blog Saturday evening, and as a blog developer have spent the past several hours going through the archives to get a feel of the blog.

Not that Scott needs my defense nor anyone else’s, I’ll put the way I look at my own blogging in order to express my feelings regarding this post and the blog in general which some have taken to task.

I develop and write blogs not for the masses but for like minded folks, be it those who appreciate a wicked dry sense of humor as conveyed on my blog Bitchy Old Queen, or my commentary blog FOCUS which often cuts against the grain of other bloggers who lead the readers like so many sheep. My opinions and sometime comments aren’t always popular, hence I don’t have a far reaching readership. But what I do have is a loyal readership base of like minded readers.

When one has to start writing and publishing a blog for the masses something is lost.

It becomes bland, sterile and just like any other gazillion blogs in the blogosphere regardless of topic or scope. A blog such as Scott or mine at the very least convey an extension of our personality.

In my case were you to meet me on the street and have a five minute conversation with me, you would be reading my blog.

For those who have found faullt with the posting of the video, and some in these comments attacking Scott for his “perceived attitude” regarding things, I ask but one question.

Why are you reading this blog ?

If I were to find any fault with Scott it is this.

Not having a comment moderation in effect to weed out comments which entice back and forth arguments. But having said that, this is his blog, not yours and certainly not mine.

I use comment moderation on all of my blogs, if your comments, good or bad, do not contribute in a forward moving extension of a posting the comments don’t get posted.

I have on some blogs stopped allowing anomymous comments as I feel if you don’t have the balls to back up your comments with an identity, then you comments are not worth reading.

We all blog for different reasons. We all read blogs for different reasons. But at the same time when one has to be so critical as some of the commentors here, I refer back to the question.

Why are you reading this blog ?

By: rex in atlanta

rex in atlanta — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:19:49 +0000

wow this comment thread got heated fast. i can see some parts of toms arguments as having some validity, specifically his assertion that drug use can lead to a higher incidence of hiv infection, but he completely misses the point of this post if he thinks its a glorification of drug use. i didn’t see it that way at all and and i doubt most reasonable people will either. and to imply as he does that everyone who uses recreational drugs is an addict demonstrates a woeful and, given the fact that hes an addict himself, a really quite shameful lack of understanding of the subject matter that he’s offering up his opinion on.

thanks for the opportunity to comment.

By: Otto von D-

Otto von D- — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:09:34 +0000

I’m w/ tball on this all the way.

By: TBall

TBall — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:44:09 +0000

Scott this whole Tom thing can be summed up in one sentence: Tom became an addict and fucked up his life and you didn’t and now he’s angry at you.

I mean seriously, for him to suggest that by simply posting a video of someone shooting up and talking truthfully about your life experiences somehow glorifies drug use and is irresponsible and promotes both drug use and addiction is just plain nutso. Tom needs to get a better grip on his own life and his own addictions before he tries to tell others how to live theirs.

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:55:36 +0000

UPDATE FROM SCOTT – FLASH — UPDATE — BREAKING NEWS

Tom has been banned from further posting for violating one of the most basic rules of blog commenting — personally insulting the host blogger.

Specifically he called me an asshole {among other nasty, hateful personally offensive, injurious things, all of which made me cry} and although it is probably true that I can be an asshole {as well as all the other awful things he called me — sniff sniff} — you don’t get to call me those things on my own blog and get way with it.

Frankly, given the fact that Tom is a blogger himself you would have thought he’d know better. Although, that having been said, I don’t know if you can actually call someone whose blog gets just 46 hits a day a blogger. More like a hobbiest if you ask me.

Anyway, There is an unwritten blogger rule for comportment when you comment on another blogger’s blog and you yourself are a blogger. Unfortunately Tom being the know-it-all opinionated small dicked junkie twit that he is doesn’t understand how we operate in the real, live, grown-up world of actual blogs with actual traffic — especially when you’re a blogger visiting another blogger’s blog.

In other words Tom, I don’t come into your house and call you names and I don’t expect you to come into mine and call me names.

But since winning the point seems to be all that you care about I don’t expect you to understand, or care about, any of that. Hey! Acting like that is pretty much the definition of “Junkie Behavior” isn’t it Tommy? Petty appropriate of you, no?

In any event, its been fun. Thanks for playing. Oh, and you should give a read to the comment posted earlier by Philly Dawg — he’s seems to have you figured out to the fucking T.

Buh bye Tommy.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:52:22 +0000

THANK YOU scott and especially Philly Dawg for injecting a little much needed reality into this debate! I’m sorry but I am so sick to death of these people like Tom who are in programs for their addictions who insist just like Tom does that everyone who uses drugs or alcohol is just as fucked up and dependent as they are. I remember when a friend first went into AA and he tried to get me to admit to him that I was an alcoholic. I laughed in his face because I dont even like the taste of booze and never have. I might have a beer every six months but thats it! But he based his presumption, not assumption but presumption, on the fact that I went to my brothers wedding and got drunk on four glasses of champagne and made a fool of myself in the process. And then he cut me out of his life because his sponsor told him to. Look I think if programs like AA help people then good for them but with so many of the people that they attract and the fact that the programs themselves teach these people that drug and alcohol use is a zero sum game for every one (which it clearly is not). That he believes this is clearly proven by Tom here who can’t even begin to fathom the possibility that you might not ever have been an addict in the first place Scott and which he demonstrates further by predicting your inevitable relapse. I’m sorry but you just get the sense that people like Tom desperately need to believe that everyone else is just as fucked up as they are. Misery loves company as you say Scott.

By: philly dawg

philly dawg — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:35:25 +0000

scott – as i was reading through the exchange with tom my first reaction to his post was “he’s an addict in recovery and not very far into that recovery” addicts freshly into recovery tend to have a very black and white view of addiction and that view of addiction, both theirs and others, is skewed by their own personal experiences. theyre much like people who just found religion and refuse to acknowledge that differing truths exist for different people. and with regard to addiction and drug use they tend to be unwilling to acknowledge that others can actually have not just differing levels of addiction but that there are many people who can use recreational drugs (of any and every type) for an indefinite period of time without ever becoming addicted in the clinical/medical/psychological sense.

now, full disclosure here — i’m a harm reduction counselor in the greater philly metropolitan area so i can say with some degree of confidence that i actually do know what i’m talking about. so when i read what tom has written i see a person without any nuanced view of drug use or addiction and that’s simply because he thinks-as you pointed out scott-that everyone else is just like him.

but in harm reduction we follow the medically acknowledged principals that there are not just levels of addiction but also people who can use drugs and because of a complex multi-faceted combination of things (brain chemistry, psychology and the like) will never become addicted to those drugs. yet for someone like tom to rant against what you’ve written in the post and your comments and to call them lies as he does shows that he is unwilling to accept this fact. he wants everyone to be just like him, an addict who needs to be in complete recovery. unfortunately for people like tom who require a black and white view of the world of their addictions that’s just not how these things work because as you pointed out scott-everyone is different.