Too bad. Someone's well laid plan of garnering free publicity was derailed. On this one site. Boo hoo. Again, what's your financial connection to fabulis.com?
The 'content' the bank objected to was the contact information. They objected to it NOT being there, because it was in the contract for the account. That's my theory.
That's not what my post implied at all. But the amount of energy you put into this conversation makes me wonder... what's your financial connection to fabulis.com?
Right. My thoughts exactly. They are in beta, about to go live, they forgot to put the contractually required contact info up, the bank notified them, they fixed it. That should be the end of the story right there, but someone saw a away to turn it into some extra publicity.
Okay. Here is my theory: This is a web site that sells things. The bank account in question is the corporate account. As part of the bank's standard checklist for new accounts of new online businesses, they require that the site have real world, brick and mortar contact information so that, if there are any problems with billing, the customers will find it easier to contact the business in person or by phone, rather than bugging the bank, canceling the charges on their cards, and so forth.
The site is about to go live, so the bank checked the site for compliance. They said, "You need contact info online, we're shutting down your payment processing until you get that done, as it states in the contract you signed with us." But that isn't good publicity. It's very easy to instead intentionally miss-hear that as, "We object to your content." Get it? The contact info is the content, and the bank objects to it not being there. It isn't even a lie. And it makes good publicity.
And you know what? It seems to have worked. And more power to them. The Internet is woefully short on gay hookup sites. None of my gay friends are putting the stank on the hangdown nearly as often as they'd like to, the poor things.
You see, that kind of casual dishonesty is fucking par for the course for corporations, it's so common it's hard to even really see it as objectionable. Corporations are going to trick you, always, it's a fact of life. I'm just over here going "Aaahh! Aaah! Good one, good one, you almost got me!" Sheesh.
So, you would rather that no one know that this is a large commercial site, about to go live? You'd rather I just shut up about it and not comment?
Let me tell you a little anecdote. I lived in San Francisco for a long while, and I saw how the gay ruling class there treated the newcomers. "We're all one big happy gay family, which is why you shouldn't ask for fair wages or health insurance or paid vacation, what are you? A traitor to the cause?"
So, I see what appears to, perhaps, be an example of the same sort of cynical manipulation of an oppressed minority, and I point that out, and you resort with this kind of argument, why, exactly? Oh, hey, yeah, this guy is gay so he gets a free pass and is above all suspicion even though he's a CEO trying to make a buck.
I DO troll here sometimes, but this isn't one of those times. I've been civil, and presented my suspicions in a fair and balanced manner. Seriously, why are you getting so worked up about it?
And besides, you can't prove that my goat AIDS came from a goat.
Maybe the CEO of fabulis is telling the truth. We have no evidence either way, really. I'm just saying, there is a simpler explanation than homophobia: greed.
Fabulis qualifies as a large corporation, too. Why should I trust one corporation over another?
The site is a very large gay dating site that is about to go live in a few weeks. There is no real world address or telephone number on the site. The bank is worried about charge-backs. The only one claiming the bank said anything about objectionable content is the site's CEO.
This isn't a blog. It is a large, well financed gay dating site who's CEO happens to be blogging about his bank's supposed issues with his site's 'objectionable content' a week before the site goes live.
No tangents here, just a dearth of complete information. You see, this fellow has been pimping this story all over the place, and I'd read it a few hours before, linked from a different site. I looked into the fabulis site and found out what it is, and that it is about to go live, and THAT is what made me suspicious. The timing is just a little too pat.
Again, it is not whether the bank knows how to contact this guy. He is about to open a very large online dating site, but there is no real live address or telephone number on the site. The bank is just worried about charge-backs.
His attitude is no skin off my nose, I have a lot of sympathy and I completely understand this kind of misplaced anger. It's just kind of ironic who it's directed against, I mean, I've partied with John Waters at a Coquettes party at the Eagle in San Francisco. I've marched in the SF gay pride parade with Harry Hay. I don't mean that as name dropping, just, you know, I have a bit of cred in those circles.
*sigh*
But it's a good thing overall, a newly out homosexual can actually be publicly angry and bitter (or anonymously angry and bitter like our AC friend) and not get arrested or harassed. Or, you know, beaten, tied to a fence, and left for dead. That is a very good thing. And nowadays, said bitter and angry newly out homosexual actually has the opportunity to get over it and let his sexual orientation become merely a facet of his personality, not the dominant and all consuming definition of who he is.
Except I'm an out bisexual, and nothing I've written here today smells anything like homophobia. I'm not trying to knock the guy down, either. I've just seen too many people try to trump up some kind of story to publicize their web site, and I'm not giving this guy a free pass just because he's gay. I am treating him, his site, and this story the same as I would any other. The reason I've posted so many responses is that I've gotten a bunch of reactionary, knee jerk attacks against my suposed homophobia, and I've felt it necessary to explain my reasoning.
This fellow is not really a blogger, he's the CEO of a gay dating site that will be opening to the public in a few weeks. He happens to have a blog on his corporate site.
Do you see why I'm a bit suspicious?
Now, no one is claiming anything like the insane straw man argument you put out. No friend at city bank. Just a standard check of a brand new online business, leading to a bank account being put on hold for a short while, and a lot of hearsay.
Now, if you still want to make ad hominem attacks suggesting I am homophobic, please explain how anything I've written is actually, in any way homophobic.
Go on. I'll wait.
And no, sorry, but "I don't like what you've written and you should be more sympathetic to this guy 'cause he's gay" does not make what I've written homophobic.
Medical marijuana is NOT legal in the eyes of the Federal Government. Obama has said they will no longer prosecute in contravention of state laws, but it certainly hasn't been legalized and that is just policy of the current administration.
Your outrage is misplaced. I'm an out bisexual. There was no ad hominem about your presumed sexuality. It is my personal experience, having as many gay friends as I do, that when someone first comes out, they identify as gay and take GLBT issues very seriously. After someone has been out for a while, being gay is just one aspect of their personality and they no longer get so incensed over every imagined slight.
But please, if you still feel I'm some sort of homophobe, explain why you think so. Go on, reread what I said and show why you think it is in any way homophobic, keeping in mind that I know what cock tastes like.
Ahhh, no. That is not the action of a closeted gay. That would be the action of someone who has just come out, and sees injustice and homophobia everywhere. A closeted gay would agree with me. Someone who has been out for a while and is comfortable with their identity no longer sees homophobes hiding in every shadow. So, newly out queer with a chip on the shoulder is my guess.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, having a chip on your shoulder is perfectly justified, gay people really do get a raw deal. It's just not that mature...
How so? What motive would the bank have for bringing him to court over statements of opinion, publicizing this even more, and then losing? He is expressing opinions, there is no issue of libel there.
While you may be right, the end result of all of this is a very large amount of publicity for this site. Call me cynical, but anytime I see some website whining about some supposed injustice done to them, I think 'shameless self promotion.'
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad. Someone's well laid plan of garnering free publicity was derailed. On this one site. Boo hoo. Again, what's your financial connection to fabulis.com?
The 'content' the bank objected to was the contact information. They objected to it NOT being there, because it was in the contract for the account. That's my theory.
That's not what my post implied at all. But the amount of energy you put into this conversation makes me wonder... what's your financial connection to fabulis.com?
Did I say he was whining?
Anyway, go look at www.fabulis.com, rather than blog.fabulis.com, tell me what you think.
Right. My thoughts exactly. They are in beta, about to go live, they forgot to put the contractually required contact info up, the bank notified them, they fixed it. That should be the end of the story right there, but someone saw a away to turn it into some extra publicity.
Look, I really wasn't trying to piss anyone off. Sorry.
I hope so. Some people need a good brain breaking, because sometimes, it reassembles itself into a more cognizant form.
Okay. Here is my theory: This is a web site that sells things. The bank account in question is the corporate account. As part of the bank's standard checklist for new accounts of new online businesses, they require that the site have real world, brick and mortar contact information so that, if there are any problems with billing, the customers will find it easier to contact the business in person or by phone, rather than bugging the bank, canceling the charges on their cards, and so forth.
The site is about to go live, so the bank checked the site for compliance. They said, "You need contact info online, we're shutting down your payment processing until you get that done, as it states in the contract you signed with us." But that isn't good publicity. It's very easy to instead intentionally miss-hear that as, "We object to your content." Get it? The contact info is the content, and the bank objects to it not being there. It isn't even a lie. And it makes good publicity.
And you know what? It seems to have worked. And more power to them. The Internet is woefully short on gay hookup sites. None of my gay friends are putting the stank on the hangdown nearly as often as they'd like to, the poor things.
You see, that kind of casual dishonesty is fucking par for the course for corporations, it's so common it's hard to even really see it as objectionable. Corporations are going to trick you, always, it's a fact of life. I'm just over here going "Aaahh! Aaah! Good one, good one, you almost got me!" Sheesh.
Nice ones! Although, as I was corrected below, I should have said, 'nothing says "I like penis" more than owning something from Apple.'
Happy Troll Thursday!
So, you would rather that no one know that this is a large commercial site, about to go live? You'd rather I just shut up about it and not comment?
Let me tell you a little anecdote. I lived in San Francisco for a long while, and I saw how the gay ruling class there treated the newcomers. "We're all one big happy gay family, which is why you shouldn't ask for fair wages or health insurance or paid vacation, what are you? A traitor to the cause?"
So, I see what appears to, perhaps, be an example of the same sort of cynical manipulation of an oppressed minority, and I point that out, and you resort with this kind of argument, why, exactly? Oh, hey, yeah, this guy is gay so he gets a free pass and is above all suspicion even though he's a CEO trying to make a buck.
I DO troll here sometimes, but this isn't one of those times. I've been civil, and presented my suspicions in a fair and balanced manner. Seriously, why are you getting so worked up about it?
And besides, you can't prove that my goat AIDS came from a goat.
Why the antagonism? I'm not personally attacking anyone.
Maybe the CEO of fabulis is telling the truth. We have no evidence either way, really. I'm just saying, there is a simpler explanation than homophobia: greed.
Fabulis qualifies as a large corporation, too. Why should I trust one corporation over another?
I'd love to see some evidence of what our CEO friend is claiming.
The site is a very large gay dating site that is about to go live in a few weeks. There is no real world address or telephone number on the site. The bank is worried about charge-backs. The only one claiming the bank said anything about objectionable content is the site's CEO.
Do I need to draw you a diagram?
This isn't a blog. It is a large, well financed gay dating site who's CEO happens to be blogging about his bank's supposed issues with his site's 'objectionable content' a week before the site goes live.
No tangents here, just a dearth of complete information. You see, this fellow has been pimping this story all over the place, and I'd read it a few hours before, linked from a different site. I looked into the fabulis site and found out what it is, and that it is about to go live, and THAT is what made me suspicious. The timing is just a little too pat.
Again, it is not whether the bank knows how to contact this guy. He is about to open a very large online dating site, but there is no real live address or telephone number on the site. The bank is just worried about charge-backs.
His attitude is no skin off my nose, I have a lot of sympathy and I completely understand this kind of misplaced anger. It's just kind of ironic who it's directed against, I mean, I've partied with John Waters at a Coquettes party at the Eagle in San Francisco. I've marched in the SF gay pride parade with Harry Hay. I don't mean that as name dropping, just, you know, I have a bit of cred in those circles.
*sigh*
But it's a good thing overall, a newly out homosexual can actually be publicly angry and bitter (or anonymously angry and bitter like our AC friend) and not get arrested or harassed. Or, you know, beaten, tied to a fence, and left for dead. That is a very good thing. And nowadays, said bitter and angry newly out homosexual actually has the opportunity to get over it and let his sexual orientation become merely a facet of his personality, not the dominant and all consuming definition of who he is.
Except I'm an out bisexual, and nothing I've written here today smells anything like homophobia. I'm not trying to knock the guy down, either. I've just seen too many people try to trump up some kind of story to publicize their web site, and I'm not giving this guy a free pass just because he's gay. I am treating him, his site, and this story the same as I would any other. The reason I've posted so many responses is that I've gotten a bunch of reactionary, knee jerk attacks against my suposed homophobia, and I've felt it necessary to explain my reasoning.
This fellow is not really a blogger, he's the CEO of a gay dating site that will be opening to the public in a few weeks. He happens to have a blog on his corporate site.
Do you see why I'm a bit suspicious?
Now, no one is claiming anything like the insane straw man argument you put out. No friend at city bank. Just a standard check of a brand new online business, leading to a bank account being put on hold for a short while, and a lot of hearsay.
Now, if you still want to make ad hominem attacks suggesting I am homophobic, please explain how anything I've written is actually, in any way homophobic.
Go on. I'll wait.
And no, sorry, but "I don't like what you've written and you should be more sympathetic to this guy 'cause he's gay" does not make what I've written homophobic.
Touche.
Medical marijuana is NOT legal in the eyes of the Federal Government. Obama has said they will no longer prosecute in contravention of state laws, but it certainly hasn't been legalized and that is just policy of the current administration.
You've never owned an online business, have you? Banks have had this policy towards online sites for over a decade.
Your outrage is misplaced. I'm an out bisexual. There was no ad hominem about your presumed sexuality. It is my personal experience, having as many gay friends as I do, that when someone first comes out, they identify as gay and take GLBT issues very seriously. After someone has been out for a while, being gay is just one aspect of their personality and they no longer get so incensed over every imagined slight.
But please, if you still feel I'm some sort of homophobe, explain why you think so. Go on, reread what I said and show why you think it is in any way homophobic, keeping in mind that I know what cock tastes like.
Thanks, but I like my trolls to be more subtle than that.
Ahhh, no. That is not the action of a closeted gay. That would be the action of someone who has just come out, and sees injustice and homophobia everywhere. A closeted gay would agree with me. Someone who has been out for a while and is comfortable with their identity no longer sees homophobes hiding in every shadow. So, newly out queer with a chip on the shoulder is my guess.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, having a chip on your shoulder is perfectly justified, gay people really do get a raw deal. It's just not that mature...
How so? What motive would the bank have for bringing him to court over statements of opinion, publicizing this even more, and then losing? He is expressing opinions, there is no issue of libel there.
While you may be right, the end result of all of this is a very large amount of publicity for this site. Call me cynical, but anytime I see some website whining about some supposed injustice done to them, I think 'shameless self promotion.'