Do we NEED another CAITIE MAE thread?! Obviously, we do.

[a1]

Earlier, I had said more or less that she is acting like a guilty, barking dog. I think I was wrong, I think she was acting like a human being being attacked.

If this is a false rumor, then I can't imagine how she feels. And this right here is why we shouldn't speculate. If there's proof, that's different. Bring it on, no sense in bullshitting.

CM, maybe if you feel comfortable, you could show a couple mods and they could vouche. You shouldn't have to do this, no. I say it for your benefit only.

[MaxiMilyen]

Originally Posted by a1

CM, maybe if you feel comfortable, you could show a couple mods and they could vouche. You shouldn't have to do this, no. I say it for your benefit only.

Personally, I wouldn't share my medical information with anyone, no matter what is being said about me. Naturally, I would act responsibly if there were reason for concern, because that's what adults try to do. My medical information is no one's business but mine. I don't think it would help her at all to verify or not verify any vicious rumors concerning her health.

The damage that was meant to be done can not be taken back. She has every right to say "screw you" to those who started and those who continued to pass along her personal and unsubstantiated medical information in a public forum. I like to think that Karma will eventually catch up with those folks.

[LazurusLong]

A person can't post photos of 3 pill bottles that are taken ONLY to treat HIV because they have the real name, pharmacy and date and doctors name on them so the proof can't be posted on ECCIE in any manner shape or form and that provider continues to post ads on ECCIE and also BP.

Even though I've been told the photos have been sent to the staff, she still has access here.
---------------
As for CM.
Same issue on proof here. NO ONE ELSE can post "proof" except for the person in question. But do they really want their medical record on an escort site?

As noted above, Caitie can make arrangements to meet with any or all of the 3 board owners with a recent screening test under her real name and with proper ID and put this to rest any time she chooses. IF she so chooses.

Other than the threADS, she hasn't been posting ads.

[TinMan]

Just to be clear, LL, the photos to which you are referring are not related to the Caitie Mae matter.

[Guest061614]

Removed at the request of the poster.

[MaxiMilyen]

pfft...

IMO... It's no one's business what anyone else's medical records state. Not even the Mods. The rules here on ECCIE tell you not to talk about it, and yet some of you continue to make assumptions and innuendos because of what you've read or heard through the grapevine. Ya'll need to stop pressuring her to do something of this nature. How many of you wanna show your medical history to the Mods? hmmmm? She only needs to act as responsibly as the rest of us are supposed to be doing in the hobby. Jumping on a public forum and making unsubstantiated statements and innuendos is not responsible, whether true or false. It doesn't matter, it's not our business unless SHE makes it our business in whatever from or fashion SHE chooses to do so, if at all. It should have no bearing on anything should she choose not to. She should be given the respect and consideration of a responsible individual, just as the rest of you want to be given.

[Chevalier]

Oh. I wondered what that cryptic reference in the other thread was about. All sorts of possibilities were whirling through my mind. (Note to rumormongers: It is arguably irresponsible to circulate unsubstantiated rumors. Doing so in a cryptic fashion can be even worse.)

I have no direct knowledge here, so perhaps I should heed Caitie's request and STFU. But fools rush in where angels fear to tread, so . . . .

We recognize a responsibility in the community to get tested regularly if we engage in P4P. (Not all people do, of course. What about you?) What we do NOT recognize is an obligation to furnish proof of clean tests, absent circumstances that would be some sort of credible belief of a problem.

I don't routinely ask ladyfriends for such proof. In fact, I don't recall ever asking. Similarly -- sauce/goose/gander applies, no? -- I've never been asked to provide such proof about myself. I suspect I might be offended if a ladyfriend didn't take my word for it and insisted on such proof, if she didn't have a good reason for asking.

So, to me, it comes down to whether there is credible basis to request such proof from Caitie. I heard the rumor, awhile back, from a well-intentioned (but not always reliable) member with a tendency toward, shall we say, occasional sensationalism. Was that a credible basis? Absent direct evidence, I had to consider the plausibility of several scenarios.

Was it likely, if there were such direct proof, that the ultimate source of the rumor would have been privy to it? It seemed unlikely that, if the rumor were true, Caitie would have told just anyone. Without knowing who the ultimate source was . . .

Was it likely that someone -- a competitor, disgruntled ex-client, ex-boyfriend, general asshole or shit-stirrer -- would start such a rumor just to hurt her? Given what we know about the community . . .

Might it be misunderstanding/miscommunication/speculation masquerading as knowledge? "She hasn't been around" or "she doesn't look well" ==> "she might be sick" ==> "I'm sure she's sick" ==> " X said she was sick". Given what we know of psychology in general . . . .

The rumor stated information came from her family. Well, she'd be more likely to tell them than a random member of ECCIE, but it would depend on the ultimate source of the rumor: (a) knowing her real name; AND (b) being told by the family. Likely?

If the ultimate source of the rumor had definitive proof (as claimed), would he likely have passed that proof along either widely within the community or to staff here? I've never heard of anyone claiming to have such proof. Why not?

Given what I know of her personality and character, even if she wouldn't tell people at random in ECCIE, would she likely volunteer such information to someone who scheduled with her? If she felt unable to do so because of financial needs, wouldn't she be more assertive about seeking appointments than she has been?

And, based on all that, if you were in a similar situation, would you be offended at being asked to disprove a rumor? Particularly when someone can always ask for more proof? E.g., test old enough to be sure the antibodies would show up plus evidence of no sexual contact with anyone in the interim. "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." Under some circumstances, I might understand a request and be willing to provide proof -- but not necessarily based on an unattributed rumor. Is this situation reasonable basis to request proof?

*shrug* I can't rule it out absolutely, but it seemed unlikely to me.

But the decision is up to each of you. If you think an unattributed rumor is enough, AND you want to play with Caitie, ask for proof and explain why you think it's reasonable to ask (and would do it yourself if someone had started a similar rumor about you; in fact, maybe you should offer to do the same?) If she's not willing, don't see her.

But if you don't intend to schedule with her, let it drop. And don't pass along unsubstantiated rumors.

[TexTushHog]

Caitie Mae's situation is regrettable and not at all of her own making. And while I agree in theory with her comment on the burden of proof ("Clearly, the burden of the issue should be upon those who gave it life. Those who claim to have proof need to come with it.") as a practical matter that may not be so clear. Once your name is besmirched, even if through not fault of your own, if you want to continue in the hobby world, and I have no idea if CM is now working, you may have to take some affirmative steps to clear your own name. Is that unfair? You bet it is. But it may be the reality of the situation.

Imagine Hobbyist X who is choosing between Provider A and Provider B. There are rumors about Provider A's health. They have many indicia of unreliability and Hobbyist X is 99% certain that they are untrue. But otherwise, he judges Provider A and Provider B to offer equal value. In that case, why take the 1% chance. He should logically book with Provider B.

Indeed, this situation illustrates why we have a rule against speculation without evidentiary basis on the health status of providers and hobbyists. The rumors are very easy to start, are often false, and have very serious consequences. But, once your are the victim of such a rumor, it may well be in your best interest to take the initiative and more forward to clear your name irrespective of where the "burden of proof" ought to otherwise lie.

Caitie Mae, please don't take this cold slice of reality as a lack of empathy for your situation. I am just pointing out to everyone, not particularly you, how harmful these rumors can be, and how difficult it is to vindicate one's self once such a rumor is started. I do have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who finds them self in a situation such as you find yourself in.

[TinMan]

The problem, Chevalier, is you can't unring a bell. It's out there, and it's easier for us guys to just move on rather than confront it.

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by TinMan

The problem, Chevalier, is you can't unring a bell. It's out there, and it's easier for us guys to just move on rather than confront it.

I understand your point, and TTH's, that some or many or all members of a community may feel a need to act on a rumor even though unsubstantiated. May even feel a need to pass a rumor along, sacrificing the subject of the rumor (if the rumor is wrong) to the good of the community (if the rumor is true).

I understand it, but it infuriates me because it empowers the malignant and the reckless, the assholes and the shit-stirrers, not to mention those who do not demand proof before passing the rumor along. With no consequences.

I wish it were possible to trace the rumor back to the original source and, if/when the rumor is disproved, humiliate and ostracize him or her. Although it is almost certainly impossible if not done when it first arises.

May we never be the subject of such rumors.

[Torito]

Everyone take time to read Guideline #16. For your convenience, Caitie Mae quoted it in her first post.

You will notice that all the following posts that discuss her mythical "condition" are allowed only if in answer to a question she has asked.

Now, look at her invitation to converse:
I welcome open conversation on this specific subject on the condition that your contribution to this issue includes indisputable evidence of my condition one way or the other.

I have read all the posts without finding "indisputable evidence" or anything along that line. I have seen the same old speculation and accusations continuing.

The majority of these seem to come from A1. I did notice that you attitude seems to be softening and that is good. Violation of Guideline #16 still exists.

Lazarus Long. Check your post #33.

By the time I saw this thread it was completely out of control. The next post I see that contains reference to the "condition" without "indisputable evidence" as Caitie Mae stated will earn points. That excludes Caitie, as she is the real subject.

This ongoing assasination as well as Guideline violation needs to stop. It has been discussed ad nausium.

For those ready to brand me WK, I have never met Caitie nor had any contact with her.

Torito

[Chevalier]

My intent was not to make things worse, but intent is not the same as results, and it may be impossible to post in this thread without making things worse. Given those conditions, maybe it would be best to just close the thread. My apologies, to the staff and to Caitie.

[TexTushHog]

It's just a fucking mess for CM no matter how it's handled. Very, very unfortunate. As Chevalier says, it's nothing short of infuriating, even for the innocent bystander. I can't imagine how frustrated and angry CM must be. And Chevalier makes an excellent point that allowing these rumors without proof "empowers the malignant and the reckless, the assholes and the shit-stirrers." That is why I think that this discussion is an learning experience (albeit unfortunately at CM's expense) and that in the future the moderators should be ruthless in quashing similar rumors. And those that object to quashing those rumors should be pointed to this debacle when they question those actions.

[Valentine Michael]

What's the point of this thread if any discussion is squelched by moderation? Might as well close it.

[shooter6.5]

Of course had I been Caitie I would have left well enough alone. I understand her frustration. But she and others know that nothing changes-all the way back from Delphi to today. I have more respect for the Taliban than some of these members.

There are several here who thrive on rumors and BS, and seldom with anything to back up their comments.

Yes, you and I agree Michael, just for different reasons.