Arrest in Tarentum

[tannana]

Originally Posted by burgh1

Actually if you think about it, the TOS vouch system could have been used for a textbook conspiracy case.

That's a hell of a legal theory.


Question for you: when a large rust-belt county had several of the TOS proprietors and operators under their roof for a few days a couple of years ago: why didn't that happen? Now, it could be because the governmental unit in question is just that incompetent. Or, it could be because if they really wanted to go about it, there's about 17 paths which are easier. I think you are right--thinking about it is probably a good idea. But I'm always curious: what is the overt act which offering a vouch is in furtherance of? And what is your specific argument which suggests that by offering a vouch that one agreed to commit said act?


Of all the risks in the hobby, I'd submit to you that stuff like what HDGristle correctly identifies are far larger of a problem that the possibility of facing any kind of overt consequences over a vouch. Or a review. In fact, as I mention: regarding the case which we aren't all talking about, a cursory glance at the actual facts will tell you that anything hobby related is only part of the hypothetical individual's legal woes. (this thread is likely an example: there's a fact based analysis and whatever the gentle reader chooses to call the other one). There's a lot of sound, fury, mystical recollections from fantasy-land, and a plethora of other noise to try to distract from this simple truth that the originally referenced event and some things which follow it are only tangentially hobby related. Don't be fooled.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by tannana

That's a hell of a legal theory.


Question for you: when a large rust-belt county had several of the TOS proprietors and operators under their roof for a few days a couple of years ago: why didn't that happen? Now, it could be because the governmental unit in question is just that incompetent. Or, it could be because if they really wanted to go about it, there's about 17 paths which are easier. I think you are right--thinking about it is probably a good idea. But I'm always curious: what is the overt act which offering a vouch is in furtherance of? And what is your specific argument which suggests that by offering a vouch that one agreed to commit said act

Of all the risks in the hobby, I'd submit to you that stuff like what HDGristle correctly identifies are far larger of a problem that the possibility of facing any kind of overt consequences over a vouch. Or a review. In fact, as I mention: regarding the case which we aren't all talking about, a cursory glance at the actual facts will tell you that anything hobby related is only part of the hypothetical individual's legal woes. (this thread is likely an example: there's a fact based analysis and whatever the gentle reader chooses to call the other one). There's a lot of sound, fury, mystical recollections from fantasy-land, and a plethora of other noise to try to distract from this simple truth that the originally referenced event and some things which follow it are only tangentially hobby related. Don't be fooled.

Whose fooled? There were probably as many sellers as buyers trooping into her place.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by Gabrielle

Um...TOS is now dead cause the owner was called out for abusing people.

Ummm, nope.

It was the bullshit reviews and inability for guys to exchange true information on providers. Any guy who put up a bad review was attacked mercilessly so that drove a lot of hobbyists out. Then they made the silly decision to change site formats - and destroyed the rest.

Again, honest reviews are good for everyone. Good providers should not be afraid of reviews. You being afraid of them speaks volumes

[Gabrielle]

Originally Posted by tannana

a cursory glance at the actual facts

cur·so·ry
adjective
hasty and therefore not thorough or detailed.

I think what you mean is the line you cross thinking this is any of your business. You've already admitted to further digging into this sex workers PERSONAL information. For what reasons? STOP STALKING SEX WORKERS. I know you think you're special...but you're not. It's NONE of your fucking business.

[Hematoma]

Originally Posted by berryberry

Ummm, nope.

It was the bullshit reviews and inability for guys to exchange true information on providers. Any guy who put up a bad review was attacked mercilessly so that drove a lot of hobbyists out. Then they made the silly decision to change site formats - and destroyed the rest.

Again, honest reviews are good for everyone. Good providers should not be afraid of reviews. You being afraid of them speaks volumes

Couldn't agree more.

[HDGristle]

It's none of our fucking business, yours included, unless she personally invited to you make it yours.

Another great quotable here:

"I know you think you're special...but you're not. It's NONE of your fucking business"

Show some self-awareness of how thick the bullshit is here before wading further into the pool

[tannana]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Show some self-awareness of how thick the bullshit is here before wading further into the pool

You are a gentleman and scholar, sir.

I have a new proposal for the board: every time you get a request for screening information, respond with "I know you think you are special, but it's none of your fucking business." While you are doing this, go ahead and search this forum for the word "screening."

Then, once you appreciate the irony, have the belly laugh.

Let's get back to the thread, though: the perhaps subject of the article that we aren't talking about has been sitting in jail for awhile. 2 or 3 days ago, some folks here were talking about kicking in to get her out, right? Here's the thing: because the county this may have taken place in is wired to the state's portal, anyone here with a credit or debit card and $1500 could've sprung her from their couch (or the one upon which one is crashing/surfing). Not 15k. The person who we aren't talking about is still sitting in the palace on Franklin (or not?). I give to you the power of positive thinking and advocacy (don't laugh, because this isn't funny).

[lustylad]

Hey, I was ready to spring her until gabe said it's none of my business.

[bambino]

I thought GrannyGurl bailed her out?

[obnoxiousram]

Let's not egg Dreamgurrl on.

[obnoxiousram]

If your review is honest and legit you should have nothing to fear. Yes i do know of a woman who blacklisted a guy for misrepresenting the facts on his side of the story.

[dj8rocks]

We have strayed far and wide from the original topic. Lets get the discussion back on track to the original discussion, if it can be found..

[Gabrielle]

Here ya go dj8. Happy to help...

"The officer tracked down ratings, reviews and advertisements linked to that phone number on two websites that advertise sexual services, police said."

Your reviews are being used against providers. Be responsible, don't review.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Gabrielle

Here ya go dj8. Happy to help...

"The officer tracked down ratings, reviews and advertisements linked to that phone number on two websites that advertise sexual services, police said."

Your reviews are being used against providers. Be responsible, don't review.

If we follow your logic providers shouldn’t advertise either. The provider in question hasn’t been reviewed here in a longtime. Where was she reviewed? Does the “new” Indy’s have a review forum? Oh, I forgot you have me on ignore. Maybe someone else can answer this.

[tannana]

Originally Posted by bambino

If we follow your logic providers shouldn’t advertise either.

The phone number that the cop first used was almost certainly first placed on the internet by the person we aren't talking about.


Facts are pesky things.