Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Naomi4u · 02-27-2011, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M A X

Does that make Naomi your fluffer? LOL

Good one Max.

NinaBrooke · 02-28-2011, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camille

But Charles, you have to be able to keep up to spy!
It's a no-win lol.

FB was great for a while for me as it was a quick way to post pics of the US for family and friends to see in the UK...without having to send multiple emails (ok.."lazy" is probably the better word)...but the novelty wore off quickly. Back to emails...

xx

Oh i am a facebook addict. love the concept. much more than emails :-)

pjorourke · 02-28-2011, 06:55 AM

So how do you see facebook as being superior to email?

charlestudor2005 · 02-28-2011, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

So how do you see facebook as being superior to email?

Maybe she prefers the lack of privacy.

Naomi4u · 02-28-2011, 07:06 AM

Wait.. I too am a bit confused. Facebook cannot be an email alternative. Do you know how many people get their accounts hacked daily there? There IS a lot of truth to what Charles said. Facebook is very intrusive. If I even had one for my work persona there is no way I'd send private messages there. Charles, you recommended that I get skype instead of using FB to connect with my fam in Nigeria but Skype doesn't really have a calling plan for Nigeria and that sucks. It's also easier to share pictures on facebook.

charlestudor2005 · 02-28-2011, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naomi4u

Wait.. I too am a bit confused. Facebook cannot be an email alternative. Do you know how many people get their accounts hacked daily there? There IS a lot of truth to what Charles said. Facebook is very intrusive. If I even had one for my work persona there is no way I'd send private messages there. Charles, you recommended that I get skype instead of using FB to connect with my fam in Nigeria but Skype doesn't really have a calling plan for Nigeria and that sucks. It's also easier to share pictures on facebook.

I didn't know that about Nigeria. I thought Skype was everywhere. CNN did the early shots from the Argentine mine. I also had that cabbie that did daily video calls with the Crimea. I've seen Skype used from other places, too. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you.

Naomi4u · 02-28-2011, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I didn't know that about Nigeria. I thought Skype was everywhere. CNN did the early shots from the Argentine mine. I also had that cabbie that did daily video calls with the Crimea. I've seen Skype used from other places, too. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you.

No probs babe. http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/pric...ed-world-extra They can make Unlimited Calls there but not to Nigeria. In fact it would cost me $12.49 a month to call Nigeria and talk for 60 minutes which is pretty ridiculous. I am better off going to a convenience store and getting a $5 CTA Africa calling card and talking for 100 minutes. It's not fair and too bad.

charlestudor2005 · 02-28-2011, 07:45 AM

CNN HLN is about to do a story on prostitutes advertising on FB.

charlestudor2005 · 02-28-2011, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naomi4u

No probs babe. http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/pric...ed-world-extra They can make Unlimited Calls there but not to Nigeria. In fact it would cost me $12.49 a month to call Nigeria and talk for 60 minutes which is pretty ridiculous. I am better off going to a convenience store and getting a $5 CTA Africa calling card and talking for 100 minutes. It's not fair and too bad.

I get your point, but with skype you could see each other in RT. If your family on the other end doesn't have the technology, or can't otherwise do it, I agree with you.

Naomi4u · 02-28-2011, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I get your point, but with skype you could see each other in RT. If your family on the other end doesn't have the technology, or can't otherwise do it, I agree with you.

They do but the connection is so bad that it's not even worth the trouble.

charlestudor2005 · 02-28-2011, 08:56 AM

The actual WIRED article. Stats & graphics are interesting:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_sextrade/all/1

Naomi4u · 02-28-2011, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The actual WIRED article. Stats & graphics are interesting:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_sextrade/all/1

Wow! What an interesting read!

NinaBrooke · 02-28-2011, 09:36 AM

I have just now read that article in the NY times about "hookers" fleing to fb. I think the article is derogatory, using the word hooker to describe sexworkers. and Then furthermore why should someone that works as a sexworker not be allowed or even be talked about when advertising his or her services on facebook? I realized already with my escort profile that certain words are not allowed as name (e.g. escort) or if you want to befriend people its more limited than with regular accounts. I can only make 2 or 3 friends a day other than that is considered spam. interesting indeed. I think every business has a right to advertise where it wants, and the other thing is that facebook is worldwide and in many countries prostitution is legal.

I think the article deserves a thorough response about something called political correctness and using less stigmatizing words for describing sexworkers than "hookers". I wonder that something like this is even written in the NY times?
Unbelievable.

charlestudor2005 · 02-28-2011, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninasastri

I have just now read that article in the NY times about "hookers" fleing to fb. I think the article is derogatory, using the word hooker to describe sexworkers. and Then furthermore why should someone that works as a sexworker not be allowed or even be talked about when advertising his or her services on facebook? I realized already with my escort profile that certain words are not allowed as name (e.g. escort) or if you want to befriend people its more limited than with regular accounts. I can only make 2 or 3 friends a day other than that is considered spam. interesting indeed. I think every business has a right to advertise where it wants, and the other thing is that facebook is worldwide and in many countries prostitution is legal.

I think the article deserves a thorough response about something called political correctness and using less stigmatizing words for describing sexworkers than "hookers". I wonder that something like this is even written in the NY times?
Unbelievable.

The source article used the following terms: escorts, sex workers, prostitute. I only scanned it, but I don't think it used "hooker" any place. Must have been the newspaper's POV.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_sextrade/all/1

NinaBrooke · 02-28-2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Maybe she prefers the lack of privacy.

Yes that said, because especially emails are rather private yes?? :-) you`re funny , Charles. I actually attended a court hearing just recently where emails between a woman and her stalker abusive ex had been read in court to proof her case. So VERY private. Everything is open in the www. I prefer facebook because of the photos and because i have many foreigners as friends. and because you need to write one story only once :-). Its more multitasking than just emails. But that is just for me.