Being popular is NOT always a good thing!

[joeonthago]

I have in the past only used agency girls. My thinking was that I thought it safer since these girls have been sent from a reputable agency. I recently tried to see 2 of our well known independent ladies. both have asked for some info from me. I gave it to them. Some of the info Is very sensitive to me. But I understand that as much as I am trying to keep my ass outta trouble, they are trying double time. neither has gotten back to me, but I understand the process. But if everything has been compromised what are guys like me to do? I don't want to go blow cash on girls I really don't want to see, just so I can get references.

[Miss Dreams]

ok... so what I am doing......................... ...........Only seeing gents whom i already know and trust or are verified through a lady whom I "know" of and she needs to be verified and well reviewed.

I will continue to keep my ad on backpage for clients that do not save my number in their phone! =)


Lets try to stay safe.

[hispdlowdrag]

yikes! that is all I have to say for now.

[guest071811-3]

Originally Posted by MissDreams

ok... so what I am doing......................... ...........Only seeing gents whom i already know and trust or are verified through a lady whom I "know" of and she needs to be verified and well reviewed.

I will continue to keep my ad on backpage for clients that do not save my number in their phone! =)


Lets try to stay safe.

I understand we all have to hang our "hat" so to speak on something in order to be safe.. but am I the only one that sees the glitch in the theory..

(Mod Edited) the 1 person involved in the bust that came forward.. is

#1 well reviewed
#2 verified
#3 known by you

#4 could verify in a trusted way many of the clients she has seen..

Now if not for the fact she did NOT flip and decide to help LE.. if she had..no one here would know.. she would then be helping them, using her well reviewed, verified, known by others status to set other girls up..

my point.. sure, banking on that system minimizes the risk.. but..and its a big BUT (insert butt joke here), but if she had in fact decided to help LE..known one here would know that, and that very system would be working against you.

Also it doesn't seem all that wise to express the "system" one would use in a public place where the very people might be reading it and simply find a work around.

once again..not paranoid, just playing devils advocate.. I don't really get why the stubborn nature of some peoples post hence the need to brag "im still posting on BP" with the reasoning in case some didn't save your number.. we will read about others..in due time..

[ragooh_aus]

I have following the situation in Little Rock. I do not live there, but WOW, you guys have really stirred this stew very well. Please take note that prositution and solicitation are both misdemeanors. Those crimes are punishable, by definition, with no more that one year in prison and no more than $1000 in fines. Little Rock is a large city with larger problems. If they are using so many resources to after some folks, there are bigger issues at work. heads are going to roll and felony warrants will be issued. Otherwise, you guys are worried about nothing.

When you run a red light, they don't question you and ask who else you know that routinely runs a red light.

Play safe and take whatever precautions you deem necessary. Those that have something to worry about know it.

[willro]

Originally Posted by ragooh_aus

I have following the situation in Little Rock. I do not live there, but WOW, you guys have really stirred this stew very well. Please take note that prositution and solicitation are both misdemeanors. Those crimes are punishable, by definition, with no more that one year in prison and no more than $1000 in fines. Little Rock is a large city with larger problems. If they are using so many resources to after some folks, there are bigger issues at work. heads are going to roll and felony warrants will be issued. Otherwise, you guys are worried about nothing.

When you run a red light, they don't question you and ask who else you know that routinely runs a red light.

Play safe and take whatever precautions you deem necessary. Those that have something to worry about know it.

I've been thinking the same thing. I mean WTF... since the busts last week, there have been two more shootings in Little Rock, and I'm guessing those crimes are not solved yet. Is an infiltration of the escort business a good use of resources from anyone's point of view? I really just don't understand it.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by ragooh_aus

Those crimes are punishable, by definition, with no more that one year in prison and no more than $1000 in fines.

Play safe and take whatever precautions you deem necessary. Those that have something to worry about know it.

Well, from one of the hobbyists in LR right now, a year in prison and a $1000 fine would pretty well ruin my life. It would lose me my family, my job, and probably child visitation. It's not just the statute that worries me. It's all the rest that goes with it. YOU may not be in that place, and YOU may think it's just a misdemeanor that anyone can do standing on their head, but it's not MY view from where I stand.

[guest071811-3]

its pretty simple, prostitution bust require little work, little effort and is pretty easy to set up fake accounts, fake references, fake work etc.. its what the VICE get paid for.. murders..totally seperate dept.. is one more important than the other? perhaps.. but fact is.. in the face of all these murders they perhaps can't solve.. they can certainly look BUSY busting prostitutes, selling the citzens on the fact that by cleaning up crimes such as prostitution they are impacting the chance for other crimes to occur...true or not..just how it is..

and realize..that in general, its only those partaking in the hobby that view it as time and energy and tax dollars wasted.. understand, many in the general community view all people involved in "sex work" as crack addicted pimped out trouble making people.. its not our place to tell them they are wrong..they are entitled to their opinions.. and want it cleaned up.. the wives being cheated on, the familes that have money wasted on escorts, all of that..they want cleaned up..right or wrong.. it looks damn good for LRPD to be involved and trying to "make a difference"..such is life

the one who makes light of it.. a misdeamor is a big deal to many.. having to stand in front of a courtroom and face prostitution type charges, turn around and walk out of that courtroom, a room that may have people in it you know..people with familes, mothers, fathers, having that on your record when you apply for a "real job".. etc..

while they may not check to see what the misdemeanor was..if they did..thats further embarrassment..

it is a big deal..little rock is NOT that large..not by a long shot.. and the big deal isn't that people get caught.. it should be whether your doing anything to make sure you don't and others don't

[Miss Dreams]

Originally Posted by DeAnna Luv

I understand we all have to hang our "hat" so to speak on something in order to be safe.. but am I the only one that sees the glitch in the theory..

(Mod edited), the 1 person involved in the bust that came forward.. is

#1 well reviewed
#2 verified
#3 known by you

#4 could verify in a trusted way many of the clients she has seen..

Now if not for the fact she did NOT flip and decide to help LE.. if she had..no one here would know.. she would then be helping them, using her well reviewed, verified, known by others status to set other girls up..

my point.. sure, banking on that system minimizes the risk.. but..and its a big BUT (insert butt joke here), but if she had in fact decided to help LE..known one here would know that, and that very system would be working against you.

Also it doesn't seem all that wise to express the "system" one would use in a public place where the very people might be reading it and simply find a work around.

once again..not paranoid, just playing devils advocate.. I don't really get why the stubborn nature of some peoples post hence the need to brag "im still posting on BP" with the reasoning in case some didn't save your number.. we will read about others..in due time..

Deanna you said some great information, BUT... because you say what ur going to do, does not affect u anymore than a girl posting that she's leaving out of town in a time like this? If LE wants you, there going to get you unless your seeing only those you already know. Which I dont see how that is UNsafe to post??? I mean I could be wrong but its really hard to prove anyone doing anything wrong when you are "friends"... I used to turn down people all day everyday that were verified if I myself didn't know the ladies, Yes gnd could have turned, but she didn't, to avoid anything incase, we dont see anyone that has seen her nor kitten?? if we are paranoid or if girls are going to keep hobbying newbies during this time!!! And for you to say... " we will read about other... in due time..." call my phone huni, see if i pick it up!!..(if i do pick up, you cant tell me your name and me know you then looks like we wont be visiting in the LR area!.. I wont, because I do NOT know your number. And Yes I will be keeping my AD ON BACKPAGE for the public to see because LIKE I SAID... I know many clients that do not save numbers because of their s/o.

[HSP]

Originally Posted by DeAnna Luv

I understand we all have to hang our "hat" so to speak on something in order to be safe.. but am I the only one that sees the glitch in the theory..

(Mod edited), the 1 person involved in the bust that came forward.. is

#1 well reviewed
#2 verified
#3 known by you

#4 could verify in a trusted way many of the clients she has seen..

Now if not for the fact she did NOT flip and decide to help LE.. if she had..no one here would know.. she would then be helping them, using her well reviewed, verified, known by others status to set other girls up..

my point.. sure, banking on that system minimizes the risk.. but..and its a big BUT (insert butt joke here), but if she had in fact decided to help LE..known one here would know that, and that very system would be working against you.

Also it doesn't seem all that wise to express the "system" one would use in a public place where the very people might be reading it and simply find a work around.

once again..not paranoid, just playing devils advocate.. I don't really get why the stubborn nature of some peoples post hence the need to brag "im still posting on BP" with the reasoning in case some didn't save your number.. we will read about others..in due time..

OK ... I am saying it here. Everyone knows who was busted. If you insist on continuing on throwing out accusations and rumors, then consider this your warning. NO MORE! If you have information send it to me. But slandering someone is NOT the way to do this!

[ragooh_aus]

You misunderstand my post. I agree, A misdemeanor is a problem none of us wants to deal with. What I am trying to point out is that if they are so passionately pursuing the crime, then there is more at stake. It is all economics.

[guest071811-3]

Ragooh..i see your point.. my mistake..

HSP.. you edited my post to remove the name.. the name of the person WHO OUTTED THEMSELVES..its hard to commit slander when its known.. what I said was in fact TRUE..that person was BUSTED.. admitted by the person that i put in my post.. i outted NO ONE..i slandered no one..

slan·der (slndr) KEY

NOUN:

1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone

I did none of the above.. the statement I made that YOU edited was indeed fact..a fact pointed out by the person herself.. its hard to slander someone that admitted it

I tossed out NO ACCUSATIONS..i did not say she did turn or did flip.. i merely gave an example of how there was a glitch in the "system" being tossed around..if in fact the person edited had of decided to flip or turn it a different way.. nothing more nothing less..

i didn't accuse anyone of it.. didn't slander anyone.. it has been admitted, discussed, my post perhaps need to be re-read, and hopefully the error made will be noticed.. its a "what if" no where in that post does it say she did, she is, or anything of the sorts.. just a "if she had" here is why the system wouldn't work..

of course much like anything.. doesn't matter how I see it, only the person doing the editing

[hispdlowdrag]

Originally Posted by DeAnna Luv

Ragooh..i see your point.. my mistake..

HSP.. you edited my post to remove the name.. the name of the person WHO OUTTED THEMSELVES..its hard to commit slander when its known.. what I said was in fact TRUE..that person was BUSTED.. admitted by the person that i put in my post.. i outted NO ONE..i slandered no one..

slan·der (slndr) KEY

NOUN:

1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone

I did none of the above.. the statement I made that YOU edited was indeed fact..a fact pointed out by the person herself.. its hard to slander someone that admitted it

I tossed out NO ACCUSATIONS..i did not say she did turn or did flip.. i merely gave an example of how there was a glitch in the "system" being tossed around..if in fact the person edited had of decided to flip or turn it a different way.. nothing more nothing less..

i didn't accuse anyone of it.. didn't slander anyone.. it has been admitted, discussed, my post perhaps need to be re-read, and hopefully the error made will be noticed.. its a "what if" no where in that post does it say she did, she is, or anything of the sorts.. just a "if she had" here is why the system wouldn't work..

of course much like anything.. doesn't matter how I see it, only the person doing the editing

I concur with this. I'm fairly new to this board, and in fact, i'm new to the state. Here only temporarily, and my one good reference here is probably no longer a good reference, perhaps it is, but I'm gonna be extra careful as everyone else should.

[MrGiz]

I have to admit.... I was wondering about the "accusations, rumors, and slandering" thing too!

[HSP]

Originally Posted by DeAnna Luv

Ragooh..i see your point.. my mistake..

HSP.. you edited my post to remove the name.. the name of the person WHO OUTTED THEMSELVES..its hard to commit slander when its known.. what I said was in fact TRUE..that person was BUSTED.. admitted by the person that i put in my post.. i outted NO ONE..i slandered no one..

slan·der (slndr) KEY

NOUN:

1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone

I did none of the above.. the statement I made that YOU edited was indeed fact..a fact pointed out by the person herself.. its hard to slander someone that admitted it

I tossed out NO ACCUSATIONS..i did not say she did turn or did flip.. i merely gave an example of how there was a glitch in the "system" being tossed around..if in fact the person edited had of decided to flip or turn it a different way.. nothing more nothing less..

i didn't accuse anyone of it.. didn't slander anyone.. it has been admitted, discussed, my post perhaps need to be re-read, and hopefully the error made will be noticed.. its a "what if" no where in that post does it say she did, she is, or anything of the sorts.. just a "if she had" here is why the system wouldn't work..

of course much like anything.. doesn't matter how I see it, only the person doing the editing

Your were implying and putting someone in a false light ...

"False Light" requires some type of false (or at least misleading) statement, and for this reason it often appears to overlap somewhat with the separate Tort of "Defamation." In one sense, if the information communited about the plaintiff is indeed truly false, then an action can be pursued on the basis of "Defamation," and there is no need for any separate "Privacy" Tort action. However, there are many situations involving the communication of information which, although perhaps not "technically" false, is still "misleading." The effect of publishing such misleading information about the plaintiff to the "public eye" is nonetheless embarassing and potentially injurious to the plainitff.

So by your statement that they could be working with LE you ARE putting a false light on someone.

So no more!

HSP