Was there ever a time when John's had more control of the menu and the price?

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by GlobeSpotter

What ?!

No play or spin on what emotions you think I'm experiencing?

Is this a new zanzie?

Edit: no need to answer. Nobody gives a shit.

Except the plastic CEO

[Hot to Trot Daphne]

Sounds like a compaint. Used to be not too long ago hookers didn't kiss, cbj abounded, and the most you'd get is 10 - 15 - or maybe 20 minutes of regulated playtime. You have it good now

[Hot to Trot Daphne]

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Maybe it was the dot com bubble. Its a good thing and safer for everyone. You ladies gain insight into john personalities and old useless johns get to be overly emotional and pms'y about how other johns hobby and post.

I'm mulling this over and all I can do is

[ICU 812]

I think that the information available to both parties through sites like ASPD/ECCIE has helped overall. While a Provider may insist on her price-point, the Hobbyist can pre-shop wihin his budget.

In the'old' days, the hook-up was harder to establish with certainty. Either you actually saw the woman first (on the street or in a hotel bar maybe), in which case you couldn't really know if she was a provider without asking (soliciting), or you had a phone number with out a picture. either way, negotiation was necessary.Today we all know whats-what upfront.

I have seen the same thing happen in collectable what-evers as eBay became more established. Public venues for collectables have become less free-wheeling bargain-fests because everyone knows supply and demand meet in advance.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by rockerrick

A guy is always in control of menu and rate, never forget it!

Closing your wallet and walking away doesn't really "control" a "menu" does it?

Although it does "control" the "rate"!

[Bombay]

Your james worthy scenario wasn't a negotiation between a john and a hooker, it was a negotiation between a john and a cop. Therefore this whole discussion is null and void.

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by Bombay

Your james worthy scenario wasn't a negotiation between a john and a hooker, it was a negotiation between a john and a cop. Therefore this whole discussion is null and void.

Its clear the OP went way over your head. Lol. Who he was talking to is irrelevant its what he was saying that formed the basis of my inquiry.

[Bombay]

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Its clear the OP went way over your head. Lol. Who he was talking to is irrelevant its what he was saying that formed the basis of my inquiry.

Actually "who he was talking to" is completely relevant. You based your inquiry on James Worthy's alleged negotiations with an escort back in 1990. But Worthy wasn't negotiating with an escort, he was negotiating with a COP.

If you want your original post to make sense, you must either provide us with an actual example of a john-escort negotiation from 1990, or you need to change your question to "Have LE tactics as far as busting johns changed since 1990?".


What you did is equal to asking "has Charlie Sheen changed since he starred in the movie Dances With Wolves?". It's impossible to answer that question because Charlie Sheen didn't even star in the movie Dances With Wolves.

Apples and oranges.

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by Bombay

Actually "who he was talking to" is completely relevant. You based your inquiry on James Worthy's alleged negotiations with an escort back in 1990. But Worthy wasn't negotiating with an escort, he was negotiating with a COP.

If you want your original post to make sense, you must either provide us with an actual example of a john-escort negotiation from 1990, or you need to change your question to "Have LE tactics as far as busting johns changed since 1990?".


What you did is equal to asking "has Charlie Sheen changed since he starred in the movie Dances With Wolves?". It's impossible to answer that question because Charlie Sheen didn't even star in the movie Dances With Wolves.

Apples and oranges.

Lol. You can say the same thing three different ways with three different paragraphs and the result will still be a very poor analogy. I need more convincing than some silly strawman argument pulled outta your ass. Your logical fallacy says that Worthy's comments would have been different had he been talking to a real hooker when he couldnt tell the difference in the first place. Thus making my perception of 1990 john / hooker interactions null and void. I guess its like being caught in a speed trap but the judge dimisses the ticket because you didnt know it was a speed trap, ultimately meaning you weren't really speeding.

Like I said OP went way over your head, i guess to the making of many strawmans there is no end.

Carry on.

[JustMeCLTXGG]

eh, I see what you both mean but you both aren't understanding each other. at least I don't think so.

he's saying (I think again) the hooker would have responded differently than the undercover (most likely not asking him what he wanted or possibly offering an actual menu) thus possibly effecting Worthy's response.

either way it's both speculations/assumptions

since it happened the way it happened insert schrodinger's cat here for the speculations/assumptions

[oilfieldscum]

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Gotta be careful how I word this. Lol so who's more challenging to deal with, escorts or strippers.

They are both women.


I'm highly offended the OP reffered to hobbyists as a "johns".

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1284043&highlight=

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by JustMeCLTXGG

eh, I see what you both mean but you both aren't understanding each other. at least I don't think so.

he's saying (I think again) the hooker would have responded differently than the undercover (most likely not asking him what he wanted or possibly offering an actual menu) thus possibly effecting Worthy's response.

either way it's both speculations/assumptions

since it happened the way it happened insert schrodinger's cat here for the speculations/assumptions

Possible but I err on the side of reason that says Worthy was a pro in the game who'd bought hookers many times. Apparently this interaction that he felt comfortable with brought him down so apparently it felt real enough. If Bombay had legit counterarguments and challenges then fine but dont come at me sideways with silly strawmens followed up by even poorer analogies. Go sell that to someone else.

[Guest030816]

Go back to the original article that said Worthy stated what he wanted and what he'd pay. Put that into perspective with who he was talking to, NOT who he thought he was talking to. If hehad actually been speaking escorts from the agency, the conversation may had been different. The cops needed Worthy to state certain terms, sex acts and dollar amount, in order to uphold an arrest and conviction. Most likely the conversation was coached or coersed in that direction that he would incriminate himself. He was not actually dictating what services he wanted and the price he would pay, but more likely just falling into a well laid trap.
Sorry zanzi, you read this wrong.
Of course you'll never admit it.
You'd rather distort the facts than do that.
again I say,
useless thread.

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by H.Hardhat

Go back to the original article that said Worthy stated what he wanted and what he'd pay. Put that into perspective with who he was talking to, NOT who he thought he was talking to. If hehad actually been speaking escorts from the agency, the conversation may had been different. The cops needed Worthy to state certain terms, sex acts and dollar amount, in order to uphold an arrest and conviction. Most likely the conversation was coached or coersed in that direction that he would incriminate himself. He was not actually dictating what services he wanted and the price he would pay, but more likely just falling into a well laid trap.
Sorry zanzi, you read this wrong.
Of course you'll never admit it.
You'd rather distort the facts than do that.
Not very impressive from a former debate team leader.

Lol - so am I arguing with Sanford and Son?

You're like a dog chasing it's tail.

Carry on

[Guest030816]

No one is chasing anything, I'm saying you are ignoring the facts of the case. You're taking the statement that he stated activities and price out of context. You're so focused on proving your point you're ignoring FACTS. Put things onto perspective, look at the entire situation and not just the conversation.
But again, you're too egotistical to admit you're wrong.
So... stick to "your side of the story" I'm done here
"never argue with an idiot,
those on the sidelines may
not be able to tell the difference"

BTW, quoting your dog was the smartest thing you've posted in months.
Love your new avatar.