What constitutes "permission"?

To be honest, I kinda get it, I just don't like that he basically trashes a real person in order to achieve it. Originally Posted by TheBizz

Agreed.

"One's rights ends at the exact point where another's begins."

Implied permission relies on the common sense to determine whether or not somebody will welcome whatever it is you're about to do. If I were to cock my arm back and make a fist in front of somebody, and they just smiled and didn't do anything to defend themselves, that doesn't mean I have implied permission to punch them in the face.

This is a fruitless argument, however, because I suspect deep down, BBL is, at heart, a troll. He enjoys the controversy he stirs up with his posts, enjoys getting into semantic arguments with those that subscribe to the prevailing logic, and gets off on all of the outrage his shit brings with it.

To be honest, I kinda get it, I just don't like that he basically trashes a real person in order to achieve it. Originally Posted by TheBizz

I couldn't agree more. And if a chick chooses to see him after all of this stuff, then so be it. But she better not whine if he trashes her too.

What constitutes being a complete and total D-BAG as your entire eccie persona? Originally Posted by TonyStark

+1000

So true.

I've photographed probably a hundred providers and girls of similar professions. Some were hard, some were soft (core). Some were for web sites, and some were strictly for private recreation. I can't remember a single time that the subject of where those photos might go did not come up. It's normally the first question asked, but then, I don't just pull out a camera and start shooting in the middle of other activities. The subject gets broached before the cameras come out of the bag. To turn your argument around, doesn't being allowed by a woman to take photos or video of the nature in question imply trust that you won't make her regret it?

I've had models change their mind years after the photos / videos were posted. I always respect a takedown request to the extent possible, but the internet is a Pandora's box. Ya can't get it all back. For that reason, your implied consent argument is on very shaky ground. If you are wrong in your assumption that consent was implied, you can't fix it. Some of the photos you posted in reviews were taken down very quickly, but I'll wager that some people downloaded them, and those that just saw them have them in their browser cashe. On top of that there's the "wayback machine".

Technical arguments aside, where does common courtesy play in your thoughts as you are posting with implied consent? You may argue that posting those images will help the girl make more money, and you are probably right, but the marketing strategy for her business is her business, unless you figure that permission to manage her marketing is also implied.

Anyway, that's not why you post them. You have stated more than once that you shoot / post pics n video to "prove" that your reviews are accurate. For example, incase a lady says the review isn't true. Just out of curiosity, do you tell them that the reason for the camera is incase you need to discredit any conflicting statements they might make regarding your review of them?
That's probably just implied, right?

You have a point, and I get it, but honestly? You are not the guy I'd pick for a test case. Good luck.

POD

Talk about beating a dead horse.

Implied permission relies on the common sense to determine whether or not somebody will welcome whatever it is you're about to do. If I were to cock my arm back and make a fist in front of somebody, and they just smiled and didn't do anything to defend themselves, that doesn't mean I have implied permission to punch them in the face.

This is a fruitless argument, however, because I suspect deep down, BBL is, at heart, a troll. He enjoys the controversy he stirs up with his posts, enjoys getting into semantic arguments with those that subscribe to the prevailing logic, and gets off on all of the outrage his shit brings with it.

To be honest, I kinda get it, I just don't like that he basically trashes a real person in order to achieve it. Originally Posted by TheBizz

Probably the most concise explanation for the hundreds of posts, dozens of threads, and zillions of clicks.

I wish I could find the rules on trolls. Not having any luck...

What constitutes being a complete and total D-BAG as your entire eccie persona? Originally Posted by TonyStark

bbl is simply a troll just my 2 cents it is not about bringing girls down to his level

This is a fruitless argument, however, because I suspect deep down, BBL is, at heart, a troll. He enjoys the controversy he stirs up with his posts, enjoys getting into semantic arguments with those that subscribe to the prevailing logic, and gets off on all of the outrage his shit brings with it.

To be honest, I kinda get it, I just don't like that he basically trashes a real person in order to achieve it. Originally Posted by TheBizz

Now when I post this I had the advantage of reading this topic in another thread so have a slightly different view. I don't thing BBL is a true troll. I do agree he loves controvesal subjects and is a complete asshat. But from what I read he seems like he has a over stimulated defensive reflex. I think he felt like he was being attacked for something he felt he wasn't in the wrong for and tried to make a logical arguement to defend himself instead of just saying "nuh huh!" But the arguement came out passive agressive. Also, I don't think he actually trashed someone. He did not mention by name or handle who it was. I have a vague idea how it was but would have to go back to the other thread to confirm. Anyone who is an familiar with the events would have no idea.

And don't rag on controversal subjects. Every bit of progress we have made as a society was due to controversal subjects. Thanks to controversal subject we have Civil Rights for minorities, we can bang women of other races, women have rights, we have the bikini, and Madonna... okay, everything has a dark side.

Alas, BBL did make a valid point. What is to stop a provider from rejecting reviews she doesn't like if she is not a Eccie memeber. Well, quite simply this, if such a clause is not in place we can admend the policy to allow one, that if you allow any reviews you must allow all reviews unless you feel one is fake, slanderous or there is another valid reason.

An example of another valid reason is the reason I didn't review two people. One our chemistry was so off that the session was nothing like other reviewer had had, and therefore would have hurt her reputation if people believed me, something she didn't deserve by any means. And one where the opposit was the case, our chemistry was so good that writing a review about the session just feels wrong.


Man, I am writing some lengthy and preachy posts tonight. My apologies my good people.