Recent Alerts / Double Standards - Why can't Alerts be limited to the OP and the Accused?

I really don't see what the big deal is.. who cares what is posted where? If you don't like a certain thread, just move on... if you don't like a certain poster, just put them on ignore.

I love the drama threads, but this feels more like whining, not so much on the drama.

LF

Um, what was the purpose of this thread? I am coming in a day or so late, but what is the point you are after?

I'm terribly sorry that this happened to M.M. I read her alert and I honestly like the fact that there were people offering their sympathy. Is that so wrong?? I think not.

Not too long ago, I had a gentleman who upon setting the donation on my table...took the five crisp new bills and tore them in half...all the while looking at me smiling. I smiled back and offered him a drink. We both sat down drinking our wine and proceeded to talk. I then got up and got my chocolate and fruit plate (which I bring out during intermission) and we continued to eat fruit, drink wine and nibble on Godiva chocolate. Everything was going great. Thirty minutes into our session (at which point, I usually move to my bedroom) I got up and went to look for tape. I came back and as I continued to talk, never acknowledging what I was doing, taped the bills back together. I then handed him four bills and kept one. I told him that even though he seemed like a great guy I couldn't do the session. But that I was going to keep one of the bills to cover the cost of my wine, fruit, and chocolate. I offered him the leftover bottle of wine but he was in shock and could not believe that a joke had offended me so. Long story short...he felt awful, kept apologizing...and wanted me to keep the entire fee for his lack of sensibility. I, of course, declined the money. The next day he sent me a beautiful arrangement of flowers with an apology. I have yet to agree to see him again. Money can't buy you class....

Just when you think, knobbyist stupidity can not reach any new lows, some complete idiot proves you completely wrong. Apologies to Leslie Lane for this particular bit of dickweed behavior.

With all due respect to EVERYBODY (and his/her dog), what's the big deal here? This thread reads like a requiem!

In this business, people play fast and loose with EVERYTHING. Sucks that someone felt they got ripped off in this case, but nobody got shot; arrested or outed to his/her SO.

I'd say that this therefore falls into the category of water off a duck's back.

That said, I offer my deepest condolences and heartfelt sympathies for your loss. Rest assured it would NEVER happen with me and I'll fight to the death to ensure it never again happens to you.

NEXT!??

"SOME gals ARE rather selective but all it normally takes to be "worthy" of a provider's time and companionship is to have the price of admission" Whispers


I fall under the "Some gals are rather selective" category.

From Wikipedia: "The term double standard, coined in 1912, refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference." I would say that a double standard is being applied when, in the same situation, different groups are treated differently, despite the fact that the groups should be equal.

Whispers wrote: "Ladies get ripped off and there is an outpouring of ass kissing as well as sympathy..... Guys get ripped off and it gets twisted to be his fault." He wrote that this is a double standard because two groups, providers and clients, received different treatment (community response) in the same situation (ripped off). I agree that the treatment was different and the two groups should be equal, but I do not agree that the situations were the same.

Whisper's example described situation in which a provider and client agreed on services and price, the provider delivered only a small portion of the services and kept the full price. Maxeen's alert described a situation in which a provider and client agreed on services and price, the provider delivered the full services and the client left her only a small portion of price.

I agree that "ripped off" describes Whisper's example, but I do not agree that it describes Maxeen's alert. In Whisper's example, money was stolen; in Maxeen's alert, services were stolen. If the services stolen had been car repair or house cleaning, the term "ripped off" might have applied to the theft. But these services were different: a brake job isn't a girlfriend experience. Equating the two imagines that human beings are machines.

The community response to Maxeen's alert was righteous. It understood her situation and honored her as a human being.

I agree that there is way to much ass kissing / flirting going on and an alert should be limited to facts. I do think that the provider being shorted is alert worthy. I suppose she could have put it in the provider only area but some girls may not have access. Originally Posted by Budman

I don't see it. Surely if an NCNS isn't alert worthy....

On the topic of what constitutes a worthwhile alert...

If a hobbyist gets ripped off by a provider, it's considered alert-worthy, is it not?

Therefore, it makes sense that a provider being ripped off (shorted) by a hobbyist should also be alert-worthy. Originally Posted by Natalie Reign

Damn. Good argument, toots.


And of course my sympathy to Max. Should've said that first.

From Wikipedia: "The term double standard, coined in 1912, refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference." I would say that a double standard is being applied when, in the same situation, different groups are treated differently, despite the fact that the groups should be equal.

Whispers wrote: "Ladies get ripped off and there is an outpouring of ass kissing as well as sympathy..... Guys get ripped off and it gets twisted to be his fault." He wrote that this is a double standard because two groups, providers and clients, received different treatment (community response) in the same situation (ripped off). I agree that the treatment was different and the two groups should be equal, but I do not agree that the situations were the same.

Whisper's example described situation in which a provider and client agreed on services and price, the provider delivered only a small portion of the services and kept the full price. Maxeen's alert described a situation in which a provider and client agreed on services and price, the provider delivered the full services and the client left her only a small portion of price.

I agree that "ripped off" describes Whisper's example, but I do not agree that it describes Maxeen's alert. In Whisper's example, money was stolen; in Maxeen's alert, services were stolen. If the services stolen had been car repair or house cleaning, the term "ripped off" might have applied to the theft. But these services were different: a brake job isn't a girlfriend experience. Equating the two imagines that human beings are machines.

The community response to Maxeen's alert was righteous. It understood her situation and honored her as a human being. Originally Posted by johnnytx39

Car mechanics are human beings too.