Recent push for references

Why Gina's post is irrelevant. If there is no personal information stored anywhere, then what is actually being verified?

As I said in my initial post, we are only verifying that members are legitimate clients. We couldn't care less who they are in real life, particularly if they are well established in the community with a good reputation. So really, truly, if you have two solid provider references you need not give us any traceable real life info.

Of course, I doubt I'll ever be able to convince FatBaldUgly that this is a fact, but that's okay. Each person has their own comfortable level, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Always,
Gina

LOL *my* reasoning is deductive and backwards? WTF... you're hilarious. do you know what "deductive" means? You're the one who is accusing me of trying to hide or get something based on an unfounded assumption that I have an ulterior motive... that is the very definition of deductive reasoning. Plus, it's the complete opposite of the truth, and therefore the very definition of backwards... When did I deduce *anything* to support my logic? What part was backwards?

seriously lady, if you're going to insult someone at least use the right words and try not to be this hypocritical about it. My logic is neither deductive nor backwards. I don't know where you get that from, but it simply isn't there. Perhaps you're reading something into my posts that I did not write... hell, we all *know* you are doing that based on your ridiculous accusations. But, it may be worse than I realized.

I don't know what you mean by weird allegations, assumptions, and context... just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have made no allegations. You have, but I haven't. The only thing that could be regarded as an admonition is just simply a statement of fact. Perhaps that reality is weird to you, but it's true nonetheless. The context and choice of audience are completely appropriate - this particular section of this particular board are exactly the audience and the context that are appropriate for a discussion like this.

As for AMPs, I know how to cover myself well enough. I'm intimately familiar with common surveillance techniques and how they can be legally applied... armed with the right knowledge it is possible to avoid the majority of that risk. Of course, if the AMP has its own cameras and those recordings are seized... that's a different story. That's a calculated risk that I will sometimes take, but not often. As for pimp-raiding, I'm not worried. I'm careful, and I'm almost certainly bigger and stronger than 95% of pimps out there. For the other 5%, I'm also armed. It hasn't come to that yet, but I also almost never use BP.

So, if you're done detracting from the point of this thread... your suggestion is actually viable. I've actually done that a few times, but many times such a request has also been responded to with a bit more hesitance than I would like. Whether their motivation for that is territoriality or something else, it's not always going to work. Originally Posted by fatbaldugly

All your points about security are completely valid. Unfortunately, when you explain security compromises on ECCIE, you are speaking Mandarin to English speakers. They just don't comprehend what you are trying to communicate. Any information you give out has a very high chance of being compromised. I mostly stick to AMPs, BP Massage, and BP Bodyrub ladies for privacy reasons. Over time, with the right chemistry, some of them will offer L2, and even L3. That is your best bet.

The good news for you is that you know exactly which ladies to avoid, based on the hostile responses to a simple question.

Good luck.

but that's okay. Each person has their own comfortable level, and there is nothing wrong with that. Originally Posted by GinaXXX

As always, you're a consummate professional Gina. This board would be such a better place if more people could have that attitude. Some men (or women) you just can't reach... You can't please everyone... don't ever wrestle with a pig... etc, etc.

(this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just general mottos to live by)

Ok last post. I'm not downing u for not liking references but don't expect any ladies to forego their screening practices because you don't want to be "outed" (which btw isn't even what "outting" means). "Outting" means your hobby life leaks out to your real life. It is fundamentally impossible to out yourself to other people in the hobby because we are all "outed" to each other already.

Now Gina already has said twice that you need not share personal info if you have two references which seems to address your concerns 100% yet you still persist to bash her company??? Maybe you just have a personal problem that is motivating your flawed reasoning.

Deductive logic takes one idea (such as, references are risky) and supports it with detailed points to support the argument (possible LE, "outing", etc). So yes, the nature and structure of your argument was DEDUCTIVE.

Your history on here is mainly AMPS and backpage. For someone who is so so concerned about LE and being "outed" you have DEDUCED quite the opposite of what the REAL DANGERS OF HOBBY OUTTING generally are. For example, are you not worried about being video taped by LE and linked to transaction records during the course of these series of AMP investigations and raids??? I mean, that's is what FUNCTIONAL and sound deductive reasoning would support. Are you starting to see why i referred to your arguments as bass-akwards now??

Lemme make it simple since sound reasoning seems to evade you even in the presence of overwhelming evidence to support it:

References promote networked methods of trust and safety in the hobby community. It is certainly a more tried and true strategy than just "feeling someone out". Backpage is wrought with entertaining HORROR-STORIES - not entertaining WHORE STORIES. One would DEDUCE it is due to LACK OF SCREENING AND REFERENCES AVAILABLE (hello, sound deductive reasoning).

As for me, I INDUCED your argument was ridiculous by stacking up your claims towards my own conclusion: which is, your deductive logic fails to conclude that references are a safety and privacy risk.

I suspect you are quite fond of the way AMPS AND BACKPAGE WORK (despite their lack of safety and security) and you wish that more hard to reach providers would lower their safety measures to make life more convenient for you since it is obvious your history on here isn't huddled around safety, but rather routine and preference. I INDUCE - based on all of your points taken together - that you just don't want to adhere to a new method because it is unfamiliar to you. instead you want established and verified providers to adhere to your comfort levels of hobbying.

Call me mean if you want but I don't appreciate a seasoned hobbyist coming on here and suggesting to newer and younger ladies that getting references somehow more risky than not getting them.

To me, that is what is truly mean-spirited and selfish. It could cost a new provider her well-being or worse if she decides to listen to you and not screen bc she thinks its too risky. That is poor logic. That is bass akwards deduction.