Indescretion? We've seen this before where a whore so needs the validation of others that she gets careless with a client's information... This time it's Sue_Nami

As clients, all of us have an expectation of privacy in our dealings with a whorer.

Most whores do tend to care for that relationship and not put us at risk....

If you assume that Austin Powers was a legitimate member of this board at one time I would think that the moment he disables his account and takes leave of us that .... his ongoing activities with providers should not be discussed here openly.....

Now we have had Sue telling us that he guested because he was run off by those commenting on his sexual preferences......

Does she have the right to convey to us the reasoning? He was a client. Doesn't he deserve a modicum of discretion from his selected and trusted whore?

Perhaps his activities were discovered by his gay lover and he disabled his account as anyone here would with a spouse being suspicious...

We really do not know.... If that were the case her announcement after disabling his account here is way out of line.....

Well darling, austin powers has decided to go to make new friends and meet other providers as well. it is his decision and has little to with the bullies believing him or not but certainly thanks for your concern here. Originally Posted by sue_nami

For those of you that attend the socials.... What do you think of her making such an announcement BEFORE the event in relation to one of the stated rules of the events by the organizer....

As usual, you may note your own attendance but please don't out any one else's. Originally Posted by ck1942

That has always been the stated expectation and threads have been edited for that reason as well as members receiving warnings for it. It's outing someone........

Why do you suppose Sue outing a client's plans to be at a specific event was allowed to stand? IS she the source of free sex for one of the MODs? Was ztonk in her company tonight? Inquiring minds......

Once again.....no matter what he said in the past.... He was no longer a member of this board having left for a reason and here she was announcing to the world when he will be in the company of her and other whores and why he will be there.... seeking to meet other whores.... Poor guy may have been at home facing the wrath of some precious guy having a breakdown that he was planning on being with the whores....

Now..... I don't know if in the long run it matters since the guy no showed and she was left with mud on her face.....

HAD he shown up then it seems Sue would have been guilty of outing a client's whereabouts to the community at large.....

People needs to be concerned for her lack of discretion vs her own need for validation

Loose lips sink ships, if she is loose here she is loose everywhere

You were correct on at least one instance I know of, and surprise yesterday I get a call from an alleged "hooker" I've never called or heard of, basically from what I could tell trying to entrap me, on my private unlisted number. Wonder how that could have happened? Loose lips!

Do you guys actually collude over these stupid posts? How did Sue 'out' anyone Whispers? You just spent the past week or so telling everyone that "Austin Powers" was actually Sue herself, now you act the wounded hero by claiming that Sue "outed" him. Make your mind up. I see this case as nothing more than you trying to stir things up for your own gratification.

Wasn't it actually Austin Powers himself that announced his clearance and plans to attend here:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...35&postcount=1


I guess he "outed" himself which is perfectly in line with the stated rules.


The OP is certainly showing his ass again by knowing who was or was not there when there's no way he should know. Not being on the invite list in the first place.

Such a lack of discretion.

Do you guys actually collude over these stupid posts? How did Sue 'out' anyone Whispers? You just spent the past week or so telling everyone that "Austin Powers" was actually Sue herself, now you act the wounded hero by claiming that Sue "outed" him. Make your mind up. I see this case as nothing more than you trying to stir things up for your own gratification. Originally Posted by justabloke

Try reading for comprehension..... What I said in the OP is "If you assume that Austin Powers was a legitimate member of this board at one time" ...... and made the post from that point of view. All continued references in regards to this matter will be made from that point of view.

Wasn't it actually Austin Powers himself that announced his clearance and plans to attend here:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...35&postcount=1

I guess he "outed" himself which is perfectly in line with the stated rules.

Guys do a lot of stupid things... Guys get caught..... Guys disable and guest accounts to give wives or SOs less information on their activities..... So No One here has the right to take and put that guys intentions and activities back here on the board.

The OP is certainly showing his ass again by knowing who was or was not there when there's no way he should know. Not being on the invite list in the first place.

Such a lack of discretion. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Disclosing someone that WAS NOT there is not a lack of discretion.....

Actually, without discoursing on any of the above ....

There are many attendees (males and females) who get a name tag that may or may not have anything (or nothing) to do with their board persona -- or, for that matter, their non-board persona. Their individual preference. Those who attend understand the process. For those who need further explanation:

Think UTR!

Name tags are to identify folks as part of our group. That's all. It is up to the individual wearing the tag to self-identify to others, if agreeable, their board or non-board persona and, if they choose, to either reveal a contact method or to ask for one.

Believe it or not, over the years dozens of people have been brave enough to risk a meet & greet or two or three but not disclose much of anything until whenever. And those who attend just once, and never attend again. Until after a year or two on the board they again ask for an invite. Had one of those just this morning.

Guys do a lot of stupid things... Guys get caught..... Guys disable and guest accounts to give wives or SOs less information on their activities..... So No One here has the right to take and put that guys intentions and activities back here on the board. Originally Posted by Whispers

WTF are you talking about? He "outed" himself. The thread is still alive on the next page. I believe you owe Sue an apology for this thread. You lied about her.

Disclosing someone that WAS NOT there is not a lack of discretion..... Originally Posted by Whispers

The lack of discretion is your admitting knowledge of it. The leaker will be found and banned from future events. Your collusion has also been noted.

"Try reading for comprehension..... What I said in the OP is "If you assume that Austin Powers was a legitimate member of this board at one time" ...... and made the post from that point of view. "

My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks for asking. So now, instead of continuing to insist that Sue is Austin Powers, you build some straw dog argument to try and discredit her. In any case, how is knowing that someone who has a certain pseudonym, may or may not be attending a social function now considered 'outing'? I still don't know who Austin Powers is and neither does anyone else, unless he chooses to tell them.

Far from being some terrible crime, this 'indiscretion' doesn't even make it as a storm in a teacup. Not even a bit of drizzle in an eggcup in fact.

WTF are you talking about? He "outed" himself.

After which he disabled his account and none of us truly know why.

The thread is still alive on the next page. I believe you owe Sue an apology for this thread. You lied about her.

No. I simply summarized a chain of events where the whore stated information about a clients plans to be in a certain place and for a certain reason which is a breach of that client's rights to privacy.

The lack of discretion is your admitting knowledge of it. The leaker will be found and banned from future events. Your collusion has also been noted. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

LOL... You would need to ban half the old whores that attend in order to plug the leaks..... those are the ones so in need of attention that they run their mouths nonstop.

My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks for asking. So now, instead of continuing to insist that Sue is Austin Powers, you build some straw dog argument to try and discredit her. In any case, how is knowing that someone who has a certain pseudonym, may or may not be attending a social function now considered 'outing'? I still don't know who Austin Powers is and neither does anyone else, unless he chooses to tell them. Originally Posted by justabloke

None of us know the reason why Austin Powers disabled his account.

None of us should know the reason. It was "his" decision.

Yet Sue_Nami feels she is entitled to tell us exactly why her client made that decision.

When a whore like Sue_Nami feels she has the right to discuss when and where a client will be as well as why he will be there she is displaying an extreme lack of discretion with the information she has on the clients she has and everyone should know that she has that potential.

Thank-you by the way. Each and every one of you that continues to ask because each time it will allow me to explain why the whore that goes by the name of Sue_Nami has displayed an inability to keep information about a client she has to herself and as such anyone considering her needs to weigh that into their decision to see her. Hopefully if it is shared enough that Sue_Nami posts client movements and involvement in events even after they are no longer an active member here others that search the name Sue_Nami will be able to read and make a decision for themselves.

If in fact Austin Powers was a real client, how do we know that he did not give Sue_Nami permission to announce that he would be there?

I see where you are going with this Whispers but that is one part of the equation that you do not have and never will.

To CK's point he may or may not have been there. Unless he requested to have that handle put on his name tag no one knows except any ladies that he has met BCD. For that matter I could show up and have CK put Austin Powers on my name tag. I can be Brad Pitt if I want.

Just some food for thought.

Wow sue nami is one of the sweetest people on here and your gonna do this ?? Shows your character... But yet I never see you bashing on your little 80lb young ass whores that you like to fuck... smh

You should be ashamed that you would start some shit with someone like that...
Your nothing but a BIG bully with people that you CAN bully...

Wow sue nami is one of the sweetest people on here and your gonna do this ?? Shows your character... But yet I never see you bashing on your little 80lb young ass whores that you like to fuck... smh

You should be ashamed that you would start some shit with someone like that...
Your nothing but a BIG bully with people that you CAN bully... Originally Posted by shayla84

Some of the "sweetest" whores in the mix have proven to be indiscreet with the private information of their clients just as Sue_Nami has here.

It happens everyday. When it happens here on the board people need to speak up and be aware of it.

It happens in the form of pillow talk because so few can keep their mouths shut.

How do you suppose some of us came to know that you were a street whore before Toyz took you off the streets, cleaned you up and stuck you here on ECCIE?

Communicable diseases are probably shared a lot less between the sheets then the personal information of whores and clients.

WTF are you talking about? He "outed" himself. The thread is still alive on the next page. I believe you owe Sue an apology for this thread. You lied about her.
.... Originally Posted by gfejunkie

I'm not going to look for timestamps, but if he announced going to the Social before she mentioned it, what's the problem?

Vice Versa and Whispers is correct.