SG's recent spotlight......synopsis, and an attempt to gain clarity....

Well I guess Beagle read all that crap! SFK - you spew more shit than the Pelicans down here! Simple me - beyond 20 or 30 words I quit reading any post!

Wait I'm lost....so the blood thirsty fowl were in the orgy or something?

Louigi surely there are other windmills you can joust.

Louigi surely there are other windmills you can joust. Originally Posted by VonErich

No - that would be waste of beer!

Still waiting for someone to refute anything from post #1......

Still waiting for someone to refute anything from post #1...... Originally Posted by Beagle

Allright, if you insist.

You claimed:

7) Since then, SG and Ricky were trying to paint a picture of Savak being some stalker with a personal vendetta. In the midst of it, Ricky revealed some info about Savak that only SG could have obtained in a BCD session.

This underlined statement is not provable, thus it should be stated correctly or deleted. Ricky, as a hobbyist of some repute and experience, could have gotten the information elsewhere. Very easily.

So while it is likely Ricky got the information from SG, it is far from certain.

Johnny, the information which was revealed was specific to that session that Savak had with Slave Guinevere. They were posted when RickyTheRocker was on his multi-handle burns and have since been given the JJ Black Flag

Staff Edit Spam. JJ

But here's several comments reflecting that they were posted and that they did exist (now edited)
within the 11 posts from RickyTheRocker's 7 different handles...(Specifically; Post# 80, 83, 85, 88, 90, 92, and 98)

But the personal/private/privileged information that RickyTheRocker posted was specific to that session.

It didn't come from Savak.

So unless RickyTheRocker was hiding in the incall, or was surveiling it, that only leaves Slave Guinevere as the source...

I would have considered that except for three things...

1.

2. Her lack of any attempt at dealing with the issue. She tried to ignore it with humor, and then told everyone thanks for supporting her and left. She's deliberately letting him deal with this issue, and not dealing with it herself.

3. His continued posting. He started all of this, not her, but once it started, they've obviously discussed every facet of this though because of the info he's throwing around. (So newbs, enjoy seeing her, but don't write a negative review because he'll pop out of the woodwork with your personal details of the session, that she told him, to bash you up and down) The fact is that if she asked him to stop, he would...but she hasn't. He's not a loose cannon...she has control of him, but refuses to use it...

Like I said...the question of the picture was decided a long time ago...a permanently banned member decided to not let it go, and she's encouraging him to not let it go...which is very telling about her as both a provider, and her lack of discretion, and as a person, and who she choose for relationships...

With that, I'll bid adieu to this topic... Originally Posted by Wakeup

A seemingly stable and well written provider implodes one day and ends up accusing others of trying to out her, shares information about a client gleamed from a session she did with that client with her BF Du Jour who then posts the personal stuff he should know nothing about here in a public forum in an attempt to embarrass/humiliate the guy basically in an attempt to stand up for and defend the lady.....

She throws a fit and goes to the Mods.. when that doesn't work to teh Admin and although she gets what she wants, she still contacts me wanting me to renew my crusade against the staff.....


Information of a personal nature regarding Savak that was known to SG as a result of a session they did was shared with RR who posted it during this debacle.....

Why does that not concern you? If it goes unnoticed why should she not feel her actions are acceptable?

You are a hobbyist...... If some guy that is fucking one of these girls that you have seen gets pissy and posts information of a personal nature about you here on the board are you simply going to accept it? Originally Posted by Whispers

**Mind you, RickyTheRocker and whispers are buddies...

But you continue to rehash your concerns and it seems that you're only interested in information that fits your narrative or approval. You are not getting responses from Guin that you think she should make so you continue to belabor the same information over and over again, insulting her...



As for your questions... Sure happy to answer... Yes, it would bother me if a provider shared personal information with another hobbyist... So I'm discreet so there is nothing to share and I also don't behave disrespectfully or in a way that would creep a provider out where she'd spill any information.
Originally Posted by Netx9

Net, your other points are well reasoned and about them I offer no complaint. This statement, however, is eerily similar to the battle cry of those who chip away at our personal rights and freedom, saying,"Well, if you're not guilty of anything, what do you care if we (insert: search, surveil, arrest, etc.) you?"

The words of yours that I bolded are words that tend to be subjectively measured. Your idea of respectful behavior may sharply differ from mine, or from a provider, who might at the time of your appointment be dealing with real life issues and maybe some fool stalker, none of which you have any knowledge of. A wrong word, joke, look, touch, sets her off.

BCD is a well known hobby acronym for a reason. Good TCB includes keeping what happens BCD BCD.

That business of BANNED trashing Savak with insider information was just wrong. Whoever was responsible for putting that information in such volatile hands ought step up and take responsibility. Originally Posted by JohnnyYanks

Come on, man.

.

.

Allright, if you insist.

You claimed:

7) Since then, SG and Ricky were trying to paint a picture of Savak being some stalker with a personal vendetta. In the midst of it, Ricky revealed some info about Savak that only SG could have obtained in a BCD session.

This underlined statement is not provable, thus it should be stated correctly or deleted. Ricky, as a hobbyist of some repute and experience, could have gotten the information elsewhere. Very easily.

So while it is likely Ricky got the information from SG, it is far from certain. Originally Posted by JohnnyYanks

It was and is my contention that the stuff 'revealed' by Rick (since edited out) were readily available to anyone who read the review below by savak in his own words...

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=655246



A very vivid review with many more details. I actually really enjoyed the artistry of the review itself, btw.

It was and is my contention that the stuff 'revealed' by Rick (since edited out) were readily available to anyone who read the review below by savak in his own words...

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=655246



A very vivid review with many more details. I actually really enjoyed the artistry of the review itself, btw. Originally Posted by Netx9

I can't speak for that part of it since I haven't seen Ricky's posts myself, to be able to dissect them...... . I'll leave that part of it to others.....

Do you think SG's outburst towards Savak regarding the dog picture was fair?

What about recent revelations of how SG freely gives out client info to unverified "providers"? And what about her detailed record keeping?

It was and is my contention that the stuff 'revealed' by Rick (since edited out) were readily available to anyone who read the review below by savak in his own words...

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=655246



A very vivid review with many more details. I actually really enjoyed the artistry of the review itself, btw. Originally Posted by Netx9

And you, sir, would be mistaken. The information that RickyTheRocker had posted was NOT included in that review, although it doesn't surprise me to hear you try and argue against it. As I, Savak, and others have stated. That information could have only been acquired by Slave Guinevere, Savak, or by RickyTheRocker being there himself.

Holy shit, man, what more is it going to take? Fuck, it's like you're trying to convince me that Orenthal didn't do it...TFF!

.

.



.

.

I can't speak for that part of it since I haven't seen Ricky's posts myself, to be able to dissect them...... . I'll leave that part of it to others.....

Do you think SG's outburst towards Savak regarding the dog picture was fair?

What about recent revelations of how SG freely gives out client info to unverified "providers"? And what about her detailed record keeping? Originally Posted by Beagle

RE the picture/savak, I said then that I'd err on the side of any girl who feels that certain information may out them or release personal info, dog picture or otherwise. I don't deign to know know the history between them but if she felt it was too close to home, he should have respected her wishes or the decision of admin/mods. We should respect any girls concerns.

As for revelations, that's a loaded term. You have assertions by some saying they've used multiple numbers to text her and claims she provided info. Also claims from as of yet unnamed sources. I'd say nothing has been " revealed". Yes, she provides detailed references but I know from providers who have received them, that they appreciate the detail and even will accept her reference alone to see some guy. She doesn't give out any personal identify info. Just approximately when seen (for recency of reference), physical Description, likes, maybe condom size/preference! I personally know 7 providers she's given me references for or who have received references from her and know what info she provided on me. I value her references and so do they.

As for record keeping, in a world where references are valued, I don't see any problem of a girl keeping track of who she's he seen. It's incumbent upon all to exercise discretion and not give out personal info as guys or girls. That's who we have handles, p411, hobby phones and hobby emails. I have know her a long time and know her to be discrete with who she sees and who she gives references too.

Appreciate your deliberative tone and inquiries, not hyperbole, beagle.

RE the picture/savak, I said then that I'd err on the side of any girl who feels that certain information may out them or release personal info, dog picture or otherwise. I don't deign to know know the history between them but if she felt it was too close to home, he should have respected her wishes or the decision of admin/mods. We should respect any girls concerns.

Removing the dog picture in and of itself does not bother me that much. As you said, you can prefer to err on the girl's side. Keep in mind, though, that we also have no way of knowing Savak's true intentions. Although based on his replies after the fact, I'm prone to believe that Savak had no malicious intent at all.

What rubbed me wrong was SG's coming out of the woodwork to accuse Savak of suggesting she had STD.....and then proceeded to reveal very personal details about her own medical condition. Placing that post in its proper context (right after she complained about Savak's dog picture), I made several inferences:

1) Her true priority regarding the dog picture was not because it outed her......but it was to stand up for Ricky who was overzealous in protecting her against a self-perceived threat.

2) She was being hypocritical for outing herself more than Savak's dog picture would have.

3) She was using her medical condition as a pretext for her crusade against Savak. There was no need for her medical issue to be raised at all. My first impression was that she was using it to garner sympathy to muster support for her cause.

When W and SKF clarified Savak's post, SG didn't explain herself or apologize. It's when she proceeded to escalate the issue, that she left a really bad taste in my mouth. That, coupled with W's revelation of SG running to the mods for favors, revealed the extent of her ego.



As for revelations, that's a loaded term. You have assertions by some saying they've used multiple numbers to text her and claims she provided info. Also claims from as of yet unnamed sources. I'd say nothing has been " revealed". Yes, she provides detailed references but I know from providers who have received them, that they appreciate the detail and even will accept her reference alone to see some guy. She doesn't give out any personal identify info. Just approximately when seen (for recency of reference), physical Description, likes, maybe condom size/preference! I personally know 7 providers she's given me references for or who have received references from her and know what info she provided on me. I value her references and so do they.

As for record keeping, in a world where references are valued, I don't see any problem of a girl keeping track of who she's he seen. It's incumbent upon all to exercise discretion and not give out personal info as guys or girls. That's who we have handles, p411, hobby phones and hobby emails. I have know her a long time and know her to be discrete with who she sees and who she gives references too.

I'll leave those for W to elaborate on
Appreciate your deliberative tone and inquiries, not hyperbole, beagle.
As I do for yours, for actually addressing the questions Originally Posted by Netx9

I'm interested to hear what anyone has to say about SKF's reply regarding Savak's BCD details being outed.....

NET-

I'd agree with much of what you said. The only thing I don't understand at all was the dog photo uproar. She listed the dog breed as her fave in her profile and it was an Internet meme that been around for a decade.

The alleged outing did not occur with the posting if the meme. It occurred, if it all, with the removal and subsequent "outrage." It seemed like it was a (grasping at straws) vendetta against Savak from then on.

The record keeping doesn't bother me. I have a very good memory and I have to purposely concentrate to not remember people's credit card numbers, license plates I see in traffic, wrong phone numbers, etc. it's not the information that's an issue. It is what is done with it. If you trusted her enough to give it to her, she should be trusted enough to keep it.

...... If you trusted her enough to give it to her, she should be trusted enough to keep it. Originally Posted by LilMynx69

Should be......

Doesn't seem to be the case though in Slave Guinevere's case