Every time i see the comments about not seeing ladies without P411, i think of two ladies I've known (in the Biblical sense) a couple of ladies who didn't/don't. It was none of my business why, although I have suspicions why in both cases; one of which would reflect negatively on the lady, onenofnwhichnwouldn't. Might or might not be correct, so no reason to speculate publicly and I've never asked. But I think of them because whenever their names came up here, swarms of admirers would post raving about them. They both had good reputations and were very popular. And the admirers - some of whom are usually among the crowd who "won't see providers without P411" - never mentioned that lack of P411 or seemed to be bothered by it.
I suspect - like most of the "rules to hobby by" discussed here - this tends to be of somewhat lesser weight when one otherwise has a strong (positive or negative) opinion about someone. Appearance, personality, and great sex seem to overwhelm other considerations. Our protests to the contrary notwithstanding.
-----------
I'll probably regret this attempt at logic and common sense, and explaining ordinary business practices, but fools rush in . . . .
Gina disabled my account and informed me that I had to pay for the points and the chargeback in order to have my account reinstated.
I am sorry that it happened, but was it my fault? No. Was it my credit card? No. So...why was I punished for it and why do I have to pay for it?
Originally Posted by KittyLamour
Imagine a different scenario. Someone pays you with a check and you deposit it in your bank account, and write some checks at various stores. Then the check you deposited bounces, and the checks you wrote bounce. Would you expect to keep what you purchased but not repay the stores where you stopped? Would you expect not to pay the bank a chargeback fee?
Hopefully not, because no store or bank would agree to deal with you on any other basis. Even if it's not your fault, neither is it theirs. And you had more control over whether it happened, because you were the one who accepted that check and deposited it. You could have made sure you were dealing with someone reputable, whose check wouldn't bounce, or could have insisted he pay you in cash. More importantly, you're the one in the best position to deal with the source of the problem. You have some sort of relationship with the person who wrote you that check and can seek recovery. If there's a dispute between you and him, why should the bank and store be dragged into it?
You might want the bank and store to take care of the problem. But no rational bank or store would do business with you on those terms.
In your situation, the client cheated
you. If you followed up with him to be repaid (both the original amount and the chargeback fee), and he refused -- why should Gina (rather than you) have to pay for that? Why should Gina have to chase down
your client?