Cold Calling Madams

Darn, Lonesome Dove has a good point about reading comprehension. What part of "I think" made it "everyone does as you do" ? Originally Posted by discreetgent

My point was just because ''she thinks'' does not make it so. It does explain the reason why she believes what she does. She just thinks or listens to a friend of a friend. No data, no facts. Just a belief.

I had no trouble understanding WTF she said, unlike you who got it all wrong on what I said and what was the main point.Which was, Unfoubnded fear. I see you were smart enough NOT to address that issue.

My point was just because ''she thinks'' does not make it so. It does explain the reason why she believes what she does. She just thinks or listens to a friend of a friend. No data, no facts. Just a belief.

Duh, we all get that thinks does not make it so.

The real point is that you went after someone on a personal level with absolutely no reason to do so. You keep missing that point over and over and over again. As far as I can fathom it is done deliberately with forethought and does nothing to further any conversation here, to the contrary it does the opposite.

As far as unbounded fear goes: yes, the odds are pretty small with an agency or an independent. My personal attitude is I prefer to see independents, among the factors is I'll take the lesser of the risks

I think it's fairly easy for any women, regardless of how many she sees, to know who she hasn't been with.

I think it's pretty easy to remember people you've met on such intimate terms. Even guys who hobby a lot don't loose track of who they have and haven't seen. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Interesting. P411 has a form to request a provider OK. In the form, it says, "don't expect the lady to remember you" or some such language. Then it asks for details that might help her remember. It always gave me the impression that to providers, we all look alike. Just a hard-on with a wallet. LOL. Before anyone gets their nose out of joint, I say that semi-facetiously. I don't think it is true for most providers, but wouldn't put it past a limited number.

Agreed,

But at the end of the day, you never see (Elliot excluded) police making public, names of johns. Just doen not happen.

This is mostly a marketing ploy. An over inflated fear that independents exploit. This is akin to buying end of the world insurance. A waste of time.

Not that I blame them. Originally Posted by WTF

Tell that to the clients of the DC Madam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Jeane_Palfrey

Yes it is....you might not know it but it is.

It is an irrational fear.

Just as people are afraid of death from a terrorist attack, when a car wreck is far more likely.

It's like saying that you are TWICE as likely to get busted working for an agency as an independent. And failing to mention that one is one in ten million and the other one in twenty million.
Originally Posted by WTF

What dictionary are you using? Given two choices, avoiding the one with double the risk is not irrational.

Duh, we all get that thinks does not make it so.

The real point is that you went after someone on a personal level with absolutely no reason to do so. You keep missing that point over and over and over again. As far as I can fathom it is done deliberately with forethought and does nothing to further any conversation here, to the contrary it does the opposite.

As far as unbounded fear goes: yes, the odds are pretty small with an agency or an independent. My personal attitude is I prefer to see independents, among the factors is I'll take the lesser of the risks Originally Posted by discreetgent

I did not go after Lauren....I pointed out a fallacy.

If my tone was harsh , I apologize.

I have not missed one single point in this regard. You are not God. Just because you believe it or you can convince another to believe it, again does not make it so.

I pointed out how silly it was to even be worried about being busted from some record keeping by either an agency that were busted or an independent.

It is like worrying about a meteorite hitting the earth. Yes it could happen But I mean really.

See whomever you want for what ever reason you want but that does not give you are anyone else the right to exploit unwarranted fear. Again see who you want.

All I pointed out was how miniscule that fear should be in the equation.

What dictionary are you using? Given two choices, avoiding the one with double the risk is not irrational. Originally Posted by terbul

YES it is in the example I gave.

One in twenty million or one in TEN million.

Do you understand the likelyhood of EITHER happening?

Slim to fucing none.

Where is any sense of perspective?

Tell that to the clients of the DC Madam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Jeane_Palfrey Originally Posted by pjorourke

Tell that to a client of an independent that got busted.....do you BELIEVE that has never happened?

What is your point.

You of all people know stats.

It appears LS has all of her White Knights out in force against WTF this afternoon....



Seriously boys, can't she defend herself?

It appears LS has all of her White Knights out in force against WTF this afternoon....



Seriously boys, can't she defend herself? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I have no desire to enter into an argument with WTF. This has ceased to be a conversation about madams and turned into a question of my character.

When did it become a bad thing to speak out when someone is behaving poorly? Is everyone to stand by and pretend they don't care when a friend is being mistreated? It is more commendable to stand by and watch? It doesn't make someone weak to be good to their friends.

To stand up for those you believe to be good people when they are mistreated is part of the classic expectation of any man considered to be a gentlemen.

The world needs more White Knights, fewer cowards and uncouth contributors.

It appears LS has all of her White Knights out in force against WTF this afternoon....



Seriously boys, can't she defend herself? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

This is more a false belief that most have fallen into. They do not want to believe that what I am saying is true. Makes them less special. They are not arguing the merits. That would be to difficult.

I have no desire to enter into an argument with WTF. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

I was not trying to argue with you.

You were spreading a false belief. I corrected it. Nothing more. Again if that came off as harsh, sorry.

When did it become a bad thing to speak out when someone is behaving poorly? Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

I was not behaving poorly. I corrected a misconception. Nobody will dispute that. If, I did so to harshly, I have already apologized. For that, I get you falsely accusing me of acting poorly. Acting poorly would not include me offering that olive branch.

In fact I could argue you and DG are acting poorly by not offering one yourselves.

To stand up for those you believe to be good people when they are mistreated is part of the classic expectation of any man considered to be a gentlemen.
Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

True...but again, I did not mistreat you. I corrected a false belief for others to either believe or not. If they want to believe there is some danger in visiting an agency, then LE has done thier job....next will be the independents and then there will be no one to protest! LOL.. sorry, wrong genocide

True...but again, I did not mistreat you. I corrected a false belief for others to either believe or not. If they want to believe there is some danger in visiting an agency, then LE has done thier job....next will be the independents and then there will be no one to protest! LOL.. sorry, wrong genocide Originally Posted by WTF

Your lack of logic is legendary.

The false belief you’ve exposed is “.. believe there is some danger in visiting an agency..”?

Are you saying now there is no danger in visiting an agency?

In your previous post you stated that “..you are TWICE as likely to get busted working for an agency as an independent…”

Is there any semblance of a point you are trying to make here?

Tell that to a client of an independent that got busted.....do you BELIEVE that has never happened? What is your point. You of all people know stats. Originally Posted by WTF

Well those names (i.e., Palfrey's black book) were released -- to the press as a defense move. Sure independents get busted and some will trade info for charges. However, because I DO KNOW STATS, let me explain it this way.

a) If you have a agency vs. an independent, I'd venture to say the agency has 3-4x the chances of being busted -- more people involved, higher profile, bigger target, etc. (I'm in each case ignoring obvious incompetents that I wouldnt even touch with your dick. )

b) A typical agency probably has 30-40 times as many names as an independent just from the differences in volume and the more 1x users. If we are talking an HDH independent, its probably more like 100x. This is relevant because if the agency gets busted, the bigger the pool of names, the the chance of being exposed.

c) Agencies involve multiple people handling the info. I suspect the risk increases exponentially with the people involved. So lets give this one about a 5-10x factor.

d) The Palfrey factor -- newspapers are going to be much more interested in publishing an agency list -- more names, juicier story. Maybe 2-3x greater at least.

So if you multiply the middle of each of those ranges out you get the odds at being exposed by an agency at about 2,000x that of an independent. Now granted the independent is pretty low -- lets say one out of twenty million as you suggested. That makes the agency risk 1 out of 10,000. Still not something to get alarmed about, but probably higher than your chance of being hit by lightening. All risks are relative.

It appears LS has all of her White Knights out in force against WTF this afternoon....



Seriously boys, can't she defend herself? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I don't see anyone defending LS. As you note she can handle herself. Most of what I read here is the normal sport of poking holes in WTF's lack of logic.

WTF, if you've noticed I do not bother to reply to ANY of your posts. You are remarkably effective at annoying folks here. You have driven several lovely people away from here. Personally I don't give a rat's patootie what you post, I move on to the folks who have some substance, depth and humor. They are entertaining and make any board enjoyable. But since Lauren has to question why she bothers with the board because of your "noise" I have to post. No, I am not a mod, nor do I play one on TV. Most of your stuff is not enough to get a reprimand or stronger. I know this post will not change your MO and you will write a scathing reply here or as a PM (like you did a while ago). That is your option. But I sure wish I didn't have to write this post let alone think these thoughts every time you drive another member off. I will not reply to anything you post with regard to this nor anything in the future. I hope you will give what I said some serious consideration.

Well those names (i.e., Palfrey's black book) were released -- to the press as a defense move. Sure independents get busted and some will trade info for charges. However, because I DO KNOW STATS, let me explain it this way.

a) If you have a agency vs. an independent, I'd venture to say the agency has 3-4x the chances of being busted -- more people involved, higher profile, bigger target, etc. (I'm in each case ignoring obvious incompetents that I wouldnt even touch with your dick. )

b) A typical agency probably has 30-40 times as many names as an independent just from the differences in volume and the more 1x users. If we are talking an HDH independent, its probably more like 100x. This is relevant because if the agency gets busted, the bigger the pool of names, the the chance of being exposed.

c) Agencies involve multiple people handling the info. I suspect the risk increases exponentially with the people involved. So lets give this one about a 5-10x factor.

d) The Palfrey factor -- newspapers are going to be much more interested in publishing an agency list -- more names, juicier story. Maybe 2-3x greater at least.

So if you multiply the middle of each of those ranges out you get the odds at being exposed by an agency at about 2,000x that of an independent. Now granted the independent is pretty low -- lets say one out of twenty million as you suggested. That makes the agency risk 1 out of 10,000. Still not something to get alarmed about, but probably higher than your chance of being hit by lightening. All risks are relative. Originally Posted by pjorourke

this is getting interesting? any of you actuaries-in-the-making want to quote my insurance needs?