good choice of words Zin but sorry it aint gonna cut it for a few reasons.
1) When I said you were carrying the cross it didnt meant you started many threads but you sure as hell have been extremely opinionated and I'll get to that real soon
2)your position and that of any provider is fine with me, I really dont care. What I do find extremely troubling is to suggest in any way form or manner that a provider that wants more screening is goin to be any better. Now you go on to suggest that women are "desperate" if they they simply ask for references and ID instead of a work/home phone? What do you offer to support this theory.
3) now here is the one thats a kicker for me and perhaps you can explain this since when I read this post by NOSC and noticed your review of her recently it became very apparent they you may no longer be able to think for yourself or we have quite the coincidence going on here. Wouldnt you agree? Sorry but after seeing this you've lost all credibility
link is atatched
-- Modified on 8/9/2005 12:42:08 PM
Quoting your post:
"...quite honestly I could care less what screening initiatives they have in place because if I don't like them I move on to the next one. I dont need to complain, I dont need to tell the provider she's unreasonable, all I need to do is take my money elsewhere and enjoy myself.
"There are very good arguments on both sides and we all need to make our choices. You go where you want and Im going where I want.
"I dont really see that many guys complaining about it at all and if one does why do you feel you should be the self appointed guardian of the providers screening processes. I've seen you carrying this cross so many times I'm starting to wonder why? Now before someone even posts a complaint on either side you feel the need to start it up again? why? At this point, where in the world are you trying to go with this?
"oh and please drop that ridiculous SW argument there are just too many great prviders that dont have the need for the intrusive screening for you to be comaparing them that way."
Bill,
You've said that you don't see many guys complaining about this, yet, also you also say I've carried this cross (about screening) so many times.
Perceptions can be distorted. How can these both be true? In my entire history here, (check it out) you will find that was the first time I started a thread about this. Everything else I've written has been in answer to somebody else's thread, and 90 percent of the time, to a man's complaint about screening. Now how can you not see that many guys complaining about it, but still see me carrying the cross for it so many times?
No, I don't see myself as a self-appointed guardian. I don't visualize it that way. However, if only the guys who complain about screening have a right to say anything, then we'll get a skewed idea of the thinking of hobbyist. Soon, that becomes a set stereotype.
Can I really complain, then, about the general public acting on stereotypes about this business when I don't resist being stereotyped?
Regarding my starting it up again. The thread on the LA board had fallen to the second page, but my mind was still working on it; I thought this needed to be its own subject, but thought the timing was bad for the LA board. That's it.
Now, about you calling my SW argument "ridiculous" because many do fine without "intrusive" screening; there's too many details you've left open in your statement to make that convincing, your use of "ridiculous" notwhithstanding. My statement to me seems like a no-brainer, but I'll replace SW with the term "more desperate women." Happy now?
I'd also really like to see the stats of those who screen "intrusively" (which you've not defined) against those who do. Absent those, I think what you said has no meaning besides "I don't care and you shouldn't."
asleep twice trying to get thru it.
Peace everyone there is enough war in the world.
good choice of words Zin but sorry it aint gonna cut it for a few reasons.
1) When I said you were carrying the cross it didnt meant you started many threads but you sure as hell have been extremely opinionated and I'll get to that real soon
2)your position and that of any provider is fine with me, I really dont care. What I do find extremely troubling is to suggest in any way form or manner that a provider that wants more screening is goin to be any better. Now you go on to suggest that women are "desperate" if they they simply ask for references and ID instead of a work/home phone? What do you offer to support this theory.
3) now here is the one thats a kicker for me and perhaps you can explain this since when I read this post by NOSC and noticed your review of her recently it became very apparent they you may no longer be able to think for yourself or we have quite the coincidence going on here. Wouldnt you agree? Sorry but after seeing this you've lost all credibility
link is atatched
-- Modified on 8/9/2005 12:42:08 PM
1) No doubt, I've been extremely opinionated. Guilty. However, that the point that if you've seen my opinion about screening lot, then it's because other guys have raised it a lot. This contradicts your declaration that guys don't complain about this often.
2) You're right that you can't tell the quality of the provider by the screening, and you definitely can't infer anything from the screening information she requests. No doubt, in some areas LE might not be a significant enough problem, or she could underestimate her danger. Nevertheless, an undeniable fact of a SW's life is a lack of safety and security. Hence, serial killers tend to stack their body counts with them.
Now, it is possible through cultural supression and LE to bring most every provider down to the SW level, no matter what station they started at. I'm certain providers in Islamic countries are almost all at that level.
3) lol. A good theory, but I hate to say you're so cold. I first posted my opinion about screening in a thread on 6/24/04 (couldn't fit the link on: post title "Consider the Nature of This)-- three months before I first met NOSC. (Check the review of her and NetMichelle.) You'll see from that post that my opinion and passion about this hasn't changed one iota. Hell, I even used the term "SW"!
Now, Nicole is a friend, and quite a professional Sex Siren, but I assure you, I was like this when she met me. If you find my sanity suspect, I'm afraid you'll have to find a different reason for its loss. Good luck correctly inferring my motives from the information found on this website; if you can, you should start your own superhero team. Hint: truth is stranger than fiction.
I have only seen maybe a 1/2 dozen guys in true opposition to screening methods. I have only seen 1/2 dozen or so providers in support of more stringent screening. The topics may be long but its really the same people posting in them.
I'll make my position very clear for you, not for its importance but so you understand most of us really don't care what screening a provider uses because the fact is if we are uncomfortable with it we just go elsewhere and nothing is ever said. We lose "nothing" as far as quality and my better experiences have all been with little or no screening. Any representation to the contrary is bogus and false
anytime any business reacts in a kneejerk solution to a situation more often than not its a bandaid on an open wound. The measures some providers take do not in any stretch of the imagination lower the risks of LE or getting hurt. Risks associated with the profession have always been there and unfortunately they arent going away and they sure as hell aren't being lowered by intrusive screening. Your arguments simply don't hold water which is fine by me and most guys like me.
Using serial killers to validate an argument of keeping providers safer just doesnt cut it either. Out of all the inherent risks of the profession that one has to have lowest percentage chance of happening. She has just as much risk from the guy she already saw 10 times that may just snap one day. I can think of two providers I know that didnt have trouble with the guy the first time but on the 2nd and 3rd occasions he became a bit difficult to say the least.
There are more creative and imaginative ways to screen and I have to admit some of these girls are pretty sharp as I never realized they were actually screening me at the time.
I would assume a reference by a fairly well known provider (that actually remembered the guy and describe him)would be far more valuable than a work #
And you're being careless about whether it really quacks or honks, but when you bolster your argument with an expression that old and unfit, I could see that what I write won't matter to you as long as there's another adage. I'll never have more authority than an old wise saying everybody believes.
Your comeback to my serial killer reference was a dud, ignoring the point it was making, which could have *nothing* to do with how often it happens.
I think your the sort of guy who would have argued that seat belts didn't work and thought statistics to the contrary confused the fact that driving was inherently dangerous. Before you come back and say my seatbelt analogy is false-- I know, I'm comparing apples and oranges; it's off topic because you've convinced me of the futility of continuing here. Let's agree to disagree.
you're the one that brought the topic up again which provoked my response
great lets agree to disagree. 
This topic was old weeks ago, and that hasn't stopped all parties from chiming in. Why should agreeing stop it?
be a 12 round fight.......not a 3 rounder like womens boxing.
Now get out there and fight!!
(I've got $20. on Bill!!)
I'll take Zin, just to make it sporting. Now, will you pass that popcorn?
Careful boys, I do have that video camera!!
I felt my previous answers were obligatory after my weekend away.
Besides, I'm really not opposed enough to your position, Bill. I can't sustain any emotional momentum over it. IMHO, you do what you should do and shop for women whose screening requirements you're willing to meet. Unlike some guys, you've never said providers across the board should change their practices or face a boycott. And if you think all screening practices are ineffective, so? You'll more than likely never be in a position where it's an important question for you.
On the side subject, whatever you think about me and Nicole, it's apparent that you'd consider anything I'd say to be misleading. I don't happen to have a neutral third party on my staff to provide you with the facts, and worse, I don't even have a staff. So that point is moot for any real discussion between us. Though I might be able to appeal to the reason of other thread-readers about this.
It's unfair anyway. Nicole is not around to read this and volunteer her side, not that you'd give her any credibility about it anyway. But I think she'd be disturbed once she finds out about this thread.
-- Modified on 8/10/2005 11:28:25 AM
Just happens to be a pet peeve of mine with some posters here. Seems whatever their ATF position is they always take the ardent stance right or wrong. Pubic hair can pull freight trains so while its not surprising to me it never the less is disturbing at times.
As I said I really think providers need to evaluate what their comfort levels are on a individual basis and screen accordingly. Where I run into problems with some of what has been written here is the poor comparisons and innuendo. I find it offensive for some providers to use that tactic because they aren't any better. As far as Nicole goes, personally I like her but that doesn't mean I'll agree with her. It was the SW comparison that sent me over the edge on these arguments not the screening initiatives even though I truly believe they are nothing more than false sense of security which is even more dangerous
I do have some other extreme issues as far as screening but more from a customer protection standpoint regarding online forms. While these are very convenient for providers personally I think that anyone that fills one of those out deserves anything that happens to him. Now let me ask you a hypothetical question
for sake of argument I'm a thieving no good dirt bag (some may already agree to this) but at the same time I'm a little creative and I get this idea to mirror some of these escorts sites. Lets also assume I have the technical expertise to pull this off and start making life difficult for people and maybe make a few dollars while Im at it. Now tell me, how many providers have anything in place to stop someone like this? How many even have a decent firewall that can stop a hacker(large corporations cant stop them)? How many even know what a firewall is or can determine if they are or have been hacked?
He gets you (or your less paranoid twin brother) to fill out a verification form, obtaining your home and work numbers and addresses your email, and perhaps and if you don't have a good firewall, maybe he may have your IP address.
Now, I'm not up on current criminal techniques, but first how does he exploit this for profit? Explain that and I'll take you're caution seriously. Right now, it just looks very foolish to me.
Let's see, how's he going to use this "crucial information?" Identity fraud: He'll need to get your SSN at least, which he doesn't have, and can't get on that information. Bank account/credit card larceny: again, he can't get from your home address to your account numbers without a lot of risky digging. Blackmail: You must be kidding! All he has on you is information available from a hundred sources, on a form that anybody with OpenOffice could have created, and no proof that you filled it out. Your neighbor down the street has better blackmail dirt. He could sell your info to a telemarketer/spammer: and yes, that's annoying, but isn't there a no-call list?
In fact, I'll wager, that having your home and work addresses and numbers is only good for finding out if you have a stable address and real place of employment. As far as I could tell, it must be useless for any commercial exploitation.
Now about being harassed by the dirtbag: if you lose your job on the basis of some creepy person calling and slandering you, can you say lawsuit? What employer can take that chance now? You're wife may be another story, but let's face it, any female pathological liar can make up a better story without the information-- without proof.
Moreover, have you considered how easy it is to get that information anyway? Your neighbors know your home address. Your friends know probably your work number, home phone number, and the name of your employer. All of them can be socially engineered to cough it up. Is this information on your business card? In other words, Bill, your concern about this is utterly foolishly paranoid.
As long as you're not dumb enough to give away crucial information: your SSN, your credit card numbers, perhaps your birthdate and mother's maiden name. For screening, does any provider asked for these? If she does, tell the thieving dirtbag spoofing you to go to hell.
I myself am concerned about sites are getting hacked, including this one, or if emails were being intercepted, but we're all vulnerable to this right now, client or provider, and I hope people are learning to protect themselves better. I suggest learning encryption at least. I'm trying.
Zin, its not about paranoia its about putting unecessary information out there that can be exploited for whatever the purpose. Oh hell don't kid yourself that your info is safe and secure, its not. Not everyone that hobbies is not married or doesnt have a SO, not everyone has home business where they are the only one that answers. You get just enough of the right info on anyone and they can easily be blackmailed if they have concerns of it getting back to the wrong person. Its naive to believe it cant be done under the right conditions. Oh by the way, I think the post today of one provider is a perfect example of a loose cannon if I ever saw one. Mr. Silk is 100% correct, who in their right mind is going to give private information to someone with that mindset. Talk about playing with dynamite , holy crap.
No matter how big the threat is how can anyone justify it when they really dont have to take the risk, why gamble if you can have a sure thing? If I go through the trouble of keeping my information secure and that's important to me, why do I want to put it in unsecure hands. You're hoping people are learning to protect themselves doesn't answer the issue and when people assure you their information is safe with them and it really is not than why are you trusting them to begin with.
Kiss and make up just dont let Junior see, Id love to watch though 
Junior has to watch. That would be big fun. C'mon Jr, I'll lend you the camera and we can post it on the website.
But having you watch and seeing Jr wretch... well, let's face it, I can't even overcome my heterosexuality for that.
I'll watch the Bill & Zin gay pride parade........if maybe you would do something extremely hetero-sexual to me.....just to make sure nothing rubs off on me, if ya know what I mean
(Not that there's anything wrong with being gay guys)