is what draws me in when I'm searching for someone new to meet. I guess in our perfect world at this time, it would be real body shot (and relatively current or at least in the same condition) blurred or PS'd face so you get a decent idea of what the girl looks like and that would protect them, too! There are pics just like that out there, but I think they were taken at least a few years ago, so I guess that was the norm for the time and are still on ad sites. It's too bad the orgs don't use that model for their ad pics. I guess it's cheaper and easier to cut & paste then take pics, always about the money!
To answer the question, when reading reviews, looks being subjective, you can read some contradictory descriptions. A lot to most of the time you ask a question to three people, you will probably get three answers! Sometimes you have to read between the lines to figure the answer! Many times you read, not the girl in the pic, but she is really cute or good looking, so with a good service review you check her out! It's been said and being an older cat, I can almost always see the attractiveness in the girls! With good service it's a win!Seeing as the norm is that pics are "fake" although they may be representative of the girl, and that demand is too high for mongers to meaningfully cause change through boycotting, wouldn't we be better served by pointing out when the pics actually ARE of the girl? Or better yet, acknowledge that they're fake, address whether they're representative, and move on.
That said, the "ethnic" agencies, mainly Asian and Brazilian agencies have always gotten somewhat of a pass on this for some reason as long as the guys where happy with the girls they saw.
I do agree that any kind of organized "boycott" is unlikely to get any kind of traction. There are too many pussies among us for a boycott to ever work, but that doesn't mean that we as individuals can't choose to stand up for ourselves and refuse to patronize agencies that put out an inferior "product".
should be whether she was worse than what the photos represented. This can easily be determined for looks, but not so much for service. The fact that Kgirl service is pretty consistent is the reason Kgirls have gotten a pass over the years for excessive photoshopping. I haven't seen a Brazilian girl in over ten years, so no comment on that part.
Here is the problem with limiting the alteration of photos in three words . . . . . "facial recognition software." There have already been a couple of girls I know of that used accurate photos when they were here for 90 days some years ago who couldn't get back in when they tried for another 90-day tour more recently. There is also a prominent BA girl who took a vacation to Cancun a few years ago and had her passport confiscated upon re-entry into the US. She was afraid to work during the investigation and just stayed at her sister's place in LA. She finally convinced them she was not a sex worker, but it was a close call.
The ease with which some of our own posters here can find matching photos of girls in ads, etc., should confirm that immigration authorities can do the same things. So here is the trade off. If you want more accurate Kgirl photos, there are going to be some girls that get caught by immigration and can't come back. News of immigration or LE busts travel through the Kgirl network very quickly, and have a negative effect on recruiting new girls to come here. If you're willing to accept a higher level of photoshopping, as has been the norm lately, the supply of Kgirls will continue to flow more freely as worries about immigration busts by Kgirls fall away. I have had great luck going with the flow. As you say, I have been overwhelmingly happy with the Kgirls I have seen, whether or not they matched the photos. The nice thing is that most "first reviewers" of new girls will tell us if the photos are accurate, not accurate (photoshopped), or a different girl entirely, so this concern about photos really only affects those TOFTT with new girls.
Oh man here we go again.
Forget facial recognition, many mongers would be happy with a blurred face and real body pic, with things such as tats PSd out. Guess what, very few if any pics use real bodies of the girls. There are more pics where the girls use their own faces than their own bodies.
I've asked before, sure faces can be recognizable. So why are real bodies not shown? In Canada they are shown. Some milf corgs show real body pics. Imperfect, sometimes pudgy. But that's what you get. Hell indy providers on other sites openly use real body pics, with imperfections curves and so forth.
Many people are tired of blind dates where they see a slim doll on the pic only to find a girl with a gut and overweight, with legs to hips to waist ratio that has nothing to do with the pics.
What are these entities afraid of when they don't post real body pics ? That people will not want to see them? Well, yeah. People will be even more uhappy once they see them if they are overweight or have a gut. A solution for that would be hitting a treadmill and also earning living via honest representation, not some fairy tale bs. People who have no issues seeing a chubby provider will go and people who don't will not go. It will make customers happier.
Also, you're incorrect about ter. Many times the first review isn't correct, and that causes the whole profile to be incorrect. I've pointed out many instances where it says "photos accurate", but they're nowhere fucking close.
joining TER, that was the standard in SoCal . . . . . real body pics with the face blurred out. I'm totally happy with that as well. Even though I'm not an expert, my understanding is that the technology has evolved to be able to defeat the blurring, so that would result in a real photo of the girl's face.
I agree that there is no reason to photoshop the body pics, but the most common alterations are to enlarge the cup size and plump up the butt a little. One could argue that this helps conceal a girl's real identity further, but like you, I have more of an issue with body photoshopping than the face. Nobody wants to see a Kgirl who is flabby, and I think I would be inclined to call out an org that is passing off fat girls as tight bodies through photoshopping. A lot of guys like the JLo-type full figured bodies, which do not appeal to me at all, so some will be more offended than others by heavy body photoshopping.
I don't really understand why there's a dichotomy here.
Was there a call to boycott orgs for using fake pics?
Like GaG said, "everyone is doing that" is not a valid excuse, it is merely a fallacy of appeal to tradition.
And even among seasoned mongers who know 90% of pics are straight fake, the #1 thing they wanna know besides bbfs offering is - whether the pics are on point or not.
And no matter the mental gymnastics some do on this board, instances where review sites say pics are accurate, when they aren't, are extremely ma licious to end users. If orgs and girls want us to use imagination to figure out their looks, the least we can do is acknowledge it and make it known to everyone so there will be no baited expectations.
-- Modified on 8/16/2021 10:16:17 AM
-- Modified on 8/16/2021 10:17:05 AM
Well, that just seems too reasonable for anyone to agree with!
I think there are battles that are worth fighting and those that aren't. I also think there are different ways to fight a battle and that choice also fits into the fight or not equation.
Given that a few years ago this was not nearly the problem it is now for our area and I'm not entirely sure it will be in the future if we get back to something like the old normal. That said, if everyone largely expects the pics not to be reliable then calling that out is a bit like pointing at the sun and claiming it's daytime. Not really news to anyone. However, noting the case where the pics are accurate or at least highly representative IS helping other's out. It will also help promote that practice by the agencies as they see traffic (assuming the pic create reasonable interest) going to those agencies.
The reverse doesn't seem to hold, pointing out the unreliable pic doesn't really seem to decrease the demand as you note.
Which seems to produce the incentive structure promoting the more desirable outcome? I would say in today's world directing others to the accurate pic would be how to "fight the battle". Then again, I've largely been on this theme for a while and sees like some really hate the idea. But perhaps a difference messenger....
The notion of " largely expects the pics not to be reliable then calling that out is a bit like pointing at the sun and claiming it's daytime."
is fundamentally false
Like I say in other post that has not been published yet, I've seen even the most savvy mongers ask for info whether the pics are real. And they know 90% of pics are fake.
The fact that the pics are not real is just as valuable info as the fact that the pics are real. Yes, the pics being real is such a rare occurrence now I will agree that is something that you HAVE to mention. But mentioning pics are false is also worth it, because like I've said, even mongers who have seen 500+ girls still fawn over model images the orgs post.
And guess what? There are mongers who after being confirmed the pics not real, decide to not see the girl. So this info was useful to them. Why are you depriving them of this info?
If one considers fake pics as a norm, what is your issue with people mentioning that?
Jensen, your idea seems to not punish bad behavior, but rather encourage good behavior in contrast while being mum about bad behavior. This creates a very dangerous slippery slope. We've already seen this with pics. First it was oh its just a bit ps. Then it was girls heads glued to model pics. Then it was fake model pics.
Punishing bad behavior is almost always more effective than rewarding good behavior.
Not only does it say "don't do it again", it also serves an example to others. There's a reason Leo's post pics and info of mongers who get caught. Do I agree with them? Hell no. Do I think it's effective at deterring what they are trying to deter! You bet. Now think if they instead of punishing bad behavior would reward good behavior. Exactly.
If every single fake pic was called out for being fake on every dedicated forum or site, I'd think people would notice. Because as mentioned before, many people lose interest after hearing pic is fake. Even if they assume it's fake.
Edit: I am always waiting to hear some mental gymnastics that would argue that mentioning that a girl is using a fake pic as harmful and useless info to mongers. Which is a bunch of bollocks. It is harmful to org and girls biz, and to that I will say boo hoo, maybe you shouldn't have use fake pic. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
-- Modified on 8/16/2021 12:06:34 PM
Why do we keep hearing what a shit hole the BA is from you?
I don't really have an approach. I simply say call a spade a spade. If you want to sweep bad behavior under the rug and reward good behavior, at least I expect you to remain consistent when it comes to bad behavior from the monger side. That isn't what Ive seen you advocate though.
I've never called bay area a shit hole, sorry. I've called out fake reviews by bay area orgs and bad behavior by them. I'm fairly confident the quality we have is a lot better than a lot of places. I'm just not the type of a person to be content with it. We also - in my opinion - have less simps and more people who aren't afraid to speak their minds and put an org or a girl on blast if we are unhappy.
Whereas it's like pulling teeth - in fact, worse - to get some of you to put an org or a girl on blast publicly. Hell, no on has yet to answer for what purpose people who are in charge of pics are blurring fake model faces. Because the only answer means admitting a shitty practice. But saying a fake pic is actually fake - oh no, cannot have that. Lol.
I feel like when most mongers ask about pics, they're really asking whether the pics are representative of the girl, or at least, that's what they care about more. If that's the case, it doesn't make much sense to me to make an issue out of a picture being "fake" if it's representative. I've even seen cases where the pics are clearly of the girl, with some slight PSing, and mongers think they're fake, which should give you an idea of the perceptibility of some mongers.
If the pic is fake, then it is fake. I don't see what's so hard to get about that concept. Some people can't tell one Asian face from another. So what? Just because of those people, we need to not engage in reporting factual information?
If face is of another person - fake pic.
If body is of another person - fake body pic.
Wasnt so hard, was it?
Like I've said, it's not necessarily an issue. It's just part of info that nearly everyone wants to know. Even cdl says he doesn't fuck fatties.
It seems to me that most people in this thread more have issue with visibility of such info, rather than with presence of such info. I'm willing to bet anything that most, if not all people in this thread, have communicated fake pics, overweight, gut-having girls in private channels. The real issue is that people dont want that info to be public.
I think that is what sunny was getting at as well with his comment about managing expectations. The goal is having a great time with, for most of us, an attractive woman. Fixating on the ad pic for who will open the door makes that difficult because disappointed expectations will always negatively influence our perceptions of what we're seeing.
So, wouldn't knowing that a woman is using a fake pic, and not having hopes for her looking like the pic, actually HELP to prevent such disappointed expectations?
Methinks the answer is a resounding "yes".
Hence, it is not only needed to know if an ad is using a fake pic, it is imperative to get that info in to ad many people as possible, so as to get any unrealistic expectations out of the window ASAP.
why dont we make a special section here for Fake Pics!
demarcation fall between a fake pic (not the same girl) and a pic that has been photoshopped to conceal her true identity and defeat the facial recognition software? Many guys here already have the skills to find out that many of the photos being used have been highjacked from Korean models, musicians, personal trainers, etc. To me, these are the ones that are fake. I don't consider heavy photoshopping to be a fake pic if its the same girl, so I'm asking how you would propose making the distinction.
Are you suggesting a separate, dedicated thread to fake picture reporting or something like that?
A lot of things in life come down to managing expectations, one's own as well as those of other people.
Anyone expecting providers to use their real pictures in a country that prosecutes this activity as illegal has unrealistic expectations. I expect the girl's body to look somewhat like the pics. That's as far as my expectations go. The kgirl experience is mostly about the service anyways, IMO.
I feel like half you guys want the girl's unblurred yearbook photo from highschool before you're satisfied.
Just roll with it. Don't like it? Vote with your wallet and take your business elsewhere.
My .02
You expect the body to look somewhat like the pics, great.
So, sunny, have you seen any girls in your area who had body be nothing like the pic, with a gut?
If yes, what did you do? Did you perhaps put it into reviews? Perhaps called it out on the public forum? Or perhaps you chose to share that info privately and moved on?
I don't get why we can't just mention that the body is not the body in the pic on the site that, you know specializes in REVIEWING and EVALUATING girls looks as well as services? Or rather, I get it - people wanna do it to protect girls and orgs biz, but create millions of nonsense excuses as to why.
It's really simple. Considering #1 thing mongers want to know how close to the pics face and body is, the info about pics being fake or real is crucial. Many times the info in girls profile erroneously states that pics are accurate.
-- Modified on 8/16/2021 4:00:27 PM
the "number one thing." I have only seen one Kgirl out of a thousand that I thought was too ugly to fuck. What I'm mostly interested in is their service. For me, Service is king. When you get to be over 55, most girls in their 30's look hot enough to fuck, so I want to know how good the fuck is going to be, so reviews are more important to me than photos. I DO pay attention to comments from reviewers on appearance, but I'm mainly looking to rule out fatties, which fortunately are not the common among Kgirls, but more often occur among Asian indies. Like I said, I have only met one really ugly Kgirl, but I was new, and fucked her anyway . . . . . In doggy, of course, so I guess you could say her ass looked better to me than her face. Lol Just the perspective of an older gent who's seen my share of Kgirls.
I said the #1 thing mongers want to know, as it pertains to pm quesrions Ive recieved being a monger on various sites.
#1 is whether the pics of girl X are valid and #2 whether certain (ahem) services are offered.
I agree that service is king. However, most mongers are selective about looks. Just like you are about fatties. Wht not let everyone know how truthful a body pic is? Isn't this what this website is for? Or is this website just to shoot shit?
No one has answered yet why truthful bods can't be shown. And then talked about if pics are off and the girl has a gut or is 25 lbs heavier than her pics.
are not getting PM's from the same group of guys. Lol
is what draws me in when I'm searching for someone new to meet. I guess in our perfect world at this time, it would be real body shot (and relatively current or at least in the same condition) blurred or PS'd face so you get a decent idea of what the girl looks like and that would protect them, too! There are pics just like that out there, but I think they were taken at least a few years ago, so I guess that was the norm for the time and are still on ad sites. It's too bad the orgs don't use that model for their ad pics. I guess it's cheaper and easier to cut & paste then take pics, always about the money!
To answer the question, when reading reviews, looks being subjective, you can read some contradictory descriptions. A lot to most of the time you ask a question to three people, you will probably get three answers! Sometimes you have to read between the lines to figure the answer! Many times you read, not the girl in the pic, but she is really cute or good looking, so with a good service review you check her out!
It's been said and being an older cat, I can almost always see the attractiveness in the girls! With good service it's a win!
was up and going strong 99% of the kgirls we're the ones when the door opened?
Speed fast to now where we live in a era where many of the ladies get stopped at the airport by US Customs and interviewed. The smart agents will even do google image search on chicks entering the US and they ( US Customs)
have the legal right to go the a persons cell phone.
Many kgirls told me they just don't want there real pics used if they can find a girl who resembels them they want to use it.
But, it also goes both way. We have all seen or waited for an appt on westside by the old kfc or on Wilshire blvd at the
building that many kgirls use. Or, even getting into the elevator or entering the building with your fellow monger.
Seriously, I have seen the fat dudes that is 5-2 weighing 240, the dude with the coke bottle glasses and even chewbacca type dudes. How would yo feel if the girls we're allowed to take pics of you and share it other gals with your handle.
I''m sure some of you will not be let inside the building or texts never even answered die to your physical appearance.
I don't get this post. You can show a real body pic without letting anyone know who you are.
And on the flip side, can you explain what is the reason to blur out a face on a model pic? Is there any reason to do so beside deception, as to make it look like the body is real?
I don't really get the whole putting down mongers sentiment. We are not getting paid to fuck strangers. They are. It's a well paid job too. They are the ones who advertise themselves. We aren't. When I buy a good from eBay, I want to take a look at pics of the item. The seller doesn't and shouldn't care about my pics. As long as my money is good.
Also, pics of mongers ARE often taken and ARE often shared.
Finally...if they don't want to use real pics, then what is the issue with publicly saying they are not using real pics? Is it because of negative connotation that accompanies the words "fake pic"?
Well, boo hoo. Hows it they don't want to use real body pic, but they also don't want people to acknowledge that publicly? Lol. Makes zero sense.
A few weeks ago, I posted "Real or Fake" on the General board:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/ter-general-board-12/real-or-fake-986070
.
Now there's a story about fake "influencers:"
http://www.cnn.com/style/article/angie-douyin-virtual-influencer/index.html
This 'imperfect' virtual influencer is challenging beauty standards in China
.
I prefer the days of real or real-but-face-blurred pics.
.
TER has already discussed to growing sex robot industry. And the days that will come when you answer an ad with fake pics, fake video and show up to meet a rubber coated realistic robot.
was up and going strong 99% of the kgirls we're the ones when the door opened?
Instead of "real-but-face-blurred" pics we now have "fake-but-face-blurred" pics.
Why is the face blurred then? I've asked ten times on here and haven't received a single answer from the usual apologists.
If you're using fake pics, why just not use any pics at all? It would be more fair and a person would understand that they're gonna go for a blind date. If people argue it's the norm, then don't use any pics at all if you're confident in yourself.
But nah, you see - it will make them less money. Because no matter what, there will be gullible souls that will bite on fake pics. And even more gullible souls will bite on fake pics woht blurred faces, because of the "faces are blurred means the pic is less likely to be fake".
...a lawsuit by the person whose photo they are using without permission. Whether it's a model, actress or private citizen, putting their pics on an escort site is an invasion of privacy called "false light." The women are being portrayed as something they're not.
The aggrieved woman would send a cease and desist letter to the org. If she gets no response, she would file a lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief. Even though it's a civil lawsuit, an org would not want to risk the attention that the lawsuit might generate from LE. But if the face is blurred, it's less likely the org will get sued for misappropriating a pic.
Of course, orgs can pay to use pics from sites like the one below, but I don't think orgs like to spend money if they don't have to.
That's a fair answer, however I'd point out that many orgs DO use unblurred pics of other people and don't care much for the possibility of being sued. Often the same orgs that then blur out the faces of models.
Id also say that orgs being illegal entities in general don't care about being sued. The amount of fake pics on crappy websites (not even korg or Asian agency in general) is quite overwhelming.
If sued, they'll simply close up shop and open under a different name. But lawyers are clever and will "pierce the corporate veil" so to speak (orgs are not corps). The lawyers will find out who owns the org and sue him or her directly.
There's a good chance the org owner has "deep pockets" which would make it worthwhile for a lawyer to go after.
If say you're pretty naive thinking it will even get to lawyers. Half of online ads are fake scams, and three fourths of other half are using free sites with different names.
Imagine lawyers going through all the hoops, cease and desist, etc and then org just changes pics to another model. Big whoop. There are millions of models to atea pics from, not enough lawyers or time to pursue some thing that might not even be re.
If the agency is an established organization that never changed names and is a high class elite agency where it is legal, it might happen. Otherwise, you're just playing whack a mole.
responding to knows little about the law except what he can look up in a few short sentences on the internet. If you sue someone individually and you cannot PROVE that they are an alter-ego (and there are specific standards for that) of the corporation, you can, in turn, get sued for malicious prosecution, and then YOU end up being the ones that pay them. Don't accept legal advice from keyboard jockeys. Talk to a real lawyer with a real license.
CDL: "I didn't say that. All I said was 'Talk to a real lawyer with a real license.'"
That's your weaselly, waffling way of pretending to be a lawyer but still having semi-plausible deniability that you're not a lawyer.
In the few short sentences you looked up on the internet you found something about an "alter-ego." Since you know NOTHING about the actual practice of law, you don't know that NO lawyer would file a lawsuit without first making sure that the individual he has named can be held personally liable for the corporation's actions. In the initial complaint, the lawyer would include documents alleging that the person named is individually liable for the corporation's action. It's not something that is PROVED by the plaintiff later on in the case. If the lawyer "shows his work" to the court that the individual is liable for the corporation's actions, that would vitiate the necessary grounds for a cause of action for malicious prosecution in a subsequent lawsuit should the defendant prevail in the initial action.
If the individual named is not an "alter-ego," he will file a demurrer or a motion for summary judgment. Then the issue will be decided on the court's law and motion calendar. If the court rules in the plaintiff's favor, the case goes to trial and any possible malicious prosecution action is gone. If the defendant prevails and the lawsuit is dismissed, he has suffered so little in damages that it wouldn't be worth it to spend tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees to recover "bupkes."
"Malicious prosecution" - BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Thanks for proving you are definitely NOT a lawyer and know NOTHING about the law.
in dozens of alter-ego cases. A lawyer does NOT have to establish alter-ego as a "fact" before filing a case alleging it. He just has to have a reasonable basis to make a claim. That's why I said there are several "badges" leading to alter-ego liability in California under which an alter-ego theory of liability can succeed. You are completely wrong in your assessment. Did you look this up on Law for Dummies? Alter-ego is ALWAYS proven later on in the case, usually at trial (bench or jury), and AFTER the plaintiff has had time to do discovery. A demurrer CAN ONLY address deficiencies in the pleadings or jurisdiction, NOT facts in the case, such as alter-ego. An MSJ will not usually be entertained by the court until it is "ripe", which means both sides have completed the discovery they wanted to do on the issue. If, after discovery, the Plaintiff does not have the requisite proof to make its alter-ego case, they can simply dismiss that cause of action, making an MSJ on that cause of action moot. That will usually foreclose a malicious prosecution action. For malicious prosecution, you need to go all the way to trial and lose. Then the other side can bring this action. My company has been the defendant in ONE of these, but we successfully defended because there was no malice, a necessary element, shown by the other side.
You don't get off merely because you "say" you are not an alter-ego. The evidence developed during the litigation will determine the facts of the issue. It depends on whether you behaved in a way that obscured the separation between yourself and the corporation. If you knew anything about the law, you would also know What the elements are to be able to make alter-ego stick on an individual before talking about it. I've done enough of them to know what it takes to win.
I'm not a licensed lawyer, but my in-house counsel who has been working from the office next to mine for 20+ years is. You are not a lawyer either, and apparently you don't even know any that can keep you from making a fool of yourself when this subject comes up. There are some licensed lawyers on this board, if you want corroboration of how badly you failed in this post, just ask. I'm sure they would be happy to slap you around a little. Another abject failure on your part, but hey, its just you being you, right?
into a corner and then runs away like the little bitch he is. This is his version of self-flagellation for being such a reprehensible human being. Lol
I originally made a simple statement:
"orgs are illegal entities & don't care about lawsuits...If sued, they'll simply close up shop and open under a different name. But lawyers are clever and will "pierce the corporate veil" so to speak (orgs are not corps). The lawyers will find out who owns the org and sue him or her directly.
There's a good chance the org owner has "deep pockets" which would make it worthwhile for a lawyer to go after.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/k-girl-113/youre-right---orgs-are-illegal-entities--dont-care-about-lawsuits-27142?page=
That's all I said - "'pierce the corporate veil' SO TO SPEAK, (ORGS ARE NOT CORPS)." THE LAWYERS WILL FIND OUT WHO OWNS THE ORG AND SUE HIM OR HER DIRECTLY.
Simple - I was talking about finding out the real name of Booker Blue of Joe's K-Girls in order to sue him for invasion of privacy -false light. YOU are the IDIOT who brought up "corporations" and "alter-ego" and the DUMBEST thing of all - "malicious prosecution. YOU blew it out of all proportion, for what reason I don't know. Maybe to try to show you have some legal knowledge (YOU DO NOT!!). Or maybe to spew bullshit about having an in-house counsel. Whatever the reason - you're pathetic.
Psycho Killer, Qu'est-ce que c'est
Run, run, run, run, run, run, run away oh, oh, oh, oh
"It's not something that is PROVED by the plaintiff later on in the case.
And this . . . . . "If the lawyer "shows his work" to the court that the individual is liable for the corporation's actions. . ."
You also said . . . ."If the individual named is not an "alter-ego," he will file a demurrer."
These are all bullshit, so I wiped up the floor with you. Now you are trying to walk it back. Alter ego is an ultimate question of fact, so its ALWAYS proved later in the case. Have you ever heard of the "attorney-work-product privilege? Most lawyers would NEVER show their work to the court. It could result in a malpractice claim by the client because it would necessarily include the substance of discussions with his his client. Everything filed or presented in a court (except under seal) becomes a matter of public record. As you can see in the quote above, YOU are the one asserting that you were talking about alter-ego in relation to a "CORPORATION." Now you want to hide behind "a Kgirl org is not a corporation." Of course its not, you idiot, but your post was about alter-ego with respect to corporations. You said, "liable for the corporation's actions", did you NOT?
Lastly, if you knew ANYTHING about civil procedure in California, you would know that you cannot challenge a claim of alter-ego with a demurrer. This is about as basic as it gets in the law.
So here you are trying to walk back your bullshit post by dancing around what you already said and making new points. Now you want to hide behind things you DIDN'T say in your OP. Nice try, but you still got your ass kicked on this one. The three quotes I put here were your undoing, Bitch.
"THE LAWYERS WILL FIND OUT WHO OWNS THE ORG AND SUE HIM OR HER DIRECTLY."
Do you know what ORIGINAL means, idiot? This is my ORIGINAL post on the topic:
You're right - orgs are illegal entities & don't care about lawsuits...
If sued, they'll simply close up shop and open under a different name. But lawyers are clever and will "pierce the corporate veil" so to speak (orgs are not corps). The lawyers will find out who owns the org and sue him or her directly.
There's a good chance the org owner has "deep pockets" which would make it worthwhile for a lawyer to go after.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/k-girl-113/youre-right---orgs-are-illegal-entities--dont-care-about-lawsuits-27142?page=
YOU made it about corporations. YOU made it about corporations. YOU made it about corporations.
I specifically said ORGS ARE NOT CORPORATIONS. I specifically said ORGS ARE NOT CORPORATIONS.
But you are an insecure little bitch who has to try and show off what he knows by bloviating on topics he knows nothing about.
ORGS ARE NOT CORPORATIONS
ORGS ARE NOT CORPORATIONS
ORGS ARE NOT CORPORATIONS
ORGS ARE NOT CORPORATIONS
ORGS ARE NOT CORPORATIONS
ORGS ARE NOT CORPORATIONS
MORON!!!
You are the one who said "pierce the corporate veil" and then went on to give an idiotic explanation of the law in that regard. If you knew orgs were not corps, then why did you say this? Because you thought you could show off a little bit by telling us about the law. The problem is, you got it all wrong and fucked it up beyond all recognition. THAT'S what I'm calling you out on, and you know it. All of this just to try to deflect from what you said. Sometimes you should just take the loss and move on. You just keep making this worse trying to lie your way out of your stupidity about the law. Geez, you're thick-headed.
Why did you cut off the relevant part of the sentence, dumbass? "SO TO SPEAK" means that the phrase "pierce the corporate veil" is a metaphor; the phrase is meant to be taken figuratively, NOT literally.
But YOU took the phrase "piece the corporate veil" LITERALLY and went on a rant about corporations even though I specifically said "ORGS ARE NOT CORPORATIONS" and that the lawyers would go after the org owner directly.
You really are a moron.
stop digging. You're only making yourself look like more of a loser when it comes to this topic, but go ahead, keep repeating yourself over and over and trying to twist what you originally said. I'm sure I'm not the only one enjoying a troll meltdown.
You are a Certified Dick Lover.
Toothless as you have been lying through your teeth for years. Combined with your adDICKtion to mens' semen, nobody wants to be in your company as you smell.
...repeating it because YOU are twisting what I said. Here it is again:
"...orgs are illegal entities & don't care about lawsuits...If sued, they'll simply close up shop and open under a different name. But lawyers are clever and will "pierce the corporate veil" so to speak (orgs are not corps). The lawyers will find out who owns the org and sue him or her directly."
"ORGS ARE NOT CORPS" "lawyers will..sue the (org owner) directly." - It can't be any clearer than that. Yet you went on a rant about corporations to try to show you know everything about everything. The only thing you proved is that you have poor reading comprehension. Do you know what "ORGS ARE NOT CORPS" means? Do you know what "sue the (org owner) DIRECTLY" means?
"If the defendant is not an alter-ego, he will file a demurrer." Do you stand by this statement, or did you lie?
-- Modified on 8/30/2021 5:09:35 AM
Any discussion of corporations after I said that is superfluous. It's merely you trying to compensate for your little dick. That's why you like K-girls...they like little dicks.
Do you stand by your statement about demurrers being used for alter-ego or was it a lie? Simple question. Each time you dodge the question you're accepting another bitch-slap. its it was superfluous, then why did YOU feel compelled to bring it up? You're the one who put your lack of knowledge of the law on full display for everyone here. Now you are trying to walk it back. Don't you realize how weak that makes you look. Take the "L" and go home. Maybe you will not embarrass yourself so much next time.
Mrs. CDL the 4th has reached out and asked me to inform the TER members of his limited privledges now that you are on the ZERO BENEFITS plan at home. With nothing except ridicule in your former home (she now owns 50% of all assets per a pre-nuptual agreement.
She bragged that "I took the fool for everything that I could. Its not much though. That AOL story is pure bullshit. So is his company that he bragged about--its a back room operation. The only employee is a creep that's been hanging around called CKS." When I defined the nickname CocK Sucker, she laughed and said that she had never given him that "off the clock". And she revealed that "when he was paying for it on the clock, I would always trick him by rushing a hand job and spit on him at the right time. He had his eyes closed and when he opened his eyes it was wet".
She closed the set by commenting,
its time for the big reveal. like most times the answer is right in front of you! he enjoys the process of shrink therapy. this break-through gave cdl thr courage to let cks wrap his sore covered mouth blow him. and cks loves the EASY ARRANGEMENT as "cdl IS SO SMALL I can't gag."
The dimensions of a baby carrot!
Or a spinner's little bitty pinky finger!
...whacked it and has a satisfied client. That's all that counts. Who cares if the org changes pics - that's the next client's problem. It's also more business for the lawyer:
Model 1: "An agency is using my photo. I've asked them to take it down and they won't. What can I do?"
Model 2: "Here's my lawyer's card. He did a great job getting my photo removed."
Completely-Dumb-(non)Lawyer knows nothing about the law and even less about the BUSINESS of practicing law.
Most of us are here to share info on KGirls, not to watch BigPapasan get bitch slapped across the forum in a losing legal debate…
Agree, but it is fun to watch the Big Piece of Shit get his ass kicked.