While I agree that being a "snitch" simply for the sake of being a snitch is typically an almost unforgivable act, if as Catherine says, she was stopping an individual from recruiting underage girls to work for him, then that is an entirely different story.  This is 180 degrees from the poster who compared passing judgment on someone who recruits underage girls to passing judgment on married people engaging in the hobby.  These are two diametrically opposed issues.  If, as Catherine says, she was helping to put away scum such as this individual, then I for one applaud her.  Which one of us would have the kahonies to stand up and do something like that?

I learned long ago to sit back and take a look at the situation someone finds themself in and judge that situation from all angles before passing judgment or typing a quick reply.  Is anyone here actually in favor of underage girls involved in the hobby?????  I believe that LE should not be involved in "policing" any aspect of the hobby other than insuring that underage individuals do not engage in the hobby and that those who are engaged in the hobby are doing so wilingly and not at the command of another.  Given that, if either of those two activities are occurring, not only do I approve of LE involvement to stop those activities, but I encourage their involvement in those aspects.  I would hope that is an issue we can all agree on.

I'm a rookie. But when considered I may be part of the future of the "hobby" perhaps my comments are worthy of consideration.  I am not interested in anyone "so friendly" with LE.  How friendly has got to be a constant concern and question.  Do we agree morally with what she did in the past? I do, but how do I know all her "former" friends aren't paying particular attention to her behavior now?  Risk?  Does anybody want it?

Catherine stated this occured while she was in college.  Was she underage at this time or just another act?  

Not once did she mention minors or pimps for that matter.  She proudly gloated that she "sold out an agency that had been around since the 70's".  

Why was the origional post modified twice today; after my questioning her motives as a provider, and the safety of the community as a whole?

Very well put.  Most of us have children weather we are providers or hobbiest's and I for one would not stand for any child being lured into the hands of some pervert.  And it saddens me to know that some providers started as children.  I can understand both sides of this issue.  I know that talk of LE scares us all, even Catherine.  FYI she is a provider.  Not an informant. If you knew her better you would know that she is not hear to harm any of us.  She helped children to be safe.  Who of us here does not support that??

If this was about minors, why wasn't this pointed out in her initial post?  

It went from nasty agency, to bad pimp, to minors, what's next?

We have a wonderful community here, lets not forget to protect our own.

I guess my point of who is watching whom was missed?  Does anyone believe LE as forgotten about this provider?

What do ya know I always have a way of making a board lively wouldnt want to get boring wink..I HATE BORING!  After class tonight I met another provider for the first time and I gotta say I have the hots for her man:asn maybe her too  But I see I touched a nerve with some(interesting why so touchy on the streewalkers) and paranoia is a sure sign of ignorance..lol  
There is local lawyer not sure if he would want to be advertised on this board but for those of you guys who dont know any of the leagal aspects maybe you should pay this lawyer a wee bit of change and get yourself bloody educated...just a thought ignorance breeds fear I suppose.  By the way ask your favorite provider and she will send you his wayI am so fired up I think I might actualluy get some prodictive studying done tonight.