I spoke with her over e-mail on sat. She is in ST PAUL I may see her on sat if i am in town.She has no reviews but said everyone who has seen her is happy . she is ind and drives her self. If you her run her phone on anyhoo .com it gives her adress.

She communicates by email only. Outcall only.  My gut tells me that her pics are better than what she is.  I have not found any reviews out there either.

-- Modified on 1/5/2004 12:42:09 PM

Am I mistaken, or does her photo looks a lot like pornstar ChrissyM. Mmmmmm...Chrissy!

no direct experience with her but still buyer beware.

as i've brought up before there's some kind of monkey business associated with a whole cluster of tall brunettes that are or used to be listed on chronicles.  kayalee showed up right about the time all this other crap was going on and the fact that she has a similar MO (email only, outcall only), and that the pics may look like a pornstar, does not bode well for you the consumer.

I feel it is a great breach of board manners to "out" a providers address. This is the second time I have seen
this done in the last few weeks. Why is it that if a provider accidently gives out a client's phone number she gets banned for life, but when clients give out provider's addresses on purpose, nothing happens? What kind of fair play is this?

I agree with this viewpoint.  We should not do this at all.

I also agree

Huh?  Did I miss something.  I've gone back and reread each post in this thread a couple of times and I'm yet to find ANYONE's address being posted.

If you're just referring to the provider's URL, there is absolutely no question that is well within the bounds of TER posting.

The second entry in this thread explains how someone can look up her address by using her phone number.

Ahh..  Well, I still don't understand what the issue would be since he didn't post the phone number.

The notion that home phone numbers can be "reverse look-up'ed" is widely known public information, I don't think there was any scoop there.  Do a google search on "reverse lookup" and I think you'll find that the number of sites that offer reverse lookup seems to nearly outnumber the world population.

I agree that if he had posted her phone number (which is ostensibly private since she chooses not to put it on her site) that may have been a boo-boo, but I just can't see where any transgression has ocurred here, as no non-public info has been posted.

-- Modified on 10/5/2005 12:15:34 PM

Omega, what good purpose does it serve to disclose
how to hurt someone? All that does is temp the nuttty ones to try and find a way to do it. You may think that this is a perfectly fine thing to do, but I wonder how you would feel if the shoe were on the other foot? Do you really care about the well being of our fair ladies? I think we should be promoting their safety and privacy as well as our own. Shouldn't this be a caring community on both sides?

In this particular case, the risk of a problem developing is small but why take the chance?  It's conceivable that someone could contact the provider via the ad, get her phone number via email, and speak with the provider on the phone.  The provider may for what ever reason decline to see the him but if he has seen this post then he knows how to find her.  If he's the sort who is reluctant to take no for an answer (and we all know those people do exist) then there is a problem.  There was no real need to put that fact in the post and in such matters I think it best to err on the side of caution.

1.  The shoe has been on the other foot, so trust me, I am quite sensitive to this issue.

2.  "Do you really care about the well being of our fair ladies?"  What?  I don't know who you are (the alias thing) but if you know who I am (no alias here) then you know how ludicrous that question is.  I'm not the one who posted the info in the first place, so don't spin this around into some kind of "Omega doesn't care about us" thing.

I'm not saying we should encourage it.  I am saying that the availability of reverse lookup sites is so widely known that simply mentioning their existence doesn't rise to the same level of transgression as posting contact info.  If every time someone does something pointless we invoke the "but this is just as bad as that provider who posted contact info" clause, we're headed down the wrong road.  Let's reserve the fire alarm for when there's a real fire.

My point in taking the "devil's advocate" position on this that has made you think I don't care is that your initial reply CLEARLY and directly states that the hobbyist posted her address info, and there's no question that it did not happen.

I just dont think it was called for un cool.

sorry if i made a mistake