Suppose I post a review of a wonderful visitation from a curvaceous leggy ultravixen blonde angel with full soft wet pouty lips who wetly licks and sucks Mr Happy for hours until I am in ICU on fluid and electrolyte replacement, and reverse Hooverization instrumentation treatment for cranial implosion.

Mr Krispy Kreme says "AHA!" Let's trace this guy and prove that he committed felony sodomy against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Virginia. His review is proof of evil!

How can I post without electronic trails that lead to my telephone outnumber where gendarmes can barge in and yell -"pussy-eater, bbj recipient, we've got you! Put down your schlong!"

What are some of the means of obfuscation developed by all of you smart dudes out there who do not want to see this headline:

"DUDE ARRESTED - CHARGED WITH MULTIPLE BLOWJOB RECEIPTS - NEXT ON CONNIE CHUNG!"

ps: I noticed that post-June 18 Mr Dog keeps reviewing his alleged interstate encounters in Boston on TER. Is he making this up now that we know he is impotent and has only a mini-schlong? Or is he seeking a Darwin award for baiting the feds and locals in Boston?

that appears before you enter the site.

-Hoot.

You cannot even be arrested based on a story told on a Web site. To be arrested for solicitation, you have to solicit. Depending on how big and important you are, an investigation would start with you. LE doesn't have the time, resources or access to trace each individual on this site back to their computer, and then prove that it was you who typed on that computer - it's just beyond improbable.

And George Lucas is all knowing and truthful...

When someone has you by the b#$ls, truth is somewhat meaningless...

Just ask those who turned 'states evidence' in other cases....

TER works tremendously with all of us--to safeguard us.. But regardless to the illusion of fiction--to many novice reviewers post information that can be proved to be factual if it was taken to that level by a prosecutor.  See if we could count on the disclaimers to hold up--and if the reviews with the juicy details couldn't be printed---at least make the darn prosecutor have to set a computer up in the courtroom---and have a TER membership---than they wouldn't show up as easily in a court of law----and they can and they do---I know.  My lovely event was almost two years ago.  Talk about my mortification when I rec'd all their evidence and every review up to that time was present in the stack of evidence to try to be used against me.  Now granted they don't just stumble on you they were directed to me by someone who was sitting in jail looking at 25 years to life for attempted mayhem.  Sorry guys and gals but even though they quickly came to understand I wasn't a Heidi Fliess as they thought I was still charged with a misdeamor and went through some hoops.  Even though I had ways to maybe prove them wrong--there were all those reviews that gave away to many indicators that appearred to match the real life scenario.  Courts are not the place at this time with a jury trial full of ignorant jurors to get people to understand this isn't the beast that is perpetuated in entertainment.  Maybe 10% of the time it might align itself with what is perptuated.  The other 90% there are just a bunch of normal guys and gals handling lives needs in a grace of professionalism that can only be know by the actual experience.  I chose to plead down---pay my little fines--and through my writings and research to help try to give  a better light to this arena.  Could the reviews actually have been used.  Maybe not. But to get them thrown out, to be found not guilty of this infraction....the time it would of taken me a lot of my time, further court appearances in my home court (didn't want all the LE to know me by sight), the out of pocket costs, and the requirement to further divulge aspects of my personal life to be deemed innocent.  Realised I was kinda of over a barrel and best to get resolved quickly without further  attention to me.  Previous to this incident I had written TER and voiced my concerns about your exact post.  I still have their response.  Needless to say they were wrong and my concerns were with good cause. I believe they believe their reply but their much bigger with more backing than I.  Given the legalities for both providers and hobbyist---there are areas within this whole site that if someone wanted to challenge it in court as it being different than the disclaimers allege they could try.  Just the price to prove them wrong is what becomes the issue at least to me it was.  If ask by anyone about my honest opinion of TER-- I would rather be a hobbyist or a provider with TER avaialble than without.  I believe they are constantly in search of improvements to the site  to keep it practical, interesting, provide a forum for numerous arenas for facilitation of diversity and to help find information.  And I believe foremost in their minds is to safeguard the site for not only their safety but ours as well.  Without that being of utmost concern to keep the patronage safe they might find themselves unemployed.  I have personally enjoyed being a part of the on going evolution of TER.  I believe we are all better served.  Just my 2 cents

unless your review contains explicit comments such as "i told her i wanted sex and she said i luv sexy sex with strangers for money and i said how much money and she said $300 and i gave her $300 and she said ok you've paid me for sexy sex so here it comes," most reviews don't describe anything criminal. they describe consenting adults.

many mention "donations," which for all anyone can tell means a pint of blood.

in fact, there *is* a reasonable and legally admissable presumption that a message originating from a home or locked office work computer was typed by the primary user of the computer. (remember that teenage stock kiter in florida?) but dredging that information from the computer records of the internet service provider and the end web site is a pretty big chore for police and businesses alike.

in fact, your telephone number is never recorded; what's in the trail is your home computer's ip number, or internet address, and your home computer's operating system info (see the post on why you get logged at stanford university). the link to your personal info is made through the isp's business records.

finally, there are thousands and thousands of escorts and players in the petting zoo. why pick on you?

it's far, far, far, far, far easier to get a comely badge to pose as a minx, and trap you into saying the kinds of things you shouldn't put in a review. and then there you are, money in your fist, pants on your shoes, gun to your head.  

maintain its usefulness.  Keep posting.

than the rest of us put together. There are certain key words he uses which makes his "real" alias easily discernible. Since he chose to post under another name, I will not reveal his identity.

Of course, someone else could be copying his writing style, but I doubt it.

There's no question LE would use the reviews in a scare tactic against an escort who was being investigated or had been arrested by other means. That's easy.

But where the reviews remain the only evidence, it's no evidence at all.

The post was apparently designed to find out how much people realize they are at risk. The answer seems to be "very little awareness or apprehension."
The Cheridan post between the lines is quite revealing.
Reviews can be connected up and admitted into evidence in far too many ways. To an evil prosecutor, reviews are confessions just a few steps removed from proof.

The chain of evidence-gathering however can be broken and stopped with imaginative encryption and offshore e-mail and data storage. I'm not sure how that all works. I'm just a collie dog looking for an insatiable collette in heat. LOL

-- Modified on 8/14/2002 5:05:01 PM

A link please to the place where the prosecutors, judges, and jurors agreed that the reviews were all fiction, please.
As horny Bill said to plump Monica: "Sweetie, this is all imaginary. A bbj is not sex. Besides, "is" is an ambiguous word, not even a word, only two weird vague letters.
Since Ken Starr never had a bbj he'll never figure this out!"

gO TO kINKO'S AND RENT A COMPUTER THEY RENT THEM BY THE HOUR cOMPLETE WITH INTERNET ACCESS FOR 12.00 AN HOUR. AND IN L.A. THEY ARE OPEN 24 HOURS A DAY IN WESTWOOD 1/2 PRICE AFTER MIDNIGHT
PROBLEM SOLVED YOU GET TO POST YOUR REVIEW TER MEMBERS BENIFIT FROM THIS INFO YOU GO HOME TO YOUR WIFE SCOTT FREE AS THEY

the issue is, has anyone been tried and convicted of any sex crime based on *online postings alone*?

no one has offered any personal testimony to support that claim.

cheridan's post, if i read it correctly, indicated that posts were *part of* a prosecutorial intimidation, which may have included testimony from that state's witness who turned against her, and evidence gathered from surveillance or financial records ... we don't know what all they had in the file.

point is, nothing in the file was tested in court, because the aim (and result) of the intimidation was a plea bargain. that's fine, but the legal weight of the reviews was never put before a judge.