As you well know, if you've followed the saga on the L.A. discussion board, that the Staff somehow determined that Candy Kemp was involved with self-posting bogus reviews, despite the fact that she has absolutely ZERO motivation to do so  (She's been nationally ranked for years, and has in fact trying to scale back her business as she is approaching some significant real-world milestones in her life).  

In fact, it is pretty apparent to anyone who actually KNOWS what is going on in Candy's life, that her Significant Other (who, BTW, has COMPLETE access to her PC, as well as her account passwords) was engaged in an effort to INTENTIONALLY get Candy off of TER so that she would stop touring, and begin her retirement in earnest, and that effort involvd plagiarizing ang posting bogus reviews.  Despite this, TER has banned her, and determined that she was self-posting, despite having ABSOLUTELY ZERO proof that it was not her live-in Significant Other who did this using Candy's PC and Candy's accounts.  

But I'm not posting here on behalf of Candy, since she neither NEEDS nor CARES, at this point about TER, since she is based in Tennessee and Kentucky, and in fact has more business than she could handle in that market before she even contemplated retiring, based upon her longstanding national reputation as one of the very finest courtesan-class escorts around.  Rather, I'm wondering about the other ladies who were peripherally involved in this scam, by happenning to have bogus reviews posted about them as well.  These other ladies were Nicole of Southern California, and Charis.

Now I know for a fact that neither of these ladies had anything to do with this scam, but they were both chosen because the jerk who perpetrated it had enough info about them so that he felt that he could credibly review them, irrespective of whether the reviews weere legitimate.  

What I can't understand is how TER could come to the conclusions, with no evidence whatsoever, that Nicole was not involved (This was a CORRECT conclusion, based on my knowledge of the situation) but that Charis WAS involved (a completely INCORRECT conclusion, also based on the knowledge of what happened).   And once these conclusions were drawn, what effort was made by TER to determine that they were in fact VALID conclusions?   Or does TER simply deem itself judge and jury in these matters, with no input from the people who were actually involved?   I know for a fact that BOTH Candy Kemp and Charis have never been given an opportunity to explain their side of this particular issue, and I suspect that were it not for the fact that she is such an articulate and well respected member of the TER community, Nicole would have met the same fate on TER.

It sure seems that someone at TER is applying some pretty arbitrary judgements on these issues, without having ANY actual knowledge of the events that occurred.  I would concede that Candy has a hard time proving that she was not involved, given that the offending posts did come from her computer, but the fact is, there is NO REASON to think she would have wanted to perpetrate the scam which occurred, while her boyfriend had EVERY reason to wish to do it.  But that's beside the point.  What I want to know is, what does CHARIS need to do to clear her name here?  She is basically an innocent bystander who had the misfortune of being caught in a dispute between Candy Kemp and her boyfriend.  

Right Now, TER has basically driven her out of business based on some whim that they felt she "MUST have known what was happenning"  because Candy was her friend and did it.  This conclusion, 1st of all, is dependent on the incorrect assumption that Candy was actually behind the posts, and 2nd, it is still a complete (and WRONG, I might add) GUESS by the TER Staff, based on zero actual evidence.  This reminds me of how Joe McCarthy or Josef Stalin got people ruined whenever it suited their needs, and irrespective of any real evidence.   Well, in fact, it's just plain wrong.

Charis happens to be a completely naive newby at being an independent provider.  She allowed Candy Kemp to mentor her, simply because Candy was much more experienced at this than she was.  Charis ALSO, by the way, is a 24 year-old, sweetheart who is a Girl-Next-Door, fresh-faced, hard-bodied natural Red Head, who is incredibly enthusiastic and talented in the sack.  And right now, TER has driven her out of the business.  I certainly hope that the folks at TER are proud, since we SURE need to prevent THAT type of lady from infiltrating the business here in Southern California.  Thank You SO much for protecting us from the likes of her!

-- Modified on 3/21/2003 5:09:42 PM

-- Modified on 3/21/2003 7:46:20 PM

Send email to [email protected]

In viewing the thread, it appears that this was done with no response.  

Personnally, I have followed dman's posts since before TER existed and find his takes very credible.

-- Modified on 3/21/2003 7:14:20 PM

I didn't care much for the tone of this post so I thought I would try answering some of the point in it. Personally I respect both Candy and Dman but this could have been done in a better way.


"In fact, it is pretty apparent to anyone who actually KNOWS what is going on in Candy's life"......I don't know about Staff, but being up to date in the life of Candy Kemp is not one of my life's ambitions. I would also like to point out that Candy has made a point of NOT talking about this publicly. She blew off a discussion of it on the National Board at TBD.

"What I can't understand is how TER could come to the conclusions, with no evidence whatsoever, that Nicole was not involved.." Let's see, the posts were NOT from Nicole's computer and the account was NOT established from Nicole's computer. Since she is already an established provider, it would seem that she was used to flesh out the reviews for the reviewer. Heck he may even have actually seen her. Either way I can't see how a rational person would blame Nicole. Just erase the review and go on.

" I know for a fact that BOTH Candy Kemp and Charis have never been given an opportunity to explain their side of this particular issue..." Actually if you read my first point you would see that Candy avoided an explanation in a public forum on another board. You yourself have stated that she has numerous times emailed Staff. So how has she not been given a chance to explain herself??

I am unaware of any attempt of Charis trying to clear her name but I believe she should be given a second chance. Whether Cancy should be allowed back, I am unsure. There may be extenuating circumstances but her unwillingness to defend herself publicly is fairly damning.

Dman, you are an articulate and interesting poster. I have no idea why you decided to go off on such a tear. I notice that you didn't mention personally contacting Staff. It would have been a good start.

***Note: Dman, I see on the thread on the LA Board that you did personally contact Staff and stand corrected. But I do still think that your tone was uncalled for in this instance ***

-- Modified on 3/21/2003 9:14:19 PM

DMAN,

I have received several private mails from you and responded to each one in a timely manner.  Many times I have been blamed for censoring people that I do not agree with or just banning them from TER.  You have been very vocal on your opinions.  I would like to note that your posts have not been moderated and you were allowed the to express your opinions freely about TER. (This thread is a perfect example of this)

You have pleaded the cases of Candy Kemp and Charis stating that they had no knowledge of this.  I have been in contact with both people involved and given both an opportunity to tell their side of the story.  

As with every story, there is much more to it than I have published on the boards.  Generally I try to respect the privacy of the providers and members involved by releasing only enough information to make the case.  Unfortunately, due to your thread, I need to release a bit more information.

First of all, DMAN, you have not been completely honest with the class.  You are not just a concerned member of TER trying to right the wrongs of a tyrannical administrator (me…).  You are the former significant other of Candy Kemp and you have much more than a professional interest in Charis.  Much of what you have said is either completely untrue or tainted to benefit your devious goals.

Facts on motive:
Before this incident, Candy’s last review on TER was in Nov, 2001
Before this incident, Candy’s average rating on TER as about an 8
Candy was planning and made a recent tour to Los Angeles
Candy posted a half a dozen ads on TER (not all posted) advertising her trip
Candy posted several advertisements for Charis on TER
By Charis’ own admission, Candy was her mentor, helping her become independent and promoting her.

Having very good (10-10 and a 9-10), recent reviews on TER would mean more money in her pocket when she came to LA.  This is a great motive and does not sound like the actions of a significant other trying to “INTENTIONALLY get Candy off of TER”

Facts on Actions:
Candy has always used a static IP to access TER.  
Before this incident, no other TER username had been used from that IP.
The 3 user accounts were all created and used exclusively, numerous times from that IP
The IP traces back to her local DSL provider.
All the reviewers had the same 8 digit password as Candy’s personal account.

Other facts that I based my decision on:
Certain providers have been receiving death threats via email.  They reported these to TER asking for assistance.  When we checked the IP header of the emails, it was the same IP that Candy uses to access TER.  We do not tolerate that activity from any member or provider and will immediately disassociate from them. (Banning and delisting)

In my last private mail to you I stated, “I am not saying she (Charis) will not be reinstated.  But, currently, without some more information, I cannot.” I am still researching this issue and will keep the class updated on what I find.  

I am not “protecting” the TER membership from young ladies like Charis.  I am protecting the integrity of this site.  The value of TER is the time and effort we spend to sort out the fake reviews, and insure that the information we publish to the membership is the most accurate we can find.  It is simple not fair for any provider to post her own reviews on TER when so many good, hard working providers earn theirs.

Sometimes the decisions I have to make are not popular but I will never knowingly allow the integrity of TER to be compromised.  Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

-- Staff

Always interesting to hear more of the story. Looking forward to Dman's future reply.

Staff says he responded to your private messages in a timely fashion and you say you got no response.  My money is on staff.

Candy's boyfriend used her computer to write a fake review of NOSC under the username he used to review Charis so that he could get Candy banned from TER. Somewhere, Dr. Evil is smiling at the ingeniousness of this plan.

To be honest with you Michael, he will not be posting a reply to the thread.  

Comments like “I certainly hope that the folks at TER are proud, since we SURE need to prevent THAT type of lady from infiltrating the business here in Southern California.  Thank You SO much for protecting us from the likes of her!”  show very little respect for TER and the community and are only meant to hurt the site.  After carefully examining his posts, emails and actions over the past couple of weeks, I have banned dman's account.  

-- Staff

Because DMAN cannot respond to my last post on the boards, I felt it only fair to post his email response to it:

**************************************************
From: dmans
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 1:51 PM
To: TER Admin
Subject: banned

Actually, my comments were intended to constructively improve the TER site.  Although I grant you that in order to improve it, a different moderator would need to run it.  And, I will concede that your last post had a very valid statement in it:  I.e. you are quite correct about how little respect I do have
for you and the way you run the site.  Nonetheless, I DO give you all the respect that you actually earn, which is zero.

Cheers.  And here's to hoping that the vice squad decide to shut down your little racket.  

I keep tellin people not to sniff glue and juggle bowling balls at the same time!

HPG

LOL, it turned out quite well for him if you look at it that way.

TER banned me for using a provider computer to look up a review that i did on her computer- like all computers ,they have an IP address.by me putting in my membership and password on her computer i was linked- even if it was just an inquiry.so don't use other people's computer- the staff is watching you.i believe this will stop cheaters- good job staff

Interesting thought, Staff.

Hypothetical question: If a provider offers you a freebie because she thinks your position at TER makes you an asset to her, do you accept knowing that you will not be one?