SirBillybob

So, the answer to the OQ was an answer to the Q ‘what do u make of this ad’?

… then on the woody.

Resuméing the thread here🙋🏼‍♂️ To whom do I submit my paycheque deposit deets.

You may already have a spidey sense of what 50 Euros will get you in terms of quality of trade. This is usually quite an accurate anticipation and those that repeat visit will have found their nirvana nevertheless, if not more the type predisposed to riding out lengthy patient periods of hanging out. YMMV.

I have none on Ignore coming up to 7 years as of next month. Here’s hoping a dude happened to be named Amos (I vetted thru member search to avoid offense) or a problematic aunt does’t trigger an itch. ScreenRecording_05-27-2025 23-21-14_1.mov

I think there are cases of crimes like this, viewed as egregious, when circumstances result in the convicted man to be released into the care of a responsible parent. That’s an outlier of course, but even rigidified-seeming guidelines are shiftable.

Base offense level 28 is up to 8 years sentence with lowest rank of criminal history, and criminal history hierarchy can escalate sentence length but I think his rank is I (lowest). Offense level points can be added to 28 according to Part G commencing page 204, but I don’t think he meets the criteria for many more offense points. That said, perhaps computer use in the crime as a factor adds about 2 years due to offense level rise to level 30, so it seems that is consistent (coincidentally?) with the mandatory min of 10 years. I think it’s the add-on points to 28 that are the unknown. I might bet on 7-10 years minus time served, then probation, the factor of sentence serve proportionality for parole/ probation eligibility you mentioned, and cash fine. My take with a big side of:

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2021/GLMFull.pdf

… 28 Days Later 😏

I need to make the terms my wallpaper.

For 2422(b) I thought it would be 10 to life, with upward variance from mandatory minimum 10 according to aggravating factors and downward variance from option of life according to mitigating factors, so I wouldn’t hazard a guess. It’s also actually unclear to me if in-person sexual interaction occurred between the age-15 minor and Smith and/or a third party. And I believe that is a state charge never imposed. That (if) it did transpire seems to me to be an aggravating factor (Smith losing points) for sentencing as proxy for unimposed sexual assault charges, and that (if) it didn’t it seems to me that it would not be a mitigating factor (gaining points) because it would be absurd to imply it’s commendable to not having fucked the minor whose intended enticed role established by Smith was to be fucked. I gather the guilty plea is a mitigating factor but I suspect it does not yield downward sentencing variance from 10 but could yield downward variance from life. To me, it seems there are layers of cart-horse variables and I don’t know the algorithmic sequencing of such factors.

So, a run-on sentence. My specialty.

… clues … and hope he can mustard the capacity to lay good pipe in the conservatory.

I’ve done extensive pro bono for non-escorts and limited pro boner for escorts.

We professionals have all been there. [I’ll let myself out]

FYI you can edit original post for an extended period of time following submission, even if an emoticon reaction had been submitted.

Whereas at the seat of Sidmouth, “fit” is slang that refers to how hot Duke’s little social-climbing sibline-splintering Gladiolus is when sitting, standing, or hectoring splayed. Refer to #3.

Relax. The #815 address photo is not AI-generated. —— No, just the Thurs front bookend of Labour Day weekend. JOAT street dance festival that weekend but not Village-centric.

Straw man argument, though, if trans legitimacy in belonging to abridged … LGB … is predicated on sexual orientation when it’s reasonable to assume that both cis and trans folks are subsumed, represented within, LGB. In the same fashion, as it’s a complex topic, attempting to deconstruct these meanings doesn’t necessarily assign the meanypants label to any one person. It’s the gratuitous embellishment of a point with a symbolic prologue that’s part of the problem, as if one needs to raise an alert, or signify that the point itself is will have been strengthened by virtue of having dissed the other ahead if it. That’s the signification of insult, not that an opposing point of view represents an oversensitivity or a person or group prone to overinsultability.

For reading: author with status Evan Imber-Black on toxic secrecy.

How exhausting it must be to have to count heads and venue floor distribution by gender while ponying up CAD$36 to do so and cutting into party fun time, pouring over a smartphone spreadsheet app. It’s really taking one for the team. Polytechnique.

That annoyance or boredom by even a tribe’s single individual is optionally a response with respect to this thought-provoking post induces the heartbreaking realization that the type of coalition-building needed to support all diversity and to shield all disenfranchised from mean attacks still has some way to go.

This is like, of all 4 eateries within a radius of a few steps of my home near the Quartier des Spectacles, only one offers the poutine I like while another serves decent frites. But the outrageous gall of a commercial infrastructure that fails to consider all of my requirements and preferences across all related venues. Although I suppose it’s good to know there’s an option to attend a venue according to performance guys that you categorize as female in one context, femme in another.

I haven’t had occasion to interact extensively with all people components of the acronym string that distinguishes a broad subgroup from the limited conceptual binaries of male / female and heterosexual / nonheterosexual, etc, and I haven’t experienced much challenge regarding my own categorization as a gay cisgender male, but for some reason I do feel a fellowship with the totality of subcategories within the aforementioned extended acronym. I don’t fully grasp why as I haven’t felt pushed into such an attitude or identity consolidation, and I harbour no antipathy towards the shrinking proportion of folks, fellow humans, excluded from the acronym. I think that it would confuse and subvert this identification and its mysterious value if I were to hierarchically stratify my sense of affiliation according to the various representations within whatever the acronym represents, or get caught up in the intersectional complexity of gender identity and sexual orientation. This doesn’t suggest that I’m always capable of resisting the unfortunate human tendency of ‘othering’ with respect to some aspects of mankind. That said, it does appear that heterosexuality alone does not dictate exclusion from the broadening spectrum of whatever best fits what any individual knows they truly are, but that reality doesn’t nullify the fact that not all heterosexuals are considered equally entitled to a claim to said orientation. Homosexual folks, in contrast, are not deprived of their orientation legitimacy, albeit at greater risk for proclaiming it, as it satisfies the criteria of problematic ‘othering’, the central core of whatever the “mean girls” colloquialism signifies.

New. An older structure was torn down for it. Oddly, the design rendering associated with it is way off. Looks like San Antonio location. Whoever constructed the photo cluster must have entered it incorrectly … Untru by Hilton.