So how bout them dodgers :)

[woodlawn]

RE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

>Ask me what you like.

 

I haven't asked you anything. There seems little point in questioning someone who has a history of deceit.

 

 

>Just because I hid facts about my life

>in the past doesn’t mean I’m lying now.

 

It doesn't?

 

> Further more, if my age

>was SUCH a legal issue are we ignoring the ENTIRE fact that

>we’re discussing PROSTITUTION HERE?!?!?!

 

I haven't ignored that. I have made the point that you allowed your clients to think they were committing a misdemeanor for which the penalty would likely be no more than a fine, when the truth was that they were committing a felony that could have gotten them a substantial prison term as well as branded as sex offenders for life. That isn't a decent thing to do. Did they do something to harm you? If not, why would you do something so rotten to them?

 

 

> the law

>would probably be more forgiving of the person for the

>“statutory rape” claim than the solicitation considering those

>that hired me then had no reason to believe I wasn’t 18 since

>I had a fake ID at the time. Sure I’d be screwed but you’re

>speaking in hypotheticals.

 

When you get your law degree and spend a few years practicing criminal law you will be qualified to offer an opinion about what might have happened to your clients had they been caught having sex with a minor. In the meantime, let's just say that you misrepresented yourself to them in such a way that you concealed from them a very serious risk they were taking in hiring you. Lying to people in order to get them to buy what you're selling is not nice.

 

 

>Anyway, I’m an open book.

 

Apparently not.

[woodlawn]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>What the hell are you warning them of.

 

That you have a history of deceiving your clients in a way that could harm them. Sorry if that wasn't clear earlier.

 

>>Why do you assume there is some nefarious motive for these

>>actions when there is another, and much simpler, explanation

>>available?

>

>That you have nothing better to do with your time?

 

The explanation is the one I've already given. People are sharing information about an escort because that is what this site is for. So far as I'm aware, no rule here controls how often people can repeat that information, and given the ephemeral quality of posts here that seems a good thing.

[SAdler]

RE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

>I haven't asked you anything. There seems little point in

>questioning someone who has a history of deceit.

 

Exactly so why would you assume everything I've SAID is a lie. What HISTORY of deceit. One misrepresentation doesn't make me a liar. Let me guess, you have been an out and proud homosexual ALL your life. Didn't you lie to people growing up? Everybody lies for one reason or another. All your "consequences" are hypotheticals.

 

>I haven't ignored that. I have made the point that you

>allowed your clients to think they were committing a

>misdemeanor for which the penalty would likely be no more than

>a fine, when the truth was that they were committing a felony

>that could have gotten them a substantial prison term as well

>as branded as sex offenders for life. That isn't a decent

>thing to do. Did they do something to harm you? If not, why

>would you do something so rotten to them?

 

The mitigating circumstances of lack of intent would have gotten them probation at best and there would have been no requirement of sex crime registration. Again though, did it affect you? Did it actually happen to ANYONE? I mean really, all these "what if" this or that happened. GET OVER IT. You're CREATING drama that did not nor would it exist.

>

>When you get your law degree and spend a few years practicing

>criminal law you will be qualified to offer an opinion about

>what might have happened to your clients had they been caught

>having sex with a minor. In the meantime, let's just say that

>you misrepresented yourself to them in such a way that you

>concealed from them a very serious risk they were taking in

>hiring you.

 

You're right, I'm not a lawyer. Thankfully the law is available to every citizen and researching case law is not too big an endeavor in California. You should try it some time. If my clients were in similar situations I would get them out of it, it's quite simple to deny deny deny (no jokes for BoN or Erik at this point it would be beneath even you to take something so easy) being there is no PHYSICAL proof that they were culpable of said rape sequence. The reviews as you've pointed out could easily have been fraudulent. But I digress.

 

>Lying to people in order to get them to buy what

>you're selling is not nice.

 

LOL. That's too easy. Have you watched an infomercial lately? That's called MARKETING!

 

>>Anyway, I’m an open book.

>

>Apparently not.

>

Apparently not in what sense? You haven't asked a question

[SAdler]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>That you have a history of deceiving your clients in a way

>that could harm them. Sorry if that wasn't clear earlier.

 

Deceiving my clients. Oy. You make it sound as if I was a tranny. Escorting is about providing a fantasy. I did that. If they were deceived because of my age after the fact I don't think they cared. Either way, bitching about it now is NOT relevant considering "how" I "deceived" them. How exactly do you propose that factor of my past could somehow be manifested into what I do when I meet clients now?

>

>The explanation is the one I've already given. People are

>sharing information about an escort because that is what this

>site is for. So far as I'm aware, no rule here controls how

>often people can repeat that information, and given the

>ephemeral quality of posts here that seems a good thing.

 

Oh stop using your SAT words. And people think I'm pretentious. LOL.

 

Yes the posts are short-lived and die but that's the point. When you make a point the point gets made. Was I not chastised less than a week ago for commenting on a thread ABOUT ME and bringing it back from the dead? You're not adding anything new to the conversation. You've made your point, wrong as it may be. Say something new.

[BewareofNick]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>LOL. I'm really not exaggerating. Had I been I would have

>said thousands etc, I gave specific numbers for a reason.

>What "other" lie did I use to cover it up? You keep INVENTING

>these lies, again more spinning.

 

Yes, sir. I sure am 18. Yeah, I look a little young for mya ge, but I'm 18. Trust me.

 

Scotty dearest, I haven't had to invent anything. The numbers of lies and the decptions which you engage in are approaching near mythic status. I just make use of what you so graciously provide.

 

>Hey, I'm making money on you being an idiot and I look classy

>doing it.

 

You think you look classy? I guess we'll ad self deluded to your growing list of character flaws.

 

> I think that makes me both intelligent and classy.

>But a backhanded compliment out of you? I'm impressed.

 

I have never once questioned your attractiveness or the abilities of your holes to accomodate penises of all sizes shapes and colors. Indeed, from all accounts, you are an exceptional manwhore. In fact, when you first came around the message center, I had you on my list of manwhores to do. However, as your character started to be revealed, and you starting to sink into the morass of dishonesty taht youa re currently drowning in, the idea of you becomes less and less attractive. I guess the idea of 74 old men writing you e-mails of support shouldn't surprise me any, Look at all the mindless drones over at the Princess' Yahoo! group.

[SAdler]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>Scotty dearest, I haven't had to invent anything. The numbers

>of lies and the decptions which you engage in are approaching

>near mythic status. I just make use of what you so graciously

>provide.

 

Aside from the problem you have with my marketing () what other lies and deceptions that are established valid are we discussing?

 

>You think you look classy? I guess we'll ad self deluded to

>your growing list of character flaws.

 

I'm not resorting to making stupid silly allegations and am responding professionally and "respectfully." I think that counts as classy. That is of course in the eye of the beholder. I'll just enjoy the responses I get in combo with today's review

 

>I have never once questioned your attractiveness or the

>abilities of your holes to accomodate penises of all sizes

>shapes and colors. Indeed, from all accounts, you are an

>exceptional manwhore. In fact, when you first came around the

>message center, I had you on my list of manwhores to do.

>However, as your character started to be revealed, and you

>starting to sink into the morass of dishonesty taht youa re

>currently drowning in, the idea of you becomes less and less

>attractive. I guess the idea of 74 old men writing you

>e-mails of support shouldn't surprise me any, Look at all the

>mindless drones over at the Princess' Yahoo! group.

 

Yahoo group? I'm intrigued. Explain. And as to your hiring me? I can tell from the way you write and your opinions that we would never have met After all, I have class.

[woodlawn]

RE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

>Exactly so why would you assume everything I've SAID is a lie.

> What HISTORY of deceit. One misrepresentation doesn't make

>me a liar. Let me guess, you have been an out and proud

>homosexual ALL your life.

 

We're not talking about a situation in which a friend asked you what you thought of his new hairstyle and you said you liked it even though you really didn't. We're talking about a situation in which you lied to a series of clients to get them to buy something they would likely not have bought if you had told them the truth. If you don't see the difference between those two things I'm sure a number of potential clients will.

 

 

>Didn't you lie to people growing

>up? Everybody lies for one reason or another.

 

Plenty of people commit rapes and murders as well. Fortunately very few of us think "everyone does it" is an adequate justification.

 

< All your

>"consequences" are hypotheticals.

 

So is what might happen to you if you don't wear a seatbelt. So why bother wearing one?

 

>You're right, I'm not a lawyer. Thankfully the law is

>available to every citizen and researching case law is not too

>big an endeavor in California.

 

>The mitigating circumstances of lack of intent would have

>gotten them probation at best and there would have been no

>requirement of sex crime registration.

 

I'm afraid you simply do not know what you are talking about. For one thing, intent or lack thereof is not a mitigating circumstance but an essential element of the offense. For another, you cannot learn anything about the sentences a judge is likely to hand down for a particular offense by reading case law. If Erik wants to teach you some of the basics of criminal law, he can. I don't care to.

 

>You should try it some time.

 

I know vastly more about the subject than you ever will.

 

>If my clients were in similar situations I would get them out

>of it, it's quite simple to deny deny deny

 

I doubt that you'd make a very credible witness. Prostitutes rarely do.

 

>>Lying to people in order to get them to buy what

>>you're selling is not nice.

>

>LOL. That's too easy. Have you watched an infomercial lately?

> That's called MARKETING!

 

Lying is called lying. It's fairly obvious that means nothing to you. Which is the whole point of this discussion.

[woodlawn]

RE: I'll have a double

 

> Nothing about BoN's

>posts are detailed or analytic. Thought and intelligence?

>You're giving the girl far too much credit.

 

BoN's analysis of your ads demonstrated that either you were lying about your age now or that you were lying about your age when you began escorting. You have now admitted it is the latter.

 

If he hadn't figured this out, would you ever have told the truth about it? I don't think anyone reading this thread believes you would have. I certainly don't.

 

>Escort dear. Hookers are only found on the street etc.

 

Where did you get the idea that you can make up your own definitions for words and require the rest of us to abide by them?

 

>>Yes, you did tell us that. I just don't believe you.

>

>You're entitled to believe what you like. Makes you a tad

>thick to not believe a basic opinion.

 

What I don't believe is your assertion that the negative publicity you've received on this board has increased your hooker business. I've seen two many angry hookers say the same thing here. That, and the fact that you have admitted a history of lying about what you do. Our whole system of justice is based on the assumption that a person's past behavior is a good predictor of his future behavior. If we didn't believe that, would it make any sense for us to spend a vast amount of money keeping criminals locked up in prison for decades? I think not.

 

>You can say whatever negative thing you like. But is there

>really a reason to do it over and over again? What purpose

>does it serve for you?

 

As I've said several times, on a message board like this posts don't remain in view very long. If one wants to warn people about the duplicitous behavior of an escort in an effective manner, it is necessary to keep repeating the warning.

 

I can't speak with any authority about the motives of others who keep bringing up your duplicity. I could speculate that they find it annoying that you continue to use this message board to promote yourself even after your deceitful behavior has been revealed here, and that is why they interrupted your self-promoting thread by reminding readers about your past. But that would be no more than a guess on my part.

[SAdler]

RE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

>We're not talking about a situation in which a friend asked

>you what you thought of his new hairstyle and you said you

>liked it even though you really didn't. We're talking about a

>situation in which you lied to a series of clients to get them

>to buy something they would likely not have bought if you had

>told them the truth. If you don't see the difference between

>those two things I'm sure a number of potential clients will.

>

>

>>Didn't you lie to people growing

>>up? Everybody lies for one reason or another.

>

>Plenty of people commit rapes and murders as well.

>Fortunately very few of us think "everyone does it" is an

>adequate justification.

>

>< All your

>>"consequences" are hypotheticals.

>

>So is what might happen to you if you don't wear a seatbelt.

>So why bother wearing one?

 

Wow. You just contradicted yourself You're saying that the everyone does it comparison can't compare insignificant victimless lies with murder and rape, then you turn around and say hypotheticals are like "everybody does it" comparisons in regards to a seatbelt.

 

If you don't wear a seat belt, you're not going to get in an accident as a result. If you do you MAY suffer, not a guarantee though. If somebody is raped or murdered, SOMEBODY IS DEFINITELY going to be hurt. Lying about my age leaves the OPTION of something happening but doesn't guarantee it.

 

You're talking about acceptable and inacceptable risks. Although nothing appears to be an acceptable risk to you since you don't appear to leave your computer

 

>I'm afraid you simply do not know what you are talking about.

>For one thing, intent or lack thereof is not a mitigating

>circumstance but an essential element of the offense. For

>another, you cannot learn anything about the sentences a judge

>is likely to hand down for a particular offense by reading

>case law. If Erik wants to teach you some of the basics of

>criminal law, he can. I don't care to.

 

I'll take advice from Erik when pigs fly ... by the way, which airline DO you take? OK. That was bad taste but it was there. If the "defendant" (should there ever be one) claim that there was a fake ID and can prove it, which is theoretically possible, then there would be mitigating circumstances. Granted it's all up to a judge, but YOU can't presume what the judge would sentence either.

 

>I know vastly more about the subject than you ever will.

 

That wasn't pompous or anything I'm not questioning your legal expertise. But just because you've had twice my lifetime or more to study it doesn't necessarily mean you're always right. Even the OLDEST dogs can learn a new trick or two

 

>I doubt that you'd make a very credible witness. Prostitutes

>rarely do.

 

Touche. But who says that I’m a witness  If you’re saying I’d be a witness for their defense, the fake ID as evidence would speak volumes more than me. If I’m so altruistic …hypothetically … to testify for them I’d be more than willing to produce the ID.

>

>>>Lying to people in order to get them to buy what

>>>you're selling is not nice.

>>

>>LOL. That's too easy. Have you watched an infomercial

>lately?

>> That's called MARKETING!

>

>Lying is called lying. It's fairly obvious that means nothing

>to you. Which is the whole point of this discussion.

>

You brought it up in context of selling something. You mean to tell me everything you’ve ever bought has done EXACTLY what it was supposed to do? Oy. Somebody get me some coffee – it’s going to be a long day.

[SAdler]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>BoN's analysis of your ads demonstrated that either you were

>lying about your age now or that you were lying about your age

>when you began escorting. You have now admitted it is the

>latter.

 

WoW. TOOK A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO FIGURE THAT OUT. And I denied it for so long didn't I. Wait. No, as soon as it was brought up I admitted to it because I admit things when I'm WRONG.

>

>If he hadn't figured this out, would you ever have told the

>truth about it? I don't think anyone reading this thread

>believes you would have. I certainly don't.

 

No because frankly it was NOBODY'S business. The only people who ever put these people in danger that you are so hell bent on protecting were BoN and YOU for MAKING it a big deal. Otherwise, nobody would have commented and everyone would have been tickled pink. It's STILL not a big deal. However, as a repressed drama queen for your earlier years, I can TOTALLY understand your need to let it all out of you now

 

>>Escort dear. Hookers are only found on the street etc.

>

>Where did you get the idea that you can make up your own

>definitions for words and require the rest of us to abide by

>them?

 

I'm not telling you to abide by them. I'm just explaining to you what research and common knowledge on this topic would dictate. You claim to be an aficionado on the topic so I wanted to clarify for you. Using ####, hooker, etc. is a condescending and belittling not to mention derogatory epithet. You wouldn’t want to be rude or speak out of context would you?

 

>What I don't believe is your assertion that the negative

>publicity you've received on this board has increased your

>hooker business. I've seen two many angry hookers say the

>same thing here. That, and the fact that you have admitted a

>history of lying about what you do. Our whole system of

>justice is based on the assumption that a person's past

>behavior is a good predictor of his future behavior. If we

>didn't believe that, would it make any sense for us to spend a

>vast amount of money keeping criminals locked up in prison for

>decades? I think not.

 

Wow if we say it and KEEP letting you bash us, don’t you think it might be true? Use the brain that’s not between your legs for a change. Purely puritanical. Emily Durkheim would agree with you in the sense that deviant behavior is a functional part of society. People with SERIOUS sociopath behavior are destined to repeat it. A liar is apt to lie, but not FORCED or ALWAYS going to do it.

>

>As I've said several times, on a message board like this posts

>don't remain in view very long. If one wants to warn people

>about the duplicitous behavior of an escort in an effective

>manner, it is necessary to keep repeating the warning.

 

I revert to the thread above or below (depending on which one you’re currently responding to at the moment) where jackhammer proves what a moron you’re making of yourself

 

>I can't speak with any authority about the motives of others

>who keep bringing up your duplicity. I could speculate that

>they find it annoying that you continue to use this message

>board to promote yourself even after your deceitful behavior

>has been revealed here, and that is why they interrupted your

>self-promoting thread by reminding readers about your past.

>But that would be no more than a guess on my part.

 

I’m not promoting myself. Simply explaining why you people are wrong. If I happen to get business out of it so be it That thread was never self promoting, how could it have been. It took me a week or so to even know it was there and it was STARTED by someone else! I can assure you I’m not paying joel either

[woodlawn]

RE: Scott doesn't like lies

 

>Wow. You just contradicted yourself You're saying that

>the everyone does it comparison can't compare insignificant

>victimless lies with murder and rape, then you turn around and

>say hypotheticals are like "everybody does it" comparisons in

>regards to a seatbelt.

 

Can anyone who speaks "escort" translate the above paragraph into English?

 

 

> Lying about my age leaves the

>OPTION of something happening but doesn't guarantee it.

 

Try to follow this: the harm that may occur to you if you drive without a seatbelt is entirely hypothetical. In fact, the chances that you will be in an injury accident on any given automobile trip are quite small. Does that fact prevent you from wearing a seatbelt? If not, you shouldn't scoff at the "hypothetical" harm we are discussing that could have arisen from your actions.

 

>You're talking about acceptable and inacceptable risks.

>Although nothing appears to be an acceptable risk to you since

>you don't appear to leave your computer

 

I'm talking about the fact that you didn't give your clients in those days a chance to decide what risks they were willing to accept and what risks they were not willing to accept. You took the choice away from them by lying to them about the risk. That's a nasty thing to do.

 

 

>I'll take advice from Erik when pigs fly

 

He knows a hell of a lot more about crim law than you do, and he hasn't even graduated yet.

 

> If the "defendant" (should there ever be one) claim

>that there was a fake ID and can prove it, which is

>theoretically possible, then there would be mitigating

>circumstances.

 

As I said, you are misusing the term "mitigating circumstances." It refers to facts that are considered by the court AFTER the defendant is convicted, not to facts that enter into the decision whether to convict.

 

> Granted it's all up to a judge, but YOU can't

>presume what the judge would sentence either.

 

Yes, I can. There is information available on the sentencing histories of particular judges for particular offenses. But it isn't found in the case law, as you wrongly suggested. I know where to find it. You don't.

 

>>I know vastly more about the subject than you ever will.

 

>That wasn't pompous or anything

 

No brag, just fact.

 

 

> Even the OLDEST dogs can learn a new trick or

>two

 

But one can't learn anything about a subject from someone who is completely ignorant of it, as you are in this case. One can't learn Spanish from someone who doesn't know Spanish, and one can't learn anything about crim law or procedure from you. You are simply making up a bunch of shit to try to justify your actions.

 

 

>Touche. But who says that I’m a witness

 

You did. You can't "deny, deny, deny" unless you testify.

 

> If I’m so

>altruistic …hypothetically … to testify for them I’d be more

>than willing to produce the ID.

 

It wouldn't be your choice. Either the prosecution or the defense in such a case could compel you to testify whether you wanted to or not. If you refused to honor a subpoena to appear as a witness, the judge could put you in jail and keep you there until you changed your mind. If you were called by the prosecution and took the Fifth, the prosecution could confer immunity on you and force you to testify anyway. If you refused again, you would go to jail. You really know nothing about this.

 

>>>>Lying to people in order to get them to buy what

>>>>you're selling is not nice.

 

>You brought it up in context of selling something. You mean

>to tell me everything you’ve ever bought has done EXACTLY what

>it was supposed to do? Oy. Somebody get me some coffee –

>it’s going to be a long day.

 

In May you started a thread on Escortspeak to complain that a client had taken advantage of you by lying about his personal situation in order to get you to spend time with him for free. You said that you don't appreciate being lied to and asked why people don't have the balls to be honest. Do you think you're the only person who doesn't like being lied to? Why don't YOU have the balls to be honest? Well?

[Doug69]

RE: Scott doesn't like lies

 

>As I said, you are misusing the term "mitigating

>circumstances." It refers to facts that are considered by the

>court AFTER the defendant is convicted, not to facts that

>enter into the decision whether to convict.

 

This whole discussion about "mitigating circumstances" is quite bizarre, actually - which is what tends to happen when people like Scott spout all sorts of idiotic statements about the law which they heard on Law & Order when they know nothing about the topic on which they are opining (see e.g., Franco).

 

In many, if not most, states, statutory rape is a strict liability crime. It is one of the few crimes where no mens rea is required. The law places the onus on the adult to avoid sex with minors no matter what - insisting on driver's licenses or sworn statements as to age does not "mitigate" the crime in any way. If you have sex with a someone under age, you have committed this felony.

 

As for the sentencing stage, these days judges have less and less flexibility with imposing sentences for serious crimes. Particularly with regard to crimes involving sex with minors, there are all sorts of constraints on judges - both legal and extra-legal - compelling them to impose a significant punishment on sex violators.

 

The notion that a person convicted of paying Scott for sex when Scott tricked them into doing it when he was under aged has some reasonable expectation that a judge would impose a light sentence is particularly absurd. This is not just sex with a minor we're talking about - we're talking about hiring AN UNDER AGED PROSTITUTE -meaning that the person may not have known that he was hiring a minor, but certainly knew he was breaking the law - hardly the type of situtation that provokes lots of sympathy with most judges, who - no matter their ideological background - tend by and large to think that people who knowingly break the law get what they deserve.

 

Then there is the gay factor - there is just a visceral reaction which people have - many judges included - to old guys having sex with young boys. They view it as worse, even if they can't say why, than an older guy having sex with a girl.

 

This notion that Scott is peddling that any of these clients whom he so reprehensibly deceived could just stand up in court and say: "Your Honor, when I hired him as a hooker to have sex with me, I thought he was 18", and the Judge will say: "I understand - no problem" - is really too stupid for words. I suppose you could hit the Judge lottery and find the one who thinks that it's no big deal to hire 16 year-old boys as prostitutes as long as you didn't know he was 16, but to assert that this is likely is simply dishonest. It shows the lengths Scott is willing to go to avoid responsibility for his behavior.

 

I can't imagine many things worse than a hooker tricking guys into committing serious felonies which can destroy their lives, take away their liberty, and result in serious jail time. But as always, there is a group of losers here sufficiently desperate and sex-hungry and eager-for-companionship that they will not only overlook - but JUSTIFY - any act by an escort as long as the escort is remotely hot and coos at them from time to time.

 

This is a case where it is truly sickening to watch.

[SAdler]

While I can't wait to respond to Woodlawn and Friends, I have a midterm to study for tomorrow and another due Thursday. As I've established, you're not worth my time when something more important exists.

 

Just wanted to let you know so there was no false hope of me being driven away or not having any responses

 

Till then (then being Friday on the plane or something to that degree)

[joel304]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>Let him admit it, then, jack.

>Let him admit he also fucked up QED.

>Why is he so pathetically incapable of even pondering not

>being correct all the time? What kind of psychosis does he

>suffer?

 

Erik,

 

ASSUME that Scott is pathetic in EVERY way, and that you're 100% correct on QED, etc. What does this obsession say about you? Psychosis? Dear God boy, what's the deal?

 

What do you do when you watch the news, or read the daily paper? Explode?

[BewareofNick]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>No, as soon as it was

>brought up I admitted to it because I admit things when I'm

>WRONG.

 

I am assuming this is a new policy of yours,adopted within the last few hours?

 

>It's STILL not a big deal.

 

This is how Scott describes offering himself as a manwhore/hooker at the age of 17 and unwittingly engaging his clients in a felony. Take care note of this: He doesn't care. As woodlawn says, past behavior is a prime indicator of the future.

 

>Using ####, hooker, etc. is a

>condescending and belittling not to mention derogatory

>epithet. You wouldn’t want to be rude or speak out of context

>would you?

 

Scott has also stated that negotiating the use of his holes is also degrading, unless of course he is the one doing the negotiating.

 

>A liar is apt to lie, but not FORCED

>or ALWAYS going to do it.

 

Thank you, Scott, for this concise recap of this thread and your behavior. Remember, Scott engages in this dishonesty willingly.

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>>You spelled it correctly. What you fucked up was that for

>>which QED stands. Admit it, just once, and I will NEVER

>>mention it again.

>

>No, I’m pretty sure that the argument initially started was

>about a misplaced e or u of some sort. The point was “that

>which was to have been proved…” which was quite accurate.

>Look up the thread if I’m mistaken. Although, considering

>EVERY thread you’ve ever bickered with me in you’ve brought it

>up, it will be difficult to efficiently search for it

 

Daddy Sez: "Personal attack removed, and warning sent."

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>

>>No, Scooter, it wasn't "less common;" it was WRONG! WRONG,

>>WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG! And you're

>>still--pathetically--unable to admit it.

>

>"You spelled it correctly. What you fucked up was that for

>which QED stands. Admit it, just once, and I will NEVER

>mention it again."

>

>MUAH HA HA HA HA. Wow ... scroll up dumb ass. WHICH IS IT.

>Did I spell it wrong or use it wrong. YOU CANT KEEP YOUR LIES

>STRAIGHT

 

It isn't your spelling with which I have an issue; it is the fact that you made an incorrect statement about that for which QED stands. Are you ready to admit that? Did you properly state the phrase for which QED stands, or did you not? Seriously, if you admit that you were wrong, I'll never mention it again.

 

 

>>>Simply not up to my standard of who I want to

>>>be around.

>>

>>That is SIMPLY not a complete sentence!

>

>ITS A FUCKING POSTING BOARD.

 

It & Is are properly joined with an apostrophe. He is/She is/It is -- He's/She's/It's -- His Hers Its. Do you see the distinction? Can you admit that you were once again wrong? So much for your delusions of being an intellectual, no?

 

 

>It's a fragment.

 

At least that time you properly formed the contraction. By the way, a fragment is not a complete sentence.

 

>LOL. Don't make me use QED again.

 

Do you think you can use it properly this time? I have serious doubts.

 

>Do

>you understand that even your Mean Girlfriends shake their

>heads at you behind your back.

 

How would you know? Do you speak for them now?

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

>If Erik wants to teach you some of the basics of

>criminal law, he can.

 

There is no intent requirement for statutory rape. A person need not have the malus animus of having sex with a minor. Rather, all that is required is that a person in fact HAVE prohibited contact with another under the specified age. Ignorance of the victim's true age is no defense. Neither is deception on the part of the victim. Many people have been convicted based on circumstantial, as opposed to actual or physical, evidence.

 

Shall I continue?

[seaboy4hire]

Joel not all of us working boys boyfriend's fit, trim and beefed out. My boyfriend is on the chunky side but I still love him. Just my one cent worth.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

>If the "defendant" (should there ever be one) claim

>that there was a fake ID and can prove it, which is

>theoretically possible, then there would be mitigating

>circumstances.

 

No, there wouldn't. Inducement is not a defense to the crime, nor is ignorance of the victim's true age.

 

>Granted it's all up to a judge

 

No, it isn't. Guilt is determined by juries in criminal trials.

 

>Touche. But who says that I’m a witness  If you’re

>saying I’d be a witness for their defense, the fake ID as

>evidence would speak volumes more than me.

 

No, it wouldn't. See above. By the way, it should be "the fake ID... would speak volumes more than I." You're simply not very bright.

 

>I’d be more

>than willing to produce the ID.

 

The ID would be excluded from the jury's consideration since inducement & ignorance of true age are not defenses to the averred crime.

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>Erik,

>

>ASSUME that Scott is pathetic in EVERY way, and that you're

>100% correct on QED, etc.

 

There's no assumption for the sake of argument necessary. I am correct. Scooter was incorrect. It is that simple. Scooter can't bring himself to admit it. You don't find that sad? You don't find it hopelessly dishonest?

 

>What do you do when you watch the news, or read the daily

>paper? Explode?

 

It isn't so much the fact that he makes mistakes that bothers me. We ALL make mistakes. I CERTAINLY make them. What bothers me is that he cannot admit it.

[woodlawn]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>>That you have a history of deceiving your clients in a way

>>that could harm them. Sorry if that wasn't clear earlier.

 

>Deceiving my clients. Oy. You make it sound as if I was a

>tranny. Escorting is about providing a fantasy. I did that.

>If they were deceived because of my age after the fact I don't

>think they cared.

 

But Scott, in the thread you created on Escortspeak you told us that you don't appreciate being lied to and complained that some people just don't have the balls to be honest, isn't that so? You're not going to lie and pretend you didn't say that, are you?

 

Why would you think you're the only person on earth who feels that way? Doesn't it occur to you that other people also might not like being lied to, especially about something that could get them in as much trouble as fucking an underage kid?

 

Perhaps the explanation is a very simple one -- you think the rules that should apply to others don't apply to you.

 

> How exactly do

>you propose that factor of my past could somehow be manifested

>into what I do when I meet clients now?

 

As I said earlier, the fact that you have a history of lying to your clients about such important issues makes one wonder what else you are lying to them about.

 

 

>Oh stop using your SAT words. And people think I'm

>pretentious. LOL.

 

I really don't give a fuck whether you like the way I express myself. You should have realized quite some time ago that these posts aren't really for your consumption. Have you still not figured that out?

 

>Yes the posts are short-lived and die but that's the point.

>When you make a point the point gets made. Was I not

>chastised less than a week ago for commenting on a thread

>ABOUT ME and bringing it back from the dead? You're not

>adding anything new to the conversation. You've made your

>point, wrong as it may be. Say something new.

 

From the point of view of a hooker caught lying to his clients I'm sure it is a good thing that posts here don't last very long. But that is not my point of view, so I'll continue talking about this as often as I think necessary.

[Guest skywalker]

Why is it I can't locate reply #121 (Daddy's reply)?

[beemerboy]

Damn,why all the conversation about this guy.

 

He's just another prostitute,why would anybody give a shit about him?

 

Velly Velly curious!!!

[SAdler]

Go to the second "bulk" of replies and let them be visible.

 

Then search for Daddy, he's in one of Erik's replies.

 

Also the numbering appears to have been screwed up by one of my accidental double posts at some point.

 

Good Luck!