Serious question about escorts and drugs

[Guest TruthTeller]

>I think it's a little absurd to challenge someone's account

>of an event when he witnessed it, you didn't witness it, you

>don't know any of the people involved, and you know nothing

>about the event other than a brief description he gave you.

 

I agree, which is why I find it bewildering that you're doing that. One of the reasons you cited for believing this escort was a drug user and drug addict was that he came out of the client's bathroom with a significantly altered mood. The client, however, said no such thing; this was your concoction.

 

>The facts cmax cites support his conclusion, and although

>that is not the only possible conclusion I defer to him as

>the one who actually saw what happened. I didn't see it and

>neither did you. There seems to be some additional evidence

>to support cmax's conclusion, as he relates in his post #46

>below.

 

The escort vigorously disputes the client's review to which you're referring. Either way, there is still a big difference - a fundamental difference, actually - between being a drug user (which is, at most, all you can say about this escort) and being a drug ADDICT - i.e., someone who NEEDS drugs and can't do without them even when he wants to. A willingness to declare someone a "drug addict" based on nothing other than contained usage is, even if you claim you believe otherwise, to equate usage with addiction.

 

>I think that the unsupervised use of psychotropic substances

>is more dangerous than just about anything, given the fact

>that for many such substances their effects on human

>biochemistry are not fully understood.

 

This statement is the height of irrationality. You're saying that you believe X is "more dangerous than just about anything" because we don't have any data about and therefore know nothing about how dangerous X is. How you can call something "most dangerous" while simultaneously saying that you have no knowledge about its dangers is, to put it generously, very difficult to understand.

 

We don't have any data on the long-term effects of using Viagra or Prozac either. Your "rationale" should lead you to conclude that using these drugs is also "most dangerous."

 

In fact, there is substantial data on the dangers of psychotropic drugs. One thing is certain: using them is far less likely to be fatal and damaging than excessive alcohol usage or bad diet. Moreover, the drug comprising the core of Esctacy was legal and in usage for two decades, before the drug prohibitionist warriors enacted regulations prohibiting psychiatrists from proscribing it for their patients. Data regarding its effects negate the Chicken Little dangers which you're proclaiming.

 

As a side note, and without necessarily inviting a debate on the issue, I am curious to know: do you favor laws which make it illegal for adults to ingest whatever substances they want into their own bodies?

[Traveller]

I still say that one bump of tina lasts 5 to 6 hours.

 

Later.

 

PS. I snort my heroin. Needles are straight boys.

[Guest regulation]

>I agree, which is why I find it bewildering that you're

>doing that. One of the reasons you cited for believing this

>escort was a drug user and drug addict was that he came out

>of the client's bathroom with a significantly altered mood.

>The client, however, said no such thing; this was your

>concoction.

 

I am not the one who is challenging the client's account of what happened. You are. He was there. You were not. My comments supported his conclusions. Yours challenged them. No amount of sophistry will change that.

 

>The escort vigorously disputes the client's review to which

>you're referring.

 

Don't they always?

 

>Either way, there is still a big

>difference - a fundamental difference, actually - between

>being a drug user (which is, at most, all you can say about

>this escort) and being a drug ADDICT - i.e., someone who

>NEEDS drugs and can't do without them even when he wants to.

> A willingness to declare someone a "drug addict" based on

>nothing other than contained usage is, even if you claim you

>believe otherwise, to equate usage with addiction.

 

I really couldn't care less. To me it's like arguing about whether Ted Bundy killed a dozen women or only ten. If the smaller number is correct, does that make him a better person? Nonsense.

 

>This statement is the height of irrationality. You're

>saying that you believe X is "more dangerous than just about

>anything" because we don't have any data about and therefore

>know nothing about how dangerous X is. How you can call

>something "most dangerous" while simultaneously saying that

>you have no knowledge about its dangers is, to put it

>generously, very difficult to understand.

 

I have seen few statements on this message board more absurd than the one you posted above, and given some of the crap I've read here that is really saying something. Only someone whose brain has already been fried would try to minimize the dangers of taking substances that are known to be psychotropic -- that is why they're being ingested in the first place -- on the ground that their longterm effect on brain chemistry is not fully understood. It's rather like minimizing the seriousness of cutting off your own arm because you're not entirely sure that it will never grow back.

 

>We don't have any data on the long-term effects of using

>Viagra or Prozac either. Your "rationale" should lead you

>to conclude that using these drugs is also "most dangerous."

 

The words "most dangerous" are your concoction, not mine, and do not accurately reflect any statement I have made.

 

>In fact, there is substantial data on the dangers of

>psychotropic drugs. One thing is certain: using them is

>far less likely to be fatal and damaging than excessive

>alcohol usage or bad diet.

 

Your statement is false. There are many psychotropic drugs currently in use illegally for which no such data exists for the very reason I cited.

 

 

>Moreover, the drug comprising

>the core of Esctacy was legal and in usage for two decades,

>before the drug prohibitionist warriors enacted regulations

>prohibiting psychiatrists from proscribing it for their

>patients. Data regarding its effects negate the Chicken

>Little dangers which you're proclaiming.

 

My comments about the effects of ecstasy on the brain came from, among other sources, an interview given by Dr. George Ricaurte of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, who has been the principal investigator in several studies on this subject. Between him and you, I believe him.

 

>As a side note, and without necessarily inviting a debate on

>the issue, I am curious to know: do you favor laws which

>make it illegal for adults to ingest whatever substances

>they want into their own bodies?

 

Satisfying your curiosity is not one of my priorities.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>I am not the one who is challenging the client's account of

>what happened. You are. He was there. You were not. My

>comments supported his conclusions. Yours challenged them.

>No amount of sophistry will change that.

 

Whenever you can't address the substance of something, you simply declare yourself to be Right and move on. Your premise - that the escort's behavior changed when coming out of the bathroom - was nowhere in the client's report. You invented it.

 

And I am not disputing the facts of what the client reported. I am assuming them to be true, and contending that the conclusion that the escort was a drug user (which the client admits may be a wrong conclusion) is ill-supported, and the conclusion that he is a drug addict depends upon a combination of your active imagination and anti-drug hysteria.

 

There's a difference between disputing the facts one reports and the conclusions he draws from the facts. Surely you see that.

 

>I really couldn't care less. To me it's like arguing about

>whether Ted Bundy killed a dozen women or only ten. If the

>smaller number is correct, does that make him a better

>person? Nonsense.

 

Exactly. You see no meaningful difference between someone who takes drugs once a year and someone who takes drugs every day - hence, your willingness to declare the escort an addict based on (at most) one instance of drug use.

 

That was my only point from the beginning. Why didn't you just admit it and this whole thing would have been unnecessary? Why hide your beliefs?

 

>Only

>someone whose brain has already been fried . . .

 

Ahhh. . . . there's the inevitable ad hominem accusation that anyone who points out the irrationality of anti-drug hysteria must be a hopeless drug addict. I was wondering what took you so long to spit that out.

 

Either uncritically ingest the lies told by DARE and the Federal Government's drug Czar, or be labelled a drug addict. Sort of like (actually, exactly like) the line of "Either accept the Gay Orthodoxy spouted by the political gay establishment or be declared a homophobe" - you know, the tactic which you claim to find so objectionable. I guess it's only objectionable when used in the context of some issues, but not others.

 

>would try to

>minimize the dangers of taking substances that are known to

>be psychotropic -- that is why they're being ingested in the

>first place -- on the ground that their longterm effect on

>brain chemistry is not fully understood. It's rather like

>minimizing the seriousness of cutting off your own arm

>because you're not entirely sure that it will never grow

>back.

 

YOU were the one who pointed out that there is NO data on the long-term effects of such drugs. They could either be harmful or harmless. Thus, to label them to be more dangerous than all but a couple of activities - while simultaneously admitting you have no data to support such a conclusion - is the height of irrationality.

 

>>We don't have any data on the long-term effects of using

>>Viagra or Prozac either. Your "rationale" should lead you

>>to conclude that using these drugs is also "most dangerous."

>

>The words "most dangerous" are your concoction, not mine,

>and do not accurately reflect any statement I have made.

 

Nonetheless, given the lack of data with regard to the long-term effects of all three substances, there is no rational basis for concluding that, long-term, one is more dangerous than the other.

 

>My comments about the effects of ecstasy on the brain came

>from, among other sources, an interview given by Dr. George

>Ricaurte of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, who has

>been the principal investigator in several studies on this

>subject. Between him and you, I believe him.

 

There are countless psychiatrists who have proscribed and researched the drug and insist that ecstacy has little or no harmful long-term effects. You believe Dr. Ricaurte -- whose studies have been funded by the Federal Government, for which anti-drug campaigns are a Religion -- over these psychiatrists because he spouts conclusions in accordance with your anti-drug zealotry.

 

>>As a side note, and without necessarily inviting a debate on

>>the issue, I am curious to know: do you favor laws which

>>make it illegal for adults to ingest whatever substances

>>they want into their own bodies?

>

>Satisfying your curiosity is not one of my priorities.

 

I can't imagine being so ashamed of your views that, when asked your position on a widely debated topic, you're unwilling to state what your view is -- especially in the middle of discussing a closely related topic. Then again, if I held views as internally inconsistent as yours are, maybe I would resort to doing that.

[Guest regulation]

>Whenever you can't address the substance of something, you

>simply declare yourself to be Right and move on. Your

>premise - that the escort's behavior changed when coming out

>of the bathroom - was nowhere in the client's report. You

>invented it.

 

You are lying. The client did indeed note a change in the escort's behavior, as I believe he mentioned in the third paragraph of his original post.

 

>And I am not disputing the facts of what the client

>reported.

 

Another lie. You did exactly that in the first paragraph of post #53.

 

 

I am assuming them to be true, and contending

>that the conclusion that the escort was a drug user (which

>the client admits may be a wrong conclusion) is

>ill-supported, and the conclusion that he is a drug addict

>depends upon a combination of your active imagination and

>anti-drug hysteria.

 

Since you know nothing about the client, the escort or me, your "contentions" add up to nothing but the uninformed musings of a spiteful dilettante.

 

 

>There's a difference between disputing the facts one reports

>and the conclusions he draws from the facts. Surely you see

>that.

 

In fact, you have done both.

 

 

>That was my only point from the beginning. Why didn't you

>just admit it and this whole thing would have been

>unnecessary? Why hide your beliefs?

 

Your statements about my "beliefs" are false. You are simply making things up, attributing them to me, and then slamming me for having "said" them. Better men than you have tried that on this board. I didn't let them get away with it, and I certainly won't let

a schlemiel like you get away with it.

 

>Ahhh. . . . there's the inevitable ad hominem accusation

>that anyone who points out the irrationality of anti-drug

>hysteria must be a hopeless drug addict. I was wondering

>what took you so long to spit that out.

 

After all the nasty insults you have posted on this message board you have one hell of a nerve taking anyone to task for an "ad hominem accusation." If you can't take it, shut the fuck up. :-)

 

>Either uncritically ingest the lies told by DARE and the

>Federal Government's drug Czar, or be labelled a drug

>addict. Sort of like (actually, exactly like) the line of

>"Either accept the Gay Orthodoxy spouted by the political

>gay establishment or be declared a homophobe" - you know,

>the tactic which you claim to find so objectionable. I

>guess it's only objectionable when used in the context of

>some issues, but not others.

 

<yawn>

 

>YOU were the one who pointed out that there is NO data on

>the long-term effects of such drugs. They could either be

>harmful or harmless.

 

That is a ludicrous mischaracterization of what I said. Again, I will not allow you to make things up, attribute them to me, and yell at me for "saying" them.

 

>>The words "most dangerous" are your concoction, not mine,

>>and do not accurately reflect any statement I have made.

>

>Nonetheless, given the lack of data with regard to the

>long-term effects of all three substances, there is no

>rational basis for concluding that, long-term, one is more

>dangerous than the other.

 

Let's just skip over the fact that you lied about what I said.

 

 

>There are countless psychiatrists who have proscribed and

>researched the drug and insist that ecstacy has little or no

>harmful long-term effects. You believe Dr. Ricaurte --

>whose studies have been funded by the Federal Government,

>for which anti-drug campaigns are a Religion -- over these

>psychiatrists because he spouts conclusions in accordance

>with your anti-drug zealotry.

 

I do not know of a single reputable scientist, let alone "countless" scientists, who have researched this issue and announced results that contradict the conclusions of Dr. Ricaurte. If you know of any such person, name him. If not, stop lying and pretending that you do.

 

>I can't imagine being so ashamed of your views that, when

>asked your position on a widely debated topic, you're

>unwilling to state what your view is -- especially in the

>middle of discussing a closely related topic. Then again,

>if I held views as internally inconsistent as yours are,

>maybe I would resort to doing that.

 

What you are actually resorting to is a serious of pathetic lies. The fact is that I have discussed the topic to which you refer on this message board in extensive conversations with the posters Bilbo and Tampa Yankee. I do not choose to have the same conversation again with you primarily because you are nowhere near as articulate and interesting a correspondent as either of them.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>You are lying.

 

>Another lie.

 

>Since you know nothing about the client, the escort or me,

>your "contentions" add up to nothing but the uninformed

>musings of a spiteful dilettante.

 

>Your statements about my "beliefs" are false.

 

> If you can't take it, shut the

>fuck up. :-)

 

><yawn>

 

>That is a ludicrous mischaracterization of what I said.

>Again, I will not allow you to make things up, attribute

>them to me, and yell at me for "saying" them.

 

>Let's just skip over the fact that you lied about what I

>said.

 

>If you know of any such person, name him. If

>not, stop lying and pretending that you do.

 

>What you are actually resorting to is a serious of pathetic

>lies.

 

Are my pants on fire also? Am I glue and you're rubber? Thanks for the dizzying brilliance and mammoth substance. Your post was fascinating, really.

 

>After all the nasty insults you have posted on this message board >you have one hell of a nerve taking anyone to task for an "ad >hominem accusation."

 

An ad hominem fallacy is not an insult. It is to assert that one's argument is false by virtue of a personal attribute one has - as in, "your arguments on the dangers of drug use are not credible because you're brain is fried from drugs."

 

>The fact is that I have discussed the topic to which

>you refer on this message board in extensive conversations

>with the posters Bilbo and Tampa Yankee. I do not choose to

>have the same conversation again with you primarily because

>you are nowhere near as articulate and interesting a

>correspondent as either of them.

 

Oh, OK - go play with the other kids who you like better than me. Funny how, once you were forced to defend the inconsistencies of your "views," you suddenly developed an aversion to dialogue.

 

And, by the way, your good friend Tampa Yankee - the one whom you now suddenly hold in such high regard and would prefer to play with - is that, by chance, the same Tampa Yankee about whom you said in the ratings section:

 

<<Should be placed in suspended animation until science discovers a cure for being self-righteous.

 

Screamed at me because he didn't like what I said to one of his favorite hookers. At his age he should be above things that like that.

 

very patronizing towards others>>

 

I believe it is. But I'm sure you do like him better now. Children always feel more comfortable around other kids who aren't mean to them.

[Guest regulation]

>Are my pants on fire also? Am I glue and you're rubber?

>Thanks for the dizzying brilliance and mammoth substance.

>Your post was fascinating, really.

>

 

Your theme seems to be that it's childish to point out the fact that you keep lying about what I and others say. I don't agree.

 

 

>An ad hominem fallacy is not an insult. It is to assert

>that one's argument is false by virtue of a personal

>attribute one has - as in, "your arguments on the dangers of

>drug use are not credible because you're brain is fried from

>drugs."

 

Again, you are lying. One of your favorite tactics on this board is to alter the statements of others or simply attribute to them statements created entirely by you, and then yell at them for "saying" those things. Others may not have the patience to call you on it every time you do it to them. I do.

 

>Oh, OK - go play with the other kids who you like better

>than me. Funny how, once you were forced to defend the

>inconsistencies of your "views," you suddenly developed an

>aversion to dialogue.

 

You seem to find it frustrating that your pathetic attempts to bait me into a discussion of your choosing aren't working. Too bad.

 

>And, by the way, your good friend Tampa Yankee - the one

>whom you now suddenly hold in such high regard and would

>prefer to play with - is that, by chance, the same Tampa

>Yankee about whom you said in the ratings section:

>

 

Whatever my disagreements with Tampa Yankee -- and I have had many -- I have never denied that he can be articulate and interesting. I have yet to see you display either characteristic.

 

>I believe it is. But I'm sure you do like him better now.

>Children always feel more comfortable around other kids who

>aren't mean to them.

 

Roosevelt and Churchill had many disagreements. But each was far more comfortable with the other than he was with Stalin. :-)

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Your theme seems to be that it's childish to point out the

>fact that you keep lying about what I and others say. I

>don't agree.

 

Compiling facts which demonstrate the falsity of what someone says can be a constructive form of dialogue. Merely calling someone a liar -- which is all you have done, again and again -- is the hallmark of a third-grader. I know, I'm a liar. So can you tell me, once and for all, whether you think my pants are on fire?

 

>Again, you are lying. One of your favorite tactics on this

>board is to alter the statements of others or simply

>attribute to them statements created entirely by you, and

>then yell at them for "saying" those things. Others may not

>have the patience to call you on it every time you do it to

>them. I do.

 

This is so funny - look at you. You see yourself as such a brave warrior - all because you called me "liar" 20 times.

 

>Whatever my disagreements with Tampa Yankee -- and I have

>had many -- I have never denied that he can be articulate

>and interesting. I have yet to see you display either characteristic.

 

Just two weeks ago you wrote a post in which you expressed the view that I was aggressive and opinionated -- "two attributes I find admirable" -- and therefore enjoyed my posts. In my rating, you said: "always has something interesting to say". Now that I've attacked the paltry inconsistency of your "views," you claim, contrary to what you said before, that I have never displayed the characteristicts of being interesting or articulate.

 

Does that, by chance, make you a liar?

 

>Roosevelt and Churchill had many disagreements. But each

>was far more comfortable with the other than he was with

>Stalin. :-)

 

You're lying about this. You're a liar. This is a pathetic lie. Liar.

 

Oh, you're so right - I do see the appeal in engaging in your form of discussion. It's a very productive and adult form of communicating. Thanks for showing that to me. Liar. God, that feels so good.

[Guest albinorat]

Yes, fine, the escort has a problem. But why not tell any escort "no drugs in my scene"? That doesn't stop someone from using right before they handle your knocker, but it keeps it out of your sight. It may also cause an escort looking to share or sell to back out. There are TONS none of us will ever know about the escorts we see, from how safe they are sexually with others to what they really think of us. You can't control someone else's behavior. You can however "direct" your own scene. If someone seeming to use (this instance) or wanting to use with or in front of you bothers you, that should be spelled out in advance, just as you should specify anything else that you know is a turn off (my pal the foot fetish has learned to say: "if you've got obvious athlete's foot or hideous hoofs, sorry".) This is a business transaction after all and your comfort level needs to be foremost.

 

On the other hand I don't see anything wrong with a giddy sniff myself. I only get upset if someone acts like a raving junkie (if they're actually raving junkies in real life I don't care, I just don't want to see their jones in my dungeon). Yes everybody who abuses anything needs to see about it (that includes psychotropics too, they make orgasm difficult to impossible and suppress libido among other things. I know someone whose zoloft gives him the runs to the point he wears a diaper sometimes. He swears by it and isn't an escort -- but if he were -- tremble!!! As it is, it is good sense to sit or stand well away from him on occasion).

 

But as several of the all wise have said, someone either comes to the realization they are using to excess and decides to try and stop, or they don't. All a client can do is enjoy the visit and pay the freight for that.

 

Al

 

Al

[Guest regulation]

>Compiling facts which demonstrate the falsity of what

>someone says can be a constructive form of dialogue. Merely

>calling someone a liar -- which is all you have done, again

>and again -- is the hallmark of a third-grader. I know, I'm

>a liar.

 

"Compiling facts" is hardly necessary when you post false versions of my statements right next to the statements themselves, as you have done several times in this thread. Is a meteorological dissertion necessary to demonstrate that it's raining when one is in the midst of a downpour? I think not.

 

>This is so funny - look at you. You see yourself as such a

>brave warrior - all because you called me "liar" 20 times.

 

It doesn't take bravery to put up with your shit. Just an enormous amount of patience. :-)

 

>Just two weeks ago you wrote a post in which you expressed

>the view that I was aggressive and opinionated -- "two

>attributes I find admirable" -- and therefore enjoyed my

>posts. In my rating, you said: "always has something

>interesting to say". Now that I've attacked the paltry

>inconsistency of your "views," you claim, contrary to what

>you said before, that I have never displayed the

>characteristicts of being interesting or articulate.

>

>Does that, by chance, make you a liar?

 

Have I ever called you "interesting"? If so, you have by diligent and continuous effort convinced me that I was wrong to do so. :-)

 

>You're lying about this. You're a liar. This is a pathetic

>lie. Liar.

 

Someone who doesn't know the difference between "proscribe" and "prescribe" should not be giving lectures on history or on any other subject.

 

>Oh, you're so right - I do see the appeal in engaging in

>your form of discussion. It's a very productive and adult

>form of communicating. Thanks for showing that to me.

>Liar. God, that feels so good.

 

I am delighted to know that even scummy little liars like you can benefit from reading my posts. It gives me a modest but very real feeling of accomplishment.