Fair Warning...

[Guy Fawkes]

There appears to be a group of people that seem to be intent on defying a moderators decision. His call was reasonable and I support his decision. I suspect that there is an agent provocateur instigating these actions.

 

But it doesn't matter, quite simply we will not discuss any medical procedure(s) that a retired escort who has requested anonymity has (or has not) performed.

 

If you do so, I'll be giving you a time-out.

 

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5t4hjEI6wZk/UO4hVzC6cFI/AAAAAAAAAd0/4xWoD_JPrwY/s1600/front.jpg

[seaboy4hire]

Don't poke the Daddy! Unless it's to offer him a yummy cookie.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[+ deej]

Just for the record, these timeouts will be coming from Daddy. Not from me. Send your private messages to him.

 

This is not a policy I can stand behind.

[instudiocity]

Just for the record, these timeouts will be coming from Daddy. Not from me. Send your private messages to him.

 

This is not a policy I can stand behind.

Kuddos for your high morals, except the moral of standing behind Daddy's decisions.

[gallahadesquire]

To quote Spock:

 

Fascinating, Captain!

[+ deej]

An escort can only offer his services if he can rely on a certain level of anonymity. It happened to me that I had expressed things about myself on the forum that I later asked moderators to remove. (Nothing medical though.)

 

As clients want anonymity and discretion, so do most escorts and I found it heartwarming to know that there's a forum here that understands the needs of both clients as well as escorts.

 

I agree and have often made unpopular decisions based on these principles.

 

Here, we have a former escort who has willingly (even eagerly, it seems) appeared and been named in news stories on ABC News, HLN (a division of NBC News), CNN, and Huffington Post. Those appearances are available widely on both broadcast television and on the internet.

 

But not here. Here we censor major news organizations.

 

After multiple interviews with national media you've sort of outed yourself. But don't worry. Daddy will hide it (um, not really but we'll throw people out for discussing it).

 

We will always fiercely protect personally identifiable information that OTHERS are trying to expose about you. When you willingly expose PII on national television the cat is out of the bag.

[seaboy4hire]

I agree and have often made unpopular decisions based on these principles.

 

Here, we have a former escort who has willingly (even eagerly, it seems) appeared and been named in news stories on ABC News, HLN (a division of NBC News), CNN, and Huffington Post. Those appearances are available widely on both broadcast television and on the internet.

 

But not here. Here we censor major news organizations.

 

After multiple interviews with national media you've sort of outed yourself. But don't worry. Daddy will hide it (um, not really but we'll throw people out for discussing it).

 

We will always fiercely protect personally identifiable information that OTHERS are trying to expose about you. When you willingly expose PII on national television the cat is out of the bag.

 

What is PII?

 

Hugs,

Greg

[+ deej]

Personally identifiable information, as mentioned earlier in the post. Sorry.

 

It's the package of information about you that security narcs get really rubbed up about protecting. It's distincly different from publicly available information such as information on nationally broadcast television.

[Guy Fawkes]

It perfectly ok to disagree with me. We do that on quite a few topics.

 

We can talk about "Ken Doll" all we want. However, it seems every time it's brought up somebody just has to associate "Ken Doll" with a certain escort that retired five years ago (give or take) and that has asked for anonymity. This is a request that I will respect.

 

One of the reasons the site is successful is because I'm a privacy fanatic.

 

So if you want to start a thread on "Ken Doll" go ahead. But anybody that associates "Ken Doll" to a certain escort with be give a time-out.

 

Just for the record, these timeouts will be coming from Daddy. Not from me. Send your private messages to him.

 

This is not a policy I can stand behind.

[Michael Wayne]

i vote for PRIVACY! thanks Daddy

[TruthBTold]

Under the law, a person gives up an expectation of privacy once he has put that privacy at risk. While I understand that privacy rights must be protected and that there must be someone who ultimately is responsible for making sure that that happens, any decision that is made should be made in full awareness of another legal maxim . . . The more a decision of law conflicts with common sense the less people respect law.