Re: The "Is the Top for Strip Club Mongers In?" Thread

lol. that was good! our r tatted up, high school dropout, drug addict former ATFs should have only SC to work at? How Republican of you!!!

steve229: " Anyone have any suggestions?"

Yes, try and deal with thing people actually say instead of things you wish they had said (who said anything about "abrupt" or "wastelands"?).

Too hard for you to appear "cute" (always your goal): under those conditions? Here are some alternatives then:

Yes, you might want to learn some basic economics. Apparently, econ 101 is too hard for you, so maybe start with "economics for dummies".

Or, better yet, stick to updating us on the latest celebrity gossip and quoting song lyrics. Truly your forte.

Doug and Steve are actually engaging in an interesting debate. It's too bad they're both so heavily emotionally invested in it that it keeps degenerating into sarcasm and name-calling.

Joeybanana...i like that name. I am also drunk, but still like the name. That guysxa good egg

Joeybanana? Fuggedaboutit! He's good people, a real stand-up guy.

Philosophizers

My uninformed opinion: The slow economic recovery will eliminate those dancers who have other options. Those with marketable skills will take advantage of an improving economy. Those without skills, drive or ambition will continue in the SCs. Remember, each high school graduating class has pretty girls who will choose to live on their looks and sexuality as long as they can. Dancers are never in short supply. Extras will always be available because it's hard to stop anything that makes money. My hope is that the fuglies will leave SCs and go back to being telephone marketers and counter clerks when those jobs open up.

"My hope is that the fuglies will leave SCs and go back to being telephone marketers and counter clerks when those jobs open up."

That is going to be my mantra.

I have to hope that stripper jobs wind up getting outsourced

"Dancers are never in short supply. Extras will always be available because it's hard to stop anything that makes money."

Well, that's what I thought too, until I was shown the error of my ways.

^^^ another great example of what I said about a dozen times in that thread. You are great at arguing against things I never said. In fact I made a point of saying there will always be some extras; just less than now. I guess your feeble mind is just too dumb to understand how something can be less than now but still not zero. Holy Christ, you are one dumbfuck!

Stick to keeping us updated on which celebrity dissed another in a tweet that all the 16 y/o girls are talking about this morning.

Here's a link to the thread:

https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=3…

My favorite part are:

a) when steve says it is obvious that extras will go up and this is simple consequence of the theory of supply and demand, but
b) when I show that he is wrong about, as anyone who actually took even a day or two economics could see, and refuse to allow him to make argue things I didn't say and stick to arguing things I did say, he instantly runs away like the little girl that he is.

He is a good at appearing cute, and I guess some minds can't see through his rhetorical tricks, but, from the responses, it seems he miscalculate and most can. When he doesn't have tricks to fall back on, he instantly vanishes.

Too funny!

I'll state it gain, God made economists to make the weatherman look good. If you turn to financial news to actually get any valid prognostication, then you're the same person who believes a stripper really finds you attractive. There is no profit in prognostication, and long term trends will usually hold, it's just that they never go in a straight line yet will always yo-yo around, like my ATF does on my franks and beans.

Meat: "if you turn to financial news to actually get any valid prognostication"

Actually it works to go to them for invalid prognostication. If they are overly excited about something or overly pessimistic about something, that's usually when things are about to turn the other way.

Now a question for jackslash:

I'm little surprised you claim not to get the gist of my argument. You are from Detroit which is one of the poorer areas of the country, but also has the most readily available extras. But then you posted a thread about your experiences in Manhattan which is one of the richest areas, but you said that even an experienced such as yourself was unable to find OTC even though you were offering up to $1000.

Why do you think she turned down that $1000 when you could have got three Detroit area strippers and a herd of sheep for that price? Was because there is plenty of money splashing around in NYC even if she was not willing to do extras? Microcosm of the future, IMO.

So do you think it's just coincidence that thing are like that: one of the poorest areas has the most extras, but one of the richest has almost zero extras? I am not saying the correlation is 100% since there is more than one variable (wealth of area) in play, but there does seem to be something to it.

I want to know what jerikson says about all of these economic issues. Whatever that is I disagree.