tuscl

ignore fuction

Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:10 AM
I actually try to read every post, because I think everyone can gain something from another person's story, outlook, or opinion. However I have now been forced to use the ignore function for the first time. If any rational person wants to compare any of my posts for inconsistencies, I will gladly do the best I can do explain any differences. Yes, I posted some controversial opinions in the last 9 months and there is little doubt (at this point) some bias built-in, however I've made all these posts in good faith. I have particular reasons for not wanting to post reviews, but I hope maybe SOME of my posts may help someone else or give them some insight into clubs or dancers or whatever - despite any disagreement they might have.

28 comments

  • motorhead
    •
    16 years ago
    David, It is certainly your choice whether or not to post reviews, but with all due respect can I ask why? First and foremost, this is a REVIEW website. The discussion board is just an ancillary feature of TUSCL. Granted, it can be entertaining, informative, and fun for those who participate, but I believe the foundation of TUSCL is still the reviews. With very exceptions, all of us that post here are anonymous - why would you think anyone could discover your identity by posting your review. Sorry, I'm not trying to be negative, I am just trying to understand why anyone that has been posting here for as you have would choose not to post any reviews. Obviously you enjoy clubs as much as the rest uf us, so why not share?
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    Heathy paranoia? :)
  • David9999
    •
    16 years ago
    Exactly, its my choice. How about leaving it at that?
  • David9999
    •
    16 years ago
    Jarblake - that's probably a fair description
  • njscfan
    •
    16 years ago
    Another non-sensical explanation. If someone was paranoid (about what? having his identity exposed? being caught as a strip club patron?) then that person would not be posting countless posts on the discussion board about his strip club exploits, nor would he be posting lengthy diatribes about seed spreading and alpha males. The discussion board is completely available to the public. If David were a $500K a year high roller, then all of his family members, neighbors, business colleagues, friends, etc. would be able to see these posts any time, without becoming a tuscl member or signing onto the site. Given David's, shall we say, "distinctive" writing style, anyone who knew him personally would spot him immediately. And since he posts all the time -- and often initiates threads -- he is a very conspicuous member of the discussion board. Only the reviews are hidden from public view. A person trying to be UTR would post reviews, not long threads on the board. Also, obviously, a person who had "healthy paranoia" would not go to several strip clubs adding up to 120 visits a year. You only do that if you don't give a shit about people knowing that you go to strip clubs. I make a living catching people in lies. And there's a really good rule of thumb about lying: one lie invariably leads to another. That's what's happening with David.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    "Also, obviously, a person who had "healthy paranoia" would not go to several strip clubs adding up to 120 visits a year." The "healthy paranoia" may be primarily concerned about law enforcement and being trapped by *words*. Going to several different stripclubs adding up to 120 visits per year may attract law enforcement ---- big spender, aggressive, perhaps well known and disliked. But, his words *in the stripclub* maybe sufficiently benign as to be a dead-end as far as proving criminal activity. And, it is those words that he uses so freely on TUSCL that might be used against him *if* his stripclub identity and TUSCL identity were merged.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    "I make a living catching people in lies. And there's a really good rule of thumb about lying: one lie invariably leads to another. That's what's happening with David." The good rule of thumb can also apply to innocent mistakes and false recollections. The woman was positive the rapist had a heart shaped tattoo---it was clear as day. She believe the tattoo matches the alleged rapist's and before you know it her mind is filling in details that she is positive are true merely because she mistakenly linked the tattoo to the alleged rapist. Initially, she might have been sure the rapist was shorter, but since the tattoo is proof positive suddenly in her mind the rapist grows a few inches and on and on and on it goes. Also, logical inconsistencies don't equal lying even when that clearly seems to be the case. Famous attorney F. Lee Bailey had months earlier spoken with a witness in depth about OJ or something OJ related and I was watching the court proceedings live. The witness SWORE repeatedly that the famous F. Lee Bailey had NEVER spoken to him because he definitely would have remembered talking to a famous attorney like F. Lee Bailey. The witness appeared to be so credible. I mean who wouldn't remember a long conversation with F. Lee Bailey especially when you know he is the famous attorney?! Turned out F. Lee Bailey was telling the truth. The witness finally remembered the conversation, but had thought it was a DREAM because he couldn't believe a famous attorney like F. Lee Bailey would actually talk with him. And, because he believed it was a mere DREAM he completely DISMISSED it from his memory and added false details to cover the dismissal. Talk about apparent lying! The witness had NO apparent reason to lie so blatently about F. Lee Bailey, but he was definitely a flake of the first order based on what I watching. :) Oh, and as the witnesse testified falsely about him and Marsha Clark made erroneous derogatory statements based on the false testimony, F. Lee Bailey seemed ready to BLOW UP! His integrity was publicly on the line before millions of viewers and he wasn't calm, cool, or collected.
  • FONDL
    •
    16 years ago
    David, you're not on my ignore list. I only put people there who have repeatedly attacted me personally. I think that's it's proper function.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    I'm extremely distrusting and suspicious of even regular joes or marys. Many years ago I was in a car accident. The police officer seemed professional and just like an ordinary joe--a good man. He could tell that I was low income and was a working stiff. I thought he was being a real nice guy when said he wanted to save me some money because he could tell that I worked hard and didn't have much. He was correct on both counts. He said I didn't need to hire an attorney for the ticket because he wasn't going to show. Sounded fantastic and I thanked him and confirmed that I was having a tough time making money. A friend urged me to "waste" the money on an attorney. Well, even the least expensive attorney was a significant expense for me and I was trying to watch every penny and even clipping pennies off coupons. Because of all the open fraud in family court I decided to listen to my friend. No, I didn't have negative feelings toward the police and in fact had generally been well treated (and more) and treated professionally. I thought of them in the Matt Dillon TV mode---tough, fearless, honest. What does fraud in family court have to do with police? Well, if you can't trust judges then perhaps police officers shouldn't be trusted either and my friend usually gave sound advice and didn't believe in throwing money away unless necessary. So, I got the necessary funds for the attorney and he took over----which was wonderful. I didn't need to get tangled up in stuff that was way beyond my comprehension level at the time. And, I needed to work to make money. The attorney was the cheapest I could find and he still was extremely expensive for my puny budget. :( I practically cried giving him the money. So the trial came and the attorney basically told me just answer truthfully and don't go on and on and don't talk unless it is my turn. Well, the attorney was well prepared and did his job and I won. I thanked him and the money I paid him was a bargain---he was worth every penny and more! The police officer DID show up and was basically a low life pretending to be a nice guy average joe. More bizzare still the police officer had the nerve to approach me afterwards and challenge me by asking why did I hire an attorney after he told me wasn't going to show. Because I was in the courthouse and there were plenty of witnesses and the police officer had come after me, I got in his face real quick and real aggressive and SHOUTED why in the hell did you show when you told me you weren't going to in order to help me out!!!??? I was furious. The officer froze for a couple seconds and everyone was staring. I wasn't backing down even a little and he was much bigger than me. He didn't answer and just walked away. I was very afraid of running into him again. I don't understand why he acted like a rat and worse challenging me after my attorney had won the case. Thank heavens I never saw the officer again, but it made me more distrustfull and less willing to call the police when help is needed. My tax dollars hard at work. :(
  • CarolinaWanderer
    •
    16 years ago
    I only ignore parodyman. I think everyone should.
  • MisterGuy
    •
    16 years ago
    "I have particular reasons for not wanting to post reviews" What are they??? Name them scaredy cat... "I believe the foundation of TUSCL is still the reviews" Amen to that! A pox on all of you free-loaders out there that don't post reviews!! jablake...we already know that you're crazy...you've described yourself as such before...spare us the gory details of why please...
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    Hi MisterGuy, You happen to recall your yappings about the 2nd Amendment? :) I mean you sure seemed to know the law as if it was chiseled in stone. :) Anyway, I don't know if the U.S. Supreme's 5-4 decision was a correct decision. And, really it is just a matter of opinion as the words themselves are mere prenumbras. Prenumbras----I hope I got that beautiful word correct. :)
  • MisterGuy
    •
    16 years ago
    Perhaps you could try to learn to post in the correct thread wacko, but then again...perhaps not, since this isn't anywhere near the first time that you've done something like this. Haven't you moved to Haiti yet?
  • arbeeguy
    •
    16 years ago
    Prenumbra? Not in dictionary, but "penumbra" (during the process of an eclipse) is the region in which only a portion of the occulting body is obscuring the light source. An observer in the penumbra experiences a partial eclipse. There may well be a legal meaning to penumbra as well.
  • motorhead
    •
    16 years ago
    David wrote, "Exactly, its my choice. How about leaving it at that?" Let's not. As they say on TV courtroom dramas.... "you opened the door, counselor" Now I'm curious for your reasons. Perhaps they are legitimate, but why would a frequent poster choose not to post reviews - and remember you brought it up.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    Thanks arbeeguy, Penumbras was used in a famous U.S. Supreme Court decision------supposedly a "hallmark" of judicial activism. "The rights guaranteed by implication in a constitution or the implied powers of a rule. The original and literal meaning of penumbra is "a space of partial illumination between the perfect shadow … on all sides and the full light" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., 1996). The term was created and introduced by astronomer Johannes Kepler in 1604 to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses. However, in legal terms penumbra is most often used as a metaphor describing a doctrine that refers to implied powers of the federal government. The doctrine is best known from the Supreme Court decision of griswold v. connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), where Justice william o. douglas used it to describe the concept of an individual's constitutional right of privacy. The history of the legal use of the penumbra metaphor can be traced to a federal decision written by Justice stephen j. field in the 1871 decision of Montgomery v. Bevans, 17 F.Cas. 628 (9th C.C.D. Cal.). (At the time, Field was performing circuit duty while a member of the Supreme Court.) Since the Montgomery decision, the penumbra metaphor has not been used often. In fact, more than half of its original uses can be attributed to just four judges: oliver wendell holmes, jr., learned hand, benjamin n. cardozo, and William O. Douglas. In an 1873 article on the theory of torts, Justice Holmes used the term penumbra to describe the "gray area where logic and principle falter." In later decisions, Justice Holmes developed the penumbra doctrine as representing the "outer bounds of authority emanating from a law." Justice Holmes usually used the word in an attempt to describe the need to draw Arbitrary lines when forming legislation. For instance, in the decision of Danforth v. Groton Water Co., Holmes referred to constitutional rules as lacking mathematical exactness, stating that they, "[l]ike those of the Common Law, end in a penumbra where the Legislature has a certain freedom in fixing the line, as has been recognized with regard to the police power" (178 Mass. 472, 476–77, 59 N.E. 1033, 1034 [1901]). Judge Hand expanded the meaning of the word in opinions written between 1915 and 1950 by using it to indicate the vague borders of words or concepts. He used it to emphasize the difficulty in defining and interpreting statutes, contracts, Trademarks, or ideas. Justice Cardozo's use of the penumbra metaphor in opinions written between 1934 and 1941 was similar to Holmes's application, but Justice Douglas took a different approach. Rather than using it to highlight the difficulty of drawing lines or determining the meaning of words or concepts, he used the term when he wanted to refer to a peripheral area or an indistinct boundary of something specific. Douglas's most famous use of penumbra is in the Griswold decision. In the Griswold case, appellants Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a medical professor at Yale Medical School and director of the league's office in New Haven, were convicted for prescribing contraceptive devices and giving contraceptive advice to married persons in violation of a Connecticut statute. They challenged the constitutionality of the statute, which made it unlawful to use any drug or medicinal article for the purpose of preventing conception, on behalf of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional because it was a violation of a person's right to privacy. In his opinion, Douglas stated that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and sub-stance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area. Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra." [view link]
  • Clubber
    •
    16 years ago
    Maybe someone should start collecting data, and then we can see who is Mr. IGNORED!
  • David9999
    •
    16 years ago
    David 120 - go fuck yourself OK
  • David9999
    •
    16 years ago
    I told you I have good reasons and I don't have to cite those reasons. So please FUCK OFF.
  • David9999
    •
    16 years ago
    "penumbra" effectively means The Court can do whatever the hell it wants and figure out the reasons later. I figured that out many years ago
  • njscfan
    •
    16 years ago
    David120 Don't take the other David's rude behavior personally. He's having a nervous breakdown. Go look at his bizarre rants at the end of the thread on "nonmonogamy". And no, he's never going to explain anything about his conduct on this site, because doing so would just force him to tell more lies, and he's already pretty tangled up in them.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    A nervous breakdown? Or, an alpha male marking his territory and establishing his dominance? ;) It ain't only hot fertile females who feel the brunt of the alpha male's aggressive nature. "Rude behavior" may make rivals cower while at the same time act as an aphrodisiac to the fairer sex and most certainly on ecdysiasts. If that don't work with the ladies, then brandish $5,000 worth century notes or smaller denominations, but NO pennies. If they are two or more alpha males competing for the same dancers, then sell 'em guns and bullets; utilize profits for stripper babes.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    Hi David9999, You probably don't recall, but I was critized for my lack of reviews, numerical ratings, and posting what could be thought of as reviews in the Discussion Board. Universal specks of light: 1. Seems like the majority wants those reviews! :) 2. The numerical ratings can cause undue strife. 3. Posting club experiences (reviews) can also cause undue strife. How did I respond? Definitely not in alpha man fashion. :( I gave reasons and when those reasons were rejected I gave more reasons. It became circle and evermore reasonable and the end result NO panting strippers. A simple FUCK OFF,,, couldn't have garnered fewer panting strippers and it is laconic and lancet-like. ;)
  • David9999
    •
    16 years ago
    The reality is no matter what I provide as a reason, its never going to satisfy these particular assholes. If I were judgement proof, broke, wasn't dropping 1000's over multiple months on select women in specified clubs who value the confidential nature of any contact with them, or had a rotten marriage, or were single or some combination - which seems be the categories some of the assholes fall into - my guess is that I probably would have had maybe 20 to 40 posts, perhaps alot more.
  • jablake
    •
    16 years ago
    Hi David9999, I really don't know what to say. I don't care for the focus on reviews because it seemed like the same people pushing for reviews are same people who would throw a hissey fit because I believe in rating $5 clubs with 10 star ratings. Perhaps, I'm wrong about that. I'm more than familar with the new and "improved" Tootsies and I think it was much nicer when it was a cheap hole in the wall. Now, if a clubber has money then perhaps the more expensive clubs would be more appealing to me, but that is far from a given. For my tastes RolLexx, Angels, or Cocos has more attractive dancers than Tootsies. Now, when The Trap was a white club--years ago--it seemed like the dancers they had were generally off the wall HOT so I don't think it is just a question of maybe my preferring black dancers generally. Tootsies just doesn't seem to have what I consider to be HOT dancers now that they're new and "improved."
  • MisterGuy
    •
    16 years ago
    "Maybe someone should start collecting data" You wouldn't be able to understand it anyways clubber, even AFTER someone explained it to you... "I told you I have good reasons and I don't have to cite those reasons" If they are "good" reasons, then why would you hesitate to share them? "wasn't dropping 1000's over multiple months on select women in specified clubs who value the confidential nature of any contact with them" They're STRIPPERS...it's not like you handing out money to Barbara Walters on her sly-on-the-side dancer job! "my guess is that I probably would have had maybe 20 to 40 posts, perhaps alot more." That's great...now back it up by posting some reviews! david120, njscfan...Davyboy is NOT having a nervous breakdown. This is the same way that he acted a looong time ago when I called him out on not doing any strip club reviews. It's just par for the course...
  • parodyman-->
    •
    16 years ago
    Clubber, Shadowcat has the "data" hanging in his crusty old pervert shorts. I'm sure you'll be able to find it because you've been there numerous times. If anyone should be ignored on this board it is the old fools who are only to stroke each others egos and tell people who they should ignore.
  • parodyman-->
    •
    16 years ago
    ABOVE should have read: "who are only here to stroke each other's egos..."
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion