discussion comment
16 years ago
"Our privacy policy is simple. We don't share any of your information with anyone. We will use your email address to send you pertinent information about your membership at The Ultimate Strip Club List. That's about it. If you choose to publish your email on www.tuscl.com, then other members and non-members may have access to it."
Doesn't seem like there is ANY ISSUE of founder vacating his standards relating to confidential personal data----David9999 is merely respectfully asking for a simple cross-check. NO PERSONAL DATA will be divulged by a mere confirmatory cross-check; thusly, NO standards relating to personal data would be vacated by honoring his reasonable request. Furthermore, a privacy policy should be used to protect members and NOT to harm them with sophisms for inaction or denial.
Remember TUSCL is all about customer service and this is a legitimate customer service request, imho. Perhaps in the future a service fee could be charged. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
"and they don't have either a law degree or a PhD in psychology, you are doing something dramatically wrong."
:( In either case, it is usually a desperate cry for HELP and can indicate you are doing something dramatically wrong.
Ideally, a man wastes his money on a hot female or other sex object! :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi David9999,
"Everyone has their breaking point on how many times one they can falsely be called a liar, and my breaking point in this regards was reached within the past week."
Most posters seem to find that incomprehensible due to the fact your anonymous. For them apparently it is impossible to believe an anonymous poster would care enough to get angry----they *might* feel differently if their online identity was being dragged thru the mud unjustly.
Yes, I would think FOUNDER has the necessary information to do the cross-check.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hmmm . . . maybe founder could contact David9999 at his law office. :)
OH NO, founder is NOW part of the conspiracy if he perchance confirms the truth. Dang, this is one tough pimply faced 15 year old. :) With this macho he ought waste his time hunting warm blooded females . . . and getting into the stripclubs should be a piece of cake for this wizard of deception. :) And, is there any doubt he'll get all the FREE he wants . . .
discussion comment
16 years ago
OK, already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is founder going to allow truth to win out? Anyway, if truth does perchance win out the claim may be made that David9999 merely used his super cool brother's or father's or uncle's identity information when registering. This is another problem with some conspiracy theorists, and many others, almost NO amount of proof is sufficient to the doubters. David9999 may unfortunately be condemned forever as pimply faced 15 year old boy with an over-active imagination, a bad hairdo, and a surly case of James Bond wannabeism. :,(,,,,,,,
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Huh?? Are you asking Founder to reveal your 'true identity' on this board? If so, I don't think that he's going to do that..."
No, he wants the founder to confirm that the pertinent information of record with the DCBar matches the registration information he submitted to TUSCL upon becoming a member.
For example, if the DCBar had
[email protected] and TUSCL had the same email at time of registration . . . also, maybe the physical addresses match.
discussion comment
16 years ago
OK, some people might believe there is MOUNTAIN of difference between a dancer fucking an Honorable customer who remunerates her handsomely and a dancer fucking "the owner of the club, who happens to be directly from the bottom of the barrel," because "he basically blackmailed her so she could keep her job." IOWs, she acted like most common wage slaves thus she is sub-human dirt and NOT the fine upstanding young dancer she pretended to be.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
Oh, I'm just going by memory, but perhaps other people heard the news. I think it was a Broward case and some persons exercising their supposed "freedom of speech" were convicted on different "obscenity" charges or some such anti-speech government game. Heaven forbid you watch strippers in action in the VIP room; in the wrong community----go straight to a government prison and pay government attorneys ALL your $$$.
I think WE ALL AGREE that somewhere TUSCL violates the U.S. Supreme Court's community's decency standard. ;) Maybe get some religious wackos in Alabama to prosecute Founder. Remember the highest court has given thumbs to this fun and games of telling people what is decent or not based on a "community standard." Here is a link to a different sex obscenity case:
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/AABBS_Thomases_Memphis/obscen_virtcom_stds_godwin.article
Freedom in America? Whatever.
discussion comment
16 years ago
It *probably* wouldn't have changed my view, but then I guess I'd have to know more specifics.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
Correction:
The above is just a link to an interesting story about an "internet defamation" lawsuit and how "freedom of speech" was purportedly protected.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/04/odd-news-site-slaps-back
The above is just a link to an interesting story about an "internet defamation" lawsuit and how "freedom of speech" was protected.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
I was thinking of how pathetic the supposed 1st Amendment rights truly are and how that thinking could be explained as it might extend to TUSCL. I'm NOT at attorney; and TUSCL's attorneys if there are any may have assure founder that he is protected. Well, if he believes in the American court system, then good for him! :)
Anyway, this information that TUSCL makes available: Is there any liability for providing access to such information??? For example, is a bookseller such as Paladin Press or Amazon or Loompanics (defunct) responsible for any harm that information sold by them causes? For example, you write a crime thriller that details how a murder is planned to escape punishment and some yahoo uses that information to commit a heinous crime: The bookseller should be financially liable right? It is like a person reads The Wall Street Journal and it gives a person insight on financial crime and the person uses that information to violate the law: The Wall Street Journal should be held liable right?
So enter good old TUSCL. Perhaps information contained on a blog or on the discussion group helps someone break the law: TUSCL should be held liable, right? And, better yet the court can "pierce the corporate veil" to go after the founder individually assuming he couldn't already be sued individually.
If the government's courts can effectively punish or impose liability for "unpopular" or "dangerous" speech, then does the 1st Amendment have real substance? I mean stripclubs are "dangerous" to local neigborhoods not to mention to dancers and customers. Go to Angels, Coco's, RolLexx, etc. and you may get gunned down. And, if reading TUSCL reviews helped you decide to go to one of these dangerous stripclubs, the founder should have to be held "responsible" and "liable" for damages, both compensatory and punitive plus "reasonable" attorneys' fees. :) Sorry, founder. I hope if you have any money it was well protected i.e. better protected than your supposed right to freedom of speech.
All of this is thus far just musings. Any actual case? Yep, and it was settled by Paladin Press because legal fees as well as potential liability were too much to accept by allowing litigation to drag on. Here is a link to the story:
http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/FirstAmend.htm .
discussion comment
16 years ago
Shortly, before she died my grandmother was traumatized by a little boy and little girl. I couldn't see what she describing, but she was in total fear and she wanted me to protect her, which I told her that I couldn't even see them! She was screaming they're right there! they're right there!
Later she said what had frightened her so much was that initially the little boy and little girl appeared to be very good like angels and then showed their true nature---a horrible evil leading to a life of horror. :( She was very sound of normal reality until near her death, and this same vision appeared to her a few times. And, she always reacted the same. I assume it was just her mind finally giving way as her body had done years earlier; still it put some fear in to me as I witnessed it.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Dead is dead. In the ground you lie stinkng from rot."
Well, burning in an everlasting hell of fire and brimestone for stripclubing sounds a mite bleaker. :)
*NO one* should believe this, and *I* wouldn't or shoudn't, but I've seen glimpses of the relatively immediate future. Usually, those glimpses are irrelevant or exceedingly depressing.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"CURRENTLY:
U.S. citizens need to present either (a) a passport, passport card (scheduled to be in full production beginning in July 2008), or WHTI-compliant document; or (b) a government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license, along with proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate."
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html
Shadowcat *should* know what the F, he is talking about on this issue . . . but, my strong guess is he doesn't. :) It's only if you're traveling by "air" that you need a passport. Reading your question it sounds like you're driving and NOT flying.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"US citizens may cross Canadian and Mexican borders using government-issued id like a driver's license and proof of citizenship like an embossed birth certificate until June 1, 2009."
http://studenttravel.about.com/od/uspassports/a/passports.htm
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
As I've probably typed many times, I was watching this news program on johns and prostitutes. Part of the "rehabilitation" was that the john had to admit that he was NOT interested in seeking sexual gratification from the prostitute. The so called prostitute in reality was usually an attractive government police officer on the streets to lure and entrap potential johns.
So if the john was required as part of "rehabilitation" to admit that he was NOT interested in sexual gratification, then what was he required to admit? He had to admit that he wanted to dominate and degrade his victims. That he wanted to hurt women. Gee, sounds just like *ALL stripclub customers* doesn't it? :)
So is this the so called wonderful "freedom of speech" so many believes is a secured right here in America?
I assume many of you will be yelping YAY! YAY! YAY! the government allowed the "convict" to "voluntarily" speak certain "government truths" so of course that is "freedom of speech." That is why America is the greatest country in the world!!! Hurrah!!! Hurrah!!! Now, aren't you happy veterans were protecting this "precious freedom" by dodging bullets is some far off lands?
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
Yes, I can just see my favorite dancers in a chain gang. :(
On the positive side if they get out, then perhaps they can pay society back in kind. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
It may be overly cynical of me, but I would almost have to believe that most members of Congress would realize that the South would use the terror of law to keep blacks under control and morely importantly it would be used to protect the economic system of the South.
Would the complete abolition of slavery under the unique circumstances have been too radical???
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"Offenses against the Thirteenth Amendment have not been prosecuted since 1947."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-4
It would be interesting to look at the 13th Amendment cases to see if in fact all required *enabling legislation from Congress*. My guess is that as far as 13th Amendment's enforcement not all courts required *enabling legislation*.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"The 13th Amendment 'gave Congress the power of enforcement.' Since the federal legislature had never defined what slavery is, however, the courts have been powerless."
Interesting, but I don't think that is how the courts interpreted the 13th Amendment. Besides, I think there is a whole kit-and-kaboodle of federal law that broadly defines "slavery" and that there have been convictions.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"He describes free men and women forced into industrial servitude, bound by chains, faced with subhuman living conditions and subject to physical torture. That plight was horrific. But until 1951, it was not outside the law.
All it took was anything remotely resembling a crime. Bastardy, gambling, changing employers without permission, false pretense, “selling cotton after sunsetâ€: these were all grounds for arrest in rural Alabama by 1890. And as Mr. Blackmon explains in describing incident after incident, an arrest could mean a steep fine. If the accused could not pay this debt, he or she might be imprisoned.
Alabama was among the Southern states that profitably leased convicts to private businesses. As the book illustrates, arrest rates and the labor needs of local businesses could conveniently be made to dovetail."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/books/10masl.html?_r=2&ref=arts&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"Yet as I moved from one county courthouse to the next in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, I concluded that such assumptions were fundamentally flawed. That was a version of history reliant on a narrow range of official summaries and gubernatorial archives created and archived by the most dubious sources—southern whites who engineered and most directly profited from the system. It overlooked many of the most significant dimensions of the new forced labor, including the centrality of its role in the web of restrictions put in place to suppress black citizenship, its concomitant relationship to debt peonage and the worst forms of sharecropping, and an exponentially larger number of African Americans compelled into servitude through the most informal—and tainted—local courts. The laws passed to intimidate black men away from political participation were enforced by sending dissidents into slave mines or forced labor camps. The judges and sheriffs who sold convicts to giant corporate prison mines also leased even larger numbers of African Americans to local farmers, and allowed their neighbors and political supporters to acquire still more black laborers directly from their courtrooms. And because most scholarly studies dissected these events into separate narratives limited to each southern state, they minimized the collective effect of the decisions by hundreds of state and local county governments during at least a part of this period to sell blacks to commercial interests."
http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/excerpt
discussion comment
16 years ago
Normally, it is just about the money. At least that is my experience and even if it isn't about the money doesn't mean there is a real connection----her act, if it is an act, could be done for her own reasons.