Comments by Book Guy (page 6)

In the late 80s and throughout the 90s there was a direct line from Eastern Europe, including but not limited to Russia, directly to the Toronto airport-area strip clubs and to the high-service clubs North of Toronto. Most had a dance background, which is why they were allowed into Canada for that line of work, a real loophole in the rules enforcement at the time. I'm sure they eventually closed it but for a while it meant that a lot of artsy young women, who knew darn well what they were getting themselves into, would fly over for six-month guest visas and make a lot of money stripping. Most were built like former ballerinas, but a bit more soft, no striations but a very long line to their legs and body. For me that was ideal. Small breasted, long-necked, and wise about men. I really got to like them, they looked younger than their worldly experience might have belied, they had this other-worldly air that wasn't exactly Mandarin or Mongolian but somehow slightly sloe-eyed, like, a mix of European class and Central Asian exoticness. I haven't encountered a lot of Russian girls like that, ever since then. But it was great while it lasted.

@whodey Your citation of my sentence ("claiming T is a threat" etc.) LEAVES OUT HALF OF IT. If you're going to quote me, don't quote me falsely. I was stating that the people who think X do not ALSO think Y, where X is "he is a threat to democracy" and Y is "he needs to be shot." If you leave out Y, pretend your false version of X is representative, and from that you then say I am misunderstanding the nature of truth (by saying X must be true because people think it), you're simply deliberately misrepresenting my statements. This type of issue avoidance and subterfuge are reasons I consistently fail to find Republican arguments convincing -- they're hiding. You're hiding right now. Here is my FULL SENTENCE -- "Claiming Trump is a "threat to democracy" is a true statement, in the minds of people who view his attempt to prevent the legitimate certification of a valid election as a threat to democracy, but that claim does not equate to demanding that he be shot." Here is how you FRAUDULENTLY ATTEMPTED TO LIE ABOUT MY SENTENCE -- ""Claiming Trump is a "threat to democracy" is a true statement, in the minds of people who view his attempt to prevent the legitimate certification of a valid election as a threat to democracy." That is not how the truth works, something can't be "true" only if someone holds a certain belief. " You knew, damned well, I wasn't claiming your stupid idea about how I supposedly think truth works. You just didn't want to have to deal with the actual content of my sentence, so you left out the part you can't handle. You lied, either to yourself or to the world at large, about what I said, misrepresented it by making something up, and then pointed out an obvious weakness of the thing you made up. What a surprise, a thing I didn't say is wrong. It's wrong because you made it up. Stop lying. Especially about things I said less than an hour ago, because it's not like I'm not going to notice. I'll be more likely to agree with you if you address the sentences I actually say instead of the made-up ones I didn't say. I wanted a fair discussion, a chance to really understand. I hear these smart-seeming people make statements I find silly, I try to ask them why they're saying the things they're saying. But they just deliberately mis-quote me, fling invective at me, use obvious non-sequiturs and logical fallacies, and then complain that "libtards are dumb." Shit, I'm TRYING to give you a chance to HELP ME AGREE WITH YOU but you won't take that chance at face value and actually talk some sense into me. The reason you won't talk sense into me, is, most likely, that your positions don't hold up to sense. If you think otherwise, use reason, don't misquote me, don't assume the worst of me, don't impute positions to me that I don't hold on scant evidence, don't treat me like I'm stupid (sadly, I'm not) or like I've fallen for propaganda. Explain politely. You can't, can you? Especially, don't just outright lie. It's too damn obvious.

sorry I just didn't get your point about attractive women in other jobs, I got your point about enthusiasm

Quick replies, but thank you for starting to try to convince. I don't think of assassinations (or attempts) as insurrections. They're illegal too. I can't defend the Woke idiots, I don't try. There have been other riots, too, Watts and Rodney King and George Floyd events etc.. They weren't ever in the political discourse as "insurrections" until Trump had his and his defenders therefore needed something to compare to. There's something categorically different between, on the one hand, a crowd taking over a neighborhood with intent to vandalize and express anger, as opposed to, on the other hand, a crowd taking over building with intent to stop the functioning of election certification. And I didn't defend Biden and don't want to. I'm sure he would claim that the "bullseye" comment was only a figure of speech and that everyone should know that, but he may be wrong (similar language was used before the G. Giffords attack by her by political opponents IIRC, possibly inciting a crazy dude to do the shooting). I'm referencing, generally, the fact that language seems to be going in both directions and that you could therefore make an equal case for either Right or Left "causing" this particular event; in addition, I would say that neither is a true culprit. Claiming Trump is a "threat to democracy" is a true statement, in the minds of people who view his attempt to prevent the legitimate certification of a valid election as a threat to democracy, but that claim does not equate to demanding that he be shot. Generally, most anti-gun people prefer things to be NOT shot. It's Trump's side that likes guns. But maybe that doesn't convince you?

Sorry you can't follow, misterorange. So, umm, yeah, you're doing such a great job of convincing me to agree with you. Suggestion: accelerate your mind in order to keep up with those whose minds are moving faster than yours, out of simple self-preservation, because it's unlikely that they'll decelerate their minds in order to keep down with yours. Looking for clear reasoning as to why Democrats are to blame for the regrettable assassination attempt on Trump today. I believe it is a wrong act and I believe this sort of thing happens, sadly, independent of vilification in campaigns, which happens sometimes more sometimes less, in either direction Left or Right. Doctorevil, it DID incite violence, and Trump damn well knew it would. That was his intent. To "stop the steal." (Or, he didn't know it would incite violence because he's too stupid to put on his own pants.) Jan 6 can't be whitewashed. I didn't need it and shouldn't have raised it, for I wrongly assumed truth would matter to you. If you believe that Trump can get off the legal charge of incitement to violence, that's one thing, and I may (or may not) agree with you, it's a close case. But if you genuinely believe he did not prefer, want, benefit from, and intend that violence? If that's your belief, I'd be amazed at how simpering and simping you are for him. He wanted it, he caused it, he may or may not have done so illegally, but don't pretend he didn't direct it.

Want to know why I can't bring myself to vote Right? All my life I've tried to vote Right, and all my life fucks like these people have prevented me. It's not the Right that I dislike, it's the Republicans. So, first, Jesus that's even better, much more rational, about murdering a baby in the womb, sure, that's completely apropos an assassination attempt. Now I'm DEFINITELY agreeing with you, misterorange. C'mon whodey, are you really going to try to claim that (a) specific orders from a chief executive given to a specific assembled group whom you specifically asked to be armed, orders followed within minutes of them being given, are the same as (b) public commentary by various entertainment figures on a variety of channels over a four-year (or eight?) span distributed piecemeal and often in humorous monologues? I'm (again) surprised anybody would pretend Trump didn't send the mob to the Capitol building, didn't know they'd riot. Look at the videos, read the transcripts (as advised by doctorevil). Here's one analysis -- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437 But just for the sake of argument, I'll concede those points to you. Because they were UTTERLY IMMATERIAL TO MY OVERALL POINT that vilification happens in both directions. If you'd read my comments you'd understand my argument and know that going off on January 6 specifically, is going off on an unnecessary tangent. Two of you (so far) have heard that Right-winger's dog-whistle ("don't let the Left use REALITY against us, especially about January 6!") and have salivated as commanded. You were told to suck Trump's cock, you sucked away and begged to know whether he wanted it harder or deeper. Man up, jeez, do your own thinking for a minute. Take my example. I actually accept sense from either side of the aisle. Are you capable of that cognitive act? So, as conceded, nevertheless, it remains the case that generally speaking, Left and Right vilify (or don't) to varying degrees in various campaigns, and that (my point) armed attacks happen independent of that level of vilification. I'm sorry I piped up. I offered a laurel branch of peace, generally asserting compassion and sympathy for the victims and generally rejecting political violence. I congratulated Trump on his leadership and wherewithal and referenced him as an "alpha." I suggested personal responsibility instead of victimhood. All these are Right Wing talking points. Yet I was met with anger and disapprobation and outright lies about January 6. The American Right Wing has spoken again. Consistently I live a life of attempted tolerance to opposing views, consistently the Right throws right back in my face my own interest in giving them their fair opportunity to convince me otherwise. As I stated, "But I guess if you can make a cogent case for the Democrats deserving blame, I'm willing to reconsider." You have not. You have, in fact, proven my initial position. You've offered "if you ..." silly suggestions -- straw men, taking an irrational position and suggesting I should agree with it (banning cars? fer fucks sakes). You don't even know my position on gun control, yet you assume the worst of me. You won't win me over by doing that. Again and again, I offer the opportunity for rational discussion. Again and again right-wingers lie and obfuscate. Anybody suggesting I'm out to ban guns is simply uninformed. Anybody suggesting Trump had nothing to do with the worst insurrection since the Civil War of the 1860s is simply lying, either to himself or to the world at large. Get me some cogent, sensible comments about why Democrats are to blame, why they're MORE to blame than Republicans, and I'll listen. Write them politely without bullshit. And use facts. Ignore January 6, it's immaterial to the discussion, unless you think you need it. If you have the ability to write something cogent. Please give it a try.

"We're all going to go down there"

@ilbbaicnl I'm not sure I understand where you're going with the thought about "most attractive women." I can't quite follow the connections between attraction, low-paid jobs, and enthusiasm, sorry. But yeah, a LOT of the advice could be summed up as, "please do a lot of the obvious things that will improve your likelihood of pleasing the customer, therefore will maximize your value in their eyes, therefore will increase your income." In other words, for a lot of the advice, all we're really saying is -- pay more attention / put in more effort / get more enthusiastic (as you put it) / stop being so lazy. Some of the things may be distasteful to the girls, in which case, their failure to do it may be a considered trade-off. She may actually have thought, "I do want the money but I'm not going to do THAT particular thing for it." For those things (which are all different for each girl) it's a different calculus (IF she's even bothering to do the calculus). And for a few other pointers, she may be energetic but she's misunderstanding something (like, if we advise her to stop prattling on and on, it's not her lack of enthusiasm we're complaining about; or if we say we don't really care about Broadway style dance routines on stage, we're simply pointing out that our priorities don't align with that sort of thing, although we thank her for her enthusiasm). But that's a rare pointer. Most are not about her being active but misdirected. Most are about her being inactive. Mostly what we're asking for here, is that she be aware and present.

Excellent cogent response which certainly urges me to consider the merits of your side, misterorange. Well done. :)

So Manuel you gave up clubs 11 days ago but didn't give up TUSCL? You'll be sorely tempted ... :)

I can imagine the new MAGA hat design with extra van Gogh gauze padding just over the right ear ... (just kidding ... sorry, too soon?) I'm not with anybody who "wants" this to happen. But I'm very surprised (like, literally, "surprised" as in, I did not expect or anticipate it) at a lot of the rhetoric on this particular thread that says that the Democrats somehow fomented this attack by vilifying Trump. I'm sorry, I don't agree. Vilification has happened in both directions in most campaigns throughout our nation's history. Some campaigns are nasty, some are nice. Independent of that, the crazy guy sometimes shoots at the Left, sometimes shoots at the Right, and there's really no correlation between vilification and whether there's a shooting. Furthermore, generally, everyone here would have to agree, the side that wants to curtail gun use through government restrictions is the Left, and the side that wants to reduce government restrictions on gun use is the Right. And, again everyone here would have to agree, on January 6, a sitting President urged an armed crowd to storm the Capitol building. So it makes only as much sense to say "Trump (and the Republicans) brought this on him" as to say "the Democrats brought this on him." There's plenty of evidence for both. BTW, I don't think either is true. They're both pretty irrational. Crazy dude with gun did the thang. He probably has an agenda, we'll probably get to read his dang political manifesto probably posted on MySpace or Instagram, and furthermore it probably rambles a lot about the fact that he is angry at the hot girl who wouldn't go out with him in Junior High because he was a smelly creep and never had the courage to ask her out anyway. Maybe it was Alec Baldwin. In the threads about Baldwin people are pretty quick to say that whoever holds the gun is responsible for the gun. Maybe we should keep that in mind. I am -- Glad he didn't get seriously harmed. Very sorry for the one dead spectator. A little miffed that people are taking this occasion to try to irrationally blame Democrats. But I guess if you can make a cogent case for the Democrats deserving blame, I'm willing to reconsider. Also, I am impressed with the fist pump and chant reaction. Dude realized he was being shot at, hit the deck pretty quick of his own accord, promptly realized he had just survived an assassination attempt ("I need my shoes"), used it to rally (and reassure) the crowd immediately. The ego / bravado / leadership of a person used to being viewed by a crowd as the alpha. I'll freely admit Biden would not have been so on-the-ball if he had been similarly grazed in the ear.

I'm with Snowtime, the thing that reduces my interest the most is the absence of dancers who are appealing to me. I might describe this trend as "decline in dancer quality" but I suppose a more diplomatic description would be "changes in the population's general preferences regarding dancer characteristics." Either way, the thrill is gone, to some extent, but this is through no function (I think?) of my ageing. I do quit when it's not fun any more. I have done so, intermittently, several times over the years. I didn't really club much (or any) from about 2010 to about 2020, for example. I can't name the statistics specifically but I would say that the total number of times I attended a club in one year, say f.e. 2005, would probably be more than the number of times for the other entire decade from '10 to '20. I go through droughts and floods. Usually the thing that changes my approach is, that it becomes fun again. Ageing hasn't really changed that.

@ Puddy Tat "Problem is, both sides are of the rich. More classically the Republicans, but now the Democrats own college-educated coastal voters who are more concerned with pushing luxury beliefs than helping the working man. I don't think Trump will do much for the working man, other than curtailing immigration which exerts downward prices on wages, but he at least doesn't hold people who shoot guns and attend church in contempt." This is all true and sums up the sea-change in political poles. I'm ready to kick some Democrat strategists in the head for their stupidity on this obvious point.

Actually I'm getting the impression the withholding was deliberate, long-term, and carefully orchestrated. Whether the evidence is ACTUALLY helpful to the defense or not is beside the point. It could have POTENTIALLY been helpful. When I worked as a prosecutor our boss' instructions on turning over evidence to discovery motions was "give 'em your underwear!" Turn over everything. Keep nothing held back. The case-law (Brady v Maryland and related and their progeny) require that prosecutors have to give to defense any evidence that might help defense, and that the remedy for any failure to do so is to be at maximum level of harshness in order to incentivize future turning over. Case dismissal with prejudice -- same as not-guilty verdict, jeopardy attached. I heard as well hints that the lead prosecutor had resigned from prosecution in order that she could testify against herself (thereby in the State's behalf) that none of the withheld stuff would have been useful. They were doing double-backflips to play some kind of game which backfired on them.

Brady violations are a bitch

Agreed on the "real" rules.

@puddy tat there's a paywall to that article, I don't do ft online @mate27 I agree on your statement about the haves vs the have-nots. I'll add to it, that the supreme idiocy of the Biden camp is radically displayed by their inability to either gesture doing anything about it, or even recognize that the income disparity exists. It took his people MUCH TOO LONG to talk him down from making positive statements about Bidenomics. I vote Democrat almost 100% of the time but I'm profoundly disappointed that this party doesn't do much for the common man any more.

Heard something somewhere about instability, thought it was a wise comment and a paradigm shift for my thinking. It went like this. A. the traditional thinking has always been that stock markets (and investors) thrive on stability B. Trump is the poster-child for instability C. but some modern businesses have opted in favor of instability because they have learned that they can actually profit exceptionally off of it Whether you support or oppose Trump, the above is interesting long-view analysis of the economic impact of the "new world view" that comes along with the MAGA movement. News outlets that benefit from distributing extreme views fuel his rise; deliberate divisiveness supports his political chances; a prediction of capricious and unpredictable market governance decisions would SEEM to motivate the moderate or conservative investor to avoid voting for him; but there's money to be made in the context of all that madness. I had always assumed, all my adult investing life, that whichever candidate is best for stability (boring!) is probably best for the investment markets (stocks futures funds bonds metals you-name-it). But maybe the new world order means that this stability assumption is no longer true.

@Puddy Tat yes, as I said, "Plenty of girls break that rule" but I was investigating why they made the rule in the first place. In my experience, if you ASK the rules, in may places you'll get (among a bunch of other palaver) something explicit about no titty licking or sucking, for which the level of pro-active rule-making detail surprised me. Didn't mean to say you couldn't (nearly always) still get away with doing it. @skibum609 I'll buy that property in Moab thank you.

Amen to the Candy Crush comment.

I am assuming "CR" means "C(something) Room", therefore refers to the private dance region of the club. I would guess "Champagne." Attendance is well down over the past two decades. For example, if a club had a crowd in 2005 of 15 dancers to 25 patrons, in 2024 now it would have about 10 dancers to 8 patrons. Further, in 2005 of the 15 dancers roughly 95% were likely to be valid appearance-wise, whereas today in 2024 of the 10 dancers only roughly 50% meet appearance minimum standards. A few clubs I'm familiar with seem to be getting mildly looser about what happens (or what gets OFFERED to happen) in the private rooms, but the clubs have undergone similar trajectories of licentiousness and restriction in the past. I can't identify a general trend of recent changes toward looseness or strictness given that I know the full pendulum swings of the past 25 or 30 (or more!) years for most of these clubs. I'd say the loosest times were the middle 1990s for SOME clubs, which operated essentially as brothels, with a watershed moment some time in the 2000s for each club when its looseness got permanently shut down. But for other clubs, there have been strict and loose times in about 5-year increments changing throughout those decades and not necessarily andy specific watershed moments.

Isn't this question more about the city where you live than about your personal preferences? If there were six decent clubs in my town, my rotation would probably include six, but because I find the New Orleans clubs to be over-priced and under-serving, I only "rotate" to one of them. (Is it even a "rotation" if you don't change places?) Visions is the only place worth going to from my house, unless you get on an airplane first. When I lived in the Tampa Bay area my rotation, after a year or more of scouting out the options, was about six or eight, I guess. This is because six or eight were worth going to. I'd almost always hit Pink Pony (a bit further South of the current location, but still in Drew Park) and Ybor Strip, usually went to Seven Seas if a certain porn-performer-dancer was expected to be working that night, would "drop in" at Mons Venus and/or 2001 Odyssey for super-hottie eye-candy (but only with full knowledge of the disadvantages of these places), often hit Gold Club, Deja Vu, and/or another of the warehouse-building clubs out on the East end of town, never went to Penthouse or Thee Doll House, always made sure to make at least one trip to any new place the instant it hit the TUSCL radar, and (when it was open) definitely patronized Tanga. Good ol' Tanga, Courtney Campbell Causeway, had its own stoplight in the middle of the tidal Bay. And there were other locations that could have been described as semi-regular, two of which were in Pinellas County, Diamond Dolls (still open, still rather lame) and something that's not there any more (Google maps tells me it's been replaced by a Thornton's gas station), name was Pinellas Showgirls or similar IIRC ... When I lived in Toronto I rotated about eight there, too. I hated Filmore's, attended Brass Rail with touristing friends only by compulsion, but liked Scores and Club Pro (I remember opening night there! maybe thirty years ago? yeesh I'm old ...) and Whiskey A Go Go, would sometimes go to Airport (not to be confused with Landing) Strip and Million Dollar Saloon, old Locomotion before New Locomotion existed, Landing (not to be confused with Airport) Strip, and would make special daytime trips to go solely to House of Lancaster II (Bloor Street). If I made it to Niagara Falls I would ignore all other options, including the intimately neighboring Sundowner, in favor of Seductions, appropriately called "Suctions" by most. But all these pale in comparison to Fantasia (Richmond Hill), forever my Mecca. Is that eight? PS Hello to The Cat ...

Boobie sucking. Personally I think it's both harmless and not an extra. But it's strictly precluded by the official rules for brothels and window-girls in Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and other typical monger destinations in Europe. Plenty of girls break that rule but there must be something to why they made the rule against it -- maybe so many girls objected (guys being too toothy?) that it was a concession to the girls' lobbyists; or maybe it really is a major disease-transmission vector, sharing saliva. I really don't see the latter of those as reasonable, the swab-off for hygiene would be so simple. I like it and want it and therefore do not consider it an extra, it should be definitely an assumed part of the package with no extra fees or special services implied.

Thanks for the info gammanu, so I'm learning, that it's usual movie procedure that the gun-shooter is responsible for taking his own steps to make sure the gun is harmless. I had assumed otherwise, as have most of the people I've talked to in non-internet life (of which I have scant little, but at least some). We're all of the (wrong) impression that for any movie the gun's harmlessness is absolutely sure in the first place. I'd think that a movie maker would want a gun that can't hurt. But I'm getting the impression that they need functioning guns which they then somehow limit the hurtfulness of. Why one earth would people who make movies want to use guns that can hurt people? Seems a bit over the top. Jurassic Park didn't actually clone dinosaurs just so they could film them.

@misterorange OK so it WAS a real gun. But did Baldwin THINK it was fake? Is there some way to know the difference between fake guns and real guns? (I mean, I know there are SOME fakes that are obvious. But a kid recently pointed a convincing fake at a cop and got killed by the cop who reasonably thought it was real, so there are certainly some fakes that fool some experienced people.) Main question. Did Baldwin believe it was a fake gun that would cause no harm? Next question. If he did believe this, then he is not guilty, right? Or maybe not ...