Comments by Book Guy (page 7)

@RonJax ... yeah I have thought off and on about visiting Tijuana. Something in it doesn't really appeal to me, I can't put my finger on it. I'm not averse to Latinas, though i don't necessarily find them any more or less appealing than any other ethnicity. I think I would have been quite excited to visit TJ about twenty years ago, but now the "down and dirty" type of mongering doesn't appeal to me as much. I wouldn't so no to a trip there if the logistics happened to arrange themselves on their own. If I'm going to do a North American monger trip, lately I've been thinking in terms of three destinations, Pompano Beach FL (I've been there a couple of times, so I vaguely know my way around), Inkster / Detroit MI (never been) or Toronto (used to live there). Would you strongly recommend TJ over any of those? For what reasons?

I don't understand the theory of the case at all. It just seems a no-brainer to me, that Baldwin had no legal agency here. I may be wrong, please inform me. I got the impression, generally speaking, that Baldwin was filming a scene which called for him to perform the action of shooting someone, and that in so doing, he was holding what he sensibly thought was a fake gun (a "prop" gun = "properties of the movie"). The script (so I guess) says that Baldwin's character points the gun and pulls the trigger and the other actor's character gets shot. This happens in movies a lot. All the actors and director etc. etc. leave it up to the properties people to set up the fake gun. In this case, Baldwin uses the fake gun, as intended, all the while assuming it will be fake. But it turns out to work like a real gun, much to his surprise. Why is he guilty of anything other than simply expecting the movie to be filmed the way all movies are filmed? Didn't he get surprised by the fact that the gun worked like a real gun? Was he somehow AWARE that the gun was not fake? Was he clued in to the fact that it would kill? If, instead, he genuinely thought it was fake, then how on earth would he film the scene in any other manner than pointing the gun and pulling the trigger? If he's guilty and yet thought the gun was fake, this means we can never again have any movie with a shooting in it because all filmed shootings are attempted murders. Maybe I don't know all the facts, in which case please enlighten me. But I see people on this thread (two years ago) saying that because (a) he was holding the gun he must therefore (b) be guilty. No, he was holding WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A FAKE GUN. I don't get how the mere act of holding it makes him the guilty one. If instead he knew it was going to be real (or work like a real gun); or he's responsible for loading it and chose non-fake bullets; or he's the one who commanded it to be loaded with non-fake bullets; or he changed the script which never called for him pulling the trigger, and ad-libbed the trigger-pull on his own; or ... any of a number of other scenarios, then yes, maybe he's guilty. But if he genuinely (a) thought the gun was fake, therefore harmless, he must be, as far as I can tell, (b) entirely innocent of attempting or intending to cause harm. But a lot of people here, many of whom may be intelligent guys with common sense, seem to think Baldwin ought to be found guilty. Right now I can't understand that at all. Will one of those intelligent guys with common sense please explain how Baldwin could be guilty if he really thought the gun was fake? I am genuinely asking. If you rant back at me with "you idiot" type responses you will lose a great deal of the opportunity to convince me of the validity of your side. If instead you explain something that I don't understand, we might come to an agreement of one sort or another.

Saints and sinners

And, I used to go to Mons Venus and/or 2001 Odyssey pretty regularly in the early 2000s, but always found them both to be under-performing in terms of mileage. They were both full nude and generally had super-duper-super-super-hotty-perfect women dancing so they were worth the trip, and perhaps the grinding lappers, but you probably weren't going to get decent higher levels of service at either except once in a rare while YMMV.

I always associated the 2001 Odyssey's "spaceship" room with the Flying Saucer Restaurant in Niagara Falls, Ontario. https://flyingsaucerrestaurant.com/ But it turns out the restaurant is not exactly the same futuro-home as the strip club.

Fishnet hangs on buttons and fingernails, agreed. Neon fishnet seems to be all the rage right now. Remember a few years ago when it was absolutely necessary to wear Hello-Kitty and similar Japanese manga type stuff? What's next?

@RonJax2 Yeah I'd already seen that thread, thanks though. I'm looking for the non-TUSCL resources, if such exist, thanks! PM if necessary. :)

But as I have heard it (though I've never personally been to TJ) the BT location is rougher on the girls, because the bouncers / managers / etc. take much greater advantage. Getting to HK is getting to where you get respect and are treated properly in your work environment ... or, at least a little more so. This I have read (somewhere?). Your superior experience requested.

@puddy 'round here the girls don't do full-nude on stage, that's not the system. I don't know if it's a required regulation or just the way things are "normally" don. Generally they have a double-layered outfit, one layer of which is removed during a two- or three-song set; another layer of which is removed for their bar-top or main-floor stroll. So, mostly, you'll see a girl in a bikini and some stuff on top of it, and she'll get down to the bikini by the end of her multi-song stage-set. Then she'll be topless to stroll the bar for dollar-tips. If you take her to a more private section, she'll have even less on. If she were to take it all off initially, then she wouldn't have enough to remove subsequently. I tell all this just to make the point that the girl basically doesn't always have choice in how disrobed she gets. There are requirements and assumptions in place, and at the NOLa clubs they pretty much prevent nudity on stage.

@skibum609 lawyer stuff here ... I had a similar experience, when I hid the mistake for a senior attorney who had screwed up a criminal defense. Got club funny money. The details. We were mostly a small insurance and tort litigation firm but in this case we were defending an already-established client against a minor criminal charge. Senior attorney failed to serve prosecutors with a Motion for Discovery, yet then (having received no reply) asserted before the wrong judge (a.k.a. "in the wrong section") that we had received no answer to our motion for discovery from prosecutors. (Contributing to his mistake was, probably, the fact that Orleans Parish Louisiana has two entirely different courthouse buildings, with two entirely different sets of judges, Criminal District Court and Civil District Court. Easy to assume that things from the other building would have happened in the one you're familiar with.) Amazing part was, after he figured it out and re-presented the objection in the proper section, the proper judge for our case accepted his objection that prosecution had failed to respond, without looking for whether or not we had actually filed the motion that they supposedly hadn't responded to. (Second mistake played successful smoke-screen to hide first mistake.) Prosecutors couldn't figure it out, they had bigger fish to fry, they were new kids and pretty quickly just offered "doh, our bad, probably, don't know what happened" type averrals, so judge dismissed entire case with prejudice, ostensibly to make a point (e.g. "you prosecutors! don't fail to reply to discovery motions!") (IIRC it was first possession MJ so nobody violent was getting loose). Despite the fact that I knew this was subterfuge (presenting falsehoods to the court, an ethical violation), nevertheless because I was less than five years into my law license I would not have been liable for it, as only the supervising senior would be. So I could have piped up, alerted judge to initial mistake, thus condemning my superior attorney while not prejudicing my client and thereby keeping my own ethical fingers squeaky cleaner than they would be if I remained silent. Off the cuff I figured it out and, thinking on my feet, I didn't raise a peep. Senior attorney instantly knew it. He said on record something like, "Mister XXXbook-guyXXX has only three years on his license, judge, let's leave it at that," and our side and probably the judge all knew what the fuck was going on but their side didn't. I remember turning my head hard to the side to avoid eye contact because I didn't think I could have kept a straight face. Anyway, apropos the topic, as "thank you" the firm (or was it directly from the senior atty?) gave me a funny-money debit card (IIRC it was just $400?) for a Bourbon Street club (had the club logo, not good anywhere else) and I was told to (paraphrasing) "solicit potential criminal defense clients and report back if anything looks promising." I'm sure this kind of back-scratching between old screw-ups and the judges who were their classmates goes on all the time, especially if the ultimate outcome of a case (non-violent silly charges get dismissed, f.e.) is reasonable anyway. I'm not sure how regularly that firm used Bourbon Street funny-money cards as incentives for younger male associates. I would have appreciated more of them.

Can anybody direct us to the better mongering information banks for Detroit info? Aside from TUSCL, is there a better and a worse way to find those aforementioned MILFs and GILFS?

For mongering, Toronto (in specific, Mississauga and Etobicoke and similar Western suburbs near-ish the main airport, Lester Pearson YYZ). For culture and non-mongering, I gotta give a shout out to Ottawa. A delightful city. Wonderful canal ice-skating in the winters, wonderful interstate bicycling in the summers, fried-bread things called "beaver tails" with all sorts of toppings, goddamned tulips everywhere (look up the story), government buildings, major cultural institutions especially national fine-arts museum, tulips, cliff-face over the river for nature parks and mild white-water excursions, mountains and cottages in easy reach, granite and greenery, a couple of large universities and of course all the civil servants so it's a relatively well educated population, and did I mention the tulips? But for strip clubs, Ottawa is marginally lame. I'm sure escorting goes well there, it's tangentially legal in Canada (or, at least, tolerated) and there are all those traveling diplomats so there must be something to that scene, but it doesn't seem to be in nudie bars.

here https://tuscl.net/discussion/85140#comment1362386 and here https://tuscl.net/discussion/84976#comment1359218

In a sort of sneaky backwards way, push-up bras can really be dreadful, when it turns out the girl has extremely saggy tits.

i read exactly this post from exactly this poster some time recently ... SOMEwhere ...

Fat girls in tight outfits. Knock it off! If you're zaftig with large breasts, wear slinky long-lined things which accentuate the curves. (If you're zaftig with small breasts, stop dancing.)

explain please wtf is a "dance count"

I don't know what "lawfare" means, but if anyone's complaining about the "weaponizing" of the FBI then they're a frickin' idiot. The ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of having a BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION is that they ARE THE WEAPON OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. When the evidence points to a crime, the investigation should continue. When it doesn't it shouldn't. So far we have a double-standard. Encouraging a mob to arm itself and storm the Capitol building is a crime. Duh.

you did notice the article is more than a decade old?

unclear on the "even after i ran over a bird in flight" motorcycle comment, seems like you're referencing something specific?

Funny point, ilbbaicnl, we'd have to consider what "internet" meant in 1789 as well. Not sure what skibum609's logical procedure is, in this case, for how he got rationally from the first part of his sentence ("we start of[f]") to the latter part ("progressives are ... douchebags"). Evidently he thinks this evidence somehow is "proving once and for all" that conclusion; the absence of reasoning thereby demonstrating the fact that logical connection is entirely unnecessary for him. I can confirm porn is more restricted when browsing from Louisiana. The front pages of Pornhub and Spankbang redirect automatically to an age-verification requirement of sorts. Funny thing, the previews are still available on the search engines. So if you search for videos on Bing or Google, you'll see dirty stills and even, if you mouse-hover, moving images with sound; but then if you actually click the link, you'll get to a block-out page that demands age verification. Pornhub is up front about it, stating that your location's laws require you to verify; what you see is a blurred front page of Pornhub with an overlay rectangle requiring login credentials. Spankbang is more intrusive; it silently redirects the browser to their paid video-chat-style pages, which are at .xxx rather than .com; you may not even know why you've been redirected unless you suss it out yourself by carefully examining the rewritten URL. I note with some smugness that this state has not had the gall to attempt to control Google or Bing on the issue, the dirty images remain in the search results without age verification. Of course, this state has its own age-verification service. Personally I'd never turn over private info just so I could tell a government authority I was interested in viewing porn. "Hi there mister policeman, I want you to write me down as a creepy miscreant so the next time you need a scapegoat for some random up-state child-molestation case you can't solve, I'll be first in line to help you frame me. Just look up my credentials!" Nope. And adding to the irony, Louisiana's three main government databases for consumer private info (porn viewing; motor vehicle registration; land title service) were all hacked, each on a different occasion, within six months of the start of this anti-porn system. Further, internet users nearby, f.e. in the panhandle of Florida, report as well that their proximity to blocked locations sometimes get them blocked even though they aren't in a legally blocked jurisdiction. It's easy to use a very simple VPN, which simply makes your computer pretend that you're somewhere else. I don't think any of this internet porn-blockage is going to survive constitutional challenges. There's good precedent that it's the Federal government which is in charge of inter-state commerce, including precedent addressing specifically shipment of adult magazines and books, on both Commerce Clause grounds and First Amendment freedom of speech grounds. It seems pretty much a no-brainer. Some suits are already pending. And with this current court, who knows, maybe Clarence has an axe to grind because his big ol' black cock didn't get him the sponsorship deal from Brazzers which he and Ginny auditioned for.

Better bring some antibiotics with you ...

... a bit confused ... didn't mean to insult anyone sorry, maybe ilbbaicnl is referencing puddy-tat's intervening comment ("weed up their ass")? I can agree, it's def. about my choices and my own inabilities (and some luck etc.). Thought that was my point ...

I've never lost my phone but now that Microsoft requires the Authenticator App I'm really paranoid about that possibility. Pisses me off, the MS people don't seem to think clearly when they impose these restrictions on all their customers. Why on earth would my data be MORE safe by tying its security up to a thing I habitually stick in my pocket and drag to the gas station or grocery store? That's not MORE, that's LESS secure. I have lost my eyeglasses, more than once. As I have cut back on drinking I have become less liable to depart without them.

@Manuellabore no I didn't list a screed of things a single guy thinks marriage causes people to sacrifice, I genuinely asked other people to share their list. I concede that it was overly long.