Comments by Rlionheart (page 6)

How about Andraste - http://www.thewhitegoddess.co.uk/the_goddess/andraste_-_the_warrior_goddess.asp

No but I bet it is a fairly easy mistake to make

Was at a club in Davenport and it was in really poor condition. I was at the stage with a friend and mentioned to him that "this place is really a dump". As soon as the dancer finished the set, she went to the manager who then had me escorted out as he "Didn't want me to have to sit in his dump" Ooops!

Not a line - most experienced dancers see through that in a quick minute. Best? Treat the dancer with courtesy and only give compliments where or when they are deserved.

Since I'm not buying this, where is the other shoe?

Alucard - your first comment says it all

It's happened a few times and the quality of dance that occurred was superficial at best. If I now hear a dancer want to start mid song, that is the end of the transaction.

Happy Birthday, Christal - and best wishes for many, many more. As our Irish friens say: “May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind be ever at your back. May the sun shine warm upon your face and the rain fall softly on your fields. And until we meet again, May God hold you in the hollow of his hand.”

F_D There is no stuck up bitch in you. Christal- Great Question! For what its worth: I think the "rain" bit is adolescent. But - what ever floats your boat. I have a question. Usually, at any strip club, I sit at a table a couple of rows back from the stage. If a dancer invies me up, of course I go, but otherwise, I'll get up and lay a couple of bills on the stage and go back to my table. If a dancer sits down at my table, I'll enjoy her company but will continue to lay bills on the stage, because I think it's rude to sit there like a lump and not show some disceet appreciation for their efforts. I also expalin that to the dancer with me so she understands that I am not uninterested in ehat she is doing/saying.

Bravo on the crusade Doc H - If society would stop wasting money on many forms of vise activity such as enforcement on all forms of gambling, drugs, sex trade, and manage them to a certain minimum standard, You'd get better quality, reduced criminal influence, better conditions and enough extra tax revenue to eliminate the national debt and buy China lock, stock and barrel.

Looneylarry And if we simplfy the tax code, we put so many people out of work that we go into a depression for sure :>). I have always thought that the complexity of the code was realy derivative of the effects of the lobbying of the really big cats who create reaction in the code because of the breadth of their push for further exenption from the costs driven by their own success. They not only want reduction of cost on their balance sheet, they want little guys (like me) to absorb the costs - monetary and straight infrastructure - of their doing business. In a way, I should claim to be an employee of GE.

You would immediately see why Social Darwinism is dangerous if you read the Nazi tracts of the 20s-30s. The premise was that "Our group of people are vastly superior to all others and therefore we can do what ever we like with those others as thy are less worthy'. With the Nazis that justified death camps and mass killings; in SE Asia, Pol Pot, What about Uganda, the Kurds, etc. It is not Darwinism but Social Darwinism that is so dangerous.

Jerkson40 - you jump to too many conclusions. My previous is not from wikipedia and I am not sure why my take on a subject should be offensive to you. We are probably all different, but I guess I don't see why one opinion is more worthy than another. If you read above my comment, you would see that F_D asked for a response whicch I gave. Perhaps I missed your election as arbiter.

First point- Welfare per se is not the problem - it is the administration of it as a permanent alternative for some folks who are, in theory, "entitled" to the benefits. If you want to see who's on welfare, look to see with whom the benefits wind up before going back to the Fed. Medicaid/ Medicare - the big med services providers; Food Stamps - the major food producers and the retail grocery chains. Why do you think Food Stamps (Now SNAP) is administered by the Dept of Agriculture, not HHS. Because it is part of US farm policy. And get this: The obligations of your gov't include $ 1.1 Billion for TANF (Usualy seen as 'welfare;) $ 54 Billion for Food Stamps; $ 407 Billion for Social Security Retirements. Point 2- The key to Marx (aside from his explanation of 19th Century Capitalism {Das Kapital}) was his premise that advancement of human society proceeds in stages and is governed by dialectic materialism. The dialectic he lifted from Hegel and posits that any stage in human history generates its own reaction and leads to new adaptations which in turn itself leads to new issues and their resolution a la: the Thesis, produces an Antithesis and resolves as the Synthesis (which then becomes the new thesis.....repeat as long as it takes) The materialism part came from the application of Hegel to Economics which Marx saw as the engine for human progress. Each phase of history was delivered and controlled by a segment of society so - the middle ages had its barons; current time has its bourgoisie and Socialism / communism has the prolitariat. Each successive period in human history has its dominant societal force and for Marx, that was the prolitariat. The rise of the new Ubermensch. Meantime, Fascism posited the superiority of the Nation and/ or race and invoked strict societal control on its citizens. The dominant figure was the individual who represented the dominant group of people - the people who were generated by the national ethos and the "people" become of greater importance than the individuals that make it up. All are subordinated to the Nation and the People - for Italy the symbol was the Fasces the ancient symbol of the magistrate. For Nazi Germany the focus was the Volk. The philosophy that links the two is Social Darwinism, a perniciois misuse of the theory propounded by Charles Darwin. Applying the 'survival of the fittest' to human society is a perversion of Darwinism that is both unsupportable and dangerous. But in fact, both fascism (nation/volk/state)and communism (International but identifiiable in the Prolitariat as the Nietschean dominant force) were really closer to each other than either would want to admit and most importantly both became operational as a form of Totalitarianism. The Totalitarian sress on the political party as the arm of society that will deliver the new Darwinian world is the smoking gun that truly links communism and fascism as variants of the same political nostrum.

An old guy once told me: If you want to drink, go to a "regular" bar; if you want to mess with the ladies, don't drink, period! Best advice, I ever got. F_D - With the advent of Marxist Leninism, you can argue that Marxism and Fascism are two sides of the same coin. That's because both are variants of a broader philosophy affected by political and economic events and butressed by certain technological advances. I'd love to talk to you about that.

F_D I think you answered your own question. The reason most people (almost all) wind up biting dancers is because they are really drunk and should have someone drive them home. You are right - there is no excuse but there is a reason and most of the time it is demon-rum. I think Smokeshopjoe's got it right. I also think the bouncers need to eject the cannibal on first bite not later when he is CHOKING A DANCER?!?!?!?!? PS: I know a club where an idiot (drunk) bit a dancer on the inside of the thigh. It was hard enough to leave a bad bruise although thankfully, the skin was not broken. The bouncers were on him in a micro-second and he was gone.

I went to a Rolling Stones concert in 1969 at which Ike and Tina Turner opened for the boys. Tina did fast (Rolling on the River) and Tina did slow(I've been Loving You too Long)and it didn't matter because I was completely drawn in by her incredible showmanship. Same goes for a LD: talent plus commitment = Happy Rlionheart. But if I had to vote, I'm on Bear 2k's side Thanks for the question and I like your approach F-D.

Don''t know the club but have had similar experiences and on one occasion, when the dust settled, I went to the manager ostensibly to make sure that I was up on his rules but really to see if I could pick up on what was happening. He apologized and said that he had done it because he thought that the club was being monitored by the county folks who regulate the business. Don't know if that was really the reason but he comped a beer and a lap dance for me and has been great with me ever since. Probably not the case here, but checking the rules is not something that has ever gotten me in trouble.

In the interests of full disclosure............mmmm, full disclosure. No wait: About this article, there were about 65 to 70% disagreeing and 25-35% voting for the death penalty.

If you buy a drink and tip the dancers on stage, and most importantly, let those that approach you know that you aren't getting LDs today, but will be soon, you've done what you need to (Unless the club has a minimum LD rule. If so, find another club.

I want to expand on John Bufords point about different types for different folks. I have been in SCs where there is one drop-dead 10 based on physical attributes, while on the same basis there is a 7 - 8 that is getting all the business. Why? - because she relates well, makes you feel good, dances well and is fun to be with. The judging of those qualities is not quite as subjective as a simple "looks" gradient. Also, I'd assume that to develop a site that does what you suggest would require us to pay fairly hefty fees just to get into the site.

Hi F_D About the last two lines in your discussion, I've spoken of Denise's Rule before but it may be worth repeating here: "God created man with two heads and enough blood to run one at a time". Couple that with a gut full of beer or worse and presto! you've got a customer who may not exercise the best judgment. It is GREAT that you are up front about your limits. No right thinking person could object. And if they aren't thinking at their best, you can't let it bother you. I mean imagine that, a horny drunk at a SC. So in the words of Tyrone F. - Do you believe in the hereafter? - Then you know what I'm hereafter.

Three "off-beat" tries: 1) The Water Song by Hot Tuna (A real Long Shot) 2) The single (techno) version of "You Got Me Rocking" by the Rolling Stones 3) I never hear this one played: Robert Palmer - "Addicted to Love"

Boy, I knew I was gonna take some heat but this is amazing. To Smokeshopjoe: No argument on the private sector process. And Lopaw- no argument that I stereotyped but when a large percentage of the population being looked at exhibits a specific tendency, generalizing is useful in further posits. I know that there is nothing profound in the observations I made, they are pretty self evident. But why is the statement, All Men are Dogs, so offensive to so many? Obvious??? Not really. Many responses I've gotten over the years have a defensive quality which is fascinating. What would cause that?? Seriousy, some old geezer (me) asks a question, albeit provocative, and other folks feel there is enough insult in it to sound a little peeved. So, guilty as charged on the fact that the sexual response stuff is not new or remarkable, but can you explain why there is the heated response to the comparison? And the obvious 'Negative image of dogs' doesn't completely explain it.Personally, I'm with Clubber and pabloantonio. In defense of dogs, they are a great type of creature and have many admirable qualities. I'd much rather be compared to a dog than many other things.

Chukko Great question. What bothers me is that we could all benefit mightily from making prostitution legal and yet we can't seem to get past the blue laws. I am probably going to encounter someone who thinks that all prostitutes are acting out traumas from their past and are basically enslaved, but that is too simple a take. If we were to lealize prostitution, society could choose a variety of options. Here's just a couple: • legal prostitutes might be required to be licensed and some of the requirements might be - Monthly physicals and tests to help prevent disease transmission and to provide the prostit. with early warning of a problem - and it could be provided w/o cost to individuals or at attractive rates to larger organizations. • The amateur abusing pimps would quickly lose almost all their "goods and services" • Organized crime would be displaced by organzed service providers but Org. Crims might use the business as a clean operation that afforded many chances to move money. • A significant revenue flow would be taken away from criminal operations thereby making the business less profitable for them and also reducing the presence of illicit organized operators. (It's still a business) **Remember that organized crime was inadvertantly built in this country by the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Any doubters should read about the growth of drug store chains during that period - if your doctor prescribed booze for medicinal purposes, you could buy it legally at drug stores- so it appears that the major beneficiaries of Am 18 were Walgreens (No offense W) and La Cosa Nostra. There was unceasing demand and a limited number of people willing to service that demand. JACKPOT!!!!**** • Well, what is the Oldest Profession? Do we really think we can legislate this out of existence? If you believe that I would like to offer you this great bridge that I could sell you. Since we have at least 4,000 years of recorded history about the industry (One source: The Bible)we can assume it won't cease to exist. So let's get real and deal with it for what it is - a service industry that could use a little oversight. By the way, the reforms would all be paid for by services fees(Taxes). Don't believe it? Check towns that have legalized gambling. (Somebody once observed that if we were to legalize prostitution and impose a modest tax, we could pay off the national debt in two months)