Jump to content

former lurker

Members
  • Posts

    2,915
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by former lurker

  1. The term "public figure” has specific legal meaning, and it tilts the balance from rights to privacy to fair game for criticism and harm to reputation. The contrast with "private figure” is confused. The questions of how negative comments are evaluated is about public officials (who are least protected w/r/t privacy and libel or slander, public "figures” who enjoy some protection, and eveyone else. Standard exist to ascertain whether someone is a public figure and they don't involve contrasting with "private” individuals.
  2. You are reading a lot into the ad in your city for that date. A lot of guys put up ads to see if there are other potential client sessions on subsequent days. When did you first find out he missed the original flight?
  3. Suicide and the mental health conditions that underlie it strike me quite hard. Even those who seek treatment often struggle. Imagine finding life so much of a struggle and yourself so miserable that continuing to live is not your perceived better option. Often, depression, anxiety, and a sense of helplessness are compounded by financial and emotional insecurity. I grieve his loss, and for his loved ones.
  4. Not that it changes much of the thinking on the subject, but PNP likely includes more chem sex drugs than meth. It could include G or K (I forget what "G" stands for, K is ketamine, a horse tranquilizer. Also, the provider may be open to clients using but not use themselves, or may use a different chem than the client. If the whole area is something you want to avoid, either avoid those who list PNP or be clear about your expectations and what you won't tolerate.
  5. Being able to communicate in English (speak and understand) doesn't mean high proficiency in writing. If poor syntax, misspellings, off conjugations, etc., meant one couldn't speak English, a substantial minority of adults born in the U.S. couldn't claim to speak English even though there is not other language they speak.
  6. That doesn't really fit any scenario I've seen discussed. As for your earlier point, I'm still not sure you're addressing the point raised by Public Assistance. If you order steak and fries -- the mussels add nothing to the hypo -- and they inform you they ran out, you can either order something else or leave. Of course, the scenario is trickier if you ask for delivery and give a general idea of what you want. In any event, if you ordered the steak, got something else and ate it, it'd be unreasonable for you to dine and dash just because you really wanted a steak.
  7. If the meal is not what you ordered, request the one you did. As for rushing you, it's rude to occupy a table for a lengthy post-meal hangout without ordering. If you need a lengthy post-feeding digestive period to be able to have dessert, that's on you. If such is the case, either forgo dessert or find a way to compensate for tying up the table. The point here is you can't have your cake intact and eat it too. If you eat the meal, you owe what it costs.
  8. Respond to what? That could lend some insight into why he blocked you, reasonable or not.
  9. Stop digging. You came across poorly, to him and to those of us who've read this thread. You wanted to take his pics, he (politely) declined. That should have been the end of that particular issue, but you became obnoxious and agressive by suggesting he must have been burned and that he was dismissive. That interpretation says tons about you, and nothing about him.
  10. As in a lot of these cases, the interest in prosecution varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and prosecutor to prosecutor. Federal law itself isn't weak in this area at all. Because we're talking about the internet, it's interstate and thus federal and where federal law applies it is supreme. The anti-trafficking laws cover internet porn and require not just that both parties be of age to consent to sex, but also of age to consent to publication and do in fact consent. Hidden camera cases have been prosecuted even without broadcast, but broadcast adds another layer to the crime. The records requirements studios and OF producers have to follow include signed forms granting consent to publish/air the "performances", and that's under federal law.
  11. The one- vs. two-party consent rule goes mainly to whether a tape is admissible in a court proceeding. Although I don't know the law in your jurisdiction, I'd bet one-party consent is not a defense to taping a sexual encounter without the other person's consent. Moreover, state law wouldn't be the only issue if dealing with sex broadcast on the net. That would run afoul of federal law.
  12. Odd that he left money at an unattended front desk, and in front of a bullet-proof glass window.
  13. If any organ fails, it may put undue strain on others. Dialysis can help with kidney failure, but kidney failure places greater strains on ones lungs. Liver failure often compromises lungs and kidneys. Heart failure can compromise all other organs by limiting proper flow of blood to and from those organs. Diabetes increases the likelihood of other organs failing. Genetics may play a role.
  14. I'm one who has written positively about him. I've been a member of the site/forums since the Hooboy days (decades). Feel free to peruse my posts to see how I phrase things. What you'll discover, if you look back over prior threads on this provider is that the negative comments are universally from posters who never met him, and that the posts from those who've met him are universally positive. Perhaps the positive comments sound similar because we've all had similar experiences.
  15. My heart goes out to those who were close to him. I've experienced my share, and then some,of loss. Thankfully, most of my family died peacefully, but three had tough endings. Dying in one's sleep is a mercy for which to be thankful. I've also been present when my mom died, and spoke to my grandfather and cousin hours before they died. Take comfort in knowing that among his last conversations were ones who cared.
  16. Slight correction: it discusses the rental unit scenario, but it doesn't exclude the same legal analysis where the person allowing someone to move in owns rather than rents the domicile.
  17. In "common law", the operative concept is "adverse possession” for vacant property when non-owners move in without permission. The owner can lose ownership to the squatters. That's different from Glutes's fact pattern where his initial residence is by an extended invitation. Whether or not rent is paid, allowing a person to reside for a period of time confers tenancy rights, especially in the absence of an enforceable contract that has a set term and contemplates termination.
  18. The losing side does not generally get its costs paid. The contract provision discussed above is not ultimate payment, but placement of the anticipated court costs into an escrow account in case that side loses. If s/he prevails, the escrowed funds are returned. But the requirement to place the costs in escrow is itself a potential hardship.
  19. You left him mid-session to drop off a rental car?
  20. I read it as the opposite. He will bottom but only in a session 3 hours or longer.
  21. Luger's longevity provided it with at least 2 advantages: (1) the legends who ate there in prior centuries; and (2) it was one of the few restaurants in New York allowed a coal fired oven since the NYC regs precluded them because Luger's was grandfathered so as to be exempt from the regs. I always wondered how a restaurant focusing on steak could maintain it's culinary strength when it's been owned for so long by a family that won't eat steak for religious reasons.
  22. No, it's not "obvious" until the NDA is pierced. Beyond that, most corporate NDA's are part of settlement/separation agreements. A fair portion of those seek to keep allegations of sexual harassment and related details from being disclosed. They are routinely enforced, even though there is generally more collateral evidence of an improper purpose for the NDA (payments made to the person who sign the NDA. The "everybody knows" argument isn't evidence. To get the evidence to nullify the NDA you first have to nullify the NDA. Not gonna happen absent a criminal inquiry into the hirer.
  23. You consistently (and incorrectly) insist that the NDA wouldn't be enforceable because it relates to prostitution. Now you're answering other purposes of an NDA by saying they can only be about prostitution and therefore render an NDA unenforceable. Your well-phrased "we all know" argument isn't evidence, facially or otherwise. A contract to perform an illegal act is not the same as one to maintain confidences that, if violated, might lead to revealing an illegal act. For example, a contract to pay $10K to someone for killing your spouse, etc, is on it's face unenforceable. In that situation, an NDA is irrelevant it's the contract to kill that is unenforceable. As for escort's resources, that may not be decisive. A "tell all" book could both bestow financial resources and be the target of a suit to enforce the NDA (the relief sought may be a bar to publication rather than money damages). I sense we are going in circles. We've all had our say. I'm not sure more commentary will do anything productive but I suppose you or someone else could say something that causes me to respond.
×
×
  • Create New...