CupidsEscorts Tweets a Client's Information

[LT56]

Harvey Weinstein’s situation is rather different from this one in that his job involved, among other things, meeting with actresses- an activity which in and of itself was neither private nor illegal.

Visiting an escort is a rather different proposition. The very fact that a guy is there is both illegal and probably quite embarrassing for him should it be revealed. Even if the guy could somehow prove himself innocent of “stealthing” his life has probably been ruined anyway just by revealing the fact that he visited an escort.

Apples and oranges.

 

[frankcastle]

Given that the owner of this agency has proven herself to be a loose cannon, I can legitimately and seriously doubt that.

Hyperbole

Literally 10s of thousands of clients have gone without being outed. Your risk is minimal.

 

[apoptygma]

Hyperbole

Bullshit.

She's done it before... she'll do it again. Want to be next?

 

[LT56]

Hyperbole

Literally 10s of thousands of clients have gone without being outed. Your risk is minimal.

Compared to the other agencies that have never outed anyone, the risk is substantially higher.

 

[frankcastle]

Bullshit.

She's done it before... she'll do it again. Want to be next?

Take the number of times it has happened then divide it by 15+ years of sessions. That is a tiny risk..... which goes to zero if it was the truth.

 

[frankcastle]

Compared to the other agencies that have never outed anyone, the risk is substantially higher.

Only if we assume they were false accusations.

 

[apoptygma]

Take the number of times it has happened then divide it by 15+ years of sessions. That is a tiny risk..... which goes to zero if it was the truth.

You are defending the actions and you can't even convince yourself that the accusation is true.

As mentioned... plenty of other agencies that have a "number of times" value of 0.

 

[frankcastle]

You are defending the actions and you can't even convince yourself that the accusation is true.

As mentioned... plenty of other agencies that have a "number of times" value of 0.

Because I am allowing for that possibility that it is false. Whereas you guys are assuming it is a false accusation.

0.0004% or whatever it is, is near zero if she is a liar. And it drops to zero if you don't stealth and she was truthful.

Either way it is very unlikely.

 

[eternalbachelor]

Only if we assume they were false accusations.

for the purposes of dealing with the agency I am assuming it was true. Still don't want to worry about what else is included in their code of misconduct and what will be the reason for the next outing.

 

[apoptygma]

Because I am allowing for that possibility that it is false. Whereas you guys are assuming it is a false accusation.

0.0004% or whatever it is, is near zero if she is a liar. And it drops to zero if you don't stealth and she was truthful.

Either way it is very unlikely.

Where did I ever say it was a false accusation?
Most people here aren't doubting the truthfullness at all... read the thread before you make assumptions.

The problem is the vigilante justice. She is a loose cannon who thinks she can play fast and loose with private personal information in an industry that thrives because of privacy, both ways.

Defend her unacceptable actions all you want, no skin off my back. Use her agency all you want, no skin off my back.

 

[frankcastle]

Where did I ever say it was a false accusation?
Most people here aren't doubting the truthfullness at all... read the thread before you make assumptions.

The problem is the vigilante justice. She is a loose cannon who thinks she can play fast and loose with private personal information in an industry that thrives because of privacy, both ways.

Defend her unacceptable actions all you want, no skin off my back. Use her agency all you want, no skin off my back.

I did say that outing was wrong.... go back you'll find the post. (post 192)

My point stands that your risk is neglible.

 

[apoptygma]

I did say that outing was wrong.... go back you'll find the post. (post 192)

My point stands that your risk is neglible.

Noted.
I'll still vote with my wallet, as I'm sure many others will.
Too many other options that are just as good if not better, that aren't run by a self-righteous loose cannon.

On a side note, if it's not against board policy, maybe a vote should be set up to see how long this agency lasts after this debacle.
I think they are a paid advertiser, so that idea might not float.

 

[frankcastle]

Noted.
I'll still vote with my wallet, as I'm sure many others will.
Too many other options that are just as good if not better, that aren't run by a self-righteous loose cannon.

On a side note, if it's not against board policy, maybe a vote should be set up to see how long this agency lasts after this debacle.
I think they are a paid advertiser, so that idea might not float.

I wasn't aware of more than one instance. I'd have to know more about those situations to come to a conclusion.
I caught a sentence here or there but not the full actual story(ies).

You're calling this person a self righteous loose cannon based on how many posts? That's just one possible interpretation. Maybe in this case she was just really upset and made a mistake. Like I said before literally 10s of thousands if not more sessions go without incident so to me it is very very rare. IF so much care is given to the stealther's actions as being just allegations then why isn't Jillian given any consideration? As you yourself pointed out many believe the story, if that's the case then you have nothing to worry about as her cannon seems pointed at those who cross her line and not the 10s of thousands of other clients. It's a slippery slope argument that her outing the stealthier puts you at risk.

Just seems like a guy piling on, when they probably aren't even a cupid customer to begin with. You say you'll vote with your wallet but you were probably nevere a client of theirs so you won't be missed. Furthermore, a few guys on terb boycotting means nothing. Just take a look at how many spas get bad reviews, have a bad reputation, or no reputation on terb yet they stay open for years. Other spas have been robbed, raided or had bylaw do routine visits.... this too has not stopped us from going.

 

[Charlemagne]

People who aren't convicted get outed all the time for crimes that they allegedly committed.

I know seeing SP's is taboo but there's a risk to everything I guess.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Right but the problem is you and I know this will never go to court

Right, but in todays social media world it doesnt really have to.

What if I had a twitter account with a few hundred (or thousand) followers, and I suddenly (erroneously) thought you had molested one of your 12-year old students, and I decided to share those accusations with twitter world, along with your name, address, telephone# and a few other personal details and called you a pedophile.

Would you be okay with that, even though maybe you're completely innocent???!

Yes or no??

 

[peepingtom]

Take the number of times it has happened then divide it by 15+ years of sessions. That is a tiny risk..... which goes to zero if it was the truth.

So you're an actuary of hobbying? hilarious. hey dude, you're not gonna convince other dudes to see your faulty logic. you have your own risk level that you are comfortable with and that good for you. we each have our own risk level that we're comfortable with and we choose not to use a provider or agency that even risks less than 1% outing based on past behaviour irrespective of reason for outing. outing is wrong, no excusable reason.

 

[Jasmine Raine]

So you're an actuary of hobbying? hilarious. hey dude, you're not gonna convince other dudes to see your faulty logic. you have your own risk level that you are comfortable with and that good for you. we each have our own risk level that we're comfortable with and we choose not to use a provider or agency that even risks less than 1% outing based on past behaviour irrespective of reason for outing. outing is wrong, no excusable reason.

Sounds more like you guys are trying convince him. He has already stated he is not trying to change people's minds, or stop a boycott or anything like that.

In his opinion, it is a minimal risk. In your opinion, it is not.

Agree to disagree and move on already.

 

[frankcastle]

Sounds more like you guys are trying convince him. He has already stated he is not trying to change people's minds, or stop a boycott or anything like that.

In his opinion, it is a minimal risk. In your opinion, it is not.

Agree to disagree and move on already.

Pretty much. One addition I would make is that as stated earlier in post 192 I don't support outing.

 

[Smallcock]

Sounds more like you guys are trying convince him. He has already stated he is not trying to change people's minds, or stop a boycott or anything like that.

In his opinion, it is a minimal risk. In your opinion, it is not.

Agree to disagree and move on already.

We all agree that the risk is minimal. That's not the point. It's all good until you become the 1% publicly accused of something you didn't do.

 

[Jasmine Raine]

We all agree that the risk is minimal. That's not the point. It's all good until you become the 1% accused of something you didn't do.

How is that the "point" and who are you making that point to? People have their minds made up already. Frankcastle is willing to take the risk. Even that 1%. Other are not. The point was made, people made their choice.

So who are you preaching too? Your "point" is done. It has been said. It has been heard. People have decided. Repeating said points is nothing more than trying to change the minds of people who have already made up their mind. So it is actually pointless now to continue with that part of the debate.

That is my point.