Monday, Tuesday and Wedensday evenings on the 6P.M. news -C.J.O.H. - there are reports on the prostitution trade in Ottawa. Last night it was about street walkers. They showed some very foxy looking ladies. Right at the end of the report they showed a preview on tonights show. Thought you guy guys might be interested in this. Could be interesting.
Escorts on T.V. tonight
- Thread starter FalconHawk
- Start date
hello
they sent me an e-mail a while back cause they wanted to interview the girls and me but they didn't want and neither did I.
they sent me an e-mail a while back cause they wanted to interview the girls and me but they didn't want and neither did I.
F
figjam4
If this is in th news, then it can only lead to a public out cry which meams the vote getters will crack down on it. Best be careful
Think I will send the reporter an email suggesting that she try out the business for herself -- she is some kinda cute.
Why have some of the post been deleted in this thread dont tell me a certain SP complained it was a publicly broadcasted News show people were talking about if they were removed because of this Sp then she should not have went on TV
And there was no reviews of her it was post on the News show
And there was no reviews of her it was post on the News show
Meesh get a life I read some post on this topic in this thread at 5am this morning and they are gone now I was just saying a certain SP must have pullled one of her I will call my Lawyer stunts on the upper brass again or they just decided to delete before she did which in my opion is BS as she went on public television and there was no reviews on her service made in the post only comments on the news programme so if you dont know what you are talking about keep your commetns to yourself
F
figjam4
Actually, I'd like to know why some of the posts were removed too.
I was also contacted by this horrid woman (Natalie Van Den Bosch of CJOH) and asked if I'd allow her to interview me. I declined, for the reason that such "exposées" aren't really news -- they're ratings-boosters, marketing tools that help them sell more advertising. They're usually only interested in the titillation factor, and take a "freak show" approach to our industry.
Anyway, in this case, the reporter seemed, initially, to be very respectful and sincere. She said she understood my position, and asked me to recommend other local independents who might be interested.
Imagine my surprise when I saw her piece today, and I learn that they went to my site and swiped a bunch of my (copyrighted!) content for production filler.
I'm sure she knew this was wrong. We were in communication, and she could have very easily asked my permission or -- if she truly felt she didn't require it -- at least mentioned to me that they planned to use it.
The way it was used (as production filler content), too, I'm not so sure they can get around the copyright. That said, I don't think I'm interested in a lawsuit -- it wouldn't sove anything. Fred has suggested that I make a complaint to a media ombudsman. Perhaps.
I'm just thoroughly disgusted with this reporter. And I think I'm disappointed in myself for overestimating her integrity. I'm sure I made it very plain to her how I felt and that I did not wish to be included in her piece -- and she just walked right over me and did it anyway.
News reporting is truly the smarmiest profession!
..c..
I was also contacted by this horrid woman (Natalie Van Den Bosch of CJOH) and asked if I'd allow her to interview me. I declined, for the reason that such "exposées" aren't really news -- they're ratings-boosters, marketing tools that help them sell more advertising. They're usually only interested in the titillation factor, and take a "freak show" approach to our industry.
Anyway, in this case, the reporter seemed, initially, to be very respectful and sincere. She said she understood my position, and asked me to recommend other local independents who might be interested.
Imagine my surprise when I saw her piece today, and I learn that they went to my site and swiped a bunch of my (copyrighted!) content for production filler.
I'm sure she knew this was wrong. We were in communication, and she could have very easily asked my permission or -- if she truly felt she didn't require it -- at least mentioned to me that they planned to use it.
The way it was used (as production filler content), too, I'm not so sure they can get around the copyright. That said, I don't think I'm interested in a lawsuit -- it wouldn't sove anything. Fred has suggested that I make a complaint to a media ombudsman. Perhaps.
I'm just thoroughly disgusted with this reporter. And I think I'm disappointed in myself for overestimating her integrity. I'm sure I made it very plain to her how I felt and that I did not wish to be included in her piece -- and she just walked right over me and did it anyway.
News reporting is truly the smarmiest profession!
..c..
"Vanishing" posts...
I'm starting to feel it's not funny at all! It's censorship!
We need a REAL explanation of why the post were removed by the peoples who removed them.
TERB has no responsibility about what's being posted so TERB have nothing to worry about law suits.
We're in Canada here, not in the USA so frivolous lawsuits are not accepted as easily by the courts.
This place is the same as if we were in a bar with a bunch of peoples and I would dare anyone to tell anyone else they can't express their opinion because the bar owner is afraid to get sued.
The deleted posts contained some good info, including JoyfulC's insight. Now that's gone.
As long as it's not slanderous, diffamatory or violent, or revealing stuff who would identify private info about a person, a post should NEVER get erased. Even then, the offending posts should not "vanish", they should be replaced by the reason why they were censored.
This "under the carpet" attitude got to stop!
Just my opinion.
I'm starting to feel it's not funny at all! It's censorship!
We need a REAL explanation of why the post were removed by the peoples who removed them.
TERB has no responsibility about what's being posted so TERB have nothing to worry about law suits.
We're in Canada here, not in the USA so frivolous lawsuits are not accepted as easily by the courts.
This place is the same as if we were in a bar with a bunch of peoples and I would dare anyone to tell anyone else they can't express their opinion because the bar owner is afraid to get sued.
The deleted posts contained some good info, including JoyfulC's insight. Now that's gone.
As long as it's not slanderous, diffamatory or violent, or revealing stuff who would identify private info about a person, a post should NEVER get erased. Even then, the offending posts should not "vanish", they should be replaced by the reason why they were censored.
This "under the carpet" attitude got to stop!
Just my opinion.
Well, first of all, TERB CAN be held responsible for the posts on the site.
Secondly, posts are often removed for good and valid reasons that are not necessarily the business of every and all members. Just because you don't know the reason, doesn't make it 'censorship.'
Thirdly, I draw your attention to the postscript from the TERB posting guidelines:
...TERB reserves the right to edit or delete any posts it believes are not in the best interests of TERB, its advertisers and/or its users.
This is a private board and your participation is by invitation. By using TERB you agree to abide by the rules and by the moderators' decisions. If you feel you cannot participate within these boundaries, we thank you for your interest and invite you to please post elsewhere.
Secondly, posts are often removed for good and valid reasons that are not necessarily the business of every and all members. Just because you don't know the reason, doesn't make it 'censorship.'
Thirdly, I draw your attention to the postscript from the TERB posting guidelines:
...TERB reserves the right to edit or delete any posts it believes are not in the best interests of TERB, its advertisers and/or its users.
This is a private board and your participation is by invitation. By using TERB you agree to abide by the rules and by the moderators' decisions. If you feel you cannot participate within these boundaries, we thank you for your interest and invite you to please post elsewhere.
Sharks
JoyC - I feel for ya luv. The shit head that charmed you was never interested in portraying any truth about the industry. Why do you think they got a female to chat you up? Gain your trust just to exploit you.
Watch-out for media reporters of any sort - they are sharks (almost as bad as lawyers) and you're swimming in their pool. As a final kiss-off they have the last word - always! Never, ever expect any truth, justice or altruism from swine that have advertizing money interest.
JoyC - I feel for ya luv. The shit head that charmed you was never interested in portraying any truth about the industry. Why do you think they got a female to chat you up? Gain your trust just to exploit you.
Watch-out for media reporters of any sort - they are sharks (almost as bad as lawyers) and you're swimming in their pool. As a final kiss-off they have the last word - always! Never, ever expect any truth, justice or altruism from swine that have advertizing money interest.
Jabba, the sorry thing is that I truly thought she would respect my wishes to keep me out of it. We exchanged several e-mails and she said she understood my position.
She didn't do the story on me -- she just swiped content off my site for what's known as "production filler." That really floored me!
I've actually been in the industry for more than 30 years, and so I have lots of experience with reporters. I certainly agree 100% with your assessment of them. And I told her I didn't want to be part of her freak show.
That's why I'm so shocked that she felt entitled to use content off my site.
I have the footage on video -- I'll try to transfer it to e-format by the weekend for those who wish to see it. (And no, I'm not all that concerned with THEIR damned copyrights.)
The thing is, nothing was done that caused damage. It's just the consent thing. None of us here would violate someone else's consent -- but I'm feeling a little violated by this reporter.
And really, that's why I hate to watch local news programs, too. The reporters are just such grasping, ambitious, insensitive individuals. Oh, your toddler just got run over by a truck? Our viewers want to know what you're feeling right now! Let's get a camera in your face and can you squeeze out some tears for us?? Our viewers REALLY want to see this!
There's just no respect. Not for the truth and not for individual privacy. It's totally disgusting.
..c..
She didn't do the story on me -- she just swiped content off my site for what's known as "production filler." That really floored me!
I've actually been in the industry for more than 30 years, and so I have lots of experience with reporters. I certainly agree 100% with your assessment of them. And I told her I didn't want to be part of her freak show.
That's why I'm so shocked that she felt entitled to use content off my site.
I have the footage on video -- I'll try to transfer it to e-format by the weekend for those who wish to see it. (And no, I'm not all that concerned with THEIR damned copyrights.)
The thing is, nothing was done that caused damage. It's just the consent thing. None of us here would violate someone else's consent -- but I'm feeling a little violated by this reporter.
And really, that's why I hate to watch local news programs, too. The reporters are just such grasping, ambitious, insensitive individuals. Oh, your toddler just got run over by a truck? Our viewers want to know what you're feeling right now! Let's get a camera in your face and can you squeeze out some tears for us?? Our viewers REALLY want to see this!
There's just no respect. Not for the truth and not for individual privacy. It's totally disgusting.
..c..
