New agency with some questions

[Anderson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimp

You might wish to read the definition of a pimp.

Definitions are accurate. Your justification for not understanding or wishing to understand the definition is your choice.

Once again , I will say that my only problem is with the pimps that beat , force and exploit these woman.

If any agency here treats these woman well, and the woman desire to use said agency then thats great.

Good luck for both parties- again I am a capitalist.

But to say one is not a pimp when every definiation agrees with what you do, well that is just bizarre.

 

[Questor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimp

You might wish to read the definition of a pimp.

Definitions are accurate. Your justification for not understanding or wishing to understand the definition is your choice.

But to say one is not a pimp when every definiation agrees with what you do, well that is just bizarre.

Interesting reference that you provide. Unfortunately, it does not support your position.

"Most people who work managing prostitutes are men, but some women work in this capacity as well, though rarely in street prostitution. Women are rarely called pimps, as the word implies male dominance."

So, your use of the word to describe agency owners here is incorrect, since most agency owners here are female, they are not engaged in street prostitution, and male dominance is not used to control the sex workers.

"Often[citation needed], low level pimps will initially present themselves as lovers or father-figures to prostitutes (who may be run-aways or otherwise lack a family network) before introducing them to prostitution and perhaps drug addiction. This practice is called "turning out." Pimp-prostitute can be abusive, using psychological intimidation, manipulation and physical force to control the members in the "stable".

This reference which you provided describes the use of drugs, psychological intimidation, manipulation and physical force to control sex workers. This, as you know, is why people take offense to your use of the word here at terb, since agency owners here do not use such tactics.

Ironically, the reference you provided does have one definition of a pimp that perfectly describes you.

"A pimp can also mean "a despicable person".

Sadly, anything you say does not change the fact that you have made a fool out of yourself, that you are a disgrace of a human being, and that everyone here knows it. Have a nice day, PIMP. ROFL

 

[Questor]

Mods: I see that Anderson is banned. I'm not sure if this ban is to be temporary or permanent but I urge you to consider the following if he is allowed back: Change his handle to PIMP. Perhaps his location could also be listed as "In the pimpmobile" and his signature could read "Formerly known as Anderson the Intolerant. If the ban is a temporary "cooling off" period, then the above steps might serve as a reminder to him when he is allowed back.

In any event, thank you for your intervention. Anderson was in clear violation of Posting Guideline #5: No abuse, name calling, derogatory statements or insults that are not OBVIOUSLY given and received with good humor will be tolerated.

 

[Asterix]

Well, I tried to warn him. Some people just don't know when to quit.

 

[TQM]

Well now isn't this interesting?

Anderson goes about making a fool of himself as usual, and it seems he's been banned for it.

Anderson was mostly wrong and wrong in relatively stupid ways. In particular, he has the ability to jump to remarkable conclusions based on partly true, and definitely weak premises.

But I'm particularly curious as to why he was banned. There's absolutely nothing in this thread to suggest banning was an appropriate action.

And here's the biggest problem with banning and deleting. Based on the evidence in this thread, whomever banned him looks idiotic for the action. If, instead, the offending post has been deleted, the evidence for the justification of the banning is now gone. This is equally idiotic.

But from the looks of it, Anderson has been banned for a) a modest and debatable misunderstanding over the words 'pimp' and 'hooker'; b) defending women against violence; and c) using sarcasm in response to some.

If Anderson was banned for something else, my apologies in advance - but on the face of it, the moderators responsible look like fucking morons.

Please understand that the ownership can do whatever it pleases here. But that doesn't mean that everything the ownership does here is wise. You've allowed a cinelli to post and post again his pure hatred. And you ban Anderson.

That's really, and legitimately, fucking moronic.

 

[danmand]

Be careful, TQM, questioning moderator's actions will get you banned.

 

[TQM]

danmand,

While I thank you for your concern,

a) getting banned really and truly wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
b) getting banned would prove to me that I'm right on this matter - the bannings are petty, rather than reasoned.
c) There's a fine line between believing in freedom of speech and opposing hate. I will continue to soldier to the best of my abilities, both tenets. If that means calling someone's reprehensible actions moronic, so be it. And if I'm banned for it, as I've said before, ban me baby.

 

[luv4lust]

Be careful, TQM, questioning moderator's actions will get you banned.

so will not listening to their warnings but some get away with it even after flaunting it on a thread for everyone to read. personally i read alot worse than what he posted and some others have been banned for. it only takes a quick pm from some special people to get you a time out these days
now i'm shutting up before i get it next

 

[Vixens]

Anderson goes about making a fool of himself as usual, and it seems he's been banned for it.

Anderson was mostly wrong and wrong in relatively stupid ways. In particular, he has the ability to jump to remarkable conclusions based on partly true, and definitely weak premises.

But I'm particularly curious as to why he was banned. There's absolutely nothing in this thread to suggest banning was an appropriate action.

And here's the biggest problem with banning and deleting. Based on the evidence in this thread, whomever banned him looks idiotic for the action. If, instead, the offending post has been deleted, the evidence for the justification of the banning is now gone. This is equally idiotic.

But from the looks of it, Anderson has been banned for a) a modest and debatable misunderstanding over the words 'pimp' and 'hooker'; b) defending women against violence; and c) using sarcasm in response to some.

If Anderson was banned for something else, my apologies in advance - but on the face of it, the moderators responsible look like fucking morons.

Please understand that the ownership can do whatever it pleases here. But that doesn't mean that everything the ownership does here is wise. You've allowed a cinelli to post and post again his pure hatred. And you ban Anderson.

That's really, and legitimately, fucking moronic.

I suspect Anderson was banned for sending insulting PM's. I got one from him but didn't report it until after he'd already been banned...so I'm sure others received similar messages...I am not privy to the Mod's reasoning, however, that is my best guess.

Steph
416-966-6966

 

[Asterix]

I suspect Anderson was banned for sending threatening PM's. I got one from him but didn't report it until after he'd already been banned...so I'm sure others received similar messages...I am not privy to the Mod's reasoning, however, that is my best guess.

Steph
416-966-6966

Yeah, that would do it alright. How utterly idiotic.

 

[TQM]

If you are right,

and if he's been sending "threatening" pm's, he should be banned. And the moderators should have the common sense, then, to notify the rest of us as to the reasons why. When serving justice, we tend to prefer it be public.

While I think of him as relatively stupid, I honestly find it hard to believe he'd be that particularly stupid.

 

[Never Compromised]

Anderson is banned? Crap, I can't see it as I put the drooling idiot on IGNORE last week.

And for those of you confused, I did not put sweet little Steph on ignore, it was the guy she was quoting.

 

[luv4lust]

ok enough about anderson back to the post at hand

 

[drlove]

Just a side note to the "no photos of the ladies" idea. Back in the 1990's Select's website offered descriptions only - no photos, and they did quite well.

 

[goalie000]

Just a side note to the "no photos of the ladies" idea. Back in the 1990's Select's website offered descriptions only - no photos, and they did quite well.

Of Course this will work only if the descriptions etc. are accurate. What will happen if the Client arrives and things are not as advertised? We have all run into this type of thing where the advertised 120 lbs is more like 140.

 

[Ogenstein]

Ain't it the truth

Your choice of language defines you more than those you describe.

Dude, this is always the case. This is the best sentence I've read here in a while. Well said.

 

[Hangman]

Back to the topic??

Holy Thread Hijack!! This was originally LIM's thread about opening an agency, and he was looking for feedback.


LIM:
Clearly you are serious, and wish to avoid using ladies' pictures. Fair enough. You'll need other forms of advertising, especially 'word-of-mouth.' Encouraging people to review your ladies is an obvious way, but its a double-edged sword.

People need something to hold on to, mentally, when they are making their selection. That's why Coke and Walmart advertise so heavily despite being the dominant players in their fields. An agency name and website fulfills that function in many cases. For me, a picture helps a lot. A face is not required.

I have seen SPs in the past without a picture,but only on after a long, very positive review history. So I think you may find things start slow, but if you can build that kind of reputation, you can do very well. The make-or-break will come in the forst year or so, I'd imagine (though I of course have never actually run an agency).

Good luck

 

[LIM]

Holy hijack is right! I go away for a couple days and come back to an ethical debate!

To goalie000 and Hangman, you're on the same thought wave as myself. As I've already mentioned (around page 3 I think) honesty is going to be a very important aspect of our agency.

I never liked being lied to, why would a potential customer want that from us? That and I never went back to an agency/independant who was dishonest how can I expect a customer to come back to us if we've done the same?

LIM

*** Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everybody!

 

[rama putri]

Back to the topic at hand.

Decent, easy to navigate website. Real pics that don't have to be made by Santillo. Full description.

Don't burn out your girls. Allow a minimum 30 minutes in between clients and limit the customers they see. No specials or discounts - this cheapens you and the girls. Train your girls - on policies not what you're thinking.

Follow up on complaints but don't always assume the customer is right. Sometimes they are scammers too. CRM and 'asset' management will be your two biggest issues. Followed by logistics planning. Make sure all your phone equipment is good working order.

Really select your girls for their 'courtesanship' versus their 'fuckability'. Good looking girls with real class, conversational intelligence, relatively stable emotions, and a wild steak in the sack.

$250-300 per hour.