TampaYankee

It's a cookie on your end. What that cookie touches inside the forum software I am unaware of. Also, whether it is set by a simple single parameter and what the permissible range of that parameter is I have no knowledge of either. I leave that to Oz and his programmers. Simple or not so simple to change, it still does not address the security issue. Forum post management control is governed by restricting the keys to the forum. Your cookie is your key. Take the locks off the doors and we only have the option of closing the forum to maintain control.

This is a forum security issue. Security measures are unnecessary for responsible community members. However, we also must provide for the rare determined troublemaker. We have had them before and will likely have them again. It would be unfortunate if the only way to prohibit abuses is to close down the forum temporarily. As to whether specialized code should be added to the forum software to suspend login requirements for 'trusted' members, that would need to take into account the software engineering cost, robustness and reliability; and the impact on the forum software manufacturer's warranty and version upgrade maintenance. When the code departs from standard manufacturer's product the potential for cost and maintenance issues must be considered. Conceptionally, it may not seem like a big issue for the initial standard code package departure. However, with each additional manufacturer upgrade comes a 'fix' to the previous special code fix. Oh what a tangled web we weave as version upgrades come and go. Maybe Oz has more definitive insight into this issue.

Ditto and ditto.

It's all about demographics. It's a bit of a dilemma for Madison Ave I think. Everybody wants the 13-35 crowd because they are the impulsive buyers. Also, they are the 'online generation'. Newpaper ads are pretty irrelevant to this group -- at least the younger half. Those 55+ have lost their impulsiveness but they are the largest segment of the population and have the most money. Most don't live online. How will the advertisers get to them? TV and cable I suspect. The problem there is demographics again. TV advertisers also chase the young demogrpahic. So here we have the largest segment of the population with the most money to spend and advertising seems to be abandoning that market. Eventually, almost everyone will be online 'literate' but only after the baby boomers pass.

I see reason to be very optimistic, indeed. Given the demeanor of the Club for Growth, look for a real blood letting in the GOP Primary race. That is if Charley has the balls to hang tough. I had some respect for Crist before he started flip-flopping like a decked tuna over his embrace of the Stimulus Package. He behaved like a responsible governor at that time and should have held that course -- especically since they had him on tape red-handed in an embrace with Obama. Stress and pressure always brings out the character in one. This should provide a good opening for the Dems if they can nominate someone who can crap and chew gum at the same time. Of course, that won't turn night into day exactly as many democrats seem to be light on gonads who also sell out cheaply to monied interests. Having aother one of those buttboys in Washington won't do much for the status quo... which is FUBAR . Anymore, the only principled congress-persons come from the safest of districts/states where they never have to worry about re-election. Of course, the problem with those districts/states is that they sometimes elect crazy people (eg. Sen James Inhoff/OK) to the office which are immune from removal. Over time they tend to collect into a semi-critical mass on either side.

Point taken. I would point out that the true measure of an active escort is live email or phone contact. Many guys let their paid web ads expire for whatever reason without actually hanging up their spurs, at least domestic escorts. It is also true that not all escorts are prompt with returning email. Nevertheless, you make a good point. We do look forward to a complete scrubbing of the escort listings by contacting all escorts, deleting all with dead contact info, and deactivating those that fail to login at least once every 120 days, with pings every 30 days to verify email contact info and alert the escort of the 120 day grace period.

We appreciate the issue and look forward to resolving it. However, we also appreciate that the site is still in the shakeout phase (you may not think so from the audience perspective but behind the curtains we remain busy resolving issues), that we have a couple of thousand escorts on file, that we have several browsers with several versions that we must support. Nothing would be more disaterous than to prompt all escorts to check in to edit their profiles without highest confidence that the software will work as intended. Patience will be rewarded. Thanks.

I could go on a multi-screen rant on this topic but I will restrain myself to a few choice comments. Our laws do nothing short of enshrining legalized usury that would make Shylock grin if not blush, and legalizes financial entrapment. I still believe in free markets and competition, when there is competition. However, I believe there is more collusion and less competition these days, and that was suborned by the Bush administration and Republican Congress and, sadly, the Clinton Administration too. The collusion may not be overt as antitrust laws require. It is defacto collusion, in that Congress and Bush telegraphed that 'anything goes' and nobody will come after them. This results in the gathering of vultures to pick the carcas clean. ALthough I may not like or think justified the high usurious interest rates that Banks desire to charge, I believe that they should have the freedom to charge whatever they wish up to a point. However, I do think public policy should exercise a curb on that maximum value as there does become a point when individual circumstances aggregate into adverse effects on the economy. When the a cetain proportion of national income goes to servicing debt rather than new pruchases and savings, that bodes ill for the broad economy. I do object vehemently when they are permitted to apply new rates to old credit balances extended under lower rates. The cost of money lent at that time remains unchanged. Yet banks are permitted to jack up the profits on old loans within present interest climate. This is nothing other than legalized 'bait and switch' IMO. Banks treat credit customers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That itself speaks to the fallacy of the 'free market competition' which is nothing more than a lie. Simply put, as Dick Dubin said, "the Banks own the place" referring to Congress -- Republican and Democrat. I'll add Geithner and Summers to that. So far, Obama looks like a failure in reigning in the too-big-to-fail institutions. He should pay more attention to Volcker and Baird and show Summers and Geithner the door IMO. Dodd seems serious at this late point, Frank, more of a question. But I doubt either can overcome the bought-and-paid-for Congress or the Admin Dynamic Duo. The failure to follow-thru with breaking up too-big-to-fail institutions gives me some regret about the bailout that I thought was essential at the time. Congress, the Admin, and those insitutions themselves are sewing the seeds for a repeat of the next Almost-Depression because there is just too much money to be made for the fat cats without much downside as the taxpayer has been identified as the sucker who will pick up the tab. If this stands then I will be forced to admit that the Republicans were right about letting the system collapse to rid it of the cancers that caused it. It would probably mean a decade or more of severe economic pain and misery. But is there any alternative when the doctor won't amputate the gangrenous limb to save the body. They are setting us up for a repeat. The bright side... in every economic catastrophe there is always great riches to be made for the few. And the rich few can always buy the cheap politicians for little more than a song.

I recall a recent news release about it being advocated for young male adults as a prophylactic for HPV. I found it a bit suprising but on second thought it seemed not illogical. Before I would advocate that anyone take it I would want to know more about potential side effects. I remember some horrendous stories about side effect in young women some time after the drug got a big push through private and public institutions. That sort of quieted down after the intial torrent of stories. Not sure how much meat there was to that. It seemed like it disappeared from the radar as fast as it appeared. I got the nagging impression that no wanted to talk about it anymore, sorta like the eccentricy uncle who quietly squeezes out farts at the end of the table at Thankskgiving dinner. The stories were truly horrendous. If true it seemed to me like Russian Roulette. That's why I would want to know more.

Thanks for the feedback. The Buffalo references puts things into better context for me. Interesting to see that the guys are so open about things. Guess it means that they are quite self-confident about their sexuality and that nobody much cares -- society wise.

Tomcal, I know the large cities Rio and SP are very broadminded about gays and saunas and sex in general! How accepting is the PA community of the gay community in general, and the Saunas in specific? This raises the issue whether there is much/any stigma for the sauna boys as no one believes these guys are just frequenting community centers for the sewing circles.

An hour seems good to me. Sorry it got changed. We will have to wait for Oz to check in as I lost my key to the forum inner sanctum.

It's done.

Tomcal, What makes this Brunch not-too-miss?

You may have posted already, but along with slow recharge comes spotty memory. How do the rentboy rates compare to the sauna rates from the perspective of a street-smart norte americano, not a naive tourista?

I doubt that hard drugs will ever be legalized, and if they ever are it won't last long. Just see the Amsterdam experience where they are backing away from defacto legalization or noncriminalization of hard drugs. This notwithstanding all of the rational arguments for legalization. The reason is simple and twofold. It comes down to accepting drug use as an open aspect of life and it comes down to blame. People do not want to see family members addicted to drugs and to the attendant consequences that brings. Also, people do not want to live in the presence of drug users, next door or down the street. Of course it happens all over the place but that is not sanctioned by society. Thus society is not to blame directly. Also, drug use is terribly destructive on a personal level and on a societal level. The question is: Who is to blame for this destructive impact? If drugs are legalized then society must shoulder much of the blame as it facilitates the act of drug consumption. If drugs are illegal then we can blame those who are too weak to abstain and those who choose to break the law and commit crimes, both petty and heinous. I do not believe that society wants to shoulder the blame. It prefers to put the blame at the feet of personal responsibility. None of this leads to a practical solution but it helps us to live with the defacto circumstances today and hope for a better alternative tomorrow. There have been many tomorrows in the War on Drugs. There will be more. As with Sisyphus we strive to push our heavy load to the summit of success. Like him we never make it but the nobility is in the unending effort.

Sounds like heaven to me. Just my kind of place. Laid back Monday - Wednesday is fine with me. My old batteries are the slowly recharging type. In fact, I could use a three day recharge between each of the weekend days...lol. Of course, I'd have to make regular trips to Rio and SP and BA too, as I like those varieties too. What are the winters like in PA and how does that affect the action?

It might. If not stop then maybe decrease the incidences of deaths, ODs and criminal violence. First, IMO legalizing marijuana is a no-brainer. The benefits far outweigh the negatives. For harder drugs, decriminalizing use if done right would take the profit motive and hence the criminal element out of distrbuting drugs. That would reduce significant violent crime. It would also reduce the benefits associated with and therefore the need to engage in robberies, burglaries and assaults to pay for drugs or to rip off supply from others. Unauthorized distribution would remain illegal with severe penalties. In addition to providing a cheap if not free source for drugs, it would provide for pharmaceutical grade, strictly regulated standardized strength, making the user less at risk less of accidental overdose or subject to the effect of tainted drugs. If drugs consumption was limited to onsite at approved dispensaries, not only would safe drug doses and quality be regulated but physicians would be on hand to monitor users health issues and regulate permissable doeses. Legalizing alchohol was never intended to solve the problems it created, only to solve the problems that making it illegal created. The problem is not with alocohol or drugs, it is with human beings. We know about things we shouldn't do yet we are drawn to do them all the time. Whatever laws we pass we will never change human nature and human frailties. The question is how do we deal with them to minimize the effects on each of us as individuals and also on all of us collectively as society. We can pretend that we can repeal human nature through laws which is folly or we can recognize the shortcoming of human nature and search for ways to mitigate the effect of those shortcomings on us. I'm with you here. I don't know what the solution is. Clearly what we have now isn't a solution. A strong argument can be made for legalization based, in part, on the points above. I seems to me that the arguments for legalization are more rational than for the status quo. My gut tells me that. However, it also tells me that assisting individuals to consume what amounts to addictive poisons doesn't offer me much if any comfort in that solution. Frankly, it boils down to the dilemma that the rational solution doesnt feel right and the feel-right solution doesn't seem rational based on experience and logic. In the vernacular of today, we seek the unattainable perfect at the sacrifice of the practical good, realizing that 'good' is a relative term. The problem with the status quo is that it is the Law Enforcement approach with penalties that has been shown NOT to work over and over. It can never succeed absolutely. There will always be those who believe they can skirt the law with success and benefit. The concept is based on making the infraction detection sufficiently effective and the penalties sufficiently severe that scofflaws become the rare exception rather than the common occurence. Infraction detection is necessarily limited in a free society. While the severity of penalties has been up and down depending on the times and locations it is clear that the penalties have never been sufficiently severe to drive drug sales and use to obscurity. To the contrary it is a multibillion dollar business worldwide -- hundreds of millions in the US. If society is serious about using law enforcement as the mechanism to effectively eradicate illegal drugs then it must be willing to adopt the penalities that will achieve that end. To date it has not been serious. Singapore is serious. The legalization approach seeks to manage individual personal disaster with benefit to society through decreased crime and attendant costs, while the status quo seeks to eradicate, without any broad success to date, individual personal disaster at the expense of those individuals (through criminalization) and at great expense to society in terms of violent crime and the expended resoures to address that crime. How much longer will we stay this course? Do we have the guts to stray from it? Are we better off as a society feeling good morally about our choices even though we continue to fall short of real success and fail some of our brothers and sisters and children in some measure every day? Maybe we are. Maybe to live with our society we have to adopt precepts that are incompatible with some practical solutions. We pay a price either way. Sorry to go on and on. Just got cranked up and carried away.

Quite a hottie and one more tattoo free.

You have not been removed. The dreaded red x is a sign of a bug. We still have several issues that remain with the new site. We are working to resolve them as soon as we find them. We appreciate all feedback to help us identify problems. If you could be more specific about the cirumstances it would be helpful as this issue could be specific to the escort profile. Else we end up playing pin the tail on the donkey blindfolded. Thanks.

This law has been attempted in stand-alone form for several years. During the Bush years he stated he would veto it should it reach his desk. It never did. Getting some things through the Senate, almost anything this last year, requires a supermajority of 60 votes. There hasn't been 60 votes to pass it. The GOP is almost monlithically against it. A number of Dems are either against it or don't feel they can be seen to support it based on their conservative constiutency. Tying controversial legislation to bigger, less controversial legislation rquires those against the former to have to pick and choose the greater good as they see it. For those in favor but at risk if seen to support it, this provides cover for their vote. It's called Washington Politics. I hate it when this tactic works against my druthers. I hold my nose when it advances my issues. Would that our politics were managed only by vestal virgins. Unfortunately, that ain't the case. You got to be willing to play in the sandbox with the sand it comes with and with the players at hand.

We just wanted to see if you are as sexy as your posts. Seriously, we uncovered another software bug in the new site. I thought I was sending a reminder to some newly registered escorts to upload photos for their profiles. It seems the software decided to send that message to everyone. We attempted to clawback all of those emails after we discovered what happened. However, some of you beat us to it. Sorry.

ditto... Probably one of the more frequent reasons that so many small businesses fail.

This is the perfect place to address these issues. Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. I'll defer to Oz on your questions other than to note that I have my own color perception challenge though different from yours. Also, I will offer an addtional comment: Ultimately, the splash page is suppose to rotate through a set of images of several different escorts. That rotation feature has yet to be implemented. Why would it? There are no 'protected' escorts on this site. Never has been, never will be. They are responsbile for their business as we are for ours. Is there concern on your part that some sort of punishment would be exacted by us for writing a negative review? What would that be? What benefit would that have for us? It never occurred to me that the appearance of an escort image on the splash page would cause suspicions that escort might be accorded special treatment with regard to reviews. I guess that is so because the idea of special treatment is just so foreign a concept to us. We were just looking for some nice looking escort faces to adorn our opening screen. Something enticing but not erotic that gives a hint of what is to come for those who choose to proceed. Interesting feedback that I didn't see coming. I would like to get additional feedback from others on their perception about using images of known escorts on our opening splash page. We certainly do not want to compromise any escorts nor do we wish to contribute to any perception that our site is compromised.

Hot guy. Most unusual to see such light tattoo-free skin.