TampaYankee

I didn't eat fish before I discovered salmon. Oh, I ate canned tuna in tuna salad but I didn't consider that fish. Prior to salmon the only fish I ever ate that I thought worth eating and it tasted great, and I do mean great, was Florida Snook, a game fish not available in stores. Had it once in my life and will never forget it. My parents ate fish but when they had it I opted for a hot dog or PB&J or cold cut sandwich. Couldn't abide the smell or taste. Then I traveled to Seattle in the mid 80's. Down at the wharf I was entranced by the odor of alder wood smoke. I was always an easy mark for smoked foods unless oysters (yuck!!). To my horror that smoke aroma was packaged only with a piece of salmon -- fish! . After the third day I finally broke down and bought a piece. I was surprised to find that it actually tasted like real food, not like the usual bland tasting, bad smelling white fish or the foul tasting, worse smelling oily fish like mackeral. The salmon actually was firm-fleshed like meat and tasted like it was real flesh too. It wasn't Snook but it was awfully damned tasty. The alder wood aroma didn't hurt it either -- an understatement. Not having ready access to alder wood back East, I delved into other seasonings like Cajun, and even butter. It was still pretty damned good. That actually opened a wider door to fish in general, but salmon is still my favorite unless I see a snook swimming within hook's reach.

How many gallons per fish?

Looks interesting. I must check it out. Speaking of great TV, I just refreshed my memory of the ITV/PBS series Brother Cadfael, about a medieval detective monk. I discovered it was available on Netflix. The show has lost none of its production edge in twenty years. Still as fresh and intriguing as it was when I first saw it way back when. The only downside to that series is that they produced only thirteen episodes. Those Brits know how to do TV right.

We agree on taxes and war. Too bad the last Republican Administration and Congress did not -- twice!!. As for voters easily overturning any tax laws they do not like you mean a very significant supermajority of voters right? It seems only supermajority rules in the US Senate anymore. Also, the sitting House Democrats received over a million more votes in total than the sitting GOP members, yet the GOP controls the House. Another blow for the voters easily affecting Congress. I share your view that those who invest and take risks in business enterprises should be the primary beneficiaries of their investment. But how much is enough? Quite simply, nobody builds a successful business in a vacuum. Obama made this point in his campaign, which the GOP demagogued high and low. Everybody knows this who takes a few moments to reflect on how businesses flourish in this country or any other -- anybody willing to be honest about it. For this country to provide robust economic development ground it has to flourish across the board. It has promote both the Common Welfare and the General Welfare of this country. By Common welfare, I mean benefits to all in common, eg. police, fire, military and national security, etc. By General Welfare I mean benefits that may not touch us all but that do benefit the country in the long run and short run. For example, Head Start, WIC, education loans, affordable accessible health care for all to name a few. So, yeah, the question becomes how much is enough? CBO says the rich get richer, much, and the poor get poorer, and the middle class stagnates or declines and looses many to the class of working poor, if they are lucky to be working at all. Yet the GOP says the rich need more and the middle class and poor should pay more or do without. Where has the trickle down gone? You are quite right that the government is not a manufacturer. It is a service industry and venture capital enterprise. It has served this country well as both. It is also the first responder for economic meltdowns and the intensive care unit for gravely ill/wounded economies. No other entity has the wherewithal to meet that need in a crisis. Some say (mostly conservatives) let a sick economy burn itself out and we will rebuild a new stronger one for the future. The analogy is: let the apartment building burn down. It will be replaced by a new, beautiful, modern, high-efficiency living space that will grace the city skyline. What of the people dying in that conflagration. Unfortunate, but they will be replaced by younger stronger better educated tenants. So much for trickle down and austerity economics. We certainly agree that tax reform is badly needed. Not sure if we agree on all specifics of those reforms, not that I disagree with your above proposals. They sound like a good start.

Pretty much explains the deficit. We could have paid for two wars and filled the hole in our economy left by the Wall St meltdown, or come close. Instead, we have a big deficit, getting smaller every day just through what modest gains in the economy that have been made, the rich getting richer -- not a stretch to say 'much' richer -- the poor getting poorer and the middle class falling behind and many out of that category. Republican economics have been a great boon to some -- the few -- but a bust for most. Do we really need more of that? When do people wise up. It is true what they say: "If you want to live like a Republican then vote like a Democrat". Dogma be damned, look at the facts man!!

CBO: Tax Breaks Cost $12 Trillion Over Decade, Benefit Most Wealthy * Top 20 pct of earners get half the benefit of top breaks * Tax breaks on capital gains favor the wealthy * Study favors Obama's approach to tax reform -Democrats By David Lawder WASHINGTON, May 29 (Reuters) - The top ten U.S. tax deductions, credits and exclusions will keep $12 trillion out of federal government coffers over the next decade, and several of them mainly benefit the wealthiest Americans, a new study from the Congressional Budget Office shows. The top 20 percent of income earners will reap more than half of the $900 billion in benefits from these tax breaks that will accrue in 2013, the non-partisan CBO said on Wednesday. Further, 17 percent of the total benefits would go to the top 1 percent of income earners -- families earning roughly $450,000 or more. The same group that was hit with a tax rate hike in January. The benefits of preferential tax rates on capital gains and dividends, a break worth $161 billion this year, go almost entirely to the wealthy, including 68 percent to the top one percent of earners. House Democrats, who requested that Congress' budget referee conduct the study, argued that it backs up President Barack Obama's proposed approach to tax reform and deficit reduction: raise revenues by limiting the amount tax preferences for the wealthy. "This shows that we could achieve a significant amount of deficit reduction by limiting the preferences to the highest income earners," said Representative Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. Although the study did not provide income thresholds, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2011 shows the top 20 percent of household income extends to down to $101,582, a level that is considered middle-class in many parts of the United States. The lowest quintile topped out at $20,262 in the Census data. MIDDLE-CLASS AID But the study also showed that benefits for the largest of the tax preferences, the exclusion for employer-paid health benefits, worth $3.4 trillion over 10 years, are more evenly distributed, with well over half of the benefits going to the middle 60 percent of earners. The middle 20 percent of earners also got the biggest benefit from excluding a portion of Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits, a perk worth $414 billion over 10 years. Three other big tax breaks, the $2 trillion exclusion of net pension contributions and earnings over 10 years, the $1 trillion deduction for mortgage interest and the $1.1 trillion deduction for state and local taxes, also benefited the top 20 percent disproportionately. Representative Sander Levin, the highest ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, the panel that is trying to advance tax reform this year, said the study shows that Republicans would have to greatly reduce tax breaks that benefit the middle class in order to achieve their goals of reducing tax rates and balancing the budget. "The CBO report underscores the need to go beyond the rhetoric of lowering tax rates without indication of how that would be achieved or the implications for economic growth and tax equity," Levin said. A spokesperson for Ways and Means Committee's Republican Chairman, Dave Camp, could not immediately be reached for comment on the study. Republicans want to reform the tax code by eliminating certain deductions, credits and exclusions, but they do not want to divert any resulting revenues toward deficit reduction. Instead they want to use the savings to lower rates, which they say will accelerate economic growth and increase revenue collection. Democrat Van Hollen said his favored approach would be to limit the total amount of deductions for the top 2 percent of income earners, or families earning $250,000 or more, while leaving intact much of the top 10 tax breaks, which also include deductions for charitable contributions and tax credits for earned income and children. These latter two tax breaks, which are largely aimed at the working poor, provide two thirds of their $118 billion in 2013 benefits to the lowest 40 percent of wage earners, the CBO said in the study. Over 10 years, these two credits will cost $1.2 trillion. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/cbo-tax-breaks-wealthy_n_3355836.html

I of mixed minds on the Rosen affair but on the whole, I lean toward the Administration. This probably puts me on the other side of the fence from most here. My reasoning is pretty simple. Before proceeding I'll state that I was on the side of the release of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Schor and the NYT were right to publish and Daniel Ellsburg was legally culpable for leaking. He was probably right also for leaking but in a moral, not legal way. He paid the price for a deliberate act to break the law which he knew he was doing. I do not believe you can sanction the leaking of sensitive information by anyone who believes it is morally right. We have lost lives over leaked information. It has repercussions. Now on to Rosen... I would lean more toward Rosen if he was a third party reporter that a so-called whistle blower came to with classified information. It is still on the reporter and his news organization to vet the information and seek input from the government prior to any publication. As mentioned, lives have been lost over leaked information, not to mention compromising important operations. However, it is my understanding that Rosen actually suborned a government contract employee with high security clearance to violate the Espionage act by soliciting and then conspiring with that person to obtain and communicate that information. That is the basis of my view in a nut shell. It is one thing to receive unsolicited classified information from a 'whistle blower', quite another to solicit and conspire to surreptitiously pass that information on. In my view it is no different than someone soliciting another to commit bank robbery and conspiring to help facilitate the act. It is a solicitation to break the law and commit a crime. In this case an espionage crime. Let me repeat, the guilt is in the solicitiation and conspiracy, not in receiving the information through a non-tainted contact. It does not matter that Rosen had no malicious intent to harm the United States. The information obtained and released might very well harm the United States, its interests or its personnel. Rosen solicited, and conspired in, the violation of the Espionage Act. Rosen stepped over the line. Reporters are not imbued with the power to solicit and commit crimes in the pursuit of the profession no matter the intent. He has contributed, at the least, to wrecking one person's life permanently. Maybe more?

Context?

Lingual, as in sublingual? Labial? I have to wonder what caverns or gutters you've been yelling echoes into? No disrespect intended. Amen, to your above. What difference does it make? I think we can all settle on 'communications' and maybe even 'conversation' if not in real time.

LOL.

Aces, your presence and contributions are greatly appreciated here as are the vast majority of posters. Thanks for your support and the support of all of the others too. From time to time we have had to say goodbye to a few misguided posters but damn few. Good posters attract other good posters. That is how I explain the community here. There is no reason for heavy handed moderation if every one treats each other with respect and the admins are open about what they do and why. It is simply common sense about common courtesy. Good luck on that steak dinner.

Ahhh.... well you're welcome here under either name. I thought you might be only because I recalled Seeker630, as you refresh my memory, was but I am slow to jump to conclusions as some here can attest to. But then other esteemed members hail from NC like the historically-famous escort-hiring economist, Adam Smith, as well as some others. You go back to the early days at HB too or damn close.

Charlie, I'd like to second your views. I believe them to be a fair assessment of many of the members and escorts over there and of the social activities that have taken place. I wish I had had the opportunity to attend more of them with escort in hand to meet other members and other escorts. We set a great tone and precedent several years ago in NYC and I am pleased to see that has continued. Hats off to you, Lucky, Lurker, Oliver and whoever else has supported organizing these events. IMO it has been a real plus for those who have participated in them. I know it was for me.

Seeker was a poster at the other site way-back-when. I assume he is still around?

How does this comment advance the discussion or it is just intended to irritate another member?

I have no problem at all. I simply do not read most posts about the other site as they do not interest me. Reminds of one my earlier posts at HooBoy's explaining to some who objected vehemently to his posting, that nobody strapped those guys into a chair, sewed their eyelids open and placed in front of them a computer monitor tuned to his forums, opened up on one of his posts. On the internet, I've never seen so many people complain of wet feet when all they had to do was step over a little puddle.

Thanks for the response. I had absolutely no real knowledge about any of that. Useful to know. When I did fly I mostly flew Soutwest. It served my needs as an East Coast flyer and I prefer the out of the way airports free of steep parking fees and congestion. Also, accruing free travel was pretty easy back then. My backup was US Air until they pissed me off with their shitty customer care. I left a walkman on the plane and asked a ticket agent at the boarding/deplaneing gate to see if she could inquire about it. She blew me off and that was the last time I flew US Air.

One more new quarter pounder and I can replace the wheels on my car. Never been much for the quarter pounders. There bargains were always the Double Cheese before they wised up. Now the best deal remains their value menu replacement for the Double Cheese -- has only one slice of cheese, not two, which suits me quite well as their cheese product sucks. Truthfully, I check out of Micky D's during the pink slime scandal. I used to love BK's Whooper and Jr. until... they swapped out the open flame brazier for the replacement cookers that were going to service their rib offerings. Now they are gone but the old open flame is still gone too. Their burgers taste like steamed cardboard now. I kept hoping they would revert, aware of the lousy product they have now. But no, so I dropped them a long while back. That leaves Wendy's in my area. Their burgers taste like burgers but they want an arm and a leg for specialty burgers. That's ok. One can eat fine off the value menu. The meat is the same, cooked the same and two will do me along with a value fry which I don't need anyway -- a tasty heart-clogging fast-food meal for $3.50 or thereabouts.

Some call it trolling.

Couldn't agree more. Astonished the public doesn't see it and puts up with it. As for the pols, well... they see much of what their lobbying contributors see. Nothing new there and seldom does the public make itself the squeaky wheel in a big enough way to overcome the lobbyists. I used to fly half a dozen time a year on average. I haven't flown in almost ten years and glad I do not. Between the TSA and the airlines pricing charades I'm very happy I can avoid dealing with them. Any more, for modest trips I consider driving. No cost savings, maybe cost more but the peace of mind and freedom from the grief and aggravation of those parties makes it desirable. That and I like road trips. I think a charter for groups is a great idea. I probably wouldn't have thought of it without your comment. My once concern with small guys is maintenance safety. I know they are supposed to do all the necessary stuff. But I suspect they get nowhere near the oversight scrutiny, thus self-policing that the big boys do. Do you know the safety stats for the Charters vs the big Commercial Guys?

Love the number. My favorite scene in all of the Raiders of the Lost Arc movies, and maybe the best opening scene in any movie ever, is the opening to the Temple of Doom with the 42nd St production number staged in the gangster's night club. The dance, the music, the tyco drums, the first shot, the following frantic action: search for the precious diamond and poison antidote amongst the ice and all the following gun play with hide and seek from the bullets. A fantastic movie opening. Two thumbs up. Unfortunately, it was all down hill after that scene.

Best & Worst Airlines Virgin America makes its debut at the top of our list By Consumer Reports magazine | Consumer Reports Getty Images/Getty Images - LOS ANGELES, CA - APRIL 04: Sir Richard Branson (L) and attends the Launch of Virgin America's First Flight from Los Angeles to Philadelphia Los Angeles International Airport on April 4, 2012 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Michael Buckner/Getty Images) If you’re tired of airline flights that leave you too frazzled to enjoy your trip, we have a new recommendation for you. Virgin America, a newcomer to our Ratings, got a clear thumbs-up from readers in our latest survey, with some of the highest scores we’ve seen in years. At the other end of the runway was Spirit Airlines. It was at the bottom of our list, with poor scores across the board for check-in, cabin service, and more. In an era of airlines changing, merging, and inventing new fees, getting the best deal hasn’t gotten any easier. But we’ll tell you how to search for the best fares and what you’ll pay in fees from the major carriers. We also have insights from more than 16,000 readers who told us about a total of 31,732 domestic flights in our survey, conducted in February by the Consumer Reports National Research Center. [More from Consumer Reports: Don't let frequent flyer miles depart without you] One of the things they told us was that they really liked flying on Virgin America. “The leather seat cushions are so nice in coach, there’s no reason to fly first class,” says Janice Dunn, who answered the survey and lives in Palm Desert, Calif. The airline, which started in 2007, has recently expanded the number of cities it serves to 21. Its main hub is in San Francisco. It flies to most major American cities, as well as certain vacation destinations in Mexico. And it plans to add Anchorage, Alaska, and Austin, Texas, this spring. Virgin America says it emphasizes “top-notch services and a host of innovative amenities.” Cabins feature mood lighting (magenta strips of lights along the sides and violet along the middle of the ceiling), Wi-Fi throughout the planes, and seatback entertainment systems that allow you to order food and beverages, watch free movies and television, play games, and listen to more than 4,000 songs. Our readers gave those cabin services and in-flight entertainment top scores. Although Virgin America charges $25 each for the first and second checked bags, it was the only airline to get the top score for baggage handling. Free baggage Two other highly rated airlines, JetBlue and Southwest, receive high marks for baggage handling. But even more important, they’re the only carriers on our list that let you check one (JetBlue) or two (Southwest) bags free on domestic flights. The free bags help explain why they’re among the top airlines we rated. Check-in was a breeze on Southwest, and readers enjoyed the staff’s onboard service. But it was dinged on in-flight entertainment, an area where Virgin America and JetBlue (which also offers programming on seatback screens) shined. Southwest offers wireless entertainment on your device. JetBlue outscored Southwest on cabin cleanliness and seating comfort; it gives all passengers a couple of extra inches of leg room compared with most other airlines. Hawaiian Airlines received high marks for check-in ease, cabin service, and cleanliness. And readers liked the way it handled their bags. Not-so-hot: Hawaiian’s in-flight entertainment. On the other end of the spectrum, bottom-­ranked Spirit Airlines received one of the lowest overall scores for any company we’ve ever rated. “Spirit is the only no-frills airline left with fares that can be 90 percent less than other carriers’,” says George Hobica, founder and editor of Airfarewatchdog, which tracks airline deals. But it also charges a wide array of fees, including $10 to $19 to book a flight; $3 for a soda, a juice, or a bag of M&Ms; and $35 to $100 per carry-on bag. Readers were also sore about Spirit’s seats; it has the tightest seating space in the industry. “I’m 6 feet 1 inch, and Spirit is the only airline I’ve flown where my knees hit the seat in front of me when it was upright, not just reclined,” says survey respondent Paul Barrett, a retired airline pilot who lives in Orinda, Calif. Consumers told us about other airlines’ strengths and weaknesses. Passengers were very happy with Alaska’s check-in, and they liked its cabin staff and baggage handling. But they weren’t so happy with the airline’s seats and entertainment options. Delta and Frontier were awarded very good marks for check-in ease, but otherwise things were mostly middling. Low marks for seating comfort hurt Delta. Lower-­rated carriers, such as American, United, and US Airways, all received the lowest rating possible for cabin cleanliness, seating comfort, and in-flight entertainment. [More from Consumer Reports: Avoid money changing fees when traveling abroad] Airlines’ fees are now coming in packages, whether or not you want all of the services. At American, one itinerary example put Choice Essential at $68, allowing a free flight change, one free checked bag, and early boarding. The Choice Plus bundle, for $88, would provide bonus frequent-­flyer miles, free same-day standby and flight-change options, and a “premium” beverage. Exact costs vary by itinerary. So expect more turbulence ahead given that according to our survey, unexpected fees are a leading cause of dissatisfaction with an airline. Track down the best fare You’ll have to shop around a bit to get a good ticket price. As you may have noticed if you’ve flown in the past year, fares are up, rising seven times in 2012 according to FareCompare, a travel-planning website. Rick Seaney, co-founder and CEO of the site, predicts that the trend will continue through 2013. Work the Web. Almost all of the respondents (94 percent) who booked their own flights did so online. Of those respondents, 59 percent compared fees on other websites before they chose an airline. To uncover the best deal, we suggest you cast that wider net. Check prices on third-party sites. Expedia, Kayak, and Travelocity may list identical prices for flights, but they have different electronic reservation systems and add and remove fares at different times. Be sure to check airline sites, too, because sometimes they have sales that they don’t share with third-party sites. If you don’t have to book immediately, the airlines and price-comparison sites (add Airfarewatchdog, Hotwire, and Priceline to those above) might let you set price alerts; you’ll get an e-mail or text when prices drop. Dodge the fees. Try to travel light or fly a low-fee airline, such as JetBlue or Southwest. If you need to check a bag or pay for a carry-on, see whether there’s a discount for prepaying on the airline’s website. Check your airline’s weight limits. For example, United charges $100 to $200 (depending on your destination) for a checked bag weighing from more than 50 pounds to less than 100. Overweight fees kick in at more than 40 pounds on Spirit. You might avoid certain fees if you charge your travel to the airline’s credit card. The cards often carry annual fees of $40 to $100, but the perks they usually offer—priority boarding, free checked luggage, and access to airport lounges—can more than make up for the charge. Be flexible. Shifting your travel dates by a day or two will often allow you to nab a much lower price. Tuesday, Wednesday, and Saturday are generally the cheapest days to fly, Seaney says. Check prices at 3 p.m. EST on a Tuesday, he adds; it’s when the greatest number of cheap seats are available. But bargains can appear at any time, so keep searching and set up those alerts, Hobica stresses. Check other airports. When you use price-comparison sites, specify the city you want to depart from, not the airport. Most sites will then show you the flight options for any of that area’s airports. Put it on hold. Thanks to regulations that went into effect last year, you can hold a reservation for 24 hours without paying for it (as long as it’s at least a week from the scheduled departure date) while you check around for a lower fare. Airlines are feasting on fees The airlines call them ancillary revenue. You probably call them annoying. One thing is certain—it’s getting harder to purchase an airline ticket without paying for extras. (See the table below for more details.) Since Spirit Airlines became an “Ultra Low Cost Carrier” in 2007 and most domestic carriers followed by charging for checked bags, there has been no turning back from the nickel-and-diming. There isn’t much good news for passengers. But when it comes to fees, the most consumer-friendly airline is Southwest, the only U.S. carrier that allows your first and second bags to be checked gratis. JetBlue allows only the first bag free; most airlines charge $25. Low-cost Southwest also stands alone in not imposing ticket-change fees. (Many airlines give 24 hours to change a flight free.) And along with Frontier, it does not charge for telephoning reservations. But you shouldn’t automatically equate low fares with a lack of fees. Some of the biggest charges are levied by two low-cost carriers, Allegiant and Spirit. Their business models are based on à la carte pricing, with a charge for carry-on bags (in Spirit’s case, up to $100). Frontier starts charging for carry on bags when the flight is booked through a third party. Spirit even charges for booking online, and it imposes an “Unintended Consequences of DOT Regulations Fee.” [More from Consumer Reports: Traveling? What's the best kind of camera for you] Do Allegiant and Spirit offer low fares? Absolutely. But obtaining a true apples-to-apples comparison among multiple airlines on your bottom-line ticket price can require a lot of time and work these days. Hard-to-find fee info Be warned: If you’re searching for fees on an airline’s site, it’s often a cumbersome process. Southwest and Virgin America provide easy access to complete fee information, we found. Many other carriers offer detailed online guides to fees, but they include unhelpful points such as charges of “from $4 to $99” for preferred seats. United doesn’t even provide a range of prices for two critical fees: checking your first and second bags. Charges are doled out on a flight-by-flight basis only after you enter your itinerary. We obtained United’s fee information by contacting its media relations department, an option not available to the average passenger. For most travelers, it’s difficult to avoid the fees in our chart, and we didn’t even include categories such as the cost of oversized or overweight luggage, additional bags, paper tickets, and for amenities and extras such as drinks, snacks, meals, larger seats, and headsets or entertainment. Unaccompanied minors and pets also incur fees, as do many frequent-flyer-program transactions. And to think that when we reported on airfares in 1964, we said, “Unless something is done to uncomplicate the situation, the day may soon arrive when only a computer will be able to match the traveler’s need to the most suitable flight and fare.” How about a supercomputer? Courtesy: Consumer Reports Pagination See the original article at: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/best---worst-airlines-213751145.html

The purpose of sites like this is to identify the good escorts and illuminate the shortcomings of others. Any civil discussion that achieves that end it most appreciated. Your discussion is very welcome along with that of others as long as the discussion does not devolve into a slugfest between posters, and I appreciate that it takes two to tango. I'm not trying to mete out any blame to anyone but highlight that going forward we can accomplish our goal without receiving or making abusive personal remarks in the process. The discussion is about the escorts not us. I look forward to the continued contributions of the participants in this thread.

I generally concur with your above remarks. We have no objections about discussing escorts, their performance and practices, at this site whether or not they were discussed at other sites. That includes reviews from other sites as well as escort comments made at other sites. Such discussion is one of the missions of this site. There is a caveat though that discussion must be legitimate discussion which is agenda free. We do not lend our site to prosecute agendas against escorts by individuals. My comments about other site activities were directed at discussion about members and interactions between members at that site, for the most part. As for the assumed legitimacy of bans at other sites, I have known some that were legitimate and some that were not IMO. So we assume no authority of other sites to set member status for this site. Each individual is welcome and will be evaluated on his own actions here. Some will take their show to a new venue with no change. Eventually they will disqualify themselves from participation. Others may decide that the diminished returns from abrasive actions are counterproductive and turn over a new leaf. Still others might have been wrongfully terminated for something as benign as asking for explanation or clarification of site policy in view of certain admin actions. Others may exhibit coarse behavior only in response to perceived hostile treatment in other environments. A new site brings new atmosphere and different admins that respond differently to some situations. Everybody starts fresh and makes of their participation what they wish. We are reluctant to mete out the death penalty unless and until someone has proven incorrigible in engaging in substantial and sustained negative social interaction. And my mother taught me early on about the principle of lying in the bed one makes -- a principle we embrace.

My, my.... what a tempest in a tea pot. Been a while since I've seen such energy applied to a thread here. First, I do not know what happened over at Daddy's. I never visit unless someone points out a compelling reason to do so. That seldom happens as I do not care about their meltdowns which seem to happen with some regularity. I may take a brief gander at this kerfuffle to see what all the hoopla is about if I do not have anything more pressing or interesting at hand. That being said, I did read the two review links posted above. It seems Daddy may have the same No-Show review policy that we have. I do not post No-Shows... unless money or transportation fare has been fronted. No-shows are impossible to verify and may be intentional or unintentional or the charge an actualization of an agenda. Sometimes appointments are imagined but never finalized through faulty communication. None of that applies if money changes hands. Things become very definite as does the ill intention of the escort. As for people hurling charges and accusations back and forth, first I urge everyone to read what is posted carefully by others and do not imagine the content base on a few leading words. Also, what happens over there is not of concern over here. We simply do not care. We evaluate people by their contributions here and only here. If you do not like someone's actions over there then complain about it there and leave it there. In addition, being banned from Daddy's is not a reason to be banned from here. I've known posters, good and ill, that have been banned over there. That management does not set the standards for this site. Period. If we adopted that standard at the beginning many of the original members of this site, not to mention several newer arrivals, would have been excluded. These members have been excellent contributors to our site. Some members may have been unfairly banned over there. Others may have gotten off on the wrong foot and invited to leave. If they show up here with a changed demeanor seeking a new start then they are welcome as long as they follow our site policies. We believe in redemption and second chances. It has served this site and our members very well. We do not invite discussion about the other site but we do not ban it either. This site has no interest in the daily travails and periodic convulsions that take place over there, or any of the name-calling or back-biting that may take place. However, we as admins recognize that some people may need to discuss events, express opinions and release steam that may not be permitted over there. We are an open community with free discussion as long as the site policies are observed. Finally, I urge everyone to treat each other with respect while at Boytoy. If you cannot manage respect then a modicum of courtesy, charm or civility will do. It will be appreciated all around.