SA: YOU'RE FIRED!!!

[Guest Marathon Man]

From what been reading the posts, I think that it might be best to just delete Scott's page, his postings and account. It seems to me that even thogh this situation was in the past and there is not a phone number, it is just not worth the risk to keep him around at this point. Who knows what can of worms this could open! It's bad enough that we have full nudity on the escort pages. We don't need to lose the site altogether.

 

As for Scott's saying that he had no choice at the time but to turn to hustling (definitely not escorting in this case), that is too bad. Now that he is an adult he can understand the concept of taking responsiblity for one's choices and putting others at risk. What if he had been discovered back then?

 

Regretably,

 

MM

[Funseeker 22]

What ?. Another SA Headline Posting !!!!

He should stay or go ?.

The boy will love you for the publicity.

I vote stay. :9 :9

[Guest Marathon Man]

>What ?. Another SA Headline Posting !!!!

> He should stay or go ?.

>The boy will love you for the publicity.

>I vote stay. :9 :9

 

FS, I don't think that this shoudl be up to a democratic vote. He seriously put this site and HB at risk. For all we know, just the confession could still endanger the site and its operators for "aiding and abetting."

 

MM

[Curmudgeon]

And so you've decided it should be your decision unilaterally? I'll bet you're popular in the condo association. ;-)

[Guest Marathon Man]

>And so you've decided it should be your decision

>unilaterally? I'll bet you're popular in the condo

>association. ;-)

 

 

LOL. No, just giving my opinion. Don't think it's worth the risk here, do you? Can you see explaining to a government agency under this adminstration "Aw, pshaw officer, you know how the young uns is. He didn't mean nothin' by it!"

 

Jeez.

[Curmudgeon]

Wouldn't it make more sense to write to the operator of the site? Nobody reading the MC can do anything about it.

[Guest CTguy]

I missed something. What did SA do to put this site at risk??

[BewareofNick]

Daddy sez: "Pointing out that there is a problem with the reviews is acceptable. Discussing[br]said subject likewise. But reposting information that you content is illegal, is not acceptable."

 

BofN is no longer welcome here.

[Funseeker 22]

BON,

Delete the long fricken review trail. It`s over with and I`m sure that past reviewers don`t need or wish to be brought into your targeting of SA. Send him a private em and get rid of your hostility.

Move on for Pete`s Sake !

Your obsession with Scott is becoming almost like stalking. :+

[kevininsa]

Ok, he's been "of age" for 3 years... I would think we're past the statute of limitations. Nobody is going to come down on someone today for something that happened 4+ years ago in that legal arena.

 

KevinInSA

Home of VM - I wonder how he's doing?

[Txpaytoplay]

Apparently his oral talents were just as keen back then as they are now!:o

[+ deej]

You know, there's another way to view this.

 

BoN (et. al.) have been posting this over and over and over. I seriously doubt these civic-minded individuals have bothered to alert management about the situation. They're too busy basking in the imagined glory. Why spoil their fun by telling anyone that can actually DO anything about it?

 

That would make them complicit, and guilty of posting information about underage escorting. Not once, but over and over again for a period of several days.

 

Kiddie-anything used to be a zero-tolerance offense around here.

[uwsman2]

OK, just a few points here....

 

1. The age of consent for sex varies from state to state. In some it's as low as 14, in many it kicks in at 16, in some it's 17 and in some it's 18. (I think 18 is the highest at present for any state.)

 

2. Before the Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas in the spring of 2003, gay sex was illegal everywhere below the Mason-Dixon line and in lots of other states as well, regardless of age, consent, public vs. private, or any other factor.

 

3. The only state where sex with money exchange is legal is Nevada, where it's local option by county and only some counties allow it, and then only in licensed brothels. It's legal in private in Canada and the UK and much of Europe, however, where more enlightened attitudes prevail towards the world's oldest profession. But every attempt to attack the constitutionality of the relevant laws in the US has been an utter failure.

 

In other words - the standards some folks are applying to SA here would mean wiping clean this entire site, because, technically speaking, an argument can be made that every escort listed here has probably at one time or another engaged in some activity that we do not care to name that could subject them to prosecution somewhere.

 

To focus in on SA is absurd, and sounds more like a vendetta than anything else.

[Epigonos]

uwsman2 your points are right on. Besides which this entire thread and all of the others involving SA have become bloody damn bores. For God sakes people can't you find somebody or something else to talk about.

[Doug69]

>In other words - the standards some folks are applying to SA

>here would mean wiping clean this entire site, because,

>technically speaking, an argument can be made that every

>escort listed here has probably at one time or another engaged

>in some activity that we do not care to name that could

>subject them to prosecution somewhere.

 

Try comparing the punishments typically meted out by the judicial system to those who are, on the one hand, guilty of statutory rape and/or hiring an underage prostitute (serious felonies which could very easily put you in jail for years) versus the penalities for violating general anti-prostitution statutes or anti-sodomy laws (almost always misdemeanors or less, involving little or no jail time).

 

Maybe if you think about that for 2 or 3 seconds, you will see why people are quite dismayed about a prostitute subjecting them to the risk of criminal prosecution for having paid sex with a minor EVEN IF those same people are willing to subject themselves to the much, much less serious risk of penalties for prostitution or sodomy with an adult.

 

Your point is tantamount to saying: "Well, you did jaywalk, so what you do you care if you get convicted of murder?" Don't you see how absurd that is?

 

You're also missing the most important point. Anyone who hires a prostitute or who engaged in sodomy where it was illegal to do so was KNOWINGLY subjecting themselves to the risk of conviction. They made their own informed choice. By deceiving and lying to people about his age, however, Scott DEPRIVED those clients of making the choice for themselves about what risk they would subject themselves to. Scott subjected them to the possibility of a serious felony WITHOUT them knowing that. That's a pretty huge - a fundamental - difference, wouldn't you say?

 

No matter how hot you think Scott's pictures are, it really takes a seriously morally depraved person to defend someone who tricks someone else into unwittingly commiting a serious felony simply because the deceiver wants to make some money.

 

>To focus in on SA is absurd, and sounds more like a vendetta

>than anything else.

[BewareofNick]

>You know, there's another way to view this.

>

>BoN (et. al.) have been posting this over and over and over. I

>seriously doubt these civic-minded individuals have bothered

>to alert management about the situation. They're too busy

>basking in the imagined glory. Why spoil their fun by telling

>anyone that can actually DO anything about it?

 

Shame you're not on the case, deej. Of course, considering how successful your tenure as a moderator was...

 

>Kiddie-anything used to be a zero-tolerance offense

>around here.

 

So are you implying that Barry and Cooper are not doing their jobs? Perhaps they should start telling psoters "fuck you" and just ban everyone who offends their delicate sensibilites?

 

Haven't you embarrassed yourself?

[beemerboy]

Now this guy i like!

[+ deej]

>>Kiddie-anything used to be a zero-tolerance offense

>>around here.

>

>So are you implying that Barry and Cooper are not doing their

>jobs?

 

Nope. I didn't say anything of the sort. Are YOU implying it?

 

>Haven't you embarrassed yourself?

 

Nope. But I do recognize a twist when someone wants to deflect an issue away from themselves. And I suspect most of our readers do too.

[BewareofNick]

You mean like the "misremembereances" you posted on another thread about why you caused "The Great Meltdown"? Fortuantely, Doug, 4Aces and I were there to correct that for you.

[BewareofNick]

>Move on for Pete`s Sake !

>Your obsession with Scott is becoming almost like stalking. :+

 

Try something original next time.

 

A question was asked. I answered. Simple enough?

[+ deej]

>You mean like the "misremembereances" you posted on another

>thread about why you caused "The Great Meltdown"?

>Fortuantely, Doug, 4Aces and I were there to correct that for

>you.

 

I misremembered nothing.

 

It's really cool that your pals back you up in a lie, but it's still a lie. That would make you all liars.

 

Now what does this have to do with this thread? More spin? More trying to deflect the discussion away from your lies?

 

Or are you trying to cover your ass for posting repeatedly about child prostitution without alerting management?

[BewareofNick]

The only one spinning things here is you.

 

You lied because you were embarrassed about your behavior, as well you should have been. You abused the trust that our dear departed founder had somehow misplaced in you.

 

You can continue to lie all you want, but those of us who were there to witness your monumental breakdown know what happened.

[beemerboy]

>Daddy sez: "Pointing out that there is a

>problem with the reviews is acceptable. Discussing[br]said

>subject likewise. But reposting information that you content

>is illegal, is not acceptable."

>

>BofN is no longer welcome here.

>

 

" If you have concerns about the actions of a moderator, please send an email to daddy@male4malescorts.com."

[Guest mbarz]

>>Daddy sez: "Pointing out that there is a

>>problem with the reviews is acceptable. Discussing[br]said

>>subject likewise. But reposting information that you

>content

>>is illegal, is not acceptable."

>>

>>BofN is no longer welcome here.

>>

 

" If you have concerns about the actions of a moderator, please send an email to daddy@male4malescorts.com."

[woodlawn]

>Or are you trying to cover your ass for posting repeatedly

>about child prostitution without alerting management?

 

I'm puzzled by the above. So far as I know, it was BoN who uncovered the information that SA had been hustling while underage. He uncovered it and promptly posted detailed information about it on this board. If that isn't enough to "alert management" then what would be? Would "management" even have known about it if not for his efforts? Apparently not. It seems to me he deserves a round of applause from anyone who actually cares whether this site gets in trouble.

 

Isn't it true that you were part of management while this was going on, and that you never found out about it or did anything about it? And you are criticizing BoN because he DID find out about it and DID do something about it? What on earth is the matter with you?