Kubrickfan

So she did overreact, but that's not the point. You can be as rightfully indignant as you want , but still end up with your number published and potentially having to get a new mobile and a new identity. What would you rather deal with? One approach gives everyone the sense that you are a gentleman and want to be equitable, the other is you want to quibble over the facts of a meeting you scheduled. Which approach puts you in a better light? I'd rather throw some money at the issue ... Or at least offer to do that.

Once you have a firm appointment, best bet in my opinion is to figure out a way to make it up to the lady financially. In your situation (every one is different) I would have offered her half the fee in an emailed gift certificate or some other way to show her you are seriously sorry. Once you have a firm appointment, especially one that is coming up shortly, you have "crossed the rubicon," so to speak, and the onus is on you, regardless of the reason, and regardless of whether it was only confirmed five minutes before. Also by doing that you are likely to keep her interest and keep you out of potential trouble.

+ 1 as shows respect for the person from whom you are requesting a reference. Additional Comments: That's funny. Kinda like us posting a recommendation for "that SP ... you know ... the one that took her clothes off."

CK -- it's been a long time, but I wouldn't want to let this pass by without saying a massive thanks for everything ... You're a true gentleman. Hope to see you on the boards and hopefully we will have that dinner we talked about a long time ago if I ever get back to Ottawa. Best, KF

P411. 'nuff said

Agree with Nicolette and others ... Each board has a somewhat unique "brand" and people are driven to the site based on the brand. I don't really hobby anymore, but I always checked out both. You can probably, across those brands, do some cross marketing or whatever. And allow linking to other sites if that is shut down? But don't make them the same. And I don't see anything at issue with lyla/cerb that isn't addressed by the other main web site and others tools available.

Godwin's Law, also known as "reductio ad Hitlerum" postulates that any online discussion, if it goes on long enough, will ultimately end up with comparisons to Hitler and Naxism as a basis to invalidate whatever is being criticized. This is yet another Trump discussion that got there really fast. Respectfully, it's not a helpful argument for anything. As I understand the executive order that everyone is losing their minds about, it put a temporary stay in place for 90 days while a program is implemented for improved vetting for individuals arriving from those countries. Of the over 300,000 people traveling to the U.S. every day, apparently somewhere (as reported by the U.S. media) around 300 individuals where put in a very difficult situation as they were in transit when it happened, and that should not have happened. But that is being addressed now. It affects people arriving from seven countries; over 40 countries that are predominantly Muslim are not affected. Trump is (a rarity for politicians) doing exactly what he said he would do.

Good to see this thread is still active almost six years after it was started! She is a wonderful lady!

What exactly is wrong with the US Constitution? It's the cornerstone document, together with the Declaration of Independence, of the greatest society that the world has ever known. Those documents, together with the republic they were written for, has done more to promote liberty and freedom, than most other nations in the world combined. It's intended to be a static document as its intended to be considered to be a compact, or "contract," between the state and its citizens so that it can be relied upon. When you have a "living" constitution (whatever the hell that means), you have a bull crap situation where the law only means what the unelected, old fart, wannabe legislator judge wants it to mean. Blecch.... As Alexander Hamilton said allowing judges to create law is a really bad idea as it substitutes their will for the legislature. On the other hand, the highest duty of a judge is to consider the validity of any law as to whether it is constitutional. And I don't think any judge on the U.S. Supreme Court thinks that they can somehow interpret that right to bear arms to take that right away from citizens. There is some debate over whether the Second Amendment applies to State, versus federal, laws, but that's about it. It's there, right after the First Amendment, for a damn good reason that has very little to do with hunting, target shooting, etc. That reason is to prevent the government from so controlling its citizens that, should the government become "destructive" as provided in the Declaration of Independence, the citizens cannot bear arms, as part of a militia or otherwise, to re-claim their liberty. So, respectfully, I don't have much patience, nor do most Americans, for people who want to diminish that right. Gun violence is certainly a problem but that doesn't require the Constitution be amended.

It was reported pretty regularly in the US in the more conservative news outlets at least for a few weeks before the vote because the polling was closer than originally thought, especially with David Cameron being against it. Cost him his job. Another intriguing aspect is that the Brexit vote was consistently under-polled in the UK. If I recall, even Nigel Farage gave a statement earlier on the day of the vote implying it was going to be voted down. If that's the same sort of sentiment that will drive people to the polls to vote for Trump, there could be some surprises in some states on the day of the election.

I'll add one additional thought ... not so much on the pros and cons of Clinton versus Trump, but on the bigger picture of whats going on. It may have been mentioned elsewhere in this string. I think the rise of Trump, Brexit, and similar Brexit-like votes expected in other countries in the EU in the near future, represent a change in perception the advantages of globalism and at least some aspects of diversity as being always good all the time. i don't think that's a bad thing either ... the more opportunities that individual countries have to demonstrate the superioriority of certain forms of economic relations over others (for instance, the advantages of capitalism and mostly free markets over socialism, communism, dictatorships, etc.) will lead overall to a more free world.

Brad -- Understood and I'm not trying to convince anyone here to change their opinion. But my perspective on the issue is very different at this point from many of the people on this string. My view is that politics in the US are completely screwed up and have been for a long time and its causing the country to stagnate and divide. The only way to deal with that problem is to "shift the paradigm" ... to bring in someone entirely new that is not tied to the existing system and the existing political class. I'm focused less on the issues that the fact that we (I live in the US) need a true Statesman (ahem ... Statesperson). I think the last really effective "Statesman" President was Ronald Reagan. He had a bedrock of principles (modern conservatism), a moral compass (a sense of right and wrong), a vision (a "shining city on the hill"), and the ability to achieve consensus around that vision (I think he dealt with a democratic Congress for most of the time he was President). I think Trump is developing a similar set of principles and already has demonstrated the ability to effectively lead other people at his companies, albeit much more coarsely in messaging to date. Im not equating Reagan and Trump, but I see parallels to how they are delivering their message. The only specific substantive point I will address is the judiciary. I work in the legal profession, and as a firm believer in Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 78, I want justices of the Supreme Court exercising judgement of the law, not will over the law. In short, I don't want a nine unelected old fart justices who believe in some "living constitution" or bullcrap like that. Trump is on the record stating he won't do that; Clinton will. Anyways, enough said.

I live in the US and I am a citizen (and dearly miss my trips to Ottawa which was the basis for me joining this board many years ago). I think comparisons to Hitler, Nazis, etc., rarely convince anyone of anything. I think a more apt analogy to what Trump does on occasion, as do many politicians of both parties do on a daily basis (Obama is an expert when he's not busy talking about himself) is the "straw horse" argument: where one asserts a familiar, but weaker, factually incorrect version of an argument their opponent is making, and then they easily tear down that argument (hence the reference to "straw horse"). They all do it, but its rare for a Republican to go on the offensive the way Trump is ... he is shifting paradigms which is mostly what has so many people worked up. And I do not think that is a bad thing. Sorry but no Nazis running for Prez. I think the reporting on Trump is grossly exaggerated because of the mostly liberal press in the United States. i think he is a respected leader in the business world and frankly anyone who watched even a few episodes of The Apprentice will recognize that many of the points he raises in that show are truisms in business and life. I respectfully assert that's not a bad thing and many people will identify with those. I think its fair to say his public persona does not reflect the person he is and that he is very much a people person. Also he is an effective communicator whether you like his message or not. I think the debates in the fall will be very important for both Trump and Clinton.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. See Godwin's Law, which I think is the likelihood of any political discussion at some point referencing Hitler or Nazism approaches 100% the longer it goes. This one got there really fast! (Smile)

Respectfully, as something of a Churchill fan, although this is commonly attributed to him, Churchill never said that and generally held a very positive impression of "the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little mark" or something to that effect. And he did say, or at least agreed with a remark he attributed to someone else that democracy is the worst form of Government except for the others that have been tried from time to time (smile). I avoid the Internet quote finders (except the dirty quotes by Confucius ... Smile). And I think people are getting too worked up about Trump. If he wins, he's going to do a great job and start to change the political landscape in the US in a way that is long overdue.

I don't post much any more but happened to just check in tonight. As to the first question, if you are interested in attempting to follow up, you could just respond with a simple "?" If you dealing with someone who is just a bit shy that might elicit more of an inquiry once they know you are paying attention. And I always know what cologne I am wearing and it always suits the occasion. Problem is most people wear way too much.

I think Trump has hit a nerve in the US. I think he's going to win and it's probably not going to be particularly close. If it wasn't for her party's support, Clinton probably would have been defeated in the primaries by a crazed socialist so I don't know how she is going to do against a well known populist character with a simple message that most Americans support. Also I think Trump will govern like most good business people lead ... Surround himself with strong leaders and let them do their thing.

NaughtyNatalie Michelle MA Carys (not sure if she is still available) Peachy MissClass (she's out west now but visits Ottawa?) Dancers: Bridgette at Barbs Lea at Barbs

Phaedrus -- massive dittos! Boys, Phaedrus is trying to tell you something here, and it takes a damn good reason for me to come on and post anymore, so please take note! Just a wonderful lady

Doesn't usually hurt to ask, but check the SP's website or cerb page first as a courtesy. Probably best to do this with an SP that you have an established rapport with ... almost like calling a friend for coffee ... but its not coffee! :>)

Phaedrus -- as to the name thing, it was more like "thanks [first name]." I don't think the bouncer meant anything by it. Anyways wish I was still traveling to Ottawa for more adventures but that's not in the cards now.

Been a long time since I have posted, but this is an experience that I have been fortunate enough to have. It came up quite unexpectedly a few years ago after a visit with one of the ladies that visits here from Montreal. We had a great visit, and were very comfortable with each other. She asked me what I was doing with the rest of the evening, and I mentioned I was going to head to Barbs to see a dancer that I see regularly when I visited Ottawa. She actually suggested the idea, so what we did was that I walked with her back to her hotel, she changed into street clothes (I waited in the lobby at my own suggestion) and then we walked to Barbs. I purchased a couple of drinks for her and a couple of dances and we had a very nice time. The fact that I showed up with a lady shocked the hell out of the dancer I usually saw and she was afraid to come over at first but it worked out great. The point about women needing to be escorted by a man (no pun intended) is true ... maybe the rule had changed, but the folks at Barbs explained to me that unescorted women in the evening often were there to track down a spouse or boyfriend and that could result in a "scene." One of the other things that happened is that they asked for her ID for an age check I presume, because the hallway by the door was crowded (anyone who has been to Barbs knows what I mean), I had a dead-on view of her ID (it would have been weird to look away as we were there as a "couple") and the bouncer actually called out her name (weirder) but the specifics are secrets I will take to my grave. All in all this was a very unique, spontaneous activity that was done "post-encounter" as a way for two people who seemed to enjoy each other's company and who would otherwise spend a lonely evening in front of the TV to have a bit of fun on the town. There was never any discussion of additional compensation ... it was just plain fun. The evening ended with a hug and a handshake. I would never expect this to ever happen again and I honored that this lovely, intelligent woman wwanted to join me.

A Tiffany Key to a very, very special lady. She is now retired (as am I, so to speak), but I was honored to see her wearing it in one of her publicity photos.

Jeez Louise ... the OP's post had nothing to do with racism or anything like that ... only MightyPen and Cat seems to be addressing the issue the OP raised which is simply if race is an issue, or if you are not sure, how do you address the issue. Everyone else turned this into a race issue. The answer is simple ... just post in your inquiry what your race is a part of your description of yourself and don't worry about it. No surprises. I always do. And, yes, the lady in question has every right to choose who she has encounters with, be it race, hair color, size, weight, nose hair, bad breath, studliness, etc., etc..