roamingguy

Some more thoughts popping in my head as I continue reading this thread First, on a personal level, to show appreciation to the lady, I like to give a gift and tip. It is, for me, my way to show that this is more than a simple business transaction. It is a encounter where for a few hours, the lady made me feel special, and I am showing my appreciation. After the encounter, sometimes I'm beaten to this by the lady btw, a nice little thank you email is sent, again, this is personal between the lady and myself. But I also like to write a recommendation (if ok with the lady, one great lady I've seen doesn't want recommendations/reviews), saying that I had a great time with the lady. Personally I don't like writing a play by play review of the encounter, details of time together should imho be private. But saying you met a great lady, had a good time etc etc, I'm comfortable doing that. What also comes clear from this thread, is that the ladies like to read that time spent with them was good. And I think it's not all about the recommendations building their business. It is a personal thing. Ladies like to read that a man liked spending time with her. And that she is attractive and desirable. This thread has shown that as much as seeing escorts is a business, it is an intimate interpersonal business, and people's feelings, both the ladies and gentlemen's, are involved As I see it RG

Happy Birthday April Enjoy your special day RG

Well that may be true, I don't know. For me, if I am writing a recommendation it is because I had a good time with a lady, and I will say so. I am not worried if other guys may or may not like my taste in woman. I'm not here to impress them, or ask for their approval, I have more confidence in myself than needing other guy's (that I don't know) approval RG

And it's that freedom for the NDP/Bloc/other parties to answer honestly that makes their presence in the debates the wildcard that holds the big two accountable. And as for it being the media's show...remember, CBC is one of those players, and they are supported by Canadian tax dollars RG

I'd agree with your reasoning, but then to follow it to logical conclusion, really only two parties should be represented in the debate, Conservatives and Liberals, since the choice is between them who gets into power No one outside Quebec cares about the Bloc, and the Bloc doesn't care about outside Quebec, so why should they even be heard on a Canadian national debate NDP, a waste of seats...after Bob Rae's NDP's screwed Ontario, they just don't stand a chance. But then, if media fortune telling determines who gets to come to the debate, why not just let the media pick the winner and loser for each election, and to hell with elections totally. RG

Well even us odd guys (and what do you mean little) need affection and intimacy too:wink: RG

I like to write a recommendation (not review...a play by play I personally, well what happens in private should remain private) basically saying had a great time, would see the lady again etc etc etc. I do let the lady see it first, just in case there is anything she is uncomfortable with (thus far, no) I don't write negative reviews, only because the encounter could be a case of chemistry/ymmv...and as much as this is hobbying for lack of a better word for the guys, got to remember, it is the lady's livelihood, and why try to ruin it for what may have been an off day. And I may be wrong here, but the biggest recommendation I can think of, is seeing the lady again, and letting others know you've seen her more than once RG

Speaking only for myself. I have no issues seeing a SP...except I'm comfortable with the age 25 and up If the lady is single, in a relationship or married, her personal life is her business, not mine. Likewise, should SP's not see guys who are married or in relationships...I'll bet most of the guys they see are married/in relationships If a SP is to be single and unattached, then by the same token, all guys seeing SP's must be single and unattached too. I personally think it's best to let individuals live their own lives insofar as relationships go...what works for one couple might not work for another, and it's dangerous to impose your beliefs on someone else As I see it anyway From a happy single hobbiest RG

Sting & the Police-Every Breath You Take http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtV4h3-ID4A RG

Legally speaking, they have to know what exactly caused the death...and that is done by a coroner (hypothetically speaking, what if she died of a heart attack, and then, after dying, was hit with a hammer which ended up covered in blood) For the Crown to convict, they need to know the cause of death...wrongful convictions take place because of assumptions RG

EMail I Got Today...Haven't Verified If True Or Not But Entertaining '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''- On Thursday, 24th January 2002 , Derek Guille broadcast this story on his afternoon program on ABC radio. In March 1999 a man living in Kandos (near Mudgee in NSW, Australia ) received a bill for his as yet unused gas line stating that he owed $0.00. He ignored it and threw it away. In April he received another bill and threw that one away too. The following month the gas company sent him a very nasty note stating that they were going to cancel his gas line if he didn't send them $0..00 by return mail. He called them, talked to them, and they said it was a computer error and they would take care of it. The following month he decided that it was about time that he tried out the troublesome gas line figuring that if there was usage on the account it would put an end to this ridiculous predicament. However, when he went to use the gas, it had been cut off. He called the gas company who apologised for the computer error once again and said that they would take care of it. The next day he got a bill for $0.00 stating that payment was now overdue. Assuming that having spoken to them the previous day the latest bill was yet another mistake, he ignored it, trusting that the company would be as good as their word and sort the problem out. The next month he got a bill for $0.00. This bill also stated that he had 10 days to pay his account or the company would have to take steps to recover the debt. Finally, giving in, he thought he would beat the gas company at their own game and mailed them a cheque for $0.00. The computer duly processed his account and returned a statement to the effect that he now owed the gas company nothing at all. A week later, the manager of the Mudgee branch of the Westpac Banking Corporation called our hapless friend and asked him what he was doing writing cheque for $0.00. After a lengthy explanation the bank manager replied that the $0.00 cheque had caused their cheque processing software to fail. The bank could therefore not process ANY cheques they had received from ANY of their customers that day because the cheque for $0.00 had caused the computer to crash. The following month the man received a letter from the gas company claiming that his cheque had bounced and that he now owed them $0.00 and unless he sent a cheque by return mail they would take immediate steps to recover the debt. At this point, the man decided to file a debt harassment claim against the gas company. It took him nearly two hours to convince the clerks at the local courthouse that he was not joking. They subsequently helped him in the drafting of statements which were considered substantive evidence of the aggravation and difficulties he had been forced to endure during this debacle. The matter was heard in the Magistrate's Court in Mudgee and the outcome was this: The gas company was ordered to: [1] Immediately rectify their computerised accounts system or Show cause, within 10 days, why the matter should not be referred to a higher court for consideration under Company Law. [2] Pay the bank dishonour fees incurred by the man. [3] Pay the bank dishonour fees incurred by all the Westpac clients whose cheques had been bounced on the day our friend's had been processed. [4] Pay the claimant's court costs; and [5] Pay the claimant a total of $1,500.00 per month for the 5 month period March to July inclusive, as compensation for the aggravation they had caused their client to suffer. And all this over $0.00. This story can also be viewed on the ABC website. Who employs these idiots?? Remember, these "people" walk among us and breathe the same air we do. What is worse , they breed ! This is a true story.

With all the talk of democracy, who the hell made the media consortium the ones who can decide who gets to debate or not I'm referring to the media banning the Greens from the debate, arguing they have no one in Parliament Well first, at least they are running candidates ACROSS CANADA unlike the Bloc which only runs in one province and gives a rat's a$$ about the rest of Canada (unless it suits their own political agenda) Second, democracy is about ideas, and when a corporate enterprise (the media) answerable to shareholders, not taxpayers, can shut those ideas down by barring their discussion, then democracy is doomed Third, now, justifiably so, the Greens are taking this to court. And that bill is going to be footed by...yup, the taxpayers Even though I'm not voting Green, maybe a question can be asked in the debates by Elizabeth May which requires accountability on the part of the PM, Opposition Leader etc etc etc. RG

Call them what they are, pimps...and pimps got no use for them I want to see a lady because in part, it is her choice, not because some pimp coerces her into going out through violence and drugs. And I want the lady to receive the donation, tip and gift...not some lowlife guy waiting to get it from her RG

Don't take offense to the phrase "haven't proven trustworthy yet" First, all new members are welcomed to Lyla But trust per se is earned, and not proven trustworthy yet is different than saying you are untrustworthy And keep in mind no member has just got rep points and proven trustworthy...everyone had to prove their trustworthiness RG

The only implication in me saying (based on the thread) that she was seeing three guys around the same time, while Josbu was interested in her in apparently a serious and I assume by extension monogamous relationship is that someone is going to get hurt I'm not judging casual relationships vs a serious monogamous relationship I am saying it does matter how many guys she's seeing only insofar as it would impact a serious monogamous relationship Likewise I would argue the same for a woman who is serious about a guy, yet he is playing the field, and doesn't want to stop It appears from what has been disclosed that she isn't serious about Josbu and given that,Josbu should leave her, so he doesn't get hurt But I'm not judging anyone, hell, look at the site I'm on...people living in glass houses don't throw stones. All I was doing is providing my input and advice for Josbubased on what he posted...that's it RG

But what a cute kissable blond you are. When it comes to you, only one kiss method comes to mind RG

Ian Thomas-Painted Ladies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3pvsiQvSPs RG

Engelbert Humperdinck-Release Me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCZO9xeYA8g Sorry, just couldn't resist it RG

Dorinda Wishing you well in your future. Good luck RG

Echoing the sentiments put forth already. Stick with CERB, some of the other boards, well stick with CERB, nuff said about that...except CERB is positive, and for the most part, there is mutual respect between the ladies and gentleman When contacting a lady, whether your first time, tenth time, hundreth time whatever, always be a gentleman. And when you meet, freshly showered, shaved, fresh breath, pay in full...AND BE A GENTLEMAN Some ramblings RG

Nat King Cole-Route 66 RG

In theory, yes, monogamy is the only 100% safe way But, as I found out in my past relationships, and others found out in theirs, the only person you really know is yourself...in other words monogamy works only when both partners are monogamous. Absolute safe sex, is by yourself...well the palm sisters are invited too. That having been said, how many guys that are nervous about seeing an SP would have no qualms about going to a bar or club, and pick up a woman who they never met before and whose inhibitions are lowered from drinking Just some thoughts for discussion RG

I have seen some ladies who require a reference only, and one lady (a real great lady btw) who requires verification (not only reference, but name, phone, email) The actual process is not that complicated (from my end at least) When verified I believe my reference (another great lady btw) emailed her directly within a day of my request. My name phone and email, when asked, was given without hesitation (yes I was a little nervous, but this lady has integrity and character) The reward was getting to meet this great lady, and my willingness to be verified certainly helped establish for lack of a better phrase, a trusting relationship. But a question for the ladies, for those that require verification, is it advantageous for a guy to get pre verified for an encounter that has yet to be booked. I'm thinking (in my case for example) I plan well in advance. There are some ladies who travel, and at a future date they could be in one of the cities I travel to. Is it better that if I scheduled an encounter that I'm already on their records as verified, or should I wait till a specific date is planned...I'd be interested in knowing Some thoughts and questions RG Additional Comments: One more thing to add...when you are going to use a lady as a reference, out of common courtesy contact her first and ask permission. A lady being contacted out of the blue by another lady about a guy she has seen, well she might consider it rude. Respect works wonders RG

Tammy Wynette-Stand By Your Man RG

My post did not vilify her in any way shape or form If she is being sexually active with multiple partners she is free to do so However it sounds like Josbu was seeking advice because he (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) had/has feelings for this woman and when one person sees another for a serious relationship, while the other is looking for a casual relationship with multiple partners, someone is going to get hurt No judgements here, just a relationship works only when both want it And I'm basing this on Josbu post, but as we all know, in relationships as in other stories, there is his side, her side, and then the truth RG