The Prickyard

**Jjbee62** · 01-02-19 12:48

Originally Posted by Bob0324 [View Original Post]

I Never go to anyone's place for a session unless it's a first meet and my pants don't come unzipped, been that way fore about 3 years. I insist on the home court advantage. I stopped by her place bc I was out and she claimed to have drama that she needed immediate help with. You made a lot of stupid assumptions.

Bob,

I'm not buying this crap any more than the crap you sent by PM.

You know she's an addict. You know that an addict only has one kind of drama, the need to get their drugs. All other drama is just bullshit to get drug money. Either, you're not very bright, or you left yourself 2 reasons to go help with her "drama. " Either to give her the drugs, or to give her the money for drugs. You don't come across as the world's biggest philanthropist, so I don't see you handing over money for nothing. Did you go for fucking, or to deliver pharms?

I guess I was stupid to assume you wouldn't admit to bringing drugs to a known addict.

You do this to yourself every time. You post some garbage and get called on it. Then you change the story to try and cover the flaws in the original story and get called on it again. Repeat ad nauseum.

Here's a simple solution: KISS. Keep it Simple, Stupid.

If you want to warn the board that a provider is an active addict, that's all you need to say. If you want to say a provider lives in a nasty environment, that's all you need to say. There's no need to dress up like Superman and claim to be Mother Theresa. If you want to elaborate, tell the board she lives, with her kids, in an unhealthy environment and she's an active addict. Simple. To the point. All the information the board needs.

The best part, you don't have everyone pointing out that your post is fucked up.

**AaaGabriel812** · 01-02-19 07:31

Originally Posted by Bob0324 [View Original Post]

The only 3 DI girls I've seen have an illegal medication issue, there's one I have not seen I know has a illegal medication issue, so that's 4 known out of like 13, known, like I have personal knowledge, not making stupid accusations like you. I wouldn't roll the dice on the other 9. You made a statement as a fact that 99.9 percent of them did not have this issue, shows your credibility, I know and can prove you're way wrong.

Well you must have seen past DI chicks (some of the past ones had illegal med issues), because all of the current 13 chicks on the site do not take medication or are on legal medication. By legal, I mean that even if they are going to a clinic for past substance abuse or prescribed medication by a doctor, that is legal and they aren't buying illegal pharms off the street. Now I freely admit that this is based on my current knowledge and assumptions. You are very good at making assumptions also, especially about the one you admit you haven't seen which goes to your credibility. So I will once again state that out of the current 13 chicks on the site, to the best of my knowledge, all 13 do not have ILLEGAL medication issues. I doubt that you have seen 3 of the 13 because as you said they are, your words not mine, "Fat and 40 or over" thus not being your type. Only 3 of the remaining 10 worked elsewhere before joining DI, only one of those fits your body type, so I doubt you have seen the other two. So you said you can "prove that I am way wrong" but, unless you are supplying them with the medication or in the room when they take the medication then your proof is not factual only an assumption. Personally I will believe my assumptions before I would ever believe your assumptions based on your long history of mainly seeing addict providers that fit the type of body you prefer.

**Bob0324** · 01-01-19 14:41

Originally Posted by Jjbee62 [View Original Post]

I hate to be piling on here, but you may want to raise the bar just a bit on "taking a decent human being stance. ".

You know her money priorities, have known them for months. You know she has 2 kids living with her. I'm going to make an assumption that you went to her place because she couldn't come to you. Curious. Was it because she had no transportation, or nobody to watch her kids?

The picture I'm getting is that you went to a known (to you) addict's house to session, knowing 1 or 2 children would be in the house. That's not too high on the DHB (Decent Human Being) scale. You've been helping a known (to you) addict with children feed her addiction for months. Another negative. You walk in, and apparently walk through the place, see children living in unlivable conditions, see an infant doing something that could kill the kid and you just threaten to call CPS? Where's the DHB stance come into play? Was it when you decided not to go ahead with the session, with a woman who hasn't showered and didn't even have a bed for the deed? I'm not sure there's a trophy for that.

Going off on her doesn't win the DHB award. She has problems. She has an addiction. You knew she has an addiction. You knew she was spending the money you gave her on her addiction and when faced with the reality of addiction, you yell at her and threaten her? Do you think that's going to change the situation? Think she's going to go spend $50 on cleaning supplies and start trying to make a livable home, because you yelled at her?

She needs help, not screamed at by some guy who's pissed off because there's no place to fuck. Her children need out of that environment. They don't need to be left there with a mother who might now blame them because she doesn't have the money to feed her addiction.

An addict's first priority is feeding the addiction. An addict's second priority is getting money to feed the addiction. There are no other priorities. She has continually messaged you for 9 months to get money to feed the addiction, not because she's bored, or for your charming demeanor. She doesn't have time to clean or care for her kids. As long as she's an active addict, they aren't a priority. They're lucky if she takes the time to feed them.

Something just clicked. You've been seeing her for 9 months and probably known she was an addict for 9 months. Yet you don't know whether her infant is 8 or 9 months old? You were either doing a 9 month pregnant addict, or doing an addict within a few weeks after she gave birth. I'm sure the DHB award committee will take that into consideration.

". I find myself taking a decent human being stance. " If that's your decent human being stance, I'd hate to see what you're like the rest of the time.

I Never go to anyone's place for a session unless it's a first meet and my pants don't come unzipped, been that way fore about 3 years. I insist on the home court advantage. I stopped by her place bc I was out and she claimed to have drama that she needed immediate help with. You made a lot of stupid assumptions.

**Bob0324** · 01-01-19 11:56

Originally Posted by AaaGabriel812 [View Original Post]

I can think of one popular local site that 99.9 percent of the chicks advertised on it DON"T have any "Illegal" Medication Issues. Illegal meaning non-prescribed pharms. You seem to post a lot about those with medication issues because they fit the body style you like. The candy from your store also plays a big factor in getting what you like.

The only 3 DI girls I've seen have an illegal medication issue, there's one I have not seen I know has a illegal medication issue, so that's 4 known out of like 13, known, like I have personal knowledge, not making stupid accusations like you. I wouldn't roll the dice on the other 9. You made a statement as a fact that 99.9 percent of them did not have this issue, shows your credibility, I know and can prove you're way wrong.

**Jjbee62** · 01-01-19 09:37

Originally Posted by Bob0324 [View Original Post]

Danibaby08 well every once in a while I find myself taking a decent human being stance, I met her last spring, 9 months ago I guess. Always had her come to me, I've known the places she's lived throughout, however; never went to her place until yesterday, when there I quickly became enraged by the living conditions, understand she has a baby and a toddler living with her, the place looked as it was ransacked, you could not walk anywhere without stepping and tripping on anything, the bathroom was unusable, the tub / shower was full of stuff and the toilet was full of waste and looked inoperable. Her 8 or 9 month old was chewing on a cut dope straw, there was no beds for the kids or anyone, noticed an old rocking chair that you would have to clear off to sit on and that was the only legitimate piece of furniture seen, now you should know that she has continually messaged me through out the months of knowing her that's she's been bored and wanted to come hang out, so she's obviously could have time to clean up the joint. I went off on her, threatened to call CPS, I know what her priorities have been with the money she has, pisses me off. She needs to take care and provider her children a decent living environment, she has chosen not to. She's the type that's going to tell you her kids are her world and she does everything for them. BS.

I hate to be piling on here, but you may want to raise the bar just a bit on "taking a decent human being stance. ".

You know her money priorities, have known them for months. You know she has 2 kids living with her. I'm going to make an assumption that you went to her place because she couldn't come to you. Curious. Was it because she had no transportation, or nobody to watch her kids?

The picture I'm getting is that you went to a known (to you) addict's house to session, knowing 1 or 2 children would be in the house. That's not too high on the DHB (Decent Human Being) scale. You've been helping a known (to you) addict with children feed her addiction for months. Another negative. You walk in, and apparently walk through the place, see children living in unlivable conditions, see an infant doing something that could kill the kid and you just threaten to call CPS? Where's the DHB stance come into play? Was it when you decided not to go ahead with the session, with a woman who hasn't showered and didn't even have a bed for the deed? I'm not sure there's a trophy for that.

Going off on her doesn't win the DHB award. She has problems. She has an addiction. You knew she has an addiction. You knew she was spending the money you gave her on her addiction and when faced with the reality of addiction, you yell at her and threaten her? Do you think that's going to change the situation? Think she's going to go spend $50 on cleaning supplies and start trying to make a livable home, because you yelled at her?

She needs help, not screamed at by some guy who's pissed off because there's no place to fuck. Her children need out of that environment. They don't need to be left there with a mother who might now blame them because she doesn't have the money to feed her addiction.

An addict's first priority is feeding the addiction. An addict's second priority is getting money to feed the addiction. There are no other priorities. She has continually messaged you for 9 months to get money to feed the addiction, not because she's bored, or for your charming demeanor. She doesn't have time to clean or care for her kids. As long as she's an active addict, they aren't a priority. They're lucky if she takes the time to feed them.

Something just clicked. You've been seeing her for 9 months and probably known she was an addict for 9 months. Yet you don't know whether her infant is 8 or 9 months old? You were either doing a 9 month pregnant addict, or doing an addict within a few weeks after she gave birth. I'm sure the DHB award committee will take that into consideration.

". I find myself taking a decent human being stance. " If that's your decent human being stance, I'd hate to see what you're like the rest of the time.

**AaaGabriel812** · 01-01-19 07:23

Originally Posted by Bob0324 [View Original Post]

Are you serious? 99.9 percent of these chicks advertising on this or any site have a "medication issue" most are very good at hiding it, if you want someone without this issue look for fat and 40 or over.

I can think of one popular local site that 99.9 percent of the chicks advertised on it DON"T have any "Illegal" Medication Issues. Illegal meaning non-prescribed pharms. You seem to post a lot about those with medication issues because they fit the body style you like. The candy from your store also plays a big factor in getting what you like.

**Bob0324** · 12-31-18 08:57

Originally Posted by AnalHankerin [View Original Post]

I received a message from a fellow board member. Seems Harper has / had a medication issue, so you make want to consider fishing in another spot. A. Hank.

Are you serious? 99.9 percent of these chicks advertising on this or any site have a "medication issue" most are very good at hiding it, if you want someone without this issue look for fat and 40 or over.

**AaaGabriel812** · 12-31-18 07:25

Originally Posted by Bob0324 [View Original Post]

Danibaby08 well every once in a while I find myself taking a decent human being stance, I met her last spring, 9 months ago I guess. Always had her come to me, I've known the places she's lived throughout, however; never went to her place until yesterday, when there I quickly became enraged by the living conditions, understand she has a baby and a toddler living with her, the place looked as it was ransacked, you could not walk anywhere without stepping and tripping on anything, the bathroom was unusable, the tub / shower was full of stuff and the toilet was full of waste and looked inoperable. Her 8 or 9 month old was chewing on a cut dope straw, there was no beds for the kids or anyone, noticed an old rocking chair that you would have to clear off to sit on and that was the only legitimate piece of furniture seen, now you should know that she has continually messaged me through out the months of knowing her that's she's been bored and wanted to come hang out, so she's obviously could have time to clean up the joint. I went off on her, threatened to call CPS, I know what her priorities have been with the money she has, pisses me off. She needs to take care and provider her children a decent living environment, she has chosen not to. She's the type that's going to tell you her kids are her world and she does everything for them. BS.

Isn't your post kind of like the "Pot calling the Kettle Black"? Especially finding yourself taking a "Decent Human Being Stance". Just asking.

**SevenSixfive** · 12-09-18 17:30

Roy. Wondering if you care to share what happened between you and harem / Stevie? Previous posts make clear you were a regular there and of Stevie but your recent post seems to read like you are turning against both and discouraging others from going there but without discussing your prior history. So what happened? Seems it would have to be more than just one visit without getting attention given your many visits there.

**Admin2** · 11-10-18 08:46

Originally Posted by Kevrob911 [View Original Post]

As for SESTA / FOSTA, I understand that you hold religious people accountable for that, but both parties supported this with overwhelming majorities including totally irreligious members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. It was only opposed by two in the Senate and about 25 members of the House. Nobody (except Rand Paul and a few others) wants to be on record as being FOR sex trafficking. Its what happens when spineless pieces of shit are given control over our lives.

There was one party firmly in control of all three branches of government when this was written, got on the agenda, was passed and then signed. Yes the minority party added their voices due to the reasons you listed. By the time it was done it wasn't even a trafficking bill anymore, it was nothing but an anti prostitution bill and people were saying "don't they understand this will put sex workers in danger?" Yes, they did, they are moralistic d-bags that don't care if a few hookers get killed while looking good to their moral majority base AND filling the privately owned prisons with more slave labor in order to increase their profits so that they can contribute more to the PACS. Same, same with drugs.

While it's always an oligarchy depending on which party is in power its an oligarchy combined with a theocracy, or a gynocracy.

But Fosta / Sesta lays at the feet of one of them.

A2.

**Kevrob911** · 11-09-18 23:58

Originally Posted by EarlyCuyler [View Original Post]

Looks like listcrawler and Escort Alligator are not reachable from the US. Not sure how they are convincing these sites to block IP addresses. Perhaps they've been threatened with "fire and fury". Who knows? Not sure if this is temporary or not. Canadian listings are still available, so I'm thinking SESTA / FOSTA has been pushed onto the site owners under some sort of threat. If this is the case, then the ads there will be good for a little while I suppose. . . If you have a VPN, which I do. However, I'm guessing the majority of girls advertising there won't be going through those steps to place ads going forward.

This will only get worse. While the rest of the world moves farther away legislating adult behaviors (sans Saudi Arabia and Iran), the country that brags about all their freedoms continues to take steps to legislate what you and I do with our genitals and our wallets. The evangelicals have taken over guys. No wedding cakes for gays, and no pugsy for hobbyists. Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell would be thrilled.

PRAISE BE.

If you are on Windows, then try the Opera browser. Its based on FireFox code and has a built in VPN. You can make it look like you are accessing sites from the Americas, Asia, or Europe. The listcrawler sites open when I access them through VPN, but I still have to deny I'm an American!

As for SESTA / FOSTA, I understand that you hold religious people accountable for that, but both parties supported this with overwhelming majorities including totally irreligious members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. It was only opposed by two in the Senate and about 25 members of the House. Nobody (except Rand Paul and a few others) wants to be on record as being FOR sex trafficking. Its what happens when spineless pieces of shit are given control over our lives.

SESTA FOSTA is total bullshit, but right now, with #METOO and all the other shit that is happening to derail men having sex with women, it looks like this one might be here to stay for awhile.

If I were only king for a day, I'd fix this.

Rant over. Probably should have posted this in the Prickyard.

**Admin2** · 11-08-18 15:47

There are rules on this forum, many of those rules are meant to protect the ladies not the guys. With the exception of a a few words there has never been a rule saying guys can't describe chicks how they see them.

To be quite clear there are only three people who get to tell people what they should not say on this forum.

A2

**Lejo84** · 11-07-18 17:37

[Deleted by Admin]

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was edited or deleted because it appeared to be a public effort to discourage members from posting information. If you have a concern about information posted by another member, then please contact them privately by PM. Please read the Forum's Posting Guidelines for further information.

**Keepinitclean** · 10-31-18 13:06

Originally Posted by LonelyInBTown [View Original Post]

I can talk shit in the prickyard right?

Scott409 is someone Chinese working for spas posting fake reviews. Accidentally slipped some Chinese writing in the last post and the one before was worded exactly like a native Chinese speaking person would say it.

Yes you can talk all the shit in the prickyard you want and if your intent is to talk shit have at it, if your intent is to get it in front of me so I can review it you need to use the report post button.

A2

My intention is to help make sure content on here is accurate if I can at all help. Last time I called out Scot you said "who gives a fuck" and that I was complicating something simple so I figured if I reported it you wouldn't care. Just trying to help other members shift through bogus posts.

If I said who gives a fuck it's because you reported him for breaking one of the rules that only exists in your head not the forum. Or one of your "oh my god don't say that or the sky will fall and hit them on the head" posts.

A2

**Keepinitclean** · 10-29-18 12:51

Originally Posted by Bob0324 [View Original Post]

Maybe Scott has dementia or is on benzos or something, if you read his post he's either very fake or very confused.

I can talk shit in the prickyard right?

Scott409 is someone Chinese working for spas posting fake reviews. Accidentally slipped some Chinese writing in the last post and the one before was worded exactly like a native Chinese speaking person would say it.

Yes you can talk all the shit in the prickyard you want and if your intent is to talk shit have at it, if your intent is to get it in front of me so I can review it you need to use the report post button.

A2