OLD HAMBONE IS STILL AROUND

[Sweet Discretion]

Originally Posted by tikkler33

Something has been puzzling me about this. I see a number of people coming down on CB and CK for the security at the event. However, I haven't seen any concrete proposals from those same people about how THEY would have run security any differently.
It's always easy to Monday morning quarterback something that went wrong, so how about some suggestions as to how to improve the system over what CB and CK were doing?
And please, no suggestions of "Socials aren't safe, just don't have them." If that's how you feel, you are free to not attend. But for those who have criticized what happened, who has a way to improve security without simply complaining?
Just askin'...

I think a few posts back CB said that le has the right to enter any venue that has a liquor license at any given time without explanation. That fact alone is a huge secuity breach.

Wasn't the old venue byob? I guess they didn't have a beer or liquor license and therefore had more control over private parties? Why the change of venues?

[CivilBarrister]

Originally Posted by Sweet Cindy

I think a few posts back CB said that le has the right to enter any venue that has a liquor license at any given time without explanation. That fact alone is a huge secuity breach.

Wasn't the old venue byob? I guess they didn't have a beer or liquor license and therefore had more control over private parties? Why the change of venues?

LE still had the right to come to that place as well...

AND LE did, from time to time come say hi to that club during regular club hours.

There were many reasons for changing locations; we actually had a poll asking the people on the social list which club they wanted to use for the evening socials; and the overwhelming majority wanted to move to the new club.

Having LE is NOT a security breach. Anyone is allowed to have a party - hell, you can host a party for drug users and sellers - just don't try to buy or sell drugs at the party!

The only VIRTUALLY safe way to have a party is to invite 1 other person - and then its still not 100% safe!

Most agencies do some form of screening.....are you 100% certain that no one from the popo can get in ? Do you guarantee to the ladies who work there that they will NEVER get in trouble of any kind......didn't think so....

I'm just say'n

[GneissGuy]

Originally Posted by Sweet Cindy

I think a few posts back CB said that le has the right to enter any venue that has a liquor license at any given time without explanation. That fact alone is a huge secuity breach.

Wasn't the old venue byob? I guess they didn't have a beer or liquor license and therefore had more control over private parties? Why the change of venues?

This raid was planned ahead of time. They'd have no problem getting a search warrant. For that matter, once the people on the inside claim a crime has been committed, they could probably come in anyway.

[ThatManFromTexas]

Social Development Life Cycle

1. Project Initiation
2. Wild Enthusiasm
3. Disillusionment
4. Chaos
5. Search for the Guilty
6. Punishment of the Innocent
7. Promotion of Non-Participants
8. Definition of Requirements

[SofaKingFun]

Having been to several meet and greets, I've always felt pretty comfortable. Ck1942 has always done his part. He's always worked the door and is familiar with the folks from this region (SA/So./Cen-Tex), so I never gave LE infiltration at our gatherings much of a thought. We're a pretty small, well connected circle here. Plus, I'm smart enough to know that certain things should never be discussed; especially with someone you don't know. However, I can honestly say that I have arranged many an after-party with some of the ladies who were in attendance at those very events; as I'm sure most everyone has. I guess that I'm just lucky...which is kinda' funny.

I thinck that the biggest problem with the social was that people were lulled into a false sense of security by either their own complacency and stupidity and/or assuming the organizers had a firm handle on the attendees. Since the organizers had absolute control over the invitees, it was assumed that the attendees were "safe", vouched and screened.

So CivilBarrister, please, save the spin on TABC and LE being able to enter without a warrant and the club owners allowing admittance and passing the blame and blah blah blah....


The fact of the matter and one that's seemingly being swept under the carpet is that the Under-Cover Vice ladies; 2, in fact; were vouched and admitted as UTR providers by members who were on the invite list. That's where one of the biggest problems lies and that's precisely where the system initially broke down.

The UnderCover Vice gals who were invited and admitted on your watch, are the ones who did the most damage and had the greatest impact on the event.

Now before you pull your only defense card, let me state that this certainly doesn't offer those who slipped-up and got caught in Uncle Elle's net a free pass. They fuct-up too.

I will, however, offer a reasonable explanation why they may have let their guard down; they assumed these attendees were "safe".

The criteria for being granted an invitation was that you had to be either an active hobbyist, or an active provider (keyword:active), and BOTH had to be vouched by the organizers. Further, since these meet & greets are designed for "active" hobbyists, there's an underlying trust or belief that these attendees are in fact, active, safe, and vouched hobbyists. I can't begin to count how many times I've read, "if you're name is not on the invite list, you'll be turned away at the door" or the ever popular, "No Window Shoppers!"

The implication is that someone with this invitation list is going to be manning the door and that this same someone is also going to do their part to keep uninvited, and unwanted guests out. Given that, there comes a certain level-of-comfort or assurance that they're relatively safe with others in attendance. That's understandable, isn't it?

Yes, the rules were always posted. However;

a) everyone knows what goes on...so as long as you didn't act a fool, and kept things on the low-low, they were never an issue. What's funny though is that before the bust, I don't ever recall them being discussed. Ever.

b) given the invitation qualifications and profile for these meet & greets;

(those being)

"Meet and greets are just that. Active hobbyists and providers to network and possible "integrate"; No window shoppers" and "a marketing/networking opportunity for the ladies" --and given the environment; drinks, ladies, a gathering of like-minded individuals... of course there's going to be some "integrating" and mongering going on.

It's not only known, it's expected.

http://www.eraps.net/showthread.php/...o-The-Socials?

CivilBarrister said,

These are not the Company Christmas parties where EVERYBODY is invited; they are hobby parties. The "Older" parties died because the ladies realized too many of the guys were just wasting their time b/c they don't hobby.
___________________

I wouldn't want to go to the Events OTHER THAN TO SIMPLY go to a party.

I could pull many, many, more but I only bring this up because it demonstrates the underlying expectations and because I'm tired of the spin you're putting on things, CivilBarrister. Your sole argument/defense in all of this has been, it's "their fault bacause they broke the rules".

Yes, there's certainly validity in that argument. They screwed up.

However, your pointing the blame-finger at people for violating rules (rules, mind you, that were rarely, if ever, discussed prior to the bust), for attempting to monger at an event, advertised and taylored specifically for a group of "vouched and active, non-window shopping hobbyists, shouldn't be shouldered entirely by them.

You have not once addressed the fact that you let LE get vouched into the event and you have not once accepted any culpability in any of this. In fact, all I've seen from you is back-peddling. Ck1942 at least manned-up and accepted some of the blame. You? You're shelling out excuses that nothing is "fail safe" and passing the blame as hard, if not harder, than you were pimping and promoting the events. Instead of passing the blame, own some of it and maybe we all can work to make these events more secure and safer for everyone who attends.

Htowner had a great quote but instead, I'll just end this with the ever popular, I'm just sayin'.


.

_______________________

[ck1942]

"The fact of the matter and one that's seemingly being swept under the carpet is that the Under-Cover Vice ladies; 2, in fact; were vouched and admitted as UTR providers by members who were on the invite list. That's where one of the biggest problems lies and that's precisely where the system initially broke down."

"The UnderCover Vice gals who were invited and admitted on your watch, are the ones who did the most damage and had the greatest impact on the event."

The above is totally erroneous in assumption. I made up the invite list and the door lists, as I always do. Based only on habitual processes. Well established members are allowed to vouch for UTRs in advance of the event. The obvious: BCD action between the UTR and the vouching member is required in order for the vouch to be acceptable.

NO ONE on the invite list (and the door list), UTR or not, was anything except vouched by established hobbyists or established providers.

Anyone who has data to the contrary, please send it to me. e.g., names of the UTRs for example. And the established members who vouched for them.

Any "UTR" (female or male) who is vouched for by an established member is escorted into the event by that established member or they are not on the list nor admitted unless accompanied by the vouching member.

Unless that established member has been "flipped" I see no way any female or male vice officer can be vouched (or admitted) unless she or he went between the sheets to get vouched.

= = = =

The events are "Meet & Greets" meaning that they have an underlying "marketing" intent, both for the ladies and for the gents (yes, even some gents need to "market" themselves). All invitees are vouched by established opposite gender types.

All gents, for example, are "active" hobbyists; they don't have to post reviews, but they do have to hobby in the past month or so with established providers in order to be vouched. All gents are periodically re-vouched even if the gent doesn't know it.

[SofaKingFun]

With all due respect, ck...

http://www.ourhome2.net/index.php?sh...ndpost&p=25332

CivilBarrister said,

<snipped for content>

The Vice ladies were brought in as UTR ladies by members who were on the list - as with prior parties many UTR ladies are allowed in...

What we know is that 2 UTR ladies were allowed in and were Vice. They went around the room soliciting and offering services for money - only a few guys bit...

<end snip>

______________________

[ck1942]

With all due respect, CB's statement (which was posted on 12/13/09) is out of order and was superseded by subsequent data analysis.

And I stand by my statement until I am provided with DATA that contradicts.

[CivilBarrister]

I stand corrected by CK. The bust absolutely happened on my watch; I was and continue to be deeply saddened by that event.

Most of the people who were busted probably had a false sense of security;
many who turned the Vice ladies down did not. We all have a false sense of security every time we hobby.

Some places are more appropriate to hobby and discuss the hobby than others.

[ThatManFromTexas]

Originally Posted by SofaKingFun

Having been to several meet and greets, I've always felt pretty comfortable. Ck1942 has always done his part. He's always worked the door and is familiar with the folks from this region (SA/So./Cen-Tex), so I never gave LE infiltration at our gatherings much of a thought. We're a pretty small, well connected circle here. Plus, I'm smart enough to know that certain things should never be discussed; especially with someone you don't know. However, I can honestly say that I have arranged many an after-party with some of the ladies who were in attendance at those very events; as I'm sure most everyone has. I guess that I'm just lucky...which is kinda' funny.


Translation: I broke the rules and got away with it so I'm getting a kick out of the busts...

I thinck that the biggest problem with the social was that people were lulled into a false sense of security by either their own complacency and stupidity and/or assuming the organizers had a firm handle on the attendees. Since the organizers had absolute control over the invitees, it was assumed that the attendees were "safe", vouched and screened.


You know what they say when you assume

So CivilBarrister, please, save the spin on TABC and LE being able to enter without a warrant and the club owners allowing admittance and passing the blame and blah blah blah....


Translation: I'm going to sit here and and waste band width blah blah blah....

The fact of the matter and one that's seemingly being swept under the carpet is that the Under-Cover Vice ladies; 2, in fact; were vouched and admitted as UTR providers by members who were on the invite list. That's where one of the biggest problems lies and that's precisely where the system initially broke down.


Translation: You should have been able to prevent what even the Mafia has not been able to prevent, Undercover cops infiltrating an organization....

The UnderCover Vice gals who were invited and admitted on your watch, are the ones who did the most damage and had the greatest impact on the event.


Translation: Thank Gawd I wasn't in charge...or I'd be taking all the abuse.


Now before you pull your only defense card, let me state that this certainly doesn't offer those who slipped-up and got caught in Uncle Elle's net a free pass. They fuct-up too.


Translation: I broke the rules and got away with it so I'm getting a kick out of the busts...


I will, however, offer a reasonable explanation why they may have let their guard down; they assumed these attendees were "safe".


Translation: The people that accepted an offer from someone they had never heard of and the people carrying controlled substances had NOTHING to do with it.

The criteria for being granted an invitation was that you had to be either an active hobbyist, or an active provider (keyword:active), and BOTH had to be vouched by the organizers. Further, since these meet & greets are designed for "active" hobbyists, there's an underlying trust or belief that these attendees are in fact, active, safe, and vouched hobbyists. I can't begin to count how many times I've read, "if you're name is not on the invite list, you'll be turned away at the door" or the ever popular, "No Window Shoppers!"

The implication is that someone with this invitation list is going to be manning the door and that this same someone is also going to do their part to keep uninvited, and unwanted guests out. Given that, there comes a certain level-of-comfort or assurance that they're relatively safe with others in attendance. That's understandable, isn't it?


Translation: We shouldn't have to take personal responsibility for our actions, right?


Answer:Laugh and the study hall laughs with you... go to the office you go alone

Yes, the rules were always posted. However;

a) everyone knows what goes on...so as long as you didn't act a fool, and kept things on the low-low, they were never an issue. What's funny though is that before the bust, I don't ever recall them being discussed. Ever.


Translation: We have ALWAYS flouted the rules and never got caught before.

b) given the invitation qualifications and profile for these meet & greets;

(those being)

"Meet and greets are just that. Active hobbyists and providers to network and possible "integrate"; No window shoppers" and "a marketing/networking opportunity for the ladies" --and given the environment; drinks, ladies, a gathering of like-minded individuals... of course there's going to be some "integrating" and mongering going on.

It's not only known, it's expected.


Translation: We have an unrealistic sense of entitlement.

http://www.eraps.net/showthread.php/...o-The-Socials?
I could pull many, many, more but I only bring this up because it demonstrates the underlying expectations and because I'm tired of the spin you're putting on things, CivilBarrister. Your sole argument/defense in all of this has been, it's "their fault bacause they broke the rules".


Translation: How dare you bring reality into an otherwise perfectly good rant.

Yes, there's certainly validity in that argument. They screwed up.


Translation: I broke the rules and got away with it so I'm getting a kick out of the busts...


However, your pointing the blame-finger at people for violating rules (rules, mind you, that were rarely, if ever, discussed prior to the bust), for attempting to monger at an event, advertised and taylored specifically for a group of "vouched and active, non-window shopping hobbyists, shouldn't be shouldered entirely by them.


Translation: Only I have the Gawd given right to point the blame finger. (... did I mention how much I like giving the finger to Civil Barrister)

You have not once addressed the fact that you let LE get vouched into the event and you have not once accepted any culpability in any of this. In fact, all I've seen from you is back-peddling. Ck1942 at least manned-up and accepted some of the blame. You? You're shelling out excuses that nothing is "fail safe" and passing the blame as hard, if not harder, than you were pimping and promoting the events. Instead of passing the blame, own some of it and maybe we all can work to make these events more secure and safer for everyone who attends.


Translation: "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins...." 1 John 3:5, KJV


Dang ya'll don't ask much of a fellah. I'm just sayin


Htowner had a great quote but instead, I'll just end this with the ever popular, I'm just sayin'.


Translation: My blah blah blah will never end.


.

_______________________

-1

[CivilBarrister]

I am still waiting for someone, ANYONE, to post ANYTHING that would actually help in future socials

All the ones so quick to point a finger and jump on the bandwagon have yet to chime in as Tikkler asked and give anything or anyway to put on socials better.

And TMFT, you keep pointing out the obvious flaws in so many posts by the haters....and they keep falling on deaf ears.

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by ck1942

"The fact of the matter and one that's seemingly being swept under the carpet is that the Under-Cover Vice ladies; 2, in fact; were vouched and admitted as UTR providers by members who were on the invite list. That's where one of the biggest problems lies and that's precisely where the system initially broke down."

"The UnderCover Vice gals who were invited and admitted on your watch, are the ones who did the most damage and had the greatest impact on the event."

The above is totally erroneous in assumption. I made up the invite list and the door lists, as I always do. Based only on habitual processes. Well established members are allowed to vouch for UTRs in advance of the event. The obvious: BCD action between the UTR and the vouching member is required in order for the vouch to be acceptable.

NO ONE on the invite list (and the door list), UTR or not, was anything except vouched by established hobbyists or established providers.

Anyone who has data to the contrary, please send it to me. e.g., names of the UTRs for example. And the established members who vouched for them.

Any "UTR" (female or male) who is vouched for by an established member is escorted into the event by that established member or they are not on the list nor admitted unless accompanied by the vouching member.

Unless that established member has been "flipped" I see no way any female or male vice officer can be vouched (or admitted) unless she or he went between the sheets to get vouched.

= = = =

The events are "Meet & Greets" meaning that they have an underlying "marketing" intent, both for the ladies and for the gents (yes, even some gents need to "market" themselves). All invitees are vouched by established opposite gender types.

All gents, for example, are "active" hobbyists; they don't have to post reviews, but they do have to hobby in the past month or so with established providers in order to be vouched. All gents are periodically re-vouched even if the gent doesn't know it.

Are you contradicting what Hambone posted earlier about how he thinks vice got invited?

[Horsefly]

Originally Posted by SofaKingFun

CB, just stop already...
... you have not once accepted any culpability in any of this. In fact, all I've seen from you is back-peddling.

Bingo

[ThatManFromTexas]

Originally Posted by CivilBarrister

I am still waiting for someone, ANYONE, to post ANYTHING that would actually help in future socials

All the ones so quick to point a finger and jump on the bandwagon have yet to chime in as Tikkler asked and give anything or anyway to put on socials better.

Ok... I'll give it a go...

No women allowed to attend unless I have slept with them... oh, wait... then there would only be 1 or 2 and they would be really, really old..

No women allowed in unless Civil Barrister has slept with them... Oh, wait...there's no way to accomodate that many women...

Admission requires a free BJ to the doorman.. I'll vouch the women and all the complainers can vouch the men...

Originally Posted by CivilBarrister

... And TMFT, you keep pointing out the obvious flaws in so many posts by the haters....and they keep falling on deaf ears.

... neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Matthew 7:6

Originally Posted by Merlin

Are you contradicting what Hambone posted earlier about how he thinks vice got invited?

I heard they arrived in "Black Helicopters" ...

Originally Posted by Horsefly

Bingo

That's your solution? Bingo? Do you know how many bingo parties get busted every year?

Bitchin' is a lot easier than fixin'... I'm just sayin'

[JJ Angleton]

Originally Posted by ck1942

All gents, for example, are &quot;active&quot; hobbyists; they don't have to post reviews, but they do have to hobby in the past month or so with established providers in order to be vouched. All gents are periodically re-vouched even if the gent doesn't know it.

Good work ck. Its imperative to be continually gathering intelligence to keep dossiers up to date, even if the subject has given up his classified status. Trust but verify. Deepthroat awaits your further instructions.