Chevalier

An opinionated curmudgeon (YOMV) in Dallas, Texas, blogging primarily about "pay for play," P4P

Archive for July 9th, 2009

What??

Posted by Chevalier on July 9, 2009

Did I just see Alice/Rumor “being naughty, again”???

If so . . . welcome back, pretty lady!!

Posted in Alice | Leave a Comment »

Can we just stop this??

Posted by Chevalier on July 9, 2009

This is just the latest iteration I’ve run across:

I see the “girlfriend experience” as meeting her parents, going out with her friends from work on Saturday nights, and fighting off questions of marriage.

Elsewhere, there have been even more extreme versions.

OK, it’s a cute little joke (semi-misogynist) and play on words, because everybody knows that’s not what is meant by GFE.  Why people take such observations seriously and attempt to clear up the “misunderstanding,” I have no idea.  (Although in this case . . . maybe the original poster was indeed clueless rather than trying to be funny.)

That joke was funny the first time I read it.  Perhaps mildly funny the fourth or fifth time, at least if written well.  But by the hundredth time, it’s getting to be monotonous.  We should have a limit (length of time or number of instances brought up) on repeating some of this kind of stuff.  Can’t we think up new stuff instead???

[/curmudgeonly rant]

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Bulwer-Lytton, again

Posted by Chevalier on July 9, 2009

I posted about the contest last year, so I guess I just as well post a link to this year’s winners too. :)

Lots of good stuff there.  My personal favorites:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Rationalizations

Posted by Chevalier on July 9, 2009

One of the things I find amusing about review/discussion boards is the arguments people will make to justify what they want to do.  Indeed, often you can tell they’ve already decided what they want to and will do; they just want validation of that decision.  And when it’s something that they probably already know the vast majority will support, one wonders why they even put forth the effort. 

One particularly amusing area that falls into that category is the question of whether a client should compensate a lady if he no shows or cancels on very short notice.  Of course, almost no one wants to or feels they should have to pay a cancellation fee.  It’s particularly amusing because there is one clear and complete rationale for not compensating the lady, which is mentioned at most in passing, while most guys rely on a bunch of other arguments that on examination are weaker than they sound at first.  (It’s particularly amusing to contrast to their attitudes about the reversed situation, when it’s the lady who cancels short notice rather than the client.)

So here are a few typical arguments:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Client behavior, No shows/cancellations | 7 Comments »