January 11, 2005

• heh. Was waiting for someone else to post it ;)
• Odd, names, phone numbers, the whole nine yards. Anyone got enough guts to call a phone number or two? Additionally, won't this be great evidence to nail these people?
• Well, the dates are all from 1998, so who even knows if they'd work. I think it's interesting how mundane it makes the business seem...just girls keeping appointments, customers faxing in their credit card information, etc. But I admit I am curious about this entry: Misha, Kimber and especially Michelle are all being really good girls today and each deserve a gold star; Michelle deserves TWO gold stars!!!
• Wow... that kind of sucks for the guys whose names are now on the Intarweb as having patronized these escorts...
• Reminds me of this

• Additionally, won't this be great evidence to nail these people?

  Perhaps, but why would you want to?
• Especially at $200 an hour.
• The fact is there is no evidence on the page to nail them with. There's no explicit admission that these girls are giving their clients sex; and if they're a regiestered escort agency, then it's all perfectly legitimate business.
• Hmm. Could be them...
• Looks like it. Wonder why they stopped using the webpage for almost 6 years, but never bothered to take it down?
• Bothers me that we're playing this game.
• You can talk about doing some girl, and it's bothering you that we're talking about the (possible) shift diary of an escort agency? >Þ
• what's the statute of limitations on prostitution/solicitation in Florida?
• "You can talk about doing some girl, and it's bothering you that we're talking about the (possible) shift diary of an escort agency?" The difference should be obvious. The one is based on natural, healthy (imho) mammal behaviour, the other on (potentially) salacious gossip. Although yousa point is well seen.