Lawsuit Against Anastasia Date I Believe I Can Win

[Patagonie]

I appreciate the particular way that Mendy has to approach people, it is often a lesson.

[Hammer2722]

Actually, I think it is China that will soon own the US........

[Manny]

Actually, I think it is China that will soon own the US........

The EU as well. Those blokes play the long game.

[Muzh]

Actually, I think it is China that will soon own the US........

Oh boy.
 
Recognizing the End of the Chinese Economic Miracle

By George Friedman

Major shifts underway in the Chinese economy that Stratfor has forecast and discussed for years have now drawn the attention of the mainstream media. Many have asked when China would find itself in an economic crisis, to which we have answered that China has been there for awhile -- something not widely recognized outside China, and particularly not in the United States. A crisis can exist before it is recognized. The admission that a crisis exists is a critical moment, because this is when most others start to change their behavior in reaction to the crisis. The question we had been asking was when the Chinese economic crisis would finally become an accepted fact, thus changing the global dynamic.

Last week, the crisis was announced with a flourish. First, The New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-recipient Paul Krugman penned a piece titled "Hitting China's Wall." He wrote, "The signs are now unmistakable: China is in big trouble. We're not talking about some minor setback along the way, but something more fundamental. The country's whole way of doing business, the economic system that has driven three decades of incredible growth, has reached its limits. You could say that the Chinese model is about to hit its Great Wall, and the only question now is just how bad the crash will be."

Later in the week, Ben Levisohn authored a column in Barron's called "Smoke Signals from China." He wrote, "In the classic disaster flick 'The Towering Inferno' partygoers ignored a fire in a storage room because they assumed it has been contained. Are investors making the same mistake with China?" He goes on to answer his question, saying, "Unlike three months ago, when investors were placing big bets that China's policymakers would pump cash into the economy to spur growth, the markets seem to have accepted the fact that sluggish growth for the world's second largest economy is its new normal."

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs -- where in November 2001 Jim O'Neil coined the term BRICs and forecast that China might surpass the United States economically by 2028 -- cut its forecast of Chinese growth to 7.4 percent.

The New York Times, Barron's and Goldman Sachs are all both a seismograph of the conventional wisdom and the creators of the conventional wisdom. Therefore, when all three announce within a few weeks that China's economic condition ranges from disappointing to verging on a crash, it transforms the way people think of China. Now the conversation is moving from forecasts of how quickly China will overtake the United States to considerations of what the consequences of a Chinese crash would be. [Just for you Hammer - Muzh]

Doubting China

Suddenly finding Stratfor amid the conventional wisdom regarding China does feel odd, I must admit. Having first noted the underlying contradictions in China's economic growth years ago, when most viewed China as the miracle Japan wasn't, and having been scorned for not understanding the shift in global power underway, it is gratifying to now have a lot of company. Over the past couple of years, the ranks of the China doubters had grown. But the past few months have seen a sea change. We have gone from China the omnipotent, the belief that there was nothing the Chinese couldn't work out, to the realization that China no longer works.

It has not been working for some time. One of the things masking China's weakening has been Chinese statistics, which Krugman referred to as "even more fictional than most." China is a vast country in territory and population. Gathering information on how it is doing would be a daunting task, even were China inclined to do so. Instead, China understands that in the West, there is an assumption that government statistics bear at least a limited relationship to truth. Beijing accordingly uses its numbers to shape perceptions inside and outside China of how it is doing. The Chinese release their annual gross domestic product numbers in the third week of January (and only revise them the following year). They can't possibly know how they did that fast, and they don't. But they do know what they want the world to believe about their growth, and the world has believed them -- hence, the fantastic tales of economic growth.

China in fact has had an extraordinary period of growth. The last 30 years have been remarkable, marred only by the fact that the Chinese started at such a low point due to the policies of the Maoist period. Growth at first was relatively easy; it was hard for China to do worse. But make no mistake: China surged. Still, basing economic performance on consumption, Krugman notes that China is barely larger economically than Japan. Given the compounding effects of China's guesses at GDP, we would guess it remains behind Japan, but how can you tell? We can say without a doubt that China's economy has grown dramatically in the past 30 years but that it is no longer growing nearly as quickly as it once did.

China's growth surge was built on a very unglamorous fact: Chinese wages were far below Western wages, and therefore the Chinese were able to produce a certain class of products at lower cost than possible in the West. The Chinese built businesses around this, and Western companies built factories in China to take advantage of the differential. Since Chinese workers were unable to purchase many of the products they produced given their wages, China built its growth on exports.

For this to continue, China had to maintain its wage differential indefinitely. But China had another essential policy: Beijing was terrified of unemployment and the social consequences that flow from it. This was a rational fear, but one that contradicted China's main strength, its wage advantage. Because the Chinese feared unemployment, Chinese policy, manifested in bank lending policies, stressed preventing unemployment by keeping businesses going even when they were inefficient. China also used bank lending to build massive infrastructure and commercial and residential property. Over time, this policy created huge inefficiencies in the Chinese economy. Without recessions, inefficiencies develop. Growing the economy is possible, but not growing profitability. Eventually, the economy will be dragged down by its inefficiency.

Inflation vs. Unemployment

As businesses become inefficient, production costs rise. And that leads to inflation. As money is lent to keep inefficient businesses going, inflation increases even more markedly. The increase in inefficiency is compounded by the growth of the money supply prompted by aggressive lending to keep the economy going. As this persisted over many years, the inefficiencies built into the Chinese economy have become staggering.

The second thing to bear in mind is the overwhelming poverty of China, where 900 million people have an annual per capita income around the same level as Guatemala, Georgia, Indonesia or Mongolia ($3,000-$3,500 a year), while around 500 million of those have an annual per capita income around the same level as India, Nicaragua, Ghana, Uzbekistan or Nigeria ($1,500-$1,700). China's overall per capita GDP is around the same level as the Dominican Republic, Serbia, Thailand or Jamaica. Stimulating an economy where more than a billion people live in deep poverty is impossible. Economic stimulus makes sense when products can be sold to the public. But the vast majority of Chinese cannot afford the products produced in China, and therefore, stimulus will not increase consumption of those products. As important, stimulating demand so that inefficient factories can sell products is not only inflationary, it is suicidal. The task is to increase consumption, not to subsidize inefficiency.

The Chinese are thus in a trap. If they continue aggressive lending to failing businesses, they get inflation. That increases costs and makes the Chinese less competitive in exports, which are also falling due to the recession in Europe and weakness in the United States. Allowing businesses to fail brings unemployment, a massive social and political problem. The Chinese have zigzagged from cracking down on lending by regulating informal lending and raising interbank rates to loosening restrictions on lending by removing the floor on the benchmark lending rate and by increasing lending to small- and medium-sized businesses. Both policies are problematic.

The Chinese have maintained a strategy of depending on exports without taking into account the operation of the business cycle in the West, which means that periodic and substantial contractions of demand will occur. China's industrial plant is geared to Western demand. When Western demand contracted, the result was the mess you see now.

The Chinese economy could perhaps be growing at 7.4 percent, but I doubt the number is anywhere near that. Some estimates place growth at closer to 5 percent. Regardless of growth, the ability to maintain profit margins is rarely considered. Producing and selling at or even below cost will boost GDP numbers but undermines the financial system. This happened to Japan in the early 1990s. And it is happening in China now.

The Chinese can prevent the kind of crash that struck East Asia in 1997. Their currency isn't convertible, so there can't be a run on it. They continue to have a command economy; they are still communist, after all. But they cannot avoid the consequences of their economic reality, and the longer they put off the day of reckoning, the harder it will become to recover from it. They have already postponed the reckoning far longer than they should have. They would postpone it further if they could by continuing to support failing businesses with loans. They can do that for a very long time -- provided they are prepared to emulate the Soviet model's demise. The Chinese don't want that, but what they do want is a miraculous resolution to their problem. There are no solutions that don't involve agony, so they put off the day of reckoning and slowly decline.

China's Transformation

The Chinese are not going to completely collapse economically any more than the Japanese or South Koreans did. What will happen is that China will behave differently than before. With no choices that don't frighten them, the Chinese will focus on containing the social and political fallout, both by trying to target benefits to politically sensitive groups and by using their excellent security apparatus to suppress and deter unrest. The Chinese economic performance will degrade, but crisis will be avoided and political interests protected. Since much of China never benefited from the boom, there is a massive force that has felt marginalized and victimized by coastal elites. That is not a bad foundation for the Communist Party to rely on.

The key is understanding that if China cannot solve its problems without unacceptable political consequences, it will try to stretch out the decline. Japan had a lost decade only in the minds of Western investors, who implicitly value aggregate GDP growth over other measures of success such as per capita GDP growth or full employment. China could very well face an extended period of intense inwardness and low economic performance. The past 30 years is a tough act to follow.

The obvious economic impact on the rest of the world will fall on the producers of industrial commodities such as iron ore. The extravagant expectations for Chinese growth will not be met, and therefore expectations for commodity prices won't be met. Since the Chinese economic failure has been underway for quite awhile, the degradation in prices has already happened. Australia in particular has been badly hit by the Chinese situation, just as it was by the Japanese situation a generation ago.

The Chinese are, of course, keeping a great deal of money in U.S. government instruments and other markets. Contrary to fears, that money will not be withdrawn. The Chinese problem isn't a lack of capital, and repatriating that money would simply increase inflation. Had the Chinese been able to put that money to good use, it would have never been invested in the United States in the first place. The outflow of money from China was a symptom of the disease: Lacking the structure to invest in China, the government and private funds went overseas. In so doing, Beijing sought to limit destabilization in China, while private Chinese funds looked for a haven against the storm that was already blowing.

Rather than the feared repatriation of funds, the United States will continue to be the target of major Chinese cash inflows.[Now, why would that be? Because we are falling apart? Think again. - Muzh]In a world where Europe is still reeling, only the United States is both secure and large enough to contain Chinese appetites for safety. [Just for you Manny - Muzh] Just as Japanese investment in the 1990s represented capital flight rather than a healthy investment appetite, so the behavior we have seen from Chinese investors in recent years is capital flight: money searching for secure havens regardless of return. This money has underpinned American markets; it is not going away, and in fact more is on the way.

The major shift in the international order will be the decline of China's role in the region. China's ability to project military power in Asia has been substantially overestimated. Its geography limits its ability to project power in Eurasia, an endeavor that would require logistics far beyond China's capacity. Its naval capacity is still limited compared with the United States. The idea that it will compensate for internal economic problems by genuine (as opposed to rhetorical) military action is therefore unlikely. China has a genuine internal security problem that will suck the military, which remains a domestic security force, into actions of little value. In our view, the most important shift will be the re-emergence of Japan as the dominant economic and political power in East Asia in a slow process neither will really want.

China will continue to be a major power, and it will continue to matter a great deal economically. Being troubled is not the same as ceasing to exist. China will always exist. It will, however, no longer be the low-wage, high-growth center of the world. Like Japan before it, it will play a different role.

In the global system, there are always low-wage, high-growth countries because the advanced industrial powers' consumers want to absorb goods at low wages. Becoming a supplier of those goods is a major opportunity for, and disruptor to, those countries. No one country can replace China, but China will be replaced. The next step in this process is identifying China's successors.

Stratfor

[Hammer2722]

Oh boy.
 
Recognizing the End of the Chinese Economic Miracle

By George Friedman

Major shifts underway in the Chinese economy that Stratfor has forecast and discussed for years have now drawn the attention of the mainstream media. Many have asked when China would find itself in an economic crisis, to which we have answered that China has been there for awhile -- something not widely recognized outside China, and particularly not in the United States. A crisis can exist before it is recognized. The admission that a crisis exists is a critical moment, because this is when most others start to change their behavior in reaction to the crisis. The question we had been asking was when the Chinese economic crisis would finally become an accepted fact, thus changing the global dynamic.

Last week, the crisis was announced with a flourish. First, The New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-recipient Paul Krugman penned a piece titled "Hitting China's Wall." He wrote, "The signs are now unmistakable: China is in big trouble. We're not talking about some minor setback along the way, but something more fundamental. The country's whole way of doing business, the economic system that has driven three decades of incredible growth, has reached its limits. You could say that the Chinese model is about to hit its Great Wall, and the only question now is just how bad the crash will be."

Later in the week, Ben Levisohn authored a column in Barron's called "Smoke Signals from China." He wrote, "In the classic disaster flick 'The Towering Inferno' partygoers ignored a fire in a storage room because they assumed it has been contained. Are investors making the same mistake with China?" He goes on to answer his question, saying, "Unlike three months ago, when investors were placing big bets that China's policymakers would pump cash into the economy to spur growth, the markets seem to have accepted the fact that sluggish growth for the world's second largest economy is its new normal."

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs -- where in November 2001 Jim O'Neil coined the term BRICs and forecast that China might surpass the United States economically by 2028 -- cut its forecast of Chinese growth to 7.4 percent.

The New York Times, Barron's and Goldman Sachs are all both a seismograph of the conventional wisdom and the creators of the conventional wisdom. Therefore, when all three announce within a few weeks that China's economic condition ranges from disappointing to verging on a crash, it transforms the way people think of China. Now the conversation is moving from forecasts of how quickly China will overtake the United States to considerations of what the consequences of a Chinese crash would be. [Just for you Hammer - Muzh]

Doubting China

Suddenly finding Stratfor amid the conventional wisdom regarding China does feel odd, I must admit. Having first noted the underlying contradictions in China's economic growth years ago, when most viewed China as the miracle Japan wasn't, and having been scorned for not understanding the shift in global power underway, it is gratifying to now have a lot of company. Over the past couple of years, the ranks of the China doubters had grown. But the past few months have seen a sea change. We have gone from China the omnipotent, the belief that there was nothing the Chinese couldn't work out, to the realization that China no longer works.

It has not been working for some time. One of the things masking China's weakening has been Chinese statistics, which Krugman referred to as "even more fictional than most." China is a vast country in territory and population. Gathering information on how it is doing would be a daunting task, even were China inclined to do so. Instead, China understands that in the West, there is an assumption that government statistics bear at least a limited relationship to truth. Beijing accordingly uses its numbers to shape perceptions inside and outside China of how it is doing. The Chinese release their annual gross domestic product numbers in the third week of January (and only revise them the following year). They can't possibly know how they did that fast, and they don't. But they do know what they want the world to believe about their growth, and the world has believed them -- hence, the fantastic tales of economic growth.

China in fact has had an extraordinary period of growth. The last 30 years have been remarkable, marred only by the fact that the Chinese started at such a low point due to the policies of the Maoist period. Growth at first was relatively easy; it was hard for China to do worse. But make no mistake: China surged. Still, basing economic performance on consumption, Krugman notes that China is barely larger economically than Japan. Given the compounding effects of China's guesses at GDP, we would guess it remains behind Japan, but how can you tell? We can say without a doubt that China's economy has grown dramatically in the past 30 years but that it is no longer growing nearly as quickly as it once did.

China's growth surge was built on a very unglamorous fact: Chinese wages were far below Western wages, and therefore the Chinese were able to produce a certain class of products at lower cost than possible in the West. The Chinese built businesses around this, and Western companies built factories in China to take advantage of the differential. Since Chinese workers were unable to purchase many of the products they produced given their wages, China built its growth on exports.

For this to continue, China had to maintain its wage differential indefinitely. But China had another essential policy: Beijing was terrified of unemployment and the social consequences that flow from it. This was a rational fear, but one that contradicted China's main strength, its wage advantage. Because the Chinese feared unemployment, Chinese policy, manifested in bank lending policies, stressed preventing unemployment by keeping businesses going even when they were inefficient. China also used bank lending to build massive infrastructure and commercial and residential property. Over time, this policy created huge inefficiencies in the Chinese economy. Without recessions, inefficiencies develop. Growing the economy is possible, but not growing profitability. Eventually, the economy will be dragged down by its inefficiency.

Inflation vs. Unemployment

As businesses become inefficient, production costs rise. And that leads to inflation. As money is lent to keep inefficient businesses going, inflation increases even more markedly. The increase in inefficiency is compounded by the growth of the money supply prompted by aggressive lending to keep the economy going. As this persisted over many years, the inefficiencies built into the Chinese economy have become staggering.

The second thing to bear in mind is the overwhelming poverty of China, where 900 million people have an annual per capita income around the same level as Guatemala, Georgia, Indonesia or Mongolia ($3,000-$3,500 a year), while around 500 million of those have an annual per capita income around the same level as India, Nicaragua, Ghana, Uzbekistan or Nigeria ($1,500-$1,700). China's overall per capita GDP is around the same level as the Dominican Republic, Serbia, Thailand or Jamaica. Stimulating an economy where more than a billion people live in deep poverty is impossible. Economic stimulus makes sense when products can be sold to the public. But the vast majority of Chinese cannot afford the products produced in China, and therefore, stimulus will not increase consumption of those products. As important, stimulating demand so that inefficient factories can sell products is not only inflationary, it is suicidal. The task is to increase consumption, not to subsidize inefficiency.

The Chinese are thus in a trap. If they continue aggressive lending to failing businesses, they get inflation. That increases costs and makes the Chinese less competitive in exports, which are also falling due to the recession in Europe and weakness in the United States. Allowing businesses to fail brings unemployment, a massive social and political problem. The Chinese have zigzagged from cracking down on lending by regulating informal lending and raising interbank rates to loosening restrictions on lending by removing the floor on the benchmark lending rate and by increasing lending to small- and medium-sized businesses. Both policies are problematic.

The Chinese have maintained a strategy of depending on exports without taking into account the operation of the business cycle in the West, which means that periodic and substantial contractions of demand will occur. China's industrial plant is geared to Western demand. When Western demand contracted, the result was the mess you see now.

The Chinese economy could perhaps be growing at 7.4 percent, but I doubt the number is anywhere near that. Some estimates place growth at closer to 5 percent. Regardless of growth, the ability to maintain profit margins is rarely considered. Producing and selling at or even below cost will boost GDP numbers but undermines the financial system. This happened to Japan in the early 1990s. And it is happening in China now.

The Chinese can prevent the kind of crash that struck East Asia in 1997. Their currency isn't convertible, so there can't be a run on it. They continue to have a command economy; they are still communist, after all. But they cannot avoid the consequences of their economic reality, and the longer they put off the day of reckoning, the harder it will become to recover from it. They have already postponed the reckoning far longer than they should have. They would postpone it further if they could by continuing to support failing businesses with loans. They can do that for a very long time -- provided they are prepared to emulate the Soviet model's demise. The Chinese don't want that, but what they do want is a miraculous resolution to their problem. There are no solutions that don't involve agony, so they put off the day of reckoning and slowly decline.

China's Transformation

The Chinese are not going to completely collapse economically any more than the Japanese or South Koreans did. What will happen is that China will behave differently than before. With no choices that don't frighten them, the Chinese will focus on containing the social and political fallout, both by trying to target benefits to politically sensitive groups and by using their excellent security apparatus to suppress and deter unrest. The Chinese economic performance will degrade, but crisis will be avoided and political interests protected. Since much of China never benefited from the boom, there is a massive force that has felt marginalized and victimized by coastal elites. That is not a bad foundation for the Communist Party to rely on.

The key is understanding that if China cannot solve its problems without unacceptable political consequences, it will try to stretch out the decline. Japan had a lost decade only in the minds of Western investors, who implicitly value aggregate GDP growth over other measures of success such as per capita GDP growth or full employment. China could very well face an extended period of intense inwardness and low economic performance. The past 30 years is a tough act to follow.

The obvious economic impact on the rest of the world will fall on the producers of industrial commodities such as iron ore. The extravagant expectations for Chinese growth will not be met, and therefore expectations for commodity prices won't be met. Since the Chinese economic failure has been underway for quite awhile, the degradation in prices has already happened. Australia in particular has been badly hit by the Chinese situation, just as it was by the Japanese situation a generation ago.

The Chinese are, of course, keeping a great deal of money in U.S. government instruments and other markets. Contrary to fears, that money will not be withdrawn. The Chinese problem isn't a lack of capital, and repatriating that money would simply increase inflation. Had the Chinese been able to put that money to good use, it would have never been invested in the United States in the first place. The outflow of money from China was a symptom of the disease: Lacking the structure to invest in China, the government and private funds went overseas. In so doing, Beijing sought to limit destabilization in China, while private Chinese funds looked for a haven against the storm that was already blowing.

Rather than the feared repatriation of funds, the United States will continue to be the target of major Chinese cash inflows.[Now, why would that be? Because we are falling apart? Think again. - Muzh]In a world where Europe is still reeling, only the United States is both secure and large enough to contain Chinese appetites for safety. [Just for you Manny - Muzh] Just as Japanese investment in the 1990s represented capital flight rather than a healthy investment appetite, so the behavior we have seen from Chinese investors in recent years is capital flight: money searching for secure havens regardless of return. This money has underpinned American markets; it is not going away, and in fact more is on the way.

The major shift in the international order will be the decline of China's role in the region. China's ability to project military power in Asia has been substantially overestimated. Its geography limits its ability to project power in Eurasia, an endeavor that would require logistics far beyond China's capacity. Its naval capacity is still limited compared with the United States. The idea that it will compensate for internal economic problems by genuine (as opposed to rhetorical) military action is therefore unlikely. China has a genuine internal security problem that will suck the military, which remains a domestic security force, into actions of little value. In our view, the most important shift will be the re-emergence of Japan as the dominant economic and political power in East Asia in a slow process neither will really want.

China will continue to be a major power, and it will continue to matter a great deal economically. Being troubled is not the same as ceasing to exist. China will always exist. It will, however, no longer be the low-wage, high-growth center of the world. Like Japan before it, it will play a different role.

In the global system, there are always low-wage, high-growth countries because the advanced industrial powers' consumers want to absorb goods at low wages. Becoming a supplier of those goods is a major opportunity for, and disruptor to, those countries. No one country can replace China, but China will be replaced. The next step in this process is identifying China's successors.

Stratfor

Obviously, you didn't see the joke in my post did you????? 

[Muzh]

Joke? What joke? 

[cbstogner]

I was searching through Anastasia's binders full of women, and decided to reverse search some of the girl son vk.com. I found this hottie pottati http://vk.com/id142790261 by reverse searching her name, city, and birthday.

Hit her up, told her that I was interested in taking her out on a date once I make it to Kyiv - no answer. I then began to snooping around her profile and clicked on a link to a website where you can ask her a question! Well, I didn't have to ask, someone else already did, her age. The birth year in not listed on vk.com, and when someone asked when they can see photos of her when she was 16... and she replied in a year, she will have such photos. Then she, well, you can read for yourself.

This is such a scam, and they're now advertising on US television and using underage beautiful girls who need an extra $50 as bait. We have to think of a way to stop them. I now have more than one piece of evidence that this is nothing but a scam.

Oh yeah, here is her profile on Anastasia: http://www.anastasiadate.com/pages/lady/profile/profilepreview.aspx?LadyID=1729919

[cbstogner]

Here are the photos.. ran into an error.

[jone]

I am not sure that she was not just giving a flippant response.  She looks to be twenty to me.   I would be surprised if she is not.

The bottom line is that the women on ADate between 18-24 are ALL there to get paid.  I am sure there are a few exceptions, but I have met the gals at the agencies that run these profiles.  Unfortunately I think you are going to have to step up your game before you could get a conviction against ADate.  Maybe you could get a conviction against the agency if the gal is really underage. 

Have you ever played a game at a carnival or a county fair?  Most of the games are not winnable.  So is the case with ADate with gals under 24.  And maybe even older.  Almost all of them have boyfriends and some are married. 

You have learned a valuable lesson.  Let other guys spend their money on the non-winnable games.  Go out and find a real woman.

[cbstogner]

Good answer

[cbstogner]

I ran into this guy: http://www.youtube.com/user/ALEXREGOJO Although a little difficult to understand, he's very knowledgable about the inner workings of the industry.

[cbstogner]

Alright, Jon just messaged her and asked her age, and gave her a link to this forum. You're a f***** douche bag man.

[jone]

Actually I am going to ask that the Moderators delete any reference to this woman and consider the actions of the individual who posted them. 

As surmised, the woman is almost 21 and, to date, has shown no evidence of scamming people.  Before you remove her data, she has asked to see the link of what was discussed about her and she may wish to make a direct response.  I now understand that the reason this individual is upset with me is that I asked Natalia if she was, indeed, the age she posted on her ADate profile.

We do not post pictures of people here and declare that they are under 18 on a spurious comment without some factual evidence.

ADate is repository for 1200 agencies.  It is possible that you might find a woman who is under age.  I am certainly not defending them.  But a woman who has the same name on ADate as her VK profile is either doing something that she is not ashamed of, or she is pretty darn stupid.  In either case, it is not for us to post her pictures and call her an illegal scammer.

As for you, cbstogner, you haven't got a clue as to what makes the MOB industry work.  Stay around, read up and find out.  PPL sites can be used to your advantage, if you aren't running around trying to make a sting on a young woman.  I was once like you, wanted to turn ADate over to the FTC (which is the ruling body for the US in this instance).  Now I see it as a slimy organization who still abides by the obvious chat girls.  But many of the men that are on these sites are just as slimy.   However, I have met and dated three wonderful women off of this website.

If you go through the archives of this forum (and the other one which cannot be named) you will find so many insights into this website that it will make old Alex (who you referenced) look like a rookie.

If you can get by being burned this one time, you may find, as I did, that you can find beautiful women on ADate that really do want to meet you, if you stay within your profile status and don't try to get something that doesn't exist.   Like a 20 year old woman who is not too impressed with your tactics.

(By the way, I had not given Natalia a link to this forum, I just told her what you said about her and asked if it was true.  After I read your reply, and tried to figure out why you were calling me names, I checked my VK inbox and there was a note from Natalia.  In response, and as I am typing this, I will give her a link.)

[newjason]

Quote from: jone on November 22, 2012, 11:30:34 PM

For all of you who say he shouldn't post their info online, I say; "Phooey on you!"

I happen to believe that the girls are not innocent.  My belief is that they are induced to put their profiles on the site - and will accommodate men to the extent that they receive some benefit from it.  I also happen to believe that the women that Chilie conversed with were well aware that they were being used to appear on that website.

One of the requirments (according to this agency) that is used for these women is that they are required to give Passport IDs at the time of sign up.  Accordingly, someone led them, by the nose probably, into an agency and put their names up.  They are not innocent.  Not by a longshot.  Of the women that I have talked to, this is the usual method of operation. 

AD further entices them by giving them a photospread of pictures.  The terp that I use in Kharkiv is one such woman that went in and got her pictures and was online.  Of interest is that she admitted to using a fake name online.  If I didn't know her - and somewhat enjoy her company - I would have questioned her ethics.  Instead I got her to elaborate.  She basically said, 'everyone does it'. 

There seem to be two types of women that use the MOB pay per message sites.  Those that are in it for the money and those who are too stupid to be in it for the money.

So keep up the good work, Chile, me boy.  And don't let these second guessers hold you back.  Maybe you'll find someone that wants to hook up with you and then you'll have even a bigger problem.  What are you going to do with a Ukranian girlfriend?

If it were me, and they asked me what I would do, I'd say; "I'll marry 'em all I betcha!"  HA!

and you went unsolicited to her social media page and made contact with her.
Knowing full well she might be underage.

You should be banned.

[Boethius]

As you may recall, Jason, some quarters of RWD find contacting underage girls perfectly acceptable, even admirable.

[mendeleyev]

Oh dear. I just watched a few minutes of that video.

I am in the business of communication and there is a studio in the office of the MJ and because I must be available to clients anytime news happens, we have a well equipped studio at home as well. I do voice work in our studios too, it's a nice piece of our income, and am more than familiar with voice masking techniques.

So when I see the form of a man's head, with a man's haircut, behind a white screen of course I was interested to hear the voice of this supposed "female" named Lady Drew or Lady True. My guess is that if this is a lady speaking, then I could possibly be Santa Claus.

Shocking...our "Alex" is in the MOB business himself and if you'll use his services, then you can avoid all those scams.

How convenient.

[JayH]

Alright, Jon just messaged her and asked her age, and gave her a link to this forum. You're a f***** douche bag man.

MMMM-- name calling-- I have a few for you--- you are a complete dill. Jone post above details accurately my feeling towards your comments.  If at any time you had looked at this forum-- and other like forums--you will see a large amount of material that gives factual details of AD and other like websites-- from people who do know( not some old video that is short of specifics)  first hand about these websites. If at any time--since your first post-- you had done that search you would be in a position to understand .
         Instead of doing that-- you want to sue somebody? What for? You being mentally incompetent? You have gone off on a tangent without doing some basic research.If you really do want to help yourself-- shut up and spend the time reading and learning.Maybe even make a trip!!
         My last "laugh" here-- would you like me to post link to your profile-- plus your real name and address  here in this thread  and see what everyone thinks of you and your credentials?  

[cbstogner]

As surmised, the woman is almost 21 and, to date, has shown no evidence of scamming people.  Before you remove her data, she has asked to see the link of what was discussed about her and she may wish to make a direct response.  I now understand that the reason this individual is upset with me is that I asked Natalia if she was, indeed, the age she posted on her ADate profile.

We do not post pictures of people here and declare that they are under 18 on a spurious comment without some factual evidence.

I never said that she was a scammer, or that she was under 18. All I did was give evidence of her stating that she was 15 on another website. Hey, thanks for contacting her and ruining my chances. She did end up saying she was 21, I was chatting with her, and almost had a date setup. At said date, I was going to ask to see her ID since I already had questioned her about her age myself since I am suspicious. You had to go and hate because she is drop dead gorgeous and your gal is probably subpar.

MMMM-- name calling-- I have a few for you--- you are a complete dill. Jone post above details accurately my feeling towards your comments.  If at any time you had looked at this forum-- and other like forums--you will see a large amount of material that gives factual details of AD and other like websites-- from people who do know( not some old video that is short of specifics)  first hand about these websites. If at any time--since your first post-- you had done that search you would be in a position to understand .
         Instead of doing that-- you want to sue somebody? What for? You being mentally incompetent? You have gone off on a tangent without doing some basic research.If you really do want to help yourself-- shut up and spend the time reading and learning.Maybe even make a trip!!
         My last "laugh" here-- would you like me to post link to your profile-- plus your real name and address  here in this thread  and see what everyone thinks of you and your credentials? 

I don't really care what you do, honestly. I know that I, more than likely, have more money, I'm younger and better looking than you. By the way, I've been to Ukraine 4 times now for a month at a time. How about you read from the beginning there smart stuff.

and you went unsolicited to her social media page and made contact with her.
Knowing full well she might be underage.

You should be banned.

I didn't notice until I clicked on a link and was directed to another site where she was answering questions; the private message had already been sent. You should be banned for being an idiot - excuse me, uninformed.

[JayH]

I don't really care what you do, honestly. I know that I, more than likely, have more money, I'm younger and better looking than you. By the way, I've been to Ukraine 4 times now for a month at a time. How about you read from the beginning there smart stuff.
rmed.

Funny thing is that it is the guys like that make me doubt how much truth is in your posts.I notice you have only posted in one thread on forum.
Younger-- may well be if what you have said in posts is true.
More money-- maybe--you want to bet me? Bet real money of decent amount-that will get my attention!!
What is impossible for me to understand is how a well off,young,good looking guy who has been in Ukraine 4 times does not have a list of girls longer than his arms chasing him to come "again"!!
Given that you have confirmed my assessment that you are a complete and utter dill-- you really want me to research you and post your profiles and life details here?

[jone]

Quote from: jone on November 22, 2012, 11:30:34 PM
and you went unsolicited to her social media page and made contact with her.
Knowing full well she might be underage.

You should be banned.

Aren't you the guy that said we should report scammers to the 'Authorities'?  Dumbest thing I ever heard here on this forum.

[jone]

It has not been the policy of RWD to display pictures of women against their will who have done nothing wrong.  While this young gal may be a chat gal (it looks like she has a boyfriend on her VK page) we have not established that.  Instead, we have an idiot who claims that the entire website is culpable because he couldn't get a date with this gal.   Then he posts her VK address and ADate address online, along with pictures of her.

As you all can probably guess, I contacted her to ask if she was really underage.  Were we all supposed to take the word of a lovesick puppy dog?

Then, he comes back online swearing at me because he was almost able to get a date with her after he has dissed her on this forum.

As for those who think I contacted a woman that was underage, I have this to say to you:  Get a life.  I contacted the gal asking if she was indeed underage.  Because then I CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE WANTED TO HAVE HER MATERIAL REMOVED FROM THIS SITE.   I don't know how many of you are fathers.  But if pictures of my daughter were posted here without her consent, I would be very upset.  And she isn't underage.  Maybe if you all can take things from that perspective you might be a little more sensitive.

My personal opinion of her is that she is not drop dead gorgeous.  She is pretty.  But beyond that, well, you don't know my standards and each person has their own idea of beautiful.  Mine centers around whether a woman can project kindness and wisdom.  She has established neither.  And neither can be well determined by a picture.

My advice for you, cbstogner, remains.  Go out.  Find a real woman.  And stop trolling places that you obviously don't understand.

[AnonMod]

It has not been the policy of RWD to display pictures of women against their will who have done nothing wrong. 

That is not accurate.   It is not an RWD policy.  Generally, out of respect for women, RWD mods delete posts denigrating any woman if she is not here to defend herself.

[jone]

I stand corrected.

[lonedrake]

jon, I thought he had just made an inside joke about banning you...or he was talking about the OP. As far as I am concerned you did the right thing. I think in another thread you signed up to a website(may have even paid?)....just to help another guy out.

 I hope you and your woman figure things out and I do appreciate your posts.

[cbstogner]

As far as I am concerned you did the right thing.

The right thing? He completely salted my game.

My advice for you, cbstogner, remains.  Go out.  Find a real woman.  And stop trolling places that you obviously don't understand.

I can get these girls in person, so when I get board, I try online knowing that it will be a challenge, but it is doable. They like the "damn girl, you sexy. look at you in your tight miniskirt and glasses, lookin all sophisticated," etc.. Young, "hip" American slang that they aren't used to, but see in our media. 

Funny thing is that it is the guys like that make me doubt how much truth is in your posts.I notice you have only posted in one thread on forum.
Younger-- may well be if what you have said in posts is true.
More money-- maybe--you want to bet me? Bet real money of decent amount-that will get my attention!!
What is impossible for me to understand is how a well off,young,good looking guy who has been in Ukraine 4 times does not have a list of girls longer than his arms chasing him to come "again"!!
Given that you have confirmed my assessment that you are a complete and utter dill-- you really want me to research you and post your profiles and life details here?

I really wish you people would start from the beginning.. I had a gf for awhile. Money, an old fat might have more than me, however, I am sure I have more than you when you were 30. Post my information? Well, if you went digging for it, I am sure you would impressed since I have over 8,000 fb followers. Showing the girls this, and how I get over 800 likes on one post, is almost a sure fire panty dropper. Proof? I would be glad to post a link, but I don't really feel like policing my page since I have been under attack from my very first post. My name is my brand, so I rather not have the chance of posts fighting off a bunch of jealous haters come up when my name is googled. Better looking? Well, you can see for yourself. Most of my fans are women.