Lonman @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:27 am wrote:
cueball @ Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:27 pm wrote:
JoeChartreuse @ Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:12 pm wrote:
Lonman @ Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:08 pm wrote:
Well if those venues were looking for 'legal' hosts, then I would say she got those clubs because of the SC suits - whether they were named in the suit or not, she got the clubs because of it.
Why would you say that? There is no evidence of it. Hazarding a guess is fine, but there should be SOME basis for it...
There are a myriad of good reasons why hosts would shut down, and I named several. This is assuming 5 actually did shut down, of course..
Uh... Joe.... Read the post just before yours. I think KJ Athena answered your query about proof about 30 minutes before you posted this.
Joe seems to want to refuse the possiblilty that clubs actually looking for legal kj's might have possibly been stemmed because of the lawsuits - never in 20 years have I ever heard of a club asking until now - coincidence? Possibly, but i'm betting not.
I did. She speks of venues looking for "legal hosts" and that an audit - which as absolutely nothing to do with LEGALITY- got her in. That tells me it was more salesmanship than anything else. I'm guessing, but I think she convinced the owner that the audit meant something that it didn't, making him believe it had something to do with "legality. If that is the case - and I'm certainly not claiming it is, as I wasn't there- it would have been misrepresentation.
Also, I mentioned the 5 hosts that aren't there anymore, and were never named by SC in regard to anything. No explaination.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
