@Joy Of course you don't have to explain "jack shit" to me, Joy. But your reluctance speaks volumes about how much credence should be given to your explanation of events.

I see no apologies for your speculations about why Shakira should be banned, but then I didn't expect any. But then don't say you only wanted to explain Veronica's side: you went out of your way to try and justify Shakira's banning. That also speaks volumes about you and your motivations.

Thankfully, you did drop the "Lovies"

gary g. Have you considdered the fact that you might not be important enough (not as important as you might have thought you are)...to be given any more information /explanations? Maybe it just don't concern you?

Anyway...I'll post on the forum again when Veronica is allowed to post. Till then.

On 2017-07-28 12:43:24 gary_g said:
@Joy Of course you don't have to explain "jack shit" to me, Joy. But your reluctance speaks volumes about how much credence should be given to your explanation of events.

I see no apologies for your speculations about why Shakira should be banned, but then I didn't expect any. But then don't say you only wanted to explain Veronica's side: you went out of your way to try and justify Shakira's banning. That also speaks volumes about you and your motivations.

Thankfully, you did drop the "Lovies"

I think you have too much time on your hands...overthinking a banning of a lady on this site..which has nothing to do with you in the first place! Makes me think that you have something to gain from your ongoing attacks! Nr 1...not Joy nor Veronica has anything to do with her banning.. Nr 2...you have Shakira's side of the story, not anyone elses. Nr 3...you are becoming a public nuisance on this public forum...what beef do you have with Joy??? Why should she appologize to you for standing up for a fellow service provider that we interact with daily? Joy never speculated about Shakira being banned? Where do you get your information from? Take a chill pill and relax! Go punt and get rid of all your built up anger or even better...go pop a bottle of JC with your favorite girl...

Ja ek stem !! Nou genoeg gehad om sy kak te lees en ek laaik lees maar nie al die kak wat hy kwyt raak nie .Get over it boet !

On 2017-07-28 12:32:03 Joy said:
On 2017-07-28 12:27:28 frankstar said: Joy. Jy is so sexy wanneer by so skel. My piepie trek dinner styf hier in my vergadering.

frankstar Darling, don't you mean "donners" styf.

Jy het hom al gesien. Jy weet net hoe donners styf hy kan wees.

[QUOTE;785360;pantum] Ja ek stem !! Nou genoeg gehad om sy kak te lees en ek laaik lees maar nie al die kak wat hy kwyt raak nie .Get over it boet

Ek moet met jou saamstem Pantum die Gary gaan nou te ver, en dis tyd dat hy sy smoel snoer want hy praat die grootste pot k*k denkbaar! Hy het seker die bietjie breinselle wat hy het uitgespyker op k*k wat soos hy dink.......
J

You are getting surprisingly aggressive in your responses. Mini used to be such a happy and fun guy. Maybe you have your own motivations in this, which is okay...

No, I'm not important at all, as an individual, to ESA. But an aggregate of individuals is important to any organization. If what I have raised resonates with more than just me, it is important. But certainly I understand that Eddie is not obligated to give an explanation. That is obvious.

The issue I'm raising is about the principle behind this particular banning. In the vast majority of advertiser bans that I have seen, it involved transgressing against the clients, like Sharon, or, more rarely, transgressing against clear ESA rules.

I like ESA as a place to find good quality escorts, and sometimes entertainment as well. I simply hate to see someone who is terrific at what she does professionally like Shakira, and is often entertaining in her postings as well, be banned for going after a scammer. I hope I'm not the only one who feels that way.

@gary_g...we are all important as individuals. I just dont get why you are so upset with Shakira's banning? Surely ESA has their reasons as to why they thought it would be the appropriate thing to do? Why try and investigate this matter further, as this really has nothing to do with you? I just feel, that if Shakira spoke to ESA and gave her side of events, and if she was innocent...then why ban her? Yes, she has her audience, clients and people that love her for being herself! But fact remains, she was banned. Only Shakira and ESA will know the truth behind this situation.. Crying, pleading and fighting on the public forum will do nothing to resolve this matter. As for Veronica...she has gracefully accepted her banning to not be able to post and reply to pm's. And another thing....you say Shakira was trying to "catch a scammer"... But I believe Veronica was the one who posted about it...trying to see if others have also been scammed and blackmailed by "Sharon"...trying to help her client out if his predicament. And now she is banned from posting, just because she is a person that speaks her mind and is not afraid to do so! Just my 2 sents!

Any way! Its the weekend, time to relax and have some fun!

Happy punting

Xxx

I agree fully with Gary-g I think it is ludicrous that Shakira is banned looking out for the well being of the industry. Even if her ability to post is revoked.

I have had the pleasure of booking Shakira in the past and she is a good person. Character of note. Someone I can fully trust and have trusted in the past.

#bringbackshaks

This is a reply to Tanya's earlier post, with an aside to Julia-

@Tanya I have stated the reasons for my involvement: what are yours? There is a principle involved here, and I guess you are unacquainted as well with the concept of friendship . But thankfully for you, you can still skip reading this thread if it bothers you...

I have Shakira's side only? Actually, I have Sharon's message, Antionette's responses, and Joy's post concerning Veronica's side. Your comment is ridiculous.

It's a public forum, and who are you to decide what is a nuisance? I repeat: skip the thread if you don't want to read it, simple. But if you are still reading, here are...

Joy's speculations on Shakira:

"None of you were privileged to this information but trusted esa judgment when Sharon was banned, yet now the details are an issue for you when it concerns Shakira?"

As I already pointed out, a number of ESA members sent proof of what was being sent by Sharon, including DIRECTORSSS, who posted on the thread about it. Matt then announced Sharon's banning on that basis. Joy's statement was completely false.

"Maybe ESA has received this video and took appropriate steps with Shakira"

You don't consider this speculation, Tanya?

"Is it Sharons imagination In her email or is it only in Shakiras imagination.... if this public display actually happened?"

I don't even know what this means, but it certainly is more speculation by Joy.

"ESA has their own reasons to have taken the steps they did against Shakira according to the information they have been given other than some email from someone that is less than honest"

More speculation against Shakira by Joy

"but obviously Shakira has overstepped some kind of agreement or boundary with regards to ESA and got herself banned."

More speculation against Shakira by Joy.

"If Shakira has issue with her banning, she should approach ESA to sort it out herself and leave clients out of it."

Joy is way off base. Shakira never asked me to bring this up.

"Have you considered the legal implications and further damage this could have to both ESA and Shakira if such video does exist?"

Here Joy tries to imply that events indeed unfolded as Sharon describes, to Shakira's detriment.

Your assertion that Joy is innocent of going after Shakira shows perhaps you have your own ulterior motives, since even the most casual reading would have given you all of this.


@Julia, my feelings are so hurt that you don't hold me in the utmost esteem. But you, too, can skip the thread if you're not enjoying it.