Be alert, not alarmed.

[Heisenberg]

I had a gem of a shop in Springwood area near Daisy Hill. It not a main stream one, but busy enough.

Well the girl that I usually see rang me a few hours ago. The shop was raided today by police. They copied all sim cards and details, took down there details. Took there phone numbers. There address details. She believes that they are going to call me because of our relationship. No idea.

Point is use your god damn brains. If you want to tell someone about something, do it over the phone or down the pub. Not on the internet.

So be warned. I am sure they have a certain shop in there sights that we all know about.

So she looks like she will fly back to China if they go the whole hog on her ass.

Final point, be smart. Trust no one. Even long term members, because you have no idea how many people control that one account. Yes they may have 720+ posts, but that could be from several different people. I personally know of at least two accounts I am almost certain a run by police officers based on my interactions and reported interactions of others.

Telltale signs so far would be people who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on here. People who constantly ask for information but never share any of their original stuff. Regular users should know the two I mention. There are likely more.

I have seen the QPS room where they hunt for this stuff, let me tell you, they are watching. Don't think this place is clean of cops. It's not.

[brownwallaby]

i think I've read a very similar post maybe a year ago, also about that Springwood shop, it was also mentioned that the cops had copied all sim cards and the girl wanted to fly back to China. Did they get raided twice in a year?

cheers
BW
(this makes it 721 posts :) )

[Heisenberg]

I didn't mention you, BW.

Guilty conscience?

[brownwallaby]

at least I don't copy and paste from last year's posting to get attention

[DV8AUS]

BW is making friends everywhere.......:shout::shout::shout:

This might give 723.....haha.....but who's counting

[Blue-Marvel]

Copied paste from last year?

So is it true or not?

[Heisenberg]

I wasn't actually referring to you, BW.

You're probably worse than a cop, you're a shitposter. Never posted a single decent review except for Mozhi spamming back in early 2013, never posted any helpful advice or new shops

And yes, I've read every single one of your posts.

You'd think someone who spends between 6 and 12 hours a day browsing this site as you do would come up with some useful posts but apparently not.

You're worse than useless. I was warned about you by multiple people and they were right.

[samdv]

I wasn't actually referring to you, BW.

You're probably worse than a cop, you're a shitposter. Never posted a single decent review except for Mozhi spamming back in early 2013, never posted any helpful advice or new shops

And yes, I've read every single one of your posts.


If you think BW's posts are so useless, then why did you spend so much time and effort in reading all of his posts? there are lots of punters here like myself who have receive a lot of valuable advise and reports from BW.

[gitl]

I wasn't actually referring to you, BW.

You're probably worse than a cop, you're a shitposter. Never posted a single decent review except for Mozhi spamming back in early 2013, never posted any helpful advice or new shops

And yes, I've read every single one of your posts.

Oh I don't know. I've had some pretty decent advice from BW when I've taken the trouble to message him. Maybe being a little obscure when posting isn't such a bad idea given what's happened in this thread?

[RottenLittlePunt]

I wasn't actually referring to you, BW.

You're probably worse than a cop, you're a shitposter. Never posted a single decent review except for Mozhi spamming back in early 2013, never posted any helpful advice or new shops

And yes, I've read every single one of your posts.

You'd think someone who spends between 6 and 12 hours a day browsing this site as you do would come up with some useful posts but apparently not.

You're worse than useless. I was warned about you by multiple people and they were right.


If someone is spending 6 to 12 hours a day browsing this site, then they obviously aren't out there punting, so how can they make a relevant post? Seems like a fairly moronic thing to say .......

[Heisenberg]

As I said, I've been reliably informed about certain users by multiple people.

BW is an absolute shitcunt and I has a good laugh with the boss lady of a particular shop where he claimed to have a good chat + freebies.

Guy is 100% full of shit

[Heisenberg]

It is also curious and interesting that just after being informed of BW's sock puppet accounts, in troop 3 staunch BW defenders 1 by 1 on a normally dead board.

Bit obvious, m80.

[RottenLittlePunt]

It is also curious and interesting that just after being informed of BW's sock puppet accounts, in troop 3 staunch BW defenders 1 by 1 on a normally dead board.

Bit obvious, m80.

Ahhhh internet paranoia, it's so funny to watch in action. lol

[gitl]

It is also curious and interesting that just after being informed of BW's sock puppet accounts, in troop 3 staunch BW defenders 1 by 1 on a normally dead board.

Bit obvious, m80.

Lolz. Yeah, am definitely a BW alt. So obvious right? Either that or "multiple people" feel like the attack wasn't justified. To each their own. Good luck with your endeavours.

[BrainSex]

I'm full of hit too btw.

and since when if someone calling themselves braainsex???

[brownwallaby]

honestly I don't care getting all this stick from forum members. What matters most is the girls keep performing for me, and this is how we should focus our attention

btw 720+ posts and not one single review. I think this is quite an achievement, lol ......

[Heisenberg]

Indeed. Perhaps some sort of "Shitposter of the Year" award for you BW.

You'll have to fit in the ceremony between all the free extras and duos you get of course.

[brownwallaby]

i think if someone manages to write 720+ shit posts he should be banned by the admin. Don't you think so ?

[ecchi.gaijin]

i think if someone manages to write 720+ shit posts he should be banned by the admin. Don't you think so ?


Considering how you spend "between 6 and 12 hours a day" here, I thought you were an admin. :startle:

[Heisenberg]

Evidently they don't

[AHLUNGOR]

i think if someone manages to write 720+ shit posts he should be banned by the admin. Don't you think so ?

I think when the OP mentioned 720+ posts in his comments, he has got someone specifically in his mind !!

[AHLUNGOR]

Considering how you spend "between 6 and 12 hours a day" here, I thought you were an admin. :startle:

I think I could easily spent 3-4 hours a day on the forum:

and I am certainly Not the Admin - in fact I think the Admin here would spend next to no times on the forum, too busy counting all the money laughing all the way to the bank.................lol

[WhyDidIWait]

This post seems very similar to a post made in January last year...with the same title and grammar. Not taking sides. Just pointing out facts.

[gitl]

This post seems very similar to a post made in January last year...with the same title and grammar. Not taking sides. Just pointing out facts.

What, you don't mean this one? forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?4712-Be-Aware-Not-Alamred ... Well there are definitely differences. For one the post count has gone up 20+ since the original.

[RottenLittlePunt]

The thing that baffles me is that the OP talks about not sharing information on the internet, but in his next breath criticises another poster for not sharing enough information on the internet.

Anyone else see a problem with the logic here?

[Heisenberg]

It is simple, really.

Brownwallaby is a known child sex offender in SEQ, he is known to QPS and Corrective Services (Maroochydore Probation and Parole and Logan Probation and Parole).

So I don't have much time for him, he's a rockspider. But AFAIK he is not in violation of any parole conditions by visiting shops or posting online.

But in the context of this forum he is also a relentless shitposter. Basically spamming the shit out of every thread without actually contributing anything simply to enhance his post count. He also uses shill accounts to compliment himself and back up his ridiculous fanciful stories about how all the MLs at every shop flock to him and chat about their secrets and offer constant free extras.

I appreciate that there are a number of people here who think highly of BW however I do not and I do not feel that I can bite my tongue on this convicted sex offender any longer.

[RottenLittlePunt]

It is simple, really.

Brownwallaby is a known child sex offender in SEQ, he is known to QPS and Corrective Services (Maroochydore Probation and Parole and Logan Probation and Parole).

So I don't have much time for him, he's a rockspider. But AFAIK he is not in violation of any parole conditions by visiting shops or posting online.

But in the context of this forum he is also a relentless shitposter. Basically spamming the shit out of every thread without actually contributing anything simply to enhance his post count. He also uses shill accounts to compliment himself and back up his ridiculous fanciful stories about how all the MLs at every shop flock to him and chat about their secrets and offer constant free extras.

I appreciate that there are a number of people here who think highly of BW however I do not and I do not feel that I can bite my tongue on this convicted sex offender any longer.

Curious how you know so much about the QPS Vice Squad, their data base of sex offenders and the identity of usually annonymous online identities. People might start to wonder if you are somehow involved with the QPS yourself.

I don't know if there is any validity to your libellous accusation, but it does seem apparent that you are guilty of breaching a few statutes yourself, namely stalking and privacy legislation.

[Heisenberg]

Curious how you know so much about the QPS Vice Squad, their data base of sex offenders and the identity of usually annonymous online identities. People might start to wonder if you are somehow involved with the QPS yourself.

I don't know if there is any validity to your libellous accusation, but it does seem apparent that you are guilty of breaching a few statutes yourself, namely stalking and privacy legislation.

There is nothing prohibiting me from pointing this out. Libel and slander law does not apply to pseudonyms. Also none of his charges are sub judice, I am free to comment on them. There is no issue of stalking here either, I find it amusing you'd even suggest that. Highlights your ignorance of the law.

For the record, I am not a police officer but I am a lawyer.

[RottenLittlePunt]

There is nothing prohibiting me from pointing this out. Libel and slander law does not apply to pseudonyms. Also none of his charges are sub judice, I am free to comment on them. There is no issue of stalking here either, I find it amusing you'd even suggest that. Highlights your ignorance of the law.

For the record, I am not a police officer but I am a lawyer.

That is a fairly naive thing for a lawyer to say. If a pseudonym is sufficiently connected to his real identity then the libel still stands.

As for the stalking matter? I will explain it to you so that your "brilliant" legal mind can understand. How did you find the real name of BW in order to know his alleged criminal record? Secondly, the way in which you randomly created a thread with a fictitious story of "yours" in order to attack him specifically. Starting to sound a little more like stalking now?

Finally, looking back through some of your posts, I am wondering if the LSC is aware of your criminal activities. I hope you don't piss the wrong person off, or you might find you are no longer a lawyer :)

[Heisenberg]

Silly goose, no idea about the law. I'd like for you to cite one scrap of case law supporting your pseudonym theory. It has been repeatedly smacked down in cases of twitter and forum libel, you should really educate yourself so you don't look foolish.

This is not stalking. Stalking implies a threat of violence. There is no such threat, quite the opposite in fact..

No criminal activity here, my friend. All my posts are artistic works of fiction :)

You bush lawyers really have no idea how the law works..

[popeye96]

Barrister or Solicitor?

Either way, you're not a very professional one. Acting the way you do, not to mention the partaking in illegal activities yourself. Would have though you'd have more respect for the law, and your practising certificate.

[RottenLittlePunt]

Silly goose, no idea about the law. I'd like for you to cite one scrap of case law supporting your pseudonym theory. It has been repeatedly smacked down in cases of twitter and forum libel, you should really educate yourself so you don't look foolish.

This is not stalking. Stalking implies a threat of violence. There is no such threat, quite the opposite in fact..

No criminal activity here, my friend. All my posts are artistic works of fiction :)

You bush lawyers really have no idea how the law works..



Like candy from a baby :)

How easy it was to draw your real character out. "Artistic works of fiction", so why are you on this board if you aren't a punter? I guess we know which ID shouldn't be trusted now boys ;)

Always fun to see how easily you can fuck one over on a person who thinks they are so smart :)

[RottenLittlePunt]

Stalking implies a threat of violence.


Not sure what law school you went to, but you might want to reread the criminal code. ;)

[Heisenberg]

Like candy from a baby :)

How easy it was to draw your real character out. "Artistic works of fiction", so why are you on this board if you aren't a punter? I guess we know which ID shouldn't be trusted now boys ;)

Always fun to see how easily you can fuck one over on a person who thinks they are so smart :)

Oh boy, BW's sockpuppet, you really don't get it, do you?

That's called a disclaimer, silly goose.

I am a solicitor, you are an unemployed convicted sex offender on the DSP.

Congratulations.

[RottenLittlePunt]

Oh boy, BW's sockpuppet, you really don't get it, do you?

That's called a disclaimer, silly goose.

I am a solicitor, you are an unemployed convicted sex offender on the DSP.

Congratulations.

Can you please make up your mind, am I BW's "staunch supporter" or am I actually him? You seem confused.

It is hilarious how supposedly intelligent people assume that criticism of them is automatically support for the person they are attacking. Really shows a simplistic and juvenile mind set.


You think a "disclaimer" will stop or count as evidence in an investigation if a complaint is raised against you?

"you're honour, the crown ceased proceedings against the defendant because he said he didn't really do it"

And you thought I had little understanding of the law? LOL

[TRD Aurion]

Ok boys settle down. Let us enjoy the site without the arguments. Each and every person has their views. I understand your frustrations but please stop this argument and behave like grown men. I ain't trying to stir trouble but I just wish people get along. I am not taking any sides but there's too much information here.
I love Aurions!

[Heisenberg]

Can you please make up your mind, am I BW's "staunch supporter" or am I actually him? You seem confused.

It is hilarious how supposedly intelligent people assume that criticism of them is automatically support for the person they are attacking. Really shows a simplistic and juvenile mind set.


You think a "disclaimer" will stop or count as evidence in an investigation if a complaint is raised against you?

"you're honour, the crown ceased proceedings against the defendant because he said he didn't really do it"

And you thought I had little understanding of the law? LOL

Tell me how many prosecutors are going to bring a case with no evidence and no admission against a lawyer with deep pockets.

Not many.

Police steer clear as well

[RottenLittlePunt]

Tell me how many prosecutors are going to bring a case with no evidence and no admission against a lawyer with deep pockets.

Not many.

Police steer clear as well


Who said anything about a prosecution? You REALLY don't know much about being a professional do you? LOL

[Heisenberg]

Who said anything about a prosecution? You REALLY don't know much about being a professional do you? LOL

Well that's the only option available to you lot.

You don't have enough details for a professional complaint.

Also the whole post was about a court case.

[ecchi.gaijin]

"I also wish them luck. But they're on an industrial estate, around the corner and not on a main road.

If they're after women for massage + other beauty treatment, they're in a bad location.

I'm not just whinging, I do this for a living."

Solicitor or real estate agent, which is it?

[Heisenberg]

A solicitor as I said before and in the other thread surrounding legalities of extras in shops vs private.

You can't run a 24/7 massage shop in any old shop

[koge78]

Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, like a diamond in the sky! Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are!!!!

[Jerry10]

I wasn't actually referring to you, BW.

You're probably worse than a cop, you're a shitposter. Never posted a single decent review except for Mozhi spamming back in early 2013, never posted any helpful advice or new shops

And yes, I've read every single one of your posts.

You'd think someone who spends between 6 and 12 hours a day browsing this site as you do would come up with some useful posts but apparently not.

You're worse than useless. I was warned about you by multiple people and they were right.

Spending a lot of time here yourself.
posting whole day from 12:56pm to 10:25pm

Getting close to Brownwallaby's status.

[gpeck80]

"There is nothing prohibiting me from pointing this out. Libel and slander law does not apply to pseudonyms. "

This is actually 100% correct.

Also since BW's real name has not been mentioned by anyone previous to this thread being posted, there is no grounds for a complaint either.

[brownwallaby]

Everything is clear here. Heisenberg has stated that all of his posts are fictitious. All of his accusations etc are just word play. Even his profession is not a solicitor. He's actually a prison guard, hence his knowledge of criminals and how their mind works ....
I wish we could stop this thread. This does not increase our chance to get a bj from that lass at Blueballs Massage

[gpeck80]

If it is fictitious then there is nothing to worry about ;)

[oilman]

If anyone wants to no who is or is not wanking me off at massarge parlors please p.m me...

Ive got a mouth like a crack whore short of cash on a friday night!

[TRD Aurion]

Why do they call you oilman?

[RottenLittlePunt]

"There is nothing prohibiting me from pointing this out. Libel and slander law does not apply to pseudonyms. "

This is actually 100% correct.

Also since BW's real name has not been mentioned by anyone previous to this thread being posted, there is no grounds for a complaint either.


Actually it isn't :)

"In order to defame someone it is essential that the statement identifies them. This does not mean that the plaintiff must be personally named. Typically, all that is required is that the details that are published lead a specific class of reader to identify the person as the subject of the defamatory statement."

As I stated, if a pseudonym is sufficiently connected to the person's real identity then the defamation still stands. eg "Baz" Luhrmann is a famous pseudonym for Mark Anthony Luhrmann, any defamation made against "Baz" Luhrmann is in fact against Mark Anthony Luhrmann.

[brownwallaby]

the problem is, brownwallaby doesn't exist. He's a myth. all of his postings are fictitious :p

[gpeck80]

Mate for that to work

1. Brown Wallaby would have to be as famous as baz luhrmann, and work in an industry (like film) where your career relies heavily on reputation.

2. The forum where he was defamed would have to be quite public, ie picked up by the media, his lawyers would have to prove that his career was sufficiently tarnished. This is why its usually celebrities that sue. Ordinary people usually do not, since its weighed up against the public good. This a small forum mentioning a non famous person. Tough case.

3. The psuedonym AND his real name has to be mentioned.

4. Most importantly, the allegations have to be proved false.

5. Explain to me how any user here (class of reader) can work out BWs real name from what heisenberg posted ?

6. Explain to me how "Brownwallaby" is as identifiable as "Baz Luhrmann", which appears on Movie Posters and Credits.

Your argument has more flaws than a 60 year old whore.

[gpeck80]

I am not a lawyer. My previous post does not constitute legal advice.

[RottenLittlePunt]

I am not a lawyer. My previous post does not constitute legal advice.

The comment wasn't whether the claim against BW's ID would constitute defamation. I replied to a generalisation that was incorrect.

[RottenLittlePunt]

Mate for that to work

1. Brown Wallaby would have to be as famous as baz luhrmann, and work in an industry (like film) where your career relies heavily on reputation.

2. The forum where he was defamed would have to be quite public, ie picked up by the media, his lawyers would have to prove that his career was sufficiently tarnished. This is why its usually celebrities that sue. Ordinary people usually do not, since its weighed up against the public good. This a small forum mentioning a non famous person. Tough case.

3. The psuedonym AND his real name has to be mentioned.

4. Most importantly, the allegations have to be proved false.

5. Explain to me how any user here (class of reader) can work out BWs real name from what heisenberg posted ?

6. Explain to me how "Brownwallaby" is as identifiable as "Baz Luhrmann", which appears on Movie Posters and Credits.

Your argument has more flaws than a 60 year old whore.


1) refer to my previous post

3) Wrong, as per my second last post

4) Wrong, the burden of proof lies with the defendant as the defendant would be the one claiming "truth" as their defence.

5) similar to 1)

6) irrelevant, refer to 1)

[gpeck80]

Mate, defamation is about lowering a persons public professional reputation to their colleagues so much that it affects their ability to find work. If I were to write a letter to the editor stating that baz lurhmann fiddled with kids (assuming the newspaper was even dumb enough to post it) and it turned out to be incorrect, both the newspaper and I would be liable, since it could be argued that such a lie could harm a famous persons ability to continue to work in their chosen profession.

Now explain to me how that fits with an anonymous person writing under a fake name (no one outside this tiny forum would be even be aware of) being read by other anonymous people who also post under fake made up names. So please explain to me BWs professional rep that is being tarnished here. Does he sell tours to sex tourists ? Or offer a tour bus to brothels ? Your point is useless. No lawyer would touch it. They wouldnt waste their time with such a frivolous case.

Defamation cases usually only go ahead if the person is widely famous, yknow, like a hollywood director.

I dont really care about this. I dont have a dog in this fight, but as someone who has retained a lawyer from time to time, I know what I have written is right.

[RottenLittlePunt]

Mate, defamation is about lowering a persons public professional reputation to their colleagues so much that it affects their ability to find work. If I were to write a letter to the editor stating that baz lurhmann fiddled with kids (assuming the newspaper was even dumb enough to post it) and it turned out to be incorrect, both the newspaper and I would be liable, since it could be argued that such a lie could harm a famous persons ability to continue to work in their chosen profession.

Now explain to me how that fits with an anonymous person writing under a fake name (no one outside this tiny forum would be even be aware of) being read by other anonymous people who also post under fake made up names. So please explain to me BWs professional rep that is being tarnished here. Does he sell tours to sex tourists ? Or offer a tour bus to brothels ? Your point is useless. No lawyer would touch it. They wouldnt waste their time with such a frivolous case.

Defamation cases usually only go ahead if the person is widely famous, yknow, like a hollywood director.

I dont really care about this. I dont have a dog in this fight, but as someone who has retained a lawyer from time to time, I know what I have written is right.

How many times do you need to have something explained to your before you will listen? The original comment was a generalisation about the law of libel with regards to pseudonyms. I stated it (and subsequently you in your support of the generalisation) were wrong. Your continued references to BW are irrelevant as I am not arguing the case in relation to any specific application of the law, I am only referring to the generalisation that was made.

[Heisenberg]

Unless he is famous and known to others as brownwallaby + his real name, there is no defamation.

You cannot defame a pseudonym.

Your post re Baz Luhrmann is also irrelevant. It relies on the simple test of reasonableness. Would a reasonable person know who I was referring to if I called him Baz?

Yes.

Would a reasonable person know an anonymous Internet user's real identity if I referred to him by his username? No.

There is no caselaw to support your flawed interpretation of the law.

No defamation here so tell it to a judge

[RottenLittlePunt]

Unless he is famous and known to others as brownwallaby + his real name, there is no defamation.

You cannot defame a pseudonym.

Your post re Baz Luhrmann is also irrelevant. It relies on the simple test of reasonableness. Would a reasonable person know who I was referring to if I called him Baz?

Yes.

Would a reasonable person know an anonymous Internet user's real identity if I referred to him by his username? No.

There is no caselaw to support your flawed interpretation of the law.

No defamation here so tell it to a judge


"You cannot defame a pseudonym.

Your post re Baz Luhrmann is also irrelevant."

It is relevant since it proves the only point I was making, you can defame a pseudonym. I even quoted actual legal advice which supported that fact. Trying to argue the specifics of this board are irrelevant to the validity of your incorrect generalisation, since they don't meet the qualification I made.

[gpeck80]

RLP, in a real world situation your point is useless. You can argue generalities until the cows come home but the Law is literal and specific. Just back away from this conversation, you dont have the chops for it.

[kazuya]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[friskychris]

Not relevant.

[RottenLittlePunt]

Says he who clocks up 40+ irrelevant posts in less than 3 weeks. We're all waiting for you to contribute to this board and not argue the point with everyone.

Perhaps if you weren't an illiterate fool, you might have read the contributions I have made or understood the context of my post you quoted.

As for me "arguing the point"? Perhaps you should criticise people who maliciously attack other posters for no reason such as the OP of this thread or the other dimwit that just likes to say "I am right" while constantly getting PROVEN wrong, gpeck.

I made my point and supported it clearly, but then I guess I am supposed to just go around telling people how wrong they are, merely because I say so. Because that wouldn't be argumentative now would it?

[RottenLittlePunt]

RLP, in a real world situation your point is useless. You can argue generalities until the cows come home but the Law is literal and specific. Just back away from this conversation, you dont have the chops for it.

You really are a dimwit, aren't you? The generality is how the law is applied IN GENERAL (ie overall). Is there ever a time that you don't talk shit about a subject that you have no idea about?

Don't have the chops for it? Your feeble minded attempts at winning an argument have failed on every account. But luckily it's the internet and if you say it enough times, it MUST be true ..... lol

[Heisenberg]

It's ironic that you say that, RLP, given that your entire argument is based on your flawed reading of the law and not on any case law/precedent.

That's pretty funny and you've humiliated yourself in this thread in front of us all.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[oilman]

Why do they call you oilman?

Put warm oil on me & im your man = oilman...

[Oneonone]

I think its best to stay on the right side of the law go to legal licenced shops and you should not have anything to worry about.

[RottenLittlePunt]

It's ironic that you say that, RLP, given that your entire argument is based on your flawed reading of the law and not on any case law/precedent.

That's pretty funny and you've humiliated yourself in this thread in front of us all.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Ironic? There is no irony in what I said. I think the word you were looking for was hypocritical (which again, there wasn't any). Strange that a lawyer who holds himself in such high regard is such a poor wordsmith. But then you aren't much of a lawyer are you?

"Stalking implies a threat of violence"

359B What is unlawful stalking
Unlawful stalking is conduct—

......(d) that—
or
(ii) causes detriment, reasonably arising in all the circumstances, to the stalked person or another person."

Seems the actual criminal code isn't up on your view on stalking, funny that ....


"given that your entire argument is based on your flawed reading of the law"

If it is so flawed, then why did you agree with it?

" It relies on the simple test of reasonableness. Would a reasonable person know who I was referring to if I called him Baz?

Yes."

Contradict yourself much?



You're supposed to be the lawyer here and yet you think your lack of knowledge of the law, inability to comprehend what is written or articulate yourself properly should cause me embarrassment?

[oilman]

I think its best to stay on the right side of the law go to legal licenced shops and you should not have anything to worry about.

Nothing to worry about ???

Worry problems at FS legal shops:

- Hang your dick under a blue light when you arrive so a stranger can inspect it.
- Full sex is the only option, the lady implys this at the start when she pulls out the lube & condom.
- Asking for a massage & hj is also the same price as full sex, it may incur a "fantasy charge" at some shops.
- bringing A.I.D.S home because if shes having full sex with you shes having full sex with 10 other blokes.

Worry problems at Massage shops:

- Getting busted. ..

Wake up Q.L.D, stop hiding begind bull shit excuses, make massage parlors legal in!!!

[Heisenberg]

100% agree with oilman.

I laughed at the legal brothel owners whinging in the newspaper about massage shops driving them to the wall.

Don't complain about that, lobby the government to relax laws and improve your offerings. If massage shops went away, I wouldn't increase FS shop visits, I'd go to Sydney instead as I still do sometimes now.

[RottenLittlePunt]

Nothing to worry about ???

Worry problems at FS legal shops:

- Hang your dick under a blue light when you arrive so a stranger can inspect it.
- Full sex is the only option, the lady implys this at the start when she pulls out the lube & condom.
- Asking for a massage & hj is also the same price as full sex, it may incur a "fantasy charge" at some shops.
- bringing A.I.D.S home because if shes having full sex with you shes having full sex with 10 other blokes.

Worry problems at Massage shops:

- Getting busted. ..

Wake up Q.L.D, stop hiding begind bull shit excuses, make massage parlors legal in!!!



The risk of AIDS "should" be less in a brothel if they are having protected sex as per the law. At a massage shop there would also be a risk (if not increased risk) of contracting an STI since it is not regulated and therefore possibly less safe practices/health checks.

Of course if you are only referring to a massage and HJ then that risk factor isn't relevant in either category.

[oilman]

No one has full sex at the massage shops, its always & is only about massage, hj, tit fell & or nudity.

In my opinion massage shops are not legal because Its an Asian dominated business & we all no what Q.L.D is like.... Why wouldn't you legalize it, tax, police time no longer wasted, put the bike gangs out of the picture... Or is there to many brown paper bags at the top of the food chain???

[RottenLittlePunt]

No one has full sex at the massage shops, its always & is only about massage, hj, tit fell & or nudity.

In my opinion massage shops are not legal because Its an Asian dominated business & we all no what Q.L.D is like.... Why wouldn't you legalize it, tax, police time no longer wasted, put the bike gangs out of the picture... Or is there to many brown paper bags at the top of the food chain???


There are a few that say they have had FS experiences. The most I have experienced is a BJ.

[Snork80]

No one has full sex at the massage shops, its always & is only about massage, hj, tit fell & or nudity.

You're being a bit naive Oilman. I was offered FS at a massage shop with a ML I'd only seen twice. (I just had to bring my own rubber) I took her up on the offer a few times. I'm definitely not some player, so I figured if I got the offer, it must not be that rare.

[brownwallaby]

FS, BJ at massage shops? Wow, news to me :p

[Kangaroopointer]

This thread is getting quite boring now!!! How about we move on

[broownwallaby]

How about you guys go to Angie Massage balaclava street?

Just came out from another great massage at this shop I also noticed a few new girls working!!

[kazuya]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[TRD Aurion]

who is this Broownwallaby imposter?

[TRD Aurion]

I think I might have to start another thread about Aurions...
This one is still going on :D