早幾日落尖東富豪洒店個間
紫荊泉芬蘭浴
個場無可否認系high class，但真係覺得贵！
1. $1578 (part 1 齋姑 + part 2 大件事)
2. $1778 (part 1 + part 2 same 大件事bg)

lobby及locker有豪華feel， 大廳有20座位左右唔算好大，食物ok，
上湯雲吞3大粒幾好食，其它基本嘢無特別。
電腦揀女，我同個客去大家都揀$1778因為齋姑不夠，但大件事bg亦不夠；
揀左兩件陀地都做緊嘢，只有2個北妹四川及昆明得閒，值得一提room真係
不夠，只有8間最好先打電話留。從前有2間密室在外面-VIP用，而家看不到
。其實個場都幾旺，經理平哥教路先打電話留房及打聽bg時間！以前小弟親
眼看見過兩個明星;一個叫林x龍佢老婆都係明星、另一個出名性慾强歌星杜x
偉佢亞媽都係歌星!

各位C Hing 有否尖東環保d料、因小弟只去過一次！多謝賜教！

比郭靚女見此文就家變！

引用:

原帖由 mpower 於 2007-12-20 11:15 發表
比郭靚女見此文就家變！

林x龍非常好此道﹐尖嘴各骨場都成日去。我多年前在紫荊泉聽bg話做過。另新龍濤樂的侍應朋友見過x龍及鄧x尊一齊落去

引用:

原帖由 dick_king 於 2007-12-20 18:56 發表
1. $1578 (part 1 齋姑 + part 2 大件事)
2. $1778 (part 1 + part 2 same 大件事bg)
lobby及locker有豪華feel， ...

At these prices, better to visit Macau!

many stars go to sauna la
but why their wife so beautiful (much better than all BGs I can say in TST), why they need to go

skill not enough? too conservative?

[ 本帖最後由 PAULOVE 於 2007-12-20 22:34 編輯 ]

唉 ... 去過兩次都話要等房至少等個半鐘.. 唯有走人!
但又怕打電話去留房的時候, 佢會唔會唔留俾我呢?

引用:

原帖由 PAULOVE 於 2007-12-20 10:32 PM 發表
many stars go to sauna la
but why their wife so beautiful (much better than all BGs I can say in TST), why they need to go

skill not enough? too conservative?

家花不及野花香！男人天性

Sorry la, don't understand the difference between 1) and 2), could you explain a bit?
1. $1578 (part 1 齋姑 + part 2 大件事)--> so got part 1 and part 2 but there will be a different bg for part 2???
2. $1778 (part 1 + part 2 same 大件事bg)

林x龍有咁正老婆都去玩, 可能吊厭左要搵新鮮野玩~   唔知林x龍條友出野係快定慢呢

記得好耐以前快樂有 bg 都話鄧x尊成班人去...

引用:

原帖由 dna_big9 於 2007-12-21 15:34 發表
林x龍有咁正老婆都去玩, 可能吊厭左要搵新鮮野玩~   唔知林x龍條友出野係快定慢呢

記得好耐以前快樂有 bg 都話鄧x尊成班人去...

i know

Hm, I have a different perspective here. Assuming the price and the quality of BGs in Kobe and Macao are compatible, you can easily save 3 valuable hours of yours from traveling to Macao (2 hrs in the ferry+1 hr stucked in the custom). Therefore, if you have free times to spend, Macao is a good choice; if not, Kobe is a perfect alternative!

My 2 cents.

[ 本帖最後由 gelato 於 2007-12-21 19:51 編輯 ]

引用:

原帖由 gelato 於 2007-12-21 23:20 發表
Hm, I have a different perspective here. Assuming the price and the quality of BGs in Kobe and Macao are compatible. You can easily save 3 valuable hours of yours from traveling to Macao (2 hrs in  ...

Support support, even I have time, ask me to spend several hours to travel just for an hour fun moment seems too much. I rather sit back and relex a bit in TST for total relaxation.

咸魚青菜, 各有所愛!!

引用:

原帖由 devilsadvocate 於 2007-12-22 10:01 發表
請大家有些口德，專重一�鴽O人的私隱，好嗎？

桑拿是公共場所, 除骨房內,
已無乜私隱了.
公眾人物去桑拿亦早預了俾人講.
平衡而論, 茶餘飯後, 亦無不可.

引用:

原帖由 白貓兒 於 2007-12-22 10:04 發表


桑拿是公共場所, 除骨房內,
已無乜私隱了.
公眾人物去桑拿亦早預了俾人講.
平衡而論, 茶餘飯後, 亦無不可.

除骨房內... heee...
骨房內仲有咩可以講??
臨門一腳唔射波唔通交波??

引用:

原帖由 gelato 於 2007-12-21 23:20 發表
Hm, I have a different perspective here. Assuming the price and the quality of BGs in Kobe and Macao are compatible, you can easily save 3 valuable hours of yours from traveling to Macao (2 hrs in  ...

I s it oral with dum?

How abourt "Hoi Tin s/n" at causeway ?

引用:

原帖由 devilsadvocate 於 2007-12-22 10:27 發表


咁講法，你無資格做版主！

那又是甚�狩郱ワO?
我覺得你看事物太表面就真!
一談公眾人物私事就是「侵犯私隱」?
思想勿停留在字面上.
而家有會員講緊是有藝員與友人浩浩蕩蕩落sauna喎.
唔係講某人戴黑超頭dup dup運秘道入私人會所!
如果某名人怕被人傳, 你估他會像一般顧客般進出sauna?
你知不知某名馬主商人如何玩?
他在富豪有一間長房, KS 叫班囡上去俾佢選妃.他不會落場,這類豪客多的是.

我有想過「私隱」界線,
因為我一向對此敏感.
太過界的會員我會勸,
免得惹文責(當然若有人追究亦難)
你可能不同意,
但你又有無想過定界呢?
還是神經質的一見講公眾人物私事就要上綱為侵犯私隱?

傳統智慧(conventional wisdom)的是:
名人有若干成名代價,
即其言行受公眾及傳媒注�y
(所謂in the public gaze; in the public scrutiny)只要不是受滋擾如狗仔隊、中傷、偷拍
或其在私人地方個人生活未得同意而受監�y，披露.
若有任何人以公眾可見形式進入公眾地方, 那進入本身(the very act of entry)算得私隱?
這裹不是有會員說他在水池區竅見某名人私處的長短啊!

我還以為你是勸會員小心言責如民事誹謗,
我反而覺得你概念朦糊.

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-12-22 22:15 編輯 ]

佢可能係當事人

引用:

原帖由 devilsadvocate 於 2007-12-23 00:01 發表


KS的事，我有幾清楚，不用在此講。我亦不是要撩交，但你身為版主係有責任CUT�魕OD出賣個人私隱���洁C人�]都無講上房XXX，你自已身為版主竟然自爆！

I have explicitly  stated where and how the line can be drawn: what constitutes privacy, and what not. It is plain that the very act of entering a sauna via public acess is not a private matter (though part of personal life). It is easy to confuse privacy with personal life in public. Personal life in private is privacy.
And I did not name anybody specifically as far as going up to a hotel room without visiting the sauna per se is concerned; hence my caution. My point is to say that certain customers choose to keep secret the fact that they enjoy KS bgs' services privately by doing so (rather than visiting the sauna just like any other customers in public). Given that, if a member here says that he knows a certain guy does so and names him, he violates that guy's privacy.
Having said that, I still have in mind names of celebrities going up to a hotel room to enjoy bgs' services without visiting the sauna, though I would of course not disclose them here. It only shows that once certain sauna personnel leave a sauna and are no longer their staff, they may begin to take people's privacy lightly . They begin to gossip and hence that comes to my (and our) knowledge.

That is why I wonder if you have conceptualise the issues involved (ie what amounts to privacy and what not, the cost of being famous and celebrities' rights vs the rights of the press and the public to know; in what conditions are privacy violated) '概念模糊'
This is not meant as a personal attack, but an honest appraisal of your complaint, which lacks reasoning in itself. Nor have you countered or confronted the substance of  my argument. Rather you strike me as automatically equating 'soap (飯後) gossiping about what somebody famous does in public as violating his privacy. You said 「我概念絕不朦糊」, but so far have you not delineated your concepts! I have not seen any line of argument on your part, apart from an empty outcry using the mere word 'privacy'. 你說我扯遠, 其實是你未釐清一些相關而非等同的概念: 私隱、在公眾場合下(in public)、自我意識到(conscious of being seen in the public and choosing to be so seen.)

「似是而非」.Have you demonstrated how my reasoning is faulty?

We would all agree that discussion on this sauna in question should not narrowly focus on any celebrities involved. Rather the main concern should be the services of the sauna staff and bgs per se. You may not like fellows' discussion of the involvement of celebrities, which seems a digression or gossiping which is to your distaste. However, to ban their discussion or mere mentioning of the issue in question altogether would be authoritarian and against the freedom of speech. They only need a reminder to guard against committing civil libel (ie for example naming somebody and alluding to his having sex with a bg/ not being faithful to his wife.)

Honestly, if one finds gossiping about somebody's mere entry into a sauna offensive out of protection of that sauna against being 'scandalised', then one thinks that the sauna is too 'small' . But a sauna that admits customers day by day, famous or common people alike, should be 'big enough' for soap gossiping. Soap gossiping does not automatically become defamation or scandalising. If a sauna openly sells their services to customers in the rest room, what is there to be scandalised? But if you think whether a sauna is scandalised or not is never your concern (but rather whether a celebrity is so), dismiss my note here.

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-12-24 12:51 編輯 ]

引用:

原帖由 devilsadvocate 於 2007-12-23 09:59 發表
回版主：
我要講的講晒。唔想張個話題拉得太遠…
你的言論，我不同意，但如果我有乜得罪你呢位版主，咁我就道句歉啦。

同其他版友講：
己所不欲，勿施於人，做人要有些口德，唔想聽就算！

但你始終條界線(如果你有劃界)好任意arbitrary:一講名人, 不論講他的行為在任何環境下就是沒口德(但你無考慮:公眾人物在公眾地方眾目注視下他自己都好難責怪別人指出該行本身的事實, 我所講'the very act itself'
至於若有人聽說某名人與某bg做了某服務套餐, 或是該bg私人說了, 而該人公開內情,
我想才是犯了私隱!

情況如以下:
你見某人進入某銀行處理財務, 他是顧客這事實(the fact itself)不是私隱, 他亦選擇被見到;
你是職員, 你看過佢account資料爆出來,
你就是犯了私隱, 因該資料not supposed to be made public. 你亦只在你的崗位capacity的空間內看到, 而非公眾空間(in public).

這就是劃界!

你沒得罪我, 但首先你未質詢我要我提出論點解釋前就論斷我無資格, 哦, 你不喜歡的, 不合你意的, 你就說無資格, 但用法庭術語:
你從未substantiated your case!實則那句話如何犯私隱???????
繼而, 我沒指任何人名說有豪客會直上酒店客選妃, 旨在說明他們在這情�G下咁做才是不想他們玩女一事外洩, 不同所謂鄧XX, 譚XX, 曾XX直出直入場所的方式, 你就神經質的說我爆某人私隱, 誰呀?????

若我們本來輕鬆的討論轉了鋒為嚴肅,甚至牽涉ethical issues, 就得實是求是的探討,
而非流於表面化, 只看某詞表面而欠內涵(substance), 或過份反應、情緒化地將自己意思讀入(read into)別人的話(例如我沒根本說上房的富商馬主的名字), 這樣論事只是反智.

好幾個月前, 有人post了海天某bg私下給他拍的無遮掩的相, 不是廣告相,我立即問有無得她同意他一直無答我, 我就請高級版主delete幅相,以保護那bg.

至於口德:

最近某網友在另一版寫:
「又係睇廣告...
咁o岩經過XX就上去睇睇...
小佢喇叭...
咁能丑樣就唔好出o黎做喇...
正仆街」

這樣就是沒口德, 我亦直斥其非.

又若三四年前, 在舊板某會員post了某bg的相,她少肥亦唔靚, 那會員�埢漲o, 一些所謂大哥亦加口踩她, 大家好像以為bg一定自願影相就唔好自暴其醜,仲笑埋佢阿媽,無人想到bg亦有可能被間場騙說會打格仔或威迫利誘下「合作」, 我對鋪相的那大佬勸說人人都有阿媽生, 他還不明我意, 眾人只是一窩蜂趁高興!

又一次, 有會員報告內講了和bg搞野以外的一些該bg私隱說她曾吸毒(他聽返來的), 我立即叫他刪去, 因為可能該bg已開始想界左佢, 未清楚件事爆出尼一定害死她!他明理就依我刪了.

仲有尼單野:

http://forum.timway.com/f/thread-135865-3-1.html

post #63-90,

我ban了條友.

我不注重口德?
我係xocat上目睹此類事足足四年喇!所以我話自己有敏銳.

另外, 轉貼某網友給我的PM內容,
他不想具名:

「作為版主,我覺得白兄已做到公正公開及公平地討論和剖析事情.若然"不依從"他人理念,處事方針或既定界線地評論,便沒有資格作為版主....那世上便沒可能有公正及敢言的人及版主!
可能當事人感到切膚之痛.......
但作為公眾人物,公開出現公眾場合已然不能算是私隠,
又事後被人談論"某某在某場出現"....這等閒話家常...應該早在當事人要出現該場合時,已預計在內.
所以這等閒話家常式的提及,若不是太過尖酸克薄....怎麼說也不能算是沒有口德吧!
再者....也不能不佩服白兄可以按下被質疑版主資格及分析能力時的怒火,還作出深入淺出分析及舉例說明...真的是版主風範!
最後....若然要到公眾場所消遣.....還望當事人放開懷抱....
不要再理會別人評頭論足....盡情享受是了!」

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2008-1-2 20:30 編輯 ]

Whitekitt,  i am on your side.  and ....學到0野!

好, 也多謝你的回應, 其實你此post的若干觀點我仍可不重覆已說過的話去另回應,
不過已涉其它與宏旨無關的支節, 再無必要.
只補:你在post#14提醒的本意也是好,亦不代表你有指控任何人,正如你話「無話過任何人侵犯別人私隱」,所以我post#15亦沒任何此意,

但你在post#21怎樣說?

「但你身為版主係有責任CUT�魕OD出賣個人私隱���洁C」

Well, 我想你我在此事上坦誠的對話已夠詳盡了, 亦可間接刺激板友的思考.

另順便多謝marv兄.

引用:

原帖由 白貓兒 於 2007-12-23 05:51 發表


I have explicitly stated stated where and how the line can be drawn: what constitutes privacy, and what not. It is plain that the very act of entering a sauna via public acess is not a private  ...

大家一路都係以中文發言
你又為何又要寫一大篇英文呢?
又有幾多人會明你寫咩? 是自娛?

引用:

原帖由 devilsadvocate 於 2007-12-23 09:59 發表
回版主：
我要講的講晒。唔想張個話題拉得太遠…
你的言論，我不同意，但如果我有乜得罪你呢位版主，咁我就道句歉啦。

同其他版友講：
己所不欲，勿施於人，做人要有些口德，唔想聽就算！

算把啦! devilsadvocate兄
始終每處會有每處的所謂文化

或許你也要移民了

現在就真見到有人扯遠了.

當然我也可扯:

現在的文化回復早年網友單純相交的文化,
不結黨伐異，排隊擦鞋，沒有自命精英，縱使興趣各異可並行不悖，有分流有匯聚: 相異時各自精彩，不互相斷論，更不惡意抽水, 無邊個唔順超邊個,無人要委曲求存;契合時則聚首暢談, 而無固定「身份團體」，因無此需. 無分親疏.有集體精神而非盲目集體行為.

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2008-1-2 20:06 編輯 ]