former lurker

Then let him do the computation, and you can focus on the spanking.

Then let him do the computation, and you can focus on the spanking.

True. And it's also the case that some people who are fluent in a second language are more self-conscious about and reticent over potential minor imperfections. I worked on a lengthy legal case for a German company that had shares traded on the NYSE and was sued in the US courts. In the course of that case, I worked closely with three lawyers from Germany who came to work at our firm to work on the case. One of them had parents who I got to meet and socialize with a few times. Her mother's English was impeccable, but she was less comfortable speaking in English than the father, a top executive at a German-based multinational conglomerate. His English was thorough, but unrefined and full of glitches that were noticeable but didn't impede understanding one another. I myself learned some German, although mostly arcane technical terminology. I, like you, could manage introductory pleasantries and even discuss some accounting issues in German, but little else. I could understand more than I could express. But I wouldn't say I "speak" German, just that I know a few words and phrases.

I suppose anything is possible, but it's an odd practice to pay for an add, engage in texting, etc, and all for nothing at all. It makes more sense to think he's flighty, and advertises for encounters when they are convenient to him. In that scenario, he may generate enough actual meetings to make a little side money and cover the ad costs, but still be an infrequent and unpredictable hire -- someone who flirts with escorting, but doesn't treat it as a serious endeavor. Several credible posters have attested to Hogan's existence. There's the OP who says he knows him and has met him a number of times, there's FFDave who spoke with him at least once and in substance, and there's AndrewK. There are other explanations for Hogan's "antics" that don't reduce themselves to him not existing at all. Moreover, to conclude he doesn't exist requires readers on the forum to discredit these other contributors. You got a run around. Don't read more into it than is warranted.

I agree with Harlow. Nothing about @DallasClient's post or history of posts suggests any reason to suspect him of doing anything other than relating a positive experience/impression. Often, a positive post about a lesser known escort gets labelled as being from the escort himself. Here, that's doubtful both because of @DallasClient's posting history and because, by all accounts, Hogan's biggest fault seems to be a lack of commitment/interest in escorting. It's the opposite of the guy who is intent on meeting up and with fabricate his reviews, use phony pictures, etc. Harlow's comments have been thoughtful, and have recognized the nuances in these human interactions. I appreciate that approach a great deal. Wrt to Hogan, you end up in the same place (not investing time or money in an attempt to hire him) whether you see him as flakey or fakey. But drawing absolute lines isn't necessary to get there. The best evidence, based on what's been said by those who've actually interacted with him, is he's more flakey than he is fakey.

Interesting subject. Fluency in multiple languages is much more common outside the U.S. than it is within the U.S., although immigrants and their offspring often are fluent (at least for a few generations) in both English and the main language(s) of their country of origin. Then there are children of the upper classes who are tutored, attend boarding schools, summer/vacation in Europe, etc. Speaking European languages has always been a point of emphasis for these folks. Finally, as immigration patterns and global economic shifts occur, there's starting to be more of an emphasis in the U.S. on being multilingual. My nephew's wife grew up speaking both English and Spanish and is fluent in both, although English is her primary language. Her fluency in Spanish has been a huge asset in her chosen field of Human Resources.

Not quite. For one, Alam's hair color (whether natural or died) is one found in nature. For two, it's not sprayed to within an inch of its life to keep the baldness from showing. For three, covering the face doesn't transform it into the face of a morbidly obese man.

Here's a thread talking about the two Jakes. https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/90s-jake-andrews-versus-millennial-jake-andrews-who-would-you-take-to-bed.104471/page-2 One post recalls the new/blond Jake had an ad in the Rentboy days. My recollection is that he advertised periodically, but wasn't fully committed to escorting.

There are at least two Jake Andrews who did gay porn. The earlier guy was brown-haired, the more recent blond haired. The blond Jake Andrews did stuff for Randy Blue then some studios, including Lucas Entertainment. He's got a twitter account and an OF. Per his twitter, he's in Miami. He's lived all over the U.S., including on the West Coast, NYC, and now Miami.

I'm also curious how asking for upfront deposits or facepics relates to being a "true viking". Or are those unrelated annoyances?

What was indiscreet about his ad? He's saying he's got experience with high profile people (who require discretion).

Or it could be to reenforce that he's sophisticated/well-rounded and discrete.

This is an odd, unwarranted stretch. The several "bumps" above are from long-time posters. If they were "friends" of the escort, they'd be posting his praises. Instead, they're keeping a thread alive that asks for information and recent experiences. I'm not disagreeing with your proposal to move on. Bumps tend not to generate further information. What does, and what bumps lack, is some info that triggers other info. But the usual motive for a bump isn't promotion, it's to gather info.

You're probably thinking about the finding that COVIC was found in sperm. It was stipulated that there wasn't yet evidence that the virus was transmitted via sperm.

Can you explain how exposing someone as racist is not judging whether s/he is racist? The difference seems important to you, as you insistent on it, but that difference is not clear. The reason for individual threads is that each person accused should be evaluated/judged on his own, in fuller context, rather than lumping together different conduct and different statements made by different people under the umbrella label of racist. Failure to donate to a cause, or to denounce police, is different than denying the existence of racism in the conduct of policing. And that's just one example of mixing together different things and calling both racist. What's so wrong with evaluating each person on his/her own on a case by case basis with reference to the specific conduct/statements and context?

That's fine as far as it goes -- if it's posting or linking the "evidence". But what tends to happen is porn performer A says/writes something. Follower B then labels and describes what A said/wrote, but doesn't always link or reproduce the original statement/writing. Then, a comment is made here or on another forum and is "evidenced" not by supplying the offending statement/writing but what B has said about it. But no one is censoring anyone. Posters can post what they see fit, within the rules. Other posters are free to challenge.

That's an odd statement re: fragility. You floated an idea to collect the names of people accused of being racist. You got some push back. You show no indication of willingness to adapt or revise your view in light of the comments you've received. Who's evidencing fragility?

As to the variety of people's backgrounds, I agree. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that there are a lot of young guys with little in the way of post-secondary education or professional experience, and that they are constantly posting perhaps without care or insight into how they sound. As an attorney, the worst stuff I'd see was in the emails my clients' employees would write and send. People tend to be careless with email. Now, the explosion of social media has people acting the same way in public formats.

First, I didn't reference "cancel culture". Second, I don't think the bolded comments are unwarranted. Of course there are more mature, better educated performers in porn, but those are not the ones who tend to make careless statements about race, and they are not a majority of the performers.

I think the two examples of Orion and Dillon Anderson illustrate how much of a hornets' nest any "list" would entail unless there was fairly clear cut criteria for placement on the list. Orion, in talking about White Lives Matter, etc, proves he doesn't get it. He's also proves himself to be concerned only with himself. He rejects calls for him to donate money to Black Lives Matter type groups, and says he "could" donate to orphans and other worthy causes but never says he does or will. And even if he did say so, who'd believe him -- he lies about everything until his subscriptions drop and he has to come clean. Dillon is making a different statement entirely. He's rejecting the notion that porn performers with an online porn following are obligated to speak out on social issues. That's not a racist statement, it's a non-statement. Nor is expressing a preference for his own videos clearly racist. He may simply be thinking about what his viewers like to see, and what he thinks looks good with him on screen. It's not like he's working for a studio and refusing to work with Black models. It reminds me of how Michael Jordan has been criticized for not using his popularity to back causes and candidates back when he was the biggest star in the NBA. Jordan famously quipped that Republicans buy sneakers, too. Magic Johnson never took political stances until after he retired from playing and no longer relied heavily on endorsements. He became a property owner, business investor, and developer. Well after he stopped playing in the NBA, he became a Hillary Clinton supporter. Players today are more apt to be open on political and hot button social issues. LeBron James has been. But LeBron, as much as he earns in endorsements, earns more from his NBA contract than from endorsements. Tiger Woods is the opposite -- he earns a ton from endorsements and relatively little from golf play. So, we're now going to label people for NOT saying things as well as those who DO say racist things?

I'd add to what you've said that a lot of the guys we're talking about are young, not overly educated, and trying to support themselves by being a more or less constant online presence. The more people live online through social media and related posts, the less likely they are to stop and think about what they are saying and how others might hear/see it. They are accustomed to being careless with their words. That's not a defense, but it does suggest that it's a disservice to simply place people on a list for all sorts of different comments and behaviors, especially online comments that may lack context or background. It's also not particularly helpful to group together someone who expresses a preference or evidences racial bias with those excusing the use of deadly force or advocating laws and actions that are discriminatory, oppressive and deadly.

Just as it is with strident political views. I get that no one wants to be told that they hold repugnant views, or that they support repugnant politicians. It's not "silencing" to suggest certain topics and views are better left unshared. I'm a lawyer by trade, and my clients don't need to hear my political views or candidate preferences -- they need my best legal advice. I don't need to know who my doctor votes for, either. I just want to know that s/he is well educated, up to date on medical developments, knows how to diagnose and make proper referrals, etc.

I did check, and it leads nowhere. I know they are screenshots. I didn't mean this as criticism of you/your post, but of the guy whose twitter post you posted. He's the one making statements and not supplying the source material.

This may be a nit, but I'd prefer that the guy posting on twitter supplied the post/a link to what the guy actually said/wrote. Instead, he has a screen shot of a post by someone else saying the guy called him the n-word, etc. With a proper link/sourcing, we could see not only the specific post(s) complained about, but also the broader set of posts that might shed light on the escort in question.

Short answer: it's not illegal for cops to do so as part of an attempt to catch a criminal. An even clearer example is when undercover cops infiltrating drug dealing criminal organizations find it necessary to do drugs to maintain their cover. The cops are supposed to not commit crimes, but that's relaxed when the assignment requires it.