former lurker

Truth is an absolute defense to a claim for defamation. And, as Tasso says, he advertised, so he can't sue someone for stealing the images. Unless someone tried to extort money from him to keep his identity secret, there's little he can do legally.
 
Still, what a shit thing to do to someone.

I don't see how these texts offer any support for your position. He was polite. You were flogging a dead horse. Once he said not to plan on him cumming, you persisted with "is it off the table". You also acknowledge that you were responsible for the tone of the exchange by asking the wrong questions. Unless you didn't mean that, and just said it to curry favor somehow. And if you did mean it, why the negative post in the first place?

Okay. Let's see if I can get this right. Your initial post called the exchange "weird". You never used the word "rude", but you disagreed with another poster who said his response was "polite". I interpret your rejection of the word "polite" as similar in kind to calling it "rude".
 
As for the rest of what you said, I think you're being overly sensitive. You asked for feedback. You got feedback. If it's helpful, take it in. If it's not, ignore it. Keep in mind, you're posting on a board, not having a private conversation. You will get a range of responses. That's no reason to refrain from asking. As for what you could have done differently, I'd say leave the exchange at the point he said he was open to cumming only if it felt "natural". Then asking if he would "try" or if it was "off the table" got you into the pushy approach that then led to his "here we go" response. Not every provider is going to be amenable to what you want, so once he makes that clear, look elsewhere. It's certainly not my intent to "reprimand" you, just to provide a response to your question about how you could handle such situations.

I know all sorts of brashness, and some of the stereotypes are rooted in fact. Go into any camera shop in NYC run by Israelis. The purveyors are stereotypically pushy and abrasive. My own Israeli relatives run the gamut from pushy to understated.

I don't see how these texts offer any support for your position. He was polite. You were flogging a dead horse. Once he said not to plan on him cumming, you persisted with "is it off the table". You also acknowledge that you were responsible for the tone of the exchange by asking the wrong questions. Unless you didn't mean that, and just said it to curry favor somehow. And if you did mean it, why the negative post in the first place?

You should be clear about your expectations, and move on if those expectations differ from what is offered. But, and it's a fundamental but, don't expect you won't offend some providers by being so direct. And don't take umbrage with them if they find your directness off-putting. I know we toss off lines about it being all about what the client wants, etc., and that's generally true, but you're dealing with actual people about intimate activities, not buying a household cleaner at Home Depot. If you offended the provider, apologize and move on, and don't badmouth the provider for not reacting positively to your blunt request. If he is rude or offensive, that's one thing. This guy was not. He simply found your persistence after he was clear to be offputting.

Whether @Kurtis Wolfe is his advertised height or not, his intelligent and on-point comments are one of the reasons this site can be so good. For me, at least, others are entitled to their opinions.

Thin skin? You routinely post harsh comments, then react snarkily when someone points out your venom. If you're going to to a prick, expect some blowback.

Nope. Nothing in the law prevents police from misrepresenting who they are, or even outright lying.

Nope. Nothing in the law prevents police from misrepresenting who they are, or even outright lying.

Tristan, you are what we Jews call a "mensch". You display integrity and empathy, two attributes that are in rare supply not only in your profession but in many others. Part of that integrity is your implicit recognition that many of us clients are emotionally vulnerable and that it's just indecent to take advantage of those vulnerabilities. It may be a business transaction, but simple decency and kindness distinguish people who are merely good at what they do from those who are, as people, good. I for one feel enriched by your presence, even if so far it's only via cyberspace for me. I hope one day to remedy that.

Nope. Nothing in the law prevents police from misrepresenting who they are, or even outright lying.

Nope. Nothing in the law prevents police from misrepresenting who they are, or even outright lying.

Nope. Nothing in the law prevents police from misrepresenting who they are, or even outright lying.

Nope. Nothing in the law prevents police from misrepresenting who they are, or even outright lying.

The rash of posts you've just made make you look worse, not better. First of all, you said and repeated that Gman deleted parts of the exchanges that show him dragging you along for days. Did you delete them as well? If not, and they truly change the picture, why didn't you post them? If you did delete them, why are you so quick to claim that deleting parts of the exchanges was meant to defame you.
 
Second, you say that Gman and others who have posted have violated the terms of the forum. Which rules? Also, on what do you base the assertion that the posts/threads will be removed in 24 hours?
 
Third, defamation is a legal term. To be defamatory, statements must falsely depict the "defamed" person(s) in a manner that harms his/their reputation and causes financial damage. Truth is always a defense to a defamation claim. So far, you haven't provided proof of anything. Opinions are not defamatory statements because opinions are not, in the eyes of the law, true or false. That is, to be defamatory, a statement must falsely state facts. Who here has misstated a fact, and what factual statement was false?
 
Fourth and finally, reputational harm must be in an area that is legally recognized as deserving protection. No court would ever entertain a claim for defamation where the "harm" was to one's reputation in a business that violates the law.

Thank you. I didn't follow the "code". Your post is quite helpful.

The rash of posts you've just made make you look worse, not better. First of all, you said and repeated that Gman deleted parts of the exchanges that show him dragging you along for days. Did you delete them as well? If not, and they truly change the picture, why didn't you post them? If you did delete them, why are you so quick to claim that deleting parts of the exchanges was meant to defame you.
 
Second, you say that Gman and others who have posted have violated the terms of the forum. Which rules? Also, on what do you base the assertion that the posts/threads will be removed in 24 hours?
 
Third, defamation is a legal term. To be defamatory, statements must falsely depict the "defamed" person(s) in a manner that harms his/their reputation and causes financial damage. Truth is always a defense to a defamation claim. So far, you haven't provided proof of anything. Opinions are not defamatory statements because opinions are not, in the eyes of the law, true or false. That is, to be defamatory, a statement must falsely state facts. Who here has misstated a fact, and what factual statement was false?
 
Fourth and finally, reputational harm must be in an area that is legally recognized as deserving protection. No court would ever entertain a claim for defamation where the "harm" was to one's reputation in a business that violates the law.

The rash of posts you've just made make you look worse, not better. First of all, you said and repeated that Gman deleted parts of the exchanges that show him dragging you along for days. Did you delete them as well? If not, and they truly change the picture, why didn't you post them? If you did delete them, why are you so quick to claim that deleting parts of the exchanges was meant to defame you.
 
Second, you say that Gman and others who have posted have violated the terms of the forum. Which rules? Also, on what do you base the assertion that the posts/threads will be removed in 24 hours?
 
Third, defamation is a legal term. To be defamatory, statements must falsely depict the "defamed" person(s) in a manner that harms his/their reputation and causes financial damage. Truth is always a defense to a defamation claim. So far, you haven't provided proof of anything. Opinions are not defamatory statements because opinions are not, in the eyes of the law, true or false. That is, to be defamatory, a statement must falsely state facts. Who here has misstated a fact, and what factual statement was false?
 
Fourth and finally, reputational harm must be in an area that is legally recognized as deserving protection. No court would ever entertain a claim for defamation where the "harm" was to one's reputation in a business that violates the law.

The rash of posts you've just made make you look worse, not better. First of all, you said and repeated that Gman deleted parts of the exchanges that show him dragging you along for days. Did you delete them as well? If not, and they truly change the picture, why didn't you post them? If you did delete them, why are you so quick to claim that deleting parts of the exchanges was meant to defame you.
 
Second, you say that Gman and others who have posted have violated the terms of the forum. Which rules? Also, on what do you base the assertion that the posts/threads will be removed in 24 hours?
 
Third, defamation is a legal term. To be defamatory, statements must falsely depict the "defamed" person(s) in a manner that harms his/their reputation and causes financial damage. Truth is always a defense to a defamation claim. So far, you haven't provided proof of anything. Opinions are not defamatory statements because opinions are not, in the eyes of the law, true or false. That is, to be defamatory, a statement must falsely state facts. Who here has misstated a fact, and what factual statement was false?
 
Fourth and finally, reputational harm must be in an area that is legally recognized as deserving protection. No court would ever entertain a claim for defamation where the "harm" was to one's reputation in a business that violates the law.

To be fair, Gman, Oliver isn't entirely wrong. Your initial response included the fact that you don't hire other tops. That led to their asking if you hired tops for massages, and your response that you do, but find it frustrating because the massage gets you horny and then you want to have sex. Why not say to them, as you've said on the forum many times, you aren't in a position to hire at present. Then you don't get into any of the top/not top, massage/massage+sex stuff. The last comment from them was way over the top, but you did basically confirm their suspicion that you were looking at their ad not to hire, but for other reasons.

The credit card scamming happens all the time. Just yesterday, someone tried to order $1,600 worth of stuff from an online clothing store I'd never heard of until talking with my bank. Fortunately, the purchase was declined, but now I have to wait for a new credit card and my old one is cancelled. And, once I get the card, I have to contact "autopay" vendors paid from my credit card (i.e., mobile service provider, etc.)

I suspect this is a bit of a toss off line, but it's more than a bit harsh and callous. "Randy" appears to be a young man facing a difficult time in his life. Neither you nor I nor anyone who isn't close to him knows what factors have contributed to his current situation, but I doubt it's as simple as "ego" or thinking they're "invincible and irreplaceable". Many young men turn to porn because they lack other opportunities or they face a short term financial crisis. They lack the resources (family, friends, connections, educational opportunities, etc.) to thrive, so they get involved in porn. If they become accustomed to the fleeting adulation that may accompany acting in porn, whatever it says about them, it says at least as much about the rest of us who watch them, seek them out and folow them on social media, fawn over them, and then turn our attention to the next shiny new model.
 
Much like with the escorts we hire, it's worth remembering that porn actors are people, too. Compassion rather than dismissal and derision can be good for the soul.

The credit card scamming happens all the time. Just yesterday, someone tried to order $1,600 worth of stuff from an online clothing store I'd never heard of until talking with my bank. Fortunately, the purchase was declined, but now I have to wait for a new credit card and my old one is cancelled. And, once I get the card, I have to contact "autopay" vendors paid from my credit card (i.e., mobile service provider, etc.)

"Taking steroids made me do it" defense?
 
The reviewer https://rentmen.eu/rgsmith created his profile in August of 2018 and right after being attacked by Russ he hired someone with very similar stats and looks. I'm not taking sides but even in this post #metoo era that wouldn't sell to most jurors.