Golem

I have never wanted to be in Indianapolis more than I do right now...

Even very small deposits have a different drawback: most clients don't want to be linkable by a recorded financial transaction, for obvious reasons. In theory there are ways around this, but they get complicated.

I suppose part of the answer has to be to develop a good flakedar...

If a thread has multiple posts, though, that would mean you can delete other people's content.

Between the ad text consisting of superlatives & emojis, and the 1 star review from 6 days ago, that definitely seems possible.

Oh, good, this flamewar-tempting topic again. I missed it. Glad to see all the old faces are ready to go again

The "different site" argument is kind of hilarious. Call it what you will, this site is indisputably a direct iteration of the original site, just a generation or two down the line. May have a different CMS, may have different admins (though I see nothing that indicates this to be the case), may have improved ethical practices (I truly and sincerely hope for the best in this regard). Seriously though, I do hope for the best here.

Although the inclusion of "scores" is awesome, it also makes me worry -- I mean, it's pretty transparent what those are. While I can't imagine that leaving those off guarantees safety these days, putting them on when other sites don't does kind of seem like tempting fate...

I chatted with him for a while last year. Definitely seemed real and like a nice if perhaps disorganized guy; he had that endearing/frustrating cluelessness teenagers sometimes have about the reality of people having jobs, schedules, etc. (The timing didn't work out for us either.)

Keith makes a really good point. Earlier someone pointed out that clients typically have "twice the life experience" of providers. Well, that also means -- right now -- that clients typically began their adult lives under an economic climate that was dramatically more favorable for people beginning their careers.

(Let me be clear, this is a generalization. Individual experiences obviously vary. But the numbers are what the numbers are.)

Brian -- come hang out in Boston again, eh?

Also, none of this is specific to providers in this industry. When people have to borrow money... it's because they don't have enough money. Outside of act-of-god catastrophe situations, that doesn't happen out of nowhere. So needing to borrow really does correlate with being unlikely to easily pay back the borrowed money, no matter what industry you work in.

Report back please! Would love to hear.

("Her" or "them" or just avoid the pronouns in the first place. I enjoy the latter because of the awkward sentences it leads to -- as I find that tends to wake people up and make them realize how different things are when you don't assume one gender.)

You'd be surprised. Even in 2018, therapists flirt especially when they think they have plausible deniability.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but this sounds like an awfully broad statement. What leads you to believe this is a common thing, rather than a rare one?

Oh dear. That is an actual excerpt from the actual Dear Abby column. From today. Yikes.

One thing to be aware of: although he advertises in Boston, he now lives in Marlborough, which is close to an hour west. This is a semi-recent move.

The lack of face pics, at least previously, were because of privacy concerns around his other career. I believe he's now doing this full time, but probably found that things worked fine without the pics so hasn't seen a reason to add them now.

He's a good guy. Among other things, hehe.

I'd also be curious for any reports. He's a new listing (at least in Boston).

Boston, plz. ^_^

Coming here would be an easy leg, and then you get to fly out of a less inconvenient airport. (Or vice versa.)

PM me for info.

He gave me permission to share his text. @Golem if you need absolute proof you can PM and I will send it.

As I am also in touch with the client, I've asked him to confirm this statement with me directly. I sincerely hope he does, I too would love for you to stop screaming about this

I give up. Believe what you want to.

THE PLOT THICKENS.

Two days ago I emailed the user who left the review. After verifying that I was not investigating him, he sent me the following explanation today:

"He phoned me the next morning to apologize and to tell me he knew he’d not been at his best and had been totally exhausted and to invite me again to meet with him, this time for free. It was wonderful. I’m contacting RentMen to ask that my review be retracted."

According to the client -- who is now speaking very positively of WB -- 1) the meeting did take place, 2) WB simply was exhausted and actually did perform at a two-star level, and 3) the contact from WB did not take place until the following day.

So, we now have two completely different stories. Neither of which is damning to WB as far as his professionalism or performance goes.

But you keep bolding "liar" despite the fact that there is no evidence for such a claim -- only two conflicting stories. Personally, I do not see any reason to believe either one over the other.

It is irrelevant. The meeting refers to the hour on 8/26. They did not meet at that time. Thus, making it a lie.

I thought the dates on RM are the dates the review was made?

And to the facts, again, we don't know they didn't meet.

Oh, and one more thing. If "DaveWilliam" = "Dwilli" as seems quite possible, then in fact this client had met WB before (possibly more times than the one Dwilli review attests), and answering that first RM question "yes" would not be a lie even under Cahill/WB's version.

The other thing, of course, is that we don't actually know they DIDN'T meet! All we know is that this guy posted that review, cahill asked WB, and according to WB, he overslept, missed the meeting, and later offered something to try and make it up to the client.

I too see no reason to distrust WB. But imagine this: you're a great provider who has a rare bad session where you just don't connect with the client. The following day, a regular client of yours, who posts about you online every chance he gets , contacts you and asks what happened. You know this highly attentive client is probably going to say something online based on what you tell him. So do you say, "yeah, he had a bad time" or "that review is fake, we didn't even meet"?

This isn't Sophie's Choice or anything, but it's not hard to imagine being tempted by that second option when this decision will directly affect your livelihood. It's not out of the realm of possibility that someone might answer that way.

This is why I think it's a problem to assume that Cahill's version is the truth.