WB in Boston

[+ freecahill1965]

Y

@freecahill1965, based on the information in the PM you sent me,

 

1) you are doing Wickedboy a huge disservice by your posts in this thread

 

and

 

2) you are deliberately painting a picture of what happened that you know to be completely untrue.

 

The ironic thing is, if you just shared the truth, it would make Wickedboy look good (and human, like the rest of us). Instead, you are showing yourself to be an unreliable witness.

 

I'm not interested in divulging anything shared with me in a PM. I will, however share my own conclusion: that the negative review is 100% legit; and that Wickedboy eventually responded to the reviewer in a top notch, professional way.

 

I would urge everyone else who's jumped on the that-must-be-an-awful-client train to wait until there is more information before coming to that judgment.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect . I am not painting any picture. The Rentmen policy is that you can't post a review unless you have met with the escort. THE REVIEWER NEVER MET WICKEDBOY ON THAT DAY. He did not spend an hour with Wickedboy. The client lied to get the review posted by checking off he met the escort. He did not have the right to post that the pictures did not match or that the time was not relaxing. I would not have posted something I did not know for fact and for which I have seen the evidence.

 

As for the details, I think he is referring to is that WB missed the appointment in error. He offered the guy two hours of time to make up for it. The guy accepted. The guy posted the negative review inretalitation. The finer details for the false review are not relevant to the fact that the review is a lie.

 

Are you saying that a false review posted for the purpose of retaliation is some how legitimate? The review is a lie. They never met. WB as always did the right thing but the client still lied and the review is not legit.

Edited August 28, 2018 by freecahill1965

[+ Tarte Gogo]

If the review says he doesn’t look like his pictures, then that review is a complete lie and should be taken down right away. Wickedboy looks exactly like his pictures. I should know, I had a good look at him for an hour from a very, very close point of view.

 

People make mistakes but lying because you are upset about their mistakes is just completely out of order.

 

So that client is a liar. I wouldn’t trust anything else he says.

[+ JEC]

WB is a class act. I'm sure there was a legit reason for the mix-up, and he correctly offered a make-up session. If the client has any class at all, he will have the review taken down.

[Golem]

Cahill, according to you, WB overslept and missed the appointment. It happens; not the end of the world. You have however left this info out and made it sound like this client simply never made arrangements to meet WB, even though you knew in fact it was WB's fault that they did not meet. I don't know if he woke up and texted the client, or if the client had the lovely experience of trying to get in touch and not hearing anything back. If the latter, I can understand why the client wanted to share that feedback.

 

As we all know, RM reviews are pretty unreliable. So the client decided that giving his feedback was worthwhile, even though the reviews are supposed to be only for actual meetings; as we also all know, RM doesn't offer any way to give feedback about flakeage (like Daddy's), even though it's a real thing that deserves to be shared (and often is shared on this very forum). Bending the review format to accommodate feedback that has no other place on RM to go may be breaking RM's rules, but it sure isn't "lying."

 

As far as "Are Photos Accurate?" question goes, here's the thing. RM only offers two choices: "Yes they are" and "No they are not". It also doesn't let you pass on the question. I don't see how he could have answered that question appropriately either way. Yes, I agree that this makes a RM review not ideal. But if he didn't know about the existence of these forums (and not everyone does, especially now that it's not linked from Daddy's), the alternative was to not share his experience at all. And that's not good for anybody.

 

I would not have posted something I did not know for fact and for which I have seen the evidence.

But this is exactly what you did, repeatedly, in this thread! I don't care how great a provider (or client) is, just because they tell you something does not mean it is true. One party to a bad review stating something about what happened is not exactly conclusive evidence! You could have just said "I asked WB and he said ____" but instead you said "____" as if it was just a fact.

[+ JEC]

To your corners gentlemen!

[Golem]

I don't want to fight! I just want the truth -- with no exaggerations and no assumptions.

[+ freecahill1965]

I don't want to fight! I just want the truth -- with no exaggerations and no assumptions.

No exaggerations and no assumptions: The client lied and submitted false information about a hour meeting that did not occur. The client did not meet the escort. The review is false.

Edited August 28, 2018 by freecahill1965

[Golem]

And no omissions. (I should not have omitted that clause

 

The client did not meet the escort because the escort overslept.

[+ freecahill1965]

And no omissions. (I should not have omitted that clause

 

The client did not meet the escort because the escort overslept.

 

What is your point?

 

My point is the client lied and submitted false information about a hour meeting that did not occur and that the review is false.

Edited August 29, 2018 by freecahill1965

[Golem]

I've already expressed my points. I'm not going to repeat them over and over just because that's what you're doing. People are free to read this thread and decide for themselves what makes sense and what doesn't.

[+ freecahill1965]

I've already expressed my points. I'm not going to repeat them over and over just because that's what you're doing. People are free to read this thread and decide for themselves what makes sense and what doesn't.

I am sorry you feel that way. I do not feel your point is clear and your statements are unclear and do not clearly address my point.

 

Are you trying to say that the client is justified in lying about the interaction because the escort missed the appointment?

Edited August 29, 2018 by freecahill1965

[Golem]

I'm saying that -- absent more information -- he's justified in giving a two-star review on rentmen in light of a no-show.

 

I'm saying that I'd rather people find a way to share no-shows when they happen, than that they don't. I'd rather know that somebody had a bad experience, than be blind to that simply because rentmen doesn't allow it to be appropriately quantified.

 

And I'm saying that if you give someone a multiple choice question with no right answers, you can't blame them for picking an answer that's wrong.

 

And, yes, I'm saying that it is incontrovertibly wrong to present hearsay as fact.

 

Also, I think it is completely hilarious that our two avatars are dueling. Lol.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

Are you trying to say that the client is justified in lying about the interaction because the escort missed the appointment?

I think what Golem is trying to say, is that the client didn’t “lie” in the first place, see this part of his post.

Bending the review format to accommodate feedback that has no other place on RM to go may be breaking RM's rules, but it sure isn't "lying."

I disagree with him. The way it was done is clearly lying to me.

 

But to be honest whatever we think of this really doesn’t matter, the client is very unlikely to be reading this. We are all wasting our breath. WB can take action with RM that is really it. We certainly can’t do anything about it.

[Chad Constantine]

Wait when you go to leave your review the first question that pops up asks if the meeting took place. The minute he said yes he lied. It does not matter if he is justified or has no justification for the bad review. Now WB is definitely not blameless if he indeed overslept. It unfortunately shows a degree of unprofessionalism that proves to be a very costly in any service industry. It is sad but true but in the service industry your only as good as your last move/performance/action because at the end of the day there will always be someone else that can take your place.

 

However, since the client chose to lie not 1 but 4 times without a proper explanation in the comments I am sticking to my earlier assessment of this clients character.

[+ freecahill1965]

I'm saying that -- absent more information -- he's justified in giving a two-star review on rentmen in light of a no-show.

 

I'm saying that I'd rather people find a way to share no-shows when they happen, than that they don't. I'd rather know that somebody had a bad experience, than be blind to that simply because rentmen doesn't allow it to be appropriately quantified.

 

And I'm saying that if you give someone a multiple choice question with no right answers, you can't blame them for picking an answer that's wrong.

 

And, yes, I'm saying that it is incontrovertibly wrong to present hearsay as fact.

 

Also, I think it is completely hilarious that our two avatars are dueling. Lol.

 

I understand what you are saying now but your encouraging unethical behavior as a means to retaliate against others because that is the easiest option available.

 

I would disagree with your logic. I would encourage clients and providers for that matter to take the high road. Doing the right thing in the event of adversity is always the better path. The lying and dishonesty of this client was never the best option to resolve his problem even though his manipulation of the RM system and retaliation against WB was the easiest way to get satisfaction.

Edited August 29, 2018 by freecahill1965

[Golem]

I understand what you are saying now but your encouraging unethical behavior as a means to retaliate against others because that is the easiest option available.

Oh for crying out loud. I'm not encouraging "retaliation" with the "easiest option" -- I'm encouraging "communication for the good of the greater community" with "what he probably thought was the only option".

 

I'm not encouraging use of that option, since of course we have a better one -- posting here. I just refuse to condemn someone because they didn't know that option existed.

[Golem]

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.

[Golem]

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.

[+ freecahill1965]

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.

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

Edited August 29, 2018 by freecahill1965

[+ freecahill1965]

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.

To the facts without assumptions once again, the client lied. He posted a review for a one hour period of time that never happened. The lying and dishonesty of this client was never the best option to resolve his problem, shit happens.

 

In my opinion, your post leans toward encouraging clients to manipulate the RM review system in a negative way as a form of retaliation if a escort misses an appointment. This kind of retaliation wrong is unethical and should not be encouraged.

 

All these pages of posts can be summed up in two sentences. The client's post about Wickedboy on 8/26 is a fake and should be removed. The client is a lier and dishonest.

Edited August 29, 2018 by freecahill1965

[Golem]

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.

[Golem]

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.

[+ freecahill1965]

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.

You obviously like to create drama. I wish I realized that sooner. What you believe is irrelevant to the conversation. The guy never met WB on August 26th. The client is dishonorable and dishonest. Based on what you posted, he literally has no integrity either. WB has evidense through texts that they did not meet and will proceed to have the review removed if not done by client.

Edited August 29, 2018 by freecahill1965

[river]

If the review says he doesn’t look like his pictures, then that review is a complete lie and should be taken down right away. Wickedboy looks exactly like his pictures. I should know, I had a good look at him for an hour from a very, very close point of view.

 

People make mistakes but lying because you are upset about their mistakes is just completely out of order.

 

So that client is a liar. I wouldn’t trust anything else he says.

I agree with TG above. He looks EXACTLY like his pictures. The reviewer saying otherwise makes me doubt the authenticity of the review.

[Chad Constantine]

Okay everyone I think this thread is slowly going into an extremely negative place. I would suggest everyone just drop it. This type of negative energy that we are manifesting is 1) not healthy, 2) not productive, and 3) will only end up affecting Mike negatively since we keep writing about his handle. Lets agree to disagree and keep it moving because it is only going to make this thread go darker and darker, which was not the purpose of this thread.