What to do when a person with reviews passes away

[Guest novabear22031]

With Lynden Thomas' recent passing, I was touched by the note left by Daddy and the simple picture of Lynden (since removed by request).

 

It gave me pause to think that when an escort has died, maybe his reviews should be deleted. I found it strange that his picture was removed by request - but not his reviews. I would have thought it would have been the other way around.

 

I feel that this situation is different from when an escort decides to retire. For in my brief time here I have seen comments about those that retired and then decided to make a come back, or selectively see their favorite clients.

 

So what do the rest of you think and feel?

[Guest ReturnOfS]

Oh God. How did he die? He is in my area. I hope that it wasn't some type of gay bashing. I was thinking of possibly hiring him one of these days. He was 23 or 24 wasn't he?

[Guest novabear22031]

>Oh God. How did he die? He is in my area. I hope that it

>wasn't some type of gay bashing. I was thinking of possibly

>hiring him one of these days. He was 23 or 24 wasn't he?

 

Close to that age. You and I are a like - though I did share some emails and a phone call or two with Lynden. He was a total class act IMO. The type of escort that I find myself drawn to. Those that like meeting new people and perhaps having some sex along the way.

 

There are a couple of threads here about Lynden's passing. It seems that he died due to complications with elective surgery.

 

Shame you never seemed to exchanged emails or phone calls with him. I found him to be one of the most honest and sincere person that I ever came across.

[Guest TBinCHI]

I am not the definitive authority, but I do not believe that complications from elective surgery caused Lynden's death. I received an email from his friend indicating that he died from a severe asthma attack. I believe that there is also a message to that effect in the original post.

[OneFinger]

>With Lynden Thomas' recent passing, I was touched by the note left by Daddy and the simple picture of Lynden... It gave me pause to think that when an escort has died, maybe his reviews should be deleted...

 

I agree with your suggestion that reviews should be deleted upon the death of an escort. However, I don't think it should be done until the death is confirmed.

 

Unfortunately, there have instances of someone's death being announced on other sites only to find out they are still alive.

 

From an administrative standpoint, I "think" it would be easier to flag the reviews and then remove them after confirmation. Deleting them in error and then having to restore them could be problematic.

[Guest novabear22031]

>I am not the definitive authority, but I do not believe that

>complications from elective surgery caused Lynden's death. I

>received an email from his friend indicating that he died from

>a severe asthma attack. I believe that there is also a

>message to that effect in the original post.

 

I was piecing together various posts.

 

I want to believe that given what I knew of him, that the explanation of complications of elective surgery seems to make the most sense.

[Guest novabear22031]

>>With Lynden Thomas' recent passing, I was touched by the

>note left by Daddy and the simple picture of Lynden... It gave

>me pause to think that when an escort has died, maybe his

>reviews should be deleted...

>

>I agree with your suggestion that reviews should be deleted

>upon the death of an escort. However, I don't think it should

>be done until the death is confirmed.

>

>Unfortunately, there have instances of someone's death being

>announced on other sites only to find out they are still

>alive.

>

>From an administrative standpoint, I "think" it would be

>easier to flag the reviews and then remove them after

>confirmation. Deleting them in error and then having to

>restore them could be problematic.

>

[+ deej]

Everyone will have an opinion on a message board, as is the case here.

 

In the most recent cases, Daddy was in contact with the deceased's survivors and in each case he honored their wishes completely and without question. That is as it should be.

 

In cases where the only evidence is rumor, inuendo, or internet mumbling, I'm completely opposed to endorsing that rumor with a "flag". Among other things, counter-proof may NEVER come this way so the flag may never come down.

 

The ONLY purpose of such a flag would be to endorse the unfounded rumor.

 

Let's not go there.

[JT Brooklyn]

deej...AMEN to that!

[Tommygunzz]

>In cases where the only evidence is rumor, inuendo, or

>internet mumbling, I'm completely opposed to endorsing that

>rumor with a "flag". Among other things, counter-proof may

>NEVER come this way so the flag may never come down.

 

 

I'd like to suggest reserving the use of the flag for the guys who are racing to be the first to post these death notices.

 

You know who they are---the one who posts personal information about the deceased, then retracts it. Or, the blogger who doesn't fact-check, and had he been a real journalist, would have been fired, just like Dan Rather.

[MindThe Gap]

>You know who they are---the one who posts personal information

>about the deceased, then retracts it. Or, the blogger who

>doesn't fact-check, and had he been a real journalist, would

>have been fired, just like Dan Rather.

 

Tommy, I don't believe that Scott had any other intent other than to offer closure to all the misinformation going around. Although he did post personal info, I believe he did it with only good intentions at heart.

 

As far as the "blogger" is concerned, there is a very interesting post at the bottom of this thread which is very interesting.

 

http://www.maleescortreview.com/dcscript/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=119&topic_id=1720&mesg_id=1742

[+ Lucky]

RE: What to do

 

At the time Scott posted, there was no misinformation going around. He was, as was said, the first to post. Interesting to note that Ben and Scott were the only two escorts who felt like posting on the topic.

[MindThe Gap]

RE: What to do

 

>At the time Scott posted, there was no misinformation going

>around. He was, as was said, the first to post.

 

I beg to differ. Benjamin Nicholas began his numerous irresponsible posts here and on MER on Saturday morning and night respectively. Scott did not chime in until Monday morning, when he had the truth.

[SAdler]

RE: What to do

 

Lucky,

 

I've tried privately and I'll do it publicly. Don't put words in my mouth and put this sad grudge to rest. You're far more mature than that.

[+ Lucky]

RE: What to do

 

Please elaborate, Scott. I am unaware of having put any words in your mouth. (How could I with your foot in the way?) But seriously, what is this grudge you are talking about and how or where have I put words in your mouth???

[Rick Munroe]

If it were me, I would like my reviews to stay up (they are my legacy and life's work, after all ) and I would like the heading changed to say, "The Late Rick Munroe." That way, no one would know if I were really dead or just habitually never on time for appointments. If there is a life after death, I think I'd get a kick out of that from the Great (Bed, Bath and) Beyond. :+

[JT Brooklyn]

Rick...L O L }( }( }(

[SAdler]

RE: What to do

 

>Please elaborate, Scott. I am unaware of having put any words

>in your mouth. (How could I with your foot in the way?) But

>seriously,

 

>and how

>or where have I put words in your mouth???

 

>>At the time Scott posted, there was no misinformation going >>around. He was, as was said, the first to post.

 

Well let's start with the untrue statement about me being the "first" to post on the topic making it seem (as a couple have) that this is a competition between Ben and I to "scoop" each other no matter how morbid the topic. This is part of the reason I don't blog that much because my blog isn't a priority of mine and I'd rather live my life than write about it. It's not to say that Ben isn't doing just that but I haven't found a way to make it work quite yet.

 

If you'll actually LOOK at the Lynden thread you'll notice a few posts to correspond with dates and times I write here:

 

Novabear's post about what Daddy Wrote: Sat Feb-24-07 12:43 AM

 

Ben's post about receiving email from him: Sat Feb-24-07 03:22 PM

 

Mindthegap's post about Ben's pronouncement elsewhere also establishing the board was QUITE confused about the truth at this point Sun Feb-25-07 05:24 PM

 

My Announcement Post: Mon Feb-26-07 06:16 AM

 

I'd say it's safe to say there was PLENTY of misinformation going around before I made my post which established closure for most. On top of that I was obviously (with everything between those posts) not the FIRST to post. So now who has a foot in their mouth?

 

>what is this grudge you are talking about

 

I'm talking about the grudge you have had via insulting and accusatory private emails and public insulting references to me in regards to another recent issue. Grow up.

[tazmanian5230]

RE: What to do

 

>>Please elaborate, Scott. I am unaware of having put any

>words>>in your mouth.

>

>>what is this grudge you are talking about

>

>I'm talking about the grudge you have had via insulting and

>accusatory private emails and public insulting references to

>me in regards to another recent issue. Grow up.

 

Hmmm,

Silly me, somehow after the "Palm Springs" weekend I thought you two were friends.

[+ Lucky]

RE: What to do

 

Well so did I, taz. We seem to have differnet ideas on what friendship entails, though.

[SAdler]

RE: What to do

 

Mine simply revolves around respect ...

[+ Lucky]

RE: What to do

 

Hon, I am not talking about Lynden. You were the first with the information that Jason Rylee had passed, even if you had to violate a client's confidence to spread the news. I have never said a word about you and Lynden. And I am not the one who sent me an email calling me names.

[SAdler]

RE: What to do

 

>Hon, I am not talking about Lynden.

 

Follow the thread ... I'm not the only person who thought you were.

 

>You were the first with

>the information that Jason Rylee had passed, even if you had

>to violate a client's confidence to spread the news.

 

There was no violation, there was the fact that neither of us knew that it would spin into people demanding cause because of a sense of entitlement like yourself. I was merely letting people know because he was getting phone calls constantly and if I hadn't nobody would know.

 

>I have

>never said a word about you and Lynden.

 

Again, read the subthread up to my post in context.

 

>And I am not the one

>who sent me an email calling me names.

 

I severely beg to differ there. Calling names and insulting me as via my actions is in the same ballpark but that's none of the business of this board so I'm leaving it there so I can go out and enjoy Miami.

[MindThe Gap]

RE: What to do

 

>Hon, I am not talking about Lynden.

 

>I have never said a word about you and Lynden.

 

WOW Lucky, with a backstroke like that, you really should consider entering the swimming trials for the next summer olympics. Gold would certainly be within your grasp.

 

Back-up to response #9 Lucky, from Tommygunzz. That's who I responded to about all the misinformation floating around about Lynden. (there never was any about Jason and you know that)You then responded to my post which was specifically about Lynden, claiming that Scott posted first. You were wrong, again. Now you want to claim something that these postings never represented and to which you posted to, just to run from reality. Very sad indeed.

 

It's not the first time you've backed away from owning your own public mistakes and misgivings and I suspect this won't be the last.

[+ Lucky]

RE: What to do

 

Here's what Tommy said:

"I'd like to suggest reserving the use of the flag for the guys who are racing to be the first to post these death notices."

 

And, Scott, of course, was the first to post about Jason, even though he violated a confidence to do so. The gap in your knowledge is that email that Scott and I have been exchanging is all about his post, not about Lynden. I have not been at all involved in the posts about Lynden.

 

You saw what you wanted to see.