Escorts Are You Embarassed?

[Guest tmbg]

>Ritchie, If you really think that all of us do lie the way

>you say, well it means to me you are can't be honest with

>yourself and your life is full of lies and others. Cause

>seriously, when you see people's reactions, you are the

>only one taking too seriously what I call "someone's private

>life". No right to judge people the way you do.

>Now to answer to your question if I may, I'm not Embarassed

>about anything you are asking about, cause I do not lie, I

>have no reason to, I just hide my personnal life to those

>stalkers and that is all.

 

Stef there is so much I cannot post here, though I have your actual name, In fact, I have the entire Henderson crew But I have never called anybody there, I have no interest in calling anybody there, I have not fallen in love with anybody there, I did it for my own safety when I met one of the escorts from the crew. If you really feel I care about the details of any of these escorts personal lives for my own pleasure you misunderstand the post I did originally.

 

I do what I feel I need to do to protect myself. I want to know the basic info of the background of somebody I am hiring. One poster said I don't use my real name, well that poster doesn't know what I use. Most people who have been to the larger Hotels in LV do know that for an escort to call you back in your room, you must give them the name you are registered with. Otherwise it is very hard to call back.

 

Then I feel most of the people who responded to this post in a negative way did so because they are jealous that they do not have the ability I do to locate background information. That is understandable.

 

Yet don't point at me about ethics. This is about hiring an escort, they are not hiring my services. And to the poster who said have I ever disclosed any personal information to an escort, the answer is only once -the one time that the escort asked. Not a single one has ever asked me anything of merit other than this one I refer to Sort of scary if you ask me.

 

Stay tuned people for a really good post on a topic close to all of this. It will be an eye catcher

 

Cheers! Ritchie

[Chuck50]

Ritchie

Dont we all lie about who we are. Out ages as well? Don't we all want to shave off a few years to be younger? A few pounds to be lighter? Or something else? "Let he who is with out sin cast the first stone? HUGS Chuck:*

[Guest dstud4hire]

RE: Games People Play

 

Excellent response! Very well written!

 

There's another point that can be added...many of us do , do so as part time. If I were to be identified, I can assure you I would be fired in a NY minute! So there are some aspects of my presentation that have to be altered slightly to ensure that I do not lose a career with full benefits. (i.e. picture with no face, a name different than my own) So, this has nothing to do with embarrassment, rather, it just has to do with self-preservation!

 

I love ths escorting business I've developed. I 'm proud of the fact that I've made many men happy and have done it well.

 

Regarding drugs...there would be no way that the truly GREAT escorts could be into consistent or bad drug problems.....maybe they could, but I know I couldn't. Many of my clients book me for more than an hour, sometimes for a vacation or an evening. If I was a drug user, there could be no way that I could make that transition from a one hour fuck fest to what really amounts to as a 'date.'

 

Lastly, when I do spend more than just an hour or two, many of my clients know much more about me that some might think is wise. While there is always a part of me that is the fantasy, there again , I've learned long ago that lies only catch up to you in the long run, as you try to rememeber what you told one person vs. another. So, I figure, try to stick as much to the truth as possible. It seems to work.

 

Of course, for the one hour session, or maybe a bit longer, there will always be the element of fantasy. Why spoil that with reality? Hey, part of it is fantasy for me as well.

[Guest Stephan-Lacoste]

>Stef there is so much I cannot post here, though I have your

>actual name, In fact, I have the entire Henderson crew

>But I have never called anybody there, I have no interest in

>calling anybody there, I have not fallen in love with

>anybody there, I did it for my own safety when I met one of

>the escorts from the crew. If you really feel I care about

>the details of any of these escorts personal lives for my

>own pleasure you misunderstand the post I did originally.

 

Ritchie, I have to say first of all that the way you wrote that original post was a little bite too "hot", to the point of indirectly hurt most of the good escorts's feeling.

Now , that you have my name or you think you Do have my name (you know Americans might have a hard time to hide their name, well the DMV is very easy to get along with and they barly check your passport and barely check it out to see if you wrote is similar to who you are , and trust me, you can write anything you want in That Driver license application) so that you know "my second real name" only tells me that you are looking more than a piece of meat itself.

Now Henderson was where I used to live, not anymore,but at that time, people screwed me up big time, I mean clients and even people in the business betrayed and lied to me and themselves, so Of course what they thought was my name went probably around the roafs.

But now having all the crew's name of Henderson , well I'm loosing you, how many of us lives over there ? hummm, I don't know, I have never thought about stalking someone before so I don't understand you.

YOu have never called anyone there and you know what is supposely my name ? Well that is just proving me that what you are saying is strange, cause I thought by what you wrote, you only wanted to get the real info and name of escorts you were meeting. You never met and you know my name. I don't know what you all think about it guys, but I think this is pretty scary.

 

>I do what I feel I need to do to protect myself. I want to

>know the basic info of the background of somebody I am

>hiring. One poster said I don't use my real name, well that

>poster doesn't know what I use. Most people who have been to

>the larger Hotels in LV do know that for an escort to call

>you back in your room, you must give them the name you are

>registered with. Otherwise it is very hard to call back.

>

>Then I feel most of the people who responded to this post in

>a negative way did so because they are jealous that they do

>not have the ability I do to locate background information.

>That is understandable.

 

I don't know who you are my friend, but I disagree totally with you. I do not think that people are jaelous. They did not post in negatively, they were just trying to protest to the fact that keeping quiet and saying nothing personnal while doing business were just because it is noone business. YOu pay me for my look. Nobody pays me for my identity or for being my doctor and know everything about me.

Now having the ability of locating background information, you are talking like someone who I met years ago up west north las vegas. If you are, I would understand the whole sense of your post.....as you said there are so much thing I can not post right here...

 

>Yet don't point at me about ethics. This is about hiring an

>escort, they are not hiring my services. And to the poster

>who said have I ever disclosed any personal information to

>an escort, the answer is only once -the one time that the

>escort asked. Not a single one has ever asked me anything of

>merit other than this one I refer to Sort of scary if you

>ask me.

 

what is The basic of escorting ? you pay to F!@#$ right ? if the service is good what is the point of wanting to know more about the escort ? If you are in love or being paranoid or anything else, then I understand that you need to know about people's business but other than that, there is no string attached.

 

Before I end this one, I have a question if you don't mind :

You said you know my actual name, well you know the entire crew of Henderson ( Las Vegas ) but you only met one of us. Why do you need to know everyone's name if you don't have the desire to hire even one of them. You said yourslef you never called and don't have interests of calling them, so why do you have interests on their names ?

Do you wnat to know everyone's name ? Sorry to say that Ritchie, but there isn't 1000 escorts in the US, probably more, and I think it will take you a long way to get to the end of the list.

I'm not a doctor neither a psychiatric doctor, I really don't understand your needs to know more than what you should really need to just have a good time in bed.

I'm not attacking you or anything like that Ritchie, I do not think knowing you as well , I would never direspect you, I'm just right now wondering why that sudden post and why all those info you need to know on poeple you never met and will never....

Hug

 

 

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Words People Say

 

>>I have yet to see a post where an escort, nor do I personally know an escort, who refers to adult

>>companionship as a respectable business. Is it a legitimate

>>service? Of course. Is it a valuable service? Definitely.

>> Is is necessary in our culture and society? Undoubtedly.

>>

>>I could continue on in this vein but I believe my point is

>>made.

>

>Not really. Do you know the definition of the English adjective "respectable"? My dictionary defines it as

>"worthy of respect" or "decent or correct in character or behavior." Is it your position that neither you nor any

>escort you know thinks of escorting as a business that fits that definition?

 

Your effort to do what is often done in post in this message center -- that is, to single out a word from a sentence and remove it both from the intention of the writer and the implication of his message -- is unfounded in several respects. If you explore a word properly, that is the Oxford Companion, the Oxford Dictionary as well as said word’s use throughout literature and history, you will note that respectable in the manner in which you attempt to define the word, is more commonly akin to the use of "genteel," "proper" or "well-bred" -- words and phrases rarely in use in either everyday or written English for several generations.

 

As English is a living language, we must therefore turn not only to its origin a nd historical use but to the context in which the word or phrase is used. In this instance, this is actually not one word or two, but a word phrase. In the post herein as well as in the manner used in my response, inclusive of both the original writer's intent as well as my own intent it is both quite obvious and precisely clear: this is not one word but rather a phrase common to International Business Language; to wit, "respectable business." Again both my intent and the implication of my statement and this particular post was to address the question of whether or not we, meaning escorts, prostitutes, street whores, hustlers, hookers, consorts, companions, et al., had referred to our profession as a respectable business.

 

Therefore, as is both obvious and clear, what you state is "not my position."

 

 

>>The point is, are we honorable men and therefore practicing in an honorable way. It is my

>>experience that this is more often the case than not and those men who have no honor and who

>>do not treat their clients with care and with respect will, one way or another, find themselves lost in

>>this culture and find themselves professional failures, not merely in this profession but most likely

>>in any other endeavor they would choose to pursue in such an inappropriate and abusive

>>manner.

 

 

The proper way to read my post, to understand my intent and the implication of my writing, as opposed to making an attempt to confuse the issue, misconstrue what is being said or to misstate the words and/or malign an individual through the attempt to bring in an outside authority, is to read the post in its entirety. Oxford, which is THE authority on the English language, in its subsection with respect to International Business English, uses the primary and common version of the phrase "respectable business" with reference to a commercial enterprise, either individually or collectively, which is viewed by its direct consumers and the public at large, as being honest or above reproach. The phrase is also used descriptively, often in business journalism, to define a business as being substantial, which is not the intent with which the phrase is used here.

 

In any event, the second paragraph you so conveniently quote from my original post makes my point quite nicely. There are those of us in this business, whatever our level, who conduct ourselves with honor. In my humble opinion, we have both earned and merit consideration for our behavior, consideration based on the experience of the men who deal with us and based on our history.

 

>Really? Is that what has happened to Anthony Holloway?

 

 

Those individuals who do not conduct themselves with honor will not survive in this or any other business. If this is what happened to Anthony Holloway, that is both unfortunate and sad on multiple levels. However, I cannot pretend to comment intelligently on Mr. Holloway as I neither recognize the name nor do I know the gentlemen on the basis of personal knowledge or reputable source description.

 

 

When words people say have no meaning ... when words have nothing to do with what is real ... when it does not matter when people are caught lying ... whose speech can be trusted? If nobody's speech can be trusted, how can any of us ever know one another? If RHETORIC triumphs over logic, senselessness ensues ....

[Guest regulation]

RE: Words People Say

 

>Your effort to do what is often done in post in this message

>center -- that is, to single out a word from a sentence and

>remove it both from the intention of the writer and the

>implication of his message -- is unfounded in several

>respects.

 

 

Wrong. It is I, not you, who originally used the word "respectable" in this thread. You are in no position to tell me what I intended by using this word. It is I who tell you. And I tell you that I intended to convey the very same meaning that is found in my dictionary.

 

 

>The proper way to read my post, to understand my intent and

>the implication of my writing, as opposed to making an

>attempt to confuse the issue, misconstrue what is being said

>or to misstate the words and/or malign an individual through

>the attempt to bring in an outside authority, is to read the

>post in its entirety.

 

 

You vastly overestimate the extent of my interest in what you wrote. I didn't start a conversation with you. I didn't ask you to reply to my post in this thread, which was addressed to someone else, not to you, as is clearly indicated in the post itself. It is you who chose to start this conversation with me, not the other way around. It is you who chose to look at a word that I used and to interpret it in a way different from the way in which I used it, a way that suits your purpose. You are very dishonest to pretend otherwise.

 

>Really? Is that what has happened to Anthony Holloway?

>

>

>Those individuals who do not conduct themselves with honor

>will not survive in this or any other business. If

>this is what happened to Anthony Holloway, that is both

>unfortunate and sad on multiple levels.

 

 

As those of us who have been participating in this board since long before you arrived are well aware, the case of Holloway is one that disproves the point you made in the language from your post that I quoted.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: Words People Say

 

>You vastly overestimate the extent of my interest in what

>you wrote. I didn't start a conversation with you. I

>didn't ask you to reply to my post in this thread, which was

>addressed to someone else, not to you, as is clearly

>indicated in the post itself. It is you who chose to start

>this conversation with me, not the other way around. It is

>you who chose to look at a word that I used and to interpret

>it in a way different from the way in which I used it, a way

>that suits your purpose. You are very dishonest to pretend

>otherwise.

 

You go girl! Spoken like Della the Dyke.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest regulation]

RE: Words People Say

 

>Oxford, which is THE authority

>on the English language, in its subsection with respect to

>International Business English, uses the primary and common

>version of the phrase "respectable business" with reference

>to a commercial enterprise,

 

You have this habit of making statements that are completely untrue. In the thread on the escort who refused to honor his offer to give his client the same rate on a later occasion, for example, you stated that a court would have to hear both sides of the story before making a decision, which as I pointed out in that thread is completely untrue. In the same thread you also stated that the information originally provided by the thread author was not sufficient to make such a decision -- again, completely untrue. In the passage quoted above you do the same thing again. America, unlike France, does not have a group of scholars who have been designated by representatives of the nation to create an "official" body of rules or definitions for the English language. There is thus no book or manual that can be regarded as THE authority on the English language so far as this country is concerned.

 

I don't know whether you keep doing this sort of thing because you are in the habit of making statements about subjects of which you know nothing -- that's a common problem on message boards -- or because you like enhancing your arguments by slipping in a few lies now and then. Whatever the explanation, this tactic isn't working for you, so you may as well knock it off.

[+ deej]

RE: Words People Say

 

<<There is thus no book or manual that can be regarded as THE authority on the English language so far as this country is concerned. >>

 

So says Regulation. Let it be written in stone! I guess that's it guys. No sense trying to talk good English.

 

(By the way, I wish we DID have a central arbiter of correctness in language. I think the language had degraded some since this year's American Heritage Dictionary includes the phrases "arm candy" and "my bad".)

 

It would be really cool if you two could argue about whatever you were arguing about. He called you, Reg. You respond to any disagreement by spinning a tangent, in this case a linguistic tangent, and he called you on it. You got caught. Pants down.

 

And he came back at you with arguably the best weapon in the linguistic arsenal: Oxford.

 

The best you can come up with is "that ain't no good here"?

 

Don't quibble linguistics, boys. Have your argument or be done with it. I think it was done until we got the dictionaries out.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: Words People Say

 

>It would be really cool if you two could argue about

>whatever you were arguing about. He called you, Reg. You

>respond to any disagreement by spinning a tangent, in this

>case a linguistic tangent, and he called you on it. You got

>caught. Pants down.

 

UGH - what an ugly sight that must have been!

 

>And he came back at you with arguably the best weapon in the

>linguistic arsenal: Oxford.

>

>The best you can come up with is "that ain't no good here"?

>

>Don't quibble linguistics, boys. Have your argument or be

>done with it. I think it was done until we got the

>dictionaries out.

 

Nothing will ever be "done with" as far as Della the Dyke is concerned x( She'll just go on and on until the internet runs out of space.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest regulation]

RE: Words People Say

 

>So says Regulation. Let it be written in stone! I guess

>that's it guys. No sense trying to talk good English.

 

If you're that concerned about our English, why not set a good example by using complete sentences? I know you can do it if you really try.

 

>(By the way, I wish we DID have a central arbiter of

>correctness in language. I think the language had degraded

>some since this year's American Heritage Dictionary includes

>the phrases "arm candy" and "my bad".)

 

But we don't have one, and that makes nonsense of your friend's post.

 

>It would be really cool if you two could argue about

>whatever you were arguing about. He called you, Reg. You

>respond to any disagreement by spinning a tangent, in this

>case a linguistic tangent, and he called you on it. You got

>caught. Pants down.

>

>And he came back at you with arguably the best weapon in the

>linguistic arsenal: Oxford.

>

>The best you can come up with is "that ain't no good here"?

>

>Don't quibble linguistics, boys. Have your argument or be

>done with it. I think it was done until we got the

>dictionaries out.

 

 

Deej, we both know you don't have even the faintest interest in the subject of this thread. You just jumped in to throw a few hateful remarks in my direction, as you have several times before when you've seen an escort floundering in an argument with someone else. It's exactly what you did when you raised an issue about the tenure of federal judges during that discussion with Theron. Talk about spinning a tangent! You had to back off on that occasion after chapter and verse proved you wrong. Haven't you learned your lesson?

 

Don't fret about matters you don't understand. Relax and have another cigarette. Have several. :-)

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

I stand by what I wrote

 

For one thing it makes sense. For another, semantic arguments, especially with someone who appears to neither understand linguistics or logic, is fruitless.

 

I commented on your post about respectable profession; your post leads off from what Mr. Rich wrote about escorts having honor, which in my ORIGINAL response to his ORIGINAL post I disregarded; as you brought the issue up again, I answered and addressed it. You THEN responded to my post with a quote from your dictionary and now you attempt to defend an attack on me by ascribing some erroneous misconception on my part of your intent. You also make an incorrect correlation between the French Academy and accepted standards for the English language, both world wide and in this country.

 

Finally, in some sort of effort to malign me personally, you finish by accusing me of lying, which you are neither able prove nor do your examples sustain.

 

For example, with respect to Mark Dalton: in contract law -- for which Black's Law Dictionary is the accepted standard in this country -- a contract may be binding if it is oral but there are always two [or more] sides to a contract. Thus, one cannot merely take the word of one party, either that of Mark Dalton nor his reviewer, as to what occurred and what is therefore contractually at issue, which was clearly and precisely my point. Thus contractual disputes, contrary to the erroneous assertion in said thread, are up to a triar of fact. Even with the presence of a jury, in contract law, the judge is the ultimate arbitrator of "he said/he said" disputes. What the jury gets to consider in rendering a verdict is often up to the triar of fact to determine. A judge or magistrate is commonly referred to as the triar of facts.

 

I am not even going to waste the time addressing your other points. If you are so incapable of clear understanding of language and logic, you are not likely to even be able to follow this post. But I take extreme exception to your assertion that my statement are incorrect by use the use of false facts, that my factual statements are either wrong or that I am intentionally attempting to mislead with knowingly -- or unknowingly inaccurate information or facts.

 

My opinions are based, as indeed they should be, on information and belief. I do not just write down every little thing that pops into my head and because I said it, believe it must be so, particularly if I said it first. Words and phrases have very particular meanings and merely because someone uses it incorrectly, those meanings are not changed. My statements, those intended seriously and which are obviously not humorous, are are grounded in true scholorship or research. I would kindly suggest you govern yourself accordingly in the future.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: Words People Say

 

>

>

>Deej, we both know you don't have even the faintest interest

>in the subject of this thread. You just jumped in to throw

>a few hateful remarks in my direction, as you have several

>times before when you've seen an escort floundering in an

>argument with someone else. It's exactly what you did when

>you raised an issue about the tenure of federal judges

>during that discussion with Theron. Talk about spinning a

>tangent! You had to back off on that occasion after chapter

>and verse proved you wrong. Haven't you learned your

>lesson?

>

>Don't fret about matters you don't understand. Relax and

>have another cigarette. Have several. :-)

 

THUNDERBUNS SECRET PRAYER

 

Dear Lord,

 

Please make me as wise as Regulation.

 

Please give him the strength to maintain his conviction that he is always right, and that his opinions are the only ones that have validity.

 

Please ensure that all the members on HooBoy's escort discussion group realize that Regulation can do no wrong and that they must bow to his superior knowledge at all times for this will make his task so much easier.

 

Please Lord, give him the stamina to keep on posting until he is sure he has the last word on every subject.

 

Please arrange his daily schedule so that he will continue to have enough time to dig into the archives of our site so that he can twist every post every member has ever made to his own convoluted way of thinking.

 

Please enlarge the internet to ensure that he will never run out of space.

 

And please supply us all with a large box of handi-wipes so as we can continue to mop up his verbal diarrhea.

 

And lastly dear Lord, please forgive me for referring to him as Della the Dyke, when he actually should be referred to as His Holiness

Pope Reg I

 

Amen

 

Thunderbuns

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

.... Said The Spider To The Fly

 

I would have said the pot and perhaps made reference to a kettle. But I personally prefer not to confuse matters.

 

If the literary allusion is too esoteric for you, perhaps you can simply define the words one by one in your dictionary until you are able to find rhyme or reason in them.

 

>Don't fret about matters you don't understand.

 

As for this, I believe it stands quite nicely on its own merits. Without need for further clarification by any dictionary. It is always handy when someone makes ones argument for them. It simplifies matters. I can thereby get back to sex with the Twink Ho now that he is done with his smoking break.

[Guest regulation]

RE: .... Said The Spider To The Fly

 

>I would have said the pot and perhaps made reference to a

>kettle. But I personally prefer not to confuse matters.

>

>If the literary allusion is too esoteric for you, perhaps

>you can simply define the words one by one in your

>dictionary until you are able to find rhyme or reason in

>them.

>

 

Here's a new word for you. In a thread in the Lounge section you recently took Albinorat to task for personal attacks on others. But you often do the exact same thing for which you chided him, as your post above demonstrates. The word we use to describe someone who behaves in this manner is "hypocrite."

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

All Politics Is Local

 

>Here's a new word for you. In a thread in the Lounge

>section you recently took Albinorat to task for personal

>attacks on others. But you often do the exact same thing

>for which you chided him, as your post above demonstrates.

>The word we use to describe someone who behaves in this

>manner is "hypocrite."

 

 

Another interesting tack which one can take when one is not able to defend the position what takes, and when an attack or an attempt to attack the other side with unrelated and inconsequential matters so clearly fails, is to find the proverbial needle in the haystack of the neighbors barn, bring it over to the barn -- not next door, but several neighborhoods away and point out to everyone present: "Look. See. I told you so. There's the needle."

 

To point out the defect in an argument, much less to defend the logical course one undertakes, particularly when faced with a response that is either clearly a personal attacks, illogical or inconsequential as written, is neither an personal attack nor is it hypocritical. It merely follows the logical course: it is a response and not even a response in kind.

 

But, of course, since I must be lying then it follows that this must not be so.

 

So it shall be written, so it shall be done.

[Guest andorrian]

RE: All Politics Is Local

 

>Another interesting tack which one can take when one is not

>able to defend the position what takes, and when an attack

>or an attempt to attack the other side with unrelated and

>inconsequential matters so clearly fails, is to find the

>proverbial needle in the haystack of the neighbors barn,

>bring it over to the barn -- not next door, but several

>neighborhoods away and point out to everyone present:

>"Look. See. I told you so. There's the needle."

>

>To point out the defect in an argument, much less to defend

>the logical course one undertakes, particularly when faced

>with a response that is either clearly a personal attacks,

>illogical or inconsequential as written, is neither an

>personal attack nor is it hypocritical. It merely follows

>the logical course: it is a response and not even a

>response in kind.

 

This post fits my definition of gobbledegook.

[Guest andorrian]

RE: Twaddle Twaddle Twaddle

 

>Think of it this way: you are winning so I raise my voice.

>You are still winning so I fixate on the way you pronounce a

>word. Your victory is still at hand, so I bring over the

>Bible, the dictionary or the judges on Weakest Link,

>to point out that you are wearing white in winter.

 

You may want me and others to start out with the assumption that you are winning, but that would the wrong assumption. What actually happened is very simple and doesn't require anything like the verbiage you have used to describe it.

 

This thread is about why people involved in prostitution often don't tell the truth about themselves and what they are doing. Reg stated that the trouble people on both sides of prostitution take to conceal their involvement shows that it isn't respectable despite some comments here to the contrary. You stated that you don't know of such comments, that people are not actually claiming that prostitution is respectable. Reg referred to the dictionary definition of 'respectable' and asked whether you are saying that prostitution doesn't fit that definition. You wrote a long, convoluted and largely irrelevant post about which dictionary is best. At the very end of that post you finally answered the question Reg asked, the answer being 'No.'

 

You aren't winning anything. All you are doing is trying to pull the discussion away from the original point, which is that people don't want their involvement with prostitution to be known because prostitution is not something that most people respect. Maybe you find that situation frustrating, but making snide remarks to people on this board is not going to change it.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Twaddle Twaddle Twaddle

 

>This post fits my definition of gobbledegook.

 

 

In a debate, the each side muster its point and defends same over the merits of the question at hand.

 

Outside such rules, one side attempts to score over the other side by a number of patently unfair methods.

 

In these and other posts, we previously covered personally attacks, you are stupid, you are dumb, your point is stupid and dumb. We also covered "parsing" the finer points of a thread: words which are mistyped or misused, even when the point was clear, must otherwise obviate the point made in its entirety. We additionally discussed bringing in outside authorities to bolster part and thus make it appear your entire argument has authority behind it.

 

It this particular instance we covered misdirection.

 

Think of it this way: you are winning so I raise my voice. You are still winning so I fixate on the way you pronounce a word. Your victory is still at hand, so I bring over the Bible, the dictionary or the judges on Weakest Link, to point out that you are wearing white in winter.

 

sometimes it is better to ask the questions than know the answers ....

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Word People Say Redux

 

>You may want me and others to start out

>with the assumption that you are winning,

>but that would the wrong assumption.

 

You have both misread my comments and made an incorrect assumption.

>

>This thread is about why people involved in prostitution

>often don't tell the truth about themselves and what they

>are doing.

 

It started off with a baiting comment to escorts. If you read enough on this site you would understand that the terms: whore, prostitute, escort and hustler are not viewed as interchangeable by either the majority of clients nor the sex workers themselves.

 

>Reg stated that the trouble people on both sides

>of prostitution take to conceal their involvement shows that

>it isn't respectable despite some comments here to the

>contrary.

 

This is one, of several instance, where the thread got off subject; to wit, the baiting comments and replies thereon.

 

>You stated that you don't know of such comments,

>that people are not actually claiming that prostitution is

>respectable.

 

What I actually wrote was that I knew of no escort who had stated in this or any other frequent thread that sex work was a respectable business. This statement has yet to be contradicted or proven wrong. I also added that some, possibly even most of the escorts who posted regularly on this message center, at least in the eyes of this critic, appeared to conduct themselves with honor.

 

Reg referred to the dictionary definition of

>'respectable' and asked whether you are saying that

>prostitution doesn't fit that definition.

<You wrote a long, convoluted and largely irrelevant post

<about which dictionary is best.

 

<At the very end of that post you

>finally answered the question Reg

<asked, the answer being 'No.'

 

Again, you both misunderstood and misread the posts in questions as well as my point as written.

 

>You aren't winning anything. All you are doing is trying to

>pull the discussion away from the original point, which is

>that people don't want their involvement with prostitution

>to be known because prostitution is not something that most

>people respect. Maybe you find that situation frustrating,

>but making snide remarks to people on this board is not

>going to change it.

 

In find poor English and poor language skills frustrating. I find people who confuse the concept of intelligent discourse and reasoned disgreement with snide remarks to be frustrating. Beyond that, I am very content with the fact that my clients find me to be an honorable and trust worthy man. I am also quite content in my present profession and one of those reasons is that I can wake up and look at myself in the mirror and feel confident that I provide a service that is both necessary and valuable and I believe that I personally do so in a respectful and courteous manner.

 

As I sit here and I type this, I am in the home of a client in Palm Springs who has trusted me with his property and his personal possessions for a week while he in Atlanta enjoying another young man, a non-escort. My client is a 74 year old man, for those keeping

"score," and his young man in Atlanta is 33.

 

However, I thank you for your interest in reading this obtuse thread.

 

Be well.

[Guest andorrian]

RE: Word People Say Redux

 

>You have both misread my comments and made an incorrect

>assumption.

 

I don't believe I have. But if you think I have you should review them and restate them more clearly. Communicating your ideas so that others can understand them without difficulty is your responsibility not theirs.

 

>>This thread is about why people involved in prostitution

>>often don't tell the truth about themselves and what they

>>are doing.

>

>It started off with a baiting comment to escorts. If you

>read enough on this site you would understand that the

>terms: whore, prostitute, escort and hustler are not viewed

>as interchangeable by either the majority of clients nor the

>sex workers themselves.

 

Reg and others have often made the point that there is no one who can claim he knows what the majority of clients or escorts thinks or says or does. No one here can talk about anything except his own personal experiences.

 

>>Reg stated that the trouble people on both sides

>>of prostitution take to conceal their involvement shows that

>>it isn't respectable despite some comments here to the

>>contrary.

>

>This is one, of several instance, where the thread got off

>subject; to wit, the baiting comments and replies thereon.

 

 

That is not off the subject, it is the subject as determined by the person who started the thread.

 

 

>What I actually wrote was that I knew of no escort who had

>stated in this or any other frequent thread that sex work

>was a respectable business. This statement has yet to be

>contradicted or proven wrong.

 

I don't see how anyone can prove wrong a statement that is about what you know.

 

>I also added that some,

>possibly even most of the escorts who posted regularly on

>this message center, at least in the eyes of this critic,

>appeared to conduct themselves with honor.

 

Since your knowledge of their activities is very limited I am not sure what of the significance of your opinion about them.

 

>Again, you both misunderstood and misread the posts in

>questions as well as my point as written.

 

 

Again, communicating your ideas in a manner that is easy for others to understand is your responsibility not theirs.

 

>In find poor English and poor language skills frustrating.

 

From the above sentence it looks as though your own language skills need some improvement.

 

>I find people who confuse the concept of intelligent

>discourse and reasoned disgreement with snide remarks to be

>frustrating.

 

Again, communicating your ideas is up to you. If people often fail to understand what you are trying to convey, that says something about your ability to communicate.

 

 

>However, I thank you for your interest in reading this

>obtuse thread.

>

>Be well.

 

I think it is only obtuse because you tried to pull it away from the subject opened by the person who started it. But I wish you well also.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Obtuse

 

A typo is not the same thing as poor English skill nor does it show a lack of understanding of communication nor the ability to communicate properly. It merely shows that the person, either in haste or laziness, failed to proof read his post or did not bother to do so.

 

Otherwise, my response speaks for itself and I stand by what I said, which applies as equally to your new post as to the previous one.

 

That said, once again we find ourselves with an argument akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

You disagree with me, fine. I believe your disagreement is not well-reasoned nor based on what I am saying. Fine. That has all been established. It is unnecessary and unproductive to continue to repeat yourself, as your prior post essentially did.

 

As Joey Hart said elsewhere, it is beautiful outside - at least, it is still so here in California. I have spent the majority of my day outside today. I would kindly suggest you would benefit from some sunshine. Enjoy yourself and the days ahead.

[Guest andorrian]

RE: Obtuse

 

>A typo is not the same thing as poor English skill nor does

>it show a lack of understanding of communication nor the

>ability to communicate properly. It merely shows that the

>person, either in haste or laziness, failed to proof read

>his post or did not bother to do so.

>

>Otherwise, my response speaks for itself and I stand by what

>I said, which applies as equally to your new post as to the

>previous one.

 

But the use of an ungrammatical phrase like "applies as equally to your new post as to your previous one" does show that the person who uses it needs to do some work on his English.

 

I have found that people like you who make a point of criticizing the language skills of others often do so in posts that contain obvious errors. I think this is arranged by the message board gods to put such people in their place. I think it's very funny.

 

>That said, once again we find ourselves with an argument

>akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

 

You seem to get involved in a lot of arguments like that. Maybe you should try talking about something else.

 

>You disagree with me, fine. I believe your disagreement is

>not well-reasoned nor based on what I am saying. Fine.

>That has all been established. It is unnecessary and

>unproductive to continue to repeat yourself, as your prior

>post essentially did.

 

Thanks for your opinion of whether my posts are productive. But in my opinion posting such comments is just a way to avoid dealing with the substance of what another person is saying. This thread is about why escorts are so often untruthful about themselves, but for some reason very little of what you have posted in this thread actually addresses that issue. That is what I would call "unnecessary and unproductive."

 

>As Joey Hart said elsewhere, it is beautiful outside - at

>least, it is still so here in California. I have spent the

>majority of my day outside today. I would kindly suggest

>you would benefit from some sunshine. Enjoy yourself and

>the days ahead.

 

If you don't want to continue talking about the subject of this thread, don't. No one is making you do it. And there is no need to look for excuses to stop doing it. Just stop.

[Guest DCeBOY]

RE: Word People Say Redux

 

how sad that you frustrate yourself.

 

>In find poor English and poor language skills frustrating.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Posta Numero Quaranta Sei

 

>how sad that you frustrate yourself.

 

[h3]:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)