Kiss N Tell

[Guest albinorat]

RE: Stab (or make a weak attempt) and Tell

 

>I didn't see the posting either.

>However, my general impression from

>reading about it is that

>we all have Mondays ... You, whoever is reading

>this, and I are

>undoubtedly the same way. Big

>whoopee!

 

I did see the post Bilbo, and I wasn't offended. No doubt many clients are nuts and "intimacy for hire" is impossible. Trying to act it (so as to get re-hired, recommended, well reviewed) is obviously quite a stressor and will lead to rage. Given that many of these guys are young (for which there are great rewards) and some, maybe most, have their own issues with intimacy, sexual identity and even guilt over what they're doing, bitch sessions are only to be expected.

 

There are however some issues here: first of all Billy did violate an assumption of confidentiality and was probably going to go further if allowed.

 

Now it's fine to say "never write anything on the 'net you wouldn't want your Mother or Grand Inquisitor John Ashcroft to see" -- God only knows where our posts can show up. Still what Billy was doing was betraying fellow escorts out of some strange pique. No one should be exposed as part of someone's vengeance (unrelated after all to the victims -- Bill seems to hate Hooboy most of all. The victims being those who offered spontaneous comments in a "confidential" context.)

 

Escorts, including some on this site, have told me this and that about their lives, their real names, real ages, and in one case their HIV status. Absolutely under no circumstances would I repeat anything about that. And if I became enraged at you and you had a message board, I would certainly not try to "get" you by suddenly revealing those things in the hopes of wrecking your board, making some delusional connection between the contexts in which those things were revealed and their relevancy to my "hatred" of you.

 

Secondly, I have had my experiences with "escort 'tude". Some of these guys who charge a small fortune do indeed express contempt for most or even all clients. If you're going to pay, you have to face that reality -- maybe Billy was giving us all a wake up call -- but he was doing it at the expense of people who probably have more complex responses and are more sensitive about these issues than a few comments out of context made a year ago suggests. That is grossly unfair to some people who are in all likelihood nice guys who really try to give all clients a fair shake (in all senses!).

 

If Billy had simply posted his own loathing of clients based on long experience that would have been his right of course. But to implicate EVERYBODY suggests however *you name it* most of us may be (ugly, old, fat, unstable, over demanding, snobbish) that Billy is the one full of intense, rageful and vindictive self-loathing. And that his perspective even if it has some roots in real experience is highly distorted.

 

Rod Hagen had a thread up about the word "Hustler". I liked those days better. In the three bars that were best and most active in NYC into the late 80's you could make eye contact and conversation. You could get a sense of the person (and he of you) on the cab ride back to whereever. And the guys ("hustlers") in my experience were RARELY nasty, judgmental. They might turn down a given "john" or his "scene". But 'tude was rare. Most of those guys were doing it as a sideline, and many enjoyed meeting "older" guys -- something that by then was not happening in the trendy bars in Manhattan. There was humanness about them in recognizing that sexual desire does not die as years accumulate and feeling pretty good (as well as better off) for easing it in somebody else.

 

The "escort" identity of the Internet Age is something different. You don't meet somebody really until they show up. Phone conversations help, but not as much as a few drinks and eye-to-eye contact in a public space. Meanwhile prices have gone up outrageously, at least in New York. And with that has come a sense of entitlement in *escorts* (too many full time, not guys picking up extra cash) that leads to the sort of arrogance, insensitivity and mockery that was implied in some of the things Billy quoted.

 

Maybe that was a "wake up" call to the escorts too. If you are so contemptuous of a client you'll take $300 and not even let him touch your hair, you deserve to be taken down a peg or too. And maybe the rest of us need to do some occasional searching for the "honest" hookers, who will give and maybe get a good time if the price is right and aren't somehow "proving themselves" by doing it, or paying for a lifestyle by meeting three or four clients a day.

 

And those *johns* who felt hurt by the revelations may need to be more honest about themselves and this "business" and tougher about how much they pay for what.

 

Another fat windbag -- Al

[Guest EvilSwine]

Umm...obviously retirement hasn't been as fulfilling as one would believe if the only thing that someone has to do all day is obsess over a message board.

[CT Dick]

>The rest of you...Ha ha ha......you

>believe what you need. Dumbasses

>

BTW, calling me a dumbass isn't the best way to convince me you are right.

[Bilbo]

RE: Stab (or make a weak attempt) and Tell

 

Al, I'd just like to make it clear that my remarks meant to be aimed at all of the hoohah discussion from people who seemed to me hell bent on finding out what those posts said, or overreacting to them as if they had read them. I had no intention of defending BB for going against one of the main virtues all good escorts must have - discretion.

 

Nor am I overjoyed, though, at the several posts lately that have lauded part-time escorts vs. careerists. As with acting, I feel that escorting audiences should applaud the illusion of the first time while fully realizing that if this were indeed the first time these performers had done this show it certainly would't (usually anyway) attain the same high standards. How many posts have we had from virgins wanting an experts help? vs. Have we ever had any posts even looking for the illusion of a virgin? If so, I don't remember it.

 

And while I am sorta on the same subject, I felt that Stephen had no sense in his head atall when he broadened the subject of just which escorts he would have been shocked and offended by when he first started out. He's just lucky we all decided to let him and BB,uhm, sorry I mean jackson6, have their own cat fight without getting some of the bigger guns pounding into their midst.

[Bilbo]

A lot of retired people bore themselves to death.

[Guest]

Am I the only guy who's a little bit bothered by the fact that both Billyboy and Stephan had Hooboy's seal of approval? I thought they were supposed to be given to people he's hired anonymously. Granted, he may have hired them anonymously originally, but once he was personally involved with them, there was a danger of the relationship affecting this judgment, and the "seal of approval" from affecting the relationship. It seems more like he's given his seal to escorts he's befriended. Nothing wrong with that, but it should have been disclosed that he was friends and intimate with these guys...

[Guest regulation]

>Am I the only guy who's

>a little bit bothered by

>the fact that both Billyboy

>and Stephan had Hooboy's seal

>of approval?

 

No, U, you're not the only one. As I've said elsewhere, I have no idea whether any of BB's accusations against HB and others are true. I know only that for a long time HB recommended BB to visitors here as a credible and trustworthy person. In those days HB and the posters who echo everything he says like a Greek Chorus couldn't seem to praise BB enough. Now, he and his followers are telling us that the same guy is evil incarnate. What's going on?

 

My own opinion is that the distinction between the "good" escorts and the "bad" escorts that HB and others have tried to create is largely an illusion, and that in this case the illusion is fraying. It will be interesting to see whether any of these guys is finally ready to face reality.

[Barry]

>Am I the only guy who's

>a little bit bothered by

>the fact that both Billyboy

>and Stephan had Hooboy's seal

>of approval? I thought

>they were supposed to be

>given to people he's hired

>anonymously.

 

I'm not bothered at all. As far as I know and have seen, he hires them anonymously and makes the "Seal" decision based on that client/escort experience.

 

>Granted, he may

>have hired them anonymously originally,

>but once he was personally

>involved with them, there was

>a danger of the relationship

>affecting this judgment, and the

>"seal of approval" from affecting

>the relationship. It seems

>more like he's given his

>seal to escorts he's befriended.

 

I think you may have the order backwards. Hoo may have developed a friendship with escorts he has seen AFTER he has reviewed them and provided the Seal. Can this effect the relationship. Sure, to the extent we are all human. I'm not sure specifically what impact it had, if any....or what you are implying. Hoo admitted the difficulties with BillyBoy started in mid-December upon discovering he was posting under aliases. I do not believe he removed BB's Seal of Approval even though there was a problem with the relationship at that point. I guess that's one example of how the relationship didn't affect the Seal.

 

> Nothing wrong with that,

>but it should have been

>disclosed that he was friends

>and intimate with these guys...

>

Having been here since the beginning I can say that Hoo has stated in different message board postings that he is/was a friend of Billy and of Stephan and some others. I don't believe it's ever been hidden. I have befriended some of the escorts I have seen. I have also reviewed them originally (prior to the friendship) and I have the Credible Reviewer stamp. I'm sure this is true of others as well.

 

Escorts are not manufactured items and neither are clients. We don't have quality controlled consistency day after day. It has been discussed many times on this board that we look at all the reviews, the descriptions of the reviewer, the responses to negative reviews and board postings before making a decision. I don't give Hoo's Seal any more weight than a single point on a long checklist. Actually a little less since his sexual tastes and mine differ. Same goes for the Top Ten designations or the Credibility stamp.

 

I think the Seals, Stamps, Top lists all have added "fun" and a less clinical environment to this site. In the final analysis, it's a much bigger picture that should lead us to a hiring decision.

[Barry]

>As I've said

>elsewhere, I have no idea

>whether any of BB's accusations

>against HB and others are

>true.

 

Neither do I but I do know that BB has, through his own admissions brought into question, in fact damaged his own credibility.

 

>I know only

>that for a long time

>HB recommended BB to visitors

>here as a credible and

>trustworthy person. In those

>days HB and the posters

>who echo everything he says

>like a Greek Chorus couldn't

>seem to praise BB enough.

> Now, he and his

>followers are telling us that

>the same guy is evil

>incarnate. What's going on?

 

More drama words....Greek Chorus, evil incarnate. I for one must not be able to carry a tune. While I have great respect for HB and what he has done with this site I have not always agreed with him or echoed BB praise on this board. I do recall lots of praise for BB as an escort or a "person" while in the escort role. I may be wrong but I don't recall him being given credit for credibility and trustworthiness as a civilian.

 

It was BB himself that published his real persona on this board.

 

>My own opinion is that the

>distinction between the "good" escorts

>and the "bad" escorts that

>HB and others have tried

>to create is largely an

>illusion, and that in this

>case the illusion is fraying.

> It will be interesting

>to see whether any of

>these guys is finally ready

>to face reality.

 

I think this confuses the issue even further. The distinction between good, bad and everything in between regarding "escorts" is the very purpose of this site. What's illusionary about that? Escorting and clienting (is that a word?) is all about illusion during the experience. This has been discussed here many times. The good escort providing the illusion of a BF, a lover or a hot-for-your-bod sex crazed AF boy for the night. The client's illusion that the escort actually wants to be with us, naked and sweaty. While I'm sure there are exceptions and indeed some escorts do enjoy the company of some of their clients, the bottom line is if they saw us in a bar they wouldn't start drewling and figuring out a way to get us home and into their bed. The reviews grade that illusion plus sexual skill, looks, etc.. I don't think the reviews are intended to be taken as the basis for choosing a life partner.

 

We are talking about performance in a job as opposed to what kind of person the guy is in real life. I've know some excellent executives who were total assholes out of the office. That great 3rd grade teacher may be sexually abusing his kids at home. Having managed people my entire career, I have had a number of superb managers reporting to me. Outside of work they were people I would never associate with. When I sat down to write their annual performance review, I had to seperate what I thought of them personally from their performance in the job and whether they met my expectations. There is no difference here. A good escort or client can be a bad person and vice versa.

 

We are reviewing their job performance which, in part is an illusion.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Stab (or make a weak attempt) and Tell

 

>Escorts, including some on this site,

>have told me this and

>that about their lives, their

>real names, real ages, and

>in one case their HIV

>status. Absolutely under no circumstances

>would I repeat anything about

>that. And if I became

>enraged at you and you

>had a message board, I

>would certainly not try to

>"get" you by suddenly revealing

>those things in the hopes

>of wrecking your board, making

>some delusional connection between the

>contexts in which those things

>were revealed and their relevancy

>to my "hatred" of you.

>

 

What these guys fail to understand invariably is, quite simply, that their acts of 'hatred' say volumes about them as people of dubious virtue... shooting off both feet while the target of their ire suffers more likely a few minor scratches, if that, which heal quickly. Clearly most of these guys have lost their emotional balance, at least temporarily, or exhibit a complete lack of wisdom which, in some cases, might be associated with youth.

 

>Another fat windbag -- Al

 

Way to go Al...

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>We are talking about performance in a job as opposed to what kind of person the guy is in real life. I've know some excellent executives who were total assholes out of the office..... A good escort or client can be a bad person and vice versa. We are reviewing their job performance which, in part is an illusion<

 

Nice assessment. And it's true, 'escort' is a job title, not a personality identifier, nor does it say anything about our overall worth as human beings. A lousy escort may be the best friend a non client ever knew, or the best father some motherless child might have, and conversely, the best and most lauded escort working today might be an absolute Stalin outside of the bedroom. It's the performance we applaud, not the performer. However, there is invariably some overlap as it's impossible to ever seperate completely what you are from what you do. The former would seem to dictate the latter.

And just for the record, I think what BBoy did was deplorable. More because of the breach of trust which had been established in a very private forum, not because any of the clients or escorts mentioned were compromised. Fortunately, they weren't in this case. In fact, no client names or handles even came up. Just a couple of semi-amusing anecdotes about how eccentric and obsessive some clients can occasionally be, which were written almost a year ago. A very lighthearted commiseration about the foils of escorting. I've actually never seen anything truly damning in the escorts only forum, and now thanks to FollyBoy, there is no escort forum.

I certainly hope this situation draws to a close soon. As frequenters of this site, I think it makes us all look a bit silly.

[+ deej]

>a decision. I don't

>give Hoo's Seal any more

>weight than a single point

>on a long checklist. Actually

>a little less since his

>sexual tastes and mine differ.

> Same goes for the

>Top Ten designations or the

>Credibility stamp.

>

>I think the Seals, Stamps, Top

>lists all have added "fun"

>and a less clinical environment

>to this site. In

>the final analysis, it's a

>much bigger picture that should

>lead us to a hiring

>decision.

 

Same here. I'll admit to getting a bit of a thrill when I first noticed my reviews were getting the credibility stamp, but that's about the only notice I give 'em. The only time that would differ is if a less than great review from a credible reviewer runs counter to potentially false positive reviews.

 

As for the HooBoy seal, well it just doesn't matter to me much. I have hired several guys that have it but I've hired far more that don't. And some with the seal I won't be hiring at all. (I'm a top, why would I hire Sean Armstrong? Well, maybe for a 3-way with the lovely Casey.)

 

In the end, though, I'm going to make up my own mind who to hire as I always have. BUT, thanks to this site I haven't had a single negative experience with an escort since I started "shopping smarter". And this site has led me to meet some incredibly great guys. (You all know who you are!)

[Guest regulation]

To the Moderator(s):

 

The following post may or may not duplicate one that I sent earlier today. I had a slight problem with that post which may have caused the post to be submitted before I was finished writing it. Since posts are no longer added to the board automatically, it's impossible for me to tell whether it was actually submitted or not. If it was, please forgive the duplication.

 

>>I know only

>>that for a long time

>>HB recommended BB to visitors

>>here as a credible and

>>trustworthy person. In those

>>days HB and the posters

>>who echo everything he says

>>like a Greek Chorus couldn't

>>seem to praise BB enough.

>> Now, he and his

>>followers are telling us that

>>the same guy is evil

>>incarnate. What's going on?

>

>More drama words....Greek Chorus, evil incarnate.

> I for one must

>not be able to carry

>a tune.

 

 

For the benefit of those who aren't familiar with ancient Greek theater, a Chorus was not a musical group but a group of players who served to focus the attention of the audience on the plot and on the themes that the playwright wanted to expound. They existed to repeat and reinforce what the playwright wanted to express.

 

 

While I

>have great respect for HB

>and what he has done

>with this site I have

>not always agreed with him

 

With what have you disagreed?

 

>or echoed BB praise on

>this board. I do

>recall lots of praise for

>BB as an escort or

>a "person" while in the

>escort role. I may

>be wrong but I don't

>recall him being given credit

>for credibility and trustworthiness as

>a civilian.

>

 

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making. Would you really recommend the hiring of someone whom you considered UNtrustworthy?

 

 

>

>>My own opinion is that the

>>distinction between the "good" escorts

>>and the "bad" escorts that

>>HB and others have tried

>>to create is largely an

>>illusion, and that in this

>>case the illusion is fraying.

>> It will be interesting

>>to see whether any of

>>these guys is finally ready

>>to face reality.

>

>I think this confuses the issue

>even further. The distinction

>between good, bad and everything

>in between regarding "escorts" is

>the very purpose of this

>site. What's illusionary about

>that? Escorting and clienting

>(is that a word?) is

>all about illusion during the

>experience. This has been

>discussed here many times.

>The good escort providing the

>illusion of a BF, a

>lover or a hot-for-your-bod sex

>crazed AF boy for the

>night. The client's illusion

>that the escort actually wants

>to be with us, naked

>and sweaty. While I'm

>sure there are exceptions and

>indeed some escorts do enjoy

>the company of some of

>their clients, the bottom line

>is if they saw us

>in a bar they wouldn't

>start drewling and figuring out

>a way to get us

>home and into their bed.

> The reviews grade that

>illusion plus sexual skill, looks,

>etc.. I don't think

>the reviews are intended to

>be taken as the basis

>for choosing a life partner.

>

>

 

I think it is you who are confusing the issue. The subject of the reviews here is not illusions but facts: whether the escort possesses the physical attributes he advertises, whether he performs the services he advertises for the price he advertises, whether he treats clients with courtesy and respect. In some cases, the review discusses whether the escort is good at creating the illusion of intimacy and desire that some clients want from an encounter. This is also a fact.

 

The illusion to which I referred is an illusion in which some clients indulge to the effect that the positive feelings escorts express toward them in order to get their business are real rather than feigned. Some visitors here use this illusion to label some escorts as "good" while others who don't want to or aren't good at projecting it are labeled "bad." To me, that is the significance of the "Seal of Approval." I think BB recently posted some comments from other escorts who have been highly praised here which suggest just how unreal this distinction is.

 

My point is a simple one. Let's focus on characteristics that are objectively verifiable. The BB episode shows the danger of focussing on other things. In short, let's be consumers rather than fans.

[Justice]

>I've actually never seen

>anything truly damning in the

>escorts only forum, and now

>thanks to FollyBoy, there is

>no escort forum.

 

That saddens me and makes me more than a little angry. x( :'(

[Guest]

>>Granted, he may

>>have hired them anonymously originally,

>>but once he was personally

>>involved with them, there was

>>a danger of the relationship

>>affecting this judgment, and the

>>"seal of approval" from affecting

>>the relationship

 

>I think you may have the

>order backwards. Hoo may

>have developed a friendship with

>escorts he has seen AFTER

>he has reviewed them and

>provided the Seal

 

This reminds me a bit of when I was a bank teller as a teen-ager. We were forbidden to accept gifts from customers, ever, even customers we'd known for years. I remember at the time thinking "Well, I can see why we shouldn't be able to accept gifts from new customers, but why not from old Mrs. Smith whom I've known all this time?" The answer didn't come to me until I became older and wiser. Even if you have an established relationship with someone, you're more likely to bend the rules with someone who gives you little favors, no matter how small. I realize this is an escort review site, not a bank. And HB may be so charming that some escorts just love having him as a friend, regardless of how his site may promote or detract from their business.

Nonetheless, having some sort of an intimate relationship with an escort is likely to have an effect on how he reacts when he gets a review on that escort, or, more specifically, how he reacts to the reviewer. Will he be able to totally accept the fact that perhaps someone's experience differed from his?

Finally, not everyone who looks at the reviews also checks out this message board. In fact, I doubt that most do. It's one thing to disclose one's relationship in this message board, but another to disclose it on the reviews themselves...

[Guest CZ]

Thank you, Unicorn!

 

I wish I had put the matter as clearly (and kindly) as you just did. No reasonable person could quarrel with the good sense and fairness of your remarks.

 

Even so, don't be surprised if the usual Hooboy apologists now demand to know your 'agenda' or the destination of your journey or certified proof that you are not Kyle Matthews or whatever-- all the while sidestepping (as does their hero) this simple fact: that the more Hooboy 'personalizes' his presence on the site--in ways that range from the merely silly ('the top ten escorts of 99,' inane chitchat about rock groups & TV shows & inappropriate disclosures about his own private life) to serious (clear conflicts of interest in dealing with certain escorts & clients)--the more he loses credibility as a sober and even-handed moderator of what goes on here.

[Bilbo]

The Greek Chorus was a lot like a musical group, really. They talked in unison (which is a lot like singing together in unison), they occaisionally actually sang together and they certainly danced together. Although they sometimes served to show what the general populace of a place, or the members of an army, etc. thought as a group - like fictional polling as a part of theater, not all that different from when one sees a newspaper headline in an old movie - their main event was to rehash the philosophical arguments and events before and to foreshadow those after their interludes. So, although in a great many ways Regulation is perfectly correct about them, in some others he needs a little amplification here, and in such a way as to make the youngsters hereabouts more likely to watch these plays when they have a chance, rather than the citizens of Athens who were requiered by law to sit there and watch them.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Well, thank you, CZ -- finally!

>

>I wish I had put the

>matter as clearly (and kindly)

>as you just did.

 

I wish you had too and a little earlier... but I'm happy you finally voiced your view in a context that makes known what you really seek from HooBoy.

 

>No reasonable person could quarrel

>with the good sense and

>fairness of your remarks.

>

 

I don't find anything unreasonable about Unicorn's position either... it's a valid point of view. (So maybe there is hope for me being a reasonable person :-) )

 

 

>...this simple fact: that the

>more Hooboy 'personalizes' his presence

>on the site--in ways that

>range from the merely silly ...

>... to serious (clear

>conflicts of interest in dealing

>with certain escorts & clients)--the

>more he loses credibility as

>a sober and even-handed moderator

>of what goes on here.

>

 

What I fail to comprehend is your implicit assumption that an invisible moderator working behind a curtain in a Wizard of Oz fashion leads to a sense of satisfaction that there is nothing that you would deem objectionable going on behind the scenes .

 

HooBoy's interaction with the community gives us insight into him and his philosophy for running this site. We are both free to form our opinions and make our assessments. Also implicit to your complaint is that an unscrupulous moderator compromises the integrity of the site -- I agree. Where we disagree is our assessment of HooBoy's scruples. I think HooBoy has made a few mistakes and he has taken some lumps publicly for it. I think he thinks that too and if he had them do over, things would be done differently -- my speculation only.

 

I take your and Unicorn's point that a moderator acting at arms length in moderating the site is one way (no the only one though)to gain a sense of credibility for the site integrity. But how can we ever really know this... we are ignorant of what goes on behind the scenes here or at other sights and while ignorance may be bliss, it is still ignorance. I prefer some knowledge about who is running the show so I can make assessments and temper my judgments accordingly. In general, I'm comfortable with HooBoy and it seems you are not -- so we make our judgments accordingly. Would you really be happier with some anonymous moderator pulling the strings while behind a curtain??

[Guest CZ]

>

>I take your and Unicorn's point

>that a moderator acting

>at arms length in moderating

>the site is one way

> (no the only one

>though)to gain a sense of

>credibility for the site integrity.

> But how can we

>ever really know this... we

>are ignorant of what goes

>on behind the scenes here

>or at other sights and

>while ignorance may be bliss,

>it is still ignorance.

>I prefer some knowledge about

>who is running the show

>so I can make assessments

>and temper my judgments accordingly.

> In general, I'm comfortable

>with HooBoy and it seems

>you are not -- so

>we make our judgments accordingly.

> Would you really be

>happier with some anonymous moderator

>pulling the strings while behind

>a curtain??

 

 

I have no idea if I'd be happier with that. As you yourself point out, how could I? I DO know, however, that after two years plus of observing how Hooboy does things--judging from his own words and actions and the (admittedly unverified) claims of others--I have to conclude that he is manipulative, self-seeking, and often less than honest. (Let me say at once that this 'dishonesty' is shown mostly in his attempts to ignore, distort or suppress facts and/or opinions that discomfit him, not in outright lying. The man isn't unscrupulous; he just can't rise above his own social & emotional investment in what's happening.)

 

Human nature? A failing we all share sooner or later? Yes, but do we have to have so MUCH of it from someone in his position?

 

It may well be that the way he chose to set up this site makes even-handed moderation a virtual impossibility--especially for anyone who wants to be right in the thick of things the site deals with.

 

How many times have we heard that the formal reviews here are really a crock--virtually useless to anyone who can't 'read between the lines' or develop keen insights into the various reviewers' personalities? Well, those who say that are right. And those who say that the real (indeed, only) value of the site derives from the message boards are right, too.

 

Maybe the two should be combined somehow. I know I gather (& respect) more information about who's been naughty & who's been nice from ephemeral remarks in the Lounge & Deli than I ever could from 'reviews'--most of which are contrived and agenda-driven(even when the reviewer is trying painfully to be honest) and often rather embarrassing to read as well. Why not just let people say what they will (with the lightest, least invasive, of moderation), and let their statements be vetted by the many, many others who agree with/disagee with/or have questions about what's been posted. In the long run, you're far more likely to arrive at the truth that way--if, indeed, there can be any such absolute with regard to the most subjective human interaction there is! To my mind, the 'excited utterance' of a poster, proven or disproven in the fullness of time, is much likelier to represent 'truthful reporting' than rehearsed, 'composed' testimony that can't be cross-examined. (Anyone who fears that slander/libel will run wild this way should remember that it's happening right & left in the review section every day--just at a much more stately pace.)

 

The only thing needed to make the forum do the work of the review section is a really, really good search engine (and inputting to same.) Maybe the current search engine can handle it, but I wouldn't know. (And of course you need archives that don't vanish mysteriously at regular intervals.) Surely there would be enough work in sorting, tagging, cross-referencing & otherwise preparing the data for reliable & comprehensive retrieval to keep three moderators busy! Of course, in this scheme of things, the moderator's role would be rather less glamorous than it currently is. But that discussion should probably be taken up in a separate thread.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

CZ,

 

I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion with you -- wish it could have been sooner, but now is good.

 

Although we seem to be in basic diagreement, I share some of your views too. I perceive limitations in the review process as well and I know HooBoy does too and is working to improve the quality and content. At this point can HooBoy do anything to mollify you discontent? Probably not. Can these review limitations be overcome ultimately? Never completely, I think, primarily because of the anonymity we all prize -- it makes for easy abuse of the system. Will anonymity be abandoned? Not in our lifetime or the site's.

 

I too have wished on several occasions for a way to tie in the message board comments with the reviews. I think the comments an important adjunct to the review and in many cases of more import. I have also wished on occasion for the the capability to sort reviews by reviewer, recommendation, speciality (top...) physical charcteristics, rates, etc. This would make the reviews much more user friendly .. But none of these are as important as tying in the board comments to the reviews. To accomplish any of these would probably require a significant (and costly) upgrade to the software. Maybe in time it will come.

 

As for HooBoy, I prefer to deal with the devil I know rather than the one I don't. At least I'm aware of what is going on and can voice my concerns. But its best not to start the dialog with a thumb in the eye -- it draws the focus away from the other points in the discussion.