Anyone read Matt Top's response today?

[Guest bluboy]

Can someone tell me what the hell Matt was responding to. It was a very good review. The guy left out some of the details like the mess but I would not hold that against him. It seems a little disengenuous on Matt's part to bring all that out in light of the fact that the review was so favourable. Have I misunderstood? Has Matt lost it? Or has Hooboy lost it and Matt's response was actually posted in response to a different review? Blu

[Guest bottomboykk]

If you read down the list a bit, you'll see the review he responded to. The response was placed in the wrong place in the list.

[+ Lucky]

Matt's response gave much more detail than I needed!

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

Hmmmmmm. Veeeeeerrry interesting (as Colonel Klink would say).

 

After much thought and deliberation, I'm leaning towards Matt's version of events. There's no way to know for sure, but Matt's response smells right.

 

Let's vote on it ladies.

[Traveller]

When I was with Matt, he was way cool...not a nutjob at all. I go with him because I spent a lot of time with him (see review), and for a Sunday afternoon, I had far too many senses working to misread someone that much.

 

Later.

[Guest Rastignac]

The client/reviewer strikes me as being a bit high-strung, but there is a nasty subtext to much of Matt's response which reminds me of similar exchanges involving him on the Muscle Service board. I'm not sure I believe all the graphic details which he alleges happened during the encounter. Even if true, the details are not necessary. They seem meant to embarrass the client, and frankly make the escort's response less credible to me. The same goes for revealing the client's name, his hometown and the name of his former boyfriend. The lady doth protest too much.

[+ nycman]

>Let's vote on it ladies.

 

If only there were some “dangling Chads” around here...then maybe this whole voting thing would be more fun....

 

....I have to pull Matt’s lever (or is it put my stylet in his box? I wish! What state are we in anyways) and vote for Matt on this one. The scenario reads like a case profile of a depressed weirdo who went looking for love in the wrong place and then got a severe case of PODS (post-orgasmic dysphoric syndrome).

 

It's at times like this that I don't envy these rent-boys.

[Guest MrB]

NYCMan is quite right, and my vote would go to Matt too, though I've never met him--and yes, I really want to :-) Having said that, it's also true that his response had a bit more detail than it needed... only Matt would know why; he doesn't strike me as the type that would want to embarrass a client… maybe a little frustrated or upset. He’s only human…

 

 

MrB

[Donnie]

I agree with Rastignac. There is a nasty subtext to Matt's response. That, and the unnecessary revealing of some personal details of the client, indicate a predisposition toward indiscretion and condescension. It's that kind of behavior that makes some of us hesitant to write a negative review.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>Hmmmmmm. Veeeeeerrry interesting (as Colonel Klink would say)<

 

I think it was Artie Johnson who would say that on Laugh-In (but he'd be dressed as a german soldier when he would do the bit.) The whole running gag was, "Very interesting..... but stupid." The word 'stupid' would change to whatever word was pertinent to the preceeding skit. I know nobody gives a shit, but....

[Traveller]

Silly, it wasn't Arte, it was Lady Bird. She said it every time she saw a billboard. She got her husband to tear them down by yanking on his Johnson.

 

Later.

[Guest]

Well, the reviewer seems to be a disturbed person. Even if all of the events he described occurred as he stated, his self-chosen handle "Never again with an escort" indicates he's taken one negative experience and both personalized it and generalized it to other escorts. There's certainly a great deal of paranoia one can see in this guy. His writing style is also very bizarre, and, although one might think he was just trying to be "cutesy," I think it's more likely ther's something wrong upstairs. I believe one can conclude this before even reading the response.

On the other hand, there was no reason for Matt Top to respond into so much detail. So you had a disturbed or mentally retarded client. Explain briefly what happened and get on with it. You've got plenty of great reviews up there and a good reputation. There was no need to embarass the guy further with details. I didn't feel the response was professional. It reminds me of the Chinese proverb "Never write a letter when you're angry."

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>Silly, it wasn't Arte, it was Lady Bird<

 

I once bussed a table she had eaten at in a restaraunt in Austin Texas. The Lady was a Pig.

[Guest BeercanThick]

In the words of the great philosopher, my mother...

 

Less is more.

 

Matt's response would have been much more powerful had he been

brief.

 

And now to take my own advice...

[Guest CZ]

Oh, it's OK to write it, but sometimes not a good idea to send it (while you're still angry, that is.)

 

Re the excesses in Matt's response: assuming Hooboy solicited it (and read it carefully), why didn't he edit out the indiscretions (i.e. the names) before posting it?

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>>Hmmmmmm. Veeeeeerrry interesting (as Colonel Klink would say)<

>

>I think it was Artie Johnson

>who would say that on

>Laugh-In (but he'd be dressed

>as a german soldier when

>he would do the bit.)

 

You're absolutely right. I had the Nazi image in my head and that made me think of "Hogan's Heroes". The line from HH was "I hear noTHING! I see noTHING!" but I can't remember the name of that character - it wasn't Colonel Klink. It was the fat guy.

 

As for Matt going into great detail, that didn't bother me in the least - I thought the details gave it more credibility. And frankly, if someone slams someone and misrepresents events, the gloves come off.

[Guest bottomboykk]

It was Sgt. Schultz who said "I know noTHING!".

[Guest]

>Re the excesses in Matt's response:

>assuming Hooboy solicited it (and

>read it carefully), why didn't

>he edit out the indiscretions

>(i.e. the names) before posting

>it?

 

I agree. Revealing a client's name is inexcuseable. I would never hire an escort who revealed a client's name. If we allow clients' names to be published in responses to reviews, clients with less than excellent experiences will be intimidated into not sending reports on their experiences. Of course, the effect will be to have only glowing reviews on everybody. Not terribly useful.

[Rick Munroe]

>If I wanted your opinion I'd

>take your dick out of

>my mouth.

 

Is that a joke about a dyslexic cocksucker?

Shouldn't it be your dick in the other person's mouth?

Or should it be my dick in yours? Or in the other person's?

(Whoever gives the smoothest deepest head can have it)

(If both are equally smooth & deep, the swallower gets the prize)

(Yes, Rick very horny on Tuesday night)

(What's with all the parentheses? Who am I, Matt of Vancouver?)

(OK, I'll 69 with Matt)

[Guest alanm]

Yes, he went on too long in his response. However, I never thought he was giving real names. He called the client John in quotation marks. Finally, you have to wonder why the client hired him in the first place. How can make a judgement on escorts in general after only one bad experience?

 

On a lighter note, Lady Bird Johnson a pig? Not the person who started the national highway beautification program! But, while

LBJ had major fault, I would take him as president every time

over both Bushs, Reagan, Nixon etc.

[Justice]

>(Yes, Rick very horny on Tuesday

>night)

 

LOL! It sounds like Derek's gonna get lucky tonight! }> (Either that or you're gonna have to take a VERY cold shower! ;-))

[Guest italbear]

>If you read down the list

>a bit, you'll see the

>review he responded to. The

>response was placed in the

>wrong place in the list.

>

 

I was with this guy awhile back and he's NOT that great...yes his body is awesome -- but his attitude is NOT. I can't understand how guys think he's a nice guy -- he's a cocky SOB.

I would have never think of him as one of the BEST ESCORTS of 2000 -- he doesn't kiss at all...he's very rough...puts you in head locks even when you don't want them -- and slaps you too...

regarding his response...he laughing all the way to the bank..move on fellas...

[+ bigjoey]

i've read matt's postings over the years on this board and muscleservice and found them intelligent. unfortunately, when i am in new york, he seems to be in california (like memorial day weekend). he is on my to-hire list not only because of his great website and physical condition but because i find his attitude professional, mature and showing some smarts. my vote goes to matt.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>But,

>while

>LBJ had major fault, I would

>take him as president every

>time

>over both Bushs, Reagan, Nixon etc.

 

 

I smell a Democrat.

[Guest Rastignac]

There were no quotation marks around those names yesterday.