Jack in DC review

[Guest blankman]

Hmmm, a little bell is going off in my head making me wonder if today's review of Jack (DC) is bogus.

 

Two things:

 

(1) The reviewer is a first-timer AND he lists his handle as "Tyson". If you go to Jack's facelink site he lists himself as "Jack in Tysons" which I take to mean near Tyson's corner in Northern Virginia. Coincidence?

 

(2) Reviewer says he met Jack through Jack's website (in the upper part of the review), which is given as a facelink page (do people really meet that way?) but then in the narrative he says he met him in an AOL chatroom. Which was it?

 

Whaddyallthink?

 

(apologies to Mr. Tyson should he prove real )

[Guest andreas]

>Whaddyallthink?

>

 

I think this thread is unnecessary and unwarranted.

 

>(apologies to Mr. Tyson should he prove real )

 

PROVE? To whom does he have to prove anything? You? Hooboy? He certainly has nothing to prove to me. It is a review - a persons opinion of an event. Nothing more, nothing less. Granted it is a new first time reveiwer for a new escort on this board. But I would like to believe that the educated users of this site can draw their own conclusions and do not need to post threads second guessing the validity of reviews. Nor does anybody have anything to prove.

 

I know the members of this site have better things to do than second guess reviews. How about trying to maintain the sense of community that this site orignally created and that has been severely damaged in the past few months.

 

-Andreas Mikeals

[link:www.andreasmikeals.com|http://www.andreasmikeals.com]

703.304.2966

[Guest blankman]

Oooh, that was quite harsh, Andreas. I really don't think I deserved that. You didn't object to such posts in the past. Why now, if I may ask, are you suddenly so quick to?

 

There have been many instances when people have posted calling reviews into question. I was not under the impression that this behavior was inappropriate and I for one do not believe that it is inappropriate. Nor do I believe that my post is in any way to be compared with the kind of nastiness and idiocy which has recently pervaded this board.

 

As a frequent visitor to the DC area I have a real interest in deciding whether a review of a new escort from that area is bogus. I posed the question to the board for advice on the matter.

 

I would be interested in finding out whether others share Andreas' views, in which case, I will cease airing my concerns about the validity of reviews.

 

As for my use of the word "prove" I did not issue this as a challenge for anyone to prove anything. I used "prove" in the quite normal sense of "turn out to be".

[Guest Rastignac]

I'm with you Blankman. Your message was not hostile in any way, and closes with an offered olive branch. Andy's remarks in reply were intemperate to say the least, and also way off base. There are plenty of fake reviews out there, and part of the value of this forum is that it affords a way to identify them.

[Donnie]

There was nothing wrong with your post and Andreas' anger seems a bit misplaced & unwarranted.

[Guest bottomboykk]

Ditto.

[+ nycman]

I have to stick with the pack on this one. I had no problem with blankman's post other than the fact that I didn't believe he had enough evidence to support his "bogus review" assertion. When I read the review I saw a few minor yellow flags but no glaring red ones. Opinions vary and that’s certainly not a crime in these parts....last time I checked.

[Guest regulation]

Blank, I'm sure you can guess what I'm going to say before you get done reading these words. This site is, or should be, for consumers. What are the first words you see when you access this site? They're not "Who knows whether any of the stuff here is real so use your own judgment," are they? No. They are "Honest in our Judgments and Truthful in our Reporting." If any consumer has reason to suspect that any information posted here about sellers is false, he or she should speak up and speak up quickly. I can understand why some escorts might have a problem with this. But then they have a problem with the very basis of this site.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

Apparently Andreas woke up this morning with this panties in a twist. Pull it out of your crack Andy and you'll feel much better.

[+ nycman]

>Apparently Andreas woke up this morning

>with this panties in a

>twist. Pull it out of

>your crack Andy and you'll

>feel much better.

 

I knew we could count on you FFF to cut to the chase!

[Guest jizzdepapi]

Andreas' response

 

if u check out Andreas' recent reviews, there's a "satisfactory" review which is fairly damning in its praise. Andreas posted a response, which sounded reasonable to me.

 

the reviewer was pretty insulting to Andreas. i can understand why he might respond as he did to this thread. maybe another day he would respond differently or not at all.

 

jizz

[Guest andreas]

>Apparently Andreas woke up this morning with this panties in a twist. Pull it out of your crack Andy and you'll feel much better.

 

I expected most of the responses to my post would not be in my favor. And that's absolutely acceptable. We all have our opionions and are free to express them, as I did.

 

Two points:

 

1) I apologize to Blankman if it seems I zeroed in on his thread. It was just coincidence.

 

2) FFF - Before you make a comment about a post, you should read the entire message including the time stamp. I replied YESTERDAY (not today) during the AFTERNOON (not in the morning). But thanks for your concern on how I feel, FFF. It's greatly appreciated:-)

 

-Andreas Mikeals

[link:www.andreasmikeals.com|http://www.andreasmikeals.com]

703.304.2966

[Barry]

Yes Blankman, Andreas's response did seem a bit harsh but it may have been a reaction to some of what's been going on here lately. Not an excuse, more of a possible reason. I still recall a strong thread coming down rather hard on an escort based on the way he worded his AOL profile. I have valued some of the investigative reports that have been posted here. I just hope we all don't get to the point of analysis/paralysis. I just went back and reread my first review, almost 2 years ago. I never would have written it in the same way today. I think we learn with time.

 

As for the review. No flags went up for me. I wouldn't hire the guy based on only one review from a first time reviewer. But the "Tyson" handle could possibly be because the reviewer lives in Tyson Corner. His review does not refer to a hotel. Could have been a call to his house and if so, hiring someone local makes sense.

 

As far as the web site/chat room reference. The "where found" is a form field and the only chat room selection is AOL chat room. The reviewer only mentions a chat room (not AOL). There are others out there. And Jack does show a hotmail, not an AOL address.

 

All in all, I would reserve judgement on this one. I would hate to chase off a prospective new reviewer by analyzing everything he says but also reserve a level of caution with a new escort or new reviewer. Hopefully we will hear more about Jack as time goes on.

[Guest LG320126]

Personally I think your response to the review was in good taste and you were certainly entitled to make it.

[CT Dick]

I agree.

 

There is anther thread going about escort dress. I can understand the issue if they are going out together. But REALLY ! How long ago was it that people dressed up to walk through a hotel lobby, even a nice one?

 

We are such a casual society that you can see people walking through the best hotel in jeans, shorts, etc. MA'd outfit sounded fine to me.

[Guest blankman]

Since I'm the one who started this all maybe I should now chime in. I hope this can all end peacefully.

 

First, Andreas, apology accepted. I thought you might be attacking me because you know "Jack" personally, seeing as how you are from the same area, in which case I don't see why you couldn't just say, "look I know this guy and he's great". In any case I realize that's none of my business. I also realize that from the escort's point of view my suspiciousness might seem nasty.

 

Signs posted in banks tell us that when the teller asks you for a photo ID, you are not supposed to be offended by what might seem to be an automatic attitude of mistrust: "prove to me you are who you say you are." We are supposed to believe that they are doing this "to protect both of us." I don't know if this is a fair analogy, but I know that even so, I'm still a little put off: Can't you tell that I'm a NICE person just by looking at me??? Unfortunately, when it comes to reading reviews, we have no photo ID to call on and we have to decide whether to believe the review or not based on intuitions.

 

A previous poster remarked that this site is populated by highly suspicious individuals and I count myself among them. Let me reiterate: I may be suspicious but I am not unreasonable.

 

It would be a nice world if we could all trust one another but if recent events on this site have shown anything it is that an attitude of suspicion is hardly unjustified.

 

Second, allow me to say that upon reflection I am less inclined to view the review as a fake, given what Barry has said.

 

Third, I still maintain that everyone should feel free to voice concerns about possibly false reviews. I agree with Regulation that this forum is primarily for the use of clients/consumers and functions as an information exchange. But for this very reason, it is equally legitimate to question such concerns when they come up and I am quite ready to be convinced of error in judgment by reasonable arguments made politely.

 

If anything, I would like to see more posts like mine. My guess, from reading many messages on this board, is that many of the old-timers have grown weary of voicing concerns about potentially false reviews, since they seem to arise daily. Overanalysis may be useless, as one poster put it, and tiresome. Some have even questioned whether the reviews are worth reading.

 

Personally I find this latter idea absurd; this is like saying just because the Bible is not literally true there is nothing to be gained from reading it, and reflection and discussion are of little value.

 

(And yes, I know that this isn't the "Bible" of escorts, but in that quip "Bible" is used as a symbol for a container of all knowledge, not in the literal sense that I am using "Bible" above.)

 

A recent survey conducted at a large insurance company in my city revealed that a substantial majority of its employees thought that the Moon Landing was a hoax and that no person had ever walked on the moon.

 

Evidently we live in an age of "Fact or Fiction: You Decide."

 

Because what passes for "news" on this site is inherently suspect, we have no choice but to interpret everything with caution. I hope that we can all discuss reasonably what may qualify as true. Otherwise, why bother having a forum at all?