Jump to content

Matt's Reply to the Rhetoric to the Rebuttal to the Review

Guest Excellenttop
This topic is 8425 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Guest Excellenttop

I wanted to clarify a couple of things.


1. John was a pseudonym as was the name for the boyfriend. Discretion is my 1st... well my 2nd priority :)


2. I tried to be as dispassionate in my account as possible so as to contrast,the negative nature of the reviewer.


3. I also wanted to make the point that if we don't get along on the phone, it's probably not a great idea to get together. I really am only looking for good experiences and I try to do my best.


4. I'd like to thank Hoo Boy for providing this forum.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest alanm

You must have been very surprised by the amount of speculation over the possible use of real names. Because you used the name John, I never suspected that it was a real name. Thanks for posting. It's good to get the real story after all the speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read Matt's response. The names are in quotes when they first appear. Perhaps these were added recently? As it now reads, it is obvious that John and Frank are not the real names.


I think this is one of those cases where the escort's response says a lot more than the negative review. Even if Matt isn't being entirely honest (not that I have any reason to doubt him, I'm just saying "if"), his response is very level headed, fair, and also sounds plausible. The review, on the other hand, seems overly emotional and strange. Some of the things in the review don't make much sense to me, making the review much less credible to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest blankman

archaic torso of Apollo


Am I the only one who upon seeing Matt's picture thinks:


du muss dein Leben ändern (Rilke)




(apologies for shameless obscurantism)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I just read Matt's response.

>The names are in quotes

>when they first appear.

>Perhaps these were added recently?

> As it now reads,

>it is obvious that John

>and Frank are not the

>real names.


Yes, the quotes were added later. I think Hooboy fessed up to doing it himself. Since they were added later, the claim that they were fake all along must be taken with a certain degree of faith towards Matt. Although the name "John" itself causes one to imagine that it referred to an anonymous john (not to someone named John), one has to ask oneself why the names weren't put in quotes to begin with. The late timing of this explanation is something else that might make one go "hmmmm." Matt's explanation came several days (more than a week??) after the names were put in quotes. One might deduce that the quotes were added without his knowledge, and he became aware of the controversy some time later.


Although I think most people can see that the reviewer in question seems to have some serious emotional problems, I do hope his privacy was respected. Although escorts are not priests or doctors, I think most of us expect them to be discreet. One can rebut a review without identifying one's clients in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, knowing that someone named John from Baltimore hired an escort isn't particularly revealing anyway, though I suppose if one lived in Baltimore and knew someone named John who was visiting New York at that time and that person happened to read this website, John's identity could have been compromised. Oh -- perhaps Matt was with John Waters!!! [Just kidding, Mr. Waters' lawyers. Actually, Mr. Waters would probably not mind, come to think of it. :) ]


Still, I agree it's best to always maintain clients' confidentiality here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...