Are messages censored on this website?!

[Guest NYGuy]

My message about the Gaiety’s JT almost mugging me disappeared... Assuming that the message hasn't been deliberately deleted, I'm posting it again below since I feel the subject would be of interest to the many Gaiety customers who also frequent this website. I hope my posting will stay put this time around and I REALLY hope messages on this website aren’t censored!!

 

Here goes:

 

“I almost got mugged by a dancer from the Gaiety! The dancer in question is JT. It was the first time I saw him in the Gaiety and he seemed like a friendly enough guy. His nicely muscular body appealed to me, especially his butt, which does “stand out”. We agreed on EVERYTHING before we proceeded to have a private. In the private I made two unfortunate discoveries:

 

-When I saw the guy in better light than what was available at the Gaiety, I was surprised to see how many wrinkles he had on his face. That gave me the impression that he’s older than the average Gaiety dancer age, probably mid-thirties.

 

-But I digress. I didn’t stop much at his face since he had other “attributes” to make up for any shortcomings there. I wish I did… Once we started the private, I was dealing with a different person. The beaming smile disappeared and whenever I suggested doing any of the things we’d agreed on, his response was a monotonous “I don’t do that!” When I showed my dismay at what was obviously turning into a rip-off, his face turned red and he started dressing up while mumbling swear words. He then demanded the full amount of money that we’d agreed on in a way that left me in no doubt that he’d inflict physical harm on me if I don’t comply. Fearing the worst, I gave him the money. It all took 10 minutes… I wasn’t even fully undressed.

 

Steer clear from this guy, he has a mean streak that makes the likes of Kirk –who I fell prey to also- look like Mother Theresa by comparison!

 

It’s almost traumatic to remember this incident, but a friend of mine suggested that I post it on this website to warn others. I only wish I’d known about this website before, since a quick search on JT pulled a message by another customer warning about him, posted a week ago."

[Losgatan]

NYGuy,

 

HooBoy pulled the first version of this post because it contained an unpublished, personal telephone number -- one of the very few don'ts on this board.

 

Other's include revealing an escort's real name or other unpublished personal information.

 

Please check the terms of service next time you log in.

[Guest gilbie]

yes he is definitely another sheep in wolf's clothing along the same ilk as kirk. i am going to have a talk with denise about this new con artist. it amazes me how nothing changes. it is the same tired routine with a lot of these gay-for-pay tricksters. they will lie and say anything to get you in the room. he is friends with colt who is another of waste of time.

[Guest NYGuy]

Thanks for the explanation Losgatan. However, I fail to see how it applies to my posting since I mentioned no personal information about any dancers. Probably one of the responses to my posting had such information, but my thread was deleted before I got to read any.

 

gilbie, I share your frustration and I totally agree that something should be done about the likes of JT. After all, we don't toil to make money only to be ripped-off by these cold-blooded con-artists. Actually, the main reason of my posting was to get those who were conned by JT to share their experiences and maybe encourage each other to take action in the form of reporting him to the Gaiety's management before he gets the chance of conning other customers. In this context, I want to thank ready4boi for posting his own experience with the guy, albeit in a separate thread.

 

I'll call the Gaiety and I'll complain to the manager and I urge everyone who fell prey to this guy to do the same. With so many complaints, the manager has to react, and I'm sure she will.

[Losgatan]

It was the revelation of Denise's private line that was the problem.

[Paul Revere]

I think that all of us regular and semi-regular Gaiety patrons should have Denise' private number. We could help her stay away from the con artists.

 

I know that Denise now has a computer, so I hope she checks this site.

 

And Losgatan, if only one response had inaapropriate infomation, why was the whole thread taken down? Why not just delete the offending response, and leave the rest of the thread in tact?

[Losgatan]

The problem was in the initial post. And HooBoy can't delete that without taking down all the responses -- they'd become orphaned posts.

[Guest NYGuy]

The original message is the one I posted at the top of this thread and it obviously contains no reference to Denise's personal phone number! Any mention of this number must've been in a subsequent posting which could, therefore, have been individually deleted without leaving the rest of the posts "orphaned".

 

What's curious is that I could dig up Denise's personal phone number from the archive on this very website!! Search for the thread titled "Donovan/Young Blood's next appearance at the Gaiety?" and you'll find Denise's number as well as the Gaiety's general number listed there. Apparently it wasn't a big deal then...!

[+ deej]

>The original message is the one

>I posted at the top

>of this thread and it

>obviously contains no reference to

>Denise's personal phone number! Any

>mention of this number must've

>been in a subsequent posting

>which could, therefore, have been

>individually deleted without leaving the

>rest of the posts "orphaned".

 

The phone number was in message number 2 on this thread. You are correct. Every other message was in reply to that.

 

Deleting just the questionable message would have left replies to that message (some quoting it), which just wouldn't make sense. And HooBoy would have had to take the time to carefully read each message, individually, to see whether the questionable information was repeated and do the deletion steps individually.

 

I only vaguely remember the steps to delete a message in this software, but it's roughly the same (about a dozen or so mouse clicks) for a thread as for an individual message. Major pain in the neck to police individual messages.

 

It wouldn't be a problem if people would exercise a little self-restraint and common sense.

 

>Apparently

>it wasn't a big deal

>then...!

 

It was never "right".

 

This site wasn't under attack by a loose canon then.

[Guest Sexpert]

I didn’t know that mentioning Denise’s work number (it’s still the Gaiety’s number, but it’s Denise’s direct phone line), would result in dropping the whole thread… The phone number is indeed easily found in previous postings on this website and is easily obtained when you phone the Gaiety’s general phone line!

 

Anyhow, Paul Revere is right, dropping the offending posting (mine!) would’ve been a more reasonable handling of this situation, especially since it wouldn’t have broken the narration of the messages under the thread in question – I read the few messages posted before the thread was dropped. I find it a pity that an important thread like that was dropped, particularly since NYO gave his take on the issue. Being the reliable reference he is on everything Gaiety, NYO's opinions -whether for or against- lend credibility to the topic at hand and make more people take notice. And this (people taking notice) is the main purpose of such a posting aiming to alert other customers from potential trouble, which is one of the main benefits of a popular website like this one.

 

Just my 2 cents..

[Losgatan]

Deej,

 

Thanks for clarifying this. I was trying to be helpful -- but probably should have just kept my mouth shut since I apparently didn't have all the facts. :-(

[+ deej]

>I didn’t know that mentioning Denise’s

>work number (it’s still the

>Gaiety’s number, but it’s Denise’s

>direct phone line), would result

>in dropping the whole thread…

>The phone number is indeed

>easily found in previous postings

>on this website and is

>easily obtained when you phone

>the Gaiety’s general phone line!

 

Is that number listed in the NYC phone book for public availability? If so then, yes, it was OK. It is publicly available information. Somehow, I doubt Denise's direct number is listed. I'm surprised to hear the number is "easily found" when calling the Gaiety's general purpose phone line but that does not make it freely distributable.

 

Having it posted before doesn't make it *right* to post it now, either.

 

HooBoy rarely removes individual messages because of all the screaming and histrionics that ensue (just like this thread). If he'd removed just that one message, this thread would be full of bitching and moaning about what a bastard he is for censoring that message. He's in a can't win position. People scream no matter what he does.

 

Now, can we get back to discussing the thief in a manner that respects non-public information?

[Justice]

>HooBoy rarely removes individual messages because

>of all the screaming and

>histrionics that ensue (just like

>this thread). If he'd removed

>just that one message, this

>thread would be full of

>bitching and moaning about what

>a bastard he is for

>censoring that message. He's in

>a can't win position. People

>scream no matter what he

>does.

 

I agree that HooBoy is in a no win situation. However, given the subject matter of the deleted thread, HooBoy should have just removed the offending post(s). He could have headed off at least some complaints by explaning that the deleted posts violated the rules by divulging a personal phone number. IMHO, the subject matter was too important for the entire thread to be deleted!

 

>Now, can we get back to

>discussing the thief in a

>manner that respects non-public information?

[+ deej]

>I agree that HooBoy is in

>a no win situation. However,

>given the subject matter of

>the deleted thread, HooBoy should

>have just removed the offending

>post(s). He could have headed

>off at least some complaints

>by explaning that the deleted

>posts violated the rules by

>divulging a personal phone number.

>IMHO, the subject matter was

>too important for the entire

>thread to be deleted!

 

Did you read the thread, Justice? It was mostly a rant about Denise. ;-) (And, frankly, if that's her real name it's a possible privacy violation just posting *that*.)

 

The original warning is posted again, and possibly defammatory remarks are removed.

 

As for what HooBoy should have been done, he made a judgement call. He chose to err on the side of caution. When YOU have YOUR OWN board you'll have the same right. And you'll get the same beating about the head and shoulders no matter what you do. ;-)

[ready4boi]

I didn't catch this post before I posted one of my own about this JT jerk. In response to the idea of ongoing communication with Denise about these matters, forget it. The woman could care less. The only thing you can do is complain directly to her at the theatre and threaten to stop coming which means she'll lose money. That's all she really worries about. She'll let any leech dance there basically. But the minute she sees having a certain dancer there is going to affect business only then will she get rid of him. However sometimes a player like Kirk will manage to hang around. It took too long for her to get rid of him if you ask me. Countless complaints were made. We can only hope this JT doesn't sweet talk his way back and Denise doesn't allow the same problem to go on.

[Justice]

>Did you read the thread, Justice?

>It was mostly a rant

>about Denise. ;-) (And, frankly,

>if that's her real name

>it's a possible privacy violation

>just posting *that*.)

 

Yes I read the thread. It's not the first time that Denise )if that's her real name) got trashed here and it probably won't be the last. I didn't see anything wrong with it. If the posts violated the rules -- then why were they posted in the first place? I thought that's why we're now being moderated.

 

>The original warning is posted again,

>and possibly defammatory remarks are

>removed.

 

What would have happened if the original poster hadn't gone through the trouble of reposting his warning? How many other guys might have gotten ripped off or worse by this guy? Yes another someone else also started a similar thread -- but what would have happened if that didn't happen? Were you or HooBoy prepared to repost the warning?

 

>As for what HooBoy should have

>been done, he made a

>judgement call. He chose to

>err on the side of

>caution. When YOU have YOUR

>OWN board you'll have the

>same right. And you'll get

>the same beating about the

>head and shoulders no matter

>what you do. ;-)

 

It is HooBoy's board and he can and should do what he wants with it. I don't envy him or the work that he does. In this case, we're talking about a warning about an alleged rip off artist. Those details should not have been deleted!

[+ deej]

>Yes I read the thread. It's

>not the first time that

>Denise )if that's her real

>name) got trashed here and

>it probably won't be the

>last. I didn't see anything

>wrong with it.

 

So in your mind, because personal information has been posted before it should be allowed now? It's all hunky dory because it has happened before? How about we post YOUR real name and phone number? You seem to think it's OK since it's been done before.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, my good friend.

 

>If the

>posts violated the rules --

>then why were they posted

>in the first place? I

>thought that's why we're now

>being moderated.

 

Somebody goofed. We'll admit it. In fact, we have. (I suspect it's because nobody actually considers the manager at the Gaiety to be an actual human being. ;-))

 

>What would have happened if the

>original poster hadn't gone through

>the trouble of reposting his

>warning? How many other guys

>might have gotten ripped off

>or worse by this guy?

>Yes another someone else also

>started a similar thread --

>but what would have happened

>if that didn't happen? Were

>you or HooBoy prepared to

>repost the warning?

 

Someone else would have posted the allegations. We're talking about a period of time that lasted 2 hours.

 

It is entirely possible that HooBoy saw the other posting before he deleted the original and figured the purpose was served. (I'm not saying that happened because I honestly don't know, but I was sitting here watching the whole time so it's possible.)

 

In any case, we're beating a dead horse. It's over. Personal information (real names, phone numbers, etc.) is NOT allowed here. Your moderators goofed on this one and for that I personally apologize profusely.

 

We'll *try* not to let it happen again. But I'll bet it will.

[Justice]

>So in your mind, because personal

>information has been posted before

>it should be allowed now?

>It's all hunky dory because

>it has happened before? How

>about we post YOUR real

>name and phone number? You

>seem to think it's OK

>since it's been done before.

 

I never said that the offending posts shouldn't have been deleted. I agree that personal information should never have been posted in the first place. I realize that its easier to delete an entire thread instead of having to go through multiple mouse clicks for multiple posts. I also realize that you guys are going to have to take a lot of heat whenever ANYTHING gets deleted. However, in this instance -- the initial warning about an alleged rip off artist (which contained no personal information and therefore did not violate the rules) should not have been deleted.

 

 

>In any case, we're beating a

>dead horse. It's over. Personal

>information (real names, phone numbers,

>etc.) is NOT allowed here.

>Your moderators goofed on this

>one and for that I

>personally apologize profusely.

>

>We'll *try* not to let it

>happen again. But I'll bet

>it will.

 

You're right we are beating a debt horse. Let's just agree to disagree. ;-) The moderators do an excellent job. I'm sure that it can't be easy and I sure that it will happen again. :o (You guys are only human! ;-)) My hat's off to all of you. Thanks for a job well done!

[+ deej]

>The moderators

>do an excellent job. I'm

>sure that it can't be

>easy and I sure that

>it will happen again. :o

> (You guys are only

>human! ;-)) My hat's off

>to all of you.

>Thanks for a job well

>done!

 

Thank you (from all of us!) for the vote of confidence!

 

And no, it isn't easy. In fact, it's downright difficult. I've described this elsewhere. The way the board software works makes us review messages in the queue *completely* out of context. We often have no idea what they're in reply to. There have been a number of "surprises" once we've seen them "in place".

 

We're learning as we go. It's the ultimate in on-the-job training. ;-)

[Guest CZ]

Ready4boi has had a hair up his ass about Denise for quite a while now. Last year he was very vocal about her alleged rudeness & lack of concern toward Gaiety customers, but his outlook apparently had less to do with security matters (i.e. rip-off dancers) than with D's 'telephone' manner. Seems he has always had a rough time getting her to divulge the line-up.

 

But other posters were quick to point out that they had experienced no such difficulty (nor have I, BTW), which led to speculation about Ready's OWN telephone manner. (Too bad we can't have sound samples of everyone's speaking voice around here. It would surely put the words we type into a startlingly fresh perspective!)

 

In truth, Denise tends to be brusque & charmless of speech, and responds best to those who are calm, polite, organized & to-the-point in making inquiries or comments. Yes, she's very much concerned with the bottom line, just as anyone in business ought to be. But she is NOT indifferent the concerns & welfare of either her patrons or those whom she employs. (I hope NYObserver will weigh in on this again, as he has in the past.)

 

I can't speak personally about the Kirk business (I've never even seen him in the flesh), but I think we should remember that, until a dancer's alleged bad behavior is complained of from more than one reputable source, D has no legal (or even ethical) obligation to discontinue hiring him. (Obviously she is not going to arbitrate between client & escort as a matter of course anyway. For one thing, the official & well promulgated Gaiety rules prohibit even a DISCUSSION of eventual sexual liaisons between patrons & dancers.) And as far as he-said/he-said charges of bad faith and/or behavior outside the Gaiety, she'd be pretty hard-pressed to know who's 'right' or 'wrong' anyway. Consider the repeated comments on Kirk by so highly respected a poster here as Traveller: according to him, if handled properly by a client who knows what he's doing, even this alleged sociopath

can show you a real, good time!!! No matter--the nays eventually won the day, and Kirk won't be reappearing at the Gaiety anytime soon, if ever.

 

Now as far as the JT business goes, I'm sure that justice will eventually prevail there, too. But all this talk of 'boycotting' and taking one's business elsewhere is just self-defeating silliness. And of course it wouldn't influnce Denise's policies in the least. (Like Sam Goldwyn, she knows that 'if people want to stay away, you can't stop them.')

 

Meanwhile, let me defend her from the charge that 'she couldn't care less' (the cliche Ready4boi meant to use, I think) by asking fellow-Gaiety-patrons to try being as fair-minded and clear-eyed about things as I believe her to be.

[ready4boi]

CZ,

 

You obviously don't know Denise as well as I've gotten to know her and the way she has managed The Gaiety over the years. I am not the only person she's been rude to when calling, but I just accept it's nothing personal and has nothing to do with my phone manners. I'm even more polite than I'm in person. She does not give special treatment to any customer even New York Observer. He has stated on this site in the past how he does not get any special favors for his reviews. The bottom line is she does value her regular customers and if you state your dislike about something directly to her in person you have a better chance of getting her to do something about it. There's a lot more I know about Denise and The Gaiety I can't discuss on this site. It would not be appropriate especially with how this board has had recent problems. As for Kirk, generally the guy should ba avoided. He has ripped off far more people than the one or two people who seemed to have had no problem with him.

[NY Observer]

I think that Denise is businesswoman first and foremost. As others have mentioned, I get absolutely nothing from the Gaiety for my reviews (nor am I asking for anything; although being able to leave and come back would be nice). I am not sure if Denise knows who I am, she should certainly recognize my face as a regular patron, as I'm there often enough. When I ask her a question, she usually answers it (when I have asked who is there next week, she will tell me once in a blue moon, but I don't ask anymore). When one calls for the lineup, she will rapidly go through the seven guys (not the weekend lineup) and if you can't understand it and ask her to repeat it, don't count on that happening.

 

I agree with much of what is said here. If I was running the place, I would certainly try to be more customer service oriented to the point of telling potential patrons when a particular person would be back or who was on stage (perhaps even a recording would be a good idea). I think that part of the reason this isn't done is that many of the dancers change their plans at the last moment. She does not want to feel guilty if a person travels to get to the Gaiety only to find the guy the traveler was looking to meet cancelled (like Sebastian last week, for example; he had very good reasons, but with his following, many would travel to see him and then be disappointed when he wasn't there) I personally would come to the Gaiety without knowing who was there, but I do like to know which of my favorites are in town. Of course, some of them call me to announce their arrival, but others just seem to show up and expect that I will welcome them with open arms (oops, I meant wallet).

 

As for ripoffs by the dancers, I have many thoughts on that issue. I think it's great that we air our concerns both on this message board and to Denise. She may not do anything but we can at least start the wheels in motion. Several people asked me last weekend about JT. I told them that I had not been with him, that he was very much my type physically, but that I had heard bad things about him and therefore would not be interested. If many of us do this, word gets around. We all "know"/hear who the best privates are. Of course, this is very much a matter of chemistry. I think that one thing that will improve one's chances of a good private is to be respectful of the dancer himself. There are many patrons who treat the dancer like a piece of meat and then they can't understand why they have a bad private. Well, you get what you deserve. I have found that by being caring of the dancer's feelings that I get much better treatment.

[+ deej]

>I

>think that part of the

>reason this isn't done is

>that many of the dancers

>change their plans at the

>last moment. She does

>not want to feel guilty

>if a person travels to

>get to the Gaiety only

>to find the guy the

>traveler was looking to meet

>cancelled

 

I don't know how guilty she'd feel, but I agree about the no-show issue. A friend of mine books dancers for a local strip club. He tells me it's the only job he's ever had where he books 12 guys *hoping* at least six will show up. And he's dealing with *local* guys, not the traveling hoardes.

 

It *is* a bit risky announcing a lineup a week in advance when you're not really sure of the lineup until they walk through the door. ;-)

[Guest Sexpert]

Another 2 cents:

 

-I’ve talked with Denise before, both inquiring and complaining about dancers, and she was courteous, accommodating and even apologetic, depending on the situation. I guess she’s one of those people that some love to hate. I also want to make it clear that the deleted posting (mine) wasn’t another rant about Denise like some poster daydreamed in a previous message!

 

-While it’s not Denise’s obligation that a dancer turned out to be a thug, I’m sure she –as well as any other self-respecting club manager- has an obligation, not to mention interest, to react if it comes to her knowledge that one of the dancers is causing any sort of hassle to customers. It’s not the matter of losing business since most customers will simply avoid dancers with a bad reputation, not the whole venue, but it shouldn’t be overruled that an overly irate customer can get vindictive and try to hurt the place (e.g. flood authorities with alleged infractions) or the dancer (e.g. hire a couple of thugs to beat him up!) A very docile looking victim of JT’s whom I met at the Gaiety is seriously contemplating the latter if JT is ever booked again..! Moreover, I have firsthand knowledge that Denise banned dancers from the Gaiety in the past when she heard legitimate complaints from customers. I’ll keep the names to myself to avoid having the message (or the thread) deleted..

 

In short, Denise listens to complaints and -as far as I can tell- does what she can to protect the reputation of her club, which goes without saying.