Bogus Reviews/Blacklisting by Escorts

[Guest Esc_Tracker]

OK, CZ, I will take up your challenge and answer your points one by one as dispassionately as I can.

 

>TFNH is just the latest in

>a series of posters who've

>confirmed the widely held suspicion

>that the reviews are virtually

>worthless when it comes to

>serious escort shopping.

 

Please tell me how they are any less "worthless" than chatter on the message board.

 

>Between fraudulent

>testimonials placed by the escorts

>themselves and accolades by clients

>who have been pressured by

>escorts--gently or not--into sending in

>a good review, we already

>have grounds to dismiss a

>good deal of the hype

>we read.

 

So don't swallow the hype. Compare the reviews with one another. Get to learn about the reviewers and their preferences. Ask follow-up questions on the message board. In other words, act alike an intelligent and critical reader. Fake reviews aren't really that hard to identify.

 

>And there's

>a third motive for bullshit

>postings that never gets mentioned--when

>a client hopes to curry

>favor with an escort (i.e.

>get a future discount) by

>greatly exaggerating the quality of

>the encounter, or by bothering

>to post at all.

 

Then I would guess that means the client was sufficiently satisfied to *want* to see the escort again, even if at a lower price. Gee, far be it for you to be fooled into thinking that an escort the reviewer wants to see again might actually be any good. I fear you are being too cynical by half here.

 

>When you add in the

>distortive effect attributed by some

>to Hooboy 'impartial' handling of

>the submissions, general credibility takes

>a real nose-dive.

 

HooBoy doesn't change any of the submissions. (He's never changed any of mine, and no one has ever complained that he has changed any of theirs. So case closed.) He does occasionally refuse to post the odd (particularly negative) review when he feels he can prove it's a fraud. I don't see how that undermines the reviews that *are* published.

 

>

>The more I think about it,

>the more persuaded I am

>that the reviews serve only

>one useful purpose: exposing

>flagrantly dishonest and/or dangerous escorts.

 

They do do that, but only if people post reviews detailing such experiences.

 

> In other words, the

>really, really, really bad review--the

>kind Hooboy and others would

>rather not see posted--may well

>be the only kind worth

>reading!

 

Sorry CZ, I have seen a number of the escorts reviewed on the site (at least nine that I can think of). In not a single case have I had an experience that was not at least consistent with the general pattern of the reviews for those escorts. Maybe I've been lucky, but the reviews have helped me find what I was looking for.

 

I may not have had as a good a time as the reviewer, but I could see where the reviewer was coming from. And this has been true even for escorts who have received both good and bad reviews. I could see where the good ones came from, and why those same escorts got bad reviews from other reviewers. In one case, I am pretty sure the escort wrote his own review, but it tallied with what I had experienced with him, which simply wasn't my thing. From this I conclude that *any* review concerning an escort you plan to see is "worth reading". Whether is is worth "believing" is another matter.

 

>What's the point of most 'good'

>reviews anyway? Even assuming

>they're completely on the up

>& up, do they REALLY

>tell a potential client which

>escorts he wants to see?

 

A good review is not one that just says "He was great. Hire him." It tells me what the escort is into. It tells me what to avoid. It tells me something about the escort's personality. If it tells me he is a baseball freak for example (as one of my favorite escorts is), I'll know to take him to the ballpark if that sort of thing interests me. This is why reviews are such multidimentional tools. You can't just reduce them to "rate your escort from 1 to 10".

 

>

>I think we all know what

>our type (or types) are,

>don't we? And

>most escorts provide enough information,

>verbal & visual, to help

>us decide whether we'd want

>to engage them.

 

Most adds don't, or at least they don't provide enough. Busy escort's often don't answer mails from those who are just fishing. You wouldn't believe the amount of "noise" they have to put up with -- people who hassle them for personal info without any intention of hiring them. I don't see the disadvantage in having all the relevent info set down in half a dozen reviews.

 

>So, once

>past that type of information

>(i.e. stuff we know already),

 

The stuff we often *don't* "know already".

 

>a review can only offer

>up radically subjective impressions of

>an escort's worth. Anyway, let's

>face it: reading a rave

>review about a twink isn't

>going to sell said escort

>to someone whose tastes run

>more to the rough trade

>end of the spectrum.

 

And "radically subjective impressions" are inherently worthless? I have news for you. If I find that a reviewer consistently mirrors my experiences in his reviews, I seek out his other reviews to see who else I might have a good time with. His "radically subjective impressions" gain great credibility with me *because* they are "radically subjective". I might also add that reviewers whose "radically subjective impressions" are at odds with my preferences help me know who I *won't* have a good time with. Either is preferable to me than a "clinically objective" review that I can't relate back to what I like or dislike.

 

>As for the 'red flag' review

>(the kind the Nicks, Kirks

>& Renos get), isn't that

>urgent kind of warning best

>posted where most people are

>going to read it--in the

>message center?

 

Hey, I have news for you. Most people don't consult the message center. And most who do aren't glued to it 24 hours a day. It was months before I even looked at the message center. Most of the posts are boring, and much of the rest doesn't make any sense until you have been following the board for a while or have read enough of the reviews to know what or whom the posters are talking about.

 

On the other hand, I found the reviews immensely useful right away. I travel a lot, and could read up on the escorts city by city, even arranging to make side detours to see some of those who interested me. None of that would have been even remotely possible if I was trying to navigate blind through the chaotic maelstrom of the message board. The reviews had stats, rates, photos, and told me what the escorts did or didn't do. they told me exactly what I wanted to know.

 

Frankly I just have no idea what you are on about. The reviews are the heart of the site, and if they didn't exist, you would be left chatting with the other half dozen types who come here just to mouth off or (more legitimately) for online company. The site would be as dead as the now proverbial parrot.

 

>My posting to the underrated/overrated thread

>was still unanswered four hours

>after it went up.

>I hope this post will

>get some replies, and ones

>that actually address the issues

>I've raised in both.

 

Well, you now have *my* replies. I hope you find them useful or at least enlightening.

 

Esc-Tracker

[Guest TFNH]

I already knew that at least some escort reviews were bogus because 2 escorts have told me that they write their own and get people to submit them and a 3rd asked me to write a review and offered to write it for me if I didn't want to. So much for truth in advertising, but Mother never told me life was fair.

 

But here's the newest twist. I was recently told by an escort that escorts routinely black list clients that bother them, stalk them, or give them bad reviews, and network with other escorts to spread the information. And this was not idle chat because it was a definate threat to me following a rather lackluster experience with an escort. When I thought about this after, all I could think was: What is this? The escort version of "You'll Never Eat Lunch Again In This Town"(Phillips)? For a pretty simple guy just looking for time efficient sex, this was pretty sobering to me. At least now I know why there are so many great reviews and so few poor ones.

 

A final word to the one escort who knows my identity here: This is NOT about you; you just helped confirm something. For that, I thank you....well, I thank you also for the rest as well(I say with a big grin).

[Guest jizzdepapi]

BRIBED by an escort?

 

after an incredibe session with a NYC escort, i was offered a bribe to submit a favorable review. the escort is very well-known on this site and has many favorable reviews anyway. don't know why he bothers.

 

jizz

 

p.s.: modesty forbids me from mentioning what the bribe might have been; it was not cash.

[Guest CZ]

> At least now I

>know why there are so

>many great reviews and so

>few poor ones.

>

 

I'm glad TFNH posted his comments on the reliability of formal reviews. Seems to me they relate directly to the thread on 'who's overrated/underrated' now running elsewhere in the Deli, and especially to the post (message 21) I added to that thread earlier today.

 

TFNH is just the latest in a series of posters who've confirmed the widely held suspicion that the reviews are virtually worthless when it comes to serious escort shopping. Between fraudulent testimonials placed by the escorts themselves and accolades by clients who have been pressured by escorts--gently or not--into sending in a good review, we already have grounds to dismiss a good deal of the hype we read. And there's a third motive for bullshit postings that never gets mentioned--when a client hopes to curry favor with an escort (i.e. get a future discount) by greatly exaggerating the quality of the encounter, or by bothering to post at all. When you add in the distortive effect attributed by some to Hooboy 'impartial' handling of the submissions, general credibility takes a real nose-dive.

 

The more I think about it, the more persuaded I am that the reviews serve only one useful purpose: exposing flagrantly dishonest and/or dangerous escorts. In other words, the really, really, really bad review--the kind Hooboy and others would rather not see posted--may well be the only kind worth reading!

 

What's the point of most 'good' reviews anyway? Even assuming they're completely on the up & up, do they REALLY tell a potential client which escorts he wants to see?

 

I think we all know what our type (or types) are, don't we? And most escorts provide enough information, verbal & visual, to help us decide whether we'd want to engage them. So, once past that type of information (i.e. stuff we know already), a review can only offer up radically subjective impressions of an escort's worth. Anyway, let's face it: reading a rave review about a twink isn't going to sell said escort to someone whose tastes run more to the rough trade end of the spectrum.

 

As for the 'red flag' review (the kind the Nicks, Kirks & Renos get), isn't that urgent kind of warning best posted where most people are going to read it--in the message center?

 

My posting to the underrated/overrated thread was still unanswered four hours after it went up. I hope this post will get some replies, and ones that actually address the issues I've raised in both.

[+ deej]

So what? In my own professional life I network with my peers and trade notes on which customers and/or vendors are less than positive. Why shouldn't escorts?

 

The only reason to worry about this is if you're sometimes less than a stellar client. ;-)

[+ Charlie]

Good reviews do provide useful information, especially if the escort's own adverts are vague or cryptic. For instance, if he advertises simply as "hot top" and the reviews rave only about what a wonderful bottom he is, that's worth reading.

[Guest albinorat]

CZ I have read most of your posts. It strikes me that you are doing several things that are unfair to this site.

 

First of all you are co-opting people who have different expectations of the site and different experiences of it by suggesting anyone who disagrees with you is in hoo-boy's pocket.

 

Secondly, you are arguing backwards. You have started out not liking the site and insisiting it's valueless or corrupt and then have been using everything that happens to "prove" the point you've started out with.

 

Thirdly, you seem to be unaware of how Internet sites usually work. I visit many: opera, contemporary classical, theology, gay literature, porno sites, fetish sites, dog breeding and knitting (not that I knit but you've never seen flame wars and feuds as simply nuts as you can see there every day).

 

They all run more or less the same way. The person who founded the site and/or puts the most time in running it makes the rules. Free or pay site, they are his/her rules, what he/she wants it to be, needs it to be and is willing to spend time making it. Everybody who runs these sites has the same attitude to some degree: "if you don't like it here go someplace else".

 

All of these sites are commercial to one degree or another whether that's announced or not. Materials are sold, reviewed, raved about and put down, usually by their makers or rivals or friends. Usually the site owner is in on the sales, gets the product free or gets a cut or favor.

 

Sometimes the site owner takes a caveat emptor stance and lets people fight it out on the board as to whether a product was as good and cost effective as x, y and z insisted, or is as bad and over priced as fig and h say. Each party has allies and enemies and feuds soon become multi-layered. Tough, that's the way it is.

 

This is Hoo boy's site, he founded it, he puts the work in to make it go, allocates the money required to keep it up and organizes everything. He makes his rules and visitors must abide them.

 

Every site I know of sooner or later institutes some form of censorship because of the intensely personal nature of the attacks that are a main feature of all internet sites, and because in every site there is room for abuse of confidential information.

 

Hoo boy does not seem to be moderating this board to excess and has allowed criticism of him and various popular escorts. On the other hand that he knows many of the escorts, likes some of them and seems to be protective of some he likes is neither inexplicable nor scandalous. It's the way things are and would be no matter who was running the site. He definitely has his own favorites and probably gives and gets favors -- but I'd be the same if I started a rival site.

 

Your concern about reviews has been expressed time and again by many posters since I've been visiting this board. Of course they are all subjective. What I get off on and think is worth paying money for may be totally unlike anything you or anyone else could conceive of. I like kinky twinks, I don't like beefcake, I'm not into cuddling, kissing or overnights. I absolutely do not indulge anal sex under any circumstances. The escorts I've "reviewed" have either met my expectations, or in one case, surpassed them and surprised me. But I would not begin to suggest that because I had a great time with x everybody would or even that anybody else would.

 

I think in one of your recent posts you make a very good point but made it as though it is a criticism of this site: that is that the reviews are most useful for identifying rip offs, sociopaths and fakes.

 

I believe you are wrong in suggesting that self reviews and solicited reviews go undetected forever here. If an escort is really active in a large area, sooner or later the truth will out. All that has to happen is someone with no ax to grind has to write the facts of their experience. Surprise! Sometimes that is pretty close to the self-written or solicited review. But again that does not mean that person is for you or anybody else.

 

Another mistake you seem to be making is the assumption that any site could be a Consumer reports of escorting. Escorts are not like air conditioners. CR takes air conditioners apart to see how they're made then reassembles them, then runs them for 1000 hours, then takes them apart again, then drops them, then mis-installs them, and only then allows selected people to test the air conditioners in supervised circumstances.

 

I am an anti-vivisectionist, so I could not approve dissecting an escort to see if his looks hide bad inner parts. Reassembling an escort after that is currently impossible. No escort is going to please 1000 people in a row. Moreover every experience someone has with that escort is subjective. There is no way to balance that (if a tester with CR likes ac B more than ac D that reaction is held in check by the stats discovered in the lab. But there is no way to hold someone's subjective, intimate experience with someone else in check.)

 

Does Hoo boy do a good or bad job? Well, I enjoy the site, find the reviews fun to read if nothing else. I enjoy the message board. Hoo boy's fingers prints are not offensive to me, and any site owner’s fingerprints are going to be all over his site.

 

Does that mean all reviews are totally legit? No. Does that mean Hoo boy isn't careful about seeing to it that favorites of his are not maligned? No. Does that mean that anybody can say anything about anybody on this site, that "anything goes"? No, it doesn't, and I don't think it should.

 

I don't see any of those things as faults, in general or Hoo boy's faults in particular. Whether hoo-boy is a bit histrionic about the amount of work he does is not for me to say. From what I know of Internet sites they do take a lot of time and can involve more responsibility than the founder realized when he started out. Whether he exaggerates the cost to him (or is not savvy enough to run this place more efficiently) is not something I know. But I do know that the cost of keeping a large, multi-faceted site working quickly and efficiently really isn't negligible for anyone who does it, and few of us know the considerations hoo-boy takes into account in making decisions about this site that impact cost and time.

 

In other words, I like the site, don't find it gratingly corrupt, certainly think it's entertaining and haven't been burned on those occasions I've used a review here to prompt a hire. Of course others feel differently and have had different experiences and I can understand that escorts don't like bad reviews here and to some degree fear them not only because of how they effect business but because bad reviews can be fakes too. But that's life, to commit cliché. I'm sure it can all be done differently. I'm not sure it can be done better. And remember, finally, this is a free site; hoo-boy would be within his rights and right mind to make it a pay site. One more reason for him to say, "if you don't like it, stop coming here!"

 

Al

[Guest TFNH]

I agree that with you in that I network and seek info. as well. But this is not remotely the situation I attempted to describe; possibly I was not clear. So here's the down and dirty: I recently hired an escort whose performance was not up to any reasonable expectations(an escort who can't get it up is not likely to meet many people's expectations). He asked that I not do a review stating as such, and threatened to blacklist me if any negative reviews showed up about him. I did not threaten, I did pay, and was nothing but cuteous by any standards.

 

I wrote this trying to help and inform people. Your statement that if my behaviour was fine then I'd have nothing to worry about ignores the fact that there are some real looney tunes out there. I do not take your comments in any personal way because you do not know me or how I behave. I do hope that in the future your comments will be directed at the issue, not the writer.

[Guest alanm]

I like this site and generally like HooBoy. But, CZ made some valid points. Albonorat, I can see that you are fan of gay lit;

you took the space of a novella to respond. You didn't convince me;I found many of CZ's points interesting, logical and well

stated.

[Matt_Vancouver]

Oh no guys, they've found our secret underground network!! Quick destroy the hidden underground meeting place in the nevada desert, destroy all documentation on your hard drives, delete all pertinent phone #'s in your books, and if ever questioned on the matter, use the suicide pills that were distributed at meeting 1387 (titled: Clients, We Will Destroy!!)

matt(escorts unite)

http://go.to/mattsplace

matt_escort@yahoo.com

[vers7]

Personally, I think that it's not unhealthy for the better escorts to network with other good escorts. A good client should have nothing to fear from that.

I also am not too upset with escorts submitting self-reviews. In fact, I suspect that some self-reviews (although disingenuous) might be as accurate as legitimate reviews. We had a recent thread which debated whether a new escort's reviews were legitimate or not. The bottom line was that one of the moderators hired the escort and found out that the escort's reviews were acurate.

In any event, it's fun to try to sift through the chaff: the good reviews (legitimate or otherwise), the bad reviews, and the escorts' responses -- especially their responses. I think I'm reasonably intelligent and am fairly succesful in finding the escort with whom I can achieve chemistry based upon all of these sources of information. Like I said, I think it's fun.

[+ deej]

Matt,

 

Have I told you lately I adore you?

[Guest bottomboykk]

Too late, deej, he's mine, and I'm not giving him up!

[Guest Hanover]

> Personally,

>I think that it's not

>unhealthy for the better escorts

>to network with other good

>escorts. A good client

>should have nothing to fear

>from that.

 

I am going to assume that this message isn't meant ironically, which is a bold assumption, given how absurd it would be if meant just the way it appears.

 

Would it bother you to discover that the restaurants in your town had compared notes and banned you from dining because you published critical reviews of their poor cuisine/service? Isn't that self-evidently a bad thing? Doesn't it lend itself to the perpetuation of poor service? A "good" client in such circumstances is one who has paid a lot of money for a poor service but refrained from complaining about it! Good for the escorts I'm sure, but not for the clients. Who is paying whom?

 

 

> I

>also am not too upset

>with escorts submitting self-reviews.

>In fact, I suspect that

>some self-reviews (although disingenuous) might

>be as accurate as legitimate

>reviews. We had a

>recent thread which debated whether

>a new escort's reviews were

>legitimate or not. The

>bottom line was that one

>of the moderators hired the

>escort and found out that

>the escort's reviews were

>acurate.

 

This is a joke, surely.

 

 

> In

>any event, it's fun to

>try to sift through the

>chaff: the good reviews

>(legitimate or otherwise), the bad

>reviews, and the escorts' responses

>-- especially their responses.

> I think I'm reasonably

>intelligent and am fairly succesful

>in finding the escort with

>whom I can achieve chemistry

>based upon all of these

>sources of information. Like

>I said, I think it's

>fun.

 

I have been trying very hard to write this reply without using the word "moron". Just couldn't resist.

[+ deej]

>was not up to any

>reasonable expectations(an escort who can't

>get it up is not

>likely to meet many people's

>expectations).

 

You can stop right there, MacDuff. I'm a top. Half the time, I don't care if they even *have* penises, much less whether they can get it up. (But it's *awesome* when they get off without touching themselves while getting fucked! Which most my guys do.)

 

>I wrote this trying to help

>and inform people. Your

>statement that if my behaviour

>was fine then I'd have

>nothing to worry about ignores

>the fact that there are

>some real looney tunes out

>there. I do not

>take your comments in any

>personal way because you do

>not know me or how

>I behave.

 

I do not mean my comments in any personal way.

 

The loony tunes will reveal themselves sooner or later, and frankly I wouldn't worry much about being blacklisted by them. (I'd consider it a favor, in fact.)

 

I stand by my original position. If there is total honesty before, during, and after an encounter (including the review), then neither side has anything to worry about. If you're a good client, they won't turn away your money.

 

I, too, have been asked not to review an encounter. But only because the guy is already too busy and can't possibly take on more clients.

 

>I do

>hope that in the future

>your comments will be directed

>at the issue, not the

>writer.

 

That's the problem. I don't believe there's an issue here.

 

This is *my* personal opinion and does not reflect on HooBoy or the other moderators of this board.

[+ deej]

This one, we'll fight over hun.

 

(Loser gets sloppy seconds. ;-))

[Guest swiftone]

I too have found this site helpful in selecting escorts. I began hiring escorts about nine months ago and found the reviews helpful in deciding if a particular escort was what I was looking for, first physically and secondly sexually. I enjoy reading the reviews, whether they are legit or not, I read the new ones every day and make mental notes. They have certainly given me food for thought. I have been lucky in that nearly all my dates have turned out to be great experiences, yes there have been a couple that did not come up to my expectations, one was a real dud, a couple of others were good but maybe I expected too much. Also I have received valuable information from the Message Center and will contune to read the reviews and seek the advise of others on the message center. I have posted reviews on all but one of the escorts I have hired. None of then have ever asked me to, or not to post a review. I have not felt pressured in any way to do so. I have posted a review because I wanted to share my experience with other potential clients and I have tried to be honest in describing my feelings and experiences, and I hope they have helped others. All the reviews I have posted have been posted in their entirety, thanks HooBoy. I have had great fun with the escorts I have found from this site, I only hope they enjoyed their time with me as much as I enjoyed it with them. Without this site I don't think that that would have been possible.

[Guest CZ]

Al, I appreciate the time & thought you've obviously put into answering my post at such length. I think, though, that you went through some needless effort in much of it. We all know reviews are subjective, and no one expects this place to operate like Consumer Reports. Nor did you need to explain how other sites such as this one work. (Most of us already know that, I suspect.) Besides, apart from the obvious truth that webmasters are masters of their own domains, it didn't really have much to do with what I was talking about.

 

So let me pick out the parts of your post I can actually respond to.

 

>I have read most of

>your posts. It strikes me

>that you are doing several

>things that are unfair to

>this site.

 

>You have started out not liking

>the site and insisiting it's

>valueless or corrupt and then

>have been using everything that

>happens to "prove" the point

>you've started out with.

 

While I'm not suggesting you re-read my posts, I am suggesting that you don't remember them very well. For one thing, I never expressed dislike of the site; nor have I ever insisted that it is valueless or corrupt. What I have said, and more than once, was that the site's greatest value lies in the postings to the message boards, not the reviews. The things that have been happening recently (such as the "Matt replies" flap of a few weeks ago, or the revelations of TFNH & Jizz in this thread) tend to "prove"--or ar least support--that contention without any special help from me.

 

 

>Hoo boy does not seem to

>be moderating this board to

>excess and has allowed criticism

>of him and various popular

>escorts.

 

Tell that to poor Rastignac, who after daring to criticize Hooboy during the 'Matt Replies' thread, was accused of being me! Then, having concocted a conspiracy theory he knew to be false, Hooboy used it as a pretext to cut off the thread--thus saving himself from being exposed in a coverup--and ignored Rastignac's subsequent emails of protest. And while he was at it, he suppressed my next, and high damaging, post--a bit of censorship the moderators surely know all about. (And it looks as if I'll have to keep airing this matter until it's finally addressed.)

 

>On the other hand,

>that he knows many of

>the escorts, likes some of

>them and seems to be

>protective of some he likes

>is neither inexplicable nor scandalous.

>It's the way things are

>and would be no matter

>who was running the site.

>He definitely has his own

>favorites and probably gives and

>gets favors -- but I'd

>be the same if I

>started a rival site.

 

If you're going to concede all THAT, we probably have nothing left to disagree on! But I'd still find Hooboy's favoritism & backstage manuveuring to be totally at odds with his boast of impartiality & truthfulness. No doubt it's 'explicable' (and calling it 'scandalous' seems a bit melodramatic), but it still ain't right. And I don't know why you'd say that "it's the way things. . .would be no matter who was running the site." Once again I'm forced to compare Hooboy's handling of his site with Ace Bannon's. The main difference between the two is that Bannon isn't interested in wielding power over the escorts there, and has does nothing that would open him to a charge of self-aggrandizement.

 

>I think in one of your

>recent posts you make a

>very good point but made

>it as though it is

>a criticism of this site:

>that is that the reviews

>are most useful for identifying

>rip offs, sociopaths and fakes.

 

Yes, I made the point, but why do you claim I turned it into a criticism of the site? All I was saying was that the sole unquestionable value a review has (alerting others to deception & danger) would be better deployed on the message board than in the review section.

 

 

>Does Hoo boy do a good

>or bad job? Well, I

>enjoy the site, find the

>reviews fun to read if

>nothing else. I enjoy the

>message board. Hoo boy's fingers

>prints are not offensive to

>me, and any site owner’s

>fingerprints are going to be

>all over his site.

 

Just keep them off his critics' throats, please.

 

 

>Whether hoo-boy is a

>bit histrionic about the amount

>of work he does is

>not for me to say.

 

Actually, Hooboy is a bit histrionic about EVERYTHING, and I take the 'Gay Cesspool' bit above to be the latest instance of his inability to take any substantive criticism (as opposed to nitpicking) and deal with it in a grown-up way.

 

>And remember, finally, this

>is a free site; hoo-boy

>would be within his rights

>and right mind to make

>it a pay site. One

>more reason for him to

>say, "if you don't like

>it, stop coming here!"

 

Hooboy surely knows that if he were to make this a pay site

he'd be closing up shop in a matter of months. The site would be a desert. And where would that leave him?

[Losgatan]

> Then, having concocted a

>conspiracy theory he knew to

>be false, Hooboy used it

>as a pretext to cut

>off the thread--thus saving himself

>from being exposed in a

>coverup--and ignored Rastignac's subsequent emails

>of protest. And while

>he was at it, he

>suppressed my next, and high

>damaging, post--a bit of censorship

>the moderators surely know all

>about. (And it looks as

>if I'll have to keep

>airing this matter until it's

>finally addressed.)

 

CZ,

 

Why can't you just let this bone go?

 

There's another, perfectly understandable, reason for what happened here. One that seems far more creditable than your claims of "conspiracy" and "coverup."

 

1) HooBoy read the Matt's response quickly since it was coming from a known source. He interpreted the reference to "John" as generic "john."

 

2) You and others protested that response "named names."

 

3) Hoo added the quote marks to help prevent future misunderstandings of what Matt had written.

 

4) Matt confirms, in a note on this board, that he was not using real names in his reply.

 

Seems pretty simple, doesn't it? Why all the fuss?

[vers7]

Hanover, I might be a moron, but I do have a sense of humour. However, I can assure you a. my post was not meant to be ironic and b. it was not a joke.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>>was not up to any

>>reasonable expectations(an escort who can't

>>get it up is not

>>likely to meet many people's

>>expectations).

>

>You can stop right there, MacDuff.

>I'm a top. Half the

>time, I don't care if

>they even *have* penises, much

>less whether they can get

>it up.

 

 

The operative word was "many" not "anyone".

 

FFF

[Bilbo]

Albinorat - Everyone else please ignore this because I have been mentioned lately as hijacking too many threads, and this would lead to this river splitting into two streams if taken too seriously.

 

I had avoided this thread until today because of its headline, mainly, but today read the whole thing and want to thank you for saying so many things I think. Also, for confirming that other message boards are so much like this one. I had suspected that but I haven't been allowing myself to explore them because of a lack of time. But some of them you describe sound too delicious not to at least taste. If you would, please post the addresses for the opera, contemporary classical, gay lit and knitting boards. Imagine! Knitting (which I simply don't have the patience to do) attracting more flame wars than our own dear site! Well!! (However, I do hope that certain others don't take this as a challenge to up the fire level here.)

 

I did try to make this a private posting, but have misplaced your address, if I knew it, and what with the missing icons problem ...

[Traveller]

>Oh no guys, they've found our

>secret underground network!! Quick destroy

>the hidden underground meeting place

>in the nevada desert, destroy

>all documentation on your hard

>drives, delete all pertinent phone

>#'s in your books, and

>if ever questioned on the

>matter, use the suicide pills

>that were distributed at meeting

>1387 (titled: Clients, We Will

>Destroy!!)

>matt(escorts unite)

>http://go.to/mattsplace

>matt_escort@yahoo.com

 

Matty, you and Munroe consistently make me laugh. Excellent job.

 

Later.

[Guest CZ]

>There's another, perfectly understandable, reason for

>what happened here. One

>that seems far more creditable

>than your claims of "conspiracy"

>and "coverup."

 

Log, if there's another reason for what happened, even a halfway credible one, I'd love to hear it. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it in your post. (BTW, though I do claim Hooboy resorted to a coverup--two, in fact--the 'conspiracy' was the one HE pretended to find among his critics: i.e. that two of them were one & the same poster 'talking to each other,' an accusation he already knew to be false.)

 

>HooBoy read the Matt's

>response quickly since it was

>coming from a known source.

>He interpreted the reference

>to "John" as generic "john."

 

And I guess he interpreted "Walter" to be the generic "walter,"

and "Baltimore" to be the generic "baltimore," right?

 

>Hoo added the quote

>marks to help prevent future

>misunderstandings of what Matt had

>written.

 

Yes, and then jumped into the thread, pretending the quote marks had been there ALL ALONG (coverup #1)--trying to hide the fact that he had aided & abetted his protege in trying to intimidate the reviewer in the first place.

 

>Matt confirms, in a

>note on this board, that

>he was not using real

>names in his reply.

 

Sure, playing right along with his protector, & expecting everyone to believe that 'Walter' & 'Baltimore' were made-up references, too.

 

>Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?

>Why all the fuss?

 

Simple-minded is more like it.

 

The "fuss" actually arose in the aftermath of the above. When Rastignac pointed out that the quote marks had been added only AFTER others had cried foul, Hooboy carefully deleted his coverup post (and note how easy it was for him to drop a single post from THAT thread); and then, when Rastignac & I noted its disappearance, he fatuously claimed he was only trying to keep a low profile to mollify his critics (!) But in the end, the "Walter/Baltimore" business had so frayed his first coverup that H finally panicked, pretended Rastignac & I were one & the same, and (as if that justified his action) gave himself the last word by abruptly cutting off the thread.

 

The rest of the fuss (unaddressed by you) is about H's blocking my next post & his ignoring Rastignac's emails of protest to him.

That was coverup #2, and censorship of the Stalinist variety.

 

Now don't think for a moment I'm unaware of how tedious-sounding it makes me to keep unburying the 'bone' Hooboy bonked truth & impartiality over the head with. But it's he and you--his possibly duped spokesman--who drove me to it. Even so, since you have at least (and finally) let me lay it out for all to see, I'm perfectly happy to drop it. There can't be any truthful excuse made for all the duplicities involved anyway, so it's pointless for me to insist you give me one.

 

Still, I appreciate your taking the time to answer my post, and I have to admire such dogged loyalty to Hooboy. Yours, I'm afraid, is an impossible task.

[Guest MrMan]

I'm sure there are some escorts who engage in "creative advertising" by submitting self-written reviews, but as someone

else stated, if they are unable to live up to what they have

written, eventually it will come out on this site as a negative

review.

 

I network with a few other escorts and we've warned each other

about particular clients who were complete assholes. In effect

because they were blackballed, if they wanted to see a quality

escort they would have to look outside Columbus. This was our

way of exacting some sort of revenge. Now this isn't something

done that often, but it's helpful to know who's going to be

incredibly high maintenance or who may try to rip you off on

your fees. There are some clients out there who are just as

shady as some escorts and it's nice to get a "heads-up" to avoid

these types.

 

Jeff/Columbus OH / jeff4hire@aol.com