Kip O'Brien's response 2/23

[Guest tmbg]

RE: Kip O'Brien's response 2/23 (The Whole Truth)

 

>OK I am going to make this short and sweet and to the point.

 

Q:And the point is?

A:You stole money from a client and stated you would "out" him to his family. Now that it is your apparent friend, who only you claim wrote the review, you got your dick caught in the cock vice.

 

Cheers! Ritchie

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

RE: You say

 

>The reason I feel quite confident he's sociopathic rather than just >immature is that he didn't express remorse, but rather compounded the >offense with more lies.

 

 

I'm confused.

 

If this thread is regarding Kip O'Brien, why are we now talking about Bill Clinton?

 

Wryly yours,

 

FFF

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: ARE WE NUTS? Yes, We Are.

 

Reg,

 

I grant that your position is consistent but I think I'm seeing a little too boad a brush in your hand...

 

>What strikes me is not the idea that prostitutes sometimes

>steal, which is hardly a shocking or remarkable notion.

 

This certainly seems to say that prostitutes as a group sometimes steal (as opposed to always steal) in contradistinction to 'some prostitutes steal' implying to me the idea that 'all' members of that group are painted with the same brush. I suspect this was not your intent and that I am somehow misreading/misinterpreting your words. I'm sure this must be the case because it seems clear in your ADM example that individuals steal, not everyone in agribusiness.

 

When ADM and

>some of its competitors in agribusiness engaged in a massive

>price-fixing scheme during the 90s they succeeded in

>overcharging thousands and thousands of food retailers. The

>executives who conceived and operated this scheme looked

>very different and sounded very different from the sort of

>person who would go into a supermarket, grab cash from the

>cashier's drawer, and run away with it, but in truth the

>differences are entirely superficial. I think you make too

>much of the differences among the people we are discussing.

>

 

I doubt we would want to paint all executives in agribusiness as thieves.

 

[Guest regulation]

RE: ARE WE NUTS? Yes, We Are.

 

>Reg,

 

>>What strikes me is not the idea that prostitutes sometimes

>>steal, which is hardly a shocking or remarkable notion.

>

>This certainly seems to say that prostitutes as a group

>sometimes steal (as opposed to always steal) in

>contradistinction to 'some prostitutes steal' implying to me

> the idea that 'all' members of that group are painted with

>the same brush.

 

To say that football players are sometimes injured during a game does not mean that each and every player will at some point be injured during a game, merely that injury is something that sometimes occurs to football players during a game. Because such things are known to occur, no one would be shocked by the suggestion that a player might be injured during a game -- it is something that sometimes happens.

[guyinsf]

RE: ARE WE NUTS? Yes, We Are.

 

I certainly hope you have never downloaded an mp3 music file or copied music from a compact disc other than for your own use. I get your point, but my hunch is that nearly 100% of us have done something that is equivalent to thievery and/or enabling someone else's thievery, including pirating music or other software (which can be as broadly defined as loading software you already bought on a new machine unless you delete it from the old machine). I was not a big Napster fan (and in fact found it troubling that it seemed to be making cyber-shoplifting quite socially acceptable), but I did download a handful of songs there -- things which I have been unable to find for purchase.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: ARE WE BORED? Yes, We Are.

 

Pardon me for being critical but I think you guys could be a little more creative. Why do you stop at calling me a thief? Here are some suggestions to punch it up a bit: "Rick Munroe is a murderer!" No, wait...too extreme. How about just saying I maimed someone? We hustlers do tend to get easily riled up; it's plausible. Or you could call me a drug addict (everyone knows prostitutes work for drug money). Hmmm...let me see. How about a racism angle? Or you can say I voted Commie (I was just watching All in the Family). You could call me excessively hairy & old...nah, it's been done & apologized for. Here's a thought: buy a National Enquirer! Maybe I'll go shoplift a copy (I'm an escort, remember?) and find some ideas for you. ...Hey, why don't you "out" me? Oh yeah...too late for that.

 

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. My imagination tends to work best when I'm coming up with roleplays or sexual fantasies. But I hope in some small way I've inspired you. I assume there'll be a response to this...please make it juicy, OK? Then no one can complain that this site has gotten boring. Let's work together, guys.

 

I totally understand Sam & Diane on Cheers. Bickering makes me fucking horny as hell. }>

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: ARE WE NUTS? Yes, We Are.

 

>To say that football players are sometimes injured during a

>game does not mean that each and every player will at some

>point be injured during a game, merely that injury is

>something that sometimes occurs to football players during

>a game. Because such things are known to occur, no one

>would be shocked by the suggestion that a player might be

>injured during a game -- it is something that sometimes

>happens.

>

 

Not to carry this much further or put to fine a point on it... I don;t believe the analogy is apt. You supply a time constraint that modifies the interpretation -- in my mind at least.

 

>To say that football players are sometimes injured during a

>game does not mean that each and every player will at some

>point be injured during a game,

 

I agree. The probabilities are that during a single game not all players will be injured. However, if you drop the time constraint by deleting the content of the square brackets...

 

>To say that football players are sometimes injured [during a

>game] does not mean that each and every player will at some

>point be injured [during a game],

 

Then I disagree. Having played football I know that at some point in their career every player becomes injured -- it is part of the game. And the nature of the game influences the interpretation of the remark.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: ARE WE NUTS? Yes, We Are.

 

Sorry, square brackets was not a good choice. Trying again

 

 

>Not to carry this much further or put to fine a point on

>it... I don;t believe the analogy is apt. You supply a time

>constraint that modifies the interpretation -- in my mind at

>least.

>

>>To say that football players are sometimes injured during a

>>game does not mean that each and every player will at some

>>point be injured during a game,

>

>I agree. The probabilities are that during a single game

>not all players will be injured. However, if you drop the

>time constraint by deleting the content of the curly

>brackets...

>

>>To say that football players are sometimes injured {during a

>>game} does not mean that each and every player will at some

>>point be injured {during a game},

>

>Then I disagree. Having played football I know that at some

>point in their career every player becomes injured -- it is

>part of the game.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: ARE WE BORED? Yes, We Are.

 

>Pardon me for being critical but I think you guys could be a

>little more creative. Why do you stop at calling me a

>thief?

>

Wasn't aware that I had done that -- it wasn't my intent to remark on indivudals. My point was directed at a possible (mis)interpretation of Reg's remark equating prostitutes, as a group, to thieves. No more, no less.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: ARE WE BORED? Yes, We Are.

 

>Wasn't aware that I had done that

 

I wasn't referring to you, TY. You're sounding like Bilbo now.

[Guest KipOBrien]

RE: ARE WE NUTS? (I'm not!)

 

>>Oh I want to

>>also say I spoke to TonyGemini and asked him to write into

>>HooBoy, he can't because his wife and daughter can find out

>>what site he visits, he said he's never been to the hooboy

>>site and had never heard of it until I told him (this is the

>>situation with most of my clients I meet, they are very

>>discreet.)

>

>For God's sake, this is the dumbest thing I've heard. First

>of all, you're admitting that either you or someone else is

>writing multiple reviews for you with different screen

>names. Then you're saying TG never heard of this site,

>although he wrote a review there (which also says he found

>you on this site). And yes, he could use an internet cafe

>if he can't use his home computer. This is the worst case

>of B.S., M.S., Ph.D. I've ever seen...

>

>B.S.= Bullshit

>M.S.= More Shit

>Ph.D.= Pile it higher and Deeper

 

 

Nobody cares? For someone who doesn't you sure seem to be adding in your 2 cents quite often. It's stupid people like you that have nothing better to do than harass a cute sweet escort your jealous of because he would never give you the time of day. I have explained the story several times as clear as i could possibly inform, most got it, but obviously some of you didn't, I rest my case from here on, I've backed myself up as far as I will, this will indeed be the last post by KipOBrien.. let the good reviews poor in, the parties started, all you bad guys hating on me, Kip O'Brien is still alive and ALWAYS will be. this subject definitely DOES need to be put to rest, but if people like unicorn keep trying to dig for gold they aren't going to find, then hey what can I say? The TRUTH hurts! But... by the looks of my hotmail account, it hasen't!! PS oh and this is the big one.. if you read one of my earlier posts more carefully or wipe'd the SHIT out of your eyes you will see I explained ANTHONY HOLLOWAY sent in the review on me and POSED as TG (TonyGemini) what DON'T you understand here?

[Guest]

RE: ARE WE NUTS? Yes, We Are.

 

Well, dowloading from Napster was legal until the courts said it wasn't. There are degrees to everything. I certainly think it's unfair to paint RM and Bilbo with the same brush as Kip O'Brien and Anthony Holloway.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: ARE WE BORED? Yes, We Are.

 

>>Wasn't aware that I had done that

>

>I wasn't referring to you, TY. You're sounding like Bilbo

>now.

 

 

Shit!!!! x( Now I'm going to have to read more of this thread to find out what that means.

 

:-)

[duke37]

Same brush

 

Yeah Unicorn but you did paint them with the same brush. The only distinction you seem to find in Rick and Bilbo's action versus Kip's is one of degree. You may not have brushed them as hard but you did use the same brush.

 

I was astounded to see some people trying to draw some kind of moral equivalency between these things and I waited to see if anyone wanted to retract a statement that got out a little ahead of the facts. To equate what Bilbo did with Kip's odd admissions is more than a little absurd.

 

To be honest I don't know what happened with Kip's session with the reviewer. I never suggested he was lying. I just found it difficult to understand what he was trying to say and said that in a flip manner. Kip however took several posts and versions of the story to get his point across while people who are reliable can usually explain their actions simply and directly. Conclusive? Nah but it is a start.

 

Jeff

[guyinsf]

RE: ARE WE NUTS? Yes, We Are.

 

I'm not really sure about that. There hadn't been a ruling that it was illegal, forcing Napster to radically change its operation, but there certainly was the appearance that Napster's primary purpose was to facilitate music piracy. I would liken the height of Napster to looting that occurs during a riot (Quick! Grab all you can before the cops regain control of the situation.) or attempts to skirt income tax laws through fanciful accounting practices (until someone gets caught by an auditor, he/she can get away with it).

 

In California taxpayers are supposed to pay the equivalent of the sales tax to the Franchise Tax Board for every purchase made via the Internet for which sales tax was not collected. How many taxpayers do you think voluntarily pay this "use tax"? (I know I don't.)

[Guest regulation]

The Mystery of the Missing Posts

 

>Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. My imagination tends to

>work best when I'm coming up with roleplays or sexual

>fantasies. But I hope in some small way I've inspired you.

 

Your imagination was working fine last night when you responded to my post #73. In your response you described Nice Guy's actions as an attempt to extort money from you, without mentioning that the money in question is money that he gave you. That was very imaginative.

 

I note that your response is no longer on the board. Nor is my response to that, in which I thanked you for posting the link to the thread Nice Guy started about you. Do you know what happened to these missing posts?

[Guest regulation]

RE: Same brush, Same picture

 

>I was astounded to see some people trying to draw some kind

>of moral equivalency between these things and I waited to

>see if anyone wanted to retract a statement that got out a

>little ahead of the facts. To equate what Bilbo did with

>Kip's odd admissions is more than a little absurd.

 

What's so absurd about it? Both took money from a client without his permission because they felt the client had taken advantage of them on previous occasions. At least in Kip's case the client actually gave him the money, and he didn't stoop to picking the client's pocket. What seems absurd to me is condemning Kip and praising Bilbo for doing exactly the same thing.

[Rick Munroe]

The Mystery of the 58 Missing Posts

 

There are 58 posts inexplicably missing from the middle of that archived thread, something I noticed yesterday when I checked to see if the link worked. That thread was probably the longest that we have ever had here (191 posts and 4,356 views) and according to Daddy, when it was archived, the MC software arbitrarily deleted 58 posts...including post #45 or 46, which was my explanation of the facts of the case. Daddy tried to retrieve the 58 posts but apparently they are lost forever. It is a read-only thread, so nothing can be added. I asked Hooboy to delete my post here, which contained a link to that thread, because now it's incomplete and facts are missing.

 

TruthTeller was regarded by many here as a voice of reason. Here is one of his replies to you:

 

Precisely because - as you point out - Rick has had "glowing testimonials", with not a bad word said about him, I find the story told by this "nice guy" to be inherently suspect. Why would Rick - who, based on his reviews, seems to be the Beacon of Integrity among escorts - suddenly select this individual and behave in a totally aberrational, dishonest manner? Nice guy's story sounds very suspicious, to put it generously.

 

When a person has a lengthy history of sterling behavior - and then someone suddenly emerges and starts accusing that person of all sorts of corruption - I think it's more likely that the accuser is lying, or at least operating with an ulterior motive.

 

Wow...it's almost as if TT is still here with us. I just got chills. :-)

[Guest davos3]

DAVOS3

 

I CANNOT BELIEVE KIP'S BEHAVIOR, BUT I DON'T THREATEN.

 

I SIMPLY CALLED HIS PARENTS, BOSS AND PAROLE OFFICER AND TOLD ALL.

[Guest KipOBrien]

RE: ARE WE NUTS? (I'm not!)

 

Why so much confusion? Another thing easily explained: i did not write any reviews myself and NEVER will! There is another review in there by Handle: G-Man which if you scroll ALL THE WAY DOWN to the bottom of my reviews you will see that the FIRST review ever was by petereater (THE BEST) friend i have ever met in the world. he had some problems i guess sending in multiple reviews for me so he explained he had to make a new handle etc. Can i also make another note? check each review carefully by GMAN & petereater you will see he mentions "KIP FITS THE BILL" each time, i belive there are 2 by gman and 2 by petereater which are the SAME people. I am sure if you check each review CLOSE enough you will find other similarities as well. ;( OK? Oh I want to also say I spoke to TonyGemini and asked him to write into HooBoy, he can't because his wife and daughter can find out what site he visits, he said he's never been to the hooboy site and had never heard of it until I told him (this is the situation with most of my clients I meet, they are very discreet.)

In one of my past posts I listed TonyGemini's actually SN on AOL for people to contact him (he said it was ok) but it wasn't posted because personal info can not be posted.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: ARE WE NUTS? (I'm not!)

 

>Why so much confusion? Another thing easily explained:

 

Give it up lady - nobody gives a shit

 

Thunderbuns

[+ Axiom2001]

RE: ARE WE BORED? Yes, We Are.

 

>>Wasn't aware that I had done that

>

>I wasn't referring to you, TY. You're sounding like Bilbo

>now.

 

Rick, this is the first response that I have read of yours this week.

Are you on holiday? <Sorry my question does not address the thread, but you have a tendency to respond, so that is why it is here! Take care!

[Guest regulation]

RE: The Mystery of the 58 Missing Posts

 

>I asked Hooboy to delete my post here, which

>contained a link to that thread, because now it's incomplete

>and facts are missing.

 

Did you also ask him to delete my reply? I do not notice anything in the Message Center Rules to the effect that an escort has the right to delete posts of other site members if he doesn't care for those posts for some reason.

 

>

>TruthTeller was regarded by many here as a voice of reason.

 

He was regarded by others as (a) the most consistently insulting person ever to post here, (b) one of your screen names, or © both of the above.

 

 

>Here is one of his replies to you:

>

>Precisely because - as you point out - Rick has had

>"glowing testimonials", with not a bad word said about him,

>I find the story told by this "nice guy" to be inherently

>suspect. Why would Rick - who, based on his reviews, seems

>to be the Beacon of Integrity among escorts - suddenly

>select this individual and behave in a totally aberrational,

>dishonest manner? Nice guy's story sounds very suspicious,

>to put it generously.

 

I think we should try to remember TT for one of his better posts, not for the nonsense you posted above. Some -- we do not know what percentage -- of your clients have posted positive reviews. It does not follow that anyone who claims to have had a negative experience with you is lying.

 

Pickwick, Boston Guy and one or two others made points in that thread far more trenchant than TT's. One of those points is that Nice Guy's account of what happened and your account are almost identical. They differ in only very minor respects.

 

Another of those points is that NG's account contains what are called "bad facts," facts that weaken his case -- for example, the fact that he repeatedly canceled appointments with you. Any trial lawyer will tell you this is a sign that a witness is telling the truth. Someone who makes up a story from whole cloth usually edits out such "bad facts" and includes only the facts that support his case. NG could have done that, since it is his word against yours. But he didn't do that. I think we both know he didn't lie.

[Guest regulation]

RE: The Mystery of the 58 Missing Posts

 

>I think we both know he didn't lie.

>

 

We also know that I have not gotten and may never get the hang of boldface.

 

:-)

[Guest]

RE: ARE WE NUTS? (I'm not!)

 

>Oh I want to

>also say I spoke to TonyGemini and asked him to write into

>HooBoy, he can't because his wife and daughter can find out

>what site he visits, he said he's never been to the hooboy

>site and had never heard of it until I told him (this is the

>situation with most of my clients I meet, they are very

>discreet.)

 

For God's sake, this is the dumbest thing I've heard. First of all, you're admitting that either you or someone else is writing multiple reviews for you with different screen names. Then you're saying TG never heard of this site, although he wrote a review there (which also says he found you on this site). And yes, he could use an internet cafe if he can't use his home computer. This is the worst case of B.S., M.S., Ph.D. I've ever seen...

 

B.S.= Bullshit

M.S.= More Shit

Ph.D.= Pile it higher and Deeper