Today's (11/10) "No Show" Review of BrunoGaucho

[Guest YFSC]

RE: RE

 

I for one have no interest in

>an escort who is booking 12 guys a day for 2 hours each.

 

 

Oh, come on, Adrian! Even *you* must realize how incredibly stupid that remark is. At least give the guy 5 minutes a day to eat, sleep, shit and jerk off.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Excuse Me?

 

>>It would be useful to have some more reviews from actual

>>clients of Bruno's during his visit to the U.S. Then

>people

>>will have more information about the real experience of

>being

>>with Bruno. Gentlemen? Start typing, please!

>

>Bruno, stop typing, please!?

 

 

Adrian, stop bitching, please!?

 

And *Adrian*, stop typing, please!? Why do you think it is necessary, appropriate, useful or interesting for 11 of the first 19 posts on this thread all to be from you?? :-( x(

 

Besides, Trilingual was telling *us* to type, not Bruno. And what he wants typed would be *useful*.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>>So there are 5 threads all bumped to the top by adrian on

>>Bruno Gaucho today. What's with that, pal? Are you his

>>jjilted lover or what?

>

>No, one of my correspondents suggested that I read prior

>threads. I took the advice, and realized that I missed Mr.

>Bruno's advertising campaign in the previous rounds and so I

>thought I might as well add my five cents!

 

No, I think you *must* be his jilted lover, pal, given the consuming obsession that you seem to have to fling shit at him at every opportunity in the past couple of days. I'm not particularly defending Bruno, but why do we need all this crap from you?

 

You even found it necessary to make a snide comment about Bruno Gaucho on the **Escort Travels** thread of **another escort** who has nothing to do with Bruno.

 

Get real, man. Talk about your five cents: your currency has gotten **severely devalued** in the last couple of days.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

> What I said

>>was that I don't trust positive first time reviews because

>>they smack of advertising. As for negative first reviews,

>I

>>think they tend to be more reliable.

>

>**OR** they tend to come from bitchy guys that want to trash

>an escort but don't want the review to be identified with

>their better known persona here.

 

Believe it or not, I have submitted only 2 reviews, both negative. One was of Kirk/David, who has many negative reviews here which ubfortunately I did not read until after the fact, and one was of a "no show" (before the no show designation began) who was very late and who threatened me when I cancelled on him. I don't care if people like Mr. Bruno, I just think the reviews here are over the top and fanciful. From my experience here, I have always been disappointed with escorts who receive these over the top reviews here, and I am trying to share my insights with others. After much practice with this site, I am convinced that the signs of a bad experience can be gleamed both from negative reviews and over the top reviews from reviewers whose inferiorities or inadequacies are telegraphed in their self-descriptions.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>Why?

>Because there are 3 positive reviews, at least 2 of which

>give specifics of the encounter: not lurid details, but enough

>to know what you can expect from him, and 2 of them are from

>men who have written other reviews.

 

Well, you obviously are not a careful reader. One of the so-called positive readers says that sexual performance is unimportant to him, another says the guy kept his phone on the whole time. I am sorry I just don't think those are "positive" reviews. Sorry. As for Bruno, and his gilted lover theory, he just ain't my type. I was in Brazil in September, but that trip was dedicated to real "girls" at Cafe Photo in SP (but I don't want to start another debate.)

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>and then check out

>the other one who talked about him keaving his phone on while

>hired. I could go on, but I won't. How on earth can we rely

>on reviews that laud some guy with praise like that. Hey if

>you want to pay $400 for that, go for it!

 

Adrian, your earlier remark about 12 guys a day for 2 hours each (!) was just stupid. This one, however, is downright deliberate malicious distortion.

 

You took a single remark out of context from a very long and very positive review that is filled with a great deal of specific information, a remark that was not presented as a negative in the original, and twisted the remark to make both it and the overall review seem negative.

 

SHAME ON YOU!! Didn't the nuns teach you better than that??

 

The hire was for a week (which you "forgot" to mention), not just something like an hour, and the reviewer didn't say that Bruno left his phone on while hired, he said that he (the reviewer) didn't ask Bruno to turn it off for the whole week, i.e., he allowed Bruno to leave it on. He also said very clearly that at certain times it was off. And in context the reviewer was cleaarly not complaining about that. (Hey, some guys like to watch, others like to be watched, maybe he likes to do it to cell phone music.)

 

This is beyond the pale, even for you.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>The hire was for a week (which you "forgot" to

>mention), not just something like an hour, and the reviewer

>didn't say that Bruno left his phone on while hired, he

>said that he (the reviewer) didn't ask Bruno to turn it

>off for the whole week, i.e., he allowed Bruno to leave

>it on. He also said very clearly that at certain times

>it was off. And in context the reviewer was cleaarly not

>complaining about that. (Hey, some guys like to watch, others

>like to be watched, maybe he likes to do it to cell

>phone music.)

 

Look, if you think that's the mark of a good escort, bully for you. I don't. Sorry. Like I said, from my experience here, I now know why I have been disappointed the few times I have relied on positive reviews other than those that come from a few guys here (e.g., Marc Anthony) whose track record for discernment is very good. It's ok to disagree with me. I am just not sure that it is appropriate for this guy's fan club to go on a 6 month promotional campaign here. What's your cut. Do you get a percentage, or work by the piece?

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>Believe it or not, I have submitted only 2 reviews, both

>negative.

 

Why only 2? Are you proud of that? And why both negative? If you *use* the reviews here, why don't you become *productive* instead of *destructive* and write a few - good, bad or indifferent. If you profit from everyone else's experience, how about contributing a little of your own?

 

> and I am trying to share my insights with

>others.

 

You sure have a *very* peculiar way of doing it.

 

>After much practice with this site, I am convinced

>that the signs of a bad experience can be gleamed both from

>negative reviews and over the top reviews from reviewers whose

>inferiorities or inadequacies are telegraphed in their

>self-descriptions.

 

OK then say that instead of trashing escorts and their reviewers with ridiculous and misleading remarks.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>Why only 2? Are you proud of that? And why both negative?

>If you *use* the reviews here, why don't you become

>*productive* instead of *destructive* and write a few - good,

>bad or indifferent. If you profit from everyone else's

>experience, how about contributing a little of your own?

 

I have explained this for the record many times before. I don't rely on positive reviews precisely because they are often sycophantic paens from troubled individuals or obvious marketing campaigns. I only use negative reviews as a winnowing device so, why would you be surprised that I only have given 2 negative reviews. No free ride here, sorry. I have only given 2 negative reviews because I have only had two negative experiences as opposed to a few disappointing but not negative experiences. Actually, I have a great track record with escorts, but again my few disapointments have come from a few over the top reviews here.

 

>> and I am trying to share my insights with

>>others.

>

>You sure have a *very* peculiar way of doing it.

 

Sorry, that you feel that way, but surely there mustr be room here for a little dissent especially after a 6 month promotional campaign for Mr. Bruno.

 

>OK then say that instead of trashing escorts and their

>reviewers with ridiculous and misleading remarks.

 

Well, what is misleading about pointing out that one supposedly positive review came from a guy who said he was easy to please and did not care about sexual performance, and another came from a guy who said that Bruno left his phone on the whole time and it did not stop ringing. Read dsispassionately and even skeptically, and you will learn, my friend!

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>Well, you obviously are not a careful reader. One of the

>so-called positive readers says that sexual performance is

>unimportant to him, another says the guy kept his phone on the

>whole time. I am sorry I just don't think those are

>"positive" reviews. Sorry. As for Bruno, and his gilted

>lover theory, he just ain't my type. I was in Brazil in

>September, but that trip was dedicated to real "girls" at Cafe

>Photo in SP (but I don't want to start another debate.)

 

THERE YOU GO AGAIN.

Repeating your deliberate distortion of what was written by someone else.

 

You are the one who is not a careful reader. And intolerant to boot.

Does everyone have to like what you like and agree with you? The reviewer may say that sexual performance is unimportant to him, but the review sure sounds like he got what he wanted. Who the hell are you to say that's unimportant or no good or irrelevant? The name of the game is to please the client. If he wants to just sit and look or if he wants to hide in a cardboard box the whole time, that's his business. He was nice enough to say what he's interested in, and the other guys that have interests that do match his will be grateful. If that doesn't match your interests then you know to move on. Not to trash him or the escort he was with.

 

And as for trying to retell the Big Lie - your malicious distortion about the keeping the phone on, so that maybe someone will believe it if they see it often enough - forget it.

You and everybody else see the post below that I wrote on that before.

I'm not going to repeat it all here the way you do.

 

If you can read the first 3 reviews and not think that they are positive, then your capital has just gotten devalued way below zero.

I didn't think that was possible, but you must be living somewhere "through the looking-glass".

 

And the "jilted lover theory" is not Bruno's. It's Lucky's. Can't you stop bashing Bruno even for one second? And give credit where credit is due. ;-)

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>You are the one who is not a careful reader. And

>intolerant to boot.

>Does everyone have to like what you like and agree with you?

>The reviewer may say that sexual performance is unimportant to

>him, but the review sure sounds like he got what he wanted.

>Who the hell are you to say that's unimportant or no good or

>irrelevant? The name of the game is to please the client. If

>he wants to just sit and look or if he wants to hide in a

>cardboard box the whole time, that's his business. He was

>nice enough to say what he's interested in, and the other guys

>that have interests that do match his will be grateful.

> If that doesn't match your interests then you know to move

>on. Not to trash him or the escort he was with.

 

Yes, but I don't have to value that as a "good" or "positive" experience, and I don't. In fact, I think anyone who would rely on that as a basis for renting Mr. Bruno would be misguided, but hey what ever floats your boat ....! It's kind of like I review of Pavarotti from a reviewer who says hey, I really prefer rap but .... Or a review of the car mechanic from the committed pedestrian who has never driven a car but ....

 

>And as for trying to retell the Big Lie - your

>malicious distortion about the keeping the phone on, so

>that maybe someone will believe it if they see it often enough

>- forget it.

>You and everybody else see the post below that I wrote on

>that before.

>I'm not going to repeat it all here the way you do.

 

As for the big lie, anyone who wants can read it in black and white, the reviewer stated that Bruno left the phone on and it did not stop ringing. Why you think that would be less annoying over the course of a week as opposed to an hour is beyond me, but chacun a son propre gout!

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>>> and I am trying to share my insights with

>>>others.

>>

>>You sure have a *very* peculiar way of doing it.

>

>Sorry, that you feel that way, but surely there mustr be room

>here for a little dissent

 

I don't think I'm the only one that thinks your method of "sharing your insights" is very peculiar. And you're not sharing any insights anyway. You're just trashing.

You can have all the dissent you want, and we have plenty of it here. But do it in an honest and civil manner. At least with respect to this topic, you are not. And what you are doing is not "dissent". Claiming that it is and that you are just "sharing insights" is part of your misleading.

 

>>OK then say that instead of trashing escorts and their

>>reviewers with ridiculous and misleading remarks.

>

>Well, what is misleading about pointing out that one

>supposedly positive review came from a guy who said he was

>easy to please and did not care about sexual performance, and

>another came from a guy who said that Bruno left his phone on

>the whole time and it did not stop ringing.

 

THERE YOU GO AGAIN.

Repeating the Big Lie about the phone. That's what's misleading, along with other things. Trying to make a very positive review sound like a negative one. See my post about that. You won't get away with this malicious distortion of what was written. That was a very positive review and the guy allowed him to do it. Just because you don't like it doesn't make a very long and very positive review into a negative one.

 

Even now, when you say you are not trashing Bruno, you are doing it.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>Well, you obviously are not a careful reader.

 

Talk about careful reader!

You read the positive reviews and ferret out minor remarks in a long review to brand the whole review as negative, but then you come to the one negative review and gobble up all that obvious garbage wholesale without question??? Where is your "skeptical" approach to reading reviews? Or does it only apply to the good ones, and we don't have to question the bile that is poured out by bitchy queens?

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>Talk about careful reader!

>You read the positive reviews and ferret out minor remarks in

>a long review to brand the whole review as negative, but then

>you come to the one negative review and gobble up all that

>obvious garbage wholesale without question??? Where is your

>"skeptical" approach to reading reviews? Or does it only

>apply to the good ones, and we don't have to question the bile

>that is poured out by bitchy queens?

 

 

I have no where said that I buy the negative review. Again, read what I wrote. All I did was to point out from my own experience/knowledge of Brazil part of the story to do with airplanes that one commentator here found strange was not strange at all for anyone who actually knows Sao Paulo. What I do find strange is that that review elicited an immediate assault from those who appear to have been leading the Bruno marketing campaign here for 6 months, and who appear to have a personal interest if not a financial interest in the success of that campaign.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>I don't think I'm the only one that thinks your method of

>"sharing your insights" is very peculiar. And you're not

>sharing any insights anyway. You're just trashing.

>You can have all the dissent you want, and we have plenty of

>it here. But do it in an honest and civil manner. At

>least with respect to this topic, you are not. And

>what you are doing is not "dissent". Claiming that it

>is and that you are just "sharing insights" is part of your

>misleading.

 

Where is the dishonesty. Be specific. Simply because someone calls an apple a pear does not make it a pear. Just because someone intended to write a positive review, does not necessarilly make it a positive review. I have made it clear why I regard two of the suposedly positive reviews as negative, and why I would not rent hm on the basis of those reviews.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>Look, if you think that's the mark of a good escort, bully

>for you.

 

Again you try to distort and mislead. And you miss the point totally. It's not the mark of a good escort and it's not the mark of a bad escort. The mark of a good escort is to please the client. This client was very obviously pleased, in spite of your continued attempts to make it sound otherwise.

 

> I

>am just not sure that it is appropriate for this guy's fan

>club to go on a 6 month promotional campaign here. What's

>your cut. Do you get a percentage, or work by the piece?

 

Well, as "observant" and as "careful a reader" as you "are," you might not have noticed that I have not been one of those posting about Bruno before today. And the credit for sparking my participation belongs to you and your smear campaign, not to Bruno

 

And I try to get a piece whenever I can. ;-)

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>>But do it in an honest and civil manner.

 

By the way, I take it that you think your repeated use of red ink, bold and big fonts is civil? I'll check with Mr. Manners and get back to you. Honest, I promise I will.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

> All I did was to point out from my own

>experience/knowledge of Brazil part of the story to do with

>airplanes that one commentator here found strange was not

>strange at all for anyone who actually knows Sao Paulo.

 

That ain't all you did, pal.

 

>What

>I do find strange is that that review elicited an immediate

>assault from those who appear to have been leading the Bruno

>marketing campaign here for 6 months,

 

What planet have you been on, man? There has been almost no comment from supporters of Bruno. And some other posters have already remarked on that. The review was followed by an immediate avalanche of posts trashing Bruno, gloating that "the Great One" had a negative review, and swallowing the story whole. And you have been very prominent among those.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>That ain't all you did, pal.

 

Wow, what argumentaion! Be specific. Read my posts. If I endorsed the negative no show review, quote me where I did that, if you can.

 

>What planet have you been on, man? There has been

>almost no comment from supporters of Bruno.

 

I suppose your defense of him here has been as something other than a supporter of his? Interesting, very interesting!

[ad rian]

>I'm getting this chilling feeling that maybe that review was

>real, after all. It's been up for three days, and it's hard

>to imagine why he wouldn't have responded to it by now if it

>were a fake...

 

That is a very perceptive and subtle point that you raise. It is especially curious since he has such sophisticated facilitators/friends and advisors on this Board who surely would have made that point to him by now.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>>That ain't all you did, pal.

>Wow, what argumentaion! Be specific. Read my posts.

 

OK.. I am going to give you *just one* example, because it will take much too long to go find them all, and it is hopeless to try to reason with you anyway. First, though, you claimed

 

>> All I did was to point out from my own

>>experience/knowledge of Brazil part of the story to do with

>>airplanes that one commentator here found strange was not

>>strange at all for anyone who actually knows Sao Paulo.

 

to which I replied >That ain't all you did, pal.

 

which refers to the fact that you have been trashing Bruno right and left, from the very beginning after the review. It's not limited to what you did or didn't say about the review itself. So don't take umbrage and innocently say "If I endorsed the negative no show review, quote me where I did that, if you can."

 

Now the example. In the very first response to the original post in this thread we find,

 

ad rian Sun Nov-10-02 11:45 AM

Member since May 11th 2002

 

> I for one have no interest in an escort who is booking 12 guys a day >for 2 hours each.

 

That's trashing. And far from the only example. In a post on another thread you called him "an around the clock whore". And there is no shortage of other examples. And do you remember when I said "honest and civil"?

(to be continued)

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

Now for the next part.

In just about every one of your posts you persist in twisting what was said, misleading and commenting as if the post said something else.

 

You said

>>What I do find strange is that that review elicited an immediate assault from those who appear

>>to have been leading the Bruno marketing campaign here for 6 months,

 

to which I responded

>What planet have you been on, man? There has been almost no comment from

>supporters of Bruno. And some other posters have already remarked on that. The review was followed

>by an immediate avalanche of posts trashing Bruno, gloating that "the GreatOne" had a

>negative review, and swallowing the story whole. And you have been very prominent among those.

 

and that is true and correct. You shortened that to

 

>>What planet have you been on, man? There has been almost no comment from supporters of Bruno.

 

and then said

 

>I suppose your defense of him here has been as something

>other than a supporter of his? Interesting, very interesting!

 

As I have said several times now, I did not make any posts on these threads until the wee hours of today (Nov 13). You claimed that

 

>>that review elicited an immediate assault from those who appear to >>have been leading the Bruno marketing campaign here for 6 months,

 

False. Everybody can look for themselves and see that. As I said before, there has been almost no comment from supporters of Bruno. And you know perfectly well that in context we were talking about the time up to now. And what I said is correct. Everybody can see that, too.

 

I also said that, contrary to your claim of an immediate assault of his supporters, there was the exact opposite:

 

> The review was followed by an immediate avalanche of posts trashing Bruno,

>gloating that "the Great One" had a negative review, and swallowing the story whole.

And you have been very prominent among those.

 

And that is true. Your own first post above in this thread, of Nov. 10 at 5:45, the first one after the original post wondering about the review's veracity, was the start of the post-review avalanche. Look at the posts in this thread and others. You will find very many which accept the review as true and many which simply trash Bruno without reference to the review (like your #1), and very few which defend him.

 

But of course you know that, because you are a "careful reader." So in order to weasel out of the tight corner you were in, you responded instead

 

>I suppose your defense of him here has been as something

>other than a supporter of his? Interesting, very interesting!

 

as if I had been a defender/supporter of his all along, and when you knew full well that I had not posted anything about him before a few hours ago, and when you also knew that I was not so much defending Bruno as exposing your deliberate distortions and gratuitous trashing.

Typical for you, and as I have pointed out before, you try to make things appear other than what they are through your distortions.

 

We were talking about the immediate responses. And I said "immediate avalanche" of posts trashing Bruno. Your first post was on Nov 10, followed by many others in the 3 days since then, and you have been in the company of several other posters who have been eagerly yapping at Bruno like hounds after a fox. My first post on the subject was on Nov 13 (today), and all of my posts have been in response to your posts. Which of the two is "immediate"? You do the math. Moreover, if I am a "defender/supporter" and my posts are all directed in response to your posts, what do you suppose that means about where the attack is coming from?

 

So please don't try to pull the old "color me innocent" routine.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>That's trashing.

 

Have I trashed him? Yes. Have I trashed his marketing campaign? Guilty as charged. But your allegation was that I "read the positive reviews and ferret out minor remarks in a long review to brand the whole review as negative, but then you come to the one negative review and gobble up all that obvious garbage wholesale without question???" Can you show me where I did that? This time, let's put some money on it.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>Now for the next part.

>In just about every one of your posts you persist in twisting

>what was said, misleading and commenting as if the post said

>something else.

 

Well, even for me this is now getting boring. I have made my point several times over. If you can show me why it distorts a review as a matter of logic to concede that even an intended positive review might be interpreted as a negative review if (a) it comes from a reviewer who says that he is easily pleased and not interested in sexual mechanics; and (b) the reviewer discosed that Bruno left his phone on, and it rang non-stop, whether or not that disturbed the client. The point here is that positive reviews are inherently subjective not objective. I can interpret someone's positive review as negative if the facts disclosed are ones that I would regard as negative if I were the client. Again, if you can show me a specific instance where I mislead or twisted the reviews, please do so, and let's put some money on it this time.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>>That's trashing.

>

>Have I trashed him? Yes. Have I trashed his marketing

>campaign? Guilty as charged. But your allegation was that I

>"read the positive reviews and ferret out minor remarks in a

>long review to brand the whole review as negative, but then

>you come to the one negative review and gobble up all that

>obvious garbage wholesale without question???" Can you show me

>where I did that? This time, let's put some money on it.

 

There are already several posts on this thread and others where I showed that, using just those words: the disgraceful attempt to pervert the author's intention about the phone, taking words out of context form an unusually long and unusually detailed (not sexually, but in other ways, giving a very good picture of the escort) and highly positive review. That you can claim here in public that that review is a negative one is laughable. It is beyond me howw you are not embarrassed to make that claim. And I will not say anything more about this. It is already amply documented.

 

Now you admit to trashing him.

Before you claimed that you were not, that you were only commenting on some facts about Sao Paulo. There is no point in trying to reason with someone like you, and so I am not going to try to do it any more.

I have said my piece, and others here in the message center are free to make up their own minds. I am not worried.