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

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>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.

 

Wow, how convincing! Anytime, you are ready to put quotation marks around something I wrote and try to prove your point, I'll be happy to read it. Until then, all I can say is Quod Non Est Demonstrandum.

 

>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.

 

Your allegation, the one I put quotes around in my prior email was that I agreed with the negative review. Again, since you can't quote me doing that, you change the subject. As a matter of logic, there is no inconsistency between pointing out the plausibility of part of the negative review, being agnostic about the rest, but also objecting to and trashing his marketing campaign. If I ever denied trashing that marketing campaign, use quotation marks and show me specifically where I did that.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>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.

 

You already owe me the money. It has been done abundantly already. Let's let the other readers of the message center judge. How about that?

 

Have you ever heard of hyperbole? Do you really think that there was not a moment of silence during that week when the phone was not ringing? Are you really that dumb or that fixated on the absolute literal interpretation of everything?

 

The author of the review obviously did not regard the telephone remark as negative. In fact, it is quite obvious that he intended it as a positive remark. You don't agree. That's fine. So you consider that part of the review to be negative. But can you really sit there with a straight face and claim that that small remark - probably less than 1% of the whole review - not just counterbalances, but actually outweighs all the other 99+% and turns the whole thing into a negative review??? There is just no point in talking to you.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>You already owe me the money. It has been done

>abundantly already. Let's let the other readers of the

>message center judge. How about that?

 

Fine by me, let the challenge stand. I would be happy to see if anyone can put quotation marks around a single instance where I specifically endorsed the negative review. It's very revealing that you huff and puff but you never try to do that.

 

>But can you really sit there with a straight

>face and claim that that small remark - probably less than 1%

>of the whole review - not just counterbalances, but actually

>outweighs all the other 99+% and turns the whole thing

>into a negative review??? There is just no point in talking

>to you.

 

For the umpteenth time, you idiot, I repeatedly described those as "supposedly positive reviews" and have repeatedly indicated why I would as a client regard that element as negative and accordingly would choose not to rent him. As I said before, calling an apple a pear, does not make it a pear, so too with something as subjective as positive review of an escort if on the basis of the facts disclosed, I, or anyone else, ceteris paribus, would regard the experience as negative.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>You already owe me the money. It has been done

>abundantly already. Let's let the other readers of the

>message center judge. How about that?

 

Fine by me, let the challenge stand. I would be happy to see if anyone can put quotation marks around a single instance where I specifically endorsed the negative review. It's very revealing that you huff and puff but you never try to do that.

 

>But can you really sit there with a straight

>face and claim that that small remark - probably less than 1%

>of the whole review - not just counterbalances, but actually

>outweighs all the other 99+% and turns the whole thing

>into a negative review??? There is just no point in talking

>to you.

 

For the umpteenth time, you idiot, I repeatedly described those as "supposedly positive reviews" and have repeatedly indicated why I would as a client regard that element as negative and accordingly would choose not to rent him. As I said before, calling an apple a pear, does not make it a pear, so too with something as subjective as positive review of an escort if on the basis of the facts disclosed, I, or anyone else, ceteris paribus, would regard the experience as negative.

[Guest YFSC]

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.

 

 

It's called emphasis.

 

I think you know what that means, and so does everyone else here.

I leave it to them to decide for themselves.

I'm done.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>It's called emphasis.

 

Well, I know I am not alone on this Board in thinking that consistent use of all-caps, bold and color is not just emphasis, it is tacky. It's akin to screaming in person, but hey I suppose that's civil to you.

[Rubar1]

Boy. You people are out of control. Too much time on your hands. I am the guy who wrote the first US review of Bruno and emphasized his looks over"mechanics". I guess I didn't realize the incredible consequences of my remark. To set the record correctly. The mechaincs were completely excellent.Good physical sex from top to bottom, kissing, the whole nine yards. An excellent escort experience.

 

As for that dip that went to Sao Paulo and got nothing. If an escort told me he wanted a $700 deposit and I didn' send it--the last thing I would expect was for him to meet me at the airport. HELLO.

 

Anyway..too many windbags on this thread.

[ad rian]

>I am the guy who wrote the first US review of Bruno and

>emphasized his looks over"mechanics". I guess I didn't realize

>the incredible consequences of my remark. To set the record

>correctly. The mechaincs were completely excellent.Good

>physical sex from top to bottom, kissing, the whole nine

>yards. An excellent escort experience.

 

Thanks for the clarification. That's very helpful. I do, however, think your contemporaneous report is more reliable but that might be just me as a lawyer talking, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. How about the cell phone in your experience?

 

>As for that dip that went to Sao Paulo and got nothing. If an

>escort told me he wanted a $700 deposit and I didn' send

>it--the last thing I would expect was for him to meet me at

>the airport. HELLO.

 

I agree, not having sent the deposit, I would not expect to meet the escort, but I would never send a deposit of that kind. The only deposits I send is an airline ticket when I bring an escort to visit me. Frankly, while asking for the deposit is a negative, IMHO I blame the client for not clarifying the situation beforehand, but there may well have been language issues on both sides here.

[Guest alanm]

Do you believe it? The review is from a first time reviewer. There seems to be a backlash against Bruno's price scale in the U.S., so we know some one would eventually write a negative review. The reviewer says he "arranged for a plane to fly around San Paulo [so Bruno could show him the city]. The reviewer also makes a point to tell us how much money he has: "My time bills out at $500."

 

Who rents a plane to see San Paulo, one of most crowded, unattractive cities in the world? Rio yes, but San Paulo?

 

I do not know Bruno & have no real opinion about his raking in the dollars in the U.S., but loved the comical nature of the review

(especially the emphasis on "how much money I have"). Why did he leave out the fact that the plane was formerly owned by the outgoing president of Brazil and cost $5,000 an hour to rent? Or, what hotel he was staying in --- probably the most expensive suite in the Caesar Park. Maybe I am being too tough on the guy, but first time reviews are highly suspect, as we all know. True or not, the review gave me a good laugh.

[+ Axiom2001]

Rubar, thanks man for setting the record straight! I'm with you!

Our fellow respondent, Adrian, should put a "sock" in it! For three or more days now, he and others have gone on and on and on and on...and about what? I am really laughing now!

 

Again, thanks/Obrigado! Axiom12

[+ Axiom2001]

AND NOW....let's move on to something much more imperative! All points have been made unless there is a variation on this theme!x(

[ad rian]

>Rubar, thanks man for setting the record straight! I'm with

>you!

>Our fellow respondent, Adrian, should put a "sock" in it! For

>three or more days now, he and others have gone on and on and

>on and on...and about what? I am really laughing now!

 

Look we all have the option of not reading or responding to posts that don't interest us. I do that all the time. This one interests me, I responded, and I think it is important because it gets to the nub of (1) what value to put on "positive" reviews; and (2) whether some escorts and their fans use this site for marketing campaigns which might be compensated or not. I have been persistent because this is a really good case study to make those points quite starkly regardless of whether I step on some sacred cows in doing so. Those who are not interested in what I say, just don't reak it or reply. That's what I often do when I have similar feelings. Rest assured though that I will continue to make these points.

 

I too am happy for Rubar's clarification, but as I said above it really does not change what I have been saying if you follow the thrust of my argument. Whether a review is intended to be positive or negative is a subjective interpretation, and that upon reading facts disclosed anyone is free to interpret those facts as positive or negative. Based on the phone usage, Rubar's contempraneous self-description, the 6 month over the top marketing campaign and the thus far unrefuted no show/negative review, I think the jury is out on Mr. Bruno. If you disagree, I am sure you can and will keep him very busy with your patronage.

[+ Axiom2001]

Sir, is this your final "take" on this particular topic?

[kjun]

Have you ever considered Paxil or even Thorazine. Could be a shock treatment would help your fixation.

[kjun]

Have you ever considered Paxil or even Thorazine. Could be a shock treatment would help your fixation.

[+ Axiom2001]

>Have you ever considered Paxil or even Thorazine. Could be a

>shock treatment would help your fixation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above must be for Adrian--- not I!! Axiom

[+ Axiom2001]

>Have you ever considered Paxil or even Thorazine. Could be a

>shock treatment would help your fixation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above must be for Adrian--- not I!! Axiom

[kjun]

Correct Axiom. My apologies:o

[kjun]

Correct Axiom. My apologies:o

[ad rian]

>Have you ever considered Paxil or even Thorazine. Could be a

>shock treatment would help your fixation.

 

Why only for me, and not those who launched a 6 month marketing campaign for the guy?

[ad rian]

>Have you ever considered Paxil or even Thorazine. Could be a

>shock treatment would help your fixation.

 

Why only for me, and not those who launched a 6 month marketing campaign for the guy?

[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...

 

For more support for your view, check out today's escort traels post from him. He is on his way to D.C. now. He obviously reads this site, or his "handlers" do. If he were in a position to refute the review, he or they should have done so by now.

[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...

 

For more support for your view, check out today's escort traels post from him. He is on his way to D.C. now. He obviously reads this site, or his "handlers" do. If he were in a position to refute the review, he or they should have done so by now.

[+ Axiom2001]

Since I am perusing this board this morning (It's Sunday morn in California)-- I thought I'll expend just a little energy to read the latest remarks here. Well, when I have disagreed with someone who has made comments which I thought did not need to be defended, etc., I would merely reply or write: "I am NOT dignifying your position or comment." Perhaps Mr. Gaucho has chosen to do this tacitly. Or perhaps he would rather spend his limited time in this country pleasing those who look beyond ONE review.

 

ENOUGH SAID... I will NOT address this issue anyone...

I am not defending; nor am I attacking; I am merely stating how individuals might address an issue.

[+ Axiom2001]

Since I am perusing this board this morning (It's Sunday morn in California)-- I thought I'll expend just a little energy to read the latest remarks here. Well, when I have disagreed with someone who has made comments which I thought did not need to be defended, etc., I would merely reply or write: "I am NOT dignifying your position or comment." Perhaps Mr. Gaucho has chosen to do this tacitly. Or perhaps he would rather spend his limited time in this country pleasing those who look beyond ONE review.

 

ENOUGH SAID... I will NOT address this issue anyone...

I am not defending; nor am I attacking; I am merely stating how individuals might address an issue.