Review of Josh-La whatever

[swallows22]

Hooboy, I think your credibility is at stake. This latest review of Josh went to great lengths to denigrate a previous reviewer, rather than review Josh, himself. How could you possibly allow someone who is a reviewer to say the previous reviewer is a queen,etc? You wonder why people hesitate to submit a negative review or name a supposedly "big name". I sent you an e-mail two years ago telling you the retribution I got for submitting a negative review. You asked if you could publish it, but I declined-fearing even worse.

Sorry, mate, you have to have your priorities right to make this site exist, but like the old king "William of Orange" sometimes you drift.

And have a nice day. Cheers!

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

I don't see the big deal here. We are anonymous after all. Sure nobody likes to get a slap in the face, even an anonymous one. We are creatures of face -- no one likes to be offended but worse is to loose face, to be offended in public. The anonymity shields our face from the public. There is no harm done, no face lost, and as with ratings and reviews, they often say as much or more about the reviewer than the reviewed. I think that is this case, this the guy, on a mission to undue Josh's previous review, undid his own reputation somewhat IMO. He did nothing to diminish my assessment of the review and reviewer he attacked.

 

I see nothing in this episode that would inhibit me from sending other reviews. It probably would spur me on, in fact. Guess I'm just insensitive. Funny, I've always been told I'm too sensitive -- go figure. :+

 

As for HB's publishing this resulting in a loss or credibility, I don't see it. As a general principle, credibility is put at stake more by suppressing reviews IMO. Suppression should be left for the demonstrably false review. There is nothing here that indicates the review is false, just ill presented for your taste and mine.

[woodlawn]

>I don't see the big deal here. We are anonymous after all.

>Sure nobody likes to get a slap in the face, even an

>anonymous one. We are creatures of face -- no one likes to be

>offended but worse is to loose face, to be offended in public.

>The anonymity shields our face from the public. There is no

>harm done, no face lost,

 

So why do you often try to discourage people from saying negative things about escorts on this message board? The thread on David in Seattle is a recent example. Another is the thread on Bruno's "early departure."

 

Escorts use fake names too. And according to Hooboy, only a small percentage of visitors to this site visit the board, so anything said here should have only a minimal effect on an escort's reputation, if any effect at all.

 

>Guess I'm just insensitive. Funny, I've always been told I'm

>too sensitive -- go figure.

 

I figure you're sensitive to things said about escorts but don't give a shit about things said about clients. That certainly fits your actions here.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Your posts always leave me with something to think about.

[KY_TOP]

Josh's newest review was definitely different. I agree it seemed to be as much if not more about the client that had given a negative review (that Josh never responded to by the way). Maybe he used this client to write his response in the form of a positive (sort of) review. The newest "Positive" review was a real turn off to me and I don't see how blasting someone else helps Josh's cause.

[VaHawk]

Would you feel the same, if the review had been by a regular poster here who has a reputation as reliable? I thought the review focused more on an attack against the previous reviewer, rather than on Josh himself, and as such the reliability/honesty is questionable. I think Josh would have been better served without all the disparaging remarks against the previous reviewer. Now after all this, why would the previous reviewer even bother again. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

[Flower]

[font color="green"

] Not sure what the big deal is--sounds like he had good experience and was just trying to help out the escort. Not how I would have done it, but so what.:+

[Argos]

The recent review of Josh raises some interesting questions in my mind. I agree that it is less of a review as it is an attack on the reviewer who had something less than favorable to say about Josh. I actually didn't view the "negative" review as all that negative. I also have to wonder why Josh didn't respond to the review himself, but then again, maybe Josh is the one who actually wrote the response to the negative review. How would we even be able to find these things out??? It seems that many of Josh's reviews are so similar and I too wonder how many of them are written either by Josh or one of his friends. How does Hooboy actually police these things, or does he? It would be interesting to hear from someone who has actually seen Josh and reads this message board to see what they have to say about him.

[Argos]

I noticed that Chrismac has reviewed Josh twice and both were very positive reviews. I have always enjoyed reading Chrismac's posts, especially his hot stories, and it would be interesting to see what he says about Josh at this point. Does he still see him, and if not, why not? I am also curious to find out from Chrismac whether Josh suggested that he post a review.