What's up with Josh Weston?

[Hamlet]

Today's utterly scathing review of the highly regarded Josh Weston must have taken a lot of people by surprise. It's very odd. The writer changed his handle to write this review, and the meeting with Josh was 8 months ago. I thought the policy of this site was that the meeting had to be within the last 3 months, except under special circumstances. What could the special circumstances be here? This is very strange, and very fishy.

 

Has anybody had any recent experiences with Josh? I tried like mad to make an appointment to see him when he was last in New York, but although he answered my numerous emails, and repeatedly promised he was going to call me and we would get together, I never succeeded in getting him to call. I wrote to him towards the end of his stay in New York just to express my regret that we hadn't managed to get together and my hope that we would do so on his next visit, but he never responded to that email.

[Hamlet]

I'm going to reply to my own post. As I read over this new review of Josh I find it totally unbelievable. The reviewer poses as somebody who has been ripped off, he's furious, and he's out to warn other people so they don't suffer the same fate from this scam artist.

 

Yeah, right. Anybody that mad would write the review the NEXT DAY, not eight months later. This guy, who changed his handle just to write this one review, has something personal going on. I'm amazed that HooBoy has printed it, and I, for one, would be very pleased to see it deleted.

[KY_TOP]

>> but although he answered my numerous emails, and

>repeatedly promised he was going to call me and we would get

>together, I never succeeded in getting him to call. I wrote

>to him towards the end of his stay in New York just to express

>my regret that we hadn't managed to get together and my hope

>that we would do so on his next visit, but he never responded

>to that email.

 

If this guy didn't call you after he promised to, and you never met this guy, then why do you think the negative review is suspect?

I admit writing a review after 8 months is a bit much but as we've seen numerous times some people just have a hard time getting a bad experience out of their system.

 

Actually your statement that he didn't call you after promoising to adds credence to the Review.

[Hamlet]

>If this guy didn't call you after he promised to, and you

>never met this guy, then why do you think the negative review

>is suspect?

>I admit writing a review after 8 months is a bit much but as

>we've seen numerous times some people just have a hard time

>getting a bad experience out of their system.

>

>Actually your statement that he didn't call you after

>promoising to adds credence to the Review.

 

There could be any number of reasons why Josh never got around to calling me - maybe he's just disorganized, or absent-minded. I don't think a non-experience such as I had with Josh means anything. What DOES mean something is that he has a string of reviews each one more glowing than the last - nobody has a bad word to say about Josh Weston. These include reviews of appointments both before and after the purported meeting 8 months ago. Those reviews weigh a lot more heavily in his favor, for me at least, than the fact that he never called weighs against him. I mean, hey, I'M the guy he never called back, but it doesn't bother me, beyond the obvious disappointment, and it won't stop me from trying to set something up with him in the future.

 

The guy who wrote the review today is seething venom, practically frothing at the mouth. Over something that supposedly happened 8 months ago? He says he is writing the review in order to protect the rest of us from Josh, yet he waited 8 months to write it??

 

I just don't buy this. I hope that Josh responds.

[VaHawk]

Why does the review say 8 months and also gives the date of the meeting as Dec. 2002, which is closer to 12 months?

 

Anway, just because an escort has a dozen good reviews, does not mean that everyone who hired the escort or hires him in the future had/will have a good experience.

 

I see no purpose in calling for it to be yanked. The escort can always post a response which serves as the last word for that review.

[KY_TOP]

>There could be any number of reasons why Josh never got around

>to calling me - maybe he's just disorganized, or

>absent-minded.

 

Either way if he told you he'd call you and he didn't, he lied.

 

> I mean, hey, I'M the guy he never

>called back, but it doesn't bother me, beyond the obvious

>disappointment, and it won't stop me from trying to set

>something up with him in the future.

 

I hope you do, have a great time, and write a review. But just because you like a guy you have never been with is no reason to suggest someone else's opinion, that has met him, be pulled.

 

>I just don't buy this. I hope that Josh responds.

 

I hope he does too. That's what makes this site fair and Josh will have the last word if he does respond.

[Hamlet]

>>There could be any number of reasons why Josh never got

>around

>>to calling me - maybe he's just disorganized, or

>>absent-minded.

>

>Either way if he told you he'd call you and he didn't, he

>lied.

 

That's a pretty harsh way of looking at it. I don't have any idea why he didn't call. To be honest, it never even crossed my mind to think of Josh as having "lied" because he didn't call. I promised my cousin I'd give him a call a couple of weeks ago. What with being very busy with work, a lot of unexpected things coming up, and only remembering about it when I'm driving in the car or at night when it's too late to call, I haven't called him yet - two weeks later, which is about the time frame involved in my interactions with Josh Weston. Does that mean I "lied" to my cousin? I certainly hope he doesn't look at it that way.

[KY_TOP]

> Does that mean I "lied" to my cousin? I certainly

>hope he doesn't look at it that way.

 

I don't know, depends if you ever call your cousin I guess and what

your definition of a lie is. I guess I am old fashioned and still believe a person's word is their bond. If your word isn't worth anything then what does a person really have?

 

As far as Josh,

Hooboy has removed the Review in Question, which shows how fair he tries to be to the Escorts.

 

Now you'll have to meet the Guy and let us know if he is All you expect.

[Hamlet]

>> Does that mean I "lied" to my cousin? I certainly

>>hope he doesn't look at it that way.

>

>I don't know, depends if you ever call your cousin I guess and

>what

>your definition of a lie is. I guess I am old fashioned and

>still believe a person's word is their bond. If your word

>isn't worth anything then what does a person really have?

 

LOL - our little discussion pricked my conscience enough so that I called my cousin right after my last post. He was out and I left a message, saying I had been thinking of him a lot and even wrote about not having called him on an internet bulletin board. Now, at least, it's his turn to call me. I wonder if he'll ask exactly what bulletin board it was.

 

I'm really happy that HooBoy pulled that review. I know you don't agree with me, but everything about it was screaming "BOGUS REVIEW" to me. I certainly believe in freedom of speech, but not freedom to libel.

[KY_TOP]

>I'm really happy that HooBoy pulled that review. I know you

>don't agree with me, but everything about it was screaming

>"BOGUS REVIEW" to me. I certainly believe in freedom of

>speech, but not freedom to libel.

 

HB states the Review was pulled due to the time lapse involved.

The Review may very well be Bogus but if the guy was just making up something trying to trash Josh why didn't he pick a more recent date? Then the Review would still be up. It would have been good to have seen Josh's response but he won't have to worry about it now and probably couldn't remember a session so many months ago anyway. That is why I think pulling the Review was fair to Josh.

 

I'm not sure we disagree about Josh (never met him, looks sexy but we are both Tops). I think we may just disagree about people writing negative reviews.

 

My concern is that people are afraid to post negative Reviews because someone wants to jump on them when they do or question their motives, sometimes rightly so. I've had numerous M4M'ers e-mail me about a bad time they have had with guys I've had a good time with and that I had Reviewed. None of them wrote a Review. Finally a few people have stepped up to the plate on one of those guys, Brian/Philly. Looks like I got Lucky with the guy. I think people may be more reluctant to write a Negative Review if an Escort has a lot of all positive reviews. I was just scheduled to meet an Escort in Indy a few nights ago that has 13 Reviews all positive except for one No Show Review. Guess what? He was a No Show with me! After I e-mailed for an explanation I got a short e-mail from him 24 hours AFTER our scheduled time that he was sick with the flu. Will I post a Review even though he should have contacted me before our time? No I won't because he gave me an explanation and I want to fair to him.

 

(PS Glad you called your cousin):+

[Bilbo]

I did notice that the review said that he had a 5 -6 inch dick, which , if the height listed was correct, you could tell was not correct just by looking at the picture.

[guyinsf]

The one thing that I noticed about the now removed review that called the review into question was that the comment about Josh putting his "ugly ass" into the client's face for him to rim. I can understand the client not being into rimming, but the way it was written just sounded like part of a deliberate tirade, not an accurate portrayal of a client/escort encounter.

[marc anthony]

The review had many things wrong with it, and it is clear that there was a lot of negative emotion put into it. Clearly it was not objective, but what review really is?

 

If you believe that the review is totally bogus, you can certainly make a case for that. The one piece of evidence that speaks strongly against that is the one pointed out by KyTop. Someone creating a totally bogus review would not make the date of the encounter 8 months ago.

 

My guess... and of course it is just a guess since it fun to speculate...

 

The encounter happened. Maybe it wasn't as bad as reported, but certainly not satisfying. More has happened between now and then. Now the reviewer is pissed. Now he writes a review... with all the vitrolic adjectives included!

[Hamlet]

>The one thing that I noticed about the now removed review

>that called the review into question was that the comment

>about Josh putting his "ugly ass" into the client's face for

>him to rim.

 

Yes, the bit about the "ugly ass" really made me laugh. Anybody who has seen pics of Josh or his videos knows that his ass is of Hall of Fame quality. Many reviewers have remarked on it as well. If the guy who wrote the review didn't like the way Josh looks, why would he have hired him in the first place?

[Hamlet]

>If you believe that the review is totally bogus, you can

>certainly make a case for that. The one piece of evidence

>that speaks strongly against that is the one pointed out by

>KyTop. Someone creating a totally bogus review would not make

>the date of the encounter 8 months ago.

 

Normally I would agree. But even here, as someone else pointed out it's a little fishy. He makes a big point of the meeting's being 8 months ago, but in the header gives the date as December, 2002, so nearly TWELVE months ago. So he contradicts himself in his own review, in addition to changing his usual handle just for this one review so we won't know who he is. Sorry to harp on one point, and I'll stop now, but this to me is SCREAMING "B-O-G-U-S". (And yeah, I've got a thing for Josh Weston, even though we've never met, or I wouldn't be carrying on quite so much.)

[+ glutes]

Well Hamlet, I have seen that ass up close, he has 'God Glutes'! However don't feel offended, he never returns calls out here on the West Coast either...

[Hamlet]

>Well Hamlet, I have seen that ass up close, he has 'God

>Glutes'! However don't feel offended, he never returns calls

>out here on the West Coast either...

 

When did you see them?? I want DETAILS!!!!!

And if he doesn't return calls how do you set up an appointment that actually happens?

[+ glutes]

Ah, the details.

He sometimes performs at the Nob Hill Theatre in San Francisco. Check out there website http://www.nobhilltheatre.com , they list who is performing during that week, updated on Thursdays.

Think he was asking for $300 for a on-premise private...

[Guest sniper]

I'm a little surprised at how glowing Josh's reviews are. I've found him, while generally polite, somewhat less that enthusiastic about what he's doing(this is balanced against the fact that he's willing to do more than some others who are friendlier do). But I'd be surprised to see a "Scathing" review of him as well.