Theiving Escort

[Guest sucker]

Just to add my two cents....

I live in the bay area and the pics and reviews of Luke have been great....but i would think twice about hiring him now.

How can you trust him?

If the client ripped him off, which happens all the time, the best approach would have been to tell the client he owes for the last time, and until that debt is squared away there will be no more dates.

Obviously, since a second date was set, and the client was willing to pay all the money upfront (at least it was sitting on the counter) that should have made up for it all.

Luke is simply not to be trusted, whether or not he was right or wrong!

Would you want an escort in your home who feels he has a right to your money....because of past grievences...real or imagined!

Honesty is always the best policy!

[Flower]

>With your rationalization the next time I am overcharged at

>the grocery I should walk out with something for free on my

>next visit. All employees that feel their pay wasn't right

>would be justified to steal from their employers. Wonder if a

>judge would accept that excuse?

 

Sorry KY, but this is not at all the same thing.

 

If the store overcharges you, you have recourse. You can call the employee on it, the manager, the cops, sue in small claims court, or carry a picket out in front of the store and NO ONE will fault you or say tough shit cause you were involved in an illegal enterprise--you'd have viable options in your scenario if you were really cheated. Not so with an escort for obvious reasons. so if you tried to make that anology in front of a judge--any judge, YOU'd get thrown out, trust me.

 

The emplyee theft is even MORE distinguishable--there the employee is working for what he agreed to work for--to take a 5 finger discount is clearly illegal with NO justification.

 

Is there anyone here that thinks that idiot client didn't know what an hourly rate meant? Why is the escort suppossed to take it in the shorts for $300?

 

Obviously, whether you accept the escorts version or the client's version is up to you and none of us except the 2 of them know--I, like Doug (damn, never dreamed I'd be saying that again) believe the escort for reasons I stated above--and if he is correct, then his actions are justified.

[Flower]

>With your rationalization the next time I am overcharged at

>the grocery I should walk out with something for free on my

>next visit. All employees that feel their pay wasn't right

>would be justified to steal from their employers. Wonder if a

>judge would accept that excuse?

 

Sorry KY, but this is not at all the same thing.

 

If the store overcharges you, you have recourse. You can call the employee on it, the manager, the cops, sue in small claims court, or carry a picket out in front of the store and NO ONE will fault you or say tough shit cause you were involved in an illegal enterprise--you'd have viable options in your scenario if you were really cheated. Not so with an escort for obvious reasons. so if you tried to make that anology in front of a judge--any judge, YOU'd get thrown out, trust me.

 

The emplyee theft is even MORE distinguishable--there the employee is working for what he agreed to work for--to take a 5 finger discount is clearly illegal with NO justification.

 

Is there anyone here that thinks that idiot client didn't know what an hourly rate meant? Why is the escort suppossed to take it in the shorts for $300?

 

Obviously, whether you accept the escorts version or the client's version is up to you and none of us except the 2 of them know--I, like Doug (damn, never dreamed I'd be saying that again) believe the escort for reasons I stated above--and if he is correct, then his actions are justified.

[Flower]

>Just to add my two cents....

>I live in the bay area and the pics and reviews of Luke have

>been great....but i would think twice about hiring him now.

>How can you trust him?

>If the client ripped him off, which happens all the time, the

>best approach would have been to tell the client he owes for

>the last time, and until that debt is squared away there will

>be no more dates.

 

Well, at least this is how Mary Poppins might handle it, but it is NOT designed to get back the money, since if the client risked fouling the relationship by stealing in the first place, why would he care at that point--he's $300 ahead and will never see Luke again. But if he convinces Luke there was a "misunderstanding" then he might get his $300 and eat Luke too}(

 

Luke did what anyone with balls and an untrampled dick would do, and to his credit, as was already said, did it without bashing the client's head in with a baseball bat.

 

>Luke is simply not to be trusted, whether or not he was right

>or wrong!

 

Interesting--so you're saying even if he was right and the client owed him the money, he was "wrong" to take it peacably? Hmmm...would you have your mortgage broker or bank in your home? They send out repossesors! Is that any different?

>Would you want an escort in your home who feels he has a right

>to your money....because of past grievences...real or

>imagined!

If you cheated him out of $300, why shouldn't he feel he has a right to it?

 

Dude, i don't think you're seeing the whole picture.

>Honesty is always the best policy!

Of course it is, And that's a 2 way street.

[Flower]

>Just to add my two cents....

>I live in the bay area and the pics and reviews of Luke have

>been great....but i would think twice about hiring him now.

>How can you trust him?

>If the client ripped him off, which happens all the time, the

>best approach would have been to tell the client he owes for

>the last time, and until that debt is squared away there will

>be no more dates.

 

Well, at least this is how Mary Poppins might handle it, but it is NOT designed to get back the money, since if the client risked fouling the relationship by stealing in the first place, why would he care at that point--he's $300 ahead and will never see Luke again. But if he convinces Luke there was a "misunderstanding" then he might get his $300 and eat Luke too}(

 

Luke did what anyone with balls and an untrampled dick would do, and to his credit, as was already said, did it without bashing the client's head in with a baseball bat.

 

>Luke is simply not to be trusted, whether or not he was right

>or wrong!

 

Interesting--so you're saying even if he was right and the client owed him the money, he was "wrong" to take it peacably? Hmmm...would you have your mortgage broker or bank in your home? They send out repossesors! Is that any different?

>Would you want an escort in your home who feels he has a right

>to your money....because of past grievences...real or

>imagined!

If you cheated him out of $300, why shouldn't he feel he has a right to it?

 

Dude, i don't think you're seeing the whole picture.

>Honesty is always the best policy!

Of course it is, And that's a 2 way street.

[theDCeBOY]

what's up with the shirt though? LOL... you're all worried about the money, but i'm hung up on the shirt!

[Guest laverite]

>I think the more honorable route would've been simply to

>decline any further appointments with this particular client.

 

That's the right answer. Just because an escort stays for three hours instead of one does not mean he is owed three hours pay. If an escort prolongs the encounter on his own account, at most he is is due a generous tip, not a free pass on theft the next time around.

[woodlawn]

>>>But why don't you go into an Italian barber shop

 

>>Why don't you see how many more bullshit generalizations you

>>can come up with?

 

>Oh, gosh - did that example offend you? I'm so very sorry

>about that.

 

You are? If so it would be the first among thousands of occasions when you have behaved offensively here that you have actually expressed any regret.

 

 

>You refuse to admit

 

I refuse to admit that your habit of making shit up rather than posting real arguments is a legitimate thing to do. Remember the way you made up the "fact" that, according to you, Arnold got "the vast majority" of votes cast in the California election? Telling us that legitimate businesspeople should be expected to pick a customer's pocket if he for some reason does not pay full price is just another example of your lying habits.

 

>you know how all legitimate businesses

>would react under the same situation

 

I know that no legitimate businessperson is going to acknowledge that he has a "right" to grab money out of a customer's pants pocket if the customer doesn't pay full price for his services. You disagree?

 

>>Who the FUCK are you to accuse anyone of escort bashing?

 

>I'm someone who reads your posts. And as many others have

>commented here, you have a compulsive, creepy desire to say

>nasty things about escorts

 

You are someone who just got through telling us in this very thread that in your opinion MOST ESCORTS who receive negative reviews react by telling a pack of lies to discredit the reviewer. So don't accuse ME of saying nasty things about escorts, you filthy, lying hypocrite.

 

>most likely because you need

>escorts for sexual gratification and hate them for needing

>them. Don't act like I'm the only one who has noticed this

>trite but serious psychological affliction of yours.

 

No, you're just one of many idiots posting here who likes to play amateur psychiatrist and who imagines he can successfully psychoanalyze people he's never even met -- when in reality you are no more qualified to do that than you are to pilot the Space Shuttle.

 

>>First, if the misunderstanding claimed by the client on the

>>first date was a lie, if the client really wanted to stiff

>the

>>escort on the first date, why not contrive to stiff him for

>>ALL the money?

 

>You call that an inconsistency? First of all, people feel

>much more comfortable pretending that they're not stealing

 

Another bullshit generalization from the amateur psychiatrist. It just continues your pattern of making shit up and demanding that the rest of us treat it as a "fact" that supports your arguments. Do you really not see how transparent that stupid tactic is?

 

>(which he was able to accomplishing by claiming he

>"misunderstood" and thought that $200 bought him infinity

 

If it was all just a ruse, why didn't he claim he "thought" it was $150? Or $100?

 

 

>Second, I know you don't understand this, but most people

>enjoy sex quite a bit and, as a result, some people can get

>carried away with it.

 

How would you know? Since your only sexual experiences are vicarious, I mean.

 

> That client had $200 in his pocket but

>was so carried away with his desire

 

Here we go again. You make shit up and pretend it's a fact. How absurd.

 

 

>Anyone who doesn't view sex and escorts as some awful, sick,

>diseased phenomenon which merits self-hatred for wanting it

>would have easily understood that without my explaining that.

 

Translation: "It is so annoying, Woodlawn, that unlike the drooling morons I usually hang out with you are not willing to let me make up a bunch of bullshit and treat it as a set of undisputed facts that support my arguments."

 

>>Second, if the client had deliberately cheated the escort on

>>the first date, why in the world did the client make another

>>appointment?

 

>Luke made clear that, being a gentlemen, he left angry, rather

>than confronting the client. I'm sure the old pig thought

>that he pulled a fast one on this young man,

 

Again, you simply make up a bunch of shit and demand the rest of us believe it. But given your propensity for fabricating, why would we?

[woodlawn]

>Client rips of escort by making him have sex for 3

>hours but paying him only for 1. Somehow, client is right and

>escort is wrong.

 

Whoa! "Making him have sex"? I must have missed the part of Luke's story where he told us about the client holding the gun to his head. Because if there wasn't a gun to his head or some other compulsion, then it wouldn't make sense for him to complain that the client didn't take responsibility for keeping track of the time. The escorts who post here seem to understand that it is THEIR responsibility to do that.

 

>If something as harmless and insignfiicant as the "wrath" of

>people on this Board is enough to scare someone from doing

>something, then I genuinely don't understand how such precious

>little flowers make it through life.

 

Well Doug, you and I understand that there's no good reason to take seriously the rants of vicious little men like you, but hard as it may be to believe not everyone sees that quite as clearly as we do. Someday, perhaps.

[VaHawk]

>Is there anyone here that thinks that idiot client didn't know

>what an hourly rate meant? Why is the escort suppossed to

>take it in the shorts for $300?

 

Well, we have nothing to form an opinion on, other than what the escort states in his reply that 1. there was a previous encounter and 2. what was agreed on, what transpired or how well the terms were communicated between the client and escort. So, how can we come to an absolute conclusion that the escort took it in the shorts?

 

Even in the review of this encounter, the client stated that there was some confusion over the agreed upon time/fees. When that was cleared up, he obviously understood and left the agreed upon fee out in the open.

>

>Obviously, whether you accept the escorts version or the

>client's version is up to you and none of us except the 2 of

>them know--I, like Doug (damn, never dreamed I'd be saying

>that again) believe the escort for reasons I stated above--and

>if he is correct, then his actions are justified.

 

In this review, I don't see where the client's version of the encounter is different than the escort's version. Didn't they both agree on the depiction of this encounter? Without all the facts, that only the 2 of them know, as I agree with you, we each can base our opinions only on what has been posted.

 

I'm still curious as to why the escort states that this is the second time he has seen this review? What does that mean? Did the client send him an email threatening to post this review? Or does it refer to a previous negative review by the client, as quoted from one of his earlier reviews? I guess only the two of them can answer that question.

 

"(BTW, Luke says that his response to a negative review is still posted his M4M site, even though that review was withdrawn; until he cleared this up, it looked to me like he was refuting the two very good (and accurate) reviews which still appear there.)"

 

After such a negative encounter, if true, with this client, what plausible reason could the escort have for booking a repeat session? In turn, what client who intentionally ripped off an escort, wouldn't realize that the escort was angry with him and then proceed to make another appointment with that escort?

 

Regardless of what the true facts are, nothing imo, justifies theft. I guess using your reasoning, that it is perfectly okay to enter the domicile of someone you feel cheated you financially and then proceed to take whatever of value you wanted, when you are out of the room and then slip out the door? Taking something that does not belong to you, until given, sounds like theft to me.

 

And to defend such actions, and even praise the person for doing so, just because he is "honest" enough to admit it is, imo, ludicrous. Does this mean that if I rob a bank, because they lost all record of a deposit, and I admitted that I robbed them, that I can use this as a valid defense?

[VaHawk]

Picture it, okay? The client's in the shower, you don't know when he is going to step out. You know the money is there out in the open and since you're already dressing, you have no intention in staying. The shower stops. You're only half dressed. You stuff the money in your pocket. You grab your shoes and the first shirt you see and beat it out the door. You put the shirt on. Ooops, wrong shirt, but you just have to live with it, as you definitely can't go back in and get your own shirt. Bonus: you have a souvenir to look at to remind you of the encounter.

[Flower]

>Regardless of what the true facts are, nothing imo, justifies

>theft.

 

That's the whole point Hawk--it's not theft to take the money that is owed or belongs to you!!! Even assuming prostitution was legal, very few DA's would take this case as a theft prosecution, since the law recognizes the concept of "SELF HELP" as long as it is done peaceably--and this was. Even the "peaceable" qualification is more recent, for instance at one time in many jurisdictions, one had the right to protect his property from theft by what ever means necessary--not so anymore.

 

But theft requires the INTENT to permanently deprive another of HIS property--the money already belongs to Luke, and as for the shirt, that was an accident and therefore without the prerequisite intent.

 

The client would have the right to sue Luke for the shirt back and visa versa, assuming either wanted it and they couldn't agree to trading (lol) but any DA in his right mind would refer this to the civil courts rather than a criminal prosecution (again, assuming the legality of prostitution).

 

The very reason that Luke had NO RECOURSE other than SELF HELP is due to the illegality of the services he was providing--thus the need for self help--not theft.

 

>I guess using your reasoning, that it is perfectly

>okay to enter the domicile of someone you feel cheated you

>financially and then proceed to take whatever of value you

>wanted, when you are out of the room and then slip out the

>door? Taking something that does not belong to you, until

>given, sounds like theft to me.

>

Like KY before you, your example here is way off the mark and the facts of this case and therefore my response in "reply 24" is equally applicable to you. Your objection is overruled. }(

>

>Does this mean that if I rob a bank, because

>they lost all record of a deposit, and I admitted that I

>robbed them, that I can use this as a valid defense?

 

Well sort of:+ If you could prove you paid the bank a certain sum of money and they did not credit you with it and you could not get them to return it, then self help would be available to you in common law--although Banking law is a specialty which I know very little about and there may be some peculiarities in procedures -- but basically, if they take your money and don't give it back, then you have the right to peaceably take it back--just be damn sure you are right and can prove it}(

[Trixie]

Yes indeed. I'd truly like to know what the agreed-upon time of the first appointment was. If the client originally asked for one hour, and Luke stayed for three (without saying anything about the time being up at the first hour) then he was taking his chances. He was not owed anything.

If the client called looking for a date of an unspecified time limit -which seems rather strange, to me anyway- then certainly he should've paid up.

Personally, I always am very specific about the time limit for which I'm hiring. And I am always the one to mention that the hour(or two hours) is up.

Frequently this is because the escort is tied to the bed and blindfolded, and unable to see the clock, but that is beside the point. Should an escort want to stay longer, it's always nice, but I assume it's because he and I enjoy one another's company, or he's willing to wheel & deal for another hour, or whatever. But both escort and client should watch the time, and communicate about it.

A three hour mistake is simple negligence, on both sides.

Trix

[Flower]

RE: Thieving Escort

 

>I agree with some of what you wrote, Flower, but I think you

>are off base when you say that Luke was entitled to the extra

>$200 because the client wanted to take a long shower and Luke

>didn't want to do that. Nowhere in the review or the response

>is there any indication that this shower lasted 60 minutes, so

>I think it's not particularly fair to suggest that Luke was

>entitled to his $200 fee for this appointment. Unless Luke

>really was there for something like an hour, in my mind Luke

>ended this appointment early and thus shouldn't be expected to

>be paid.

 

I see your reasoning--the $200 was the weakest of the arguments for Luke, but my thinking was that Luke traveled there, spent a little time and got into a shower that was apparently more than just to freshen up--when Luke objected, the client insisted on continuing--it's the insistance on continuing beyond a quick shower that weighed in Luke's favor for me. I think Luke was entitled at least to his time there and travel--but sounds like he had more than an hour invested with travel and the shower--but I see your point and if I was defending Luke in a civil action, would certainly tell him this was the weak point and that he should compromise the $200--maybe split it or more

>I know there was a recent thread about whose responsibility it

>is to keep track of time. While I generally agree that both

>parties are responsible for keeping track of time, I believe

>it is PRIMARILY the duty of the service provider (regardless

>of the industry) to monitor this.

 

I don't agree--the client is the buyer of the service and the "keeper of the keys," and with sex, to stop in the middle of something--like a long distance telephone operator saying "your time is up--please insert $1.00"--would certainly spoil the mood and (I would think) piss many clients off.

 

Escorts should be able to treat their clients like responsible adults when it come to matters of keeping track of time. Certainly, from what I've read here, some clients don't seem to have a problem trying to play hardball and negotiate a fee before hand, so why should it be any different for them to also keep track of the time?

 

If it means that much, let them set an alarm clock--all hotels and most homes have such a devise--but the simple matter of it is that clients are as greedy as anyone, and they are always hoping to get a few minutes or more "off the clock" if it is going well for them--It's human nature--most of us like freebies--no matter whatever we're talking about ( and yes, that is a generalization, but one we can all make:)

 

And more importantly, how often on do you see complaints here on the MC to the effect that "he treats me like an ATM" blah blah blah. The client can't have it both ways.

 

Just like paying up front. If the escort demands $ up front, many here say it's a breach of trust, a mood killer or simply that he is a hustler; BUT if the client refuses to pay afterwards, as with Luke, he doesn't get a lot of moral support, and on one thread a while back, I remember him (not Luke) being told that it was just the cost of doing business in an illegal enterprise or words to that effect.

[VaHawk]

I can't argue the points of the law, as you are the attorney.

 

I may be dense, but I fail to see how my opinion about others who feel that you owe them money and come into your domicile and steal, is any different than the scenario in this case.

 

If as you say, this is a "new" law of peaceable recovery and justified as such, then to quote Mr. Bumble from Oliver Twist, "the law, sir, is an ass". I sincerely hope that this law, is only applicable in California. Seems to advocate a vigilanty form of justice to me. Perfectly okay to steal from another as long as you don't bash his head in first and can claim a nefarious right to the victim's property. I bet the low-life insurers are having a field day with this one, making it a double fuckover of the victim.

 

Sounds like even more legislation enacted to protect the rights of criminals at the expense of their victims. x(

 

And no, I am not calling this escort a criminal, but given the limited facts available and by his own admission, I still think that he could be considered a thief by many people.

[Flower]

> When a person in any legitimate occupation feels he has

>not been paid what was agreed for his services, he tries to

>reach an agreement with the other party that will satisfy

>both, or if that is not possible he simply declines to do

>business with that party again. A lawsuit is rarely a

>practical option, certainly not when the amount in question is

>only a few hundred dollars, and the police do not collect

>debts. A legitimate businessperson does not collect an amount

>he thinks he is owed by picking someone's pocket. That is

>what one would expect of a professional crook.

 

It would be enlightening for me if you could draw a distinction between self help by Luke and a Bank repossessing a car for lack of payment--or mortgage company foreclosing on a home, kicking out widows and crying kids }( Self help is a long recognized remedy and is even taught in law schools. Oh, and could you make this distinction without going on and on about the illegality of prostitution, blah blah blah, or distinctions between written and oral contracts!

 

I sit as a small claims judge in our local court system about once every 6 months--no big deal because every attorney in the county is asked to volunteer time for it (please don't waste a lot of our time and your answer about how you couldn't care less about this --the point being, however, is that the majority of cases on the docket are cases involving a small businessman trying to collect a debt of "only a few hundred dollars."

 

So when you say: "A lawsuit is rarely a practical option, certainly not when the amount in question is only a few hundred dollars"

Nothing could be further from the truth!

 

Now I'm sure you didn't intend to tell Hawk a fib just to make a point to the rest of us, but you are, to put it as nice as I can, simply incorrect.

 

Further, have you ever heard of COLLECTION AGENCIES?

 

Well they exist almost exclusively for the benefit of "legitimate" businesses of all sizes, and if a small "legitimate" business person doesn't want to bother with a lawsuit, small claims or otherwise, he certainly has NO compunction about turning it over to a collection agency to do the dirty work--and even YOU must know that collection agencies use all sorts of under handed and mean tactics, and if that fails, go to court to collect. So again, possibly you could enlighten us as to your frame of reference for your patently absurd statements:

"A lawsuit is rarely a practical option, certainly not when the amount in question is only a few hundred dollars" :+

[VaHawk]

RE: Thieving Escort

 

>Some customers DESERVE to be treated the way Luke treated

>that customer. If I were in Luke's shoes, I'd do the same

>thing. Actually, I'd set up another appointment with that

>moron who though he could get away bilking me for $300, JUST

>SO I can "steal" the money I'm owed.

 

Well, that absolutely confirms my supposition that this was premediated theft. Thank you.

>

>If you want people to be honest towards you, you had better be

>honest towards them. Otherwise, you're fair game.

 

LOL! Without anything to go on other than what the escort, himself, posted in his reply, you have found the client to be guilty of stealing from the escort, and condone the escort's free admission of theft.

>

>BTW, I'm not an escort, but I can fully see the escort's point

>of view in a situation like this.

 

A situation that you have absolutely no facts about, other than what the escort states to defend his theft. God help us, if you are ever selected to serve on a jury.

[Flower]

>

>If as you say, this is a "new" law of peaceable recovery and

>justified as such, then to quote Mr. Bumble from Oliver Twist,

>"the law, sir, is an ass". I sincerely hope that this law, is

>only applicable in California. Seems to advocate a vigilanty

>form of justice to me.

 

 

First, I didn't mean to mislead anyone here--the remedy of "self help" is a remedy recognized in the common law (case law--not legislation) of most states--it pre-exists our colonization in some instances.

 

What is more recent (but only relatively so) is legislation meant to keep self help from becoming dangerous and violent --thus the regulations on bounty hunters, car repossessors and the amount of force allowable to protect property. Not a particular court decision, however, that was recently written or new legislation that all of a sudden created the remedy--it's been with us a long time.

 

Think of it this way--if you went to a client wanting you to consult on computer networking or whatever you do in the industry, and in the process you saw him serupticiously take your expensive HP calculator, hide it in his unlocked desk drawer and then leave before you could say something--would you simply open his drawer and take it back or would you wait until the next time you saw him to confront him?

 

You see your laptop at the workstation of a co-worker with whom you just had an argument with--anything wrong with you simply going over and taking it?

 

Does your remedy of self help amount to stealing or theft in either of the above cases?

 

If Luke left his $300 watch at the client's house the first time, and discovered it the second visit, would it be stealing for him to take it without the client's permission?

 

If Luke was without question entitled to the $300 from the first visit, and thus the client IN FACT owes him the $300, would you feel differently about him taking the money than you indicate in your original post?

[theDCeBOY]

ha! blindfolds and handcuffs? trixie, once again you've managed to make me laugh and settle my ire.

thanks... you're a gem!

[theDCeBOY]

well, what colour is the shirt? maybe i'll just try it on & see if i fancy myself in it.

}(

[VaHawk]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I had no problem, as I stated in my original post, if what the escort says is true. Didn't I say that given the best scenario, that he was guilty of only taking the extra $200? Why is taking the extra $200, justifiable given that the client reported that he was there only 20 minutes, which included only a brief shower together? I did not see the escort disputing this account in his reply.

 

Regardless of how many valid points both of us make and the rest of the people posting have made, I think Trixie said it best in that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

The only thing this escort, imo, accomplished was to damage his reputation which will cost him a lot more in fees from potential clients than he lost in dealing with this client. Of course, his response made that loss smaller than no response would have done, given the many posts on this thread condoning and praising him.

 

Given the facts of the review/reply I just can't buy into thinking it was anything but a premeditated act of retribution which was never factually stated as justifiable. I feel that other potential clients feel the same way. This escort made a bad choice, and unfortunately he will probably lose business because of that choice.

[kjun]

I've read both sides of this and thought for a few days before commenting. I feel both sides make reasonable points. However, I still feel that what the escort did feels wrong to me.

 

the Cajun

[Guest Wilsum]

Thanks to all, was going to contact Luke on my trip to SF. Clearly this site works for those who keep in contact. BTW VaHawk, love your messages,pointed and clear, like the unvarnished.

Best

Wilsum

[+ glutes]

RE: Theiving Escort, Luke of SF

 

Another point in this matter that raised my eyebrows, Luke has joined the (in)famous 'Mr. William' group.

Check out http://www.mm-nw.com

[Flower]

RE: Theiving Escort, Luke of SF

 

>Another point in this matter that raised my eyebrows, Luke

>has joined the (in)famous 'Mr. William' group.

>Check out http://www.mm-nw.com

 

hmmm--I really don't understand this comment--no sarcasm intended, really, but could you explain?

 

There seems to be a lot of well known and well thought of escorts there--where is the problem?