Consider new-escort announcements

[Ignoto]

After reading four first-time reviews submitted within the space of a couple weeks for today's coverboy, could I make a suggestion? Why not allow new escorts to announce the availability of their services and tell us in their own words about themselves and what kind of reviews they would like to earn? Sometimes the most honest judgments and truthful reporting, can come from the original source.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>Why not allow new escorts to announce the

>availability of their services and tell us in their own words

>about themselves and what kind of reviews they would like to

>earn?

 

What makes you think doesnt happen already? It seems clear, to me anyway, that some, not all but some, of the first time reviews by first time reviewers are business announcements. And some creatively/passionately written in the action mode rather than a dry recitation of facts and figures. I have no real issue with this. But when it happens for the same escort repeatedly then I take a dim view of it.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>>Why not allow new escorts to announce the

>>availability of their services and tell us in their own

>words

>>about themselves and what kind of reviews they would like to

>>earn?

>

>What makes you think doesnt happen already? It seems clear,

>to me anyway, that some, not all but some, of the first time

>reviews by first time reviewers are business announcements.

 

That, to me, seems like a good reason to support or at least consider trying this idea -- since we know it's going on anyway, it would give escorts who (gasp!) are trying to run their businessses honestly a chance to introduce themselves in an honest, straightforward manner. Also, if clients had the escort's initial representation of himself to compare reviewers' assessment to, it would give them a better sense of who's doing the distorting in the reviews which don't seem to match up with reality. As it stands now (and I'm not thinking so much of the initial reviews as later ones that come in over time) there's more of the tendency or likelihood of exaggerated claims to show up merely because the client either really, REALLY had such a good time that it seemed like the escort's dick "really was" 9 inches, whereas if clients could see that the escort himself had claimed to be 7.5" then they would at least know who's doing the distorting. Obviously given which "interest group" I mostly belong to I'm a little sensitive on the subject of escorts getting blamed for misleading advertising they didn't write.

 

This is not to say that escorts can't and shouldn't use their right to rebuttal to correct errors of fact in positive reviews -- for example, I am NOT four inches taller, and twenty pounds heavier, than Brad Pitt, as one of my perhaps-too satisfied customers wrote in a review which, as I indicated in my response, was literally an overly generous recollection on his part. (And the last thing I'd want to do is intimidate Brad Pitt into staying out of the escort market for fear of not being able to live up to the unattainable standards set by someone more experienced... :+) But some escorts may either not follow the reviews or may feel awkward about contradicting a client who was gracious "to a fault," so I think the idea of just letting the escort do an intro is a great idea.

[Rick Munroe]

>and tell us in their own words

>about themselves and what kind of reviews they would like to

>earn?

 

How many of them do you think are going to say, "I'd like to get bad reviews!"? :+

[woodlawn]

> Why not allow new escorts to announce the

>availability of their services and tell us in their own words

>about themselves and what kind of reviews they would like to

>earn?

 

Why not? Let's see . . . because those are called "ads" and this site is supposed to be devoted to reviews created by someone other than the escort himself, rather than to ads?

 

>Sometimes the most honest judgments and truthful

>reporting, can come from the original source.

 

Your post seems prompted by a concern that the new "coverboy" has a bunch of fake reviews to his credit. I'm a little puzzled about why yet another example of dishonest advertising practices by escorts would make you think that asking escorts to write about themselves would produce information that is of any value to clients.

[guptasa1]

I think this is a great idea personally!

 

We all know about scams like Cupcake and Nationwide. Plus you never know with someone new who advertises on non-verifying sites like AmericanMale.net whether they're for real or not. It's a GREAT site, but whenever I see someone new or appealing there, I'm always skeptical now (after being burned once from there and also hearing about all the Cupcake scams there).

 

I could be wrong, but to me an introduction on a male escort review site would go a long way convincing me to try someone new. It says to me that the escort knows there's a good chance people who find him that way will want to review him. Places like Cupcake certainly aren't going to want that - they go for the more naive clients who don't know better, and I think it's likely they'll stick to that.

 

So yeah, I think it makes a lot of sense and is a great idea personally. If I saw someone new who wrote an introduction on here and appealed to me, I'd probably be more willing to give him a go than if I had seen him somewhere else. Just my two cents.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

There is something to what you say. I personally have no objection, as I don't with the single announcement review when it provides accurate expectations.

 

However, there are those escorts that also have trouble with the measuring tape, based on my experience with them and their emails and websites. Certainly not all, maybe not most, but a fair number I think. Size creep like age deflation is part of the marketing landscape for many. Even so, there are those that will be accurate and for those that aren't it can be pointed out in the reviews as you indicate, even though those reviews/reviewers, a fair number anyway, seem to have trouble with the measuring tape also as you and others have pointed out. Otherwise all of these inaccuracies would be revealed thus not necessitating a first person description. Again I have no objection, just pointing out facts.

 

What I do object to, though only mildly if at all really, is a poor or dry recitation of the stats and facts. (See the travel forum for an endless line of uninspired marketing announcements.) At least the announcement review allows the opportunity for the escort to place the stats and facts in a passionately, maybe even lasciviously, painted context providing an added dimension to what may be expected. Of course this will also depend on the comunication ablity of the escort which, come to think of it, is another excellent facet to be gleaned.

 

In the end I dont think it really matters much either way. Escorts provide facts and stats to each client individually, with the opportunity to lead or mislead as he chooses. Reviews will often reflect the information/misinformation of the escort as they do now, or the myopia of the client as they do now, or the accurate measurement of the tape that a prepared client with good eye sight brings for the occasion as they do now. Yes, there may be an escort provided sign post to hold up as the gospel, but when there is a difference is it the escort 'stretching' the facts, the client who forgot his glasses or the odd client with an axe to grind. If, as seems to happen now, a client is willing to cut an escort some 'slack' or 'stretch' because of a great experience, how will the sign post change that. Likely it won't. That client will support the first person facts right or fudged.

 

Then again, maybe I am wrong. I just as easily could have argued the other side. In the end attempts to nail down accruate stats and facts seems as futile to me as closing tax loopholes. When there is a perceived economic incentive, real or imagined, and one is determined or sympathetic then a way will be found or at least attempted to advantage.

[woodlawn]

> I'm always skeptical now (after being burned once from

>there

 

>I could be wrong, but to me an introduction on a male escort

>review site would go a long way convincing me to try someone

>new. It says to me that the escort knows there's a good

>chance people who find him that way will want to review him.

 

So you would try an escort who has NOT been reviewed because he posts an ad on a site that has reviews of other escorts? I don't see the logic there, frankly.

 

Did you post a review of the AmericanMale.net escort with respect to whom you got burned?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Why not? Let's see . . . because those are called "ads" and

>this site is supposed to be devoted to reviews created by

>someone other than the escort himself, rather than to ads?

 

It's the strangest thing to admit, woodlawn, but I'm really starting to charmed by your boyish naiveté. That someone who's been coming here as faithfully as you have, for as long as you have -- however long that's been; why, I couldn't even hazard a guess, since there are too many handles to account for -- could actually still contrast reviews to ads, as if he believed that anonymously submitted reviews were NOT ads -- well, it's just ADORABLE! Anyone who thinks that mingling with prostitutes inevitably makes one jaded -- well, I'd like to see him try and defend that point of view after being confronted with your starry-eyed idealism.

 

>I'm a little puzzled about why yet another example of dishonest >advertising practices by escorts would make you think that asking >escorts to write about themselves would produce information that is >of any value to clients.

 

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww...folks, I hope you'll excuse any typos I make in this post, which I'm having to type with my toes, because I'm sitting on my hands so they don't involuntarily reach out and pinch this precious young innocent's cheeks. You see, pumpkin, actually encouraging escorts to just lay it out on the table up front, let clients see for themselves exactly how an escort WANTS to be perceived, could be the most useful information the reviews have brought us in a long time. Just think how many people who endured a thoroughly unsatisfying experience with a certain controversial escort whose bewildering response to a bad review which many clients on this board said matched up with their own experience -- think how many of those disastrous appointments could have been prevented if that escort had filled out a profile/ad and given everyone a sense of what his personality was like!

 

As someone who has so eloquently and repeatedly vented his concerns about naive clients being duped -- and I now see that rational self-interest is partly what drives that concern -- you, of all people, should be heartened by the emergence of a reform aimed at making clear, in no uncertain terms, which escorts are writing their own "ads" (reviews), because we'd actually have an ad that they acknowledge writing. In a way, we could think of these ads as profiles, and in fact I would be willing to go further and say that we shouldn't just allow such profiles; we should insist on them and say that escorts can't have any reviews posted until they've filled out a profile. What escort would back away from writing his own profile, unless he had something to hide?

 

And if a new escort fills out a profile, and THEN, after that first wave of free publicity, goes months and months and months without a review...well, perhaps at least one or two clients might find THAT to be a bit telling.

 

What an unfortunate irony it would be if someone whose steadfast vigilance and brave willingness to search for, and root out, hypocrisies virtually everywhere they exist outside his own posts, suffered, as a result of that process, an erosion of his ability to spot real, systemic hypocrisy and a solution that might actually address it. This erosion, I fear, has left you vulnerable to the very kind of exploitation you have so valiantly fought for so long. In fact, until you have recovered your faculties, I'd be inclined to suggest that you stop hiring prostit-- naaaaaaaaah. No need to get carried away.

 

Still, to those escorts whose vise-like grip on power controls every move on this website, crushing all dissent and flooding every webpage with barrages of propaganda that Leni Riefenstahl herself might find a bit over the top, I beg you: show some decency and allow HooBoy, who is so helplessly pinned underneath your thumb, to implement this reform immediately so we can save woodlawn from himself. Otherwise, I fear, you will have allowed this wide-eyed lamb to lose his innocence and gradually turn into a cyncial, embittered misanthrope, instead of the life-loving, warm-hearted idealist he is today. Good God...hasn't this poor man stumbled about with the wool pulled over his eyes long enough?

 

Let us not hoodwink this lad further, my dear colleagues. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sirs? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

[woodlawn]

>It's the strangest thing to admit, woodlawn, but I'm really

>starting to charmed by your boyish naiveté.

 

What can I say? I would have to attribute my lack of cynicism to the fact that I don't spend as much time around people involved in crime as you do. If I did, I'd probably develop the rock-hard carapace of suspicion, mistrust and hatred you have formed over the years.

 

>could actually still contrast reviews to ads, as if he

>believed that anonymously submitted reviews were NOT ads --

>well, it's just ADORABLE!

 

Call me naive if you wish, but I still harbor the perhaps unjustified belief that at least a few of the reviews posted here are not fakes created by lying escorts who want to abuse the process Hooboy originated in order to line their own pockets. Someday, perhaps, I will have to put aside these rose-colored glasses and acknowledge that this website is nothing but a sham, but that day has not yet come.

 

> I'm sitting on my hands so they don't involuntarily

>reach out and pinch this precious young innocent's cheeks.

 

I think I'd rather be touched by a leper. Do you know any?

 

>You see, pumpkin, actually encouraging escorts to just lay it

>out on the table up front, let clients see for themselves

>exactly how an escort WANTS to be perceived, could be the most

>useful information the reviews have brought us in a long time.

 

If that's meant as a joke, I don't think you'd better plan on making a living from your writing anytime in the near future. We already know exactly how an escort WANTS to be perceived by reading all of the fake reviews he posts, the escort that is the subject of this thread being an excellent case in point. What we DON'T know and can never know, either from the ubiquitous fakes or from the "announcements" the thread author suggests, is what the escort is actually like when one hires him -- that, of course, is supposed to be the reason this site exists, not to provide more free ad space for escorts to sing their own praises.

 

 

>And if a new escort fills out a profile, and THEN, after that

>first wave of free publicity, goes months and months and

>months without a review...well, perhaps at least one or two

>clients might find THAT to be a bit telling.

 

I'm afraid all of your verbiage and prolixity can't disguise that this is yet another of a long, long, long, long, loooooooooooong series of posts in which you advocate -- gasp! -- giving escorts more. More money. More freedom to refuse to do anything for the money they get. More free ad space. What's next? Subsidized housing for escorts?

 

I've been thinking for a while now that you remind me of someone, and I finally figured out who that is -- it's George Bush. Both of you have this marvelous habit of describing something that is actually bad for your audience in a way that makes it sound good for them. A law that actually weakens air pollution controls -- let's call it the Clean Air Act. Tax cuts for the rich that require service cuts for everyone else -- let's call it "giving people back their own money." Thousands of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq more than a year after Saddam was defeated -- let's not talk about the dead and the mutilated, let's talk about heroic sacrifices made in the cause of peace. And in your own small (very small) way, you've learned from him. Telling clients they should be ashamed to want to pay less than an escort demands -- let's say instead that "the me you get for $200 is sooooo much better than the me you get for a measly, paltry, cheapskate $150." Giving escorts free advertising space on a site supposedly devoted to objective reviews and evaluations -- let's say that will actually HELP expose dishonest claims by escorts. Are you two guys related?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>What can I say?

 

Surprisingly little for one who talks so much.

 

I would have to attribute my lack of cynicism

>to the fact that I don't spend as much time around people

>involved in crime as you do.

 

Really? Where DO you go when you leave your body, Ms. McLaine?

 

>If I did, I'd probably develop

>the rock-hard carapace of suspicion, mistrust and hatred you

>have formed over the years.

 

Thanks for the compliment, but most people just call them abs for short. Saves time, which I suspect a very, VERY important lawyer like yourself has precious little to spare.

 

>Call me naive if you wish, but I still harbor the perhaps

>unjustified belief that at least a few of the reviews posted

>here are not fakes created by lying escorts who want to abuse

>the process Hooboy originated in order to line their own

>pockets.

 

Well, you'd be awfully naive if you only thought there were a few, and -- I hope this doesn't come as as big a shock as the news that Santa Claus isn't real (oops, did you not know that either? My, uh, bad, as you ghetto-fabulous types like to say), my suspicion is that a great many of them tend to be (gasp) the first ones an escort gets! That's why I couldn't help thinking it might be worth, say, implementing a policy that acknowledges reality. Besides, there may also be a few escorts who, as remarkable as the idea might seem to someone who spends all his time here, don't know this site exists until a (gasp) real client has actually (gasp) HIRED them! And a scrupulously fair-minded, dispassionate observer like yourself, I'm sure, would hate for them to be lumped in with the swindlers.

 

>Someday, perhaps, I will have to put aside these

>rose-colored glasses

 

Well, I didn't say anything about it before because I didn't want to make you self-conscious, but they don't exactly flatter you. It's not so much the lenses as the frames.

 

>and acknowledge that this website is

>nothing but a sham, but that day has not yet come.

 

I can see why. Making such an acknowledgement about a site you've devoted countless hours of your highly rewarding, active, anything-but-secluded lifestyle could send you into a deep existential crisis.

 

>I think I'd rather be touched by a leper. Do you know any?

 

Well, there's always spendy, reg, pick, newawlins, seraph250, to name a few people very, VERY close to you. Don't tell me you haven't been writing these posts from quarantined quarters! Not someone as deeply concerned about the public health as yourself!

 

>>You see, pumpkin, actually encouraging escorts to just lay

>it

>>out on the table up front, let clients see for themselves

>>exactly how an escort WANTS to be perceived, could be the

>most

>>useful information the reviews have brought us in a long

>time.

 

>If that's meant as a joke, I don't think you'd better plan on

>making a living from your writing anytime in the near future.

 

Well that's very encouraging news, because it wasn't meant as a joke. I guess Dan Savage wasn't just stringing me along when he told me I should plan on making a living from my writing sometime in the near future.

 

>We already know exactly how an escort WANTS to be perceived by

>reading all of the fake reviews he posts, the escort that is

>the subject of this thread being an excellent case in point.

 

By "we," no doubt, you mean your various identities, since you are a stickler for the policy of never presuming to speak for others. If the reviews aren't fooling ANYONE, it's rather hard to see what harm the "scam artists" could be doing in writing them, or why the scam artists bother with the effort, which presumably is something they're averse to.

 

>What we DON'T know and can never know, either from the

>ubiquitous fakes or from the "announcements" the thread author

>suggests, is what the escort is actually like when one hires

>him

 

Yes, indeed. You see, people actually AREN'T exactly alike from one sexual partner to the next. I'm afraid that what both parties bring to a liason does have an effect on the outcome.

 

 

-- that, of course, is supposed to be the reason this site

>exists, not to provide more free ad space for escorts to sing

>their own praises.

 

Before I take your word for what the site is "supposed" to do, I'll wait and see what the owner has to say, if you don't mind. In fact, I believe it may even be his prerogative to -- better sit down for this -- let the purpose evolve over time! But if it's the lack of compensation for HooBoy that bothers you, I'm all for him charging new escorts whatever registration fee he sees fit. Unless he's not "supposed" to sell advertising space either.

 

>I'm afraid all of your verbiage and prolixity can't disguise

>that this is yet another of a long, long, long, long,

>loooooooooooong series of posts in which you advocate -- gasp!

>-- giving escorts more. More money. More freedom to refuse

>to do anything for the money they get. More free ad space.

 

Wow. It sounds so nice, the way you describe it. Those rose-colored glasses really DO work!

 

>What's next? Subsidized housing for escorts?

 

I should hope not. It's a bit late in the day for that in my case, since I'm moving away from San Francisco because I can't afford the rents here, despite the lavish wealth my cynical, manipulative marketing tactics have filled my coffers with.

 

>I've been thinking for a while now that you remind me of

>someone, and I finally figured out who that is -- it's George

>Bush.

 

Oh, stop. My Dana Carvey impersonations aren't THAT good. You, on the other hand, are the spitting image of the church lady.

 

>And in your own small (very small) way, you've learned from him.

 

It's true. The President's "compassionate" conversatism has opened my eyes to the travesty that is the soft bigotry of ho expectations.

 

>Telling clients they should be ashamed to want to pay less than an >escort demands

 

Demands? I think you must mean that he is upfront about his pricing. Isn't that supposed to be a GOOD thing? But if you think the way to get hot sex from a guy is to haggle, hey, no wonder you've never had sex you didn't pay for. And for exactly that reason it's no wonder saving money on them -- unlike, say, hotel rooms -- is so critically important to you.

 

>Giving escorts free advertising space on a

>site supposedly devoted to objective reviews and evaluations

>-- let's say that will actually HELP expose dishonest claims

>by escorts.

 

Wheat, chaff. That sort of thing.

 

>Are you two guys related?

 

Well, if we are, I don't know what's been holding up my trust fund! So much for family values.

[guptasa1]

>So you would try an escort who has NOT been reviewed because

>he posts an ad on a site that has reviews of other escorts? I

>don't see the logic there, frankly.

 

If it was this site, probably yes. Let me try to explain my logic again. Let's look at it from a scammer's perspective. If you were looking to scam someone, would you target people at an escort review site who would likely read (and write) reviews if you did and thus warn others? Or would you try to scam people who are more unsuspecting and less likely to put negative feedback out there (they either might not know how, etc.)? If you read some of the threads on places like Cupcake, the minute they see someone is being cautious, they cut off communication. I dunno - if it were me (not that I'd scam people, but as an illustration), I'd certainly target the anonymous sites and forget ones like this for that purpose.

 

Let me make it clear it's very important that everyone knows this IS an introduction advertisement for that escort. There's no argument there. I'm sure it can be misleading. But as long as that's made clear that it's from the escort, I don't see the problem with it. Reviews will clarify whether it was accurate very quickly when they happen.

 

I'm certainly not saying this is foolproof - it's not (and there are always those who might use this site anyways just to be tricky). But I'd feel more comfortable trying someone new who posted an introduction on a site specifically for reviews and who knows they'll likely be reviewed. I'm sure you can still be burned (in fact, I was also burned by a guy who had some good reviews here, though there was a large gap between them that should have warned me), but I think it's a bit less likely.

 

>Did you post a review of the AmericanMale.net escort with

>respect to whom you got burned?

 

Yes, I did. I always write a review when there's a really bad experience as I feel others need to be warned. (Andrew West/Columbus was the AmericanMale one - I also got scammed by Buddy/Minneapolis, and that admittedly was somebody I found here). I'm a soft touch and a bit naive, but I'm getting better with that. =oP LOL.

[Bilbo]

I think that this would be a good addition to the site, but ... I agree with those who feel that HooBoy should charge for this service. And we would probably more trust those who would use it openly. It wouldn't completely illiminate the false reviews, though. Whether or not it's free. If it isn't, it's obvious that some people will take the free route. If it is, some people will feel that there is more apparent validity to a false review than to a true ad.

[woodlawn]

>>What can I say?

>

>Surprisingly little for one who talks so much.

 

Given your many book-length posts, who the fuck are you to complain about that?

 

>I would have to attribute my lack of cynicism

>>to the fact that I don't spend as much time around people

>>involved in crime as you do.

 

>Really?

 

Yes, really. The fact that you spend most of your time with hookers, drug users and the like doesn't mean we all do. Crime just doesn't have the appeal for some of us that it clearly has for you.

 

>Thanks for the compliment, but most people just call them abs

>for short.

 

I suspect most people reading your posts would conclude that you have a mean streak not much narrower than the Grand Canyon. I think this message board is so useful in letting people know what the escorts who post here are actually like when they're not, as Doug once put it, pretending to be gentlemen for the purpose of getting business. Perceptive fellow, that Doug.

 

> That's why I couldn't

>help thinking it might be worth, say, implementing a policy

>that acknowledges reality.

 

Reality is that the posting of fake interviews by escorts has become so common here that no one can any longer trust the reviews. The most practical way of acknowledging that reality would be to shut down the review portion of the site, or at least to remove the caption about "Honest in our judgments" from the homepage. When even someone as relentlessly optimistic as Guptasa is forced to admit, as he does in this thread, that positive reviews on this site are no protection from escorts who cheat and steal, it's clear that motto no longer has any application here.

 

Reality is that in a recent thread started by kjun about an escort who supposedly lied about his age, you argued that there's nothing wrong with escorts telling such lies in order to get more business. That's one reason no one in his right mind could ever believe that you are motivated by a desire to help clients get ACCURATE information about escorts.

 

Reality is that it's common for escorts to lie about themselves to get business. Attempting to distract people from that reality by writing posts longer than the telephone directories of many small towns won't change that. Calling me names won't change that. In fact, there is nothing you can say or do that will change that -- or make people pretend it isn't true. So why bother?

 

>>and acknowledge that this website is

>>nothing but a sham, but that day has not yet come.

 

>I can see why. Making such an acknowledgement about a site

>you've devoted countless hours of your highly rewarding,

>active, anything-but-secluded lifestyle could send you into a

>deep existential crisis.

 

On the contrary -- the irony of a site that uses the word "Honest" in its motto but actually purveys a vast amount of false information is one I find quite delicious. I'm just not ready to acknowledge that false information is ALL that this site is about.

 

>>I think I'd rather be touched by a leper. Do you know any?

 

>Well, there's always spendy, reg, pick, newawlins, seraph250,

>to name a few people very, VERY close to you.

 

Since you've recently defended escorts who tell lies to get business, I really don't see why you would think you're fit to complain about any sort of dishonesty by anyone. Of course, I'm still trying to figure out why you think you're fit to use words like "compassion" and "understanding" when you take money to help men cheat on their wives. Whenever I see you use such words I think about what some of those wives would say to you if they could. It's an interesting subject for speculation.

 

> I guess Dan Savage wasn't just stringing me along

>when he told me I should plan on making a living from my

>writing sometime in the near future.

 

Was that before or after you gave him a free fuck?

 

>By "we," no doubt, you mean your various identities,

 

By "we" I mean the many, many posters who have pointed out the undeniable fact that fake reviews are proliferating here. You're not going to pretend that all of those people, including the author of this thread, are really me, are you?

 

>Before I take your word for what the site is "supposed" to do,

>I'll wait and see what the owner has to say, if you don't

>mind. In fact, I believe it may even be his prerogative to --

>better sit down for this -- let the purpose evolve over time!

 

So we're not allowed to conclude anything from the fact that the site owner proclaims to the world that this site is "Honest" in its judgments? If the site's purpose is evolving from something OTHER THAN providing honest information, shouldn't he take that word off the homepage?

 

 

>But if it's the lack of compensation for HooBoy that bothers

>you, I'm all for him charging new escorts whatever

>registration fee he sees fit. Unless he's not "supposed" to

>sell advertising space either.

 

He's been selling ad space for escorts for some time now. That's why I fail to understand why it's necessary to create another method for letting escorts post ads here -- there already is one.

 

 

>I should hope not. It's a bit late in the day for that in my

>case, since I'm moving away from San Francisco because I can't

>afford the rents here, despite the lavish wealth my cynical,

>manipulative marketing tactics have filled my coffers with.

 

Will the city council be throwing a party to celebrate your departure? If so, please let me know the date as soon as you can so I can plan ahead.

 

>Oh, stop. My Dana Carvey impersonations aren't THAT good.

 

Based on your pictures, all you need do to pass for Dana is dye your hair.

 

>Demands? I think you must mean that he is upfront about his

>pricing. Isn't that supposed to be a GOOD thing? But if you

>think the way to get hot sex from a guy is to haggle, hey, no

>wonder you've never had sex you didn't pay for. And for

>exactly that reason it's no wonder saving money on them --

>unlike, say, hotel rooms -- is so critically important to you.

 

It must really gall you that so many of your fellow hookers are quite happy to bargain down their prices despite the enormous amount of bandwidth you've devoted to telling the world why that is such a terrible, terrible thing. I'm afraid your plans to become the Jimmy Hoffa of the escort world are doomed to failure.

 

 

>Well, if we are, I don't know what's been holding up my trust

>fund!

 

Could it be the fact that the Bushes, like most Americans, can't stand hookers?

[woodlawn]

>I'm certainly not saying this is foolproof - it's not (and

>there are always those who might use this site anyways just to

>be tricky). But I'd feel more comfortable trying someone new

>who posted an introduction on a site specifically for reviews

>and who knows they'll likely be reviewed. I'm sure you can

>still be burned (in fact, I was also burned by a guy who had

>some good reviews here, though there was a large gap between

>them that should have warned me), but I think it's a bit less

>likely.

 

I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with your reasoning. Nevertheless, I think the benefit of allowing these "announcements" by new escorts is so slight that it is hardly worth discussing, especially if the site charges a fee as has been suggested. Hooboy already offers paid advertising to any escort who wants it -- so why can't new escorts simply do that?

 

The point of faking a review is that a review is imbued with a degree of credibility, having been created (supposedly) by someone who has no financial incentive to do so, that an ad does not have. How many people would bother to read the wildly successful Zagat guides if it became known that each restaurant review was written by people who work at the restaurant? The secret of Zagat's success is the credibility its reviews have with consumers. The credibility derives from the fact that reviewers are disinterested and numerous, two qualities that one can't get from ads or from reviews by a professional restaurant critic. The same is true of review sites like epinions.com and tripadvisor.com. And of this site.

 

>Yes, I did. I always write a review when there's a really bad

>experience as I feel others need to be warned.

 

Thank you. May your kind increase.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Reality is that the posting of fake interviews by escorts has

>become so common here that no one can any longer trust the

>reviews.

 

When could people ever "trust" the reviews in the first place? Regardless of the service being reviewed using an anonymous system, I don't know why any sensible consumer would think "trust" has much to do with why he would find them useful, except to the extent that he grows familiar enough with a particular reviewer's handle and history to consider that person's reporting to be somewhat "reliable" or to "trust" in his own ability to account for that reviewer's biases, pet peeves, etc., and to the extent that bad reviews might prompt him to be mistrustful enough of an escort to stay away from him. Even in the latter case, he can't really "trust" the information unless he has a similar familiarity with the reviewer. Since, after all, we can't trust escorts not to send in their own reviews, we also can't trust them not fabricate positive reviews for their friends and negative ones for escorts they either see as competition or have some kind of bad blood with. And we can't trust clients, such as those who DO delude themselves into falling in love with their escorts, not to abuse the review process by spreading false information about the escort after he rebuffs their overtures for a romantic relationship (or after any other kind of falling out between them that is unrelated to the service he gave the client, or in which the client is being less than honest about how, and to what extent, it was related).

 

And none of this is to say that the escort isn't even partly or entirely at fault in these situations. An escort, for example, really could lead a client on for as long as he can in order to keep the money rolling in, then finally either lose patience or feel guilty enough to cut the client off, and the client could get back at him, not by telling what happened, which might make him look stupid, but instead by writing that he was a lousy lay, misrepresented his stats, or whatever. Okay, that'll hopefully teach the escort not to string people along again; payback's a bitch, etc. So the chickens have come home to roost.

 

But it's not exactly helpful to clients who might actually just be looking for a one-time roll in the hay, don't like to hire the same escort very often anyway, and who may, for example, have very few other options for guys like him to choose from (say, for example, he's a big-dicked twink who's a top). All they may want to know apart from the "red flags" is whether he stays hard and can really give them a good plowing, and the heartbroken client who wanted to avenge his escort might lie about the fucking, which had always been incredible, while withholding the information about what really was bothering him. I'd think those clients might prefer that the client just wrote his weepy "that bastard led me on" catharsis piece, so they could decide for themselves whether they're vulnerable to that particular hazard, or that he just admit to himself that he's not in a good position to be providing reliable information. So that's another reason why people can't "trust" the reviews; because they can't know the reviewer's own motives, which often he himself might not understand. And they can't necessarily "trust" his facility with language, or their own ability to interpret actually what he said. Just as there's no real barrier to entry when it comes to becoming an escort, there's no real barrier to entry when it comes to becoming an escort critic, which is why someone can complain that clients "exaggerate" escorts' stats, say the escort's actually "somewhat past" a particular birthday, and not bother to tell us what "somewhat" means. Most of the misleading information in reviews, I believe, is unintented and just reflects that many of the writers don't really know how to write for an audience. THEY know what they mean, and that's good enough for them.

 

Granted, there is a very basic system for trying to catch some of the most egregious abuses, both by escorts and clients, but it obviously hasn't escaped your notice that there are considerable limitations to that system. The biggest limitation being the volume of reviews that only one person -- HooBoy, who also has to deal with the rest of his responsibilities associated with running this site, cannot hope to devote enough time to doing quality control on the reviews if he is to be able to keep them coming in at the volume that many of his site's visitors have come to expect. You might prefer to see fewer reviews come in on a daily basis if this allowed him to put more time into weeding out the fraudulent reviews, but there is always a vocal contingent that starts complaining whenever the flow of reviews slows or there are delays. He's just not going to please everyone no matter what he does.

 

>The most practical way of acknowledging that reality

>would be to shut down the review portion of the site, or at

>least to remove the caption about "Honest in our judgments"

>from the homepage.

 

Well, if either one of those two suggestions actually strikes you as "practical" then you're being wildly impractical. Changing slogans is a symbolic gesture which rarely carries any practical value, and certainly not in this case. I don't think most people let mottos dictate their conceptual framework for how they approach the reviews (you, yourself, are a case in point). If HooBoy dropped the slogan, the only practical benefit it would have is that you would switch from constantly bitching about the slogan to bragging about your brave, tireless, and ultimately successful campaign to have it removed, and to equating its removal with proof that the reviews were of no value. As for shutting down the reviews, well, if and when they go, the entire site will probably go. While it's true that some participants on the message center don't utilize the reviews -- Boston Guy being the only example that comes to mind -- I believe HooBoy when he says the visits here only account for a sliver of the overall usage of the site. That's probably why there's no paid advertising in this part of the site -- the advertising value of this part of the site isn't really worth anything, though this was somewhat less true when there was a higher level of participation. It's still worth it to go ahead and include a link to your website if you have one, but I know a lot of escorts who only post in the travel section, and who say that it doesn't bring them nearly as much business as it used to, because there just aren't as many people around to click on them. The reviews, however, are still getting plenty of attention, which is why the practical thing to do would be to try and come up with improvements that can be easily applied or at least tested.

 

Your ideas about what's practical should tell anyone reading your posts everything they need to know about your motives. You're not going to support any kind of reform that actually COULD make the reviews more useful, that might actually address even one of the limitations in the current system, because you either can't believe or would prefer not to believe that it can be improved. This is why you've never made a constructive suggestion regarding what are, after all, known issues with the process. Yes, you've complained about some posts that were deleted here in your precious little message center, and you've raised questions about specific decisions HooBoy has made (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and HooBoy knows this or he would just delete all posts that criticized him), but it's always been for the sake of bringing us back to the bigger message -- that this site is a sham, and how could it be otherwise, because we're all criminals, boo fucking hoo. Just stop hiring escorts already, and you won't need to come here and be exposed to all this beastly corruption that offends you so -- or to be amused by the hypocrisy and all the other phony reasons you give for coming here.

 

I agree that, as you've noted before, it's possible to participate in escorting without doing harm, but as it happens, it's rather difficult to do so and requires a conscious effort, an essential part of which includes a willingness not to see it as something so trivial and insignificant and inherently immoral that it's not worth trying to improve. You're not willing to do that -- you are too attached to the viewpoint that it just can't get any better, or not better enough to matter. The kinds of criticisms I make, whether I describing unethical escort practices or unethical client behaviors, are aimed at behavior that erodes the overall credibility of the process, and I can't think of many escorts who have taken more pains to point out the limitations of the reviews -- not in order to smugly declare that the reviews are worthless and the slogan's wrong, which is pointless and idle -- but to caution clients over putting too much faith in them. You act like someone who's never gotten over the shock of realizing that the reviews don't "protect" clients or guarantee anyone's satisfaction, or even indicate how an escort will respond to you on a particular night.

 

News flash: OF COURSE THEY CAN'T. The reviews can be entertaining, and as advertisements go they're more useful than blurbs on regular ad sites, and they can hopefully warn against the worst scam artists, and by definition they can only do that the first time a client who's been scammed posts a review. But the fact is, when you meet an escort, what kind of experience you have is still going to have as much, and usually more, to do with you, than it will with the escort, which is why you don't want to admit that anything but shutting the reviews down or changing a slogan could be of practical value. I'm sorry if, because you can't tell which reviews are fake, you've decided they all are -- but most of the clients I've met through the reviews said they had found them useful, and all were perfectly aware that they're a blunt instrument. They were also aware that they were better than nothing, which is more than you let on that you're aware of. "Take the reviews with a grain of salt" is one of the few cliches you've never used, because you want to feel like you're somehow fighting for corporate justice with all your petty kvetching. You'd rather draw comparisons to Enron than go take Enron on. You'd rather keep trying to make a scandal out of something that isn't even enough of a secret to be an open secret. People can't "trust" the reviews, which do NOT "protect" them. No fucking shit! But people who don't "trust" them can still get some value out of them, and would still like to find ways to get more value out of them.

 

But not you. You don't think the reviews are even of enough value to be worth trying to make better -- we get that. And you think hiring escorts is wrong and you do it anyway -- we get that too. What I don't get is why you devote so much of your life to what could only be described as a waste of time.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Nevertheless, I think the benefit of allowing

>these "announcements" by new escorts is so slight that it is

>hardly worth discussing

 

Then why do you keep discussing it?

 

>especially if the site charges a fee

>as has been suggested. Hooboy already offers paid advertising

>to any escort who wants it -- so why can't new escorts simply

>do that?

 

This is like saying "why advertise on television when there's already the radio?" Yes, escorts have the option of buying an ad in parts of the website the clients are clicking through to get to what they came for -- the reviews -- which is where THESE ads would be. Get it? If every escort on this site had had to pay a fee to submit a profile, the site would have a lot more money to do things that would make the reviews more helpful -- hire an editor, or someone to spend more time verifying the reviews, or free HooBoy up to have time to come up with some innovations of his own that might make improve the review process. But none of that, of course, would address what's really eating you, which is why you'd prefer to spend so much time in discussions you don't think are worth having.

[guptasa1]

>I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with your

>reasoning. Nevertheless, I think the benefit of allowing

>these "announcements" by new escorts is so slight that it is

>hardly worth discussing, especially if the site charges a fee

>as has been suggested. Hooboy already offers paid advertising

>to any escort who wants it -- so why can't new escorts simply

>do that?

 

I certainly respect that. I don't think it's a major issue for me - just, I thought the suggestion was a good one. My initial perception of it was something free, but I guess it doesn't matter to me whether it's pay or not (and the pay ones would be more credible yet). I do agree, however, that this site should NOT become PRIMARILY advertising. As long as the FOCUS was on reviews, though, I do feel it'd be a nice feature.

 

It's always disheartening to see someone on sites like AmericanMale and think "Better wait until I see a review or something - could be a Cupcake scam" or something similar. I'd feel less likely that would happen here if new guys debuted themselves on this site. Then again, I could very easily be wrong about that given the boldness of some of the guys, like those from Cupcake. They might try it just for kicks.

 

>The point of faking a review is that a review is imbued with a

>degree of credibility, having been created (supposedly) by

>someone who has no financial incentive to do so, that an ad

>does not have. How many people would bother to read the

>wildly successful Zagat guides if it became known that each

>restaurant review was written by people who work at the

>restaurant? The secret of Zagat's success is the credibility

>its reviews have with consumers. The credibility derives from

>the fact that reviewers are disinterested and numerous, two

>qualities that one can't get from ads or from reviews by a

>professional restaurant critic. The same is true of review

>sites like epinions.com and tripadvisor.com. And of this

>site.

 

Very true. And like I said, it would have to be clear what's an advertisement/introduction and what's a review so that people could clearly tell the difference and skip what they're not interested in reading. My suggestion would be limiting it to so many words (a good paragraph or so) and having it at the top of their review page in a different color or something and clearly marked (sorta like how you see verification postings now). Similarly, if the picture came from the escort instead of a client and was unverified, I'd have some sort of indicator to that effect.

 

But you're right. Third party reviews will always carry more weight than an advertisement. And I also think self-reviews that are fake are definitely a problem. I guess I really don't consider that as a possibility when reading reviews as much as I should (unless of course it's clear from the reviews reading way too similar or have too-similar grammar or something).

 

>>Yes, I did. I always write a review when there's a really

>bad

>>experience as I feel others need to be warned.

>

>Thank you. May your kind increase.

 

Hehe =o). Frankly, I can't understand why people wouldn't want to warn others after a terrible experience. Now, I do understand (and have and still do this sometimes) not writing reviews for so-so experiences when you may not have had a stellar time but didn't have a great one either for one reason or another. But for really good experiences (as long as the escort doesn't mind - I ask in the case of good reviews) and really bad experiences (especially scams), there's always a review. Especially with the latter, I feel it'd be irresponsible not to say at least something.

[Bilbo]

I don't think that we should charge every escort. If an escort does not submit an initial description thingy, but does receive a review, I don't think that he should be charged for filling out the form currently in use to confirm the his availability for services similar to those reviewed.

[woodlawn]

>>Reality is that the posting of fake interviews by escorts

>has become so common here that no one can any longer trust the

>>reviews.

 

>When could people ever "trust" the reviews in the first place?

 

Earlier in the history of this site, when there seemed few fake reviews and many more by those with multiple reviews to their credit, that's when. Many posters have reported following the advice of certain specific reviewers and obtaining satisfactory results. I'm not cynical enough to believe they were ALL lying, even if you are.

 

 

>except to the extent that he grows familiar enough with a

>particular reviewer's handle and history to consider that

>person's reporting to be somewhat "reliable" or to "trust" in

>his own ability to account for that reviewer's biases, pet

>peeves, etc., and to the extent that bad reviews might prompt

>him to be mistrustful enough of an escort to stay away from

>him.

 

And faithful readers of this forum have noticed many such cases. That disposes of your argument.

 

> So that's another reason why people

>can't "trust" the reviews; because they can't know the

>reviewer's own motives, which often he himself might not

>understand. And they can't necessarily "trust" his facility

>with language, or their own ability to interpret actually what

>he said. Just as there's no real barrier to entry when it

>comes to becoming an escort, there's no real barrier to entry

>when it comes to becoming an escort critic,

 

These arguments are equally applicable to a service like the Zagat guides, which millions of consumers have found an invaluable resource during the past twenty years. Which goes to show that your arguments don't really hold water.

 

 

> He's just not going to please everyone no

>matter what he does.

 

But if fake reviews proliferate to the extent that they crowd out real ones, he's not going to please ANYONE, let alone everyone, since the ostensible purpose of this site will be utterly defeated. So a conflict between quality and quantity should always be resolved in favor of quality. There was a time when Hooboy seemed to agree with this. Sadly, it no longer seems the case.

 

>>The most practical way of acknowledging that reality

>>would be to shut down the review portion of the site, or at

>>least to remove the caption about "Honest in our judgments"

>>from the homepage.

 

>Well, if either one of those two suggestions actually strikes

>you as "practical" then you're being wildly impractical.

>Changing slogans is a symbolic gesture which rarely carries

>any practical value, and certainly not in this case.

 

Says who? You? You're in no position to speak for anyone but yourself about the value of such matters. Unless you've taken a poll? No? You haven't? What a surprise.

 

 

>If HooBoy dropped the slogan, the only

>practical benefit it would have is that you would switch from

>constantly bitching about the slogan to bragging about your

>brave, tireless, and ultimately successful campaign to have it

>removed,

 

You really are such a filthy fucking liar. None of the actions you attribute to me above has anything to do with reality. They happened nowhere except in your head.

 

> As for shutting down the reviews,

>well, if and when they go, the entire site will probably go.

>While it's true that some participants on the message center

>don't utilize the reviews -- Boston Guy being the only example

>that comes to mind --

 

Boston Guy, whom you shamelessly brown-nose every time he makes an appearance here, has said on several occasions that he believes the reviews should be discontinued because they are so susceptible of misuse and manipulation by unscrupulous persons. I don't recall any occasion on which you responded to his suggestion with the kind of abuse you're hurling at me for saying the exact same thing, which just goes to show what a hypocrite you are. But we already knew that.

 

>Your ideas about what's practical should tell anyone reading

>your posts everything they need to know about your motives.

 

My motives are exactly the same as those of BG. In the past I've always resisted his idea that the reviews should be dropped. I couldn't help noticing the proliferation of fakes, but I assumed the owner would take steps to deal with that problem at some point. And indeed there was a time when he seemed to be doing so on a regular basis. That isn't happening anymore, however, so I can resist BG's position no longer. I must now agree with him.

 

> but it's always been for the sake

>of bringing us back to the bigger message -- that this site is

>a sham, and how could it be otherwise, because we're all

>criminals, boo fucking hoo.

 

 

As the record shows, your accusations are nothing but more of the putrid lies one has come to expect from you. Until now, I've consistently challenged BG's position that the reviews are inherently unreliable and should be stopped. I thought that position far too extreme. But circumstances have changed, and I must now yield to his argument.

 

>Just stop hiring escorts already,

>and you won't need to come here and be exposed to all this

>beastly corruption that offends you so -- or to be amused by

>the hypocrisy and all the other phony reasons you give for

>coming here.

 

Just like lobbyists for the auto industry, the oil industry, and every other industry that is subjected to criticism by those who advocate for consumers, you use lies, smears and baseless accusations to try to drive off anyone who raises difficult issues about the industry of which you are a part. It's so amusing to see self-styled liberals like you resorting to the same tactics as lobbyists for "greedy corporations" whenever your financial interests seem threatened.

 

And that, of course, is what is really going on here. You've found this site a good source of free advertising. It benefits you financially, and the fact that it has come to contain a great deal of misinformation that creates problems for clients is not a problem for you. That, not a tender concern for Hooboy or anyone else, is the reason you make such a fuss when it's suggested the reviews be discontinued. It couldn't be more obvious.

 

 

>I agree that, as you've noted before, it's possible to

>participate in escorting without doing harm, but as it

>happens, it's rather difficult to do so and requires a

>conscious effort, an essential part of which includes a

>willingness not to see it as something so trivial and

>insignificant and inherently immoral that it's not worth

>trying to improve.

 

Nonsense. Participating in escorting without doing harm could hardly be easier. It only requires that both parties make certain they do NOT confuse what is no more than a pastime with something of greater significance. It is when either party forgets that important fact that problems ensue. Granted, some people find it difficult to separate their emotions from the sex act. They should simply stay away, just as those with addictive personalities should stay away from addictive substances.

 

 

> What I don't get is why you devote so much of

>your life to what could only be described as a waste of time.

 

You're not stupid enough to be unable to grasp the distinction between an amusing pastime and a waste of time, so the above is just another lie. Your problem is that your ego (and your wallet) depend on believing and making others believe that hiring a hooker is some sort of profound spiritual or emotional experience, rather than just the mildly amusing distraction it really is. Don't think I don't sympathize with your position. If whoring isn't something profound and immensely valuable, it becomes hard to make the argument you're always making that clients should be ashamed of trying to get lower prices. And the argument that clients are being unreasonable when they expect a hooker to actually have sex with them in return for the cash. But you're just going to have to get used to the fact that money and sex are all this is about. I'm sure you can do it if you put your mind to it. Eventually.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I don't think that we should charge every escort. If an

>escort does not submit an initial description thingy, but does

>receive a review, I don't think that he should be charged for

>filling out the form currently in use to confirm the his

>availability for services similar to those reviewed.

 

I don't really think "should" comes into it, necessarily -- I don't care whether HooBoy charges us money or not -- and of course it's not up to "us." My point is that if people are going to object to every possible reform on this site on the grounds that escorts are getting free advertising, there's an easy enough way around that objection, and it could provide real resources to make the reviews more valuable. If, as I suspect, there are many more escorts who owe much of their livelihood to this site but have never given HooBoy a dime than there are escorts who fit your description above, which "problem," if you owned a site that, in fact, IS a great source of advertising for most of us, would strike you as the bigger priority for "solving?" At any rate, I don't think there's much fairness, or real sense, in people who benefit from this site thinking of it as an entitlement. To the extent that "should" comes into it, maybe, for a change of pace, it "should" apply more to the people this site benefits (which includes escorts) rather than the guy who provides it.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Earlier in the history of this site, when there seemed few

>fake reviews and many more by those with multiple reviews to

>their credit, that's when. Many posters have reported

>following the advice of certain specific reviewers and

>obtaining satisfactory results. I'm not cynical enough to

>believe they were ALL lying

 

Me either. Nor am I cynical enough to pretend that the same no longer holds true. An inevitable byproduct of the site's growth in popularity from the "good old days" is that an ever-smaller percentage of reviewers are going to be among the ones who have earned credibility in the eyes of any given individual. And remember, you don't get to decide for the rest of us which reviews are by credible reviewers and which aren't.

 

>>except to the extent that he grows familiar enough with a

>>particular reviewer's handle and history to consider that

>>person's reporting to be somewhat "reliable" or to "trust"

>in

>>his own ability to account for that reviewer's biases, pet

>>peeves, etc., and to the extent that bad reviews might

>prompt

>>him to be mistrustful enough of an escort to stay away from

>>him.

 

>And faithful readers of this forum have noticed many such

>cases. That disposes of your argument.

 

Don't look right now, but it's inherent to my argument, and therefore doesn't "dispose" of it. Typically, you're confusing your unwillingness to engage an argument with your ability to refute it, which explains why a lawyer with your reasoning "abilities" has so much time to share with us.

 

>These arguments are equally applicable to a service like the

>Zagat guides, which millions of consumers have found an

>invaluable resource during the past twenty years.

 

Well, not quite. The Zagat guides have professional editors, which greatly enhances their value. Even so, they are an excellent example of how a resource can be utilized without being "trusted." I doubt that the people who just blindly took every Zagat recommendation on faith found them invaluable for very long, and people who took that approach to reading the reviews here, even during the glorious epoch you describe, would probably find them even less "invaluable."

 

>But if fake reviews proliferate to the extent that they crowd

>out real ones, he's not going to please ANYONE, let alone

>everyone, since the ostensible purpose of this site will be

>utterly defeated. So a conflict between quality and quantity

>should always be resolved in favor of quality.

 

Since you would never, EVER make a sweeping assertion you can't prove, please share with us the market reseach you studied that indicates that most people's purpose in visiting this site is to read the reviews for applicable information as opposed to, say, entertainment. Or that the people who "care" most about quality are the ones HooBoy most needs to please to keep the site financially viable. I don't think either one of us really knows HooBoy's costs vs. expenses intimately enough to know what the owner of a free site "should" do, nor are we well positioned to hold him accountable to the site's "ostensible" purpose as opposed to the purpose most of his visitors ACTUALLY use it for (and I'm not even sure he can really know, but I'm pretty sure you and I can't).

 

>Says who? You? You're in no position to speak for anyone but

>yourself about the value of such matters.

 

Which is why I logged in under "DevonSFescort" and not "root," genius. I AM speaking for myself. Do you have an argument with what I authorized myself to say on behalf of myself, or do you want to weasel out by accusing me of (gasp) expressing my opinion on (gasp) a message board?

 

Unless you've taken

>a poll? No? You haven't? What a surprise.

 

Not really, in light of the fact that I wasn't claiming to speak for anyone but myself.

 

>You really are such a filthy fucking liar. None of the

>actions you attribute to me above has anything to do with

>reality. They happened nowhere except in your head.

 

Welcome to the Internet, where you don't get to control how people perceive your persona. My "shopping" excursion for a religion only happened in your head, too. And I've never lived in a gay ghetto, where you've also imagined me. Since my persona, however, is linked to something that others can verify or refute by meeting me, and since my income can be affected by how my persona is verified, I, not you, can reasonably accuse someone of lying. There's actually something to lie or tell the truth about in my case. In your case, as you never tire of reminding us, we don't know anything about you, not even, say, that you're not an escort with a financial stake, or a mere petty grudge, against the escorts you spar with on here.

 

But readers of English have noticed how much you overuse accusations of lying. There's not much that doesn't count as a filthy lie in your mind. Doug makes a point, which he illustrates by saying he didn't have to open all the ballots to "know" Schwarzenegger won an overwhelming majority of the votes (I think the word he was looking for was "plurality," which, indeed, was overwhelming, especially considering that he had over 100 opponents), and you pounce, call him a liar, which is a very convenient way to dismiss, rather than engage, an argument. Even minor semantical slips count as lies in your book.

 

>Boston Guy, whom you shamelessly brown-nose every time he

>makes an appearance here, has said on several occasions that

>he believes the reviews should be discontinued because they

>are so susceptible of misuse and manipulation by unscrupulous

>persons. I don't recall any occasion on which you responded

>to his suggestion with the kind of abuse you're hurling at me

>for saying the exact same thing

 

I'm hurling the kind of abuse I hurl at you, and not at him, because he doesn't harp on his point endlessly and do everything he can to object to a reform that might make the reviews less susceptible to the problems he has with them. I'll let him decide if he wants you to speak for his position. But even if it's identical to yours, BostonGuy, unlike you, hasn't made it his mission in life to poison the well here constantly. I don't know what he thinks of this idea in particular, but I think he'd actually consider it, state his opinion, and either persuade whomever he's arguing with or reach a point where he's willing to agree to disagree. Far from brown-nosing him, I've expressed disagreement with him on a number of occasions, and not always gently, but he has always shown me the respect of trying to PERSUADE me, and for that reason he has actually succeeded in causing some of my viewpoints to shift, which is not to say bring them into complete alignment. He's earned the respect he's gotten from me, as has Doug, with whom I have frequently enjoyed exchanges that, while cunty on both sides, have usually been mostly about the actual subject at hand. It's not that Doug's above making distortions -- he's not -- but he actually DOES get around to making an argument. You don't.

 

 

> That isn't

>happening anymore, however, so I can resist BG's position no

>longer. I must now agree with him.

 

Oh, yes -- the classic woodlawn "concession." You're always willing to "admit" you were "wrong" as long as you can manipulate other people's words to "demonstrate" your "mistake" in not being cyncial ENOUGH. Have you ever, on this board, made an "admission" to the effect that you gave people, especially escorts, or this site, too LITTLE credit? If so, I wonder how long ago that was, and how recent the example before that was.

 

 

>Just like lobbyists for the auto industry, the oil industry,

>and every other industry that is subjected to criticism by

>those who advocate for consumers

 

Oh, look, an illustration of my point that you're a drama queen who'd rather make comparisons to corporate corruption than go out and fight it. No wonder we see so much of you -- and so comparatively little of Boston Guy, who just doesn't seem to have as much time for us. Why, it's almost as though he has a life, something which takes up his time! I wonder if that's why his points, no matter how often or not they overlap with yours, don't reek of toxic anguish? I must remember to ask a reputable psychiatrist -- and if it's all the same to you, I'll let someone better positioned than you tell me what a reputable psychiatrist would do, which should save some of your very, VERY valuable time, which is best devoted to endless discussions of topics you don't think are worth discussing.

 

>You've found this site a good source of free advertising. It

>benefits you financially,

 

Not only have I never claimed otherwise, I've repeatedly drawn attention to the fact, and I think I'm one of the only escorts, maybe THE only one, to suggest, not only the advertising value of the reviews, but that I wouldn' object to paying for an advertisement that has more value both to my customers and to me than the ones I DO pay for. Sorry to spoil your little scoop.

 

and the fact that it has come to

>contain a great deal of misinformation that creates problems

>for clients is not a problem for you.

 

Actually, my point is that it is not only a problem, it is one escorts have an even bigger stake than clients in addressing. I've made a proposal that would generate the revenue that would solve it -- one that escorts would foot the bill for. You see, I actually get, and have for a long time, that the reviews won't work unless escorts and clients BOTH feel a stake in them working. You know, the way it works with legitimate, honestly run businesses outside our "demi-monde," most of which couldn't hold a candle to me when it comes to a willingness to disclose information that would benefit consumers but hurt their ability to make more money more easily.

 

>That, not a tender

>concern for Hooboy or anyone else, is the reason you make such

>a fuss when it's suggested the reviews be discontinued. It

>couldn't be more obvious.

 

Not least because I've pointed it out and made it explicit myself. Big fucking scandal. I acknowledge my interest, and stake, in my argument up front. You should try it sometime. Do you really think the positions you don't reflect your interest as a consumer? Do you think they should be automatically dismissed as inherently untrue? If only disinterested parties can make valid points, then Barry, KY_TOP, houseboy (Sean) and a few other "retirees" are the only ones qualified to make an argument -- oh, and of course taylorky, whose posts, whatever their charms, don't generally contain arguments. I've gone out of my way to make my bias clear from day one. Why don't you get over it already and try exchanging ideas sometime? I'm not saying don't be "mean" or use "insults" -- I'm just saying make a fucking POINT already, besides the reviews shouldn't exist and they're about prostitution which also shouldn't exist, but since it does there's no choice but to degrade its participants, of which you'll stop being one the day you die and not a minute sooner.

 

>Participating in escorting without doing harm could

>hardly be easier. It only requires that both parties make

>certain they do NOT confuse what is no more than a pastime

>with something of greater significance. It is when either

>party forgets that important fact that problems ensue.

>Granted, some people find it difficult to separate their

>emotions from the sex act. They should simply stay away, just

>as those with addictive personalities should stay away from

>addictive substances.

 

There's more to it than that, actually, but if you can ever manage follow that advice, even for five minutes, it will represent a more dramatic leap forward for your character than gay marriage is for society. It's good that you're setting yourself some goals. But I'll be sure and helpfully remind you of what you said above next time you try to paint prostitution as inevitably evil, dirty, and wrong. My position all along has been that escorting CAN be done ethically, and that it's anything but pointless to try.

 

 

>You're not stupid enough to be unable to grasp the distinction

>between an amusing pastime and a waste of time

 

No, but you're stupid enough to show that you're unable to grasp that distinction. You've been showing off that inability for years, as if it was something to be proud of.

 

>But you're just going to

>have to get used to the fact that money and sex are all this

>is about.

 

For you. Yes, for you, that's all this is about, and I'm well used to that fact. But money and sex are NOT all this is about for me, though both are very much part of what it's about. But I'm not so horrified by money and sex as to think they can't coexist with kindness and compassion, and therefore I don't have to get "used" to thinking like you do.

[woodlawn]

> An inevitable byproduct of the site's

>growth in popularity from the "good old days" is that an

>ever-smaller percentage of reviewers are going to be among the

>ones who have earned credibility in the eyes of any given

>individual.

 

And why is that "inevitable"? There is no logical correlation between the number of people who visit a review website and the percentage of reviewers who are credible in the eyes of visitors. There's no logical reason why the percentage should ever change, in fact. That's just another example of your propensity for making shit up and insisting that the rest of us regard it as a "fact" for purposes of discussion. No, thanks, I don't think I will.

 

>And remember, you don't get to decide for the

>rest of us which reviews are by credible reviewers and which

>aren't.

 

Neither do you. In light of the fact that you recently defended the practice of escorts giving false information in their ads, you're the last person on earth who should be listened to on the subject of credibility. Well, perhaps Saddam's press secretary is the last. You're next to last.

 

 

>Don't look right now, but it's inherent to my argument, and

>therefore doesn't "dispose" of it. Typically, you're

>confusing your unwillingness to engage an argument with your

>ability to refute it, which explains why a lawyer with your

>reasoning "abilities" has so much time to share with us.

 

LOL! I'm sure we can all learn a lot from someone with a mind as brilliant as yours, so brilliant that, as you tell us, you have to move to a different city because you can no longer afford the rents in your present location. Considering what a huge success you've been, it's certainly appropriate for you to sit in judgment on the "abilities" of others.

 

>>These arguments are equally applicable to a service like the

>>Zagat guides, which millions of consumers have found an

>>invaluable resource during the past twenty years.

>

>Well, not quite. The Zagat guides have professional editors,

>which greatly enhances their value.

 

Bullshit. The editors do not re-write the comments of reviewers. So the ability of non-professional reviewers to articulate their opinions poses exactly the same "problem" for the Zagat guides as for this site, just as I said.

 

 

>Even so, they are an

>excellent example of how a resource can be utilized without

>being "trusted." I doubt that the people who just blindly

>took every Zagat recommendation on faith found them invaluable

>for very long,

 

How would you know? Is it because you spend all of your money eating at the sort of restaurants that appear in Zagat's that you can't pay your rent? Or are you just reverting to your old habit of making shit up and pretending it's a "fact"?

 

>and people who took that approach to reading

>the reviews here, even during the glorious epoch you describe,

>would probably find them even less "invaluable."

 

Again, you're in no position to comment, much less to pontificate, on this subject.

 

 

>Since you would never, EVER make a sweeping assertion you

>can't prove, please share with us the market reseach you

>studied that indicates that most people's purpose in visiting

>this site is to read the reviews for applicable information as

>opposed to, say, entertainment. Or that the people who "care"

>most about quality are the ones HooBoy most needs to please to

>keep the site financially viable.

 

Since I made neither of the statements you attribute to me, I don't see why I need to support either of them with evidence. I don't know why most people visit the site; I do know what the site owner told us was the purpose of this site when it was first created. And I know that purpose can't be served by posting lots and lots of reviews of dubious authenticity.

 

 

> nor are we

>well positioned to hold him accountable to the site's

>"ostensible" purpose

 

And why the fuck are we not "well positioned" to do that? If the owner of a website proclaims to one and all that the site exists for the purpose of providing honest judgments and truthful reporting, are we not entitled to take him at his word? Well?

 

 

>Which is why I logged in under "DevonSFescort" and not "root,"

>genius. I AM speaking for myself.

 

Then you really should stop telling the rest of us what "most people" think about this or that, shouldn't you?

 

>Not really, in light of the fact that I wasn't claiming to

>speak for anyone but myself.

 

LOL! You've done so on five separate occasions in this post alone.

 

 

>Welcome to the Internet, where you don't get to control how

>people perceive your persona.

 

But I do get to control what I actually post in black and white on a message board. And since those posts do not include "constantly" demanding that this site be shut down, as you claimed, I get to call you a liar for saying that they do. Got it?

 

 

> In your

>case, as you never tire of reminding us, we don't know

>anything about you, not even, say, that you're not an escort

>with a financial stake, or a mere petty grudge, against the

>escorts you spar with on here.

 

You do know one thing. Unless you have amnesia -- not something I can absolutely rule out, of course -- you and others know what I have actually written on this message board and what I have not. And so do I. So I'm in an excellent position to call you on it when you lie about that. As you frequently do.

 

>But readers of English have noticed how much you overuse

>accusations of lying.

 

Ooops! Are you the same person who just got through saying that you never speak for anyone but yourself? Or is this another one of your multiple personalities speaking now? Whom am I addressing this time? Male or female? Give us a hint.

 

>There's not much that doesn't count as

>a filthy lie in your mind. Doug makes a point, which he

>illustrates by saying he didn't have to open all the ballots

>to "know" Schwarzenegger won an overwhelming majority of the

>votes (I think the word he was looking for was "plurality,"

>which, indeed, was overwhelming, especially considering that

>he had over 100 opponents), and you pounce, call him a liar,

>which is a very convenient way to dismiss, rather than engage,

>an argument. Even minor semantical slips count as lies in

>your book.

 

It counts as a lie in my book when anyone uses as the basis for an argument a statement that he claims is a fact but that is manifestly false -- such as Doug's statement that Arnold won a majority of votes -- especially when the truth is widely known, as it was in that case.

 

>I'm hurling the kind of abuse I hurl at you, and not at him,

>because he doesn't harp on his point endlessly and do

>everything he can to object to a reform that might make the

>reviews less susceptible to the problems he has with them.

>I'll let him decide if he wants you to speak for his position.

> But even if it's identical to yours, BostonGuy, unlike you,

>hasn't made it his mission in life to poison the well here

>constantly.

 

You're hurling the kind of abuse you hurl at me because even though my position on the utility of the reviews is identical to his, I, unlike he, do not make it my business to defend escorts who have mistreated their clients (like AH and Sean). Nor do I choose to remain silent when you hector and harrass any client who has the temerity to suggest that bargaining with escorts may be appropriate. It's not surprising that you, whose mission in life is to extract as much money from clients as possible, would be hostile to someone who advocates for and defends the interests of clients. That, to you, is indeed "poison." Choke on it.

 

>Oh, yes -- the classic woodlawn "concession." You're always

>willing to "admit" you were "wrong" as long as you can

>manipulate other people's words to "demonstrate" your

>"mistake" in not being cyncial ENOUGH.

 

It is you, not I, who is twisting words. This time, the point is to find a reason to scream invective at me for taking the exact same position as someone for whom you've expressed "respect" in the past.

 

>Have you ever, on this

>board, made an "admission" to the effect that you gave people,

>especially escorts, or this site, too LITTLE credit? If so, I

>wonder how long ago that was, and how recent the example

>before that was.

 

LOL! The most egotistical, swollen-headed hooker on this board is complaining that I am not humble enough? Isn't that rather like Hitler complaining that someone else is being cruel?

 

 

>Oh, look, an illustration of my point that you're a drama

>queen who'd rather make comparisons to corporate corruption

>than go out and fight it.

 

Oh, look, Devon is making up shit about what I do and don't do in the real world because he has absolutely no fucking idea what that actually is.

 

>your very, VERY valuable time, which is best devoted to

>endless discussions of topics you don't think are worth

>discussing.

 

What my time is best devoted to is none of your business, actually, since it is MY time and not yours. The fact that I spend time here is something you gripe about over and over again as if, to quote my old pal jackhammer, "spending time here was something to be ashamed of." For you, my reasons for spending time here will have to remain one of life's little mysteries. Like the mystery of why you keep telling everyone you want to be an artist, but you spend hour upon hour upon hour haranguing people on this message board rather than spending that time on your art.

 

 

>Not only have I never claimed otherwise,

 

I never said you had. I merely point out your obvious financial motive for wanting the reviews to continue even if they result in misleading and creating problems for others.

 

>Actually, my point is that it is not only a problem, it is one

>escorts have an even bigger stake than clients in addressing.

>I've made a proposal that would generate the revenue that

>would solve it -- one that escorts would foot the bill for.

 

And it's a proposal that is completely unnecessary, given the fact that the site already sells ad space to any escort who cares to buy it and has done so for years.

 

>Not least because I've pointed it out and made it explicit

>myself. Big fucking scandal. I acknowledge my interest, and

>stake, in my argument up front. You should try it sometime.

>Do you really think the positions you don't reflect your

>interest as a consumer?

 

Of course they do. I've said over and over again on this board that I'm a consumer and that I advocate for consumers. Only someone who has severe dyslexia could be unaware of that if he reads my posts.

 

>Do you think they should be

>automatically dismissed as inherently untrue?

 

If we dismiss Cheney's denials that he influenced the awarding of the no-bid contract to Halliburton because he has a financial stake in the issue, isn't it fair to treat others who have financial interests in an issue the same way? Or is it only escorts who should get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to financial conflicts of interest?

 

> I've gone out of my way to make my bias

>clear from day one.

 

I know you have. So why do you start screeching like a scalded cat whenever I bring it up?

 

 

> Why don't you get over it already and try

>exchanging ideas sometime?

 

I frequently exchange ideas -- with people like Guptasa, giovoni, Bilbo and several others who have the emotional maturity to disagree without throwing feces at others. You, quite obviously, are not a member of that particular minority group.

 

> of which

>you'll stop being one the day you die and not a minute sooner.

 

Don't be too anxious for my demise. I've left certain instructions with my executor.

 

 

>There's more to it than that, actually, but if you can ever

>manage follow that advice, even for five minutes, it will

>represent a more dramatic leap forward for your character than

>gay marriage is for society.

 

No, there is no more to it than that -- it's just that it is in your interest to pretend otherwise as a justification for jacking up the price of the service you provide. As for my "character," I won't sit still for lectures on character from someone who traffics in deceit and betrayal on a regular basis, any more than I would listen to a lecture on the virtue of celibacy from Bill Clinton. Get over yourself. Climb down from your bogus moral perch and stop telling the rest of us how to behave until you clean up your own act.

 

>No, but you're stupid enough to show that you're unable to

>grasp that distinction. You've been showing off that

>inability for years, as if it was something to be proud of.

 

Time and time again I have made the point that there IS such a distinction. Why you would want to lie about that, I do not know.

 

>But I'm not so horrified by money and sex as to think

>they can't coexist with kindness and compassion, and therefore

>I don't have to get "used" to thinking like you do.

 

Here we go again with the lecture on "kindness" and "compassion." As usual, I'm thinking about what the wives of the married men you've fucked would say if they could see you using those words. Mercy!

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>But I do get to control what I actually post in black and

>white on a message board.

 

What a blatant, despicable...LIE!

 

You're dismissed, which, of course, is not the same thing as saying you're expected to leave. That, in fact, would be highly UNexpected.

[woodlawn]

>You're dismissed, which, of course, is not the same thing as

>saying you're expected to leave.

 

Junior, in case I haven't made it clear yet, I don't give a rat's ass about you, your opinions, your ideas or anything else connected with you. It amuses me (at times) to provide a counterpoint to the hooker-centric drivel that you post here in order to fatten your wallet and your ego. You're not one of my peers, you're just my entertainment.

 

Now go see if you can find someone who will pay to fuck you. Or if you can't, just go fuck yourself.