What's happening with Devon of San Francisco (Pittsburgh?)

[Doug69]

BEST Woodlawn post ever

 

>I'm not sure what trouble you refer to, but I would like to

>point out something that you may have overlooked. For quite a

>long time now, whenever any of the regulars complains about an

>action taken by you or the moderators, the response (usually

>from deej, sometimes from you) is, "This is our website and we

>can do whatever the fuck we want so go fuck yourself," or

>words to that effect. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you

>that asking people to support the site with donations is not

>compatible with the attitude that the site belongs exclusively

>to you and that it's none of their business what you do with

>it.

 

This is the truest statement ever. I like Hooboy and I like this site, and I have been previously tempted to donate to Hooboy, especially when he expressed the need for funds in order to assist with problems.

 

But I just know that a few days after I contribute, or maybe a few weeks, or a month - I'm going to write some post and then deej is going to come by and delete it and write "because I felt like it" - or Barry will come into the middle of a political discussion to which he contributes nothing and delete a long substantive post I wrote to someone with whom I was having a debate or discussion because it had the word "bitch" in it - and then when I suggest that this form of intervention is childish, inconsistently applied, unnecessary and infantile, I will be told by them (backed-up by Hooboy) that they can do whatever they want because it's their forum, and whether I like it or not couldn't be any more irrelevant, and then I will be horrified at myself and regrettful for having contributed to a site that is operated by people who behave in this imperious and outright rude manner.

 

And so I don't contribute. And I think you have done Hooboy a great service in pointing out why it is that fewer people contribute than he apparently thinks should. It would be like going into a store and being told to FUCK OFF every time you enter, and then having the store owner wonder why you don't keep buying from them.

[woodlawn]

>I dunno about the whole real person vs. fake person or the

>good posters vs the bad posters thing, but it seems to me when

>a person is in obvious trouble, you pitch in. Now you can do

>that privately, or you can do that publicly.

 

But you can't do it by spreading derogatory rumors about him. And that is really all most of the self-described "positive" posters on this board have done.

 

> You can say that

>the motivation to express concern is part of some fantasy, or

>alternate reality, or whatever. But the upside is that

>regardless of the motivation, something good can come from

>it.

 

I find it hard to see what good can come from accusing someone of being a meth addict or a schizophrenic when the fact is you have no earthly idea whether that is true and no way of finding out. Maybe you can explain that to us.

 

> Devon/Doug is in trouble. Is there anyone who has read his

>posts during the past month that can doubt that?

 

Yes. If you read his new website, you will find posts by several people who claim to know him personally and to like him -- but who also raise the possibility that this "trouble" is just a scam he has created to draw attention to his business. If even people who know and like Devon are willing to believe he would do something like that, that's a much more devastating comment on the man than any I have ever made or could make.

 

 

>The few who

>have spoken to him personally, have indicated that he has made

>certain facts and requests known. No one has to believe any

>of that, sure. And in spite of the point that some of this

>information can be verified with a phone call,

 

It can be "verified" with a phone call to whom -- to the same person who has been accused even by his friends of lying about all of this? I see.

 

 

>There is a guy, he is in some trouble. He is someone that has

>a public persona and a private life. his private life is now

>very public, and still there is so much talk about stuff that

>isn't important rather than what is important;

 

I don't know whether Devon is in any trouble and neither do you. If people who are much closer to him than I am doubt his truthfulness, I'm in no position to say they're wrong. As for there being "so much talk," Devon has spent years publicizing his life in order to draw attention to himself and make money. The fact that there is "so much talk" about every aspect of this situation is a result of his own behavior, and neither he nor his "friends" should complain about that.

[Doug69]

With friends like these . . .

 

>I am not sure what world they live in, but it seems to be a

>world in which being someone's "friend" is quite compatible

>with spreading derogatory rumors about his mental condition

>and in which such behavior is considered "positive" and

>"helpful." In other words, they live in a world whose values

>are exactly the opposite of those held by most people on

>Planet Earth.

 

This thread illustrates so much about this site.

 

Unlike Woodlawn and VaHawk, I DO happen to like Devon. I also have had interaction with him outside of this forum, and have concern for what is happening with him. That is why there are 2 simple points that I can't fathom anyone is unable to see:

 

(1) When I came to this site and read all of the posts which were casting around totally uninformed, baseless GOSSIP and INNUENDO about what was happening with Devon - "he's on drugs, he's in jail, he's gone bezerk, he's faking it, etc." - I became disgusted that, at a time when Devon may be in trouble, people were coming here and casting all sorts of innuendo and disparaging rumors about him without having any fucking idea whether or not it was true. To come and anonymously post rumors and disparaging gossip about someone on an Internet board is a disgusting thing to do! And the fact that SOME of the speculation turns out to have been PARTIALLY true doesn't change that fact in the slightest.

 

But then, to my genuine astonishment, I also noticed that the very people who were doing these vile things to Devon were simulaneously claiming to be "concerned" about him, and I just couldn't help but note that this was one of the most disgustingly hypocritical and stupid things EVER, even for this Board - the idea that people who are "concerned" about Devon would express that concern by coming and posting harmful, uninformed gossip and accusations against him on an Internet Board. You have to so morally depraved to think that you're doing Devon any favors by posting this sort of gossip about him that it defies description.

 

But of course, in the up-is-down moral code which governs here, it's the people who are spreading the gossip and innuendo who are the "Positive posters" (because they profess concern about Devon while maligning him). And it's the people who are expressing opposition and disgust to this rumor-mongering who are somehow the "negative posters" - because they have the audacity to criticize the rumor-mongering and fake concern.

 

If the definition of being a "negative poster" is someone who criticizes rank and anonymous rumor-mongering against someone who is unable to defend himself, I'm happy to have that title. And if being a "positive poster" means pretending to be concerned about someone while spreading uninformed but destructive gossip about them, I'm happy not to be that.

 

(2) As is almost always the case, people who have the need to run around publicly screaming about how CONCENRED they are about someone really aren't concerned at all. They just want others to think of them as good, caring people.

 

The people who are truly concerned about Devon and who have actually DONE THINGS TO HELP HIM - rather than just gossip about him on an Internet Board - have NOT come here to talk about what they've done for him, because for them, the objective is to HELP DEVON, not to have others think that they are good people.

 

I know of several regular posters here who have done a lot to help Devon during this time period, and none of them have come here to post about it or to talk about how concerned they are about him. They have done so quietly, because their concern is genuine.

 

By stark and obvious contrast, the people who can't stop publicly prattling on about how "concerned" they are for Devon have done nothing with regard to him other than come here and spit out rumors and gossip about him and then claim that they are doing so out of "concern."

 

Woodlawn and VaHawk are to be commended because they are honest enough to admit that they don't like Devon and aren't concerned about him. But the ones who are truly vile are the ones who parade themselves around as being oh-so-concerned but are really nothing but petty gossips who see Devon as a source of amusement and fascination - like a fun car wreck to watch - and who then cleanse their conscience by pretending that they are only watching out of "concern."

 

It's hard to think of anything more depraved than that, and it's hard to think of anything more stupid than anyone who buys into the idea that the people who have been doing this are, in any sense, "positive."

[Guest drummer]

RE: With friends like these . . .

 

I emerge from lurking to say I respectfully disagree with Woody and Vahawk and Doug69 (who, perhaps coincidentally, has established that he is not the same person as Devon/Douglas).

 

Ordinarily, it would be quite inappropriate and certainly not a "positive" thing to do to speculate about someone's mental state and drug use. But Devon is not an oridnary person living an ordinary, private or quasi-private life.

 

It seems to me that once someone, such as Devon, makes the decision to publish an explicit online diary, does so for over three years, publishes two other websites, including photos of himself having sex with other men, and regularly posts in these web forums, he has made himself a kind of public figure. If he wanted ANY sort of privacy regarding his life he wouldn't have so vigorously publicized his sex work, non-professional sexual relationships, and personal life. He's been purposely provocative and even set up the harmlessdevon website in a way that others cannot only post comments but even create their own pages, which several people have done (you have to click on "tools" to get to the other pages). When someone has both implicitly and explicitly invited people to comment on his very public life, it's appropriate to do so.

 

The speculation about Devon's mental state and drug use was prompted by Devon's posts on this site and on his own two websites. Devon has shown time and time again that he is quite capable of responding to other people's comments here. If this is all a publicity stunt (designed to kill his escort business?), he could respond.

 

If it is not a publicity stunt, if he has had the psychotic breakdown his writings suggest (and announced on his website throguh "Wen" that "Anti-psychotic prescription drugs-- me like-ee!") and other problems that are coming to light, the fact that people speculate about his situation is an inevitable and natural consequence of the choices Devon made.

 

Since Devon chose to lead this public Internet life, and did his meltdown publically through his own posts, why shouldn't people speculate? Well, I know Woody and Vahawk are not arguing against any speculation, but rather asserting that it is hypocritical to do so if one is "concerned" or "positive."

 

As someone who has been treated for depression and anxiety, who has a sister who is a psychaiatrist who has been treated for OCD and other problems, and several friends who have been treated for emotional problems, I recognize that most mental disturbances are as much rooted in physiology and (especially) brain chemistry as any other physical ailment. There's nothing any more "vile" in suggesting someone is having an emotional problem that in suggesting someone may have had a heart attack.

 

Since to many of us there is nothing wrong with having a mental problem--it's just a problem, not a shameful one--or even having a drug problem (same thing, it happens to the best of people), then I don't see that being concerned about someone who has chosen to live a public life makes it hypocritical to also speculate about that person's mental state in the forums in which he has chosen to publicize his life, especially since that person has explicitly invited comment on his life.

[Barry]

>It can be "verified" with a phone call to whom -- to the same

>person who has been accused even by his friends of lying about

>all of this? I see.

 

I agree with much of what you've said Woodlawn...regarding the rumours and speculation posted here. But aren't you doing the same to some extent?

 

What friends of Devon have accused him of "lying about all of this" and where has Devon identified these individuals as his friends?

 

Barry

[jackhammer91406]

>But you can't do it by spreading derogatory rumors about him.

>And that is really all most of the self-described "positive"

>posters on this board have done.

 

A subjective perception at best. All postings labeled as rumor mongering. Somewhat arbitrary on your part.

 

 

>

>I find it hard to see what good can come from accusing someone

>of being a meth addict or a schizophrenic when the fact is you

>have no earthly idea whether that is true and no way of

>finding out. Maybe you can explain that to us.

 

I could take the time to explain how a concept works, but I wonder if it would really make any difference in your view of things.

There is more to this than what shows up here in posts. As mentioned later in this thread, those who have talked to him, or provided support, are not going public with that info. But he is in contact with a few from here, and I KNOW that for a fact. And what has been discussed in those contacts isn't subject for your edification . How I know isn't important or even required for this discussion. You can choose to believe me or not, it doesn't matter to me.

 

 

 

>Yes. If you read his new website, you will find posts by

>several people who claim to know him personally and to like

>him -- but who also raise the possibility that this "trouble"

>is just a scam he has created to draw attention to his

>business. If even people who know and like Devon are willing

>to believe he would do something like that, that's a much more

>devastating comment on the man than any I have ever made or

>could make.

 

There are a number of people who know Devon who have posted their opinions of what is really going on with him. Interesting which ones you choose to believe as true. As you mention , there is some speculation as to whether this is all a hoax. If so, does that negate the fact that from all appearances, this kid is in trouble? NO Even if it's a self promoting ploy, it only seems to point to the obvious. This guy is in trouble.

 

>It can be "verified" with a phone call to whom -- to the same

>person who has been accused even by his friends of lying about

>all of this? I see.

 

Based on your premise, you are correct. Bet you never thought you would see me write those words. However, I must point out your premise isn't the only possibility. And the simple phone call is so obvious that it is amazing to me that you can gloss over it so quickly in your haste to make another dig at the kid. That is a very telling maneuver.

 

>

>I don't know whether Devon is in any trouble and neither do

>you.

Well, no, there you are wrong.

 

 

As

>for there being "so much talk," Devon has spent years

>publicizing his life in order to draw attention to himself and

>make money. The fact that there is "so much talk" about every

>aspect of this situation is a result of his own behavior, and

>neither he nor his "friends" should complain about that.

 

What I have a beef about is exactly what you have displayed in your response. The meat of the matter to you is: Whether this guy is in trouble is secondary to condemning as hypocrites those who express concern.

 

 

You are determined to make this some kind of struggle between what you label good/bad posters. A subject long dead, but resurrected as justification for ignoring the point. Let's condemn as hypocrites any concerned posters and to hell with the self promoting hooker.

ISN'T that all that YOU are really doing?

[Doug69]

>I agree with much of what you've said Woodlawn...regarding the

>rumours and speculation posted here.

 

This is DEFINITELY the first time you, Woodlawn and I all agree on anything! I even got a smiley face from you in response to one of my posts, which touched me deeply. I will cherish this moment always, as I do not expect it to arise again in the next millenia.

 

But aren't you doing the

>same to some extent?

 

I don't think Woodlawn is doing the same thing as the gossip-mongerers. I think Woodlawn is simply making the point that even now, the people who haven't had personal contact with Devon still don't know with any certanity what is actually happening to him. And, even those who have had personal contact with Devon may not have the real and/or complete story either. Thus, discussions of what happened to him - by most, if not all, posters here - are really in the realm of uninformed speculation and innuendo.

 

I think Woodlawn is expressing important scepticism that it is very difficult to know what actually has happened with Devon. That seems to be a far cry from - in fact, it seems to me to be the opposite of -coming here and spreading rumors or openly speulating about what has occurred.

 

>What friends of Devon have accused him of "lying about all of

>this" and where has Devon identified these individuals as his

>friends?

 

There are people who have simultaneously expressed concern and even admiration for Devon and then speculated that this is just a big hoax - or some contrived performance art piece - to get attention or to make money. I can't imagine attributing to anyone a more repugnant and deceitful motive than accusing them of something like that.

 

Personally, I believe that I now have enough vefified information that I am reasonably certian that I know what happened to Devon, but even still, unless I was asked to by him, I would not sit here and describe or disclose it, let alone gossip about it. I cannot see what possible benefit could come from that to him, and that it why it is so baffling to see those who claim to be concerned for him engaging in behavior which reflects exactly the opposite.

 

I will underscore what I think the most important point: anyone wanting to be supportive of Devon or who is concerned aobut him can do so in lots of different ways. Posting here with endless speculation and gossiping about him and what happened does not strike me as one of the ways to be constructive. Quite the contrary.

[Doug69]

RE: With friends like these . . .

 

>I emerge from lurking to say I respectfully disagree with

>Woody and Vahawk and Doug69 . . .

 

Thank you for posting a thoughtful and substantive reply to the point being made. Although I disagree with most of what you wrote, it at least made me think about my position because of the way in which you advocated yours. I wish more posts were like that here.

 

> . . .Doug 69 who, perhaps coincidentally, has

>established that he is not the same person as Devon/Douglas).

 

LOL!!! I didn't know that was in question! I guess I did go away for awhile at around the same time as he did - and I do confess annoyance that he seems to have appropriate my name during his transformation - but I think people are seeing a few too many Michael Moore movies if they think I'm Devon.

 

>Ordinarily, it would be quite inappropriate and certainly not

>a "positive" thing to do to speculate about someone's mental

>state and drug use. But Devon is not an oridnary person

>living an ordinary, private or quasi-private life.

 

This is the crux of your point - that because Devon has made his life a topic of public discussion, that it's somehow therefore more appropritae to come here and rumor-monger and speculate about what has happend to him. Two points:

 

(1) I think even the most public figures are entitled not to have their character and reputations smeared with baseless innuendo. Matt Drudge recently published completely unfounded and false rumors about John Kerry's alleged predatory affair with a young intern. It was disgusting because there was no basis for it whatsoever and because it was false.

 

John Kerry is about as public figure as it gets, and what is happenin in his life is certainly a legitimate matter for public discussion. That doesn't make baseless innuendo and gossip about him defensible. And if it doesn't with him, it certainly doesn't with Devon.

 

(2) Whether it's legitimate or not to come here and discuss Devon in light of his diary is one thing (and is, I acknowledge as a result of your post, a debatable proposition), but what seems undebatable to me is that people who profess to be "concerned" about him as a human being - rather than interested in him as a quasi-public figure - would nonetheless refrain from coming here and doing so, given how antithetical that activity is to their professed concern for him as a person. So even if you're right that there's nothing wrong per se with coming here and speculating about what happened in light of his publicizing of his own life, it's still so strikiningly inconsistent with an ostensible desire to help him.

 

As for your view that mental illness is no different than heart disease, that may be a view that you and others share, and may be legitimate, but it's certainly far from widely accepted. For at least a substantial number of people, accusing someone of having a mental breakdown or being insane or having a drug addiction or any of the other accusations made against Devon here -- whether justifiably or not -- would have the affect of harming Devon's reputation. For that reason, I can't imagine why anyone concerned about him would want to do this, especially without even knowing whether or not the accusations are true.

[Guest drummer]

RE: With friends like these . . .

 

>

>> . . .Doug 69 who, perhaps coincidentally, has

>>established that he is not the same person as

>Devon/Douglas).

>

>LOL!!! I didn't know that was in question! I guess I did go

>away for awhile at around the same time as he did - and I do

>confess annoyance that he seems to have appropriate my name

>during his transformation - but I think people are seeing a

>few too many Michael Moore movies if they think I'm Devon.

 

LOL, too. VaHawk in the other Devon thread:

 

"Is it even REMOTELY possible, given that Devon's real name is Doug, and he advertises as being 35, meaning born in 1969, that Devon is also Doug69??? After all, the ONLY escort I've seen Doug69 defend and excuse is that very Devon dude! Hasn't Doug69 been as absent lately as Devon?"

[woodlawn]

>I agree with much of what you've said Woodlawn...regarding the

>rumours and speculation posted here. But aren't you doing the

>same to some extent?

 

Not really. To begin with, I'm not one of those who has rushed to this board to post the rumors I have heard about Devon's situation on other websites -- I have merely commented on the rumors that others (like Curious2000) have posted here. I read a number of rumors about Devon elsewhere, but I didn't mention any of them here until others started doing so. In addition, I haven't used as an excuse for gossip and rumormongering a pretended "concern" about Devon that I don't really feel. I've made it clear from the beginning that I'm NOT concerned about him or his problems. I have no compunction about discussing him, of course, since he has for years encouraged anyone whose attention he could grab to do exactly that.

 

>What friends of Devon have accused him of "lying about all of

>this" and where has Devon identified these individuals as his

>friends?

 

If you will take a look at some of the latest posts on the harmlessdevon webpage, you will find posts from several people who claim they know Devon personally and are sympathetic to his situation, but who also suggest that the whole thing could be a "ruse" or "marketing ploy" invented by him. I don't know that these people really are Devon's friends, but by the same token I don't know that the people who post here and claim to be his friends are his friends either. I don't know that the latest posts on his site are really from a member of his family, rather than from Devon himself. I don't know anything about him for certain. To my way of thinking, nothing could be sillier than to take at face value the claims of anonymous strangers who post on a message board under fake names on this subject or any subject. Let me correct myself -- one thing could be sillier, and that is sending someone money on the basis of such claims.

[woodlawn]

>>But you can't do it by spreading derogatory rumors about

>him.

>>And that is really all most of the self-described "positive"

>>posters on this board have done.

 

>A subjective perception at best. All postings labeled as rumor

>mongering. Somewhat arbitrary on your part.

 

Then tell me YOUR definition. If repeating scandalous stories about someone without having the slightest idea whether they're true is NOT rumormongering, then what would be?

 

> How I know isn't important or

>even required for this discussion. You can choose to believe

>me or not, it doesn't matter to me.

 

In fact I don't believe you. But whether I do or not, it has nothing to do with the question I raised, which is how he or anyone can benefit from having a bunch of strangers chew over rumors that he is a drug addict or a schizophrenic. If he needs treatment for those problems, I don't see how talking about them on this message board is going to get him treatment. If the rumors aren't true, I don't see how getting people to believe them will help him -- unless they help him by allowing him to collect money in return for doing nothing.

 

 

>There are a number of people who know Devon who have posted

>their opinions of what is really going on with him.

>Interesting which ones you choose to believe as true.

 

I choose to believe NONE of them. Because I have no means of verifying ANY of them. And I don't believe you have either.

 

>As you

>mention , there is some speculation as to whether this is all

>a hoax. If so, does that negate the fact that from all

>appearances, this kid is in trouble? NO Even if it's a self

>promoting ploy, it only seems to point to the obvious. This

>guy is in trouble.

 

The above wins the prize for the most gullible, self-deluding statement I have ever seen posted on a message board that is notable for the large number of gullible, self-deluding people who post on it. You have actually convinced yourself that the fact that this hooker may be trying to swindle you and others shows that he is deserving of the concern and sympathy that his lies (if they are lies) are intended to get you to feel. I must say that my confidence in the ability of the people who post here to say the most absurd things has been fully justified.

 

 

> Based on your premise, you are correct. Bet you never thought

>you would see me write those words. However, I must point out

>your premise isn't the only possibility. And the simple phone

>call is so obvious that it is amazing to me that you can gloss

>over it so quickly in your haste to make another dig at the

>kid. That is a very telling maneuver.

 

What exactly am I "glossing over"? Does it really seem rational to you to suggest to people that they can "verify" the truth of someone's assertions by calling the same person who is making the assertions?

 

>Well, no, there you are wrong.

 

I don't think so.

 

>What I have a beef about is exactly what you have displayed in

>your response. The meat of the matter to you is: Whether

>this guy is in trouble is secondary to condemning as

>hypocrites those who express concern.

 

It sure is secondary. Maybe even tertiary. I have made it clear from the beginning that I do not give a hoot about Devon and his troubles. Considering the many nasty, rotten things he has said to me over the years, it would be pretty strange if I felt any other way.

 

>You are determined to make this some kind of struggle between

>what you label good/bad posters.

 

Don't lie. I said nothing about that in this discussion UNTIL one of the self-described "positive posters" started using that classification. Incredibly, to my way of thinking, he used the term "negative posters" to describe those of us who were NOT spreading scandalous and derogatory rumors about Devon. That is simply TOO good to pass up.

 

> Let's

>condemn as hypocrites any concerned posters and to hell with

>the self promoting hooker.

>ISN'T that all that YOU are really doing?

 

Let's condemn as hypocrites all those who call themselves "concerned" and who use that "concern" as an excuse to chew over every derogatory rumor they can get their hands on as quickly as it comes to their attention. As for the "self promoting hooker," I don't really care what happens to him. He has repeatedly claimed superiority to those of us whom he refers to as "losers" and "trolls" on this board, so it can hardly be wondered at if we do not burst into tears upon

being told by you that he has lost all of the things he boasted of achieving and is now locked up in some "loony bin." If that really has happened, let it be a lesson -- not to him, but to those of you who keep claiming that hookers are NOT typically drug-addicted or emotionally damaged people who stumble from one catastrophe to another.

[+ Lucky]

RE: BEST Woodlawn post ever

 

I agree with Doug, which means I agree with woodlawn, and what a surprise this is.

[woodlawn]

RE: With friends like these . . .

 

>As for your view that mental illness is no different than

>heart disease, that may be a view that you and others share,

>and may be legitimate, but it's certainly far from widely

>accepted.

 

In the event that Devon decides to resume his career as an escort at some point -- and nothing would surprise me less -- I think anyone who has read these rumors about his addiction, his mental breakdown and so on would hesitate before hiring him. Civilized people think of mental illness as a misfortune rather than a disgrace, but even so how many clients would be eager to hire an escort whom they know has recently been involuntarily confined as a mental patient? Can you see an escort putting that in one of his ads? How would it read: "Warm, fun-loving, affectionate and bipolar (but on medication so don't be concerned)"?

[Guest drummer]

RE: With friends like these . . .

 

>In the event that Devon decides to resume his career as an

>escort at some point -- and nothing would surprise me less --

>I think anyone who has read these rumors about his addiction,

>his mental breakdown and so on would hesitate before hiring

>him. Civilized people think of mental illness as a misfortune

>rather than a disgrace, but even so how many clients would be

>eager to hire an escort whom they know has recently been

>involuntarily confined as a mental patient? Can you see an

>escort putting that in one of his ads? How would it read:

>"Warm, fun-loving, affectionate and bipolar (but on medication

>so don't be concerned)"?

 

The rather strange thing is that Devon himself is actually doing just that. He's got it plastered on the top of his harmlessdevon site. And he has now posted himself in his diary (with his former, coherent voice), and is open about being in the hospital. He alludes to a "new vocation." Combine that with the current title of his diary site, "some dead ####'s lies," and it does seem as if he's not contemplating an immediate return to escorting.

 

If he does at some point in the future, it's not the rumors posted by others that would scare away potential escort clients as much as Devon's own recent bizarre postings. Anyone not wanting to hire a recently involuntarily hospitalized mental patient will know from Devon's own sites that he is one!

 

I have to say, though, that if he really gets himself back in balance, the fact that he had this episode wouldn't keep me from hiring him.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: With friends like these . . .

 

>the current title of his diary site, "some dead ####'s

>lies,"

 

When did "####" become a dirty word? :o

[Guest drummer]

RE: With friends like these . . .

 

Hey! I didn't say "####" is a dirty word. I've done quite a bit of whoring (or should I write "####ing"?) about in my day.

 

It is the "dead" part that quite possibly implies a shift away from escorting (and Devon has made made it clear that with his move he intended a different balance in his life, less focused on escorting).

[Guest DevonSFescort]

What an entertaining thread. Someone mailed an early excerpt from it, but he didn't click on the "View all" link before printing it so I missed the replies to the various subthreads. I'm waiting for a cab ride to another crumbling mill town for an out-patient appointment with (I think) a shrink that my social worker at Taunton State set me up with, so I'll just clarify a couple of things for now...

 

I was never planning to move to Pittsburgh. I was planning to move to Providence. That plan has been abandoned due to circumstances I can't get into right now.

 

I did not accuse Dan Savage of molesting children -- the line woodlawn referred to said, "How can you tell which child Dan Savage ISN'T molesting?"

 

Dan Savage did not "savage" me at our meeting. Both he and Terry Miller, his boyfriend, were very gracious to me at our dinner. Savage Love 2.0 may consist mostly of gay content, but Savage Love, which runs in syndication across the US, mostly answers questions from straight readers. His writing style mostly consists of reaming new assholes for clueless readers/letter writers (think Judge Judy for advice column readers), and my "attacks" on him are a tribute to his writing. Whether he knows this or would agree is none of my concern. I do think, based on our conversations, that the quasi-married life has sapped his ability to offer useful advice for the promiscious, and will elaborate on this in a forthcoming essay.

 

Cab's here. See ya.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

What an entertaining thread. Someone mailed an early excerpt from it, but he didn't click on the "View all" link before printing it so I missed the replies to the various subthreads. I'm waiting for a cab ride to another crumbling mill town for an out-patient appointment with (I think) a shrink that my social worker at Taunton State set me up with, so I'll just clarify a couple of things for now...

 

I was never planning to move to Pittsburgh. I was planning to move to Providence. That plan has been abandoned due to circumstances I can't get into right now.

 

I did not accuse Dan Savage of molesting children -- the line woodlawn referred to said, "How can you tell which child Dan Savage ISN'T molesting?"

 

Dan Savage did not "savage" me at our meeting. Both he and Terry Miller, his boyfriend, were very gracious to me at our dinner. Savage Love 2.0 may consist mostly of gay content, but Savage Love, which runs in syndication across the US, mostly answers questions from straight readers. His writing style mostly consists of reaming new assholes for clueless readers/letter writers (think Judge Judy for advice column readers), and my "attacks" on him are a tribute to his writing. Whether he knows this or would agree is none of my concern. I do think, based on our conversations, that the quasi-married life has sapped his ability to offer useful advice for the promiscious, and will elaborate on this in a forthcoming essay.

 

Cab's here. See ya.

[orbital sander]

In the two months since I last posted I see nothing has changed here! Now I am sorry I sent Hooboy that hundred bucks!

 

Gee...I miss him so much

[Steven_Draker]

Please, guys, there was no need to resurrect that thread of 2004. It's all water under the bridge.

 

I miss HooBoy too.

[+ Axiom2001]

Steven, I am with you. I saw your name as the most recent individual who posted, so I scrolled and skipped and went to the last page to see what this was all about. If Devon is doing well in whatever he's doing-- allow him to do so. Forget the past! I was around when all of this stuff with him was happening; I even met him once and had planned to see him again before his life underwent some changes!

 

So, guys, if Devon has begun to escort again, treat him with respect and kindness. If he's engaged in another endeavor and you have encountered him, again, treat him in the manner in which you, yourself, desire to be treated!!!!!

[orbital sander]

Steven, I am with you. I saw your name as the most recent individual who posted, so I scrolled and skipped and went to the last page to see what this was all about. If Devon is doing well in whatever he's doing-- allow him to do so. Forget the past! I was around when all of this stuff with him was happening; I even met him once and had planned to see him again before his life underwent some changes!

 

So, guys, if Devon has begun to escort again, treat him with respect and kindness. If he's engaged in another endeavor and you have encountered him, again, treat him in the manner in which you, yourself, desire to be treated!!!!!

 

All schoolmarm bossy-ness aside, what makes you think that anyone was not treating him (Devon) with respect?

[Bart]

I think we all jump to conclusions entirely too fast. Only Orbital knows why he chose this particular thread to resurect.

Is he missing HooBoy or Lucky, if either why this particular long thread for a rememberance when so many others are there with less pungent results?

This thread draws parallels to recent events on the board, no conclusions then or now, some of the participants change but the rhetoric remains the same.

Or given the current thread lunch with RC is Orbital merely showing we are all doomed to repeat the same mistakes as in the past, as mankind has as whole.

Interesting to see all the old names no longer here. You can feel there presence in their writing, I dont know if miss them is the right phrase.

I am not sure the powers that be are thrilled with the revival, but like a play on Broadway, the story is the same only the actors have changed so maybe this thread should go to the arts or do the arts merely reflect human life.

I am not going to draw any conclusions as I feel this thread is merely thought provoking and will leave all possibilites there.

[Steven_Draker]

Only Orbital knows why he chose this particular thread to resurect.

 

Why? ... Probably you missed the thread "Devon, 2005, melt down" started by devonhunter in the Lounge (if we take the timing into perspective).

 

Still, I stand by what I said: dragging this thread from the past serves nobody's interests, since Devon/SF is no longer here and has a new life and the majority of those involved aren't around either. I'm convinced that some people come here to provoke and watch the carnage at expense of others. One's breakdown, misfortune or change-of-life shouldn't be tossed around for people's "entertainment". HooBoy understood that.

 

Interesting to see all the old names no longer here.

 

You're right, some lost interest/moved on and are no longer here, others like "augustman" morphed into a new identity and are having a fresh start. Ah, the wonderful world of an Anonymous Message Board !

[+ Charlie]

Please, guys, there was no need to resurrect that thread of 2004. It's all water under the bridge.

 

I miss HooBoy too.[/color]

 

Steven, I don't understand your comment. This particular old thread, started by latlrnr in 2004, was the one that YOU posted the link to, which prompted my separate thread about it in the Lounge.