So how bout them dodgers :)

[Doug69]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>Have I not told you that I could give a flying fuck what your

>allegations are? They are ONLY SERVING TO FORWARD MY HOBBY.

>LITERALLY I've done the math on a sample of 100 emails in the

>past two weeks. Out of nearly 800 inquiry emails in the past

>month I chose 100. Out of those 100 random first time

>emailers, 74 of them opened their email referencing...

 

This is the single saddest, most transparent, most pathetic lie I have read on the Internet in awhile.

 

Hey Scott - If you can forward to me 74 e-mails written to you in the last 2 weeks which are from first-timers inquiring about your services AND which mention your participation in these disputes as a reason for their interest, I will pay you $1,000.

 

You don't have to do what you normally do to earn money and pay yoru rent - meaning, spending 8 hours licking old guys' assholes, and rubbing their gray-haired fat bellies, and letting them stick their shrivled cock in your mouth.

 

Instead, all you have to do earn $1,000 is forward to me the 74 e-mails you just lied about in a way that can be verified that they are really e-mails you received in the last 2 weeks (meaning with the date/time/and TO lines visible on the forward).

 

What prostitute wouldn't do this if he were telling the truth?

 

WORD OF ADVICE TO PROSTITUTES - When a swarm of people is expressing their disgust for you publicy, don't resort to the "I'm-fabulous-and-rich-and-loved-and-you're-only-helping" routine. Aside from being painfully trite and transparent, it makes you look desperate and dishonest in a peculiarly creepy, effeminate and ugly way - sort of like a drunken old Joan Collins lashing out at her critics by talking about her closet full of furs. And even THAT revolting spectacle is more attractive, since she probably really does have a closet full of furs.

[SAdler]

RE: I'll have a double

 

Now you're just being cheap. Think about it. To compromise those clients and my pillar of discretion in exchange for my rate for an evening session. oh yeah Doug. Totally worth it. :-P

 

Again, you can make whatever allegations, jabs, insults you like.

 

But -- and this could go down in history -- you are right about one thing, some of that commentary did make me sound pompous. I was riding fact of being right a little too high. Some of my commentary went a bit too far and I apologize for sounding like a holier than thou ass. Your turn Doug

 

P.S. this edit was just because I had considered how long it would take to think about it. Going through all my messages and hitting forward etc is simply not worth my time especially considering I'd miss a valuable note in lecture .... shit ... like i just did. Wow. FINALLY being involved in these posts has upset me.

[Richard]

Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

I have been contributing to this site sporadically since it got off the ground and have sent in my share of escort reviews, so I think I have earned my chops. What I cannot understand for the life of me is the amount of vitriol spilled all over this website.

 

In full disclosure,I have not met Scott Adler. I spend my share of weekends in LA and am tempted to do see if our schedules could mesh. I think the man's hot and the recent observation that he has added some muscle makes him all the more appealing. That encounter may never take place I recognize, but our lives will go on somehow.

 

If Scott's bio cannot be certified as 100% accurate by a crew of fact-checkers or some statements can be considered a bit more than a stretch, based on recent experience, it seems to me that he could still be elected President of the United States.

 

I try not to follow these threads too closely because I have only so many brain cells left and can't devote too much time to exchanges like this one. I think everyone here would benefit from news that escorts had ripped off clients, promised one thing and delivered another, stolen personal property, taken deposits and pulled a no-show, etc. These people should be run out of the business and posting such information protects other potential clients. More than one of those warnings has saved me dollars and a lot of disappointment. If, on the other hand, Scott's comments appear a bit intemperate at times, overly boastful or even inaccurate and readers find it distasteful, we are all empowered here to opt not to contact him for his services. I also skip television programs and movies because I don't care for the cast or theme. There are other programs and movies to watch and other fish stroking in the escort sea.

 

The business of hiring escorts is strictly a matter of 'to each his own.' There are some escorts reviewed here whom I would have imagined would have been starved into another line of work by now either because of their looks, attitude or reliability. Clearly, that has not been Scott's situation. His choice of terms may have been ill-chosen and very irritating to some, but such is life. If I only interacted with people who agreed with me all the time and who never gave me a momen't displeasure, I don't I could talk to myself, much less anyone else.

 

Sorry for a long-winded treatise here, but it seems to me that this site thrives when people provide useful reviews and when they pose and reply to relevant questions. Everything else just hurts a site for which there is no subsitute of which I am aware.

 

Thanks for your time.

[woodlawn]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>Oh Woodlawn ::shaking head::

>

>I'm disappointed. I have gone back and forth re-evaluating my

>opinion of you because you're the only person who ever put any

>thought or intelligence into any of your posts.

 

Thanks for the compliment, but I can't accept it. BoN's detailed analysis of your ads and posts showing how unbelievable your story is took a substantial amount of thought and intelligence on his part, much more than anything I have written on this subject.

 

 

> I've even

>been led to believe by other posters that there's more to you

>than meets the screen, but to this and your other comment I am

>in fact disapointed though.

 

Well, I guess I will simply have to endure the knowledge that I have lost the good opinion of some hooker I never even heard of until I saw a thread about him on this message board. It won't be easy.

 

>Who said I'm REPLYING

 

The dictionary. You should take a look at it someday.

 

>Have I not told you that I could give a flying fuck what your

>allegations are? They are ONLY SERVING TO FORWARD MY HOBBY.

 

Yes, you did tell us that. I just don't believe you.

 

>Wow. Do you really think that highly of yourself or that

>little of other people that they can't use the SEARCH function

>if they want to look up a particular escort? It's not up to

>you to be the "permanent" purveyor of this information.

>That's what reviews are for. Say it once, and move on.

 

I'm afraid the reviews have become so unreliable due to the many false reviews posted by escorts that I don't put much stock in them anymore. Nor am I interested in hearing escorts talk about how they think this site should be run, since they have a rather obvious pecuniary motive to denigrate any process that would allow anyone to say anything negative about them. Which is exactly what you have been doing.

[woodlawn]

RE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

> There are some escorts reviewed here whom I

>would have imagined would have been starved into another line

>of work by now either because of their looks, attitude or

>reliability. Clearly, that has not been Scott's situation.

>His choice of terms may have been ill-chosen and very

>irritating to some, but such is life.

 

Like you, I don't think the fact that an escort's posts on this board are poorly reasoned or written necessarily means he's no good at his work. But BoN has a long history of catching escorts telling falsehoods or concealing relevant information about themselves. When he reveals that an escort was plying his trade while underage and deceiving his clients about it, thus subjecting them without their knowledge to legal liability far greater than what they bargained for, I take notice. It makes me wonder what else the escort is lying about.

[BewareofNick]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>I was riding fact of being right a little too high.

>Some of my commentary went a bit too far and I apologize for

>sounding like a holier than thou ass.

 

Finally, an apology for some of your behavior. Now if you'd jsut apologize for all the lying and dishonesty. Having you and deej posting on different branches of this thread makes for something of a liar's club.

 

>P.S. this edit was just because I had considered how long it

>would take to think about it. Going through all my messages

>and hitting forward etc is simply not worth my time especially

>considering I'd miss a valuable note in lecture .... shit

>... like i just did. Wow. FINALLY being involved in these

>posts has upset me.

 

Boo-friggin-hoo. This is what I was referring to about your character being revealed. Doug called you on your lie about the e-mails and rather than simply reply, "Ok, I exaggerated a WEE bit", you resort to another lie to cover it up. That's the apparent dishonesty inherent in your character.

 

Your claims have already been debunked as Woodlawn so graciously noted. Further postings on the subject by you start making you look more like Conway and less like the intelligent and suave guy you appeared to be when you first came here.

[jackhammer91406]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>

>>Time for people to beat up someone else, or else it would

>>appear there is more to the attacker's obsessive stories and

>>actions than we're being told. Hmmmm?

>

>Why do you assume there is some nefarious motive for these

>actions when there is another, and much simpler, explanation

>available?

 

The simple explanation is the one I wrote. You and your friends have it in for this kid. Everyone can see it. For you to claim some altruistic motive is so laughable that it's hard to type through the tears.

 

You guys need new material or a new target. Come back when you have something new. GET BUSY

[woodlawn]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>The simple explanation is the one I wrote. You and your

>friends have it in for this kid. Everyone can see it. For

>you to claim some altruistic motive is so laughable that it's

>hard to type through the tears.

 

I don't think it should require much explanation why people who come to a site dedicated to sharing information about escorts decide that they should go ahead and share information about an escort. I just don't get why that seems like a nefarious conspiracy to you.

 

 

>You guys need new material or a new target. Come back when you

>have something new. GET BUSY

 

Happily, it isn't up to you to decide whether what anyone has to say here is sufficiently "new" to justify a post. If you don't like it, you'll just have to lump it.

[Guest 2004]

RE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

>

>Like you, I don't think the fact that an escort's posts on

>this board are poorly reasoned or written necessarily means

>he's no good at his work. But BoN has a long history of

>catching escorts telling falsehoods or concealing relevant

>information about themselves. When he reveals that an escort

>was plying his trade while underage and deceiving his clients

>about it, thus subjecting them without their knowledge to

>legal liability far greater than what they bargained for, I

>take notice. It makes me wonder what else the escort is lying

>about.

>

>

And don't forget the "fresh meat" thread where SA introduced us to a "new" escort at what SA deemed the market rate. Instead it turns out the so called fresh meat was a little stale and SA's market rate was off by a c note.

 

---/

Time to come clean.

[Funseeker 22]

RE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

Richard,

Totally agree with you. This ongoing thread with hijack responses from the "UnFab 4 " :+ makes your head spin.

I also have met Scott socially and he really is a very likeable guy with a very nicely built "clothed" body. That`s if Joel didn`t spoil him too much in NYC.

Good Luck Scott ! Time to start a new thread.

P.S. Dodgers do Suck right now.

;-) ;-)

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: I'll have a double

 

Let him admit it, then, jack.

Let him admit he also fucked up QED.

Why is he so pathetically incapable of even pondering not being correct all the time? What kind of psychosis does he suffer?

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>defaming me calling

>me a liar or harping on the fact I used a less common SPELLING

>of QED to make fun of me)

 

No, Scooter, it wasn't "less common;" it was WRONG! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG! And you're still--pathetically--unable to admit it.

 

>Simply not up to my standard of who I want to

>be around.

 

That is SIMPLY not a complete sentence!

 

>harping on the same topics only serves to make you look

>bitter and pathetic.

 

Pathetic, you say? Would that be like not being able to admit when you're wrong?

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>When I'm wrong I

>will admit it

 

You haven't admitted being wrong about QED.

Once again, you're showing yourself to be a disgusting, pathetic liar.

 

 

>I've never seen a client and not spoken to them

>afterward because I tend to be very selective with who I see.

 

You're not very selective when it comes to diction, though. Who should be WHOM, idiot! I'll bet you're unable to admit that, though.

 

>I walk out of hotel rooms all the time especially if someone

>has misrepresented themselves but that's only happened once.

 

All the time, but only once??? Which is it? It is all the time, or is it once?

The pronoun to use for "someone" is "himself!"

[ErikMcAlister]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>but to this and your other comment I am

>in fact disapointed though.

 

One is disappointed BY something, not TO it. We'll work on your punctuation mistakes next. Of course, you can't admit that you make mistakes.

 

 

>"that [they've] never seen such intelligence in someone in

>[my] age bracket"

 

They shouldn't spend their days among the severely retarded.

 

>"He

>spelled QED wrong ha ha ha ha." But I digress.

 

You spelled it correctly. What you fucked up was that for which QED stands. Admit it, just once, and I will NEVER mention it again.

[SAdler]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>Let him admit he also fucked up QED.

 

Do you REALIZE how stupid this makes you look? That's like someone picking apart Bush for saying Nuke-u-lar. Yes he occasionally makes seriously incorrect English errors but there's so many more valid points to attack him on. You're like one of those wannabe "politic" intellectuals at a party that people pity. I guess the mean girls have to take SOMEBODY under their wing

 

>Why is he so pathetically incapable of even pondering not

>being correct all the time? What kind of psychosis does he

>suffer?

 

Freud would have a FIELD day with this. Never has take a look in the mirror and see who you're really mad at meant so much.

[SAdler]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>Finally, an apology for some of your behavior. Now if you'd

>jsut apologize for all the lying and dishonesty. Having you

>and deej posting on different branches of this thread makes

>for something of a liar's club.

 

Wow. Who gets to be Regina? Deej, you've been around longer. I'll let you take the presidency

 

>

 

>Boo-friggin-hoo. This is what I was referring to about your

>character being revealed. Doug called you on your lie about

>the e-mails and rather than simply reply, "Ok, I exaggerated a

>WEE bit", you resort to another lie to cover it up. That's

>the apparent dishonesty inherent in your character.

 

LOL. I'm really not exaggerating. Had I been I would have said thousands etc, I gave specific numbers for a reason. What "other" lie did I use to cover it up? You keep INVENTING these lies, again more spinning.

 

>Your claims have already been debunked as Woodlawn so

>graciously noted. Further postings on the subject by you

>start making you look more like Conway and less like the

>intelligent and suave guy you appeared to be when you first

>came here.

 

Hey, I'm making money on you being an idiot and I look classy doing it. I think that makes me both intelligent and classy. But a backhanded compliment out of you? I'm impressed.

[SAdler]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>Thanks for the compliment, but I can't accept it. BoN's

>detailed analysis of your ads and posts showing how

>unbelievable your story is took a substantial amount of

>thought and intelligence on his part, much more than anything

>I have written on this subject.

 

You can do whatever you like with it Nothing about BoN's posts are detailed or analytic. Thought and intelligence? You're giving the girl far too much credit.

 

>Well, I guess I will simply have to endure the knowledge that

>I have lost the good opinion of some hooker I never even heard

>of until I saw a thread about him on this message board. It

>won't be easy.

 

Escort dear. Hookers are only found on the street etc. Yes you're going to make another dictionary comment but I respond to research and interpretation of first source references. Surely as an attorney you can understand interpretation.

 

>Yes, you did tell us that. I just don't believe you.

 

You're entitled to believe what you like. Makes you a tad thick to not believe a basic opinion.

 

>I'm afraid the reviews have become so unreliable due to the

>many false reviews posted by escorts that I don't put much

>stock in them anymore. Nor am I interested in hearing

>escorts talk about how they think this site should be run,

>since they have a rather obvious pecuniary motive to denigrate

>any process that would allow anyone to say anything negative

>about them. Which is exactly what you have been doing.

 

You can say whatever negative thing you like. But is there really a reason to do it over and over again? What purpose does it serve for you? There are LEGITIMATE processes they can’t denigrate. OBJECTIVE empirical processes, not whatever your belief structure is.

[SAdler]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>One is disappointed BY something, not TO it. We'll work on

>your punctuation mistakes next. Of course, you can't admit

>that you make mistakes.

 

LOL. Try complex sentence structures pookie. It’s poetic license. Again. Go bother someone that cares what you have to write. By the complexities I was referring to things I was disappointed by.

 

>You spelled it correctly. What you fucked up was that for

>which QED stands. Admit it, just once, and I will NEVER

>mention it again.

 

No, I’m pretty sure that the argument initially started was about a misplaced e or u of some sort. The point was “that which was to have been proved…” which was quite accurate. Look up the thread if I’m mistaken. Although, considering EVERY thread you’ve ever bickered with me in you’ve brought it up, it will be difficult to efficiently search for it

[SAdler]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>One is disappointed BY something, not TO it. We'll work on

>your punctuation mistakes next. Of course, you can't admit

>that you make mistakes.

 

LOL. Try complex sentence structures pookie. It’s poetic license. Again. Go bother someone that cares what you have to write. By the complexities I was referring to things I was disappointed by.

 

>You spelled it correctly. What you fucked up was that for

>which QED stands. Admit it, just once, and I will NEVER

>mention it again.

 

No, I’m pretty sure that the argument initially started was about a misplaced e or u of some sort. The point was “that which was to have been proved…” which was quite accurate. Look up the thread if I’m mistaken. Although, considering EVERY thread you’ve ever bickered with me in you’ve brought it up, it will be difficult to efficiently search for it

[SAdler]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>You're not very selective when it comes to diction, though.

>Who should be WHOM, idiot! I'll bet you're unable to admit

>that, though.

 

Dear lord. Get over it. If I went through a fine toothed comb for all your grammar we'd be here for the next millenium. The point is it's an informal posting board. People (yes people not morons) don't nitpick insignificant grammatical errors. Wow. When you have something USEFUL to add do so, until then stop wasting people's time.

 

>>I walk out of hotel rooms all the time especially if someone

>>has misrepresented themselves but that's only happened once.

>

>

>All the time, but only once??? Which is it? It is all the

>time, or is it once?

>The pronoun to use for "someone" is "himself!"

>

You are COMPLETELY right about that. I joined two sentences without proper punctuation. Let me clarify, I walk out of hotel rooms all of the time. Specifically, there was one time where someone misrepresented himself and I walked out.

[SAdler]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>No, Scooter, it wasn't "less common;" it was WRONG! WRONG,

>WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG! And you're

>still--pathetically--unable to admit it.

 

"You spelled it correctly. What you fucked up was that for

which QED stands. Admit it, just once, and I will NEVER

mention it again."

 

MUAH HA HA HA HA. Wow ... scroll up dumb ass. WHICH IS IT. Did I spell it wrong or use it wrong. YOU CANT KEEP YOUR LIES STRAIGHT

 

>>Simply not up to my standard of who I want to

>>be around.

>

>That is SIMPLY not a complete sentence!

 

ITS A FUCKING POSTING BOARD. DO YOU BITCH WHEN PEOPLE WRITE LOL. You are SO pathetic it hurts. It's a fragment. Of course it's a fragment but it implies a statement. Why are you selling your ass when you're OBVIOUSLY training to be a third grade English teacher?

>

>Pathetic, you say? Would that be like not being able to admit

>when you're wrong?

>

LOL. Don't make me use QED again. Look at yourself dude. Do you understand that even your Mean Girlfriends shake their heads at you behind your back. You're like a gay black republican, trying to join a group that doesn't want you as a member.

[SAdler]

RE: I'll have a double

 

>Because posts on a message board quickly disappear beneath

>newer posts, I suppose. Meaning that anyone who actually

>cares about warning clients realizes the warning must be

>repeated from time to time lest more recent visitors to the

>board miss it.

 

What the hell are you warning them of. That I used to be 16, 17? Big secret. Everyone was at one point. In this context, what matters is now.

 

>Why do you assume there is some nefarious motive for these

>actions when there is another, and much simpler, explanation

>available?

 

That you have nothing better to do with your time?

[SAdler]

RE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

>Like you, I don't think the fact that an escort's posts on

>this board are poorly reasoned or written necessarily means

>he's no good at his work. But BoN has a long history of

>catching escorts telling falsehoods or concealing relevant

>information about themselves. When he reveals that an escort

>was plying his trade while underage and deceiving his clients

>about it, thus subjecting them without their knowledge to

>legal liability far greater than what they bargained for, I

>take notice. It makes me wonder what else the escort is lying

>about.

 

Ask me what you like. Just because I hid facts about my life in the past doesn’t mean I’m lying now. If you don’t trust me so be it. Were you so hurt by it? Further more, if my age was SUCH a legal issue are we ignoring the ENTIRE fact that we’re discussing PROSTITUTION HERE?!?!?! Oh, and the law would probably be more forgiving of the person for the “statutory rape” claim than the solicitation considering those that hired me then had no reason to believe I wasn’t 18 since I had a fake ID at the time. Sure I’d be screwed but you’re speaking in hypotheticals.

 

Anyway, I’m an open book. If you have a relevant question to ask I’m happy to answer. I’ve NEVER lied on these boards and you guys have blown this waaaaay out of proportion trying to label me a liar because of your perception of the situation. Again, more spin.

[SAdler]

RE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

> And don't forget the "fresh meat" thread where SA introduced

>us to a "new" escort at what SA deemed the market rate.

>Instead it turns out the so called fresh meat was a little

>stale and SA's market rate was off by a c note.

 

I've already explained that I was doing him a favor by posting for him. He had told me when I relayed the accusations that he had already been around that his pictures were being used by someone else. Not my responsibility as if that mattered to you

 

Fine, my market rate is off according to your perception. But again, I'm telling you what the market rate was according to my perception of who I worked with. If you only hire people at $150/hr ... that doesn't make it the market rate now does it But we can save that for another thread

[SAdler]

RE: Everyone needs to take a deep breath

 

::big sloppy wet kiss::

 

AND FOR GOD'S SAKE KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE TABLE!