$4000 for a weekend??

[SAdler]

RE: Jamie - follow up

 

>Scott, I'm not bashing Jamie because of his rates - I'm

>bashing him because he forged a review and is now trying to

>cash in on it. His actual ads on Rentboy and Men4rentnow say

>nothing about daily or weekend rates. He invented all that

>for his review and is hoping for positive fallout.

 

I'm in agreement as well that the review might not be authentic but your COMMENTS indicate that you're bashing the IDEA of $4000 for a weekend and THAT is what I'm arguing about.

 

As to the first time reviewers. Believe me I've gotten flack because a lot of my reviewers are first time reviewers. The fact is there are a lot of bitter people on this board that have NOTHING better to do that question other people's actions.

 

In this case though the review is a first review FOR the escort and the reviewer is a first timer with a too good to be true demeanor.

 

"Deffinately" a dead give away

[Hamlet]

RE: Jamie - follow up

 

Scott, I rather think that you and I are not in disagreement about any aspect of this. That the review is a fake seems flagrantly obvious (even though one person so far has disagreed) and therefore Jamie's misuse of this site for his own puposes bugs the hell out of me. I've written reviews under another handle, and I rely on reviews - I only hire escorts who have been well-reviewed here. And I'm equally bugged by the management of the site, who saw fit to publish a review as hokey as this one. I'm still hoping that it will be deleted, or at least flagged as being suspect.

[Txpaytoplay]

RE: Jamie - follow up

 

I don't necessarily agree with you statement about the management deleting that review for several reasons. It is obvious that everyone will not react the same to the review. I believe something is definately not right...and with that being said I know I would think twice before hiring this person or even contacting him. Everyone should be able to have their own opinion on the matter. If anything, that review sends a warning out and that is just as good and possibly even better than a blow by blow porn review. If the manager can not prove it is bogus, then there are enough intelligent people here that can ask the right questions and investigate on their own and report. If that kid can find someone to pay him that kind of money...more power to him. (albeit, never mind...it will only get bad from here! :o )

[VaHawk]

Oh, come ON, Scott!

 

"In this case though the review is a first review FOR the escort and the reviewer is a first timer with a too good to be true demeanor.

 

"Deffinately" a dead give away"

 

Every escort reviewed on this site, has a first time review, and often that review is by a first time reviewer! So, should this site ban all first time reviews of an escort by first time reviewers???!

 

Wouldn't that ensure that the same old same old is reviewed by the same old same old, even if it is the 900th review??? Can I get a BIG YAWN! from the rest of the audience????

 

Is this an open forum for the review of escorts, or a closed club where the same old escorts get reviews by the same old reviewers, with the same old escorts getting "designated" over and over and over as "coverboy" of the day??? And we all KNOW that designation brings in the email and subsequent new clients, so don't even TRY to tell me that the designation "doesn't mean anything"!

 

As obvious, by this very thread, those who have a history of hiring will question the reviews of newbies by first time reviewers, and established "escorts" will attempt to "discredit" the newbies and the "authencity of those reviews".

 

It's a meat market, and fresh, new meat is always intriguing, even if the reviewer is the butcher or a vegan on a mission!

[SAdler]

RE: Oh, come ON, Scott!

 

>>"In this case though the review is a first review FOR the

>>escort and the reviewer is a first timer with a too good to be

>>true demeanor.

 

>>"Deffinately" a dead give away"

 

>Every escort reviewed on this site, has a first time review,

>and often that review is by a first time reviewer! So, should

>this site ban all first time reviews of an escort by first

>time reviewers???!

 

Perhaps you missed the subtleness of my commentary that there were MANY other factors as to why his particular review could have been false. I BY NO MEANS was saying that first time reviews of first time reviewed escorts shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

I was just saying that when ALL these factors are taken into consideration, it's just hard (even more me which is saying a LOT) to swallow.

 

Thanks for the word twist though ... haven't had someone do that to me on the boards in a while and I was beginning to miss it

[Guest msclonly]

I wish I had taken advantage of a 72 hour weekend, when it was much less money!

I couuld have made sure back then, that I would have gotten more then my monies worth and then some. And I am sure, they would have been more then satisfied and begging to stop the Straight Arrow from plugging them time after time!

 

:+ :+ :+

[Guest]

RE: Jamie - follow up

 

> It is

>obvious that everyone will not react the same to the review.

>I believe something is definately not right...

 

For God's sake, is there some kind of federal or international law I'm not aware of which forbids who res from spelling "definitely" correctly?

[Txpaytoplay]

RE: Jamie - follow up

 

>> It is

>>obvious that everyone will not react the same to the review.

>

>>I believe something is definately not right...

>

>For God's sake, is there some kind of federal or international

>law I'm not aware of which forbids who res from spelling

>"definitely" correctly?

 

I promised God that I would never "####" again if I could spell words the way I wanted....he said OK, now I just hire them when I

fancy!

[SAdler]

RE: Jamie - follow up

 

>For God's sake, is there some kind of federal or international

>law I'm not aware of which forbids who res from spelling

>"definitely" correctly?

 

I think irony is lost on you Uni. That along with conventional conversation as well but I digress. Take a look at the "review" and you'll see why the joke about "definitely" is being made occasionally and always in quotes.

[N.N.]

Sometimes a review has several questionable details;

no point by itself would be conclusive, but together

they suggest a phony review.

 

Item: in Jamie's case, the first-time reviewer

showed a certain poverty of imagination in

choosing his nom de plume. In other words--

 

well here's another clue for you all

the client was John

[Guest]

If this isn't an appropriate use for the "Flag on the play," I don't know what is...

[JT Brooklyn]

Well I hope the "Waif" has enjoyed HIS 15 mins of Fame. I doubt that his Photo will be Popping-Up very much in the Reviews! He definitely isn't in the GoodLooking- Masculine Category...

Unless.. out of all of this he finds a very good "Ghost Writer" and keeps submitting Reviews. LOL :+

[basket]

RE: Jamie - follow up

 

"And I'm equally bugged by the management of the site, who saw fit to publish a review as hokey as this one."

 

Maybe you can get your money refunded by management then! For me, figuring out if the review is true just makes it more interesting.

[Hamlet]

RE: Jamie - follow up

 

> For

>me, figuring out if the review is true just makes it more

>interesting.

 

And what of the banner at the top of this site's homepage: "Honest in our judgments and truthful in our reporting"? Doesn't that imply that the people who run the site use editorial discretion in what is printed and what is not? What other meaning could it possibly have?

By implication, they are saying that they consider the review under discussion to be honest in its judgment and truthful in its reporting.

 

I'm aware of the "we're damned if we do, damned if we don't" argument, which has been made every time this kind of issue has been raised. I think an editorial policy that works for everyone can be formed along lines that are a lot simpler: don't knowingly print lies.

[JT Brooklyn]

RE: Oh, come ON, Scott!

 

Definitely Fresh "New Meat" is Always welcome! As are also "New Reviewer's". We have lately experienced both, and they have not jumped off the page with B/S like some do.

Sorry NO Names, because we all know B/S when we read it anyway! LOL :+