Internet Identities

Traveller · September 5, 2001

Joey,

Could you please double space between paragraphs next time. Also, please highlight or bold phrases like "I paid some twink to let me fuck him 'til he cried last night" so I can get to those parts immediately. Thank you.

Later.

Traveller · September 5, 2001

Joey,

Could you please double space between paragraphs next time. Also, please highlight or bold phrases like "I paid some twink to let me fuck him 'til he cried last night" so I can get to those parts immediately. Thank you.

Later.

September 6, 2001

Funny Talvin,

To paraphrase aa certain former Texas politician...

I know nerds, several nerds are my friends, you are no nerd -- at least my idead my idea of a nerd. Maybe sometime we can compare pocket protectors. :-)

September 6, 2001

Funny Talvin,

To paraphrase aa certain former Texas politician...

I know nerds, several nerds are my friends, you are no nerd -- at least my idead my idea of a nerd. Maybe sometime we can compare pocket protectors. :-)

September 6, 2001

Guess my proofreading goes to shit when I'm thinking about sexy nerds. :o

September 6, 2001

Guess my proofreading goes to shit when I'm thinking about sexy nerds. :o

September 6, 2001

>Could you please double space between paragraphs next time.<

I did originally, but the post looked so long on my little monitor. Plus, in all modesty, I never feel as if any new point of mine is worthy of a full line space.

>Also, please highlight or bold phrases like

"I paid some twink to let me fuck him 'til he cried last night",

so I can get to those parts immediately. Thank you.<

Those are the parts I should double space. Better yet, I'll only post bombastic non-sequiturs dealing purely with the explicit details of unlikely sex acts and dispense with with all else from now on!

;-)

September 6, 2001

>Could you please double space between paragraphs next time.<

I did originally, but the post looked so long on my little monitor. Plus, in all modesty, I never feel as if any new point of mine is worthy of a full line space.

>Also, please highlight or bold phrases like

"I paid some twink to let me fuck him 'til he cried last night",

so I can get to those parts immediately. Thank you.<

Those are the parts I should double space. Better yet, I'll only post bombastic non-sequiturs dealing purely with the explicit details of unlikely sex acts and dispense with with all else from now on!

;-)

bluenix · September 6, 2001

>from this side it's more about giving of self.

...for those just now tuning in, that's "giving" versus "withholding" of oneself. I was ready to agree with you until you went on to say...

>I try not to use much

>artiface when posting. If someone

>thinks I'm funny, glib, intelligent,

>or dense based on my

>posts, that's pretty much what

>they're going to get in

>person at various points of

>our time spent together. But

>these are only individual perceptions,

>and in spite of them,

>when a client and I

>are together I'll always at

>least look like me, for

>better or worse.

A circumvention, if a very engaging one. (See me later.) Will forced me to acknowledge that it is not, in fact, what is withheld that matters most, but what is revealed. Okay, fine.

But in either case, the point to take away is, Geyser Peak Sauvignon Blanc is just about the best "under ten buck" wine available today. |:-D)

b

bluenix · September 6, 2001

>from this side it's more about giving of self.

...for those just now tuning in, that's "giving" versus "withholding" of oneself. I was ready to agree with you until you went on to say...

>I try not to use much

>artiface when posting. If someone

>thinks I'm funny, glib, intelligent,

>or dense based on my

>posts, that's pretty much what

>they're going to get in

>person at various points of

>our time spent together. But

>these are only individual perceptions,

>and in spite of them,

>when a client and I

>are together I'll always at

>least look like me, for

>better or worse.

A circumvention, if a very engaging one. (See me later.) Will forced me to acknowledge that it is not, in fact, what is withheld that matters most, but what is revealed. Okay, fine.

But in either case, the point to take away is, Geyser Peak Sauvignon Blanc is just about the best "under ten buck" wine available today. |:-D)

b

September 6, 2001

>I was ready to agree with you... <

Aw c'mon. You can still agree with me. It wasn't deliberate, but my point parallels Wills'. Sort of...

>Will forced me to acknowledge that it is not, in fact, what is withheld that matters most, but what is revealed.<

And I clumsily said that what is revealed to the client by me when we're together is what I percieve to be of most import to him, in addition to the greater revelation of my body and my willingness to let him explore it. Aside from that, any glibness or wit or any other of my traits that a client may have encountered in my posts, will also be present when we're face to face, because they are not artifice, but instead just a few of the many facets of me, again, for better or worse. Anything being withheld is the same kind of stuff (for the most part) that I would withhold from anyone. I think the other point I was trying to make (what you call a circumvention) when I remarked that I always look like me, and I was trying not to be rude or immodest, is that lust and desire will circumvent any persona once you're face to face with the escort (of course there are exceptions). But that circumvention is not something put in place by the escorts, although it's there for the exploitation, as are we.

>But in either case, the point to take away is, Geyser Peak Sauvignon Blanc is just about the best "under ten buck" wine available today. <

Hmm. Last time I grabbed a bottle of Geyser Peak, I'm sure I paid ten-buck-two.

Now, that's an interesting example. On the one hand, I don't drink, which makes the above statement artifice. But on the other hand, I'm a smart ass, which in the larger sense, makes the above statement a reinforcement of who I really am: an existential smartass. On the third hand, I believe it takes away the point as requested.

I'm obviously out of my league here. I justed wanted to say that I don't think escorting is all about withholding and artifice. At least not to some of us. Thanks, blue. And I was only kidding, you don't have to agree.

September 6, 2001

>I was ready to agree with you... <

Aw c'mon. You can still agree with me. It wasn't deliberate, but my point parallels Wills'. Sort of...

>Will forced me to acknowledge that it is not, in fact, what is withheld that matters most, but what is revealed.<

And I clumsily said that what is revealed to the client by me when we're together is what I percieve to be of most import to him, in addition to the greater revelation of my body and my willingness to let him explore it. Aside from that, any glibness or wit or any other of my traits that a client may have encountered in my posts, will also be present when we're face to face, because they are not artifice, but instead just a few of the many facets of me, again, for better or worse. Anything being withheld is the same kind of stuff (for the most part) that I would withhold from anyone. I think the other point I was trying to make (what you call a circumvention) when I remarked that I always look like me, and I was trying not to be rude or immodest, is that lust and desire will circumvent any persona once you're face to face with the escort (of course there are exceptions). But that circumvention is not something put in place by the escorts, although it's there for the exploitation, as are we.

>But in either case, the point to take away is, Geyser Peak Sauvignon Blanc is just about the best "under ten buck" wine available today. <

Hmm. Last time I grabbed a bottle of Geyser Peak, I'm sure I paid ten-buck-two.

Now, that's an interesting example. On the one hand, I don't drink, which makes the above statement artifice. But on the other hand, I'm a smart ass, which in the larger sense, makes the above statement a reinforcement of who I really am: an existential smartass. On the third hand, I believe it takes away the point as requested.

I'm obviously out of my league here. I justed wanted to say that I don't think escorting is all about withholding and artifice. At least not to some of us. Thanks, blue. And I was only kidding, you don't have to agree.

September 7, 2001

Bluenix,

I'm glad to see that he distance between us narrows...

While I get the drift of your argument, I claim it's a non-starter to imply that people you've worked with for 20 years might know you less well than people on this board, simply because you have withheld from them what you have not withheld from us.

First, that is -- most people who have known me 20 years but not all; and yes, because of what I have withheld.

You seem to be saying that, because your sexuality is so much a part of who you are, your colleagues don't know you very well.

No, I'm not saying that at all. It is a part of my personality, inherited or learned, that predates my knowledge of sexuality beyond gender difference -- before first grade.

But a co-worker could just as validly assert that your sexuality and its economics are mere details, of no consequence in the larger picture you've been painting of yourself for two decades.

Repeat, sexuality is not the reason for any withholding that was done... but, interestingly enough, my sexuality awakening, or more correctly openly embracing it, late in life may be a partial explanation for a willingness to be more open.

In practical terms, then, I grant that one can reveal oneself more than I was willing to allow. But it also remains true that some of the most effective scams on the Internet are accomplished by those who have been able to disarm their readers by revealing what happens not to be true.

Anyone can mislead and some can do it very effectively... such is the talent of a con artist. But the issue I have focused on is how well can you know someone from internet discourse solely, under the assumption that they have not set out to mislead you. In other words, how useful is the internet as a tool for 'getting to know' someone. I have previously made the point that someone set on misleading can do so in face-to-face exchanges as well as on the internet. Face-to-face, he may not be able to convince anyone that he is a pregnant woman but he may likely convince many that he has prime swamp land in Arizona for sale at a steal. To the duped is one of these more egregious than the other?

So -- and I don't mean to be a one-note nelly here -- I do come back to the propostion that your colleagues, and others who have developed face-to-face relationship with you, know you better than we do.

The distance narrows but does not close...

Bluenix, you may be right, I honestly don't know. I've given you my gut feel but I don't know what people here really know or think they know and that is because much of it depends on their perception of me for which I do not have a feel. Joey C. in the Deli Client No-Shows thread referenced this thread and asked the following which elicited my responses --

>but I do wonder about

>the disparity between what is

>revealed by the posts of

>the persona presented (not yours

>in particular), and how they

>are interpreted by the readers.

Very important factor as Will pointed out... and the disparity can be great. Each of us has skewed perceptions based on our backgrounds, experiences, biases, even our mood at the time.

>Some here may think they

>know you, but how different

>would their definitions of you

>be?

I'm sure they span the spectrum, it is to be expected. And while that point is interesting for what it says about the range of individuals that make up a population the basic question under discussion (how well is someone known by his posts) has to be decided by considering the distribution of responses to glean the results characteristic of the population sample. There will always be outliers at each end of the spectrum. (There is of course an assumption here that everyone is working from the same set of data.)

So Bluenix, in the end I have to admit I really do not know because I do not know what people on this board think they know of me, only what I think they should know from my posts. That fails to take individual perception into consideration and while I have made an assumption about the response distribution in this population, I don't know that either. I admit it is not much to take to the bank. So maybe the distance narrows again.

September 7, 2001