A new low

[+ deej]

RE: Link

 

>As far as the link, is BN paying for it like other

>advertisers? If not, then you may have a point, and if so,

>then your point is moot at best.

 

It is not identified as a paid link (and it should be if it's paid advertising). It is in the same group of "news" links that Daddy links to from GayVN, C|Net, FSC, XNews, and other news feeds.

 

I certainly wouldn't consider a blog entry "news" on a par with the latest Court/DOJ decisions on 2257 cases, which is where it is linked.

[RockHard]

RE: responding to Yeswell

 

"When you say that "the nature of the beast, however ugly, in providing comapanionship services is delusion" you are presumably speaking of your own experience."

 

Presumption is almost always not a good thing. I have very little personal experience hiring male companions. The two decades of experience that I do have has been mostly vicarious. As I get older and remain busy and single, I will be looking for someone special to help me keep sensuality alive in my life and in my groin.

 

By "nature of the beast" I meant "an inherent aspect of." Certainly there are plenty of occasions when escort and client are grounded and working from the same honest page. I believe that's what most of us strive for.

[Doug69]

RE: responding to Doug69

 

>Doug69, I enjoyed reading this latest piece and forgive me

>for saying you sound very bitter and angry with men who take

>money for sex and companionship. There is so much contempt,

>vitriol, and caddy presumption in this latest writing effort,

>it's very difficult to respect your opinions, regardless of

>their origin or credibility.

 

So you went from writing about a couple of mildly interesting issues, to playing cheap amateur online psychologist and spitting out Internet platitudes as insults, all in one fell swoop. As a consequence, I'd ask you to keep in mind two important principles.

 

(1) You should not assume that whatever limitations you have on your abilities are universal. Just because you have only a finite amount of passion which would be diminished for more important pursuits if you regularly wrote a copule of passionate posts here doesn't mean that everyone suffers from that affliction. Similarly, just because you lack the ability to read something and then remember it and quote from it in the absence of some obsessive compulsion about the reading material doesn't mean others suffer from the same limitation.

 

I could go on in this vein. The point is that you attribute all sorts of psychological and mental conditions to me based upon your conclusions about my postings here which are, in fact, based upon nothing more than the limitations you observe in yourself, which you then assume must apply to everyone else, including me. Thankfully, they don't.

 

(2) Having contempt for something is not per se a bad thing. Some things, some behaviors and some people deserve contempt. In many cases, it is the absence of contempt that is bad. There are situations which ought to invoke contempt, and where the presence of contempt is a sign of psychological and moral health, and the absence of it is a sign of psychological and moral sickness.

 

The notion that contempt is some sort of prima facie indicator for a deprived childhood, self-directed anger, a need to be hugged, or any other similar Internet cliche, is as simplistic and self-serving as it is juvenile. I happen to think that using public accusations of HIV as a fun plaything for gossip and/or as a means for exercising a vendetta against someone deserves contempt. The fact that such behavior doesn't inspire contempt in you doesn't mean that you are morally superior; I'd suggest it means exactly the opposite.

 

This idea that people like you want to peddle of "the nicer and more accepting of things you are, the better" (an idea most people will preach but not adhere to) is dumb, primitive, and dangerous. It's exactly what enables all sorts of pathological, destructive, and dishonest behaviors to go un-criticized, and even glamorized, around here. I'm happy not to spout or pretend to adhere to that absurdity, and if it means that people like you are going to call me "manic," negative, or whatever, I think I can live with that.

 

>Yet you seem to cling to every word and take great efforts to

>post quotes with lengthy analysis and determined decimation.

>Here lies the disturbing disconnect.

 

To anyone with a basic mastery of logic, there is no "disconnect." Unlike you, apparently, when I read something, I remember it and can refer to it later. While you apparently think that remembering what one reads and being able to quote from it thereafter is a sign of manic disorder or a sign that someone is disturbingly "clinging to every word," I think it's just the sign of a basically functioning brain. As I said, it can lead you astray to assume that your limitations are universal.

 

There are lots of things that I think are vile, dangerous or just plain ugly that I nonetheless pay attention to - car accidents, extreme crime stories, the behavior of far-right and far-left political figures, and lying, scheming who-res and the people who are too desperate and needy to see through them. The idea that there is a "disconnect" between hating something and paying attention to it is just dumb - and usually Tool A in the arsenal of the cheap online psychologist.

 

>I accept you may not like Benjamin Nicholas and will not hire

>his services but, forgive me for saying, you go above and

>beyond reasoned dislike and appear to have no other goal other

>than to annihilate him. Is there not something or someone else

>in your life who deserves or could benefit from such intense

>passion? I wish there was an icon here for "hug."

 

Speaking of Tool A in the arsenal of the cheap online psychologist, this is as good of an example as one will find. I think Benjamin Nicholas manipulates and exploits sad, needy people; violates their confidences; exploits people's misfortune for his own personal gain; lies about pretty much everything; fabricates accusations of HIV in order to obtain vengence and attention; tricks guys into giving him money by preying on their emotions and needs; and goes around trying to harm anyone and for any reason if it will advance his petty interests even slightly.

 

While you think that it's a sign of psychological illness to find that behavior objectionable, I think it's a sign of psychological illness not to.

[RockHard]

RE: final response to Doug69

 

Not sure what to say after this. No offense, Doug69: After the third paragraph, I would have politely excused myself from the bar-seat by feigning the need to take a piss, and then snuck out the bar. Some people make themselves impossible to enjoy. I wish you well.

 

This will end my participation in this thread:

 

"...playing cheap amateur online psychologist"

 

Back in my early 20's, when I felt I needed to get over a bad love, I was referred to the most incredible gay psychiatrist. He taught me much that has nurtured and propelled the success I enjoy today. I also have a sibling who is a successful psychiatrist and publishes in New England Journal of Medicine. Please forgive me any inappropriate attempt at arm-chair analysis. What I know helps me cope with the ugly in the world and I possess a willingness to share.

 

"spitting out Internet platitudes as insults"

 

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black, dear? Don't you just love that word "hypocrisy?" I'm afraid, not-so-kind sir, you are far more verbose than me when it comes to drumming up volumes of insult-laden spit.

 

Paragraph (1) is a mess (and many that follow). I'm sure you're smart enough to make you're point more clear. This is a good example of what I call pretentious writing.

 

"Having contempt for something is not per se a bad thing. Some things, some behaviors and some people deserve contempt."

 

I agree, but "15 Minutes" is not tea-time with Hitler.

 

"There are situations which ought to invoke contempt, and where the presence of contempt is a sign of psychological and moral health, and the absence of it is a sign of psychological and moral sickness."

 

Now who's preaching? I noticed the words "unhealthy, mindless obsession" are conveniently absent.

 

"The notion that contempt is some sort of prima facie indicator for a deprived childhood, self-directed anger, a need to be hugged, or any other similar Internet cliche, is as simplistic and self-serving as it is juvenile."

 

Like I said, denial is alive and kicking here, a popular symptom of addiction. Speaking of juvenile: an old man with no kid left inside tends to grow older and more bitter - and then die.

 

"The idea that there is a "disconnect" between hating something and paying attention to it is just dumb"

 

Again, you conveniently left out the word "worthwhile" after "something." Sorry BN, but BN and his "15 Minutes" is simply not a worthwhile cause. The irony here, dear Doug69, your diatribes of discontent lend enormous credibility to this young man. You'd do much more damage by saying almost nothing. Remember, in show business, there's no such thing as bad publicity. The more you talk the bigger they get. It is that simple.

 

"I think Benjamin Nicholas manipulates and exploits sad, needy people; violates their confidences; exploits people's misfortune for his own personal gain..."

 

Sounds to me like you're describing any visit to Neiman Marcus or a $600 haircut with Sally Hirschberger.

 

I'm happy that I finally got a chance to speak my mind in the BN battle of words. I feel sated. Time to move on.

[woodlawn]

RE: Absolutely, Positively, Final Response

 

>Back in my early 20's, when I felt I needed to get over a bad

>love, I was referred to the most incredible gay psychiatrist.

>He taught me much that has nurtured and propelled the success

>I enjoy today.

 

What did he tell you about people who are constantly bragging about their successful careers? It's a trait you seem to share with BN.

 

>Like I said, denial is alive and kicking here, a popular

>symptom of addiction.

 

After apologizing for the armchair psychoanalysis, you go right back to indulging in it a couple of paragraphs later. I'm sure your therapist is happy that you consider your therapy with him a success, but I doubt he intended to give you the impression that you should feel qualified to treat other people.

 

I have to agree with Doug here. We see far too much of this absurd idea that expressing dislike for someone or something is a symptom of deep, underlying mental disturbance. It's an idea that is constantly expressed on this board by people like you, who are no more qualified to diagnose mental illness than you are to pilot the Space Shuttle.

 

>"I think Benjamin Nicholas manipulates and

>exploits sad, needy people; violates their confidences;

>exploits people's misfortune for his own personal

>gain..."

 

>Sounds to me like you're describing any visit to Neiman Marcus

>or a $600 haircut with Sally Hirschberger.

 

Sounds to me like he's describing a greedy, manipulative hooker. I thought the whole point of this website was to warn people away from such characters.

[SexualAlchemist]

A new low? Not at all! It's a new high.

 

Just look at all the postings! Just think of all the publicity! Dozens who would never have thought of checking his blog out suddenly bump his server stats way up!

 

Nothing generates interest like controversy, nothing prompts fantasy like dirty talk, and nothing brings in new clients like fantasy. Congratulations, Benjamin, on scoring again.

[irishguybos]

LET IT DROP ALREADY!!!

 

Let it drop guys. I'm tired of seeing this at the top of the topics. Over 25 responses, it's foolish, get a life, you either read his column or not, you either enjoy Benjamin as I do or not...get over it! :-(

[woodlawn]

RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

 

May I ask a simple question?

 

Why don't you just mind your own business?

 

Really, what business is it of yours what other people want to spend their time discussing on this message board? None, as far as I know. If you don't want to read a discussion of BN or whatever the subject is, then don't fucking read it. But don't tell the rest of us what we are or are not allowed to talk about. Our time belongs to us, not to you.

[AdamSmith]

RE: Hubris and Hyperbole.

 

>Oh please Adam, darling, step away from the Soap Operas.

>Benjamin Nicholas is no Jack Abramoff or Tom Delay.

 

My dear, this is not Soap Opera. It is Real Life. The smear puts actual people at risk of material financial harm.

 

Is your dismissal because, after all, they’re only escorts?

[RockHard]

RE: to AdamSmith.

 

I already said I was finished with this thread and I work hard to be a man of my word. But you struck a nerve and I wish to respond.

 

A smear isn't actually a smear unless you can "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law that you know each person that BN is referring to in any of his "items." As long as he doesn't name names and writes nothing as fact, he's legally in the clear. Frankly, I never can figure out who his target is, which is why I find him an intriguing read.

 

Gossip columnists write about rumors and innuendos all day long. As long as they don't write items as fact and name names, they, too, are free from slander suits. Even if a slander suit occurs, as with gossip rags, their businesses still thrive because the demand for gossip-as-entertainment thrives. Welcome to show biz. (I wish I could stop saying that but some of you guys need to be beat with this reality.)

 

As for BN threatening the livelihood of other escorts: if you play with fire you just might get burned. No business is free from criticism, whether it's deserved or not. Consider restaurant reviews or what you thought was your last, bad haircut. No business is free from the threat of competition, either.

 

When an individual decides to pursue a career in show business/escorting, basically selling his talent to the open public for income and profit, he steps into the same arena as any other "performer." Free speech cannot protect someone from rumor or innuendo when they "perform" in the public domain.

 

I'm not suggesting that gossip writing is a noble profession. I wouldn't wish that for my son. I will pay attention to Dominick Dunne and Liz Smith but it ends there and mostly because they're terrific writers. But I see no reason to deny BN his rights to be who he wishes to be and take the hits with the misses.

 

As for your intimation that I might disrespect escorts and the business: quite the contrary. I have tremendous respect for any handsome, sensitive man (woman) willing to satisfy the needs of other men, as long as they're not scammers and thieves. I think sex/companionship-for-pay should be legal and health-department regulated. The desire to give an older man or woman intimacy and touch when nobody else wants to is a very noble calling. That's why the profession is as old as it is and why the cream of the crop always rises to the top. Enjoy that pun. (Now if only we can keep them healthy, alive and hard as a rock.)

[+ Lucky]

RE: to AdamSmith.

 

RockHard, you are starting to sound more like RockHead! Get your frame of reference off of Hollywood. This isn't about how succesful BN might be...it's about his ethics, the damage he might have done to the escorts in question, and his use of this site to trash other escorts with gossip and outright accusations of criminal spread of HIV. Stepping on others' backs to get to the top is a staple of your business, that doesn't mean we should just turn our heads the other way when it happens here.

 

If in fact what he said is true, that an escort couple is dealing with a new diagnosis of HIV, their lives must be difficult enough right now without BN using this site to cause them further difficulty because of his desire to look cute.

 

If in fact what he said is true, perhaps those who love escorts might want to have a warm heart instead of a cold rock.

[Yeswell]

RE: to AdamSmith.

 

Rockhard is wrong about what a smear is. As I understand this discussion, the argument was that BN made a comment that many people feel was directed against two well-known escorts whom we could all name. If people feel that his intention was to cause damage of any sort to these escorts then the comment is a smear, regardless of whether it would hold up in a court of law or whether those escorts are the ones he meant. Furthermore, we all understand what "show biz" is, but the fact that entertainers of whatever sort sell their talents does not mean that we have to approve of what they do. Is Rockhard really suggesting that the mere fact of living in a consumer economy means that we've given up the right to object to bad behaviour? Obviously not: nobody could be that stupid or immoral.

[VaHawk]

RE: to AdamSmith.

 

"RockHard, you are starting to sound more like RockHead! Get your frame of reference off of Hollywood. This isn't about how succesful BN might be...it's about his ethics, the damage he might have done to the escorts in question, and his use of this site to trash other escorts"

 

I don't believe BN started this thread on this "site"!, did he?, so how could he be using this "site" to trash other escorts???

[RockHard]

RE: to Lucky and Yeswell.

 

"Rockhard is wrong about what a smear is."

 

I admit I could have written this paragraph better. Sometimes I type faster than I think. I should have said, "A smear isn't a smear with legal ramifications unless..."

 

Free speech in this country permits implied smear. Again, as long as BN doesn't name names and state the information as fact, he's free to say what he wants.

 

Now, I'm not saying this behavior or, form of entertainment, is right, ethical, admirable, moral or smart. (I already said I wouldn't want my son to be a gossip writer.) My objective here was not to judge BN's morals or ethics or anyone else's. I merely wanted to present an objective opposing view to some of the views already expressed. I have years of litigation experience and to be good at litigation one must look at both sides clearly.

 

"Stepping on others' backs to get to the top"

 

Sorry, Lucky, but in my world that's just a sorry-ass, soap-opera euphemism for "competitive edge."

 

"Get your frame of reference off of Hollywood."

 

Sorry, can't do that either. I've been working in the entertainment industry for nearly thirty years. I own several creative businesses that fall, in one way or another, under this umbrella. I view escorting and gossip-writing as a form of entertainment.

 

"that doesn't mean we should just turn our heads the other way when it happens here." and,

 

"Is Rockhard really suggesting that the mere fact of living in a consumer economy means that we've given up the right to object to bad behaviour?"

 

I know there are a ton of words on this thread but I did say a few times that I'm a resolute advocate of free-speech and I would never say "shut up" to anyone, especially someone with a smart, opposing opinion. I love a good, reasoned debate and, in order to have one, you need strong opposing viewpoints. I believe everyone has the right to speak his/her mind.

 

This thread currently has 3,525 views. Regardless of how you feel about BN and everything else, that number spells "star power" to me.

 

That's all folks! (I swear.)

[VaHawk]

RE: to Lucky and Yeswell.

 

"I have years of litigation experience and to be good at litigation one must look at both sides clearly."

 

I'm so envious, that I would love to post in green ink! :7

[+ Lucky]

RE: Colors.

 

Only our buddy Flower posted in green ink...surely you are not suggesting that he and HardRock have the same attorney?

 

BTW, whatever happened to Conway, 2004, Lone Star, and others who came in and got real involved in the discussions, and then disappeared in a blue flame?

 

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/6648/young_green.jpg

[woodlawn]

Another Stupid Braggart - What Else is New?

 

> I have years of

>litigation experience and to be good at litigation one must

>look at both sides clearly.

 

To be good at litigation one must know what the fuck one is talking about, and you obviously do not. To cite one incredibly glaring error you have made, the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" has absolutely nothing to do with civil actions such as defamation, contrary to what you said in your earlier post.

 

I don't usually trouble myself to correct the nonsensical ideas posters like you pick up from watching "Law and Order" on television, but when someone brags about his knowledge as much as you do the temptation to stick a pin in his swollen ego is mighty hard to resist. I just love hearing the sound of the air rushing out.

 

> I view escorting and gossip-writing as a form

>of entertainment.

 

I'm afraid that just shows how disconnected you are from reality. Prostitution is a criminal enterprise, not a form of "show business," and as such has nothing to do with the rules governing defamation of those in the entertainment industry. Please stick to writing about what you know, whatever that may be.

 

As for gossip writing, if you knew anything about the law of defamation you would know that it is not the situation of the writer but that of the person written about that determines the standard to be applied in such a case.

 

Your "know it all" act is wearing rather thin, and I am not the only one to have mentioned that in recent threads. It's time you found a new shtick.

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: Another Stupid Braggart - What Else is New?

 

Having just spent the last 30 minutes or more, reading every post (all seven pages of them), two omissions spring to mind.

 

(1) Why didn't we see a pithy and extremly funny post from FFF disecting the subject?

 

(2) Why did we not see a post from one or the other of the pair of escorts that most people probably presume are the topic of BN's blog?

If I were them and knew I was HIV negative, I sure as hell would want to go on record as stating it was not me (us) that BN was alluding to.

[VaHawk]

RE: Another Stupid Braggart - What Else is New?

 

>Having just spent the last 30 minutes or more, reading every

>post (all seven pages of them), two omissions spring to mind.

 

Gee zipperzone, just one z away from boring everyone into passing out from total boredom ala "zzz"?

>

>(1) Why didn't we see a pithy and extremly funny post from

>FFF disecting the subject?

 

Pathetic, as just why do you need a comment from FFF? Unless, you think it would support your point, but then again, do you even have a point???? How about going outside of your very own personal box, and posting something half as clever as what you beg FFF to provide?????

>

>(2) Why did we not see a post from one or the other of the

>pair of escorts that most people probably presume are the

>topic of BN's blog?

 

Perhaps, because they don't feel the NEED to reply or respond, either as a couple, or as individuals who are a part of a couple, to the DEMANDS of trolls to be fed?

 

>If I were them and knew I was HIV negative, I sure as hell

>would want to go on record as stating it was not me (us) that

>BN was alluding to.

 

But, you're not them! And btw, no one gives a shit, about what you would do if "you were them" as you are not them, never could come close to being them, and we all hope that they don't respond to your pathetic trolling of the waters for a response! :-(

[Doug69]

RE: Another Stupid Braggart - What Else is New?

 

>Your "know it all" act is wearing rather thin, and I am not

>the only one to have mentioned that in recent threads. It's

>time you found a new shtick.

 

The creature masquerading around as "RockHard" is but the latest illustrative example of the rock-solid Internet principle that anyone who writes one online post after the next claiming to be successful and rich (something RockHard has done over and over since he started posting under that name) needs to make this claim precisely because they are insecure, poor failures. How ironic, as you pointed out, that he shares that revealingly sad need to constantly proclaim his own success and importance with the prostitute he is so desperately defending.

 

Seriously - can you even imagine the level of desperation and shame required to come to an Internet Board, start writing anonyous posts, and when doing so, need to insert sentence after sentence which has no purpose other than to insist - LOUDLY AND NEEDILY - that others should view you as being rich and successful? Rock Hard began doing this right from the beginning in the most transparently desperate and cheap manner ("I knew Andy Warhol"; I have rich and famous entertainment celebrities as clients; this is how I achieved such fabulous success and wealth). As always, nobody who needs to run around talking about rich and successful they are - ESPECIALLY in anonymous online postings where anyone can claim anything - ever really is. The only thing such people are is sad and desperate to be something because they know they are nothing.

 

One last thing about this wretched basket case of need - anyone who believes that he's a new poster is just inattentive or dumb. Here's a little clue: anytime a "new poster" suddenly shows up and immediately becomes the most prolific poster on the Board - and who dives head first into every personality dispute and flame war here vigorously on one side or the other - ain't "new". He's just someone who got humiliated with a prior screen name and has hilariously returned, in a new and improved disguise, for vengence on those who wronged him.

 

Since he got here, Rock Hard - after a few token neutral posts about how important it is to be nice here - has had only 3 attributes defining his posts: (1) attack the posters he hates with vicious insults; (2) kneel and obsequiously praise and revere the old escorts here in order to get some love from them; and (3) trumpet how rich and successful he is.

 

To merely describe his behavior is to reveal the petty poison and decay that lurks within this "Rock Hard" thing.

 

As for the deranged dribble about how the high page views for this thread proves Benji's great fame and significance, I will simply note, as I have before, that the most-viewed threads here, BY FAR, are almost always the ones, such as this one, containing conflict, criticism, and disputes - usually driven by the exact "negative" posters who are said to be the cause of the forum's decline. The next time someone goes to preach about how "negative" posting here is destroying this forum, maybe they can acknowledge that fact.

[twinklover]

RE: Another Stupid Braggart - What Else is New?

 

I'm between a "rock" and a "hard" place on this thread, and I choose the hard place. The first thing that is so demeaning about Benji's comment is the phrase "formerly high-profile." Just who is HE to judge who is "high-profile" and who is not. That reference, quite frankly, could just as well be to HIM. Then comes the most inexcusable part--reciting an alleged private email about a certain escort's (or escorts') HIV status as part of his 15 minutes of "fame". What do the escorts (we are not certain who they are but have our suspicions) think about that? I'd like to be a fly on the wall reading all of the private emails back and forth. I know that Benji has his followers here (that's the rock) but I am compelled to see through him and call a spade a spade (that's the hard place). If he were only a "stupid braggart", some might forgive him, but there are indications of actual malice. These indications upset many people, not just the "mean, nasty girls". I commend Lucky, whom Doug and I and others have disparaged on the other site, for stating his own independent view, despite our own differences. Lucky, you surprise me every now and then, and I appreciate your ability to be objective and separate the issues.

[VaHawk]

RE: Another Stupid Braggart - What Else is New?

 

"I'd like to be a fly on the wall reading all of the private emails back and forth."

 

Really????, as I was under the impression that the only walls that had flies in abundance were outhouse walls? As such, I assume you will have to wait for a table.

 

"These indications upset many people, not just the "mean, nasty girls". I commend Lucky, whom Doug and I and others have disparaged on the other site, for stating his own independent view, despite our own differences. Lucky, you surprise me every now and then, and I appreciate your ability"

 

Doesn't upset me. Doesn't appear to upset ALL of the "mean, nasty girls" from that other site, either. What is upsetting, is that people "on that other site", who advocate hatred, violence and death towards others, based on nothing but unfounded accusastions, innuendos and outright lies, including your very own advocations of such, against the very poster that you are now praising, seem to be able to put all of that aside, in order to advocate against those who that they despise, more than they despise those that they are now praising!

 

The only thing more disgusting, would be for Lucky to accept your praises, and praise you in turn, just because the two of you agree on one point, only! :-( :-( :-( :-(

[irishguybos]

RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

 

Our time belongs to us, not to you.

 

If that's how you enjoy spending your time I feel bad for you.

Try enjoying life and people...

[Guest mbarz]

RE: to Lucky and Yeswell.

 

>Sorry, can't do that either. I've been working in the

>entertainment industry for nearly thirty years. I own several

>creative businesses that fall, in one way or another, under

>this umbrella. I view escorting and gossip-writing as a form

>of entertainment.

>

 

Wow...how impressive....thirty years in the entertainment industry....do you know Brad Pitt....can you get me his phone number.

[woodlawn]

RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

 

>

>

>Our time belongs to us, not to you.

>

>If that's how you enjoy spending your time I feel bad for

>you.

 

How I enjoy spending my time is none of your business. If you are looking for reasons to feel bad, try reading the front page of today's Times.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the discussions you find on this board, try starting one on a topic of interest to you rather than barking at those of us who have already found one we like.