Real Versus Fake Reviews

[Guest pickwick]

>I have left sooo many bulletin

>boards and chat rooms because

>of the internal bitching!!

>

>Can't we put away the claws

>and let people have differing

>opinions?

>

 

It becomes difficult for people to express differing opinions if others accuse them of wrongdoing because they fail to come up with "statistical evidence" to support their opinions. That is what is happening here. I think everyone should be free to express his opinions of the reviews and other contents of this site without being the target of such accusations.

[Guest pickwick]

>I have left sooo many bulletin

>boards and chat rooms because

>of the internal bitching!!

>

>Can't we put away the claws

>and let people have differing

>opinions?

>

 

It becomes difficult for people to express differing opinions if others accuse them of wrongdoing because they fail to come up with "statistical evidence" to support their opinions. That is what is happening here. I think everyone should be free to express his opinions of the reviews and other contents of this site without being the target of such accusations.

[+ deej]

>I have left sooo many bulletin

>boards and chat rooms because

>of the internal bitching!!

>

>Can't we put away the claws

>and let people have differing

>opinions?

 

Yes, we should, with one caveat:

 

Constant harping about the unreliability of content, whether true or untrue, casts a shadow of doubt that newcomers will find difficult to overcome.

 

Claims that reviews are false should not be made without good evidence. If evidence (even anecdotal) exists, it should be passed on to HooBoy for investigation. I did this once with a review of one of my regulars that described one of HIS fantasies that he's been trying to talk me into doing. (It involves a bathhouse gangbang so it was a pretty specific scene.) The review was removed after investigation.

 

Freedom of speech is a great thing, but it doesn't give us the right to cast aspersions where we shouldn't. (Tom Cruise, anyone? He's looking for someone new to sue.)

 

Readers have a right to their opinions. Unfortunately, all too often those opinions are stated flatly as fact with nothing at all to back them up. And when challenged, the accuser whines "pull in the claws".

 

Is it so difficult to say "it is my opinion" rather than sticking to your guns and saying "it's this way"?

[+ deej]

>I have left sooo many bulletin

>boards and chat rooms because

>of the internal bitching!!

>

>Can't we put away the claws

>and let people have differing

>opinions?

 

Yes, we should, with one caveat:

 

Constant harping about the unreliability of content, whether true or untrue, casts a shadow of doubt that newcomers will find difficult to overcome.

 

Claims that reviews are false should not be made without good evidence. If evidence (even anecdotal) exists, it should be passed on to HooBoy for investigation. I did this once with a review of one of my regulars that described one of HIS fantasies that he's been trying to talk me into doing. (It involves a bathhouse gangbang so it was a pretty specific scene.) The review was removed after investigation.

 

Freedom of speech is a great thing, but it doesn't give us the right to cast aspersions where we shouldn't. (Tom Cruise, anyone? He's looking for someone new to sue.)

 

Readers have a right to their opinions. Unfortunately, all too often those opinions are stated flatly as fact with nothing at all to back them up. And when challenged, the accuser whines "pull in the claws".

 

Is it so difficult to say "it is my opinion" rather than sticking to your guns and saying "it's this way"?

[Guest pickwick]

In my experience, everyone is in favor of freedom of speech, until he encounters speech that he personally doesn't like. Then it suddenly occurs to him that there ought to be an exception to this freedom.

 

The antidote to speech that one finds unacceptable is more speech, not an attempt to silence the speaker by proposing a hurdle he will have to clear before speaking again. If there are people who believe opinions expressed about the reviews on this site are wrong, let them counter those opinions with logic or with evidence that disproves them, not demand that those offering the opinions be silenced or discouraged.

[Guest pickwick]

In my experience, everyone is in favor of freedom of speech, until he encounters speech that he personally doesn't like. Then it suddenly occurs to him that there ought to be an exception to this freedom.

 

The antidote to speech that one finds unacceptable is more speech, not an attempt to silence the speaker by proposing a hurdle he will have to clear before speaking again. If there are people who believe opinions expressed about the reviews on this site are wrong, let them counter those opinions with logic or with evidence that disproves them, not demand that those offering the opinions be silenced or discouraged.

[+ deej]

>The antidote to speech that one

>finds unacceptable is more speech,

>not an attempt to silence

>the speaker by proposing a

>hurdle he will have to

>clear before speaking again.

>If there are people who

>believe opinions expressed about the

>reviews on this site are

>wrong, let them counter those

>opinions with logic or with

>evidence that disproves them, not

>demand that those offering the

>opinions be silenced or discouraged.

 

 

I never said we should discourage anyone! In fact I've argued quite the contrary. Often. Free speech does however carry a responsibility.

 

Opinion stated as fact is useless, and actually harmful. (And yes, I am aware I'm stating an opinion. ;-))

 

Why is it, in your world, rebuttals need to be backed up with logic and fact but the original claim doesn't?

 

I'll give you an example. If someone says Michael Vincenzo (sorry Michael!) is a lousy fuck, with no background, no detail, and nothing to back their story, I should believe them? (I happen to know he's a great fuck because I've been there.)

 

Following your logic, I should believe the statement until someone comes along with better evidence?

 

Why can't the original speaker be held equally accountable?

[+ deej]

>The antidote to speech that one

>finds unacceptable is more speech,

>not an attempt to silence

>the speaker by proposing a

>hurdle he will have to

>clear before speaking again.

>If there are people who

>believe opinions expressed about the

>reviews on this site are

>wrong, let them counter those

>opinions with logic or with

>evidence that disproves them, not

>demand that those offering the

>opinions be silenced or discouraged.

 

 

I never said we should discourage anyone! In fact I've argued quite the contrary. Often. Free speech does however carry a responsibility.

 

Opinion stated as fact is useless, and actually harmful. (And yes, I am aware I'm stating an opinion. ;-))

 

Why is it, in your world, rebuttals need to be backed up with logic and fact but the original claim doesn't?

 

I'll give you an example. If someone says Michael Vincenzo (sorry Michael!) is a lousy fuck, with no background, no detail, and nothing to back their story, I should believe them? (I happen to know he's a great fuck because I've been there.)

 

Following your logic, I should believe the statement until someone comes along with better evidence?

 

Why can't the original speaker be held equally accountable?

[Guest pickwick]

>I never said we should discourage

>anyone! In fact I've argued

>quite the contrary. Often. Free

>speech does however carry a

>responsibility.

 

Uh huh. Here comes the "exception" again.

 

>Opinion stated as fact is useless,

>and actually harmful. (And yes,

>I am aware I'm stating

>an opinion.

 

And there it is.

 

>Why is it, in your world,

>rebuttals need to be backed

>up with logic and fact

>but the original claim doesn't?

 

I never said any such thing. I'll thank you not to make up statements that you disagree with and attribute them to me.

 

To my way of thinking, anyone is free to state any opinion he wishes on any subject. But if your goal is to persuade others that someone else's opinion is wrong, you aren't likely to do that simply by saying you think it's wrong, although you have every right to do so.

 

>I'll give you an example. If

>someone says Michael Vincenzo (sorry

>Michael!) is a lousy fuck,

>with no background, no detail,

>and nothing to back their

>story, I should believe them?

 

I don't see anyone forcing you to believe anything. But I think it would be wrong for you to tell the person who expressed that opinion to come up with some quantum of evidence that satisfies you or keep silent, which is what the thread author seems to be saying.

 

 

>(I happen to know he's

>a great fuck because I've

>been there.)

 

Did something I said give you the idea that I want to hear about your sexual experiences?

 

>Following your logic, I should believe

>the statement until someone comes

>along with better evidence?

 

 

Again, please stop making up ideas that you find unacceptable and attributing them to me. The thrill of knocking down such "straw men" is something most of us got over in high school.

 

>Why can't the original speaker be

>held equally accountable?

 

No one (except you) has suggested he shouldn't, if by "held accountable" you mean that anyone who wants to challenge his opinion has the right and the opportunity to do so. That is already the situation on this message board, so what are you complaining about?

[Guest pickwick]

>I never said we should discourage

>anyone! In fact I've argued

>quite the contrary. Often. Free

>speech does however carry a

>responsibility.

 

Uh huh. Here comes the "exception" again.

 

>Opinion stated as fact is useless,

>and actually harmful. (And yes,

>I am aware I'm stating

>an opinion.

 

And there it is.

 

>Why is it, in your world,

>rebuttals need to be backed

>up with logic and fact

>but the original claim doesn't?

 

I never said any such thing. I'll thank you not to make up statements that you disagree with and attribute them to me.

 

To my way of thinking, anyone is free to state any opinion he wishes on any subject. But if your goal is to persuade others that someone else's opinion is wrong, you aren't likely to do that simply by saying you think it's wrong, although you have every right to do so.

 

>I'll give you an example. If

>someone says Michael Vincenzo (sorry

>Michael!) is a lousy fuck,

>with no background, no detail,

>and nothing to back their

>story, I should believe them?

 

I don't see anyone forcing you to believe anything. But I think it would be wrong for you to tell the person who expressed that opinion to come up with some quantum of evidence that satisfies you or keep silent, which is what the thread author seems to be saying.

 

 

>(I happen to know he's

>a great fuck because I've

>been there.)

 

Did something I said give you the idea that I want to hear about your sexual experiences?

 

>Following your logic, I should believe

>the statement until someone comes

>along with better evidence?

 

 

Again, please stop making up ideas that you find unacceptable and attributing them to me. The thrill of knocking down such "straw men" is something most of us got over in high school.

 

>Why can't the original speaker be

>held equally accountable?

 

No one (except you) has suggested he shouldn't, if by "held accountable" you mean that anyone who wants to challenge his opinion has the right and the opportunity to do so. That is already the situation on this message board, so what are you complaining about?

[Guest JT]

>No. You used a specific

>quotation in the post with

>which you began this thread

>to exemplify the "assessment" with

>which you disagree. In

>the later post to which

>I referred you altered that

>quotation in such a way

>as to alter its meaning.

 

Excuse me, to quote from you, "I never said any such thing. I'll thank you not to make up statements that you disagree with and attribute them to me." As I stated previously, I wasn't referring only to that statement ALONE in my discussion. I HAVE STATED CLEARLY IN MY FIRST POST THAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED SIMILAR

STATEMENTS MORE THAN ONCE IN THE MESSAGE CENTRE IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS.

 

In another post here, you stated you disagreed with deej that "Free speech does however carry a responsibility." You said,

>Uh huh. Here comes the "exception" again.

 

So why would you expect me or anyone to substantiate anything said on this message board? You chided me for asking people to provide evidence to support their statements like "many/most/the majority of the reviews here are fake", yet you asked me to show you specific posts (i.e. evidence) to support what I said! Here are some of your quotes that demanded evidence from me:

 

>Show me the post in which I made such a statement.

>Show me the post in which I did say that if you can.

>Show me the post in which I purported to quote your words and altered the quote. Well?

>Show me the post, I would like to see it.

 

Are you now suggesting that I have the burden of proof? Since according to you, it's okay to make sweeping statements without any supporting evidence and that I shouldn't ask for those evidence, why are you asking me for evidence?

 

This is a quote from you regarding me asking people to provide evidence to support what they say,

 

>If you are looking forward to

>that, then I suppose you

>should try to come up

>with some method of persuading

>them to do it, since

>they have no obligation to

>do it.

 

So why are you asking me for evidence? According to you, I have no obligation to provide it.

 

 

Another quote from you in this thread:

>The antidote to speech that one finds unacceptable is more >speech, not an attempt to silence the speaker by proposing a >hurdle he will have to clear before speaking again. If there >are people who believe opinions expressed about the reviews on this site are wrong, let them counter those opinions with logic >or with evidence that disproves them, not demand that those >offering the opinions be silenced or discouraged.

 

So when you ask me for evidence to support my statements, are you demanding me be silenced or discouraged? If not, then why when I ask others to substantiate their statements with evidence (i.e. to be held accountable for what they say), you would accuse me of trying to silence them? Are you holding me accountable for what I said? If you're doing that here, why did you criticize me for asking people to be held accountable for what they say?

 

You want specific quote, let's look at this one!

 

>Plus, AM I PREVENTING

>>others from expressing their opinions?

 

>>Who said you were?

 

Well, here is what you said,

>>>I do not

>>>understand why you seem so

>>>anxious to prevent people from

>>>expressing their opinions.

 

When I ask people for evidence to support what they claim, you said I seem to be very "anxious to prevent people from expressing their opinions". Since you're demanding me to show you specific posts to prove what you or I have said, I must say, according to your logic, that I "do not understand why you seem so anxious to prevent me from expressing my opinions".

 

In all my postings on the message board so far, I've always tried to focus on the issues. The issue here is if people are expressing an opinion, they should state it very clearly rather than stating it as "facts" without any supporting evidence. There is a HUGE difference between the following two statements,

Statement (1) I think Tom is gay (or similar statements like in my opinion, Tom is gay).

Statement (2) Tom is gay.

 

However, there are those who have made sweeping statements as facts without any substantiating evidence. IMHO, asking those people to provide substantiating evidence is not in any shape or form preventing them from expressing their opinions, in contrary to what some might think. But unfortunately, the main issue has been somewhat side-tracked by a psoter and that I have to respond to personal attacks and accusations here.

 

JT

[Guest JT]

>No. You used a specific

>quotation in the post with

>which you began this thread

>to exemplify the "assessment" with

>which you disagree. In

>the later post to which

>I referred you altered that

>quotation in such a way

>as to alter its meaning.

 

Excuse me, to quote from you, "I never said any such thing. I'll thank you not to make up statements that you disagree with and attribute them to me." As I stated previously, I wasn't referring only to that statement ALONE in my discussion. I HAVE STATED CLEARLY IN MY FIRST POST THAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED SIMILAR

STATEMENTS MORE THAN ONCE IN THE MESSAGE CENTRE IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS.

 

In another post here, you stated you disagreed with deej that "Free speech does however carry a responsibility." You said,

>Uh huh. Here comes the "exception" again.

 

So why would you expect me or anyone to substantiate anything said on this message board? You chided me for asking people to provide evidence to support their statements like "many/most/the majority of the reviews here are fake", yet you asked me to show you specific posts (i.e. evidence) to support what I said! Here are some of your quotes that demanded evidence from me:

 

>Show me the post in which I made such a statement.

>Show me the post in which I did say that if you can.

>Show me the post in which I purported to quote your words and altered the quote. Well?

>Show me the post, I would like to see it.

 

Are you now suggesting that I have the burden of proof? Since according to you, it's okay to make sweeping statements without any supporting evidence and that I shouldn't ask for those evidence, why are you asking me for evidence?

 

This is a quote from you regarding me asking people to provide evidence to support what they say,

 

>If you are looking forward to

>that, then I suppose you

>should try to come up

>with some method of persuading

>them to do it, since

>they have no obligation to

>do it.

 

So why are you asking me for evidence? According to you, I have no obligation to provide it.

 

 

Another quote from you in this thread:

>The antidote to speech that one finds unacceptable is more >speech, not an attempt to silence the speaker by proposing a >hurdle he will have to clear before speaking again. If there >are people who believe opinions expressed about the reviews on this site are wrong, let them counter those opinions with logic >or with evidence that disproves them, not demand that those >offering the opinions be silenced or discouraged.

 

So when you ask me for evidence to support my statements, are you demanding me be silenced or discouraged? If not, then why when I ask others to substantiate their statements with evidence (i.e. to be held accountable for what they say), you would accuse me of trying to silence them? Are you holding me accountable for what I said? If you're doing that here, why did you criticize me for asking people to be held accountable for what they say?

 

You want specific quote, let's look at this one!

 

>Plus, AM I PREVENTING

>>others from expressing their opinions?

 

>>Who said you were?

 

Well, here is what you said,

>>>I do not

>>>understand why you seem so

>>>anxious to prevent people from

>>>expressing their opinions.

 

When I ask people for evidence to support what they claim, you said I seem to be very "anxious to prevent people from expressing their opinions". Since you're demanding me to show you specific posts to prove what you or I have said, I must say, according to your logic, that I "do not understand why you seem so anxious to prevent me from expressing my opinions".

 

In all my postings on the message board so far, I've always tried to focus on the issues. The issue here is if people are expressing an opinion, they should state it very clearly rather than stating it as "facts" without any supporting evidence. There is a HUGE difference between the following two statements,

Statement (1) I think Tom is gay (or similar statements like in my opinion, Tom is gay).

Statement (2) Tom is gay.

 

However, there are those who have made sweeping statements as facts without any substantiating evidence. IMHO, asking those people to provide substantiating evidence is not in any shape or form preventing them from expressing their opinions, in contrary to what some might think. But unfortunately, the main issue has been somewhat side-tracked by a psoter and that I have to respond to personal attacks and accusations here.

 

JT

[Guest pickwick]

>>No. You used a specific

>>quotation in the post with

>>which you began this thread

>>to exemplify the "assessment" with

>>which you disagree. In

>>the later post to which

>>I referred you altered that

>>quotation in such a way

>>as to alter its meaning.

>

>Excuse me, to quote from you,

>"I never said any such

>thing. I'll thank you not

>to make up statements that

>you disagree with and attribute

>them to me."

 

My statement above is absolutely correct in every particular. Denying that is pointless.

 

>So why would you expect me

>or anyone to substantiate anything

>said on this message board?

>You chided me for asking

>people to provide evidence to

>support their statements like "many/most/the

>majority of the reviews here

>are fake", yet you asked

>me to show you specific

>posts (i.e. evidence) to support

>what I said! Here are

>some of your quotes that

>demanded evidence from me:

>

>>Show me the post in which I made such a statement.

>>Show me the post in which I did say that if you can.

>>Show me the post in which I purported to quote your words and altered the quote. Well?

>>Show me the post, I would like to see it.

>

>Are you now suggesting that I

>have the burden of proof?

>Since according to you, it's

>okay to make sweeping statements

>without any supporting evidence and

>that I shouldn't ask for

>those evidence, why are you

>asking me for evidence?

>

 

But you are the one who began this thread by demanding that people come up with evidence to support statements with which you disagree. Have you now decided that that is no longer a good idea? Glad to hear it.

 

 

>This is a quote from you

>regarding me asking people to

>provide evidence to support what

>they say,

>

>>If you are looking forward to

>>that, then I suppose you

>>should try to come up

>>with some method of persuading

>>them to do it, since

>>they have no obligation to

>>do it.

>

>So why are you asking me

>for evidence? According to you,

>I have no obligation to

>provide it.

>

 

I was only seeing if you wanted to follow the same rules you have proposed for others. Obviously you don't.

 

>

>Another quote from you in this

>thread:

>>The antidote to speech that one finds unacceptable is more >speech, not an attempt to silence the speaker by proposing a >hurdle he will have to clear before speaking again. If there >are people who believe opinions expressed about the reviews on this site are wrong, let them counter those opinions with logic >or with evidence that disproves them, not demand that those >offering the opinions be silenced or discouraged.

>

>So when you ask me for

>evidence to support my statements,

>are you demanding me be

>silenced or discouraged? If not,

>then why when I ask

>others to substantiate their statements

>with evidence (i.e. to be

>held accountable for what they

>say), you would accuse me

>of trying to silence them?

>Are you holding me accountable

>for what I said? If

>you're doing that here, why

>did you criticize me for

>asking people to be held

>accountable for what they say?

>

 

Again, why would you object to being held to the same rules you propose for others? Isn't that hypocrisy?

 

>

>You want specific quote, let's look

>at this one!

>

>>Plus, AM I PREVENTING

>>>others from expressing their opinions?

>

>>>Who said you were?

>

>Well, here is what you said,

>

>>>>I do not

>>>>understand why you seem so

>>>>anxious to prevent people from

>>>>expressing their opinions.

>

>When I ask people for evidence

>to support what they claim,

>you said I seem to

>be very "anxious to prevent

>people from expressing their opinions".

 

>Since you're demanding me to

>show you specific posts to

>prove what you or I

>have said, I must say,

>according to your logic, that

>I "do not understand why

>you seem so anxious to

>prevent me from expressing my

>opinions".

>

 

Because your purpose is clearly to discourage the expression of others' opinions. Opinions you don't happen to share.

 

>There is

>a HUGE difference between the

>following two statements,

>Statement (1) I think Tom is

>gay (or similar statements like

>in my opinion, Tom is

>gay).

>Statement (2) Tom is gay.

>

 

That is entirely a matter of interpretation of the statements in question. YOU have chosen to interpret them in the harshest possible light. I don't agree with your interpretation.

 

 

>However, there are those who have

>made sweeping statements as facts

>without any substantiating evidence. IMHO,

>asking those people to provide

>substantiating evidence is not in

>any shape or form preventing

>them from expressing their opinions,

>in contrary to what some

>might think. But unfortunately, the

>main issue has been somewhat

>side-tracked by a psoter and

>that I have to respond

>to personal attacks and accusations

>here.

>

>JT

 

Having accused others of wrongdoing simply because they expressed opinions with which you happen to disagree, you are hardly in a position to complain if others do the same to you. Those who live by the sword . . . .

[Guest pickwick]

>>No. You used a specific

>>quotation in the post with

>>which you began this thread

>>to exemplify the "assessment" with

>>which you disagree. In

>>the later post to which

>>I referred you altered that

>>quotation in such a way

>>as to alter its meaning.

>

>Excuse me, to quote from you,

>"I never said any such

>thing. I'll thank you not

>to make up statements that

>you disagree with and attribute

>them to me."

 

My statement above is absolutely correct in every particular. Denying that is pointless.

 

>So why would you expect me

>or anyone to substantiate anything

>said on this message board?

>You chided me for asking

>people to provide evidence to

>support their statements like "many/most/the

>majority of the reviews here

>are fake", yet you asked

>me to show you specific

>posts (i.e. evidence) to support

>what I said! Here are

>some of your quotes that

>demanded evidence from me:

>

>>Show me the post in which I made such a statement.

>>Show me the post in which I did say that if you can.

>>Show me the post in which I purported to quote your words and altered the quote. Well?

>>Show me the post, I would like to see it.

>

>Are you now suggesting that I

>have the burden of proof?

>Since according to you, it's

>okay to make sweeping statements

>without any supporting evidence and

>that I shouldn't ask for

>those evidence, why are you

>asking me for evidence?

>

 

But you are the one who began this thread by demanding that people come up with evidence to support statements with which you disagree. Have you now decided that that is no longer a good idea? Glad to hear it.

 

 

>This is a quote from you

>regarding me asking people to

>provide evidence to support what

>they say,

>

>>If you are looking forward to

>>that, then I suppose you

>>should try to come up

>>with some method of persuading

>>them to do it, since

>>they have no obligation to

>>do it.

>

>So why are you asking me

>for evidence? According to you,

>I have no obligation to

>provide it.

>

 

I was only seeing if you wanted to follow the same rules you have proposed for others. Obviously you don't.

 

>

>Another quote from you in this

>thread:

>>The antidote to speech that one finds unacceptable is more >speech, not an attempt to silence the speaker by proposing a >hurdle he will have to clear before speaking again. If there >are people who believe opinions expressed about the reviews on this site are wrong, let them counter those opinions with logic >or with evidence that disproves them, not demand that those >offering the opinions be silenced or discouraged.

>

>So when you ask me for

>evidence to support my statements,

>are you demanding me be

>silenced or discouraged? If not,

>then why when I ask

>others to substantiate their statements

>with evidence (i.e. to be

>held accountable for what they

>say), you would accuse me

>of trying to silence them?

>Are you holding me accountable

>for what I said? If

>you're doing that here, why

>did you criticize me for

>asking people to be held

>accountable for what they say?

>

 

Again, why would you object to being held to the same rules you propose for others? Isn't that hypocrisy?

 

>

>You want specific quote, let's look

>at this one!

>

>>Plus, AM I PREVENTING

>>>others from expressing their opinions?

>

>>>Who said you were?

>

>Well, here is what you said,

>

>>>>I do not

>>>>understand why you seem so

>>>>anxious to prevent people from

>>>>expressing their opinions.

>

>When I ask people for evidence

>to support what they claim,

>you said I seem to

>be very "anxious to prevent

>people from expressing their opinions".

 

>Since you're demanding me to

>show you specific posts to

>prove what you or I

>have said, I must say,

>according to your logic, that

>I "do not understand why

>you seem so anxious to

>prevent me from expressing my

>opinions".

>

 

Because your purpose is clearly to discourage the expression of others' opinions. Opinions you don't happen to share.

 

>There is

>a HUGE difference between the

>following two statements,

>Statement (1) I think Tom is

>gay (or similar statements like

>in my opinion, Tom is

>gay).

>Statement (2) Tom is gay.

>

 

That is entirely a matter of interpretation of the statements in question. YOU have chosen to interpret them in the harshest possible light. I don't agree with your interpretation.

 

 

>However, there are those who have

>made sweeping statements as facts

>without any substantiating evidence. IMHO,

>asking those people to provide

>substantiating evidence is not in

>any shape or form preventing

>them from expressing their opinions,

>in contrary to what some

>might think. But unfortunately, the

>main issue has been somewhat

>side-tracked by a psoter and

>that I have to respond

>to personal attacks and accusations

>here.

>

>JT

 

Having accused others of wrongdoing simply because they expressed opinions with which you happen to disagree, you are hardly in a position to complain if others do the same to you. Those who live by the sword . . . .

[Guest JT]

>>>No. You used a specific

>>>quotation in the post with

>>>which you began this thread

>>>to exemplify the "assessment" with

>>>which you disagree. In

>>>the later post to which

>>>I referred you altered that

>>>quotation in such a way

>>>as to alter its meaning.

>>

 

Ditto! :-) My statement above is absolutely correct

in every particular. Denying that is pointless.

 

But you are the one who

feel that people should not ask for supporting evidence for what they say. Now you're asking for it. Have you now decided that that is no longer a good

idea? Glad to hear it.

 

I was also only seeing if you wanted to follow the same

rules you have proposed for others. Obviously you don't.

 

Why would you object to being held to the same

rules you propose for others?

Isn't that hypocrisy? Yes it is, and this thread is not the only places that you have shown your hypocricy.

 

 

>Because your purpose is clearly to

>discourage the expression of others'

>opinions. Opinions you don't

>happen to share.

 

Well, if it applies to me, it applies to you too! :-)

 

>

>>There is

>>a HUGE difference between the

>>following two statements,

>>Statement (1) I think Tom is

>>gay (or similar statements like

>>in my opinion, Tom is

>>gay).

>>Statement (2) Tom is gay.

>>

>

>That is entirely a matter of

>interpretation of the statements in

>question. YOU have chosen

>to interpret them in the

>harshest possible light. I

>don't agree with your interpretation.

 

Well denying there is a difference between those two statements is pointless. You have interpreted my statements in the harshest possible light. But you have insisted all along mine is the wrong interpretation.

 

Having read your other recent statements on this message centre, your following statements have in fact described you perfectly.

 

>Having accused others of wrongdoing simply

>because they expressed opinions with

>which you happen to disagree,

>you are hardly in a

>position to complain if others

>do the same to you.

> Those who live by

>the sword . . .

 

 

JT

[Guest JT]

>>>No. You used a specific

>>>quotation in the post with

>>>which you began this thread

>>>to exemplify the "assessment" with

>>>which you disagree. In

>>>the later post to which

>>>I referred you altered that

>>>quotation in such a way

>>>as to alter its meaning.

>>

 

Ditto! :-) My statement above is absolutely correct

in every particular. Denying that is pointless.

 

But you are the one who

feel that people should not ask for supporting evidence for what they say. Now you're asking for it. Have you now decided that that is no longer a good

idea? Glad to hear it.

 

I was also only seeing if you wanted to follow the same

rules you have proposed for others. Obviously you don't.

 

Why would you object to being held to the same

rules you propose for others?

Isn't that hypocrisy? Yes it is, and this thread is not the only places that you have shown your hypocricy.

 

 

>Because your purpose is clearly to

>discourage the expression of others'

>opinions. Opinions you don't

>happen to share.

 

Well, if it applies to me, it applies to you too! :-)

 

>

>>There is

>>a HUGE difference between the

>>following two statements,

>>Statement (1) I think Tom is

>>gay (or similar statements like

>>in my opinion, Tom is

>>gay).

>>Statement (2) Tom is gay.

>>

>

>That is entirely a matter of

>interpretation of the statements in

>question. YOU have chosen

>to interpret them in the

>harshest possible light. I

>don't agree with your interpretation.

 

Well denying there is a difference between those two statements is pointless. You have interpreted my statements in the harshest possible light. But you have insisted all along mine is the wrong interpretation.

 

Having read your other recent statements on this message centre, your following statements have in fact described you perfectly.

 

>Having accused others of wrongdoing simply

>because they expressed opinions with

>which you happen to disagree,

>you are hardly in a

>position to complain if others

>do the same to you.

> Those who live by

>the sword . . .

 

 

JT

[+ Charlie]

The farther I got into this thread, the faster I started scrolling through, because it seemed to be nothing but a "he said, she said" bitch fight, even though the principles involved were important. However, to go back to the original point, it is undoubtedly true that at least some reviews are fake, and it is our responsibility as readers to pay attention and try to figure out which ones might be fishy.

 

For example, in today's new reviews there is one of "Neil" in Philly, who works for the Premier agency. It is the latest in several positive reviews. In two of the earlier reviews, supposedly by different writers, the same clause appears ("his cock is a true eight inches and thick"); this sounds very much like ad copy to me. It's possible that the second reviewer was unconsciously influenced by the wording of the previous review, but I suspect that (1) both reviews were written by the same person, and/or (2) the reviews were concocted by the agency to get the ball rolling for a new employee.

 

The moral is: Pay careful attention to what you read, and try to evaluate the style as much as the information in the review.

[+ Charlie]

The farther I got into this thread, the faster I started scrolling through, because it seemed to be nothing but a "he said, she said" bitch fight, even though the principles involved were important. However, to go back to the original point, it is undoubtedly true that at least some reviews are fake, and it is our responsibility as readers to pay attention and try to figure out which ones might be fishy.

 

For example, in today's new reviews there is one of "Neil" in Philly, who works for the Premier agency. It is the latest in several positive reviews. In two of the earlier reviews, supposedly by different writers, the same clause appears ("his cock is a true eight inches and thick"); this sounds very much like ad copy to me. It's possible that the second reviewer was unconsciously influenced by the wording of the previous review, but I suspect that (1) both reviews were written by the same person, and/or (2) the reviews were concocted by the agency to get the ball rolling for a new employee.

 

The moral is: Pay careful attention to what you read, and try to evaluate the style as much as the information in the review.

[Guest pickwick]

>The farther I got into this

>thread, the faster I started

>scrolling through, because it seemed

>to be nothing but a

>"he said, she said" bitch

>fight, even though the principles

>involved were important.

 

I am not sure what "principle" you mean. The author of this thread seems to have invented a "principle" that he wants everyone else to follow. I think we all know there is not the slightest chance that that will ever happen.

 

>However, to

>go back to the original

>point, it is undoubtedly true

>that at least some reviews

>are fake, and it is

>our responsibility as readers to

>pay attention and try to

>figure out which ones might

>be fishy.

>

 

Whether any given review is fake will always be a matter of opinion, which makes it rather absurd to demand that people who express suspicions about a review or reviews must produce evidence to support their suspicions. In every case every site member must decide the issue for himself.

[Guest pickwick]

>The farther I got into this

>thread, the faster I started

>scrolling through, because it seemed

>to be nothing but a

>"he said, she said" bitch

>fight, even though the principles

>involved were important.

 

I am not sure what "principle" you mean. The author of this thread seems to have invented a "principle" that he wants everyone else to follow. I think we all know there is not the slightest chance that that will ever happen.

 

>However, to

>go back to the original

>point, it is undoubtedly true

>that at least some reviews

>are fake, and it is

>our responsibility as readers to

>pay attention and try to

>figure out which ones might

>be fishy.

>

 

Whether any given review is fake will always be a matter of opinion, which makes it rather absurd to demand that people who express suspicions about a review or reviews must produce evidence to support their suspicions. In every case every site member must decide the issue for himself.

[Laurent]

I did not write a review of Neil but probably should have. He provided excellent service; the only reason I did not use him again is that he was out of town when I was in Philadelphia.

I've written reviews of two escorts, although I've hired many more. I've had only one really negative experience, but the escort has had a number of highly positive reviews. I reviewed the two for what impressed me as impossible-to-top service. Ironically, one of those I reviewed had no reviews here; I took the suggestion of Michael at Premier, who sometimes appears to know me better than I know myself. The other reviewed escort has a few positive reviews and one lukewarm one.

[Laurent]

I did not write a review of Neil but probably should have. He provided excellent service; the only reason I did not use him again is that he was out of town when I was in Philadelphia.

I've written reviews of two escorts, although I've hired many more. I've had only one really negative experience, but the escort has had a number of highly positive reviews. I reviewed the two for what impressed me as impossible-to-top service. Ironically, one of those I reviewed had no reviews here; I took the suggestion of Michael at Premier, who sometimes appears to know me better than I know myself. The other reviewed escort has a few positive reviews and one lukewarm one.

[BuckyXTC]

I'm a newbie here, and I'm so very glad that I found Hooboy's site before some of the others. I just hired my very first escort last week and it was a great experience. The escort wasn't reviewed here, but others from the same agency had been, so I was able to use that information to make an "educated" guess that the escort I arranged to meet would live up to expectations. And he did. Some of the other sites like Rentboy don't give reviews, just advertisements. I realize those sites have their usefulness as well, but at least for me, they don't provide the kind of guidance I'm looking for. I found two escorts that piqued my interest on Rentboy and it took a month for the first one to get back to me, and when I spoke with him, his voice just didn't match his youthful photo. The second escort told me the prices he had posted there were now "out of date" and now he charges $500 instead of $300, and not interested in honoring the prices he is, to this date, still advertising with.

 

The wonderful service this website provides folks with our interests is laudable. Maybe I would have never mustered the courage to even call an escort if I hadn't visited this website time and again. As it stands now, I'm all set for a second round with my newly found escort tomorrow night, and tickled pink.

 

Sorry to have digressed a bit from the topic.....I do think you can generally get a feel for which reviews are authentic and which ones are fabrications if you look at the given reviews for a single escort in toto. Of course, that is more difficult if they only have a single review. And Hooboy's "credibility rating of reviewers" generally gives me a sense that I can count on that reviewer to be accurate as well.

 

It goes without saying that escorts with multiple positive reviews should get the most serious consideration. But I wouldn't necessarily reject out of hand an escort I find interesting if he had one negative in the mix.

 

BuckyXTC

[BuckyXTC]

I'm a newbie here, and I'm so very glad that I found Hooboy's site before some of the others. I just hired my very first escort last week and it was a great experience. The escort wasn't reviewed here, but others from the same agency had been, so I was able to use that information to make an "educated" guess that the escort I arranged to meet would live up to expectations. And he did. Some of the other sites like Rentboy don't give reviews, just advertisements. I realize those sites have their usefulness as well, but at least for me, they don't provide the kind of guidance I'm looking for. I found two escorts that piqued my interest on Rentboy and it took a month for the first one to get back to me, and when I spoke with him, his voice just didn't match his youthful photo. The second escort told me the prices he had posted there were now "out of date" and now he charges $500 instead of $300, and not interested in honoring the prices he is, to this date, still advertising with.

 

The wonderful service this website provides folks with our interests is laudable. Maybe I would have never mustered the courage to even call an escort if I hadn't visited this website time and again. As it stands now, I'm all set for a second round with my newly found escort tomorrow night, and tickled pink.

 

Sorry to have digressed a bit from the topic.....I do think you can generally get a feel for which reviews are authentic and which ones are fabrications if you look at the given reviews for a single escort in toto. Of course, that is more difficult if they only have a single review. And Hooboy's "credibility rating of reviewers" generally gives me a sense that I can count on that reviewer to be accurate as well.

 

It goes without saying that escorts with multiple positive reviews should get the most serious consideration. But I wouldn't necessarily reject out of hand an escort I find interesting if he had one negative in the mix.

 

BuckyXTC

[Guest creosote]

>Whether any given review is fake

>will always be a matter

>of opinion, which makes it

>rather absurd to demand that

>people who express suspicions about

>a review or reviews must

>produce evidence to support their

>suspicions. In every case

>every site member must decide

>the issue for himself.

 

That about sums it up as far as I'm concerned.