A GLOWING REVIEW FOR ANTHONY HOLLOWAY

[Boston Guy]

RE:Observation

 

>>Do you know for sure

>>that AH has submitted false

>>positive reviews? I don't.

>> If you do, what

>>proof do you have?

>>

>

>BofN and one or two others

>have pointed out a rather

>glaring inconsistency in the most

>recent positive review. I

>have not seen anyone refute

>what they have said.

>It's the sort of evidence

>that is used to impeach

>the sworn testimony of witnesses

>in court every day.

>

 

Perhaps. But even if the review is false -- something that cannot really be established -- how in the world do you or BofN or anyone else know who submitted it? As the escort I spoke to last night suggested, it would be rediculously easy for someone else to post positive reviews that are somewhat or patently false, knowing that the escort being 'reviewed' would then be badly treated here. After a few of these, the escort's reputation could be harmed beyond repair, even though he was completely innocent. The system here would provide virtually no way this escort could protect himself against the cries that would be raised against him.

 

Aren't you a little more concerned about someone's reputation that to debase it on the basis of such flimsy straws?

 

>

>>

>>I note

>>>that at least one of

>>>the reviewers who claims to

>>>have been ripped off by

>>>him is rated "consistently credible"

>>>by HB.

>

>

 

If someone here in the Message Center, especially someone who was here often and who was known, were to speak up and say "I hired this guy and he was terrible because..." then I would grant that person a great deal of credibility. If you said that, for example, I would believe you, because I have no reason at all, based on your past here, to disbelieve you.

 

But I have to admit to great suspicion of information simply presented in review format, especially by people who don't post here, even if the person has posted multiple reviews.

 

>Didn't you say in a previous

>post that you don't grant

>any credence to any of

>the reviews? You certainly

>have a right to take

>that position if you wish

>but I know from personal

>experience that some of the

>reviews are in many respects

>reliable and I have seen

>many others express the same

>opinion on this board.

>Many, many others.

>

 

And I respect your opinion on that.

 

>

>>and I finally decided that

>>I wanted to raise the

>>question. Free speech cuts

>>both ways and people who

>>find a message objectionable are

>>just as free to make

>>that point as the people

>>who originally spoke.

>>

>

>I'd say it depends on how

>they make it. In

>a community that venerates free

>speech, no one has the

>right to tell others not

>to talk about a particular

>subject.

>

 

I think we agree.

 

>>AH is not the only escort

>>to be subjected to this

>>kind of treatment, just the

>>most visible. On the

>>basis of unknown people submitting

>>unknown 'reviews', a person's reputation

>>can be completely trashed.

>

>What you are really saying is

>that the system of reviews

>that exists on this site

>should be ended. I

>don't think you will find

>many clients here who will

>agree with that. I

>certainly don't. On the

>contrary, the reviews seem to

>attract more positive testimonials from

>satisfied clients every day.

>See this month's "Emale" for

>several.

 

I find myself extremely suspicious of the reviews. But I'm not suggesting they be ended, for it's not my place to suggest that. It's not my site and others clearly enjoy them or find them useful. I tend to think they should be considered entertainment far more than information, however, and I suspect most people use them for vicarious entertainment.

 

>

>>Pickwick, you're a pretty smart guy

>

>:-)

>

>>and you have demonstrated healthy

>>skepticism any number of times.

>> Why don't you apply

>>that skepticism to the negative

>>messages as well as the

>>positive ones?

>>

>

>The posters in this thread who

>have questioned the validity of

>the review have shown some

>evidence that supports their position

>about it. I think

>the burden of proof has

>now shifted to those who

>would defend it.

>

>>And I ask that question deliberately,

>>for by posing it, I

>>am trying to demonstrate that

>>your words are meant to

>>shut down speech every bit

>>as much as the words

>>you are objecting to.

>

>You are quite wrong. I

>have never advocated that anyone

>be silenced. But I

>have asked that you and

>others who have objected to

>this discussion explain why you

>do so. Your answer

>seems to be that you

>want to end the system

>of reviews on this site

>because the reviews are inherently

>unreliable. Thanks for making

>that clear.

 

No, I haven't said that. However, I do think there's something wrong with taking information from what are anonymous 'reviews' submitted by anonymous posters, most of whom have no other history on this site than the submission of these reviews, and then using that information here to trash an escort's name, using the information as if it is verified truth.

 

If information is presented in review format, anyone can read the reviews and then make up their own mind on the basis of those reviews. But for other people, who have never met a particular escort and have no history of any kind of contact with him at all, to then constantly disparage him here -- to the point where they won't even consider positive reviews and immediately dismiss any such positive review as false and the poster as a fraud and encourage all others to join the witchhunt, well, yes, I'm made awfully uncomfortable by this.

 

If this were Consumer Guides and standard methodologies were being applied to the review process by known, credible, authenticated reviewers, that would be different.

 

But these are reviews that can come from anyone, anywhere. Anyone can submit false or exaggerated reviews, to either help or hurt an escort.

 

Simply publishing the reviews is putting the information in the public domain. I would think the rest of us would want to apply great skepticism to all of the information in the reviews and refuse to condemn anyone without personal knowledge of that person, or at least absent good, solid, first-hand information from credible sources.

[Guest cp8036]

Of course I jest.

[BewareofNick]

>Well, isn't that exactly what is

>happening?

 

 

Yes and no.

 

The scenario as you describe it is realistic. Why? Because Anthony already has a bad reputation to begin with. It makes it easy to believe that the positive reviews are phonies, most particularly when there are glaring inconsistencies, such as in his latest review. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. I've spoken personally with one of the guys Anthony ripped off AND since I now have access to a Western Union terminal, I was able to verify that money was sent to and received by Anthony Holloway under his real name. (Yes, I know it, no I won't tell you)

 

What if someone did that to say, Talvin or Michael Vincenzo? While I might think the review was fake, I certainly wouldn't be jumping all over either one of them. Why? Because they have good reputations. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

 

I've been roundly criticized for keeping tabs on Anthony and Nick, yet I heard no one complain when I investigated Jason Reardone and the whole flap with him. In this case, I came down on the side of the escort and it effectively ended the controversy. I bore Jason no ill will and was glad to see that he was in the right.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

Cool, and your experience so far you have found enjoyable???

[Boston Guy]

>The scenario as you describe it

>is realistic. Why?

>Because Anthony already has a

>bad reputation to begin with.

> It makes it easy

>to believe that the positive

>reviews are phonies, most particularly

>when there are glaring inconsistencies,

>such as in his latest

>review. As ye sow,

>so shall ye reap.

 

So what you're saying, then, is that because you believe you know the 'truth' about this guy -- even though you have never met him -- you will discount and disbelieve every review that contradicts your belief and will feel free to call those reviews phonies and to disparaging him -- all without any proof whatsoever that the reviews are (a) phony or (b) submitted by anyone connected with AH?

 

Please understand I'm not trying to put you down. From my perspective, I think your heart is in the right place -- you're trying to help people avoid being ripped off.

 

But when activities begin to take the form of a religious crusade (as ye sow, so shall ye reap) and when any information that might contradict currently held beliefs is discounted or disparaged, the interests of justice start yielding to other passions. As I've pointed out before, it's simply too easy to manipulate the review process to make it the basis on which to try to completely and continually and publicly demonize someone.

 

In a sense, you're playing right into people's hands. If someone didn't like AH, all he would have to do fan the fuel of your fires is keep submitting periodic false reviews for him, with an occasional negative one. AH would have no defense and you would have no mercy.

 

>I've spoken personally with one

>of the guys Anthony ripped

>off AND since I now

>have access to a Western

>Union terminal, I was able

>to verify that money was

>sent to and received by

>Anthony Holloway under his real

>name. (Yes, I know

>it, no I won't tell

>you)

>

 

I understand that and I believe you. But it seems a little odd to me that this guy never participated in any of the thousands of conversations that have gone on here on AH. AH told me that he had a stalker. Just for a moment, consider the possibility that this guy was a stalker and sent money to himself under AH's name and then went and picked it up. You don't need an ID to pick up money under Western Union (precisely because it's a lifeline for people who have had wallets and purses stolen) -- only the right confirmation number and code.

 

What if this is actually what happened? And the guy posted here that he was ripped off and talked to you. You would have been using this as a basis for persecuting unmercifully an innocent man for a very long time now.

 

Perhaps you are thinking "Why would a client want to go to the trouble of screwing AH this way?" Well, probably one wouldn't. And probably his story is true. But we don't know that and you don't know that. All you have is his story. And, trust me, I've heard of clients doing far worse to escorts, especially escorts who have spurned them.

 

Again, please understand where I'm coming from: I'm not suggesting that this is what did happen. AH could be a thief and he could have ripped guys off. I don't have that information and I don't know and I've tried to keep saying that. The only information I have is that a few months ago my series of interactions with him were such that I was given no reason at all to be suspicious of him, even though it was my suspicion that led me to him and I was on the lookout for suspicious things all through the encounter.

 

My whole point here, which I've made so many times now everyone must be tired of it, is that the standard of proof here and the quality of the evidence is really, really low. If someone comes on this board and says "I personally was ripped off" and it's someone we know, as opposed to someone who just shows up for that purpose, then each of us can decide how to handle that information. And if there are multiple reviews posted on the review side, then viewers who read those and the escort's responses can make up their own mind there.

 

But for people here to decide to persecute and prosecute an escort (or a client!) on the basis of such poor evidence just doesn't seem right.

 

Our courts have a very higher standard of proof that they apply to evidence. Why? Because using a lesser standard can allow an innocent person to be greatly harmed in a mistaken attempt to apply justice and, as a society, we have decided that it is a greater evil to harm an innocent man than to allow a guilty one to go free.

[Guest pickwick]

>So what you're saying, then, is

>that because you believe you

>know the 'truth' about this

>guy -- even though you

>have never met him --

>you will discount and disbelieve

>every review that contradicts your

>belief and will feel free

>to call those reviews phonies

>and to disparaging him --

>all without any proof whatsoever

>that the reviews are (a)

>phony or (b) submitted by

>anyone connected with AH?

 

 

I have to jump in here. BofN and several others have already pointed out the glaring inconsistency in the review under discussion. For you to repeat over and over again that there is no proof that the review is phony is simply wrong. There is, and it has been mentioned by several people now.

 

>But when activities begin to take

>the form of a religious

>crusade (as ye sow, so

>shall ye reap)

 

Come on! This is too farfetched!

 

>any information that might contradict

>currently held beliefs is discounted

>or disparaged,

 

What information? What information do you have to suggest that the conclusions of BofN and the others are incorrect?

 

>the interests of

>justice start yielding to other

>passions. As I've pointed

>out before, it's simply too

>easy to manipulate the review

>process to make it the

>basis on which to try

>to completely and continually and

>publicly demonize someone.

 

 

Excuse me, but it is manipulation of the review process that people are complaining about here. That is the whole point of this thread. See the title?

 

 

>In a sense, you're playing right

>into people's hands. If

>someone didn't like AH, all

>he would have to do

>fan the fuel of your

>fires is keep submitting periodic

>false reviews for him, with

>an occasional negative one.

>AH would have no defense

>and you would have no

>mercy.

>

 

 

>Perhaps you are thinking "Why would

>a client want to go

>to the trouble of screwing

>AH this way?" Well,

>probably one wouldn't. And

>probably his story is true.

> But we don't know

>that and you don't know

>that. All you have

>is his story. And,

>trust me, I've heard of

>clients doing far worse to

>escorts, especially escorts who have

>spurned them.

 

 

I'm sorry, but this "Spy Who Came in From the Cold" scenario of yours, in which someone cleverly plants information about an enemy with the intention that it be discovered as false so discredit him, is too much for me.

 

You keep chiding others for making allegations without the quantum of evidence that you consider sufficient. Where is the evidence to support this elaborate theory that you keep posting? Do you have any, other than that you have "heard of" clients doing bad things to other escorts?

 

 

>

>Again, please understand where I'm coming

>from: I'm not suggesting

>that this is what did

>happen. AH could be

>a thief and he could

>have ripped guys off.

>I don't have that information

>and I don't know and

>I've tried to keep saying

>that. The only information

>I have is that a

>few months ago my series

>of interactions with him were

>such that I was given

>no reason at all to

>be suspicious of him, even

>though it was my suspicion

>that led me to him

>and I was on the

>lookout for suspicious things all

>through the encounter.

>

 

 

I'm sorry, but this isn't the first time you've come up with what seems a very farfetched theory in order to defend an escort who has been called on some rather nasty behavior by credible people. I find it very difficult to understand why you keep doing this. I can understand that some escorts could feel they have an interest in stifling discussion of AH and people like him, since that could be bad for their business. I really do not understand your actions, however.

 

 

>

>Our courts have a very higher

>standard of proof that they

>apply to evidence. Why?

> Because using a lesser

>standard can allow an innocent

>person to be greatly harmed

>in a mistaken attempt to

>apply justice and, as a

>society, we have decided that

>it is a greater evil

>to harm an innocent man

>than to allow a guilty

>one to go free.

 

I think these comments are really inappropriate. We are talking about the reputation of a prostitute, not Reuben "Hurricane" Carter. And even so he is not being threatened with the kind of sanctions for which our system imposes a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He is not even being put out of business. As the reviews and other comments seem to show, he continues to do business in a variety of ways. I think BofN should be commended for continuing to bring this fellow's activities to the attention of people who might be harmed by him.

[Boston Guy]

>

>I think these comments are really

>inappropriate. We are talking

>about the reputation of a

>prostitute, not Reuben "Hurricane"

>Carter. And even so

>he is not being threatened

>with the kind of sanctions

>for which our system imposes

>a burden of proof beyond

>a reasonable doubt. He

>is not even being put

>out of business. As

>the reviews and other comments

>seem to show, he continues

>to do business in a

>variety of ways. I

>think BofN should be commended

>for continuing to bring this

>fellow's activities to the attention

>of people who might be

>harmed by him.

 

I think that perhaps the most revealing comment you made was the one quoted in the second line above: "We're talking about the reputation of a prostitute...".

 

People here, including yourself, oftern roll out the 'prostitute' word when they wish to refer to escorts in a disparaging way. I prefer to think that we all begin equal and that we simply talking about the reputation of a 'person' here. That someone is an escort does not mean his reputation is not worth caring about or treating with the same level of respect and care we would apply to anyone else.

 

As far as I'm concerned the quality of the evidence used here is highly suspicious and no basis upon which to so continuously demean someone's reputation, especially without personal experience.

 

And nothing you have said has given my any reason whatsoever to question that belief.

 

BofN has the right to make whatever points he wants. So do you.

 

But so do I.

[+ Lucky]

RE: A GLOWING REVIEW FOR BOSTON GUY

 

Boston Guy, keep making your point. I am glad there is your reassoned thinking here.

[Guest WetDream]

RE: A GLOWING REVIEW FOR BOSTON GUY

 

Ditto. But this seems to be one of those issues that cannot be resolved.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

BG,

 

Almost always, you manage to capture my view on so many issues, but much more eloquently...

 

Many times I hold back and wait for your reasoned responses, knowing that you'll make the point more effectively than I.

 

Of course there are those rare times on minor issues when you are wrong. :-) (This is not one of them.)

[Guest pickwick]

>People here, including yourself, oftern roll

>out the 'prostitute' word when

>they wish to refer to

>escorts in a disparaging way.

 

Whether there is any disparagement depends on whether you think there is something wrong with being a prostitute. I take it you do not dispute my statement that the reputation of a prostitute is in fact what we are discussing.

 

 

> I prefer to think

>that we all begin equal

>and that we simply talking

>about the reputation of a

>'person' here. That someone

>is an escort does not

>mean his reputation is not

>worth caring about or treating

>with the same level of

>respect and care we would

>apply to anyone else.

>

 

In your last post you gave us an essay on justice that might be appropriate if we were discussing the Hurricane Carter case or the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, but which I believe is absurdly out of place when the subject of the discussion is something as trivial as whether a prostitute sometimes stiffs his clients. To imply that a grave injustice is taking place here is quite ridiculous. I implore you to try to keep some sense of proportion.

 

>And nothing you have said has

>given my any reason whatsoever

>to question that belief.

 

As others have repeatedly pointed out, the review that is the subject of this thread does contain substantial inconsistencies that make its authenticity suspect. I commend them for bringing this to the attention of readers here. I have yet to see you or any of their other critics come up with anything to refute this.

[+ Lucky]

RE: A GLOWING PROFILE

 

Sometimes it would help to know who is the person expressing the opinion, so I look to the profiles of the poster. Interesting that many have nothing to say about themselves, but lots to say about others.

[Guest pickwick]

RE: A GLOWING PROFILE

 

>Sometimes it would help to know

>who is the person expressing

>the opinion, so I look

>to the profiles of the

>poster. Interesting that many have

>nothing to say about themselves,

>but lots to say about

>others.

 

If you agree with BG that the reviews on this site are produced by a bunch of diabolical and malicious conspirators, then it shouldn't surprise you that people don't want to give any information about themselves. Who knows what these devils might do with it?

 

I would find your posts in this thread more interesting if they actually had something to say about the subject of the thread. Instead, they seem to contain nothing but insults directed at posters with whom you disagree. Do you have any quarrel with the points that have been made by those who question the authenticity of the review? If so, what is it? If not, what are you doing here?

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Pickwick,

 

It seems to me that a person's honor and personal reputation are what is being discussed here. It is just as important to those individuals at the lowest stations in life as it is to those at the top, and to everyone else in-between.

 

It would seem to me that you hold the honor and reputation of boxers and convicted practitioners of high treason on a loftier plane that that of a 'prostitute'. I infer from that a relative bias on your part against 'prostitutes' and in favor of convicted turncoats. In the end all any of us have is our personal honor and reputation -- that 's all we take to the grave. And I think it's just as important to a prostitute as it is to anyone else -- you may not. What does that say about you and me?

[BewareofNick]

>So what you're saying, then, is

>that because you believe you

>know the 'truth' about this

>guy -- even though you

>have never met him --

>you will discount and disbelieve

>every review that contradicts your

>belief and will feel free

>to call those reviews phonies

>and to disparaging him --

>all without any proof whatsoever

>that the reviews are (a)

>phony or (b) submitted by

>anyone connected with AH?

 

 

No, I am discounting reviews that have glaring inconsistencies in them, as well as the 'hit an run' one or two posters, especially the one claiming to be a neurosurgeon, yet couldn't even construct a sentence. This is not being done without thought.

 

>Please understand I'm not trying to

>put you down. From

>my perspective, I think your

>heart is in the right

>place -- you're trying to

>help people avoid being ripped

>off.

 

I'm Batman.

 

>But when activities begin to take

>the form of a religious

>crusade (as ye sow, so

>shall ye reap) and when

>any information that might contradict

>currently held beliefs is discounted

>or disparaged, the interests of

>justice start yielding to other

>passions. As I've pointed

>out before, it's simply too

>easy to manipulate the review

>process to make it the

>basis on which to try

>to completely and continually and

>publicly demonize someone.

 

Not at all. If and when you submit a review on AH, you won't hear me bitching about it. The religious quote was used to make a point. No other meaning was intended or should be inferred.

 

>I understand that and I believe

>you. But it seems

>a little odd to me

>that this guy never participated

>in any of the thousands

>of conversations that have gone

>on here on AH.

 

Actually, he has indeed.

 

>AH told me that he

>had a stalker.

 

Of course he does. It's a convenient blanket explanation for all the bad reviews.

 

 

Just

>for a moment, consider the

>possibility that this guy was

>a stalker and sent money

>to himself under AH's name

>and then went and picked

>it up. You don't

>need an ID to pick

>up money under Western Union

>(precisely because it's a lifeline

>for people who have had

>wallets and purses stolen) --

>only the right confirmation number

>and code.

 

No, you have to have proper ID, along with the confirmation number.

 

 

>Our courts have a very higher

>standard of proof that they

>apply to evidence. Why?

> Because using a lesser

>standard can allow an innocent

>person to be greatly harmed

>in a mistaken attempt to

>apply justice and, as a

>society, we have decided that

>it is a greater evil

>to harm an innocent man

>than to allow a guilty

>one to go free.

 

 

True enough, but the glaring inconsistencies and the other things that have cropped up, such as the hit and run posters, would be enough to create 'reasonable doubt.'

[MiamiLooker]

Unless every review stating this guy stole money is in question, I don't understand the direction of this thread. If just one of these reviews is true, he belongs in jail. To argue otherwise is sort of like saying Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't such a bad guy because he didn't torture and eat EVERYONE he met.

[Guest pickwick]

>It would seem to me that

>you hold the honor and

>reputation of boxers and convicted

>practitioners of high treason on

>a loftier plane that that

>of a 'prostitute'. I

>infer from that a relative

>bias on your part against

>'prostitutes' and in favor of

>convicted turncoats. In the

>end all any of us

>have is our personal honor

>and reputation -- that 's

>all we take to the

>grave. And I think it's

>just as important to a

>prostitute as it is to

>anyone else -- you may

>not. What does that

>say about you and me?

 

 

What it says about you is that you have a problem with your memory. You don't seem to remember that what was at stake in the Carter and Rosenberg cases to which I referred was a hell of a lot more than anyone's "reputation." Carter was sent to prison on the basis of the evidence presented at his trial. The Rosenbergs were executed. As I pointed out, AH is threatened with no such penalties. He hasn't even been put out of business. To imply as BG did that people who question the authenticity of reviews here should be held to the same standard as the prosecutor in a criminal trial is beyond ridiculous. There is nothing at stake here that justifies it.

 

What it says about me is that I am like the vast majority of our fellow citizens. Like them I do not consider the reputations of prostitutes to be of the same importance as those of people in many other professions, people who practice their professions under their own names and who provide services that are far more important than an hour's entertainment. As BG recently observed in another thread, we who participate in this message board should not deceive ourselves into thinking that the point of view that prevails here is representative of that of most people in our society. It isn't.

 

There is also something to be said about those who repeatedly try to minimize or dismiss evidence that an escort has cheated his clients. And it isn't something good. I support the comments of Miamilooker in post #65.

[Guest WetDream]

RE: Reasonable Doubt

 

"True enough, but the glaring inconsistencies and the other things that have cropped up, such as the hit and run posters, would be enough to create 'reasonable doubt.'"

 

But "reasonable doubt" is enough to win a case. Isn't that the whole basis of BG's argument?

 

One of the escorts reviewed today got a second glowing review. The repeated phrases in the review and the description of the client gave me a "reasonable doubt" that these were written by two different people. I will now have to use my own personal judgment whether or not to hire this escort. I have to use my own personal judgment on whether or not to hire ANY escort reviewed on this site.

 

Would I take a chance on AH? No. Do I believe that he is capable of performing well with some clients? Yes. Do I think that some of his reviews are false? Yes. Do I think he is worthy of a jihad? No. Do I think that everyone has the right to exress his opinion on this subject? Yes. Do I think that reasoned arguments pro and con will change anyone's mind? No. Do I hope that discussion of AH can be tabled until his next review is published? Yes.

[+ Lucky]

RE: A GLOWING PROFILE

 

Have you read my post above, about those NAZI type idiots determined to take down any escort they don't like? And why can't you provide any info about yourself?

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Pick,

 

"What it says about me is that I am like the vast majority of our fellow citizens. Like them [/b]I do not consider the reputations of prostitutes to be of the same importance as those of people in many other professions[/b], people who practice their professions under their own names and who provide services that are far more important than an hour's entertainment."

 

It is clear from your own words that you judge people more by their station in life and the trappings that go with it than by their innate character. I’m sure many share your values for the assessment of your fellow man. I hope it is not the majority -- I don’t believe it is.

 

My experience has been that I have observed people of low character at all classes and stations in roughly the same proportion. (The same can be said for high character too.) How can our experiences be so different? Go figure…

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Pick,

 

"What it says about me is that I am like the vast majority of our fellow citizens. Like them I do not consider the reputations of prostitutes to be of the same importance as those of people in many other professions, people who practice their professions under their own names and who provide services that are far more important than an hour's entertainment."

 

It is clear from your own words that you judge people more by their station in life and the trappings that go with it than by their innate character. I’m sure many share your values for the assessment of your fellow man. I hope it is not the majority -- I don’t believe it is.

 

My experience has been that I have observed people of low character at all classes and stations in roughly the same proportion. (The same can be said for high character too.) How can our experiences be so different? Go figure…

[Guest pickwick]

You obviously want to move this discussion away from the issue of AH's treatment of his clients, since you have no way to refute what has been said about that by a number of people. Instead you want to find other ways to denigrate those who

have criticized him. I recall that you did the same thing in the aftermath of the revelations that Sean had been taping his clients without their knowledge. You couldn't justify what he had done, but you could and did lash out at people who continued to refer to it, comparing them to a pack of dogs.

 

I don't know whether you keep doing this because you have some financial interest in escorts or whether the reason is something else. I do know that I'm not going to let you characterize me as some sort of latter-day McCarthy simply because I object to people who steal.

[Boston Guy]

>

>I don't know whether you keep

>doing this because you have

>some financial interest in escorts

>or whether the reason is

>something else. I do

>know that I'm not going

>to let you characterize me

>as some sort of latter-day

>McCarthy simply because I object

>to people who steal.

 

I had decided not to re-enter this thread. I've made my opinion clear. But your comments above are outrageous.

 

I will take this opportunity to say once again that no matter what you think AH has done, you have not one shred of credible proof. I will not resort to ad hominem attacks, but I will say that the hardness of your posts, your willingness to jump on and support any attack against any escort at any time, and your willingness to condemn people on the basis of flimsy, unverifiable reports does lead one to question not only your motives but also your character.

 

To suggest that TY has financial interests in escorts is outrageous. Fortunately, he's been posting here for far too long for people to fall for that kind of trick.

 

For the very first time, I feel pity for you.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>You obviously want to move this

>discussion away from the issue

>of AH's treatment of his

>clients, since you have no

>way to refute what has

>been said about that by

>a number of people.

 

No, if that were my intent I would have engaged many others. I just disagreed with your position on the importance of treating people with the same respect whatever their occupation or station in life.

 

>Instead you want to find

>other ways to denigrate those

>who

>have criticized him.

 

Pick, I only refer you to your own words and make some observations, based on my inferences, about both of us.

 

I recall

>that you did the same

>thing in the aftermath of

>the revelations that Sean had

>been taping his clients without

>their knowledge.

 

Your recall is quite good I see. I didn't know you were here way back when. My recall is that you moved into the nieghborhood 4-6 months ago, more or less. The Sean episode was over a year ago! However, you probably wouldn't be the first long-time-lurker around here. (Trying to help you out a little on this.) Then again maybe you do not recall the episode but confuse your recreational reading of the archives with a recall of being at the scene. (more help.)

 

>You couldn't

>justify what he had done,

 

We agree... I couldn't and wouldn't -- it wasn't justifiable in my view.

 

>but you could and did

>lash out at people who

>continued to refer to it,

>comparing them to a pack

>of dogs.

>

I did lash out at the mob mentality fomented by one of your 'friends', that's true -- and I'd do it again. I refer any an all interested in the episode to review the archives. I find it most instructive about the true nature of some of us -- me included.

 

>I don't know whether you keep

>doing this because you have

>some financial interest in escorts

>or whether the reason is

>something else.

 

Pick, when you find yourself on the weak end of a discussion you invariable lash out with ad hominum attacks. In fact I believe your very first comment to me was an ad hominum attack on me in a response to a post by BG -- I had never addressed you or posted about you before that, as I recall.

 

I do

>know that I'm not going

>to let you characterize me

>as some sort of latter-day

>McCarthy simply because I object

>to people who steal.

 

Pick, I didn't call you names. I simply held your words up to you and made a blatantly obvious inference -- no stretch required at all -- and stated I had a different perspective for judging the honor and reputation of people. If you were offended then you might want to revise your position on assessing the honor and reputation of people or state it more carefully so that it not so clearly misunderstood.

[Guest pickwick]

>I had decided not to re-enter

>this thread. I've made

>my opinion clear. But

>your comments above are outrageous.

>

 

I think they are far less outrageous than your friend TY's accusation that I support convicted traitors. For some strange reason that kind of slander does not seem to bother you. I wonder why.

 

>

>I will take this opportunity to

>say once again that no

>matter what you think AH

>has done, you have not

>one shred of credible proof.

> I will not resort

>to ad hominem attacks, but

>I will say that the

>hardness of your posts, your

>willingness to jump on and

>support any attack against any

>escort at any time, and

>your willingness to condemn people

>on the basis of flimsy,

>unverifiable reports does lead one

>to question not only your

>motives but also your character.

>

 

Given the very specific claims that BofN has posted here about his investigation into this matter your comments above that there is "not one shred of credible proof" and only "flimsy, unverifiable reports" simply amount to calling him a liar. You do not seem to have the courage to come right out and say it, but that is what you are doing. There is no way that what he has said and what you have said can BOTH be true. Based on his record on this message board, if it comes to a choice between believing him and believing you, I'll take him.

 

>To suggest that TY has financial

>interests in escorts is outrageous.

> Fortunately, he's been posting

>here for far too long

>for people to fall for

>that kind of trick.

 

I don't know anything about your sidekick TY or about you. I prefer not to indulge in the kind of elaborate conspiracy theories that you have posted in this thread. I can only say that both of you seem to bend over backwards to defend escorts about whom there is credible evidence of wrongdoing. I do not know why you do this, but I really can think of no good reason for it.

 

>For the very first time, I

>feel pity for you.

 

Please indulge in whatever feelings you enjoy. But do not expect me to refrain from pointing out that you and your pal are attacking me in order to divert attention from the allegations against an escort. Again, I wonder why.