A GLOWING REVIEW FOR ANTHONY HOLLOWAY

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Pick,

 

There are those occasions when the prudent action is to sit down and be quiet... you have made your points -- only too well. It might have been better today to have made fewer of them.

[Guest pickwick]

>No, if that were my intent

>I would have engaged many

>others.

 

No, I think you concentrated on me because that is much easier than taking on everyone who has expressed a similar opinion.

 

>>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.

>

 

Your "observation and inference" that I support "convicted turncoats" is slanderous.

 

>I did lash out at the

>mob mentality fomented by one

>of your 'friends', that's true

>-- and I'd do it

>again.

 

 

I see that my recollection of the episode, which you questioned above, is quite accurate.

 

>Pick, when you find yourself on

>the weak end of a

>discussion you invariable lash out

>with ad hominum attacks.

 

And when you get excited you lose command of English. I really can't think of anything I have ever said about anyone that is worse than your comment linking me with traitors. I can think of several occasions on which you have resorted to personal attacks on those who disagree with you, of which this is merely the most recent. Do I recall that you promised to stop doing that some months ago, or does my memory fail me in that regard?

 

 

>Pick, I didn't call you names.

>I simply held your words

>up to you and made

>a blatantly obvious inference --

 

 

Your "inference" that I support traitors is the result of a train of thought so convoluted that cosmic string theory is a simple matter in comparison. The only thing blatantly obvious here is your desire to attack me in order to deflect attention from the subject of this thread.

[Guest pickwick]

>Pick,

>

>There are those occasions when the

>prudent action is to sit

>down and be quiet... you

>have made your points --

>only too well. It

>might have been better today

>to have made fewer of

>them.

 

 

Someday you must try following your own advice. I don't advise anyone to hold his breath waiting for that to happen.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Pick,

 

In addition to ad hominum attacks when in tight corners, you also resort obfuscation.

 

To suggest that I accused you of or inferred that 'you support traitors' is just that -- obfuscation.

 

My comment made the point that you give greater importance to the honor and reputation of convicted turncoats than prostitutes -- not that you support them. This CONTEXT is VERY CLEAR as is seen from the actual comment.

 

'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. "

 

This so-called attack you are trying to conjure up just did not happen, try as you will to revise short-term history. Maybe it seems that way to you, if so I'm concerned for your well being.

 

I advise that you seek out a long-time-ago poster craigrc to lecture you on the practice of putting words in other people's mouths. He held strong views against that as I recall. Like old soliders, I'm sure he hasn't died -- just faded...

[Guest pickwick]

>I infer

>from that a relative bias

>on your part against 'prostitutes'

>and in favor of convicted

>turncoats.

 

 

These are your words, and the only person who put them in your mouth is you. Trying to weasel out by pretending that their plain meaning is something other than it is hardly suits you. If you lack the courage to stand by your accusations then you shouldn't make them in the first place.

[BewareofNick]

>Cool, and your experience so far

>you have found enjoyable???

 

 

So far, most of them have been, yes. Several years ago, I allowed myself to be ripped off twice, but nothing recent.

[+ Lucky]

RE: End of Thread

 

I will join Boston Guy in leaving this thread, but I would rather mmet AH at a party than Pickwick anywhere.

[Guest pickwick]

RE: End of Thread

 

>I will join Boston Guy in

>leaving this thread, but I

>would rather mmet AH at

>a party than Pickwick anywhere.

>

 

I hope you get your wish.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

You know what,

 

 

In respect and regards to all that is going on around us, can you for once shut your damn trap and quit hurling your words around and be at peace. Is that too much to ask of you?????

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

And you wonder why I made a post of how I was tired of hearing this discussion, Jesus H Christ. You boys feed off of this crap dont ya

[Guest delhi]

>And you wonder why I made

>a post of how I

>was tired of hearing this

>discussion, Jesus H Christ. You

>boys feed off of this

>crap dont ya

 

 

If you're so tired of hearing about this what the hell do you keep coming back here for? Is somebody making you do it? Go spend your time on the boards you care about and don't tell the rest of us what we can care about or talk about.

[BewareofNick]

>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.

 

Thank you for the support. In all the vitriol that has been spouted here, I've never heard BG once address the inconsistencies in the reviews; the very suspect one shot posters who never particiapte in any other threads; or the fact that the AOL or other e-mail addresses of these posters disappear very quickly after the controversy has subsided.

 

I have no problem with BG saying he had a good time with AH. He quite possibly did. I look forward to reading the review. (It has been submitted, correct?)

 

But it still doesn't eliminate that fact that fake reviews have been posted here; that I have personally talked with at least one of his alledged victims; that one of the alledged victims was rated as consistently credible by Hooboy.

 

And as I point out again, no one had a problem or questioned my veracity when I investigated Jason Reardone and the results came out in Jason's favor. Jason is a good guy and by all accounts a great escort. The same cannot be said of Anthony. One thing I am learning though is that if I come down on the side of the escort, I'm a good guy, but if I come down against them, I must be a stalker and a freak.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

delhi,,, bite me

[Guest pickwick]

>Thank you for

>the support.

 

You're welcome. :-)

 

>One

>thing I am learning though

>is that if I come

>down on the side of

>the escort, I'm a good

>guy, but if I come

>down against them, I must

>be a stalker and a

>freak.

 

One thing anyone learns who follows this message board for a few weeks is that there is a small group of people who will attack anyone who says anything negative about any escort. Some of the attacks are crude and childish and some are more sophisticated but all have the same purpose, which is to stifle any discussion of the seamier side of this business. Some of the people involved clearly have a financial interest in doing that and some may have but prefer to keep quiet about it. Those of us who want this site to remain a source of credible information for consumers owe you our thanks for your many efforts.

[Boston Guy]

>One thing anyone learns who follows

>this message board for a

>few weeks is that there

>is a small group of

>people who will attack anyone

>who says anything negative about

>any escort. Some of

>the attacks are crude and

>childish and some are more

>sophisticated but all have the

>same purpose, which is to

>stifle any discussion of the

>seamier side of this business.

> Some of the people

>involved clearly have a financial

>interest in doing that and

>some may have but prefer

>to keep quiet about it.

> Those of us who

>want this site to remain

>a source of credible information

>for consumers owe you our

>thanks for your many efforts.

>

 

Once again you confuse making one's opinions known with "stifling any discussion of the seamier side of this business". It seems that when you make your opinion known, it's ok. But when others do it, it is stifling discussion. This is not now and never will be acceptable. Are you so unsure of your position you must resort to childish tactics?

 

And once again you make veiled references to "financial interests", as you did in reference to Tampa Yankee yesterday. Everyone knows that the escorts have a financial interest in their business, since that's the nature of any business. There's nothing hidden or wrong about that at all. But if you are trying to say that other people have a financial interest in what is said here, state what you believe.

 

If you don't like what others say or believe, fine. You're free to make your points. But using these tactics where you try to accuse other people of having ulterior motives or of trying to "stifle" speech is childish.

[Guest pickwick]

>Once again you confuse making one's

>opinions known with "stifling any

>discussion of the seamier side

>of this business". It

>seems that when you make

>your opinion known, it's ok.

> But when others do

>it, it is stifling discussion.

 

But the "opinions" that you and a couple of others here have expressed are quite simply that the rest of us should stop saying what we are saying. To characterize that as an attempt to stifle discussion is no more than accurate. I can quote examples from your posts if you wish.

 

 

> This is not now

>and never will be acceptable.

> Are you so unsure

>of your position you must

>resort to childish tactics?

 

I am quite sure that personal attacks like the one in your sentence above have been and will continue to be used to accomplish your purpose of discouraging discussions like this. Perhaps after a few dozen more exchanges you will realize that your tactics aren't going to work.

 

 

>And once again you make veiled

>references to "financial interests", as

>you did in reference to

>Tampa Yankee yesterday. Everyone

>knows that the escorts have

>a financial interest in their

>business, since that's the nature

>of any business. There's

>nothing hidden or wrong about

>But

>if you are trying to

>say that other people have

>a financial interest in what

>is said here, state what

>you believe.

 

What I stated yesterday is that I am not sure whether or not others have such an interest. You stated previously that you know of instances in which escorts have been attacked for no other reason than spite, although you cited no examples. I have always found such motives hard to fathom. Financial gain is a motive I find easier to understand.

 

 

>If you don't like what others

>say or believe, fine.

>You're free to make your

>points. But using these

>tactics where you try to

>accuse other people of having

>ulterior motives or of trying

>to "stifle" speech is childish.

 

Given the elaborate conspiracy theories you have posted here to cast doubt on what BofN and others have said, you are in no position to criticize anyone for adverting to "ulterior motives." Accusing people of sending false Western Union transfers? That's my idea of childish.

[Boston Guy]

> Thank you for

>the support. In all

>the vitriol that has been

>spouted here, I've never heard

>BG once address the inconsistencies

>in the reviews; the very

>suspect one shot posters who

>never particiapte in any other

>threads; or the fact that

>the AOL or other e-mail

>addresses of these posters disappear

>very quickly after the controversy

>has subsided.

>

>I have no problem with BG

>saying he had a good

>time with AH. He

>quite possibly did. I

>look forward to reading the

>review. (It has been

>submitted, correct?)

>

>But it still doesn't eliminate that

>fact that fake reviews have

>been posted here; that

>I have personally talked with

>at least one of his

>alledged victims; that one of

>the alledged victims was rated

>as consistently credible by Hooboy.

>

>

>And as I point out again,

>no one had a problem

>or questioned my veracity when

>I investigated Jason Reardone and

>the results came out in

>Jason's favor. Jason is

>a good guy and by

>all accounts a great escort.

> The same cannot be

>said of Anthony. One

>thing I am learning though

>is that if I come

>down on the side of

>the escort, I'm a good

>guy, but if I come

>down against them, I must

>be a stalker and a

>freak.

 

BofN:

 

This will be long -- sorry.

 

First, let make something clear, as I've tried to do before. I'm not attacking you, I'm not attacking your motives, I'm not suggesting you have some kind of ulterior motive, and I think your heart is in the right place. We differ substantially on the conclusions we draw from the same set of observations, but I respect that you are trying to do what you think is the right thing.

 

Second, I agree with you that there seem to be fake reviews, reviews with lots of inconsistencies, reviews posted by one-shot wonders, whose email addresses can disappear immediately, etc., etc. But you make my point: the reviews are flawed.

 

It seems that there are a lot of people who like the reviews and people who feel that they have gained good information from them, information that has helped them hire good escorts and avoid others. If that's true, it's great. I have never suggested the reviews be eliminated.

 

For myself, I don't like them and don't read them, unless there is some controversy here where I need to read the reviews in question in order to understand what people are saying. At best, I would describe them as a kind of sordid entertainment instead of real information, but that probably has a lot to do with my strong natural dislike for the process of kissing-and-telling. I've made that point known here many times over the last two years and don't need to do so again. The tabloid press is popular and has its proponents; I'm not one of them but that doesn't mean it should be eliminated.

 

But I do think there is a difference between allowing questionable reviews to be published together as a group, where anyone can view them, and taking that information to a new height in the Message Center and using it to conduct an ongoing campaign designed to completely demolish a person's reputation.

 

Pickwick doesn't like it when I suggest that there could be any number of reasons why someone might submit false positive or false negative reviews for an escort; I don't care that he doesn't like it, and I believe that not only can people have a motive to submit false reviews, but that it's also likely that people have done so.

 

When I've discussed the reviews with escorts I know, they pretty much all say that the process is easily manipulated, for good or bad. Consequently, I get very uncomfortable when information that comes from very questionable reviews is stated over and over again, so as to become fact, in an attempt to either destroy a reputation or even simply destroy an individual's ability to conduct his business.

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems as if you believe that you have incontrovertible evidence, on the basis of your conversation with another person, that AH cheated him. It also seems that you believe that whenever a positive review for AH (or other escorts) shows up with inconsistencies or inaccuracies, that can be taken an evidence that the escort is trying to manipulate the process. Finally, it seems that, given this, you believe it's reasonable -- even a good thing -- to warn other clients of this person's criminal or suspect nature.

 

If that isn't a good summary of what you believe, then I apologize for I do not want to misrepresent you.

 

What I believe is that the very fact that the reviews are flawed should lead us to consider all of the information presented there -- positive and negative -- to be so suspect that it should be taken into consideration only with all of the other reviews and only then with a large grain of salt. It seems to me not fair to take any part of the reviews as bedrock truth (unless the information comes from a known, trusted, long-time poster here, like Traveller) and to use that information as the basis of a campaign against the escort in question.

 

Before I started meeting escorts, I would never have believed that there were such things as guys stalking escorts, getting furious with escorts and promising to "get even with you" or anything like that at all. But I've heard so many things now from guys I know and believe that my eyes are open much wider. (Some day, perhaps I should relate the story of the client who drugged an escort in LA he was stalking and kept him drugged in SFO for a week.)

 

So it's not at all hard for me to believe that disgruntled clients are submitting false negative reviews or that "fans" (to use Regulation's word) are submitting false positive reviews or that escorts are manipulating the process to help themselves or hurt the competition. And I wouldn't find it far-fetched to find out that the guy who claimed to wire money to AH was conducting a smear campaign. I admit it's unlikely and I'm not even really suggesting it as a possibility. But, on the other hand, who would be so stupid as to wire money to someone they never met?

 

But the real point is that when we get right down to it, we really don't know what the truth is. It can be manipulated so many ways here that we really, truly don't know what the truth is.

 

And so, after holding my tongue for a long time, I finally felt that I had to speak out. I met AH and he was respectful and decent throughout the process. That's the only thing I know. All of the other reviews could be false or they could all be true. He could have ripped off clients, or he could have a stalker out to ruin his reputation, or both could be true. None of us know for sure.

 

And since we don't know, I felt I had to speak up precisely to make the point that people were really slamming him on the basis of information that I see as being highly suspect. You weren't the only one, by far, and other posters here that I'm often in agreement with were saying things that I thought were unjustified.

 

It hasn't been a popular stance to take. But if I have at all helped to raise the level of suspicion that we apply to the reviews, both good and bad, then perhaps it will have been worth it.

 

Pickwick keeps saying that I'm trying to stifle dialog. I'm not and I don't think I could stifle you, even if I wanted to, which I don't. Healthy dialogs often end up bringing the truth to light, even if they can sometimes seem never-ending.

 

Finally, in closing, I want to say again that I don't see you as the enemy. You're not my enemy -- you're someone who holds a well-considered belief in a position that you think is well-founded and worth holding. I come to a different conclusion when looking at the same evidence. That's all. And I encourage you to continue posting whatever you think you should.

[Guest AnthonyHolloway]

First of all, alot of you are just jealous of guys that just won't hook up with you for ANY AMOUNT of money.

I am a nice person. I am in college, I model, and I have real job, and i still make time to do porn and travel alot too.

I have not and would not EVER meet or hook up with a client I was not into or did not feel comfortable with.

Who the fuck would want to have sex with someone who smellls and doesnt take showers. I know I would not. I wouldnt for a million dollars. I don't do porn or escort because I need too..

I do it cause I like fun, I like to show off, and I like meeting people. So to all of you that do nothing but talk shit about others SCREW YOU once again. You guys must have nothing better to do than try and harrass and constantly trash other people.

You are the sad ones.

And also you are the ones that will never be loved or even know how to love anyone cause your so unhappy with yourselves.

FROM ME

P.S. Oh yes. I did do Chi Chi Larues web site LIVE AND RAW.

Did you guys like?

Or you going to trash that too? And also any reviews that are posted of me are obviously true. HOOBOY checks up on every review to see if they are true or not and in my case since all you assholes talk shit he probably checks up on my reviews credibility even more. You guys are just jealous and really need to get lives, take showers, and hit the gym. :0

YOU WISH YOU COULD BE ME!! :0

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

BewareofNIck

 

I hope you did not take my comments as any indictment of your work on this board. I consider your contributions to be a public service and I pay heed to all the facts and much of the oberservations and assessments you contribute. And I make judgments accordingly about whether or not I will hire someone.

 

But I also take BG's point that if someone wanted to go to the effort to discredit an escort that some of this 'evidence' could be manufactured to that end. I also take the point that echoing accusations second and third-hand is dangerous. It is one thing for me to read the reviews and your contributions and make up my mind about what I will do. It is another for me to stand on an electronic street corner to proclaim to one and all that I know somone to be guilty based on second and third-hand observations and assessments. The more so when there is some controverting facts. The burden of proof is less for the one than for the other IMHO. And I think that boils down BG's point.

 

I think it is also interesting to what lengths some posters will go to in order to discredit those with which they disagree, painting them will slurs and accusations that are patently false. And then keep repeating is as if that will make them true. Obviously these few have remembered the lesson of the 'The Big Lie' developed in the Third Reich and adopted so successfully by Stalin. The miscalculation is that this doesn't work on thinking people... the reason those people were the first to be rounded up by Hilter and Stalin.

 

Back on point...

 

One thing I am learning though is that if I come down on the side of the escort, I'm a good guy, but if I come down against them, I must be a stalker and a freak.

 

I think you are overreacting here. First, I haven't seen anyone accuse you of being such. Second, I don't remember other occasions where you felt 'put upon' as you came down against Nick and several others. This seems, to my recall, the first time that an extended controversy arose -- not because of your contributions but in conjunction with it. So attempting to establish a pattern on this one instance as you seem to be making a case for is a little dramatic, I think. (pardon me but it is)

 

 

I guess, I sort of view you as a third-party reviewer, not actually at the scene of the crime but a follow up investigator that brings addtional facts to light where they exist. It is up to each of us to determine of there is enough evidence in toto to warrant a trial or dismissal of charges and if a trial then determine the verdict for ourselves. This should not be a sanctioned judgment of the community because of the lack of an adversarial proceeding, rules of evidence, rights of the accused (of which there are none) etc.

 

I do understand that you took some comments pesonally but I don't think it was intended by anyone here. And I repeat that I appreciate your efforts and hope to continue to have the benefit of your efforts not only in clearing unjustified accusations but shedding light on questionable pracitices by escorts. So please keep up the good work you do and inform us of your findings so that I have as much information as possible for me to make my assessments of whom I wish to hire or avoid.

 

And please don't confuse the act of questioning what some people do with your contributions with questions of your contributions directly --they are not the same.

[BewareofNick]

>First, let make something clear, as

>I've tried to do before.

> I'm not attacking you,

>I'm not attacking your motives,

>I'm not suggesting you have

>some kind of ulterior motive,

>and I think your heart

>is in the right place.

> We differ substantially on

>the conclusions we draw from

>the same set of observations,

>but I respect that you

>are trying to do what

>you think is the right

>thing.

 

As I do you. One thing I am very appreciative of is the fact that you have remained respectful and civil to me, as I hope I have been to you. That's a very important part to these discussions.

 

>Second, I agree with you that

>there seem to be fake

>reviews, reviews with lots of

>inconsistencies, reviews posted by one-shot

>wonders, whose email addresses can

>disappear immediately, etc., etc.

>But you make my point:

> the reviews are flawed.

>

>

>It seems that there are a

>lot of people who like

>the reviews and people who

>feel that they have gained

>good information from them, information

>that has helped them hire

>good escorts and avoid others.

> If that's true, it's

>great. I have never

>suggested the reviews be eliminated.

 

I am fully willing to concede the point that some of the fake reviews may be false, but I know at least one of them is not, and Hooboy has credited another as credible, so that makes two. Could the others be false or some sort of revenge? Yes.

 

>But I do think there is

>a difference between allowing questionable

>reviews to be published together

>as a group, where anyone

>can view them, and taking

>that information to a new

>height in the Message Center

>and using it to conduct

>an ongoing campaign designed to

>completely demolish a person's reputation.

 

I certainly see the point you are making. I would never have even brought up that latest review or commented upon it had Kenny not started this thread.

 

 

>I don't want to put words

>in your mouth, but it

>seems as if you believe

>that you have incontrovertible evidence,

>on the basis of your

>conversation with another person, that

>AH cheated him. It

>also seems that you believe

>that whenever a positive review

>for AH (or other escorts)

>shows up with inconsistencies or

>inaccuracies, that can be taken

>an evidence that the escort

>is trying to manipulate the

>process. Finally, it seems

>that, given this, you believe

>it's reasonable -- even a

>good thing -- to warn

>other clients of this person's

>criminal or suspect nature.

>If that isn't a good summary

>of what you believe, then

>I apologize for I do

>not want to misrepresent you.

 

To a point, what you say is accurate. I believe inaccuracies in reviews, whether they are complimentary of the escort or not, are worthy of discussion. A negative review in and of itself is not necessarily worthy of warning people. It's when the clients are getting ripped off, having their money stolen without services provided, that I think a warning should be posted. In the case of Nick, I have confirmation from EricG and a host of others that this happened. In Anthony's case, I was able to verify that the Western Union transfers did indeed take place and were picked up by Anthony under his real name.

 

>What I believe is that the

>very fact that the reviews

>are flawed should lead us

>to consider all of the

>information presented there -- positive

>and negative -- to be

>so suspect that it should

>be taken into consideration only

>with all of the other

>reviews and only then with

>a large grain of salt.

> It seems to me

>not fair to take any

>part of the reviews as

>bedrock truth (unless the information

>comes from a known, trusted,

>long-time poster here, like Traveller)

>and to use that information

>as the basis of a

>campaign against the escort in

>question.

 

healthy skepticism can be a good thing.

 

And

>I wouldn't find it far-fetched

>to find out that the

>guy who claimed to wire

>money to AH was conducting

>a smear campaign. I

>admit it's unlikely and I'm

>not even really suggesting it

>as a possibility. But,

>on the other hand, who

>would be so stupid as

>to wire money to someone

>they never met?

 

Well, as I said, Anthony picked that money up. And yes, it WAS a stupid thing to do.

 

>I

>met AH and he was

>respectful and decent throughout the

>process. That's the only

>thing I know. All

>of the other reviews could

>be false or they could

>all be true. He

>could have ripped off clients,

>or he could have a

>stalker out to ruin his

>reputation, or both could be

>true. None of us

>know for sure.

 

Have you submitted your review?

 

>Finally, in closing, I want to

>say again that I don't

>see you as the enemy.

> You're not my enemy

>-- you're someone who holds

>a well-considered belief in a

>position that you think is

>well-founded and worth holding.

>I come to a different

>conclusion when looking at the

>same evidence. That's all.

> And I encourage you

>to continue posting whatever you

>think you should.

 

I don't think of you as the enemy either.

[BewareofNick]

>BewareofNIck

>

>I hope you did not take

>my comments as any indictment

>of your work on this

>board. I consider your

>contributions to be a public

>service and I pay heed

>to all the facts and

>much of the oberservations and

>assessments you contribute. And

>I make judgments accordingly about

>whether or not I will

>hire someone.

 

As well you should. In the end, we can only procide information. What you choose to do as an informed adult is your choice.

 

 

>One thing I am learning though

>is that if I come

>down on the side of

>the escort, I'm a good

>guy, but if I come

>down against them, I must

>be a stalker and a

>freak.

>

>I think you are overreacting here.

> First, I haven't seen

>anyone accuse you of being

>such. Second, I don't

>remember other occasions where you

>felt 'put upon' as you

>came down against Nick and

>several others. This seems, to

>my recall, the first time

>that an extended controversy arose

>-- not because

>of your contributions but in

>conjunction with it. So

>attempting to establish a pattern

>on this one instance as

>you seem to be making

>a case for is a

>little dramatic, I think. (pardon

>me but it is)

 

You're right, but what's a bunch of queens without a little drama??

 

>I guess, I sort of view

>you as a third-party reviewer,

>not actually at the scene

>of the crime but a

>follow up investigator that brings

>addtional facts to light where

>they exist. It is up

>to each of us to

>determine of there is enough

>evidence in toto to warrant

>a trial or dismissal of

>charges and if a trial

>then determine the verdict for

>ourselves. This should not be

>a sanctioned judgment of the

>community because of the lack

>of an adversarial proceeding, rules

>of evidence, rights of the

>accused (of which there are

>none) etc.

>

>I do understand that you took

>some comments pesonally but I

>don't think it was intended

>by anyone here. And I

>repeat that I appreciate your

>efforts and hope to continue

>to have the benefit of

>your efforts not only in

>clearing unjustified accusations but shedding

>light on questionable pracitices by

>escorts. So please keep up

>the good work you do

>and inform us of your

>findings so that I have

>as much information as possible

>for me to make my

>assessments of whom I wish

>to hire or avoid.

>

>And please don't confuse the

>act of questioning what some

>people do with your contributions

>with questions of your contributions

>directly --they are not the

>same.

 

 

I thank you for your kind words. I will continue to provide those services as they seem warranted.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>>

>>I think you are overreacting here. ... So

>>attempting to establish a pattern

>>on this one instance as

>>you seem to be making

>>a case for is a

>>little dramatic, I think. (pardon

>>me but it is)

>

>You're right, but what's a

>bunch of queens without a

>little drama??

>

 

LOL...

[Guest regulation]

>One thing anyone learns who follows

>this message board for a

>few weeks is that there

>is a small group of

>people who will attack anyone

>who says anything negative about

>any escort. Some of

>the attacks are crude and

>childish and some are more

>sophisticated but all have the

>same purpose, which is to

>stifle any discussion of the

>seamier side of this business.

> Some of the people

>involved clearly have a financial

>interest in doing that and

>some may have but prefer

>to keep quiet about it.

> Those of us who

>want this site to remain

>a source of credible information

>for consumers owe you our

>thanks for your many efforts.

 

 

Pick, I never cease to be amazed by the lengths to which those people will go to discredit anyone who threatens their Runyonesque fantasy world in which all hookers have hearts of gold and give most of their earnings to widows and orphans. Linking the people who disagree with them to traitors or murderous dictators shows how desperate they are to maintain the fantasy. The reality, as we both know, is a lot closer to the person revealed by AH's very informative and revealing post in this thread. He is what they are actually defending. Someday perhaps they'll realize it. But I wouldn't bet on it. The human capacity for self-deception is almost infinite. :-)

[BewareofNick]

Reg...I must have missed Anthony's post somehow the lsat time I posted, but HOLY SHIT!!

 

And also any reviews that are posted of me are obviously true. HOOBOY checks up on every review to see if they are true or not and in my case since all you assholes talk shit he probably checks up on my reviews credibility even more. You guys are just jealous and really need to get lives, take showers, and hit the gym. :0

YOU WISH YOU COULD BE ME!! :0

 

So Boston Guy was right, he does occasionally treat the client right, and he confirmed what I knew all along: he does rip people off.

 

If nothing else, I have gained a new respect for Anthony for finally telling the truth!

[BewareofNick]

So Boston Guy was right, he does occasionally treat the client right, and he confirmed what I knew all along: he does rip people off.

 

If nothing else, I have gained a new respect for Anthony for finally telling the truth!