A GLOWING REVIEW FOR ANTHONY HOLLOWAY

[Guest delhi]

>The only people really in a

>position to comment on this

>Escort(or any other) would be

>you and those who have

>met with him.

 

You left out someone, by which I mean the escort himself. As I said I've seen his responses on this message board and in the review section, and they weren't the kind of thing that would make me think an evening with him would be any fun. You saying we're not even supposed to pay attention to his own words?

[Boston Guy]

I think we all should take into account whatever seems valid to us in our own judgment. Certainly, for me, an escort's responses here are sometimes telling.

 

But I've seen escorts roundly criticized on the basis of spelling and punctuation in their responses -- skills I'm not usually wanting to test much if I get together with them. For me, a sense of whether the escort seems to be a decent guy, has a sense of humor and fair play -- that sort of thing -- is much more important to me than his writing skills.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

BG,

 

You make several valid observations... some apply to my post. I'll take them to heart.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

RE:Observation

 

Mr 6 posts sure seems to know alot about us and how we ty to draw everyone to ralley with our opinions and ways of thinking

[Boston Guy]

RE:Observation

 

So it seems. But surely you know that most posters lurk for a period of time -- sometimes a long time -- before posting at all. Guys with small numbers of posts to date can make contributions that are just as valuable as anyone else, and sometimes a fresh point of view is particularly welcome.

 

We should be happy to see contributions from new posters, for they enrich us by their presence.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

RE:Observation

 

<This speaks to the assumption that people are incapable of making up their own minds. They aren't, but having extra information can help someone to make their own informed decision>

 

 

 

Stretching it a bit on the trying to get some stuff to use against my post dont ya think.

 

<I just don't understand why you continue to chime in on these threads or read them if they bother you that much. That seems kind of, well, wacko. If you aren't interested, don't read them. No one is forcing you to. The last exchange that I had with the other person needed to be stopped and Hooboy was correct to do it. It had degenerated into a pissing contest that served no purpose. It won't happen again. But will I still warn people of his new screennames as I find them? Absolutely.>

 

I am sorry for using the term WACKO, this (AH) scandal did happen to a friend of yours correct??? Not you directly. Also I can chime in my damn remarks just as you do anytime I so please. I am sure I can search and find you ranting about disagreeing with a post or two.

[Guest delhi]

RE:Observation

 

>Mr 6 posts sure seems to

>know alot about us and

>how we ty to draw

>everyone to ralley with our

>opinions and ways of thinking

>

 

Since moderators were introduced every new member goes through a period in which his post counter stays at zero. So the number of posts that eventually shows up under the name doesn't always reflect the actual total of his posts since he started. I've done more than 6, not that it takes a lot of time to figure out where you're coming from. In my brief experience here I've seen several posts from you objecting whenever people question a positive review. Didn't I see you and BON tangle over some fake positive comments on Man2Man escort agency? And now you're doing it again. What a coincidence.

[BewareofNick]

RE:Observation

 

>I am sorry for using the

>term WACKO, this (AH) scandal

>did happen to a friend

>of yours correct??? Not you

>directly. Also I can chime

>in my damn remarks just

>as you do anytime I

>so please. I am sure

>I can search and find

>you ranting about disagreeing with

>a post or two.

 

Actually no, you are confusing Anthony with Nick. I have done research on Mr. Holloway for two of his alledged victims. These were two different men, one of whom I spoke with on the phone.

 

And certainly, I am all for everyone chiming in their damn remarks. Thanks for the apology

[BewareofNick]

Sometimes the red flags just jump out at you. The laatest review on Anthony has the reviewer referring to himself as a muscle god in the top part and as overweight in the next. There have been several 'one post wonders' who have come in and defended Holloway and then vanished, along with the AOL screenname that they were using for e-mail

 

Look at the review for Mike Cruise in Atlanta. Now compare it to just about every other review for a boy from the Rainbow Boys. It strikes me as odd that all these reviewers spend so much time praising the RB manager, Jerry. They all sound alike. Strange, isn't it? Self promotion is nothing new, but it is worth pointing out, if for no other reason than to educate others who might not see it.

 

 

Anthony treated you well? Great. Perhaps he's learned his lesson, but posting fake reviews certainly doesn't speak to that. I hope he has reformed.

 

And it's entirely possible that he treated you right and is still the scum bucket that the others claim him to be. I once had a street hustler tell me never to give the money up front, because the guys will take it and run. A few months later, he asked me for the money up front and told him no. After we were done, i gave him the moneya nd he told me he would have taken the money and ran if I had given it to him up front. He apparently had quite a rep for ripping his clients off, but he never did it to me.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

RE:Observation

 

For your correct information gathering I grant you an F. However I will give you the exact reason why I was defending ManToMan Escorts, look in the history of discussions about this agency, people here where wanting to write it off as a scam, con artist, and a poor agency without ever dealing with, talking to or even knowing who the company or owner where. I stood up for Dave as I always will for someone who gets trashed by bitter angry queens with nothing else to do but trash people around them to fulfill their own self loathing. As for me rebuttling everytime someone questions a positive review, your full of crap. Gets your facts and then come at me.

 

Dave and I are very good friends. I still continue to work through him from time to time and he has helped me out of a jam as well.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

Just out of curiousity, How often do you hire escorts yourself???

[BewareofNick]

>Just out of curiousity, How often

>do you hire escorts yourself???

>

 

 

Once a month perhaps?

[Guest cp8036]

While it pains me to add to this issue of AH, just a line or two.

 

I have to admit, I went along with the herd, and previously decided the guy is a scammer. However, after reading a review from Boston Guy, and his subsquent posts, I am not so sure. Boston's comments carry much more weight than speculation and gossip.

 

But, you never know, perhaps Boston Guy is not a real person. This whole review and dozens of messages could be part of some huge conspiracy. It could be Anthony himself, penning himself as the well-known Boston Guy. He has two personnas, one as an unarticulate scammer, and the other as a well-spoken and respected gentleman.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

But, you never know, perhaps Boston Guy is not a real person. This whole review and dozens of messages could be part of some huge conspiracy. It could be Anthony himself, penning himself as the well-known Boston Guy.

 

Surely you jest...

 

BG's experience cannot be dismissed. (IMHO). It is possible that AH responds according to how he is handled -- he wouldn't be the first. BG strikes me as a prudent no-nonsense consumer not likely be taken advantage of easily. It may be that AH gets away with what he can get away with depending on the situation. It also is possible that AH was in a tactical reputation restoration mode when he met BG -- it would the the smart thing to do after a spate of negative reviews, who knows? Of course, there is an outside chance that AH's "reviews and dozens of messages could be part of some huge conspiracy" against him, but I doubt that.

[Boston Guy]

>But, you never know, perhaps Boston

>Guy is not a real

>person. This whole review and

>dozens of messages could be

>part of some huge conspiracy.

>It could be Anthony himself,

>penning himself as the well-known

>Boston Guy.

>

>Surely you jest...

>

 

:-) Yes, I think he was kidding...

 

And I agree with what you said. I can only offer my own experience and I only do so because it seemed there were so many people villifying him who had no personal experience with him whatsoever.

 

I've made no judgment at all on what the reviewers have reported, except that it seemed so hard for me to believe there could be so many gullible guys that I began to wonder if people were trying to ruin his reputation for some reason. So I got curious and ended up hiring him. The only information I have is from my own experience and I make no comment on what others have said, since I have no real basis on which to do so.

 

Last night I was speaking with an escort who checks this site. He said to me, "If I really wanted to screw up AH, you know what I would do? I'd submit a few false positive reviews from a few different people. People would jump all over them as 'proof' he's a bad guy and AH would have no possible way of defending himself, even by insisting that he didn't send them."

[Guest delhi]

RE:Observation

 

>For your correct information gathering I

>grant you an F.

 

That's an odd thing to say. Were you a schoolteacher before you started selling your ass?

 

 

>However

>I will give you the

>exact reason why I was

>defending ManToMan Escorts, look in

>the history of discussions about

>this agency, people here where

>wanting to write it off

>as a scam, con artist,

>and a poor agency without

>ever dealing with, talking to

>or even knowing who the

>company or owner where.

 

 

The incident I remember is that BON pointed out in a thread in the Deli section about this agency that there were two "different" posters giving glowing reviews of their service, but both of these "posters" happened to list the same email address.

 

>I

>stood up for Dave as

>I always will for someone

>who gets trashed by bitter

>angry queens with nothing else

>to do but trash people

>around them to fulfill their

>own self loathing. As for

>me rebuttling everytime someone questions

>a positive review, your full

>of crap. Gets your facts

>and then come at me.

>

 

I think what BON and several other people here loathe is not themselves but scam artists who post fake information on this site for their own financial benefit. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that unless they support such scams.

 

 

>

>Dave and I are very good

>friends. I still continue to

>work through him from time

>to time and he has

>helped me out of a

>jam as well.

 

Translation: you trash anyone who criticizes him because you make money from him. Big surprise.

[+ Lucky]

Well, isn't that exactly what is happening?

[+ Lucky]

RE:Observation

 

Delphi, people are dying as yoou post your bitter trash. How petty all this seems now.

[Guest delhi]

RE:Observation

 

>Delphi, people are dying as yoou

>post your bitter trash. How

>petty all this seems now.

>

 

Don't be more of a jerk than you have to be. My post was sent to the board at a very early hour in my timezone. I had not heard about the terrorist attack then and I doubt many other people here had.

 

In case you didn't realize it, the stuff that goes on on this message board is ALWAYS petty. Every day of the year there are many things going on in the world vastly more important than the reputations of gay hookers. Yesterday there were religious riots in Nigeria in which hundreds of people were killed, to give one example. I notice that doesn't stop you from spending plenty of time here.

[+ Lucky]

RE:Observation

 

Well, you are right there. Right now, I feel locked in my apartment, waiting for the world to return

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

RE:Observation

 

you son of a bitch

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

RE:Observation

 

Sorry Lucky that was for Delhi

[Guest pickwick]

RE:Observation

 

>The incident I remember is that

>BON pointed out in a

>thread in the Deli section

>about this agency that there

>were two "different" posters giving

>glowing reviews of their service,

>but both of these "posters"

>happened to list the same

>email address.

>

 

For the record, I recall the thread to which you refer because I posted in it in support of BofN. To my way of thinking, escorts or agencies who want to use this site to advertise should pay HB the same fees that all other advertisers do, not use this board or false reviews to promote themselves free of charge.

 

I find it difficult to understand the point of the argument that is going on in this thread. The people who are arguing with you do not seem to deny that AH has ripped off legitimate clients and posted false positive reviews. I note that at least one of the reviewers who claims to have been ripped off by him is rated "consistently credible" by HB. Their position seems to be that there is something wrong with talking about this. Why? And to use one of Will's favorite expressions, if people want to talk about it what business is it of theirs? I have noticed that there are posters who will jump on anyone who says anything negative about an escort, but they seem to be taking it to ridiculous lengths.

[Boston Guy]

RE:Observation

 

>For the record, I recall the

>thread to which you refer

>because I posted in it

>in support of BofN.

>To my way of thinking,

>escorts or agencies who want

>to use this site to

>advertise should pay HB the

>same fees that all other

>advertisers do, not use this

>board or false reviews to

>promote themselves free of charge.

>

 

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, one would hope that you would recognize that others do necessarily share it and and that they have an equal right to their opinion.

 

For myself, I've feel I've learned a great deal in the last couple of years from contributions made here by various escorts. If those contributions have also served as marketing messages for them, well that is no different than what happens every single day of the year, on specialized message boards serving every single industry.

 

I do think some escorts miss the point and fail to recognize how valuable this marketing message could be to them and instead fall victim to their emotions. Instead of posting messages that are informative or seek to be helpful to potential clients -- essentially taking the route consultants have always used in forums like this -- they get angry and end up in verbal battles. In sales, the prospect is -- almost -- always right.

 

For a long time, I expected to see some escort pop up and offer an ongoing series of pointers for clients, pointers that would offer some kind of valuable information and be structured in such a way as to be immediately recognizable. I guess Aaron's posts are the nearest thing, but if I were an escort, I'd publish a weekly message, each containing one carefully considered hint or idea.

 

>

>I find it difficult to understand

>the point of the argument

>that is going on in

>this thread. The people

>who are arguing with you

>do not seem to deny

>that AH has ripped off

>legitimate clients and posted false

>positive reviews.

 

How do you know this? Do you know for sure that AH has submitted false positive reviews? I don't. If you do, what proof do you have?

 

Part of the argument here in this thread that you say you find difficult to understand concerns statements just like the one you made. Just like others here, you assume and seem to state as a fact that AH has posted false positive reviews. What proof do you have? Or are you just joining the herd with all the others?

 

And as for that, what proof do any of us have that any of his reviews are real, negative or positive? If I recall, a bunch of the positive ones were by just one reviewer and most of the others were by first time reviewers. Why in the world do you grant them credibility? Do you know something about these reviewers the rest of us don't know?

 

 

I note

>that at least one of

>the reviewers who claims to

>have been ripped off by

>him is rated "consistently credible"

>by HB. Their position

>seems to be that there

>is something wrong with talking

>about this. Why?

 

No, I don't think anyone has said it's wrong to talk about anything. But constantly disparaging someone on the basis of evidence that seems really pretty questionable -- unless you grant far greater credence to unknown 'reviewers' than I do -- seems pretty questionable behavior 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.

 

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. And good people here who in other contexts would most likely want a whole lot more proof before joining in seem for some reason willing to just jump on the bandwagon.

 

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?

 

>And to use one of

>Will's favorite expressions, if people

>want to talk about it

>what business is it of

>theirs? I have noticed

>that there are posters who

>will jump on anyone who

>says anything negative about an

>escort, but they seem to

>be taking it to ridiculous

>lengths.

 

Perhaps. But if they are liable to that criticism, you are probably liable to the reverse. And, to turn the question around, if there are those of us who want to question the basis and validity of the information through which an escort's name is being trashed, what business is it of yours?

 

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.

[Guest pickwick]

RE:Observation

 

>>The people

>>who are arguing with you

>>do not seem to deny

>>that AH has ripped off

>>legitimate clients and posted false

>>positive reviews.

>

>How do you know this?

 

How do I know they don't seem to deny it? Because one of them said so. I believe it is in post #14.

 

>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.

 

>And as for that, what proof

>do any of us have

>that any of his reviews

>are real, negative or positive?

> If I recall, a

>bunch of the positive ones

>were by just one reviewer

>and most of the others

>were by first time reviewers.

> Why in the world

>do you grant them credibility?

> Do you know something

>about these reviewers the rest

>of us don't know?

>

 

Who is "the rest of us"? I have never seen anyone except you question the credibility of the reviewers whom HB has labeled "consistently credible." And as I pointed out below, one of those reviewers is one of the people who claims to have been ripped off by AH.

 

>

>I note

>>that at least one of

>>the reviewers who claims to

>>have been ripped off by

>>him is rated "consistently credible"

>>by HB.

 

 

 

 

>>Their position

>>seems to be that there

>>is something wrong with talking

>>about this. Why?

>

 

>No, I don't think anyone has

>said it's wrong to talk

>about anything.

 

I do think so. See the first post by sdmuscle.

 

 

>But constantly

>disparaging someone on the basis

>of evidence that seems really

>pretty questionable -- unless you

>grant far greater credence to

>unknown 'reviewers' than I do

>-- seems pretty questionable behavior

 

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 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.

 

>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.

 

>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.