Musings on The Latest Scams

[+ Lucky]

Now I can't understand Matt Adams or Stefan laCoste. But I do understand Truth teller, he knows a hypocrite when he sees one. TT< is it true that you have mirrors all over your apartment?

[Guest Stephan-Lacoste]

Here a sentence of traduction in French. Well this is only one phrase of it , I have read few others but I had to stop..... Let me explain what a French Person would understand word by word....

 

"The Top Ten Escorts of 2000. Here is my personal selection of the top ten escorts for 2000."

 

"les Être au sommet de Dix Escorter de 2000. Voilà mon personnelle tri de les être au sommet de dix escorter pour 2000"

 

The Being summit of 10 to escort of 2000. Here my Personnal sorting (ou) of the being summit of the 10 to escort of 2000.

 

For me, and I'm not being picky, but that traduction is sucks.

 

Ps: French language is complicated. You do have masculin and feminin words. Well in that phrase "Personnal" is written as you are talking about a girl.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>For your own contribution to the world's wisdom, may

>I suggest you adopt as your motto the pithy, but profound,

>"What, me worry?"

 

Will quoting the unflappable Alfred E. Newman? Remarkable.

[Guest WetDream]

TT: It is just a question of style. Broadswoards and rapiers are equally deadly.

[Guest Stephan-Lacoste]

if You can't then you are "high" , you know drugs, high on drugs, a kid would understand that one

[+ Charlie]

Good grief! Why do jump like hungry sharks at the bait which Craig throws you? Don't you recognize an ACT when you see it? Craig has no idea what Matt means, and really doesn't care--his defense of Matt is as much tongue-in-cheek as his orthographic eccentricities.

 

I assumed that the original post was some sort of coded message to select insiders.

[Will]

>Gosh, this wouldn't be an example of grotesque hypocrisy,

>would it?

 

No, it wouldn't.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>>Gosh, this wouldn't be an example of grotesque hypocrisy,

>>would it?

>

>No, it wouldn't.

 

Oh, that's convincing.

 

I wasn't actually referring to you, since you generally keep the sermonizing to a minimum (although you are often held out as the Patron Saint of Niceness by those who do sermonize), but I would be very appreciative to anyone who could explain (not just decree, as you did, but explain) why name-calling and being mean to other posters is a bad thing, but calling an obvious imbecile like Craig (whose genetic constraints render him a good candidate for sympathy) a "pea brained twit" is something to be commended.

[+ Lucky]

Steph, I wish life was that simple.

For the record, I am not high, and I still didn't understand what you said. Don't take it personally.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Right on Charlie...

 

It strikes me that Matt's post is one side of telephone conversation... or the posting equivalent. Possibly he meant to post to another site/thread or that he considered some of all of us to be insiders. I have been accused of such before... and if I am then I'm a clueless one, probably something many can agree on. :-) I agree that the post needs some explanation for all of us clueless -- nothing wrong with calling for it.

 

 

Then there is always the possibility that those stuffed mushroom caps he ate weren't Portabellas, and that wasn't Grandma's stuffing.

 

Whatever, there's no need to bitch-slap Matt, as one or two have, in response to the kwanzaa Craig caricature.

 

TY :-)

[Guest WetDream]

RE: Pots and Kettles

 

"the self-anointed High Priests of Kindness and Grace"

 

This seems to be an unfortunate phrase from someone who picked the handle of Truth Teller.

[Will]

Further to the point, I would call this an instance in which I consciously and deliberately set aside my "nice" persona in order to enjoy a little tongue-sharpening. And enjoy it I did. But frankly, my dear TruthTeller, I don't give a rat's ass whether you think I'm a hypocrite or not.

 

Peace and joy,

 

Pontifex Maximus Gratiae

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Further to the point, I would call this an instance in which

>I consciously and deliberately set aside my "nice" persona

>in order to enjoy a little tongue-sharpening. And enjoy it

>I did.

 

Yes, I'm aware of all these facts. The same ones who endlessly decry the tragedy and injustice of tongue-sharpening posts were the same ones who cheered you when you did it.

 

> But frankly, my dear TruthTeller, I don't give a

>rat's ass whether you think I'm a hypocrite or not.

 

Then why did you try to convince me that you weren't?

[Guest chaz49wm]

Love you Will you had the patience of JOB with that one.

[Guest chaz49wm]

Craig we want you to Grammatically Edit all the books that we have written so they will be understood by all.

[Guest Stephan-Lacoste]

>Steph, I wish life was that simple.

>For the record, I am not high, and I still didn't understand

>what you said. Don't take it personally.

 

I did not take it personnally cause this post is not about me, but I just have one question if you don't mind......

You say that now you don't understand me, is it because of the language or because of the word " high " ?

 

Obviously you aren't "high"

It is classified now, done deal for me.

[Guest JackLA]

>I agree that the post needs some explanation for all of us clueless ->- nothing wrong with calling for it.

>

 

Interesting thread....although the subject heading relates to current "Internet scams" there doesn't seem to be much actually written about that. Not to change the subject, but sure many of us what like to see a list of what they actually are so we can be vigilant against them. The earlier posts asking for some clarification and additional detail on this don't seem that unreasonable....Now back to the bitch-slapping....

[Guest MattAdams]

Matt Responds

 

I have been busy the last few days with friends in town and the Internext Expo.

 

It was a nice evening at Gypsy's and Stefan LaCoste even took my picture. I was sooooo flattered. As for Stefan's comments... many of you know I don't comment publicly about escorts that are not on my site regardless of how inflamatory the comments might be and I sincerely wish him well in Los Angeles.

 

The post was directed at a rather small group of individuals. Unfortunately, naming names would probably be against the terms of service of the board.

 

Just as most people do not recognize the names or situations in some gossip columns I really did not expect everyone to understand what I wrote.

 

I have also learned that I really cannot prevent people from getting scammed. People will believe what they want.

 

For example, I could say "Don't pay some (well know escort) the three hundred mentioned on this website, because most clients only pay $150" and people will still pay $300 for someone that used to give $50 blow jobs out of some night club before they learned to be a respectable whore. I wouldn't name names because again, I don't comment on anyone that is not on one of my websites. I never break that rule. Never.

 

Some people find me ambiguous. I have never figured out the reason for that.

 

Matt Adams

Author of the forthcoming book "Clear as Mud"

[Guest N]

Will,

 

Thank you for getting my day off to a wonderful start! Laughed out loud at this one.

 

N

[Guest pickwick]

RE: Matt Responds

 

>Just as most people do not recognize the names or situations

>in some gossip columns I really did not expect everyone to

>understand what I wrote.

 

 

People did not understand what you wrote, but that is not because you omitted names. It is because you omitted a description of the "scams" that would be sufficient to allow people not already familiar with confidence games to understand how they work. If your goal is to help people avoid being tricked by such scams, you need to provide enough information about the scams so that people will know how to recognize and avoid them. Do you understand now?

[+ Lucky]

RE: Matt Responds

 

Your explanation that the post is ambiguous or nebulous is just another way of saying that it was ridiculous. Save us your musings if we are not meant to understand your great mind.

[Guest pickwick]

>>>Gosh, this wouldn't be an example of grotesque hypocrisy,

>>>would it?

>>

>>No, it wouldn't.

>

>Oh, that's convincing.

>

>I would be very appreciative to anyone who

>could explain (not just decree, as you did, but explain) why

>name-calling and being mean to other posters is a bad thing,

>but calling an obvious imbecile like Craig (whose genetic

>constraints render him a good candidate for sympathy) a "pea

>brained twit" is something to be commended.

 

Thanks for pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of those who constantly bemoan the "negativity" of other posters while cheerfully indulging in exactly the same behavior they criticize whenever THEY find it appropriate. Will and TY are excellent examples, but there are many others.

[Guest LG320126]

>Good grief! Why do jump like hungry sharks at the bait which

>Craig throws you? Don't you recognize an ACT when you see

>it? Craig has no idea what Matt means, and really doesn't

>care--his defense of Matt is as much tongue-in-cheek as his

>orthographic eccentricities.

>

>I assumed that the original post was some sort of coded

>message to select insiders.

 

 

Actually I think Matt Adams coded this message in Arabic trying to reach Osama bin laden for some more terrorist activities.

[Guest LG320126]

RE: Matt Responds

 

>I have been busy the last few days with friends in town and

>the Internext Expo.

>

>It was a nice evening at Gypsy's and Stefan LaCoste even

>took my picture. I was sooooo flattered. As for Stefan's

>comments... many of you know I don't comment publicly about

>escorts that are not on my site regardless of how

>inflamatory the comments might be and I sincerely wish him

>well in Los Angeles.

>

>The post was directed at a rather small group of

>individuals. Unfortunately, naming names would probably be

>against the terms of service of the board.

>

>Just as most people do not recognize the names or situations

>in some gossip columns I really did not expect everyone to

>understand what I wrote.

>

 

 

>I have also learned that I really cannot prevent people from

>getting scammed. People will believe what they want.

>

>For example, I could say "Don't pay some (well know escort)

>the three hundred mentioned on this website, because most

>clients only pay $150" and people will still pay $300 for

>someone that used to give $50 blow jobs out of some night

>club before they learned to be a respectable whore. I

>wouldn't name names because again, I don't comment on anyone

>that is not on one of my websites. I never break that rule.

> Never.

>

>Some people find me ambiguous. I have never figured out the

>reason for that.

>

>Matt Adams

 

Frankly, I don't think many here much give a shit who is and who is not on your self serving website, especially after this incessant babbling.

[Guest Stefano]

RE: Matt Responds

 

>

>It was a nice evening at Gypsy's and Stefan LaCoste even

>took my picture. I was sooooo flattered. As for Stefan's

>comments... many of you know I don't comment publicly about

>escorts that are not on my site regardless of how

>inflamatory the comments might be and I sincerely wish him

>well in Los Angeles.

>

I am SHOCKED Matt! You failed to mention that the picture he took of you was one with me standing right beside you! Yeah, I think it's wonderful to have been able to meet someone that has been in the bussiness from the very start. You know, like an Original Alumni of profession.

 

>The post was directed at a rather small group of

>individuals. Unfortunately, naming names would probably be

>against the terms of service of the board.

>

I totally agree with your decision not to put any actual names in your original post. I mean who are these people that didn't understand what you meant? I mean come on guys, he writes books! Don't tell me you didn't understand his theory...

 

>Just as most people do not recognize the names or situations

>in some gossip columns I really did not expect everyone to

>understand what I wrote.

 

Hmmmmmmmm....Good point!....But wait, if you didn't expect anyone to understand it, then, why write it? Wait now I'm confused too...

 

 

>I have also learned that I really cannot prevent people from

>getting scammed. People will believe what they want.

 

And I bet your thankful for that. Otherwise, who would buy your books?

 

 

>For example, I could say "Don't pay some (well know escort)

>the three hundred mentioned on this website, because most

>clients only pay $150" and people will still pay $300 for

>someone that used to give $50 blow jobs out of some night

>club before they learned to be a respectable whore. I

>wouldn't name names because again, I don't comment on anyone

>that is not on one of my websites. I never break that rule.

> Never.

 

Wait a minute....You're being clever right? By using numbers instead of names right? Damn! You are just a bag of tricks (no pun intended).

 

>Some people find me ambiguous. I have never figured out the

>reason for that.

>

>Matt Adams

>Author of the forthcoming book "Clear as Mud"

 

Interesting title...But I'm still a bit confused. Is that the title of a new book or of this post?

 

Well gotta run!!! Ciao Boyz!!

}>