CAVEAT EMPTOR: An Open Letter to Hooboy

[Guest tmbg]

Hooboy has the ego to do what you suggest, "play God." Though I don't feel he ever would drop to the level of your suggestions.

 

This reminds me how Hitler wanted to brand the Jews or how Americans gathered all of the Japanese and put them in camps during WWII.

 

I've enjoyed, been informed and entertained by most of your posts. This one makes me think you're a plant from the "Moral Majority."

 

In fact, this entire thread reminds me of the time new coke was introdcued to the nation.

 

Cheers! Ritchie

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Why would the escort mind if his status was brought to

>clients attention by a Buyer Beware caution if he has

>already posted it on his website?

 

Because "Buyer Beware" carries connotations like "scam" or "defective merchandise." At the very least, it implies that there is a serious gap between what is being advertised and what is being delivered. Many people, faced with a "Buyer Beware" warning, don't stop to investigate; they just steer clear. A subject header with a much more positive (no pun intended) tone like "HIV+ escorts with integrity" would have been a fairer way to call attention to the escort's status, if that's what you felt was important to do.

[+ Axiom2001]

>>Why would the escort mind if his status was brought to

>>clients attention by a Buyer Beware caution if he has

>>already posted it on his website?

>

>Because "Buyer Beware" carries connotations like "scam" or

>"defective merchandise." At the very least, it implies that

>there is a serious gap between what is being advertised and

>what is being delivered. Many people, faced with a "Buyer

>Beware" warning, don't stop to investigate; they just steer

>clear. A subject header with a much more positive (no pun

>intended) tone like "HIV+ escorts with integrity" would have

>been a fairer way to call attention to the escort's status,

>if that's what you felt was important to do.

 

Devon, your sentiments were exactly where my head was when I read through all of these remarks yesterday. ...a superb idea which I hope is acted upon... Thanks, man!

:-)

[Guest regulation]

>If anyone is interested, I would be happy to do the leg work

>and post the names of those escorts currently posting on the

>bb sites. It would serve two purposes: one to educate the

>public (without violating the message center rules) and

>might make some escorts aware if there are false

>advertisements palced there. Let me know.

 

I see nothing wrong with your suggestion and I commend you for volunteering. I am sure that the same "fan" types who have slammed you in the past for exposing some of the sleazier and more dishonest escorts will attack you again. There's no way to argue that it is a bad thing to give consumers more information about what they're buying, so they will come up with more roundabout and indirect ways to attack you. Ignore them. Escorts who have been honest enough to disclose their positive status to clients can't object if you simply repeat what they've already said. Those who have been listed on a "bareback" site without their knowledge or consent should be pleased to be informed of it. As for those who are positive but haven't disclosed it -- what can one say?

 

In another thread Tampa Yankee suggested that a poster who asked what escorts do when clients refuse to pay must have a sinister reason for doing so. Using the same logic, I can think of only one reason why anyone would want to conceal or help conceal information about the HIV status of an escort.

[bluenix]

>>If anyone is interested, I would be happy to do the leg work

>>and post the names of those escorts currently posting on the

>>bb sites...

>

>I see nothing wrong with your suggestion and I commend you

>for volunteering.

 

Your posts are, typically, models of lucidity. But this one leaves me baffled. Me, I abhor whistleblowers (Mr. Crowe possibly excepted). But you seem to be commending them, much as a vice-principal might commend a class snitch. Please tell me that's not what you meant.

 

While it's true that this is, as you say, a consumer site, surely there will be times when consumerism must take a back seat to human compassion and decency. (I'm thinking especially of the Michael Johnson threads, in which, I notice, you are silent.) Anyhow, I'm certainly not trying to be this year's Theron (God forbid), but I wonder at your seeming disinclination to separate the transaction from the agent.

[Guest regulation]

>Your posts are, typically, models of lucidity. But this one

>leaves me baffled. Me, I abhor whistleblowers (Mr. Crowe

>possibly excepted). But you seem to be commending them, much

>as a vice-principal might commend a class snitch. Please

>tell me that's not what you meant.

 

It is exactly what I meant. As I predicted, there is no way you or anyone else can argue that it is a bad thing to give consumers accurate information about what sellers are offering for sale, so you are resorting to namecalling instead. I am disappointed.

 

>While it's true that this is, as you say, a consumer site,

>surely there will be times when consumerism must take a back

>seat to human compassion and decency. (I'm thinking

>especially of the Michael Johnson threads, in which, I

>notice, you are silent.)

 

I don't see your point. Michael has been commendably honest about his status. How can it hurt him if BofN provides similar information about other escorts? And for whom am I supposed to lack compassion -- for escorts who conceal or lie about their HIV status so that they can make more money than they otherwise would? Where is your compassion for the clients who are victimized by such people?

 

>Anyhow, I'm certainly not trying to

>be this year's Theron (God forbid), but I wonder at your

>seeming disinclination to separate the transaction from the

>agent.

 

Who is the "agent"? In this sort of transaction there is a buyer and a seller. Once again, I see no way anyone can argue that it is better to conceal from the buyer accurate information about what the seller has to offer. Do you say that it is better?

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

Where do we get to post what clients are poz for the escorts that are out there

[Guest regulation]

>Where do we get to post what clients are poz for the escorts

>that are out there

 

Isn't there still a section of this message board reserved for escorts only? Were we not told that one of the purposes for which this section was created is to allow escorts to exchange information about "problem" clients? Well?

[Guest JON1265]

>

>>Your posts are, typically, models of lucidity. But this one

>>leaves me baffled. Me, I abhor whistleblowers (Mr. Crowe

>>possibly excepted). But you seem to be commending them, much

>>as a vice-principal might commend a class snitch. Please

>>tell me that's not what you meant.

>

>It is exactly what I meant. As I predicted, there is no way

>you or anyone else can argue that it is a bad thing to give

>consumers accurate information about what sellers are

>offering for sale, so you are resorting to namecalling

>instead. I am disappointed.

 

 

What name did he call you? And who is to determine if it is accurate information or not? Will someone get a hold of the escort's medical records and make them public information?

 

 

And for whom am I

>supposed to lack compassion -- for escorts who conceal or

>lie about their HIV status so that they can make more money

>than they otherwise would? Where is your compassion for the

>clients who are victimized by such people?

 

How is a client being "victimized" in these cases? If you enter into each and every situation as if you are dealing with an HIV Poz person...then there should be no problem...unless of course someone likes to do things "differently" with someone who claims to be HIV negative.

 

 

>

In this sort of transaction there is a

>buyer and a seller. Once again, I see no way anyone can

>argue that it is better to conceal from the buyer accurate

>information about what the seller has to offer. Do you say

>that it is better?

 

I am curious...do you ask your escorts to provide you with proof that they are negative? Do you even ask such a question?

 

 

And Michael Johnson makes a good point...should there also be a list of clients put up here who are Poz and hide it from the escorts?

 

 

I do not even see HooBoy allowing this...and he is being quiet on this whole issue - so it makes me wonder where he falls on this argument - but creating a list and having people (not escorts - PEOPLE) register with a "POZ squad" is abhorrent.

[+ deej]

>Isn't there still a section of this message board reserved

>for escorts only?

 

Yep.

 

>Were we not told that one of the purposes

>for which this section was created is to allow escorts to

>exchange information about "problem" clients?

 

Actually, I have no idea what's in the escorts only section. Since you appear to have insider knowledge, why not enlighten us and tell us exactly what's there? Or are you just assuming and using your assumptions as evidence to prove your point?

 

(That's right folks! Moderators don't have access to that forum!)

 

The FACTS are that the escorts-only forum is a VERY restricted forum, available only to a few very well-known and well-trusted escorts. It is NOT available to all who declare themselves to be escorts.

 

And from what the guys have said in public, it's pretty much a ho-hum forum that isn't worth very much after all now that they have it back. <shrug>

 

So what was your point?

[BewareofNick]

Michael,

 

I understand that you are taking some of this personally, but you shouldn't. To me, this is not about an escort being HIV+; it is about honesty. You have been upfront and honest about your condition. I commend you for doing so. It shows that you have class and are head and shoulders above the rest. My concern here is that there are some escorts who advertise covertly on bb city and make no mention of their bb activites to on their regular escorting site. I find that to be offensive.

 

******It is not about the HIV. It is the lack of disclosure to the client that worries me*********

 

Escorts such as Brandon Keadin advertise on their website that they bareback. The client has the knowledge up front and can make an informed decision.

 

Here's what started me on this: A while back, I discovered that a very popular Atlanta escort, JR (reviewed on this site - with a flag on his profile from Hoo no less!) had a second screenname for bareback escort activities.

 

Well, lo and behold, here's his advertisment on bareback.com:

 

http://www.bareback.com/escort.php?id=17701&PHPSESSID=cbb31078923b3494c3ae70af1aea8c37

 

And on barebackcity.com :

 

http://escorts.barebackcity.com/escortinfo.asp?53896

 

So, am I a bad guy now?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>Your posts are, typically, models of lucidity. But this one

>leaves me baffled. Me, I abhor whistleblowers (Mr. Crowe

>possibly excepted). But you seem to be commending them, much

>as a vice-principal might commend a class snitch. Please

>tell me that's not what you meant.

 

Please tell me that your statement re whistleblowers is not your true feeling.

 

There is in my mind, a huge difference between a "whistleblower" and a class snitch. I don't believe in being a class snitch or tattle tale as some call it. These people usually tell on people you break small rules, like smoking in the schoolyard, or whispering in class.

 

A whistleblower on the other hand is some one who sees a situation that is dangerous (and sometimes illegal) that the continuation of same could cause harm to a large number of people.

 

If you worked for a company that was polluting the enviornment or exposing innocent people to a risk of cancer, do you mean to tell us that you would say nothing? I hope that is not the case.

 

Thunderbuns

[+ deej]

<<I do not even see HooBoy allowing this...and he is being quiet on this whole issue - so it makes me wonder where he falls on this argument >>

 

Folks, HooBoy doesn't normally read much that's posted here. He relies on moderators to whap him on the head when something needs his attention. (And believe me, we do! The moderators forum can get a little ... ummm ... boisterous.)

 

I can tell you exactly where he stands on this, though. We've discussed it several times on the phone. NO LISTS! NO REGISTRIES! NO PURPLE TATTOOS ON YOUR FOREHEAD!

 

Assume ever partner is poz and play accordingly. Period.

 

HIV status is nobody's business unless it is willingly exposed. Anything else is an invasion of privacy.

[bluenix]

>It is exactly what I meant. As I predicted, there is no way

>you or anyone else can argue that it is a bad thing to give

>consumers accurate information about what sellers are

>offering for sale, so you are resorting to namecalling

>instead. I am disappointed.

>

>I don't see your point. Michael has been commendably honest

>about his status. How can it hurt him if BofN provides

>similar information about other escorts? And for whom am I

>supposed to lack compassion -- for escorts who conceal or

>lie about their HIV status so that they can make more money

>than they otherwise would? Where is your compassion for the

>clients who are victimized by such people?

>

 

>Who is the "agent"? In this sort of transaction there is a

>buyer and a seller. Once again, I see no way anyone can

>argue that it is better to conceal from the buyer accurate

>information about what the seller has to offer. Do you say

>that it is better?

 

Okay, I see your point where I didn't, quite, before. You're saying, I believe, that "accurate information" is what's important. What I'm trying to counter is that ALL information is not necessarily material. Specifically, I think it can be argued that HIV status is immaterial to the escort/client transaction. Full disclosure does not mean you need to know EVERYTHING about the escort.

 

(Didn't mean to namecall. Sometimes I try too hard to be amusing. A lifelong failing. Sorry.)

[Guest tmbg]

>Folks, HooBoy doesn't normally read much that's posted here.

>He relies on moderators to whap him on the head when

>something needs his attention. (And believe me, we do! The

>moderators forum can get a little ... ummm ... boisterous.)

>

I've seen the private moderator's forum. It offers an interesting insight on how "we" are viewed among other topics that I cannot share due to the privacy issues.

 

It is far more interesting than the escort's forum that is for sure

 

Cheers! Ritchie

[Guest LiLBlondBoy]

One question, with all this about HIV and barebacking, does anyone even ask thier "partners" about HIV status anymore????

Whatever happened to a thing called personal responibility???

Taking one owns life in one owns hands???

If one does not protect thier own intrest..who will?

Is anyone here going to trust a little sign that says this escort is HIV-?

I wouldn't, what I will give more credit to is an escort/partner that has papers to prove status. And if they say they are HIV- they should have the papers since you have to be tested to know your status.

From what I am getting from this it seems people are wanting the proprietor of this site to take responsibility/ make accomodations for the shortcomings of the induviduals PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

 

Since I found out I was HIV+ I have found that is is much more prevelent/common than (known) statitstics show (Out of the first 10 people in the gay community I told, 8 said they were POZ too), people I never thought would have been positive, once they knew I was , came out to me about it...there are a lot of closeted people in this, and most will not tell you unless you ask and few will not tell you even if you do ask.

If you do not feel safe sex/personal responsibility, is adequate to keep you safe...the only AND I MEAN ONLY! WAY TO BE SAFER IS TO PRACTICE ABSTINANCE.

 

Class is over...you are dismissed

Christopher

Safe sex 101

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

 

 

 

 

 

For more Info, Check Reviews or my homepage

http://www.rentaboy18.freehomepage.com

[Guest LiLBlondBoy]

PS

 

The true WILL set you free

Chris

 

 

 

For more Info, Check Reviews or my homepage

http://www.rentaboy18.freehomepage.com

[Guest regulation]

>Actually, I have no idea what's in the escorts only section.

>Since you appear to have insider knowledge, why not

>enlighten us and tell us exactly what's there? Or are you

>just assuming and using your assumptions as evidence to

>prove your point?

 

We seem to have another case of "message board dyslexia" here. My post said nothing about having "insider knowledge" of anything. I referred to what we were told about the escorts only section when the decision was made to re-open it after the Billyboy episode. Now do you understand?

 

>So what was your point?

 

<sigh> Michael asked where escorts could post information about HIV+ clients. I suggested the escorts only section. Seems simple enough to me.

[Guest regulation]

>>It is exactly what I meant. As I predicted, there is no way

>>you or anyone else can argue that it is a bad thing to give

>>consumers accurate information about what sellers are

>>offering for sale, so you are resorting to namecalling

>>instead. I am disappointed.

>

>

>What name did he call you?

 

I didn't say he called me anything. He did refer to someone who would provide information about the HIV status of an escort as a "snitch." Since BofN is the one who has volunteered to do this, I assume he meant that name for BofN.

 

 

>And who is to determine if it is

>accurate information or not? Will someone get a hold of the

>escort's medical records and make them public information?

 

BofN has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for obtaining information about escorts on past occasions. He has often relied on what escorts have said about themselves elsewhere. That seems reasonable to me.

 

>How is a client being "victimized" in these cases? If you

>enter into each and every situation as if you are dealing

>with an HIV Poz person...then there should be no

>problem...unless of course someone likes to do things

>"differently" with someone who claims to be HIV negative.

 

You seem to be overlooking the fact that there is a huge difference in the actual risk involved in hiring someone who is positive and the risk in hiring someone who is not. Your post assumes that using a condom reduces the risk of intercourse with someone who is positive to zero, but I think we all know that is not true. I don't see how one can be called unreasonable for wanting as much information about that risk as one can get.

 

>I am curious...do you ask your escorts to provide you with

>proof that they are negative? Do you even ask such a

>question?

 

I take those precautions that seem best to me. Like every other consumer, I can only benefit by having more information about what I am buying.

 

 

>And Michael Johnson makes a good point...should there also

>be a list of clients put up here who are Poz and hide it

>from the escorts?

 

It's fine with me.

 

>I do not even see HooBoy allowing this...and he is being

>quiet on this whole issue - so it makes me wonder where he

>falls on this argument - but creating a list and having

>people (not escorts - PEOPLE) register with a "POZ squad" is

>abhorrent.

 

Maybe it is to you. It seems reasonable enough to me.

[Guest tmbg]

>

>Since I found out I was HIV+ I have found that is is much

>more prevelent/common than (known) statitstics show (Out of

>the first 10 people in the gay community I told, 8 said they

>were POZ too), people I never thought would have been

>positive, once they knew I was , came out to me about

>it...there are a lot of closeted people in this, and most

>will not tell you unless you ask and few will not tell you

>even if you do ask.

 

This is actually a brilliant paragraph that everyone should re-read. It's also somewhat scary.

 

Cheers! Ritchie

[+ deej]

>We seem to have another case of "message board dyslexia"

>here.

 

Yes we do.

 

>I referred to what we were told about the

>escorts only section when the decision was made to re-open

>it after the Billyboy episode.

 

We were also told that no personal information would be allowed. You conveniently forgot that part.

[Guest regulation]

>>I referred to what we were told about the

>>escorts only section when the decision was made to re-open

>>it after the Billyboy episode.

>

>We were also told that no personal information would be

>allowed. You conveniently forgot that part.

 

I forgot nothing. I simply don't believe it.

[Guest regulation]

>Okay, I see your point where I didn't, quite, before. You're

>saying, I believe, that "accurate information" is what's

>important. What I'm trying to counter is that ALL

>information is not necessarily material. Specifically, I

>think it can be argued that HIV status is immaterial to the

>escort/client transaction. Full disclosure does not mean you

>need to know EVERYTHING about the escort.

 

When one hires someone to have sexual intercourse, what information could be more material than his HIV status?

 

Two years ago I read an article in The Times stating that the failure rate for condoms is 17% on average. Let's assume this is a ludicrous exaggeration and that the true rate is less than half that, or 7%. If an escort meets an average of three unique clients per week for three years, is a top, is positive, and uses a condom on each occasion, how many people would be exposed to HIV?

 

 

>

>(Didn't mean to namecall. Sometimes I try too hard to be

>amusing. A lifelong failing. Sorry.)

 

Think nothing of it. I enjoy your posts and hope to see many more.

[Guest tmbg]

>>We seem to have another case of "message board dyslexia"

>>here.

>

>Yes we do.

>

>>I referred to what we were told about the

>>escorts only section when the decision was made to re-open

>>it after the Billyboy episode.

>

>We were also told that no personal information would be

>allowed. You conveniently forgot that part.

 

Regulation I can assure you that there is absolutely no personal information noted in the escort's only section about clients. As I have said several times it is really a boring forum, a few warnings about very dangerous clients, virtually not a word about people who post here and mostly cluttered with chit chat that would put a hyperactive kid to sleep

 

Now I do not know what it was like the first time or the problems that were related. I think the most juicy piece of info you would find there is escort x is really from Alabama instead of New York and was married for 5 years and has 3 kids

 

I do not know if the moderators have access, obviously Hooboy and Daddy do. Both do not participate. So you really should not be too concerned with that forum, honestly.

 

I guess it would be nice if a few escorts who have access would also try to reassure your clients and potential clients by posting here to put a stop to this nonsense.

 

Cheers! Ritchie

[Guest regulation]

>I do not know if the moderators have access, obviously

>Hooboy and Daddy do. Both do not participate. So you really

>should not be too concerned with that forum, honestly.

>

 

Thanks for the information, but you are directing it to the wrong person. I never said I had any concern for myself about what is posted in that forum. For the record, I do not. If Michael or other escorts want to post information about clients who are known to them to be deceiving escorts about their HIV status or are mistreating escorts in other ways, it's fine with me.