This doesn't seem right...................

[BuckyXTC]

After reading the review of Brent/Atlanta (listed in today's reviews) I decided to visit the 1stClassCompanions agency website to see what their other escorts looked like. After choosing the option for "companion search" the page that loaded had a group of thumbnail photos of about six or seven escorts. If you desire to see what I saw, here is the URL:

 

http://www.1stClasscompanions.com/2.asp

 

What caught me off guard was the fact that at least two of those thumbnail photos were of escorts who work for Premier in Philly, namely, Isaac and Danny. It seems pretty shady and unprofessional for an agency (1stClassCompanions) to be using the photos of boys from another agency to entice business for their site. Is this a common practice? How do you feel about it?

[marc anthony]

It is really interesting, Bucky. If you move your cursor over those pics, the message pops up that these boys do NOT work for 1st class. Then when you actually go into to the site, they have 3 or 4 boys who are at LEAST as attractive as the ones shown on the opening page. Why they don't use the cute boys from their own agency is beyond me.

[BuckyXTC]

Marc:

 

When I move my cursor over those pictures, nothing happens. I'm on a Macintosh and using Internet Explorer. So I see no disclaimer that these boys don't work for !stClass.

[BewareofNick]

I get the same message as marcanthony. I am using IE 6.0.

 

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the first picture on the left is of none other than everyone's favorite shady escort, Anthony Holloway. That's cause enough to BEWARE.

[marc anthony]

>Marc:

>

>When I move my cursor over those pictures, nothing happens.

>I'm on a Macintosh and using Internet Explorer. So I see no

>disclaimer that these boys don't work for !stClass.

 

I have a PC and Windows XP with internet explorer... and there is definitely a disclaimer. It says, "We have many different types of guys who work for us, and the men in these picture do NOT work for us."

 

I am not sure what is more puzzling... the fact that you can't find it with the same browser or the fact that 1st class puts those pics up when they have their own cute guys! ;-)

[+ Lucky]

Are you guys hard up? I can't imagine getting all that concerned about this, but then that's just my opinion!

[BuckyXTC]

>Are you guys hard up? I can't imagine getting all that

>concerned about this, but then that's just my opinion!

 

 

Lucky:

 

Not a matter of being "hard up", as you put it, but about being concerned about false advertising. If the disclaimer pops up, as Marc Anthony says it does, I certainly believe him. It just doesn't show up on my computer. And regardless of the disclaimer, there is the matter of copyright infringement, which means if 1stClassCompanions is using photos that are owned by Premier without the express permission of Premier, especially for commercial purposes, that is illegal.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

which means if 1stClassCompanions is

>using photos that are owned by Premier without the express

>permission of Premier, especially for commercial purposes,

>that is illegal.

 

Perhaps both agencies are owned by the same people.

 

Thunderbuns

[BuckyXTC]

Thunderbuns:

 

I also thought they might be owned by the same people, but decided to check, and they're not.

[+ Lucky]

I withdraw my previous remark. The ethics of the agency in one area may say a lot about how they conduct their business in other areas.