wot hoppened??

[woodlawn]

>Because that "certain other escort" was me, and because the

>post contained no personal information. Here is how it went:

 

>Rick's response: That's funny, Doug. You paid me a lot more

>than that, but it never changed my opinion of you.

 

>Woodlawn, I know you've been sarcasm-challenged in the past,

>so let me explain it to you: that was sarcasm.

 

Rick, did the thought ever occur to you that the reason I may have trouble recognizing sarcasm when you use it is that you just aren't very good at it?

 

Another reason why I might have had trouble recognizing that post as sarcasm, as you "forgot" to mention above, is that Doug reacted in the very same thread as though the encounter you described was real. He also complained that this is not the first occasion on which you have disclosed information on this message board about his hiring practices. I for one recall another occasion on which you stated that he had hired Derek. Or was that "sarcasm" as well?

 

>Doug and I have moved on; you might want to try it sometime.

 

What are you talking about? You haven't moved an inch since you first started posting on this board. Still posting the same self-promoting tripe as when you started, aren't you? "I Love Daddies"?

 

>Btw, woodlawn, you were great last night. Especially after

>the dentures came out.

 

I have to admit I thought your teeth were real when I first saw them. Just goes to show you.

[Rick Munroe]

>"I

>Love Daddies"?

 

At last, we agree on something. :9

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Doug Happens

 

Sigh.

 

Doug, you are an idiot with a poor command of the written (and probably spoken language).

 

I have a number of reviews on this site from credible reviewers as well as MC posters. Gentlemen who have hired people like Matt Vancouver, Rick Monroe, Rod Hagen, Ted Matthews, Michael Brandon, Devon, Jake Walker, Jason Markus, Cole Ramsey and many others. With the exception of some patently false and fraudulent reviews someone attempted to slip past Hoo Boy in 2003 and 2004 (which he caught and killed), these reviews as well as all my other reviews, the comments which have been made about me by people who have actually met (as opposed to having a clear axe to grind about me - their protestations to the contrary) are all evidence that I practice safe sex with my clients. In point of fact, I practice safe sex period.

 

I should not have to repeat this because I have pointedly made the following comments at many times in the past, present and future:

 

[li] assume everyone is positive and proceed accordingly;

 

[li] condoms work.

 

Even if any individual (escort or client or otherwise) was HIV positive and was having sex with another individual (escort, client, trick or whatever) who was also HIV positive, not using a condom opens up the opportunity for STDs, including STDs which are serious, such as syphillis.

 

There are any number of threads where anyone can find my opinions about all of these topics. On the other hand, just a few cursory searches of any posts by Dougie on this site show one thing and one thing only repeated posts and entire threads used solely to attack an escort (as well as other clients who disagree with him) on any number of basis, usually by misrepresenting something they said, by taking their comments or opinions on this site out of context or simply by making rude, caustic, obnoxious remarks.

 

Doug, plain and simple, you obviously post here because you do not have a life and you are a angry, bitter, jaded man with little else to do that is productive, life affirming or positive.

 

Whatever proof you think you have is not proof at all, unless, as others have mentioned here, it is proof that you lie, steal, cheat, stalk - all supposedly on behalf of others and not because you have a personal axe to grind against someone.

 

Let me make it plain since you do seem to have a poor command of language skills and let me make this plain for anyone else:

 

I do not practice unsafe or high risk sex. Period.

 

Any "evidence" or "proof" otherwise is about as real as the 'photographic evidence' that you get from someone on AOL that they have an eight inch dick.

 

Your proof only passes the smell test of the National Enquirer and guys like Matt Drudge.

 

Oh, and Dougie, you can post whatever you want after this. I have better things to do than to re-read it, read your responses or comments (or anyone elses for that matter), like going for a bike ride.

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>>Then why did the moderators allow Rick to post personal

>>information about Doug a few weeks ago -- to wit, facts

>about

 

>ChgoBoy posted: What do I have to do to make Rick Monroe love

>me?

>Doug replied: Find a way to gather together 10 twenty-dollar

>bills every week or so. Then you´ll feel like the love is

>flowing.

>Rick's response: That's funny, Doug. You paid me a lot more

>than that, but it never changed my opinion of you. :o

 

I'd just like to inject here that my above quote was sarcastic in nature and was intended for humor only.:7

[Rick Munroe]

>I'd just like to inject here that my above quote was sarcastic

>in nature and was intended for humor only.

 

Does this mean I have to return the ring? ;(

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>>I'd just like to inject here that my above quote was

>sarcastic

>>in nature and was intended for humor only.

>

>Does this mean I have to return the ring? ;(

 

Nah, all my bitches get special gifts, so enjoy.

[BewareofNick]

Wow. Doug and I are on the same side of an issue again. One more time and I believe it signals the beginning of the End Times.

 

I wish you had contacted me to help verify if this were Franco or not. I have done this several times in the past and been able to conclude one way or the other if the escort was being deceptive in their sexual practices.

 

If an escort advertises he barebacks, fine. That's his business and his clients.

 

If an escort is neutral on the subject, and will admit to it when asked, fine again.

 

If an escort claims to practice safe sex, and in reality does not, that is deceptive and should be roundly condemned as Doug pointed out.

 

I understand all the arguements about assume everyone is positive and play accordingly. I get that. It is not, however, relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

It is about deception and dishonesty.

 

Take this escort review:

 

Escort Verification (a5)

 

My stage name now is Chad Phoenix,

Raleigh, NC

04-17-1984

336-254-5051

hotworkinboy@aol.com

i am 6'2, 175lbs, 31w, blond, blue, 8c, vers, safe sex only.

my rate is 3 hour min for 500, overnite 1000.

 

Review #13, 12/30/2004 - Response Follows...

 

Experience: I’d like to say I feel this review is necessary given the, in my opinion, serious situation that happened. My gut feeling is that this is something that was impulsive and won't happen again, so those who read this, please keep that in mind. I truly wish Chad the best, but I also need to be responsible here, and I hope there are no hard feelings.

 

Chad is exactly as he describes himself. Personable, playful, and overall a nice guy. The sex was also very good. Unfortunately, an issue came up that I can't ignore. Though I made it clear that I always practice safer sex and that barebacking was not an option, some brief barebacking (me as the bottom) did happen without my immediate knowledge or consent. After I found out (within a couple minutes…it fortunately was not long and not taken to completion), I stopped it immediately, but it was something that scared me a great deal because of its risk. Unprotected anal sex as the bottom is THE riskiest type of sex for STD transmission. There were some really nice moments after that, but I just couldn't relax since I was worried and upset over this. (And quite honestly, despite stopping him, I wasn't as up-front in confronting him at the time and talking about it as I should have been – I’m a very timid person and not good at confrontation. He did assure me several times I didn’t have to worry.)

 

High risk behavior is dangerous for both parties in a situation where status is not guaranteed (and even if presumably known, some of these things can take time to show up). I will say that Chad was responsible about this after talking to him after-the-fact, and he both apologized and agreed to get STD tested and let me know the results. I'm happy to report the results were all clear according to him (I never saw a copy directly, but I believe him), so I probably have little to worry about. I also waited a suitable amount of time and tested myself, and so far, everything’s clear. (At 6 ½ weeks, there should be a fairly high degree of accuracy).

 

Chad Responds 2/17/2005

 

In my profession, at the end of the day, my reputation means everything to me and my clients. So, when a client does not have an enjoyable experience I take it personally, whether it was my fault or not. I would never knowingly do anything to cause harm to anyone and have chosen to use this client's obvious dissatisfaction as an opportunity to strengthen my commitment to safe and caring service to all my clients. As Zen Master Kyong Ho reminds us, "Don't expect your path to be clear of obstacles. Without hindrances the mind that seeks enlightenment may be burnt out." I see obstacles as opportunities to improve rather than hindrances on my path to become the man I seek to be.

 

The above illustrates why it's important to know if an esocrt is being truthful about barebacking. Had Chad been honest up front, the client most likely would not have hired him. If Chad were truly into only safe sex, this incident would not have happened.

 

What Doug has done, and what I have done in the past, is to inform the consumer. Perhaps FDS should have thought of that before engaging in questionable activities or joining questionable websites.

 

This once again points out the favored son status bequeathed to certain members of this message center such as BN and FDS (isn't that a feminine product?)

 

I also noticed in FDS's response below, at no time does he deny the pictures or the account in question as not being his. He certainly says period a lot, but methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[Doug69]

RE: Doug Happens

 

>Doug, you are an idiot with a poor command of the written (and

>probably spoken language).

 

As BewareOfNick astutely pointed out, in all your blather you never said whether the profile I posted that had your pictures in it (and was for "East Village" at exactly the time you announced that you were visiting NYC) is yours or not. None of your pompous, safe-sex lectures or silly little attacks on my command of the language will obscure your revealing evasions.

 

Is the open-to-barebacking profile yours or not, Franco? Why not clearly just admit it (or deny it), and then let other people decide whether they want to hire you in light of this conduct?

 

Are you the one who posted that profile?

[Doug69]

>In this thread you have claimed no less than 10 times that

>the thread in question was deleted. NO it wasn't! As is

>clearly stated in this forum under the original thread

>Subject, it was moved. I moved it to the Mod forum.

 

Oh, OK, Barry. The thread wasn't deleted. It was just "moved" - to a place where nobody can see it except for 3 people. Yeah - that's really different than deleting it.

 

Even

>though a basic foundation of propaganda states if repeated

>over and over again you can make people believe anything....in

>this case it just ain't so. Does this make you a lier?

 

In case you haven't heard, I'm not a moderator (I tend not to work for free in order to get a feeling of petty power). As a result, I don't have access to the place to which the thread was "moved," and therefore, I would have no way of knowing that it was "moved."

 

All I know - and what plenty of other people thought, as is apparent from what they wrote here - is that one minute, the thread was there for everyone to read. The next minute, it was gone.

 

>Additionally, everything you state about this escort's private

>behavior is in the present tense. Then you state the

>"evidence" you posted for this behavior is over a year old.

>So any action by anyone in the past should be assumed to be

>current? Well there was a time in my past that I didn't use

>condoms. I do now. Does that make me a barebacker?

 

I think that when it comes to barebacking, there is a little bit of a difference between someone taking loads in their ass a year ago and someone taking loads in their ass 25 years ago, don't you?

 

If you concentrate hard, you might realize that ANY barebacking by an escort which is discussed here is in the "past," unless the escort is barebacking at the very moment the poster is pressing SEND. There may be a behavior which occurs so long ago that people cease to care about it, but when it comes to barebacking, I'd be willing to bet that people think that an escort's barebacking that took place only a year ago is pretty relevant when it comes to hiring.

 

> I moved the thread for discussion

>since you appeared to have posted screen captures of an

>escort's personal, non-business profile on another site. That

>crosses the line between business related and personal

>information. Personal information about any member of the MC

>is not allowed unless presented by that individual.

 

OK - so it's perfectly fine for an escort to come here and claim that he doesn't bareback EVER - both professionally and personally - and lead clients to believe this to be true. But it's not OK to post proof that the escort is lying? That makes sense. What a great resource this site is for prospective clients. Escorts get to lie with impunity about health issues but nobody can post anything proving that it's a lie.

 

>We all have professional and personal lives. They are

>seperate. If you want to discuss something about an escort's

>statements or behavior in the course of escorting, fine. Your

>and their personal lives are off limits here.

 

>If what an escort does at work doesn't jive with what

>they say they do at work, it's open for discussion

>here.

 

Many people think that if an escort takes loads in his ass, that's relevant to whether the escort is a desirable person to hire, regardless of whether or not they're getting paid to take the loads or not. That's especially true if the escort comes here and makes false claims that he doesn't do such things.

 

But if the policy here is that escorts are free to come here to claim that they ONLY engage in safe sex and that others will be prevented from alerting people to the falsity of that claim, I think it's good that this policy has finally come to light.

[Rick Munroe]

>Nah, all my bitches get special gifts, so enjoy.

 

Thanks. :*

[+ deej]

RE: Fading Memory

 

>Are you sure? :o

 

You'll notice I didn't change the subject either. :9

 

I distinctly remember the bathroom stall walls part came from you, and you had a lot of input into that block of text. (Which, ironically, is one of the few sections that hasn't changed in all the iterations.) :-)

[Barry]

>Oh, OK, Barry. The thread wasn't deleted. It was just "moved"

>- to a place where nobody can see it except for 3 people.

>Yeah - that's really different than deleting it.

 

It's significantly different. I'll explain. Delete it and it's gone forever. Move it and it can be restored. We have moved threads to the Mod forum and returned them after review. I was going to propose deleting your posts of a personal profile and returning it but you've eliminated the need to do that by bringing the discussion here.

 

>I don't have access to the place to which the thread

>was "moved," and therefore, I would have no way of knowing

>that it was "moved."

 

This topic has been moved by the moderator of this forum.

 

What is it that confused you about the use of "moved" in this statement? It's automatically generated by the software when we move a thread. I understand that the ability of a Moderator to post a comment with that statement may be in an upcoming revision.

 

>I think that when it comes to barebacking, there is a little

>bit of a difference between someone taking loads in their ass

>a year ago and someone taking loads in their ass 25 years ago,

>don't you?

 

No I don't. The only thing I find relevant with a sexual partner is whether they try to practice unsafe sex with me. My point was that you allege you have evidence of a behavior from over a year ago but all of your statements are crafted to be in the present tense. And nothing in your evidence or my statement said anything about bottoming bareback. Of course your persistent Tabloid language has morphed bareback into "taking loads in their ass". If your agenda here is so noble why do you find the need to play with words.

 

>I'd be willing to bet that

>people think that an escort's barebacking that took place only

>a year ago is pretty relevant when it comes to hiring.

 

And if, as has been discussed here many times and you have also stated, assume everyone is HIV+, then someone who considers it pretty relevant probably shouldn't hire anyone.

 

>But if the policy here is that escorts are free to come here

>to claim that they ONLY engage in safe sex and that others

>will be prevented from alerting people to the falsity of that

>claim, I think it's good that this policy has finally come to

>light.

 

It has been and is currently the policy of the Message Center that personal information about escorts or clients outside of the escort/client business relationship is out of bounds. As the final arbiter here, Daddy is the only one that can make exceptions.

 

I do find it disturbing that you and/or your friends/agents are out there collecting personal information on escorts and maybe other members here and keeping files for some future use. It's a shame that you don't have to post your "hiring" name so escorts could evaluate whether this behavior is relevent to their decision to do business with you.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Fading Memory

 

>I distinctly remember the bathroom stall walls part came from

>you, and you had a lot of input into that block of text.

>(Which, ironically, is one of the few sections that hasn't

>changed in all the iterations.) :-)

 

I recall the bathroom stalls part too. Interestingly, although I don't recall the other part now, the style does seem very familiar. :o

[Barry]

RE: Fading Memory

 

>I recall the bathroom stalls part too.

 

Did you and Deej check each other out at the urinals first or go right to the stalls?

 

Barry }(

[+ deej]

RE: Fading Memory

 

Right to the stalls. It was cheaper than a hotel. :+

[augustman]

The forum here has been a very interesting read for me for the last 8 months or so. This particular subject matter is very personal for a significant amount of men on this site. But also a very damamging claim to the escort and his livihood. What an escort may or may not do in his personal life may be relevant. The issue is how should it best be handled if there is a health issue at stake. It can include being arrested files which are published in many local newspapers as well as the dreaded BB issue which is typically issued by the client, although not always as in this case.

 

I believe there may be an alternative or middle ground for this subject matter in the future. I believe if there is credible evidence of the escort engaging in actvities that are counter to their descriptions as listed it should be announced. But I do not beleive people should be allowed to post this type of damaging evidience without someone reviewing the credibility of the evidence. I just went through the rules and I am not sure I read anything that stated how a client can contact someone to review this type of information ahead of time.

 

I believe in this case, things are not going well on either side. First I believe when I have seen a posting pulled there was a message given. It may have but I was unable to find. Second once taylorky asked the question I think a moderator response should have come sooner and this question locked, with the explanation that a response would be coming shortly. I know moderators are unpaid volunteers but this particular subject is and always will be a hot topic. By not locking down the question the name is out really what is the difference now, no different at this point than an athlete being associated with steroids proof or not.

 

Doug I am not sure you are handling this well either. You feel you have credible evidence fine. Deal with the moderators, I do not believe putting the escorts name out there when people question the evidence adds to your credibility. You may have a valid issue with the moderators, but now we will be at a he said he said. Once again we will get caught up in the name of the escort rather than a discussion regarding how you information is handled as well as how things might change in the future.

 

I do not know what alternative may be available but this whole post seems to have gone to the dogs.

[BewareofNick]

A well thought out post, even if a little pie in the sky.

 

There have been many similar incidents in the past here.

 

In one case, a very popular escort, Jason Reardone, was found to have an escort ad on a bareback website. It became quite the topic here of course. After a little covert investigation, I was able to determine that Jason was not barebacking and that the ad had not been placed there with his knowledge. Naturally, that didn't stop the speculation, but it seemed to have ended the arguement.

 

In another case, Luke Brazil was accused of the same thing. He was sent an e-mail and he admitted to barebacking and that the little old ladies on Hooboy's site couldn't handle it and didn't need to know.

 

http://babydb.male4malescorts.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=7&topic_id=26909&mesg_id=26909&listing_type=search

 

So what about FDS? Time will tell I guess.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that invalid claims can hurt an escort's career. That should not be allowed. BUT, if the claim is made, and there's reasonable cause, there are ways, as with jason above, to ensure that the truth, whatever it is, comes out. It should never be swept under the moderators' collective rug.