PUTTING YOU AND ME AT RISK

[Guest ChgoBoy]

I’ve heard of coddling an escort before, it happens quite frequently around here. But what I have never heard of before, is a website that secretively, purposely and blatantly REMOVES a review of an escort, because the review contains barebacking references and activities that occurred between the escort and the client; putting both you and me in harms way. Well it has just happened in this site’s review center. Review #26, that shared the barebacking activities of Kevin Slater and his client is GONE; secretively, purposely and blatantly. This was it’s EXACT content:

 

From Review #26, 6/5/2005:

 

Daddy Sez: libelous Information removed"

 

It has now been replaced by review #25 (I invite you to read) which speaks about how Kevin Slater “slips on a condom” before getting into the main attraction. How can the management of this review site, justify in good conscience, the removal of information that could potentially save the life of a client? What selfish motive and gain could be behind the removal of this review and information? I just have to ask this question again as my anger and outrage at the moment is un-containable. What selfish motive and gain could be behind the removal of this review and information? Kevin Slater is an escort that barebacks his clients. His personal advertising promotes it and his barebacking videos document it. Why then does the management of this site feel that they have the right to play God and deny this very critical information to its base of readers and members? I need an answer to this.

 

This time I am not going quietly into the night until a satisfactory answer to this question is provided to this site’s base of readers and members. This time, I will be calling for a public boycott of the M4M review site in the media and through the Gay and Lesbian health crisis centers throughout the nation, if this is not satisfactorily explained. I am outraged and so should the readers of this board. Shame is such an inappropriate word for all of this, but all I can entertain at the moment.

[JT Brooklyn]

IMHO. I doubt that any of the guys who have been writing "Creditable" Reviews,(MYSELF) OR Receiving them (MANY) would take this so called "Review" which reads like a bad attempt at a "Porno Scribble"...Very Seriously..Who ever submitted it "Lucked Out" it got Posted in the First Place. :+

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Ok the review is gone. Daddy has been pretty good about flagging suspicious reviews. He stated in the other thread that some research strongly indicated that the reviewer and the poster, acting like he did'nt know Slater much less review him, were possibly the same person . Possibly further research clinched it for daddy. If so a note would have been nice and also a prudent measure. IMO it was a mistake not to include a note.

 

>This time I am not going quietly into the night until a

>satisfactory answer to this question is provided to this

>site’s base of readers and members.

 

Here is the problem. You don't offer much incentive for daddy to respond... really. It is abundantly clear to me and I suspect to many others that you already know the answer you want and nothing else will satisify. So daddy has no real incentive to respond to your threat.

 

I hope that he will consider all of the other readers though that have open minds and that are curious why the review was withdrawn. Many people read the review and a 'disappearance' is always dissatisfying. The appropriate place to for an explanation is in the reviews where it can be seen by all, not here where only a subset of site readers will see it for a small window of time.

[Rick Munroe]

>This time, I will be

>calling for a public boycott of the M4M review site in the

>media

 

Which media outlet are you going to use? I think Larry King would be a great place to start: "Tell me, Chicago Boy, what's the deal with this whole Kevin Slater thing?" :+

[JT Brooklyn]

LOL...:+

[Guy Fawkes]

When I find credible evidence that a fraudulent review has been published, I will remove that review.

 

You certainly may question the action, but reposting a review that consists primarily of libelous information is against the rules. You have the right to demand a boycott; however you can do it elsewhere.

 

Sir, you are no longer welcome here.