JASON REARDONE MAILING LIST!

[Guest bottomboykk]

RE: Final Responseto Trekker II

 

Jason: all of the normal, level-headed people on this site love you and thank you for your time and effort in replying to someone like trekker, who has nothing better to do with his time than to attempt to disparage you. Don't let him get you down, and please keep writing in the center. We need more people like you.

[Justice]

RE: Final Responseto Trekker II

 

Jason,

 

My respect and admiration for you grows with each one of your posts. Unfortunately, anyone who adopts a public persona has to put up with a lot of you know what. Bottomboy took the words right out of my keyboard:

 

>Don't let him get you

>down, and please keep writing

>in the center. We need

>more people like you.

 

Hang in there! This too shall pass!

 

Justice!

[Guest AIM]

I remember seeing a link to this BB site in another thread awhile back. So obviously many, many users of this board were (and are now) aware of it.

 

And since Jason has been so actively marketing himself (with links to his web site that contains pictures) in every one of his posts on these message boards, I think it would be monumentally STUPID of Jason to at the same time advertise his services (also with pictures) on this BB site!!! Especially considering that this particular BB web site was discussed extensively in a prior thread. It just doesn't make sense! He seems too intelligent for that.

 

Because of this simple reasoning and for what it's worth, I believe him.

 

And although I can't blame Trekker for being curious and raising the issue, I hope that he realizes that he has made his point and should now just let it go. Nothing else is to be gained.

 

And Jason, can I make a suggestion? Don't get me wrong, I think you handled yourself great. However, since you are the person in the lime light so to speak, there will always be people wanting to knock you down (and unfortunately for you, posters can do that here anonymously -- very convenient for them). ... Oh yeah, my suggestion ... if you know you're in the right, don't waste so much energy trying to convince someone who can't (and doesn't want to) be convinced. If you feel in your heart that you are right, state your position ONCE and fairly briefly, hold your head up high, and let the negative poster(s) self-destruct. Don't let them drag you into the mud trying to defend yourself.

 

And I know what you're thinking: "Yeah, that's easy for you to say!" And you're right; but, I hope it helps.

 

:-)

Allen

[+ deej]

OK everyone, simmer down.

 

One of my regulars showed up on that site, and it worried me. Until I actually studied the listing. Someone OBVIOUSLY copied his pics and description from his own website and the e-mail address was a fake. The tell-all was it said "no tattoos" and I've licked them so I know they're there.

 

I contacted my regular and he was MORTIFIED that he was listed on this bareback site. He contacted the webmaster.

 

The webmaster requested additional pictures as proof of identity and my guy provided them. The ad was pulled immediately. But two days later, another ad with an identical description was posted with the new pictures!

 

The webmaster at that site knowingly and intentionally posts false advertisements.

 

I'll side with Jason on this one.

[BewareofNick]

I'd already posted this on the Trekker vs jason thread, but I think it bears posting here as well. Thanks, deej!!!

 

*****************************************************************

 

Guys, I'd just like to put my two cents in here and perhaps settle this issue once and for all:

As many of you know, I have been tracking an escort/massage/thief type of guy named Nick. In a similar vein, I have also kept track of a certain other little con-artist (with some help from my friends!) I am usually pretty good at digging up information on people and finding out what I need to know.

 

When this 'issue' first reared its ugly head, I too, wondered if Jason was a bareback escort. In fact, when the topic was first brought up, I checked out the site (One of the posters said we would be surprised at who we would find there) Imagine my surprise to find Jason's pictures there listed as 'MJ'. I had seen Jason's listings in the past under the name MJ, but it didn't strike me as being quite right. I e-mailed Jason privately and let him know about the bb website and his pictures there. He thanked me for letting him know and told me that he asked the webmaster several times to remove them to no avail. So, I wondered...was Jason really a bb escort? My gut instinct was no, but since I was not 100% sure, I decided I would find out.

I let about 2 weeks or so go by and I e-mailed Jason at his QTMassageboy e-mail address (as listed on the bb website). The first time, I did not receive a response. A few weeks later, I sent him another e-mail from a different e-mail account. This time I received a short terse response stating that he did not offer his services bareback. He explained that he had asked the webmaster to remove his pics, but to no avail.

I kept checking back at the BB website and branched out into others. The number of escorts I recognized on these sites astounded me. Most of them were listed under 'civilian' names and were not advertising as escorts. I found two listings for a popular escort. Rather than approach him directly, I e-mailed one of his regualr clients (a prodigious poster on this board) to alert him to the fact that his escort of choice was barebacking in his personal life. The poster then forwarded that information to his escort and we found out that it was someone else using his pictures. Those profiles have since been removed. Both client and escort thanked me.

Finally, I wrote Jason again about a week or so ago under yet another screenname. He did not reply. I sent a follow up e-mail to which he did reply, giving me the exact same response as before. We then exchanged one more set of e-mails where he replied that he was sorry that he could not accomodate my request, but in his line of work, it was not a safe thing to do.

 

Then I read the Mailing List thread and the harsh words Trekker had for Jason.

 

I am convinced beyond a shadow (cue the black church ladies!) of a doubt that Jason is not now nor has he ever been a bb escort. In my posts, I made it worth his while to do so and he did not budge from his convictions. His story matches my experience to a T as do all the replies I received from him. If nothing else, I think most of you regulars know that I can find the truth no matter where it might be buried.

 

I also believe that his friend indiscriminately placed Jason's ad wherever he thought they could drum up business.

 

I believe Trekker was out of line (we'll just let him spend some quiet time with Mr. Garak in the tailor shop)

 

Jason has never been anything but nice and honest on this board. he has a good reputation with his clients and I believe with the majority of the posters here. After conducting my investigation, there are no doubts in my mind that Jason is telling the truth.

[Guest DMnFL]

Well, being that I am good friends with someone who knows "Jason" well, and having met him once myself, I agree with you about him being too "intelligent" to offer his services for BB, especially with all the attention focused on him. But I stated earlier that it is a convenient excuse to blame a "friend" for his add showing up on a BB site. I too visited the site in question and can attest to the fact that none of the information is false and there is more to the whole story. I have been asked by my friend not to say anything specific, and I will respect that. Again, though, I am eager to see how the whole story will be revealed, that is unless the truth continues to be danced around.

DM

[Guest trekker]

RE: FINAL Response to TREKKER

 

>IT'S SOMETHING YOU MAY NOT HAVE HEARD OF, "PRIVATE

>EMAIL"

 

Actually, I have heard of it, but if you had read my post to you and if you had read several other posts that I have made on this subject (including one on another thread to which you wrote a reply), you would know that many of us here, including me, are not able to use private mail any more, unless we happen to find a post from the intended addressee on one of the few threads that have the mail icons (not a very common occurrence).

 

>AS FAR AS YOUR OTHER SUGGESTIONS THAT I TAKE

>BAREBACKE APPTS IN TAMPA,

 

I did not make any suggestions. I asked you for an explanation and a clarification. There was some circumstantial evidence. You provided ambiguous and misleading (and, as it later turned out, false) information, and I asked you to explain and clarify it. There's nothing wrong with that. And since your statements were public, there's nothing wrong with asking for an explanation or clarification in public.

 

>I DO NOT TAKE BAREBACK

>APPTS! PERIOD! UNDER ANY CURCUMSTANCES! EVER! NOT

>IN TAMPA OR ANYWHERE!

 

Bravo. This is all you had to say before: two lines of text that answer both questions at once. And without revealing anything private, indiscreet or inappropriate. Instead you launched into a long explanation that was not necessary, much of which was not in answer to the question, and in which you apparently revealed things that you didn't want to (although I still don't see anything so private or indiscreet in what you said). And then you went around hand-wringing about how I had made you lose all your privacy. Without that, all the rest of these posts would not have happened. And I didn't "make" you do anything.

 

Above you said you do not take bareback appointments. That is unequivocal and answers the question. Earlier you had said you "do not routinelypractice blatantly risky acts". That is not unequivocal; it leaves the door open and suggests (yes, suggests - but it is not mysuggestion, it is yours,by what you said) that sometimes you do. That's what I asked about. Not what you did 5 years ago, but whether you meant to say that you do that now. (I think we can all agree that barebacking qualifies as a "blatantly risky act".)

[BewareofNick]

>Well, being that I am good

>friends with someone who knows

>"Jason" well, and having met

>him once myself, I agree

>with you about him being

>too "intelligent" to offer his

>services for BB, especially with

>all the attention focused on

>him.

 

Time out here, sparky. He wasn't offering his services BB before this whole thing went flaming (pun intended). Like I stated in my post, I made my inquiries before this whole thing got ugly. WAY before! You make it sound like he only stopped offering BB sevices because a great deal of attention was being focused on him, yet even you say he seemed to you to be too intelligent to do so. And the whole I'm a friend of a friend thing..that's very cliche..including the part where you put "Jason" to imply to the rest of us that you know something we don't.

 

 

 

But I stated

>earlier that it is a

>convenient excuse to blame a

>"friend" for his add showing

>up on a BB site.

 

 

You know what, you're absolutely right, it does sound very convenient and it could be a story, but then again it could be the truth! Jason has never, to my knowledge, hoodwinked a client or anyone on this board. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

> I too visited the

>site in question and can

>attest to the fact that

>none of the information is

>false and there is more

>to the whole story.

 

No one said any information on the bb site was false. The name MJ was used by Jason early on, the e-mail address is his and so are the pictures and the stats. As I stated in my post, when Jason's friend posted that ad, he probably did that one and a lot of others indiscriminately without a lot of thought as to what bareback really was. Again, I must point out that even with the offers I made Jason via e-mail, he never once wavered from his position that he does not do bb.

 

 

>I have been asked by

>my friend not to say

>anything specific, and I will

>respect that. Again, though,

>I am eager to see

>how the whole story will

>be revealed, that is unless

>the truth continues to be

>danced around.

>DM

 

No dancing here pal. (Why do I feel like John Lithgow in Flashdance?) I think everyone has been pretty straightforward. Jason is a good guy and he doesn't deserve all this crap he is getting.

[Guest trekker]

RE: Response to Jason (13), Part II

 

>>"If my escort says he has safe sex, that means all the

>>time. If he took a holiday from it yesterday, that might be

>>the day he got infected, although he wouldn't even know it

>>yet, and then today might be the day he gives it to me."

 

>And how does he give it to you if you're practicing safe sex?

>I think this says more about you than about "your" escort.

 

Well, first of all, "my/me" is the rhetorical first person, and doesn't refer to me personally. But I think you already knew that.

 

Second, I'm not a bottom, so I think you may have the wrong mental image. (No, I'm not saying that only bottoms can get infected, but they almost cetainly are more at risk.)

 

Third, as we all know, there is no such thing as "safe sex"; there is only "safer sex". We just use the term "safe sex" because it seems simpler.

 

Fourth, it is still very possible to become infected even if one (see, I didn't use the rhetorical "I", or the rhetorical "you" either) is being careful and "safe". Unfortunately, there are many people who can confirm that. Condoms can break, as has already been pointed out. Usually they don't, but sometimes they do. Even if 99+% they don't, that statistical 1% or .1% becomes 100% if it's you (no, not you, Miami, that's the rhetorical "you"; it just doesn't sound right to say "it becomes 100% if it's one"). Aside from that, infection can be spread in other ways. Cum can get into cuts, scrapes and nicks on hands, arms, chest, legs, neck, face. Small ones. Unnoticed ones. Did you shave (face or body parts) just before? Better be careful. Then there's blood. Yeah, people don't normally bleed on each other. Normally. But accidents happen. Get the idea?

[Justice]

The only thing that both you and Trekker are interested in is destroying Jason and his reputation. I suspect that you and Trekker are one and the same and that makes your claims of inside information even more suspect.

[Guest trekker]

RE: Final Responseto Trekker II

 

>If you think I was hiding something then you need to read

>my post AGAIN.

 

Jason, youare the one who needs to read again, both my earlier post (#12) and my responses (#18, 19) to your post (13).

 

In #12 I did not accuse you of barebacking or anything else. I askedyou to explain and clarify the circumstances, which were of your making (the listing on the bb site and your posted statements here). The problem stems from the fact that you apparently took that as an accusation or attack and overreacted in a very emotional way, and you also misinterpreted my questions.

 

I did not set out to attack you then, and I am not trying to do so now. I had been reading your posts here, including your "Becoming an Escort" posts, and there are things in them that I liked very much. I had never attacked or disparaged you in any way. I participated in your recent chat, the first time that I had ever taken part in an online chat. And I was interested in hiring you - in Tampa, no less (although I suppose now that option is gone). (So you see why I was concerned about what you do in Tampa, and why I noted the fact that you go there regularly?) What I mean to say by all that is that I bore (and bear) you no ill will, and there was no reason to think otherwise when all this started. And when there were discrepancies in some things you had said, I asked you to clarify them, as much to give you the chance to clear the air as anything else. To clarify either way. I wouldn't automatically refuse to hire an escort who barebacks (it would depend a lot on the escort), but it would sure change the way I think about the date and what I would be willing to do with him, and it would clearly have some sort of effect on my hiring decision. And if you had simply said the two lines that are in your later post (23), that would have been the end of it.

 

As I have just said in another post on this thread, in my posts 18-19 in response to your post 13 I accepted your explanation and said explicitly that I believe you and that I was not trying to attack you, and I praised you for some of the things you said. Some of what I said there:

>You may be surprised to hear that I believe what you said. It

>wasn't all necessary and it wasn't all relevant to the questions,

>but that's OK.

>...

>I was not trying to beat up on you, although it seems that you

>took it that way. I did not accuse you of anything (in spite of

>the way the situation looked). That's why I said that something

>"doesn't add up" and "needs more of an explanation." And I

>invited you to give an explanation, and said I was reserving

>judgement. I meant all of that, although you seem to have

>decided that it was something else.

However, in your post 13 you made the assertion that asking you for an explanation was a violation of privacy, indiscreet and inappropriate. In so doing you asserted that clients do not have the right to know about the practices of escorts which are relevant to their escort work and which can affect the client. That is something that I cannot and will not agree with. Almost allof my post is devoted to taking issue with that assertion, not with any attack on you, and much of that discussion is notabout you. There is a specific discussion of privacy, discretion and appropriateness as they relate to my questions and your answers, and there is a general discussion of those three things. The discussion explains why I think your assertion is wrong, both in the specific case and in general. There is only one thing that I faulted you for, and that is trying to cover up initially by making misleading statements (and things derived from that, like saying that you didn't realize that barebackcentral.net was about barebacking). And I think that was deserved.

 

 

> enough of my time has been wasted with

>someone who has not even considered having me as a

>guest or meeting me to make a judgment about me in

>person.

 

Well, that's where you're wrong, baby. I had (have?) the hots for you, which is why I cared about what you do. (OK, now I'verevealed something that I wouldn't have otherwise. But it was my choice to do it. I could have just kept quiet.)

 

>My client "friends" NEVER have a question as to me

>integrity or believibility <sp> once they've spent even 10

>minutes with me.

 

I didn't question your integrity or believability. In fact, I had been impressed with those from what I saw before. I asked you to clarify something. And when you did, even though not very directly, I said I believe you (see above or my post 18-19). Please don't misrepresent the situation.

 

>You're comments and questions were out

>of line and should have been posted to me personally end

>of story.

 

I disagree. You made public statements and should be able to explain or clarify them publicly. Suppose in a similar situation with someone else (I'm changing the escort so you don't think I'm talking about you and we don't get into any further difficulties over this) that he tells me privatelythat, well, yes, that really is him and he really does bareback. What am I supposed to do then? Keep quiet and let everyone else think he doesn't, based on his ambiguous statement? That's not what this board is about. Or do I run to post and "out" him? Thenhe could justifiably accuse me of revealing information that he gave me in private, and claim that when I asked for that information in private instead of in public I created the expectation that it would stay private. No, it's better for that to be in the open if it comes from a public statement. But aside from all that, back to this case, the question about risky acts was just asking for a clarification of what you meant by a statement that you had already made publicly. If you weren't prepared to clarify it, or if you didn't think that topic belonged in public, then why did you make that public statement in the first place?

 

>As for being sarcastic??? I

>was trying to keep it light hearted, being concerned FOR

>YOUR FEELINGS and fearing that you may take me too

>visciously as words sometimes seem when in this venue. It

>was meant as comedy not sarcasm.

 

Sarcasm is never light hearted, nor is it the same as comedy. And, in fact, it is usually more vicious than a direct attack. You needn't be concerned for my feelings. The only things that have hurt me and saddened me are your perception that I am trying to do you harm and the way this has gotten blown way out of proportion.

 

> Ask any of my regulars, read my

>reviews, contact any of my many very dear and very close

>"client/friends" and they will tell you who the REAL JASON is.

 

I did (read the reviews, that is). That's part of why I wanted to hire you.

 

>Everyone will be glad to know, (not that trekker asked of

>course) but I spoke with the owner of the bareback site. I'm

>sure he's happy to get all this Publicity.....anyway, the

>reason why he hasn't taken the listing off as I requested,

>many weeks ago, before this thread, is because he is

>overseas (i won't divulge where, i don't think it's necessary).

>but he assures me that when he returns to the US he will

>gladly remove it.

 

(Again the sarcasm is not needed.) I amglad to hear it. I wonder why he wasn't so cooperative during the lengthy earlier negotiations you described and why he gave you such a runaround before (no, that's not a sarcastic dig at you, that's an honest wonder).

 

>Kinder, Gentler.......OK, well I did try....I think this may be

>why all of those posters that have positive things to say and

>try to be (didn't say always) positive and informative have

>quite posting and have moved on. I feel like Kathy Lee

>Gifford, on a good day, gee thanks

 

I think it would be helpful if people read posts more carefully and reflected a little before responding viscerally to what they think is an antagonistic post (yes, I do mean that to include you, but not only you; I haven't been here that long, but I've already seen it happen several times that someone gets all bent out of shape at something that probably wasn't meant that way).

[Guest trekker]

RE: Final Responseto Trekker II

 

bottomboy (and I guess Justice, too, since the words started out in your keyboard),

 

have you read my post? It doesn't seem so. If you do, you will see that I am not disparaging Jason. I accepted his explanation, praised him for some of the things he said, and said explicitly that I believe him.

 

I did not set out to disparage or attack Jason, and I was not expecting the kind of response that he made. I think it's clear that he misinterpreted my earlier post and my questions and that he overreacted to his misinterpreted version of them. And in the process he wants to blame me for noticing the discrepancies in the situation (which you have apparently picked up on doing, too).

 

In his response he made the assertion that asking him for an explanation was a violation of privacy, indiscreet and inappropriate. In so doing he asserts that clients do not have the right to know about the practices of escorts which are relevant to their escort work. That is something that I cannot and will not agree with. Almost allof my post is devoted to taking issue with that assertion; to pointing out that askingis appropriate and does not violate privacy, even if the answers might (because the escort always has the option of not answering and saying that it is private); to pointing out that clients have a right to know about things relevant to the escort's provision of services; to pointing out that if there is any loss of privacy it is because the escort choosesto reveal the information; to pointing out that Jason didn't need to put all of that into his answer (again, that was his choice), that much of it wasn't relevant (so why put it in if you don't want it made public), and that I don't see any great loss of privacy in his answer anyway; to telling him that he had misinterpreted my questions and how they were intended to be interpreted; and to telling him that if he had come clean in the beginning instead of trying to cover up (and the truth, at least as he has described it, is not very damning at all, so why try to cover it up?) that none of this exchange would have taken place. Yes, I did fault him for the coverup and the fibs, but that's all I faulted him for. And I think that was deserved.

 

Jason brought the earlier questions on himself with his misleading and equivocal statements, and he brought my later post on himself with his hand-wringing that he should not be questioned about those statements.

[Guest DMnFL]

LOL...

I have not given support to any of Trekker's posts at all, and have not even read all of them. I have only paid attention to Jason's (I am leaving the quotations off to passify a certain someone) responses, which seem to be full of what we would all like to hear. Just from reading each of his messages/ posts, I have noticed a campaign-type approach to his methods. Personally I don't find too many honest or noble politicians, and Jason is looking like he would make a good candidate for office.

DM

[BewareofNick]

RE: Final Responseto Trekker II

 

I disagree. You made public statements and should be able to explain or clarify them publicly. Suppose in a similar situation with someone else (I'm changing the escort so you don't think >I'm talking about you and we don't get into any further >difficulties over this) that he tells me privatelythat, well, >yes, that really is him and he really does bareback. What am I >supposed to do then? Keep quiet and let everyone else think he >doesn't, based on his ambiguous statement? That's not what this >board is about. Or do I run to post and "out" him? Thenhe could >justifiably accuse me of revealing information that he gave me >in private, and claim that when I asked for that information in >private instead of in public I created the expectation that it >would stay private. No, it's better for that to be in the open >if it comes from a public statement. But aside from all that, >back to this case, the question about risky acts was just >asking for a clarification of what you meant by a statement >that you had already made publicly. If you weren't prepared to >clarify it, or if you didn't think that topic belonged in >public, then why did you make that public statement in the >first place?

 

Interesting you should mention a private e-mail scenario, because if you'd read my post down below, you'd see that something very similar did occur between Jason and me and he passed with flying colors.

 

In fact, I was never even going to mention any of this until I saw you rake Jason over the coals, but after seeing it, I felt i had no choice but to come to his defense. Perhaps your attention wasn't to attack Jason, but it sure came off that way.

 

BewareofNick

http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/Thetruth

Bewareofpeter@hotmail.com

[BewareofNick]

>LOL...

>I have not given support to

>any of Trekker's posts at

>all, and have not even

>read all of them.

>I have only paid attention

>to Jason's (I am leaving

>the quotations off to passify

>a certain someone) responses, which

>seem to be full of

>what we would all like

>to hear. Just from

>reading each of his messages/

>posts, I have noticed a

>campaign-type approach to his methods.

> Personally I don't find

>too many honest or noble

>politicians, and Jason is looking

>like he would make a

>good candidate for office.

>DM

 

 

Sweetie-pie, you did all that just for little ol me? Why I am flattered!! Jason was attacked and he responded in kind. If you really know a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of jason's like you say you do, then both of you should know that he is an intensely private person. Seems to me you would respect that if you call yourself a friend. There was no way he even came close to deserving all this dung that was heaped upon him.

 

BewareofNick

http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/Thetruth

bewareofpeter@hotmail.com

[MiamiLooker]

RE: Response to Jason (13), Part II

 

"Condoms can break, as has already been pointed out. Usually they don't, but sometimes they do. Even if 99+% they don't, that statistical 1% or .1% becomes 100% if it's you..."

 

So you just rely on what your sexual partner tells you (given that he may not even know his own status), and if you become infected due to your sexcapades you can always go back to him and with your hand on your hip, shake your finger at him and say "hey man, you lied to me!!!" That'll teach him....

[Guest MrMan]

I finally took the time to read this whole Jason thing. I don't know Jason, but to me all his responses sound like damage control. Trekker asked some worthy questions which Jason answered

in a very convoluted manner.

 

Jason isn't the only escort to be listed on BAREBACKCENTRAL by

another name, there's a "Top Escort" from NYC listed there who

also MAY have decided that because of their HIV status they

MIGHT have found yet another niche in the sex industry from which to profit.

 

Intelligent people do stupid things all the time, it's not just

the dumb who get infected. I know what I think the truth may be

here, but innocent until proven guilty, right? Oh...thanks to

trekker and Losgatan for the messages on my escort travels post.

I've appreciated your posts and those of several others in these

forums.:-)

[Guest trekker]

RE: Response to Jason (13), Part II

 

Huh? How did you get that incredibly bizarre distortion out of what I said, even by taking it out of context, as you did? You have totally turned the meaning around 180 degrees.

 

Can you possibly seriously think that the meaning of my statement is that, since condoms occasionally break there's no point in using them at all? Or that therefore I engage in risky practices? No, I don't think you possibly can.

 

The correct meaning is, as I'm absolutely sure you knew all along, that even when one is using a condom it is not 100% safe, and that has reference to my earlier statement (in 19), which you also tried to distort.

 

And since you lifted the original quote that this grew out of from a post dealing with barebacking and risky acts, in which it is abundantly clear that I am against those practices, how can you possibly make the ridiculous statements in your posts 21 and 40, which are completely contradictory to everything that I said?

 

Or are you just deliberately trying to foment discord?

[Guest trekker]

RE: Final Responseto Trekker II

 

>Interesting you should mention a private e-mail

>scenario, because if you'd read my post down below,

>you'd see that something very similar did occur between

>Jason and me and he passed with flying colors.

 

I saw that and I'm glad you did. Thank you. There is a comment from me on that post.

 

I made the remarks about private mail because Jason had said (23, 13, 24 - especially 23) I should have used it to ask him my questions instead of posting them on this thread below MiamiLooker's reference to his listing on the bareback site. My remarks were two-fold. First, I mostly cannot use private mail any more, as I have said now in several threads. Second, he is wrong in making that assertion, as I said in my post above (35), from which you have just quoted extensively. Jason or anyone else who makes public statements should be prepared to explain them, clarify them or be questioned on them in public, especially if they involve or seem to involve discrepancies or ambiguities.

 

I had in fact read your post before I wrote that, but I was responding to Jason's posts (13, 23, 24) which were written before yours (29), which was much further down in the thread. I meant to acknowledge your post afterwards, but I ran out of time and have been away from this board since then (Friday AM). I apologize for seeming to ignore your post, and there is now an acknowledgement of it and comment on it there.

 

But the difference is that you were testingJason to see what his reaction would be (so it couldn't be done here anyway and had to be in private communication), while I was askinghim to explain and clarify some public things that were already on the board, and so were not private.

 

>In fact, I was never even going to mention any of this

>until I saw you rake Jason over the coals, but after

>seeing it, I felt i had no choice but to come to his

>defense. Perhaps your attention wasn't to attack Jason,

>but it sure came off that way.

 

It wasn't, and I don't see it as "raking him over the coals." As I said in another post, I was about to try to hire him during his current trip to Tampa (I believe he's there now), when MiamiLooker's post-with-link to the bareback site appeared.. And that's why I was interested in an explanation and a clarification. I think that's entirely reasonable.

 

I accepted his explanation at face value and said I believed him (18-19). The main theme of my post 18-19 (and almost all of its length) was to take issue with his claim that asking for an explanation of why the email from the barebacking listing was going to Jason, not to someone else, and a clarification of the hedging about risky practices, was "complete disregard of all boundaries of discretion, privacy and appropriateness;" to point out that escorts can legitimately be questioned about such things, especially when the situation is muddy and their statements are equivocal; and to point out that he didn't have to include various details which he apparently views as private. And, while it came from Jason's assertion, the majority of what I wrote was addressed to a discussion in general, not to Jason individually.

 

And, BTW, I think you shouldhave mentioned it, right when this whole question came up. (I don't mean that as a criticism, but rather as an opinion.) Your independent investigation would have been the best evidence, and would have forestalled all of this. And that's one of the main functions of this site - to provide reliable, accurate information on escorts.

[Guest trekker]

Beware, (I know, everyone addresses you as "Nick," but you're notNick, you're warning against him),

 

Thank you for your investigative efforts in this matter and for sharing the results with us. Your independent investigation is obviously very credible. But also you obviously had been engaged in it for many weeks, if not months, and the results had not been made known when the subject came up on this thread. I first found out about the listing through a post on this very thread on June 1 (MiamiLooker, #8). You found out privately by yourself, by surfing on the bb site. I found out publicly by reading a post on this thread.

 

Please see my response to deej (28). My first assumption was that Jason's pics were being misappropriated without his knowledge, a practice that had been mentioned on the earlier barebacking thread. But then I noticed that Jason said that hewas receiving the email from that listing. That made it sound very different. So I asked him if he had an explanation for that. Circumstantially it certainly looked like it could be true, including the Tampa location and the fact that Jason travels there on a regular basis, and he in fact eventually admitted that he hadbeen involved in posting the listing and that it was not simply fraudulent, although he said that he had not intended it to be there. And in his statement about "risky acts" he was hedging and backing away from saying categorically that he didn't do them.

 

Instead of giving the simple and unambiguous two-line response that he gave much later, he launched into an anguished recitation of things that were not either necessary or expected in the answer, and complained that it "completely disregarded all boundaries of discretion, privacy and appropriateness" for me to ask him about that. I accepted his explanation and said that I believe him (18-19), even without all your evidence and before you made it known, but I took issue with his apparent feeling that he should not have to be responsible for his public actions and statements, or to explain apparent discrepancies in them. I don't think my words were "harsh," and most of them were not even addressed to Jason directly, but, rather, dealt with the issues of discretion, privacy and appropriateness in general terms.

 

As I have said, I, along with you, believe Jason's explanation, and I believed it even before you provided your evidence. But I do not agree with you that my inquiry was out of line. People who provide products or services have no right to get indignant when patrons/customers/clients ask questions related to the quality, reliability, responsible manner of provision, and/or safety of those products or services.

[Guest trekker]

deej,

I don't doubt that the webmaster may be intentionally posting false listings. But as you say, the pics and description were real, but the email address was a fake. (The perfidious webmaster wouldn't use the escort's real address, because the guy would find out about it right away and complain, as Jason said he did.)

 

Another possibility is that some slimy escort is using someone else's pics and description in a bait-and-switch con. In that case, the pics and description are stolen, but the guy would use his ownemail address. (How can he do bait-and-switch if he doesn't get the mail?)

 

That's what I assumed at first was going on with Jason's stuff. But then I noticed that he said right there that hehad been receiving the email from that listing. That put a very different light on the situation and raised questions. So I asked for an explanation. And it turned out that Jason admitted that he did put the listing there himself (or was involved in it), and not that it was a fake put up by the webmaster or a con by another escort, but that he had an explanation for how/why it got there and it was unintentional. And I accepted his explanation and said I believe him. Many posts ago.

 

You said it worried youthat your guy was on there. It worried methat Jason was on there, because I was getting ready to hire him. You didn't say how you found out, but I found out from a post on this very thread (MiamiLooker, #8). And that's why I asked here.

[Guest trekker]

>The only thing that both you and Trekker are interested in

>is destroying Jason and his reputation. I suspect that you

>and Trekker are one and the same and that makes

>your claims of inside information even more suspect.

 

Justice, I'm sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about.

 

I am not out to "destroy" Jason or his reputation or anyone or anything else here. I wanted to hireJason. And read my posts. They are not an attack on Jason as you and some others have taken to repeating. Mostly I was responding to his assertion that he shouldn't have been asked about those things (see other posts of mine for my reasons) and making a general discussion of privacy, discretion and appropriateness as they apply to a situation like this one.

 

And I don't know who you are now claiming is "one and the same" as me - is it DMnFL? - but I assure you that I am me and not anyone else. I am not the Walrus. I am not the EggMan. Goo-goo-ka-joob.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Final Responseto Trekker II

 

>And, BTW, I think you shouldhave

>mentioned it, right when this

>whole question came up.

>(I don't mean that as

>a criticism, but rather as

>an opinion.) Your independent

>investigation would have been the

>best evidence, and would have

>forestalled all of this.

>And that's one of the

>main functions of this site

>- to provide reliable, accurate

>information on escorts.

 

 

Perhaps you are correct. The only reason I did mention this is because I finally decided to read this thread (it had been fairly innocuous until MiamiLooker's post, so I really hadn't paid it much attention)and I saw what was going on. It had never seemed to be an issue until this thread. I wish I HAD revisited it earlier.

[Guest Theron]

RE: Bareback site

 

First posted this message in another thread pretainng to the debate between Jason and Trekker. I belive this post will clear it up.

 

Hello, Guys

 

Ding, reading this post made a bell go off in my head. I think I can shed some light on this. There are a few e-mail based discussion groups for escorts. The oldest, and most established one is Escort Male (it has about 550 members) The 2nd one is one I operate called Escorting Support. Both groups are sponsored by yahoo. When you become a member of the group, both Escort Male and Escorting Support, require that you create your profile. Once you create your profile when you later become subscribed to another yahoo group with your handle or e-mail address the profile follows you.

 

A few months ago someone created a new list. That list was for escorts who were into barebacking. We could not prove it, but we believed that the person who started the new list also happened to be a member of Escort Male, because they gained access to the membership list of the group --and only members can get that information. What this gentleman did next was subscribe escorts to his list without asking them. It was soon discovered, and people, myself included, had a complete fit about it, and demanded to be removed. I feel that Jason has been a victim of the unsavory acts of the owner of that list, as many other escorts were.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago