Jump to content

WHY DO I ESCORT???


Guest Zack Evans
This topic is 8313 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Guest jeffOH

>Interesting post, Ohio, but I pretty

>much disagree that words must

>be distilled to the most

>basic and carry the strongest

>(read most harsh) meaning. Sure,

>escort is an euphemism, but

>hey, a lot of the

>people i have hired did

>not fit into my mental

>image of the word prostitute.

>Perhaps we need to add

>gradations to the word itself

>to better convey the meaning

>it has to me? teasing.

>But I see ur point.

>

>However, I have never heard the

>word "balderdash" used to mean

>anything other than nonsense; Merriam

>Webster even said possible derviative

>of middle ages lating. U

>sure about this?

 

Roget's Thesaurus, Communication of Ideas, Ornament#577--several

words all related to big-, high sounding words--among them are

euphemism, rhetoric, inflation, pretension and "balderdash".

Webster's New World Dictionary--"balderdash" orig. 17th century.

And if you think about it, euphemisms are nonsensical. Does it

make sense to call a prostitute an "escort" when its literal

meaning has nothing to do with sexual services?

 

http://Jeff4hire@aol.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest jeffOH

>Many commonplace words in the English

>language no longer carry their

>original, literal meanings. Rejecting

>a word on that basis

>is being awfully strict.

 

"Escort" is hardly a commonplace word. I doubt that most people

associate it with prostitution. Maybe most gay men make that

connection and a few straight people, but that doesn't make use

of a word "commonplace". Try telling some of your straight

friends that you hire "escorts" and see how many of them immediately think of the literal definition. I speak from

experience on this one...I've had many people tell me they did

not think "prostitute" when I told them I'm an "escort". I think

people choose to use a euphemism for "prostitute" because they

are uncomfortable with the negative connotations attached and

fool themselves into believing they're not actually "paying for

sex". Yeah, right and I'm just "charging for my time", maybe you

should call me a "time-seller". When will "escort" become a

dirty word and what euphemism for the euphemism will we use?

 

Jeff4hire@aol.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

Regulation#75

 

I've so over-burdened my psychiatrist that he suggested that I

also see a therapist. Poor man, he really gets an earful when I'm

there, probably gives him something interesting to tell the wife

over dinner, though.

 

Hopefully Zack has learned something from all of this, I'm sure

he didn't expect it to come back and bite him on the ass like it

did. "Karma", perhaps?

 

http://Jeff4hire@aol.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Theron

>>>I can only

>>>tell you that when you

>>>make didactic statements about

>>>an area of which you

>>>know nothing, you can only

>>>make yourself look silly.

>>

>>What a double standard you present,

>>Regulation. You are not

>>qualified, either, to decide what

>>most psychiatrists would think about

>>escorts, and your implication that

>>most psychiatrists would probably say

>>escorts need srious therapy, given

>>what they do, is way

>>out of line.

>

>Oh no, it isn't. As

>a matter of fact, there

>was a discussion on the

>subject at the APA annual

>meeting in your hometown last

>year. I have a

>friend who was present and

>very kindly filled me in

>on what was said.

 

Oh, so you were not even there, and were filled in by a friend --that is called hearsay information, Regulatoin. But since you would like to imply, based on heresay information, that you have now twisted as fact to suit your purpose, that "most psychiatrists would probably say escorts need serious therapy, given what they do," let me ask, did the psychiatrists also have an opinion about the people who utilize the escorts services? Or didn't your friend fail to fill you in on this "hearsay" information? Now an interesting fact, not hearsay as you presented, is up until the late 1970's, most psychiatrists classified homosexuality as a mental illness, but as we all know that opinion has now changed. And while we are on the subject, psychiatrists are licensed to practice medicine, and they give opinions. Those opinions are not necessarily facts --hence they are called medical opinions. I'm certain this is all very confusing to someone like you who appears to have a desire to live in a black and white world, when most things are truly gray. Gee, did the psychiatrists have an opinion about people like that?

 

>

>See what I mean about making

>statements in an area of

>which you know nothing?

>:-)

 

lol, that is exactly what you have done, but you cannot see it.

 

 

>>Do

>>you even like escorts Regulation?

>

>I don't like escorts who "no-show"

>a client and then deny

>it, as Zack did with

>N.N. Do you like

>escorts who do that?

>Like Zack, you seem to

>want to distract people from

>the issue that started this.

> Why? Does it

>embarrass you to admit that

>there are escorts who behave

>that way?

 

No, it does not embarrass me, but why does it trouble you so deeply. Unfortunately, a great many things do not always work out perfect and neat in life. Do you find yourself frustrated a lot in life? I stood up for Zack because I felt he was a person who made a mistake, as we all do from time to time, and that would include you. I felt bad for him because you were really using this opportunity to grind an ax, in my opinion. Are you familar with the concept of compassion, Regulation? Gee, when you make a mistake do you want people jumping all over you? And before you say that I am not having a lot of compassion for you right now, please let me agree. It is difficult to have compassion for someone who displays so very little for others. They often, figuratively speaking, die by the blade they slaughter everyone else with.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Theron

>I don't like escorts who "no-show"

>a client and then deny

>it, as Zack did with

>N.N. Do you like

>escorts who do that?

>Like Zack, you seem to

>want to distract people from

>the issue that started this.

> Why? Does it

>embarrass you to admit that

>there are escorts who behave

>that way?

 

Hello, Regulation,

 

I'm sorry, I failed to mention in my last post, Zack did not "no show" a client. You are the one who has continually been stating that he did. Even the client said, early on, in the 8th message of the thread to be exact, "this was not a 'no-show' but rather a failure to follow through on a date we had agreed on." The client and Zack had talked about meeting on January 7th, but the appointment was to be confirmed by telephone on January 6th, and Zack did not confirm the appointment -- hence, it was not a no show. We later learned that Zack did not confirm an appointment with the client because he freaked out when he learned the client was H.I.V. positive. I think we all agree, yes, Zack could have, and should have handled the situation differently, and rather than not confirm an appointment just be forthright with the client about why he did not want to schedule an appointment.

 

For someone who appears to find "facts" so important, you lose credibility by intentionally misquoting this --and you have been intentionally misquoting and misleading. The absolute proof that you have been aware of the true facts rests in the fact that you personally responded to the message #8 where client disclosed details of what happened forward, and specifically said this was "not a no-show." Your reply is message #9.

 

Perhaps you get confused about what facts are? We must remember, in an attempt to say prosititues are in need of some serious therapy, you were just quoting "hearsay" information as fact, too. Possibly, you just don't like to be wrong and will twist facts to try and support what you want to say? Who knows? But one unmistakable fact is that the client specifically said this was not a "no-show," and that you, after having read that clients comments and responded to them have been the one saying that it was in fact a no-show.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>Oh, so you were not even

>there, and were filled in

>by a friend --that is

>called hearsay information, Regulatoin.

 

LOL! I'm afraid you've been watching too many episodes of "The Practice." The fact is that hearsay is often admissible as evidence in even the most serious criminal trials. Juries are allowed to hear and consider it in the most serious cases every single day.

 

 

>But since you would like

>to imply, based on heresay

>information, that you have now

>twisted as fact to suit

>your purpose, that "most psychiatrists

>would probably say escorts need

>serious therapy, given what they

>do," let me ask, did

>the psychiatrists also have an

>opinion about the people who

>utilize the escorts services?

>Or didn't your friend fail

>to fill you in on

>this "hearsay" information?

 

As a matter of they did, and he did. I found it quite fascinating.

 

 

 

Now

>an interesting fact, not hearsay

>as you presented, is up

>until the late 1970's, most

>psychiatrists classified homosexuality as a

>mental illness, but as we

>all know that opinion has

>now changed.

 

 

Oh? Now it is YOU who are relying on hearsay. How would YOU know what "most psychiatrists" thought, then or now? Because someone else told you? And you have badly misstated the facts. What you are referring to is the official position of the APA on the issue of homosexuality -- that is not the same as a poll of the opinions of most psychiatrists. The fact that the APA, for example, changes its official position on the pathology of homosexuality does not mean that "most psychiatrists" automatically change their position, any more than most Catholics automatically change their behavior toward homosexuals simply because the Pope issues an encyclical insisting that they be treated with compassion. Do you understand, or do I need to explain it further?

 

 

>No, it does not embarrass me,

>but why does it trouble

>you so deeply.

 

It always troubles me to read about someone who has been mistreated by an escort. The question is, why doesn't it trouble you?

 

 

Unfortunately, a

>great many things do not

>always work out perfect and

>neat in life. Do

>you find yourself frustrated a

>lot in life?

 

 

Only vicariously. People very seldom get away with mistreating me.

 

>I

>stood up for Zack because

>I felt he was a

>person who made a mistake,

>as we all do from

>time to time, and that

>would include you. I

>felt bad for him because

>you were really using this

>opportunity to grind an ax,

>in my opinion. Are

>you familar with the concept

>of compassion, Regulation? Gee,

>when you make a mistake

>do you want people jumping

>all over you?

 

I would in fact expect people to get pretty harsh with me if I mistreat someone, then deny it, then admit it, then repeatedly send hate mail to one of the people who called me on it, then deny that I did that. That is exactly what Zack did. And that is exactly what you are defending. The question is, why? Clearly, there is something more going on here than just your "compassion" for someone you don't even know. I think you and others simply want to drive away from this site anyone who would say anything negative about any escort. It's pretty obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>I'm sorry, I failed to

>mention in my last post,

>Zack did not "no show"

>a client. You are

>the one who has continually

>been stating that he did.

> Even the client said,

>early on, in the 8th

>message of the thread to

>be exact, "this was not

>a 'no-show' but rather a

>failure to follow through on

>a date we had agreed

>on." The client and

>Zack had talked about meeting

>on January 7th, but the

>appointment was to be confirmed

>by telephone on January 6th,

>and Zack did not confirm

>the appointment -- hence, it

>was not a no show.

 

What Zack did fits my definition of a "no-show," and apparently it fits Zack's definition also. Zack, who certainly knows what happened as well as anyone, referred to the matter as a "no-show" in his post #7. In that same post he denied that he had ever done such a thing. Which, as we now know, is not the truth. I wonder why it is that you keep skipping over that part?

 

> We later learned that

>Zack did not confirm an

>appointment with the client because

>he freaked out when he

>learned the client was H.I.V.

>positive. I think we

>all agree, yes, Zack could

>have, and should have handled

>the situation differently, and rather

>than not confirm an appointment

>just be forthright with the

>client about why he did

>not want to schedule an

>appointment.

>

 

We "all agree"? Don't presume to speak for me on this or any other issue. Frankly, I think discriminating against people because they are HIV-positive is a rotten thing to do. And if one is going to do that, one should at least be honest enough to tell the person involved to his face what is happening. Zack couldn't even do that much. I find his behavior disgusting. To you, apparently, it is a "mistake," on a par with spilling orange juice on the kitchen counter when pouring yourself a glass. I guess that tells us something about you.

 

 

>For someone who appears to find

>"facts" so important, you lose

>credibility by intentionally misquoting this

>--and you have been intentionally

>misquoting and misleading.

 

I'm afraid you are lying. I have misquoted no one. And everything I have said is completely factual, based on the information posted on this board for everyone to read.

 

 

The absolute

>proof that you have been

>aware of the true facts

>rests in the fact that

>you personally responded to the

>message #8 where client disclosed

>details of what happened forward,

>and specifically said this was

>"not a no-show." Your

>reply is message #9.

>

 

 

In his post #3 N.N. referred to Zack's behavior as "flaking out" on him. But I don't agree with his characterization of the facts he related. And I am free to characterize the matter in any way I see fit.

 

 

>

>Perhaps you get confused about what

>facts are? We must

>remember, in an attempt to

>say prosititues are in need

>of some serious therapy, you

>were just quoting "hearsay" information

>as fact, too.

 

It is you who are confused about the meaning of the word "hearsay." The fact is, everything that both of us have said about the situation we are discussing is "hearsay." Neither of us has personally witnessed any of the events we are talking about, instead we are simply repeating what those who did witness the events said about the events. I can't tell you how ridiculous you sound disparaging "hearsay" in one sentence and plunging into the very same practice in the next sentence. You really need to learn not to talk about things you don't understand. Stick to art or prostitution.

 

 

 

Possibly,

>you just don't like to

>be wrong and will twist

>facts to try and support

>what you want to say?

> Who knows? But

>one unmistakable fact is that

>the client specifically said this

>was not a "no-show," and

>that you, after having read

>that clients comments and responded

>to them have been the

>one saying that it was

>in fact a no-show.

 

And I still say that it was by my definition. And by Zack's, apparently. Why else would he falsely deny what happened? A fact which, again, you prefer to ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>Regulation#75

>

>I've so over-burdened my psychiatrist that

>he suggested that I

>also see a therapist. Poor man,

>he really gets an earful

>when I'm

>there, probably gives him something interesting

>to tell the wife

>over dinner, though.

>

 

If you ever feel like pouring out your heart to an amateur, I'm available. And my rates are very reasonable. :-)

 

 

>Hopefully Zack has learned something from

>all of this, I'm sure

>

>he didn't expect it to come

>back and bite him on

>the ass like it

>did. "Karma", perhaps?

>

 

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 7Zach

I have never heard the word used an a synomym for euphemism. I play scrabble, do the crossword - hey, i like history and words. You look the word up in Oxford or Britanica, and u get "a mixture of wine and milk/buttermilk", or "nonsense". So, it's not that I have a strict requirement that the word be used in accordance with its original use, it's that it seems to me that the word ought to used in accordance with its common usage. Period.

But, hey, u all might be right; I was just curious, and like to be corrected on english and grammar. Only way u learn.

BTW, I am pretty sure, didn't Roget invent the slide rule? :)

Tks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tampa Yankee

Jeff,

 

"Escort" is hardly a commonplace word. I doubt that most people

associate it with prostitution.

 

I think it is pretty commonplace as a ‘word’. Whether most people associate it with prostitution, I do not know. However it appears to be associated that way in the internet age --

 

From http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=escort

 

es·cort (skôrt)

n.

1.

a. One or more persons accompanying another to guide, protect, or show honor.

b. A man who is the companion of a woman, especially on a social occasion.

c. A person, often a prostitute, who is hired to spend time with another as a companion.

 

and curiously the definition relevant to this discussion includes the word ‘prostitute’ and the concept of ‘selling time’. It would seem that the language is catching up with the times.

 

 

I think people choose to use a euphemism for "prostitute" because they are uncomfortable with the negative connotations attached and

fool themselves into believing they're not actually "paying for

sex". Yeah, right and I'm just "charging for my time", maybe you

should call me a "time-seller".

 

When I engage in an overnight, and I have done a few, I’m not just ‘paying for sex’ -- at those rates I could get much more ‘just sex’ than I receive or want in an overnight. I do not waste money and if I were buying ‘just sex’ I’d be a more saavy consumer than arranging it through overnights. And I doubt that my escorts don’t think of it as just sex either -- none have shown up expecting an all-night sex marathon .

 

Would you consider an overnight for just sex?? If so, how do you set the rate? Also, are there many who can do ‘just sex’ all-night -- escorts or clients?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

My point is that the context in which the word "escort" is used

on this site may be "commonplace" to: those who post here, most

gay men and a minority of the rest of the world, but that does not make a word "commonplace", which means ordinary, by the way.

 

The third-listed definition of a word is hardly "commonplace", there's a reason it's third. The word is evolving because more

people are using it as a euphemism and YES, one day "escort"

will become "commonplace" and most likely unsavory so yet another

euphemism will be found...who knows what it will be next.

 

TAMPA--How many escorts have you hired for JUST an overnighter,

no sex involved? Yes an overnight with a client can involve more

than just sex for some clients, but not all. I have a friend who

works in NYC who has done several overnights in a row with a

client who has no interest in carrying on a real conversation or

getting to know him. He just wants fucked several times a night

with my friend sleeping in between poundings. Apparently to this

client that's worth about $2,000 a night...some people can put

a price on a sex-filled night.

 

7ZACH--FINALLY, someone has made the statement that, "it seems to

me that the word ought to be used in accordance with its COMMON

USAGE". I purposely stretched the meaning of "balderdash" to

illustrate the usage of euphemisms. This is how euphemisms get

started in the first place. People start using a new word when another has fallen out of favor in an effort to make it sound

less offensive.

 

Most of what I do with clients does involve sex, but in reading

my reviews you'll find I try to provide more than that, even in

just an hour session. "Prostitute" is simply the most accurate

word in describing what I do, a more accurate word would be the

combination of the definitions "prostitute" and "therapist" which

really describe most of what I do.

 

Jeff4hire@aol.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Theron

>>I'm sorry, I failed to

>>mention in my last post,

>>Zack did not "no show"

>>a client. You are

>>the one who has continually

>>been stating that he did.

>> Even the client said,

>>early on, in the 8th

>>message of the thread to

>>be exact, "this was not

>>a 'no-show' but rather a

>>failure to follow through on

>>a date we had agreed

>>on." The client and

>>Zack had talked about meeting

>>on January 7th, but the

>>appointment was to be confirmed

>>by telephone on January 6th,

>>and Zack did not confirm

>>the appointment -- hence, it

>>was not a no show.

>

>What Zack did fits my definition

>of a "no-show," and apparently

>it fits Zack's definition also.

> Zack, who certainly knows

>what happened as well as

>anyone, referred to the matter

>as a "no-show" in his

>post #7. In that

>same post he denied that

>he had ever done such

>a thing. Which, as

>we now know, is not

>the truth. I wonder

>why it is that you

>keep skipping over that part?

 

Gee, I'm sure glad it fits your description as a "no-show," Regualation. But the fact remains that before you can no show an actual appointment has to have been confirmed and made, and the client has secifically said this did not occur, and has also specifically said this was "not a no-show," in message #8. The way the Zack "referred to the matter as a no-show in his message #7," was to say: "I am also clueless as to the No-Show implication that was made towards me." This is an obvious fact that anyone can immediately confirm just by reading the messages. It is also another example of how you will twist statements to suit your purpose. And for the record, no, we do not know that what Zack said was not true --especially since the client has also confirmed this was a not a no-show. What we do know is that YOU have been saying it is an no show, and that the evidence, submitted by both the client and the escort, which anyone can see, does not support your claim.

>

>

>> We later learned that

>>Zack did not confirm an

>>appointment with the client because

>>he freaked out when he

>>learned the client was H.I.V.

>>positive. I think we

>>all agree, yes, Zack could

>>have, and should have handled

>>the situation differently, and rather

>>than not confirm an appointment

>>just be forthright with the

>>client about why he did

>>not want to schedule an

>>appointment.

>>

>

>We "all agree"? Don't presume

>to speak for me on

>this or any other issue.

 

Aren't you on record as having expressed dissatisfaction with the manner Zack handled this, Regluation? But let me correct that by saying, many people agree Zack could have, and should have handled the situation differently, and rather than not confirm an appointment just be forthright with the client about why he did not want to schedule an appointment.

 

> Frankly, I think discriminating

>against people because they are

>HIV-positive is a rotten thing

>to do. And if

>one is going to do

>that, one should at least

>be honest enough to tell

>the person involved to his

>face what is happening.

>Zack couldn't even do that

>much. I find his

>behavior disgusting. To you,

>apparently, it is a "mistake,"

>on a par with spilling

>orange juice on the kitchen

>counter when pouring yourself a

>glass. I guess that

>tells us something about you.

 

I think we all get to make our own choice about who we want to have sex with, Regulation. There are escorts who say they will not have sex with people for a multitude of reasons. I support every person's right to make those choices. We cannot require any person to have sex with another person, period.

 

>

>>For someone who appears to find

>>"facts" so important, you lose

>>credibility by intentionally misquoting this

>>--and you have been intentionally

>>misquoting and misleading.

>

>I'm afraid you are lying.

>I have misquoted no one.

> And everything I have

>said is completely factual, based

>on the information posted on

>this board for everyone to

>read.

 

No, you are lying, Regulation. I provided ABSOLUTE proof that that (1) The client said in Message #8 that this was not a no-show; and (2) That you responded to message #8 so were therefore aware of what the client said; and (3) That Zack also said in message #7 that he had no knowledge of a no-show appointmnet; and (4) That despite both the escort and the client being completely clear about the fact that this was a not a no show that YOU have continually being saying that it was; and (5) That the evidence (the actual messages from the escort and the client, which is here in BLACK and WHITE or anyone to see, ABSOLUTELY do not support your claim.

>

>

>The absolute

>>proof that you have been

>>aware of the true facts

>>rests in the fact that

>>you personally responded to the

>>message #8 where client disclosed

>>details of what happened forward,

>>and specifically said this was

>>"not a no-show." Your

>>reply is message #9.

>>

>

>

>In his post #3 N.N. referred

>to Zack's behavior as "flaking

>out" on him. But

>I don't agree with his

>characterization of the facts he

>related. And I am

>free to characterize the matter

>in any way I see

>fit.

 

You are free to believe anything you want, but the fact remains that both the client and the escort, the people who were affected by this, have specifically and clearly said this was not a no-show appointment. Those facts have been documented here in message number 7 and message number 8, and since you wrote message number 9 you were aware of them. Yet, you have elevated your opinion above that of the opinions of the two people who were affected by this, the client and the escort, and in an ongoing attempt to advance a personal smear campaign against Zack have been lying, and I have been able to prove that fact. Heck, in light of this obvious, and easily proved lie, I am not even certain I can agree that Zack ever sent you a private message as you have claimed he did. If you would lie about this why wouldn't you lie about that? And folks just to see for yourself that he has been lying go read message number 7 and 8 yourself...you will absolutely see that both the client and the escort where in agreement that this was not a no show appointment, and then consider the many times you have seen Regulation state that in in fact was.

 

>

>

>>

>>Perhaps you get confused about what

>>facts are? We must

>>remember, in an attempt to

>>say prosititues are in need

>>of some serious therapy, you

>>were just quoting "hearsay" information

>>as fact, too.

>

>It is you who are confused

>about the meaning of the

>word "hearsay." The fact

>is, everything that both of

>us have said about the

>situation we are discussing is

>"hearsay." Neither of us

>has personally witnessed any of

>the events we are talking

>about, instead we are simply

>repeating what those who did

>witness the events said about

>the events. I can't

>tell you how ridiculous you

>sound disparaging "hearsay" in one

>sentence and plunging into the

>very same practice in the

>next sentence. You really

>need to learn not to

>talk about things you don't

>understand. Stick to art

>or prostitution.

 

Well, to support the statements I have made, I refer people back to the actual statements the escort and the client made in message number 7 and 8. There statements were not hearsay. BOth Zac and the client are qualified to say this was not a no show appointment, and if they were to say than in court, it would not be considered heresay information. It would be considered testimony, and if they agreed, as that do, that it was not a no show appointment, that would be considered a stipulated fact. Now you, on the other hand, in your attempt to say escorts are in serious need of therapy, as fact no less, present information that you admit was passed along to you by a third party, but were not there and have no evdence to support what was actually said there, and that is hearsay information. Now if you had been there, or had a transcript of what was said there, it would not be hearsay information. So, it is you who are confused.

 

>

> Possibly,

>>you just don't like to

>>be wrong and will twist

>>facts to try and support

>>what you want to say?

>> Who knows? But

>>one unmistakable fact is that

>>the client specifically said this

>>was not a "no-show," and

>>that you, after having read

>>that clients comments and responded

>>to them have been the

>>one saying that it was

>>in fact a no-show.

>

>And I still say that it

>was by my definition.

>And by Zack's, apparently.

>Why else would he falsely

>deny what happened? A

>fact which, again, you prefer

>to ignore.

 

It was absoutely not by Zack's definition. Go read message #7. And if you read message #8 you will see the client agrees this was not a no show appointment. So in consideration of the fact that both the client and Zack agree this was not a no show appointment, Zack did not falsely deny anything. The false statements that have been made here have been made by you, Regulation, and that is a proven fact.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Theron

>>Oh, so you were not even

>>there, and were filled in

>>by a friend --that is

>>called hearsay information, Regulatoin.

>

>LOL! I'm afraid you've been

>watching too many episodes of

>"The Practice." The fact

>is that hearsay is often

>admissible as evidence in even

>the most serious criminal trials.

> Juries are allowed to

>hear and consider it in

>the most serious cases every

>single day.

 

Why don't you go read the rules of evidence, Regulation, for our state and federal courts --I have.

 

 

>Now

>>an interesting fact, not hearsay

>>as you presented, is up

>>until the late 1970's, most

>>psychiatrists classified homosexuality as a

>>mental illness, but as we

>>all know that opinion has

>>now changed.

>

>

>Oh? Now it is YOU

>who are relying on hearsay.

> How would YOU know

>what "most psychiatrists" thought, then

>or now? Because someone

>else told you? And

>you have badly misstated the

>facts.

 

How would I know? Well, because prior to escorting I was a civil rights activist. As a matter of fact, I was once the executive director of a state wide organization that promoted and protected the civil rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens. I am fully aware of what the official medical opinion was concerning homosexuality prior to the late 1970's. In fact, I have researched it extensively.

 

What you are

>referring to is the official

>position of the APA on

>the issue of homosexuality --

>that is not the same

>as a poll of the

>opinions of most psychiatrists.

 

Well, as long as psychiatrists want to maintain their licence, they do have an obligation to operate within the guidelines of the APA. For example, a psychiatrist who performed a lobotomy on a patient because they were gay in the 80's, even though this was done to "treat the mental illness" known as homosexuality in the 60's, would lose his license to practice medicine. So, when the APA changed their position the manner in which psychiatrists treated gay people also changed. As to what the individual opinions of what those psychiatrists were, you are correct, there is no way to prove that one way or the other. But you are really going out on a limb on this one. The point I was trying to make is that medical opinions change, and that there is history and evidence to support this. Therefore, if psychiatrists today believed that all escorts are in need of serious therapy, as you have stated they are, that opinion could easily change at some point in the future.

 

>

>>No, it does not embarrass me,

>>but why does it trouble

>>you so deeply.

>

>It always troubles me to read

>about someone who has been

>mistreated by an escort.

>The question is, why doesn't

>it trouble you?

 

It does trouble me. But it equally troubles me when someone else lies about an escort in an attempt to harm them, and there is evicence to support this is exactly what you have done.

 

 

 

>

>I would in fact expect people

>to get pretty harsh with

>me if I mistreat someone,

>then deny it, then admit

>it, then repeatedly send hate

>mail to one of the

>people who called me on

>it, then deny that I

>did that. That is

>exactly what Zack did.

>And that is exactly what

>you are defending. The

>question is, why? Clearly,

>there is something more going

>on here than just your

>"compassion" for someone you don't

>even know. I think

>you and others simply want

>to drive away from this

>site anyone who would say

>anything negative about any escort.

> It's pretty obvious.[/b]

 

Well, you did mistreat Zack. In a situation where both Zack and the client agreed that this was not a no-show, you intentionally began a smear campaign to say that it was. With regard to the "hate" mail you have said you received, we only have your word on that. Zack has denied sending it. Up until recently, I had no reason to question the integrity of your word. However, when I see now that you have been intentionally spreading misinformation, and presenting it as fact...this causes one to have concern. You have also exposed yourself as a person who will twist any fact or say anything to prove your point -- even if it is a lie. I would now say that it is not unreasonable to believe a person who displayed those qualities might also be given to making up the "alleged" private messages from Zack. The bottom line is if all I have to support the claim that he did is your word, I no longer have sufficient faith in your word to say that I believe, without doubt, that Zack did, in fact, send those messages.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest curtenz

>It

>is also another example of

>how you will twist statements

>to suit your purpose.

>And for the record, no,

>we do not know that

>what Zack said was not

>true --especially since the client

>has also confirmed this was

>a not a no-show.

 

I think you are the one who is trying to twist things here. Reg made a real simple point. When Zack was referring to what happened with the guy he stood up he called it a "no show" and since he was the one who did it, though he denied ever doing it in #7 and later admitted it, he sure knew what happened a lot better than you or any of us. If he can call it that it's reasonable for reg or anybody else to call it that.

 

You're putting a lot more energy into this than reg or anybody else. If anybody's running a smear campaign here it's you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theron,

 

Listen to Justice. If you don't, you will find yourself continuing this tit-for-tat FOREVER. Although I still read some of his posts, I too have stopped responding to them. It's my feeling that responding to them just encourages his behavior.

 

But I have to admit, your persistence is admirable! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Theron

>I think you are the one

>who is trying to twist

>things here. Reg made

>a real simple point.

>When Zack was referring to

>what happened with the guy

>he stood up he called

>it a "no show" and

>since he was the one

>who did it, though he

>denied ever doing it in

>#7 and later admitted it,

>he sure knew what happened

>a lot better than you

>or any of us.

>If he can call it

>that it's reasonable for reg

>or anybody else to call

>it that.

 

Hi :-)

 

On June 12th, in message #3, poster N.N. accused Zack of "flaking out...on one planned appointment."

 

On June 14th, in message #5, poster deej responded to N.N,'s message number three and was the first person to use the word, "no show." deej also ask for an answer from Zack.

 

I think Zacks reference to it as a no show was based on deej's first use of the word. On June 14th, Zack, in message #7, stated that said that he was clueless about the no show implication that was made towards him.

 

On June 14th N.N, in message #8, reponded to Zack's statement of being clueless about the implication of a no show appointment. N.N. specifically said that it was "not a no-show."

 

Please note: On June 14th one basic agreement of fact was established between Zack and N.N., the two parties directly involved, no appointment had been confirmed or scheduled, and this was not then a no-show.

 

On June 14th, Regulation first stepped into the picture, in message #14, in direct response to N.N.'s post number 8. As stated above, the fact had already been established between Zack & N.N. that this was not a no-show appointment. Regulation did not suggest on this date that the appointment was a no show, but has said many times since, in what I believe has been a smear campaign, that it was a no show. Those statements made by Regulation after the facts were established are a lie.

 

>

>You're putting a lot more energy

>into this than reg or

>anybody else. If anybody's

>running a smear campaign here

>it's you.

 

I'm only trying to expose the truth. The names of good people should not be harmed by the lies of another member of this list.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tampa Yankee

Jeff,

 

"My point is that the context in which the word "escort"

is used on this site may be "commonplace"

to: those who post here, most gay men and a minority of

the rest of the world, but that does not make a word "commonplace", which means ordinary, by the way".

 

Fair enough, but your post I was responding to didn't set a context but asserted that the word was not commonplace, which, as a word, is, I think. Maybe the context was understood by you and was set in a preceding post. If so, my shortcoming.

 

>The third-listed definition of a word

>is hardly "commonplace", there's a

>reason it's third.

 

Never said it was the most common definition only that the dictionaries are catching up with the times.

 

 

TAMPA--How many escorts have you hired

for JUST an overnighter, no sex involved?

 

Good question, but I think it begs mine...

 

Yes an overnight with a client can involve more than just sex for some clients, but not all. I have a friend who works in NYC who has done several overnights in a row with aclient who has no interest in carrying on a real conversation or getting to know him. He just wants fucked several times a night with my friend sleeping in between poundings. Apparently to this client that's worth about $2,000 a night...some people can put a price on a sex-filled night.

 

Interesting example, but you do not assert that this is commonplace do you?

 

The issue I'm trying to address is: does the fact that I spend 18 or more hours with an individual attending the theatre; supper; shopping (windows or otherwise); discussing social issues, personal issues, political issues and the like; touring the city by foot to sample coffee shops, pastry shops, take in the crowds and sights, in addition to sharing a bed for sleeping purposes, and also for one or possibly two hours of sex -- does this make my companion a simple prostitute or 'hooker 'as some seem so keenly to prefer or is he an escort in the true sense of the word, who happens by the way to offer full service which includes services that simple prostitutes offer. And on another level, if so, how is the service charge balanced for just a few hours of sex -- or is the charge really for time spent? Put simply I don't see, in this case, that 'escort' is a euphemism. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not implying that he is a choir boy either, but that doesn't enter into the defintion of 'escort' either. I'm sure there are those that see this in black and white. For those that see shades of gray -- do we have escorts who prostitute or prostitutes who escort? I am interested in your view, as a practicing 'escort', prostitue, hooker, all of the above -- take your pick. (No disrespect intended) :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest curtenz

>Please note: On June 14th

>one basic agreement of fact

>was established between Zack and

>N.N., the two parties directly

>involved, no appointment had been

>confirmed or scheduled, and this

>was not then a no-show.

>

 

Now that's a baldfaced lie right there. In #8 in this thread N.N. says "We had a date for January 7, 2001; you'd promised to call me on Jan 6 to finalize details but never did." If Reg is lying because you don't think he should have used "no show" then I guess we should call you a liar because you said nothing was "scheduled" when it was, right?

 

This "basic agreement" you keep talking about is nothing but your interpretation of what those people said, and I don't think it's any more reasonable that Reg's. You're just trying to cover up what happened here, which is, an escort dissed a client because he was HIV+ and then denied it and then had to admit it. And then he sent some hate mail to another site member who called him on it. You can yell "no show, no show" a hundred times if you want to but it's not going to change those facts one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Theron

>Now that's a baldfaced lie right

>there. In #8 in

>this thread N.N. says "We

>had a date for January

>7, 2001; you'd promised to

>call me on Jan 6

>to finalize details but never

>did." If Reg is

>lying because you don't think

>he should have used "no

>show" then I guess we

>should call you a liar

>because you said nothing was

>"scheduled" when it was, right?

 

An appointment was discussed for January 7th, but not confirmed. People talk about doing a great many things. You cannot have a no show of a non confirmed appointment, because until it is confirmed it is not yet scheduled with any finality.

>

>

>This "basic agreement" you keep talking

>about is nothing but your

>interpretation of what those people

>said, and I don't think

>it's any more reasonable that

>Reg's. You're just trying

>to cover up what happened

>here, which is, an escort

>dissed a client because he

>was HIV+

 

I already pointed out in the other thread...Zack absolutely did not diss an HIV+ person. He made a choice not to have sex with an HIV+ person, and that is each person's right to make for themself

 

And then

>he sent some hate mail

>to another site member who

>called him on it.

 

And then he allegedly sent some hate mail. He has denied sending it. Do you have any proof that he in fact did?

 

>You can yell "no show,

>no show" a hundred times

>if you want to but

>it's not going to change

>those facts one bit.

 

And the facts are that Regulation has made a very serious allegations about another person with no proof, whatsoever. If someone did that to you, wouldn't you want the benefit of doubt? I am confident most of us would, so why don't you treat Zack with the same degree of respect that you would want someone to treat you under similar circumstances.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

Tampa--post#94

 

How "commonplace", or ordinary, can a word be when the definition

you cite to support your argument is so new that it's not likely

to be found in any dictionary in print. It may be many years

before escort means, what it apparently means to you, to enough

people to call it "commonplace". It must be understood by a

majority of people to mean a particular thing and become the

"ordinary" usage. You are using escort as a slang expression

for prostitute, but your usage of escort is more appropriate in

describing the "paid companion with whom you have sex". What most

escorts do has nothing to do with escorting, plain and simple.

I'm saying the word that most accurate word to describe most

escorts ISN'T ESCORT. Prostitute hits the nail on the head most

of the time, but until the rest of the world catches up with your

idea of what escort means it's hardly commonplace.

 

Escort has just recently been assigned yet another definition and

why? Not necessarily because of people like you who are basically

adding on to the original meaning, but because of people who

began using the word euphemistically. I can't place an ad saying

I'm a prostitute, now can I? Escort is already becoming a dirty

word here in Columbus. One of the local alternative papers would

not allow me to use the word escort in my ad, but they will allow

me to say "sensual massage"...go figure.

 

Jeff4hire@aol.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pickwick

>Well, to support the statements I

>have made, I refer people

>back to the actual statements

>the escort and the client

>made in message number 7

>and 8. There statements

>were not hearsay. BOth

>Zac and the client are

>qualified to say this was

>not a no show appointment,

>and if they were to

>say than in court, it

>would not be considered heresay

>information. It would be

>considered testimony, and if they

>agreed, as that do, that

>it was not a no

>show appointment, that would be

>considered a stipulated fact.

>Now you, on the other

>hand, in your attempt to

>say escorts are in serious

>need of therapy, as fact

>no less, present information that

>you admit was passed along

>to you by a third

>party, but were not there

>and have no evdence to

>support what was actually said

>there, and that is hearsay

>information. Now if you

>had been there, or had

>a transcript of what was

>said there, it would not

>be hearsay information. So,

>it is you who are

>confused.

>

 

I must say I didn't expect to come across a discussion of hearsay evidence on a message board about gay prostitutes! I had to laugh when I saw this.

 

If you are referring to Rules 801 et seq. of the Federal Rules of Evidence, I'm familiar with them and with the relevant case law. Regulation is right in characterizing your statements (and his) about this matter as hearsay. You are offering statements by a third party or parties as evidence of the truth of what was stated, which is a classic hearsay situation. That's no different from what he is doing in relating what a friend told him about a discussion among psychiatrists.

 

I think your comments about the nature of hearsay are rather misleading. You are obviously trying to cast doubt on his remark that most psychiatrists probably would think that a prostitute could use therapy (which I think is accurate, by the way) by calling it hearsay. There's nothing inherently unreliable about hearsay evidence, however, and it's often admitted at trial in various situations. Generally speaking, it's only excluded in situations in which it's not the best evidence available to prove the truth of the statement at issue. When it is the best evidence available, for example because the person who made the statement is not available to testify for certain reasons, it can be admitted.

 

I don't claim to have read all the posts on this issue, but based on what I've read the defense you're presenting is pretty weak. You're like someone trying to impeach a witness against the defendant on the basis that he called the man a "robber" when the crime charged is actually burglary. Whether the escort in question technically committed a no-show or not, what he did by summarily canceling an appointment with no explanation because the client was HIV positive is extremely shabby and should not be condoned. An escort has a right to refuse an appointment on that basis, but not to treat the client disrespectfully and dismissively on that basis, and that's clearly what occurred. Lawyers often defend people whose behavior they abhor as a necessary check on the overwhelming power of the state, but that is not the situation here and your insistence on attacking someone for objecting to some very unfortunate behavior on the part of an escort does not reflect well on you.

 

Interesting thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

Theron#96

 

I was wondering how long it would be before you began to drop

the BIG SMILE and the happy faces.

 

Theron--Zack did disrespect a client by not calling him when he

said he would or e-mail him back, leaving this man to wonder,

"Did I say something to offend him," or "Is this guy not

comfortable with an HIVpos client?" N.N. told Zack this info.

right up front and instead of being honest about his feelings

Zack chose to leave him hanging and then denials, retractions, acknowledgement of immature handling of the situation. To me this was all worse than a NO SHOW. I'm sure the client's feelings were more hurt by all this mess than if Zack had been straghtforward from the very beginning.

 

Jeff4hire@aol.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

AIM#100 >I have a question for you.

> This issue between Zack

>and N.N. occured between Zack

>and N.N. And both

>Zack and N.N. have stated

>(about a thousand posts ago)

>that they both consider the

>issue resolved.

>

>So why is it that you

>and Regulation consider it not

>resolved and refuse to let

>it go?

 

Since you chose to ask me a question without resorting to name-

calling or insults, I'll answer your question. They may

have resolved the issue, but it started out in an open forum and

has evolved into more of a discussion about who said what in post

so-and-so and an ego-charged tug-of-war. I for one have not been

beating this dead horse, but I tried to spotlight the truly

significant issue in this thread. Zack flaked, lied, squirmed and

finally acknowledged what he'd done. I don't think he flaked out

to intentionally hurt N.N., but how he chose to handle it and

the subsequent e-mails to N.N. and REG only served to exacerbate

the situation.

 

Jeff4hire@aol.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...