WHY DO I ESCORT???

[Guest Theron]

>Theron#96

>

>I was wondering how long it

>would be before you began

>to drop

>the BIG SMILE and the happy

>faces.

 

Hiya, Jeff...I'm still smiling, lol :-)

 

>

>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?"

 

On this we agree. I have never said that I feel Zack did not make a mistake, or that he could not/should not have handled it differently. As a matter of fact, I believe Zack should have handled it differently, but then we all make mistakes, especially very young people. What I have said is that it was not a no show as Regulation has claimed it is.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Theron]

Hi --BIG SMILE

 

Thank you so much for sharing your take on this. However, are you aware that the posts I have suggested people go back and read have been written by the escort and the client, and they are posted right here in this thread. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think you will agree, the actual written statements of the two parties involved are not hearsay, and this is what I have encourage others read.

 

 

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.

 

I have never said that Zack could not/should not have done something differently. What I have said is that Regualtion has knowingly not been telling the truth when he says that Zack no showed a client, becuase there are written messages here by both the escort and the client that state this was not a no show, and Regulation is aware of those statements because he responded to the posts. Regulation has also said that he has received "hate" mail from Zack. Zack has denied sending it. Regulation has no proof to offer on that other than his word --although he could easily forward the messages to an independant party who could verfy that (1) they even exist; and (2) that if they do exist that they are authentic. I believe if Regulation wants to attack the good name of another person with such serious charges that he has a responsibility to meet a burdon of proof. If that reflects back poorly on me then I am willing to live with it. I hope reasonable people will agree that we are all innocent until proven guilty.

 

I really do appreciate your reply, though.

 

Hugs,

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest curtenz]

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.

 

 

Glad to see someone here is honest enough to zero in on what the real issue here is, Zack's crummy behavior, instead of attacking the people who are just commenting on what he did and trying to make this about them.

[Guest curtenz]

>>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.

 

 

LOL! Now who's twisting words? First you tell us that we have to believe N.N. when he says there wasn't a "no show" and that makes reg a liar. Now you tell us we can't believe N.N. when he says "We had a date" because I guess that would make you a liar. My, my!

 

 

>I already pointed out in the

>other thread...Zack absolutely did not

>diss an HIV+ person.

 

 

But in #102 below JeffOH says he did and you say "On this we agree."

 

 

>And then he allegedly sent some

>hate mail. He has

>denied sending it. Do you

>have any proof that he

>in fact did?

>

 

I don't have any proof that anything you or Zack or N.N. have said on this board is true. But as for reg he did invite the Webmaster here to go into his box and post any information he could find about the sender of those hate mails, which he wouldn't likely do if he sent them himself. And you already know this because you replied to the post where he made that invitation. Got you again.

 

>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.

 

That's a good question for once. I guess when I first read what N.N. said about Zack I was ready to give Zack the benefit of the doubt. But then when Zack denied it and then admitted it that was all over as far as I'm concerned.

[Bilbo]

Just partway through catching up with this site from the weekend, so pardon me if I am repeating anything:

 

Here in Houston there was for many years a billboard hanging over a highway downtown which was for Ford Escort, the car. It featured paintings of females who looked like they might be hookers. A visual pun which just shows to go ya that the word is out there in the general culture.

[Guest Theron]

>Glad to see someone here is

>honest enough to zero in

>on what the real issue

>here is, Zack's crummy behavior,

>instead of attacking the people

>who are just commenting on

>what he did and trying

>to make this about them.

 

Hi:-)

 

Regulation did a lot more than merely comment on what Zack did. He added to the situation by misrepresenting what happened, and then raised a claim of his own, with nothing to support it, whatsoever.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Theron]

>>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.

>

>

>LOL! Now who's twisting words?

> First you tell us

>that we have to believe

>N.N. when he says there

>wasn't a "no show" and

>that makes reg a liar.

> Now you tell us

>we can't believe N.N. when

>he says "We had a

>date" because I guess that

>would make you a liar.

> My, my!

 

No that is not what I said. And I am reasonably confident you do know what I said, but are just twisting words. I have not ever accussed N.N. of lying. N.N. has admitted that their date had not been confirmed.

 

>

>>I already pointed out in the

>>other thread...Zack absolutely did not

>>diss an HIV+ person.

>

>

>But in #102 below JeffOH says

>he did and you say

>"On this we agree."

 

You had to go really far out on a limb to come up with this one. I ABSOLUTELY never agreed that Zack "dissed" a HIV+ person.

 

>>And then he allegedly sent some

>>hate mail. He has

>>denied sending it. Do you

>>have any proof that he

>>in fact did?

>>

>

>I don't have any proof that

>anything you or Zack or

>N.N. have said on this

>board is true. But

>as for reg he did

>invite the Webmaster here to

>go into his box and

>post any information he could

>find about the sender of

>those hate mails, which he

>wouldn't likely do if he

>sent them himself. And

>you already know this because

>you replied to the post

>where he made that invitation.

> Got you again.

 

Let me try to explain this to you. Regulation is the person who has said he did receive the mail, and has made some pretty serious accussations that will harm the good name of another person. Last I heard, people are innocent until proven guilty. If Regulation wants to make this claim then he needs to meet a burdon of proof, which he has failed to do.

>

>>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.

>

>That's a good question for once.

> I guess when I

>first read what N.N. said

>about Zack I was ready

>to give Zack the benefit

>of the doubt. But

>then when Zack denied it

>and then admitted it that

>was all over as far

>as I'm concerned.

 

It is possible you know, that Zack was not aware of who N.N. was. People here have handles. And it is also possible that he might not have remembered in June a discussion with a client in January --we talk with hundreds of people a month. When N.N. did privately contact Zack, at the suggestion of Regulation, no less, Zack did remember the situation, and N.N. has said he explained privately to him what happened.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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