Why Zack Escorts

[Guest regulation]

Here's the latest message received in my mailbox on this site from Zack Evans. It contains some additional thoughts from him on his career, on me, and on other subjects of general interest. The "Why I Escort" thread in which our dialogue began has become so long and convoluted that I have created this new thread to make it easier for others to read.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Snails In Trailer Parks

 

Zack Evans

 

Wed Jun 20 2001

 

Here we go again with the bitter anger and resentment that you hold so dear to you.

 

I, for one, probably know a lot more about philosphy that you'll ever know. I mean face it, you probably couldn't even get into a school like Berkeley. Instead, you probably live in some secluded mid-western town and that's why you have ALL the time in the world to send posts to this site (a little pathetic if you ask me).

 

I do not escort or should I say "hook" it full time. I'm sure my day job is a lot more credible than yours in the little trailer town you live in.

 

Are trailers really as small as they look on the outside?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

I haven't really figured out the significance of the word "Snails" in the message title. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

I will note for the record that the username attached to this message and all other identifying features are exactly the same as in the first message from Zack that I posted on this board, a message he denied sending in his post #26 in the "Why I Escort" thread. I think any doubt about the authorship of these messages has now been resolved.

 

Well, if you fellows will excuse me I must get back to my "secluded mid-western town" and my trailer. It's almost time for the Monster Truck Rally on TNN. :-)

[Guest pickwick]

I have to admit I don't know anything about "philosphy" either. What is it?

[BewareofNick]

>I have to admit I don't

>know anything about "philosphy" either.

> What is it?

 

 

If you don't know what "philosphy" is....

 

You might be a redneck!

[Guest pickwick]

>If you don't know what "philosphy"

>is....

>

>You might be a redneck!

 

You'd better apologize for that remark, or I won't invite you to my trailer!

[Guest Theron]

Hi, Regulation:

 

It certainly was not very nice of Zack to send you this message. But, it was a private message. Why share it? Zack is what, 22? How old are you, Regulation? I know quite a few 22 year olds who do not handle themselves very maturely when conflict arises. Why don't you take the high road, Regulation, and stop using the message center to air your grievances concerning private communications between you and Zack. We were all young once, and we have sure all made mistakes or done things that did not reflect back well upon us.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[+ honcho]

I hold no personal grudge against regulation nor Zack, but feel moved to comment on the posting of private E-mail.

 

In my communities (work, play, oboe discussion lists, and this one), it is generally considered a fairly extreme measure to post private email without obtaining permission.

 

(After all, if the sender wanted everybody to read it, he would have posted it in public forum).

 

The email sent was somewhat insulting, but contained neither death threats nor any other kind of threats. If it were sent to me, I might have been moved to say something like "Zack sent me private email, which was insulting, questioned my intelligence, but did so in such away that was not even particulary imaginative."

 

Sign me -

 

"A regal personage of procedure that one might have otherwise assumed to be biolgically female" - (i.e. poltically correct jargon for a "Process Queen").

 

We thank you for your indulgence in reading this note!

[+ deej]

Hi Theron,

 

Please note that there is no need to post duplicate messages when your posts do not show up immediately. This board is still moderated, which means your new postings go into a queue until a moderator has a chance to review them for possible rule violations.

 

You have yet to violate rules and will probably quickly move to unmoderated status. Meanwhile, please be patient while moderators do what moderators do. In fact, it appears that your duplicate posting was typed while a moderator was releasing your first posting from the queue.

 

(And this is not just to you, it's a general message to the board. I just happened to delete one of your duplicates this time around, after checking to be sure the original made it to the board. :-))

 

deej (your neighbor in Chicago)

[Guest Theron]

Hiya :-)

 

Thanks for that clarification, deej -- BIG SMILE. I'm glad that someone was looking out for me so I wouldn't look totally stupid when my message appeared twice.

 

Hey, it's great to hear you are from Chicago, also. Ain't the Windy City GREAT!

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[bluenix]

>But, it was a private message.

>Why share it?

 

I think posting the message was defensible, because, as Regulation pointed out on the other thread, it was clearly in response to a post here. More, its contents were quite a bit different from what the apparently same author was writing here at the same time.

 

As to taking the high road, well, I dunno. Just because it's not what you or I might do in the same circumstances doesn't automatically make it the low road.

[Guest Theron]

>As to taking the high road,

>well, I dunno. Just because

>it's not what you or

>I might do in the

>same circumstances doesn't automatically make

>it the low road.

 

Hi :-)

 

Good point --agreed. I guess that is the beautiful thing about individuality. Reminds of of something I once wrote, "There is beauty in all we know, and all we don't know. Our journey is to discover it all." Clearly, Regulation responded differently to this than I would have, but a different path is not necessarily a wrong path.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest regulation]

>Hi, Regulation:

>

>It certainly was not very nice

>of Zack to send you

>this message. But, it

>was a private message.

>Why share it? Zack

>is what, 22? How

>old are you, Regulation?

>I know quite a few

>22 year olds who do

>not handle themselves very maturely

>when conflict arises. Why

>don't you take the high

>road, Regulation, and stop using

>the message center to air

>your grievances concerning private communications

>between you and Zack.

 

 

I have stated several times on this message board that people who send me unsolicited emails should understand that I will feel free to share them with others if I am so inclined. I repeated that statement once again before Zack sent me the message I posted above. For this reason, he cannot possibly have believed that the message would be treated as confidential.

 

The purpose of this website is to provide clients with accurate information about escorts. I am aware that some escorts would like to exclude from this site any information about themselves or other escorts that is not positive. They would like to see this site become nothing but a series of advertisements for their services. I'm not going to go along with that. I can't think of a better way to tell clients what an escort is really like than by quoting the escort's own words. Can you?

[Guest Theron]

Hi, Regulation :-)

 

 

HII, Regulation :-)

 

Come to think of it, I agree, you did say that you would post unsolicited e-mails that were sent to you privately. This is your right, and I've already conceded, in an earlier post in this thread, that we each get to choose our own path. I admit, you chose a different path than I would have, but just because it was different doesn't make it a wrong path.

 

You did make another statement that I have an opinion about. In my opinion, if the purpose of this website is to provide clients with accurate information about escorts then I'd say it fails to live up to that goal. Yes, some of the information on the site is accurate. However, a quick review of the Message Center will reveal that a great many people have quite a bit of speculation about the accuracy of quite a few things that are posted here concerning escorts. If you are "buckling" under to protect the integrity of this site, I'd say you are fighting a battle that has long ago been lost. By my opinion, the site does serve as a source of entertainment for people. It also provides people with the opportunity to gain further information about escorts, some of it accurate some of it not, and then allows them to use their own judgment. The site does provide a way for people, clients and escorts, to exchange thoughts in the Message Center. I see quite a bit of value in the site, but I do feel you are taking things here way too seriously.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest regulation]

>Come to think of it, I

>agree, you did say that

>you would post unsolicited e-mails

>that were sent to you

>privately. This is your

>right

 

Then why did you object in your post above to actions of mine which you now concede I have every right to take?

 

I see

>quite a bit of value

>in the site, but I

>do feel you are taking

>things here way too seriously.

 

First you criticize me for posting what you claim is a "private" communication from an escort that may reflect badly on him, then when I point out your error in that regard you say that I am taking things here too seriously. If this site should not be taken seriously, it makes little sense for you to complain as you did about my post. If it should be taken seriously, why do you say it should not be? Does the term "linear thinking" mean anything to you?

[+ deej]

I have stated several times on this message board that people who send me unsolicited emails should understand that I will feel free to share them with others if I am so inclined. I repeated that statement once again before Zack sent me the message I posted above. For this reason, he cannot possibly have believed that the message would be treated as confidential.

 

And by the same token, you've announced to the world that nothing told to you in private will be held private. If you decide, at your own discretion, to publish information told to you in confidence you feel perfectly justified in doing so.

 

I don't mean that to be harsh or accusatory. It is what you've announced to the world, on multiple occasions as you say. It is your right to live your life this way.

 

You've announced that you cannot be trusted with confidential information.

[Guest Theron]

>Then why did you object in

>your post above to actions

>of mine which you now

>concede I have every right

>to take?

 

Hi :-)

 

I pointed it out because I believe in was as equally tasteless for Zack to make those statements as it was for you to publish them. Zack is 22, after all. As I said in my first post, I imagine we have all, at some point in our life, said something that did not reflect well back upon us. So, even though I support your right to do it, well, let's just say my expectation of an adult is much higher than it is for that of a 22 year old, but again, this is only my opinion. If your objective was to let us all know, what I think most people already knew anyhow, that young people, when confrontation arises, do not always handle themselves well then you should congratulate yourself, because you have been successful.

 

>First you criticize me for posting

>what you claim is a

>"private" communication from an escort

>that may reflect badly on

>him, then when I point

>out your error in that

>regard you say that I

>am taking things here too

>seriously. If this site

>should not be taken seriously,

>it makes little sense for

>you to complain as you

>did about my post.

 

lol, isn't it a shame that life does not contain the balance you believe it should, Regulation. I do think you take things too seriously, here, but that, again, is only my opinion. I merely attempted to hold you accountable for your behavior, as you attempted to hold Zack accountable for his. Since since you have exhibited no compassion or made any allowances for Zack, why should anyone make any for you? Please, let me say it again. This time I will be a little more specifc: In my opinion it is a sad day when a grown adult needs to make a big deal out of the fact that a young person said something to them they did not like. Why it is as telling of you as it is of Zack, and guess what...in holding you accountable I am only playing by your rules.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest AIM]

Theron,

 

Since you are fairly new to this board, you might not be aware that Regulation has a long history of antagonizing people. In my opinion, he simply does this for the attention it generates.

 

Although it is commendable of you to try to instill reason in Regulation, you must realize that one can only reason with someone who is reasonable.

[Guest curtenz]

>I pointed it out because I

>believe in was as equally

>tasteless for Zack to make

>those statements as it was

>for you to publish them.

> Zack is 22, after

>all. As I said

>in my first post, I

>imagine we have all, at

>some point in our life,

>said something that did not

>reflect well back upon us.

> So, even though I

>support your right to do

>it, well, let's just say

>my expectation of an adult

>is much higher than it

>is for that of a

>22 year old, but again,

>this is only my opinion.

>If your objective was to

>let us all know, what

>I think most people already

>knew anyhow, that young people,

>when confrontation arises, do not

>always handle themselves well then

>you should congratulate yourself, because

>you have been successful.

>

 

I don't think what you're saying makes any sense. There are plenty of people in every age group who don't behave maturely when conflict arises. I read a biography of Calvin Klein which said that even after he became one of the country's leading designers he and his business partner used to have screaming fights in the office where everyone could hear them almost every day. Does that seem mature?

 

I only hire escorts when I travel on business. If I have an escort come to my hotel room I don't want someone who is going to fly off the handle and make a scene if I say the wrong thing, so if an escort can't control himself in situations like this I want to know about it before I hire him.

 

It seems to me there are some people who visit this site who just can't stand it whenever anyone says anything negative about an escort and they make any excuse to bash the person who says it. I think that's what's happening here. I read the other thread on Zack. When regulation posted the first nasty email from him several people said it must be a fake and Zack denied it. Now people are saying, okay it's real but regulation is still wrong to talk about it. Come on! You're just coming up with any excuse to bash him. The escort did something wrong and got caught. I can't believe you're trying to make this about something else.

[Guest AIM]

And if I recall right, Zack acknowledged his mistake (although belatedly). But Regulation has not been content in just pointing it out; it appears to have now become some sort of a vandetta or smear campaign.

 

There is a difference between bringing it up and dragging it on ... and on ... and on ... even to the point of starting a new thread for this purpose! I mean how many times does the same point have to be made?

 

I say enough already!

[Guest regulation]

>I don't mean that to be

>harsh or accusatory.

 

But I think that is exactly what you mean. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

 

>You've announced that you cannot be

>trusted with confidential information.

 

What I have announced is that no one can assume I will keep unsolicited messages confidential when I have agreed to do no such thing. I don't like it when other people try to fasten obligations on me without my consent. It takes two people (at least) to make an agreement, and no one who hasn't bothered to ask me to agree to whatever he has in mind should assume that I will agree simply because he thinks I should.

 

I will also say that I have never asked any visitor to this site to send me any confidential information, and I would prefer that no one do so. I already get more of that sort of thing than I care for in other areas of my life.

[Guest AIM]

>I'm wondering if it is

>possible that curtenz and regulation

>are the same person?

>I wonder if there is

>a way for HooBoy to

>determie if that is the

>case?

 

Initially I wondered the same thing. But the writing styles are so different. From their writings, I get the impression that Reg is an older guy with a chip on his shoulder regarding younger and attractive gay men. This curtenz guy comes across as a younger, more flippant guy who I suspect was asked to join in by Regulation to help defend him. I mean the guy came out of nowhere and has steadfastly defended Reg at EVERY turn. His sudden presence is very peculiar.

 

Of course, this is just my take on it. They could be the same guy; they might be different guys. And this curtenz guy could be just some guy who happen to stumble across this message board, thought Reg was such a swell guy, thought he was getting picked on too much, and wanted to come to his defense. Very noble.

[Guest Hanover]

>I just wanted to say that

>it is my experience that

>Reg is very precise in

>his use if words and

>expects the same from others

>-- I know, I have

>been taken to task by

>him for it in the

>past, and rightly so. And

>I think Reg appreciates a

>level playing field where all

>abide by the same rules

>of accuracy and precison and

>are held accountable. If Reg

>chose certain words I'm sure

>he meant to use them

>and I suspect if he

>felt they needed defending then

>he would. He is

>a very able debater.

 

This has been shown to be false. I had an extended exchange with Regulation and discovered him to be more pedantic than precise, more arrogant than able, and quite hypocritical in his use of argumentative standards. When subjected to the same standards he is always self-righteously demanding of others, he does not acquit himself at all well. I can't recall one single occasion when he has admitted that he is wrong. The rules of argument and logically reasoning are intended to regulate the search for truth and accuracy; they aren't a substitute for it. Frankly, Regulation is a pompous, sarcastic know-it-all who spends more time splitting hairs and flinging barbs than concentrating on matters of real substance and relevance. A REAL philosopher or logician would make mince-meat out of him, as he would of most lawyers. We should just ignore him--completely. If he is getting "hate-mail", then he is simply reaping what he has sown. You should save your sympathy for those who deserve it.

[Guest Theron]

>I don't think what you're saying

>makes any sense. There

>are plenty of people in

>every age group who don't

>behave maturely when conflict arises.

 

Yes, I agree, and I believe Regulaion may have exposed himself as one of those individuals.

 

 

>I only hire escorts when I

>travel on business. If

>I have an escort come

>to my hotel room I

>don't want someone who is

>going to fly off the

>handle and make a scene

>if I say the wrong

>thing, so if an escort

>can't control himself in situations

>like this I want to

>know about it before I

>hire him.

 

That goes both ways. Escorts don't want a client who is going to "fly on the handle" if something simple goes wrong, either.

>

>It seems to me there are

>some people who visit this

>site who just can't stand

>it whenever anyone says anything

>negative about an escort and

>they make any excuse to

>bash the person who says

>it.

 

Zack made a mistake, pure and simple, but Regulation really did a lot to "grind" it in, and that began to appear as a personal smear campaign. There is a difference between bringing something to everyone's attention and picking up the grinding ax. In my opinon, his refusal to let this drop began to cause it to appear that he was now "bashing" Zack. If anyone doubts that all they have to do is read the many things he has said about it. In my opinion, Regulation is not some poor victim here that is being picked on. If he can dish it out, and a review of the Messae Center will quickly show that he can, then he should at a minimum have the fortitude to take it.

 

I think that's

>what's happening here. I

>read the other thread on

>Zack. When regulation posted

>the first nasty email from

>him several people said it

>must be a fake and

>Zack denied it. Now

>people are saying, okay it's

>real but regulation is still

>wrong to talk about it.

 

No, I think people are saying they are tired of Regulation going on and on and on about it. He made his point a long time ago.

 

> Come on! You're

>just coming up with any

>excuse to bash him.

>The escort did something wrong

>and got caught. I

>can't believe you're trying to

>make this about something else.

 

The escort made a mistake. All people do that from time to time. Regulation pointed it out --good for him. In my opinion, what he has done since that time though has been nothing short of delibrate and mean spirited. He has been absolutely relentless.

 

Sorry we can't agree on these points, perhaps we just have to agree to disagree. Even though we have different opinions, I do understand where you are coming from, though.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Theron]

>It seems to me there are

>some people who visit this

>site who just can't stand

>it whenever anyone says anything

>negative about an escort and

>they make any excuse to

>bash the person who says

>it. I think that's

>what's happening here. I

>read the other thread on

>Zack. When regulation posted

>the first nasty email from

>him several people said it

>must be a fake and

>Zack denied it. Now

>people are saying, okay it's

>real but regulation is still

>wrong to talk about it.

> Come on! You're

>just coming up with any

>excuse to bash him.

>The escort did something wrong

>and got caught. I

>can't believe you're trying to

>make this about something else.

>

 

Hi :-)

 

This just came to light. Regulation has been intentionally spreading false and misleading concerning Zack, and stating it as fact. Evidence of this exists in the thread, "Why Do I Escort," Message number 75. In this Regulation implies that Zack was a "no show." He also quotes hearsay information as fact in an attempt to imply that most escorts are in need of serious therapy.

 

I do not want to be redundant by posting the message twice, but I do encourage people to go over to the other thread and read Regulation's message number 75, and the two responses I submitted to it that will immediately follow.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Theron]

>

>>I don't mean that to be

>>harsh or accusatory.

>

>But I think that is exactly

>what you mean. It

>certainly wouldn't be the first

>time.

 

No deej, we have to remember, only Regulation can be "harsh or accusatory" with others, lol.

 

>

>>You've announced that you cannot be

>>trusted with confidential information.

>

>What I have announced is that

>no one can assume I

>will keep unsolicited messages confidential

>when I have agreed to

>do no such thing.

 

>I don't like it when

>other people try to fasten

>obligations on me without my

>consent. It takes two

>people (at least) to make

>an agreement, and no one

>who hasn't bothered to ask

>me to agree to whatever

>he has in mind should

>assume that I will agree

>simply because he thinks I

>should.

 

Everyone make note. Normally when you send a person a e-mail it is considered private because if you have wanted to share it with others you would have included them in on the message. Regulation has not told us all that people have to meet an additional standard when communiating with him. They have to contact him first and ask his permission to write him, and then ask him if he will agree to confidentiality. So normal standards do not apply where Regulation is concerned.

 

>

>I will also say that I

>have never asked any visitor

>to this site to send

>me any confidential information, and

>I would prefer that no

>one do so. I

>already get more of that

>sort of thing than I

>care for in other areas

>of my life.

 

Gee, then why don't you simple set your preferences so that no one can. What a novel idea. I've read in the message center where it was clearly stated that if a member did not want to receive messages from others that they should set their preferences accordingly. So maybe you did not ask anyone to send you private messages, but by not exercise your right to stop or discourage it. But I know, even though you did not do what you should have done...someone else is to blame.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest regulation]

>I do not want to be

>redundant by posting the message

>twice, but I do encourage

>people to go over to

>the other thread and read

>Regulation's message number 75, and

>the two responses I submitted

>to it that will immediately

>follow.

>

 

I would also encourage people (if they are actually interested) to check out the "Why I Escort" thread. My latest posts point out the absurdity of Theron's hysterical claims. People who enjoy absurdity may find this amusing. I certainly do. His rants about "hearsay" are particularly funny to those of us who actually know what that word means. :-)