Why Zack Escorts

[bluenix]

>So normal standards

>do not apply where Regulation

>is concerned.

 

One might say the same about Theron where logic is concerned.

 

Give it up, Babe. Hugs.

[Guest curtenz]

>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.

>

 

Hang on here. I wasn't going to say anything more about this but I'm seeing some things I don't like being posted so I'm going to speak up.

 

First off, don't I recall a bunch of personal attacks by you against regulation in another thread that had nothing to do with this Zack guy? And now you show up here to diss him again, and it's all because of your concern for Zack? I don't think so. Sounds like you're the one who's got a vendetta going and you're just taking this opportunity to push it along.

 

And by the way, what you said about Zack is not right. He never did admit sending the hate mails regulation posted. When it first came up he denied it and he never retracted that.

 

>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!

 

And I say the only reason regulation kept bringing this up is because Zack kept sending him new hate messages. He started this thread on June 20 because he got a new message with that date. It's right up at the top of this thread.

 

And I also say if you think something has been talked about enough it's pretty dumb for you to keep talking about it. This thread would have died a while back if you and Theron hadn't kept it going. Other than his original post reg hasn't posted anything in this thread except in reply to posts from other people.

[Guest curtenz]

>Yes, I agree, and I believe

>Regulaion may have exposed himself

>as one of those individuals.

 

I don't think the hissy fit you've been throwing on this board is any too mature either, if you want to know.

 

 

>That goes both ways. Escorts

>don't want a client who

>is going to "fly on

>the handle" if something simple

>goes wrong, either.

>>

 

Then I guess you better not take on Zack as a client. I sure wouldn't hire him as an escort either.

 

>Zack made a mistake, pure and

>simple,

 

 

Whoa! Dissing someone because they're HIV+ is a lot more than a "mistake" in my book. So is sending people hate mail because they criticize you for it.

 

 

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.

 

You're not telling the truth here. Anybody who read all of the posts on this subject, and that takes some doing right there, knows that all of reg's posts after the first one were in response to the hate mail messages Zack sent him and in response to later comments from Zack and others on this board, including you. If Zack and you others had just kept quiet about it, this whole thing would have died away last week.

 

>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.

 

And you've managed to keep the discussion going long after he did that. Good work.

 

>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.

>

 

Like I said, he's been relentless in responding to what others have said to him and about him. I can't blame anybody for that.

 

>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.

 

I don't think you do. I guess I didn't make myself clear yesterday. I'm saying I don't like what you're doing. That clear enough? I don't like to hear that someone is getting hate mail because they criticized an escort on this message board. That's what this thread is about in case you didn't notice. There's another guy in the Deli section complaining about the same thing because he criticized an escort agency in California. And I think it stinks for you to criticize someone just because they complain about that. IMHO, it makes you no better than the one who sent the hate mail in the first place.

[Guest curtenz]

One other thing. I've seen some stupid things posted on this message board, but saying that someone is violating privacy because they don't keep hate mail from stalkers or harrassers confidential is right up there at the top of the Stupid List.

[Guest Theron]

>>So normal standards

>>do not apply where Regulation

>>is concerned.

>

>One might say the same about

>Theron where logic is concerned.

>

>

>Give it up, Babe. Hugs.

 

Hiya -- BIG SMILE!

 

Thanks for your comments. You may be interested in reading message number 89. I think your opinion might then change. This message does expose, with support of the client and Zack's own words, the lie that Regulation has told in what I can only consider a mean spirited attempt to needlessly harm Zack.

 

Hugs,

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Theron]

>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. :-)

>

 

Hi, Regulation :-)

 

My claims were not hysterical, at all --they were supported by fact, actual statements made by both Zack and the client in message number 7 and 8 of the thread "Why I Escort." My message there is message number 89, and it exposes the the lie that you have told in an effort to needlessly harm another person.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest AIM]

<yawn>

 

You seem to be a brand new poster that I suspect has some type of personal connection to this Regulation character. And I think you're as big an idiot as he is. Nothing more to say.

[bluenix]

Hi, Theron. My 'logic' comment was not concerned with the no-show business, which isn't especially interesting. My comment alluded to the alleged impropriety of posting a "private" message in a public thread.

 

Forgive me that I can't be bothered to look it up, but you said something along the lines that if the sender had meant for others to see the message, he would have sent it to them as well. That's just dumb to argue that if you didn't get the information firsthand you never should have gotten it at all.

 

And now to a question that's been forming in the mists of my mind, or what's left of it: what is it about all this that gets you going so, apart from your already voluminously detailed posts? Do you know Zack personally and want to defend his honor? Are you standing up for beleaguered escorts everywhere? Are you chained to your computer and don't know how else to pass the time? What?

 

Because it can't -- it simply can't -- be good for business.

[Guest Theron]

>One other thing. I've seen

>some stupid things posted on

>this message board, but saying

>that someone is violating privacy

>because they don't keep hate

>mail from stalkers or harrassers

>confidential is right up there

>at the top of the

>Stupid List.

 

Hi :-)

 

Well, we do not even know as a fact that Zack, or anyone, for that matter, even sent any hate male to Reguation. We know that Zack has denied it, and that Regulation has said he did it.

 

Another thing we now know is that in the dispute that started all this both Zack and the Client have agreed that this was not a no show appoinment --evidence of that is in the other thread, Why I escort, messages 7 and 8.

 

We also know that Regulation, was aware of both Zack and the clients statement that this was not a no show because he responded to those posts, and that despite being aware of this fact has continually accussed Zack of a no-show appointment, and that his claim is not supported by the evidence. In fact, fact the statement Regulation has made has been a lie.

 

Now that Regulation has been exposed as a person who will needlessly lie to harm someone else, if all we have is his word that he received this hate mail then I am not inclined to believe that he did. The fact remains, in this thread Zack has not been exposed as someone who does not tell the truth, and neither has the client. Regulation, on the other hand, has.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest curtenz]

>Well, we do not even know

>as a fact that Zack,

>or anyone, for that matter,

>even sent any hate male

>to Reguation. We know

>that Zack has denied it,

>and that Regulation has said

>he did it.

>

>Another thing we now know is

>that in the dispute that

>started all this both Zack

>and the Client have agreed

>that this was not a

>no show appoinment --evidence of

>that is in the other

>thread, Why I escort, messages

>7 and 8.

>

 

I read those messages and that's not the way I see it.

 

 

>We also know that Regulation, was

>aware of both Zack and

>the clients statement that this

>was not a no show

>because he responded to those

>posts, and that despite being

>aware of this fact has

>continually accussed Zack of a

>no-show appointment, and that his

>claim is not supported by

>the evidence. In fact,

>fact the statement Regulation has

>made has been a lie.

>

 

Nope, I read the entire thread and I think what reg said is a reasonable description of what the people involved said. You are just repeating over and over again a really minor difference in words and claiming that makes someone a liar. Your behavior seems really creepy to me. You remind me of Bob Barr. You ever hear of him?

 

>

>Now that Regulation has been exposed

>as a person who will

>needlessly lie to harm someone

>else,

 

He hasn't been exposed as anything except somebody that doesn't like getting hate mail because he criticized a hooker for standing up a client. I wouldn't like it much either so he has all my sympathy in this situation.

 

 

if all we have

>is his word that he

>received this hate mail then

>I am not inclined to

>believe that he did.

>The fact remains, in this

>thread Zack has not been

>exposed as someone who does

>not tell the truth,

 

Yes he sure has. I don't know why you want to lie about that, after calling somebody else a liar telling an obvious lie yourself is pretty dumb. Zack denied ever "flaking" on someone in #7 of the Why I Escort thread and in #15 of the same thread N.N. told reg that Zack later admitted to him privately what he did. N.N. said the same thing in #4 of the Another Loss thread. So either N.N. is lying or Zack is. Either you forgot to read all those posts in your comprehensive review of these threads or you're trying to cover up something. The second reason seems more likely to me.

[Guest TFNH]

Personally, having read all of this, I'd hire both Zack and Theron just on princple. I just don't go in for all the trashing of escorts. They provide a valuable service for many of us, and are then raked over the coals. They deal with alot, and often receive nothing but money; certainly not decent, respectful, and humane treatment.

[Guest Theron]

>I read those messages and that's

>not the way I see

>it.

 

Hi :-)

 

Well, then you see it differently than the parties who were directly affected by it. Both Zack and N.N. have said this was not a no-show appointment. One would think they would be the onces who could most clearly comment on this, and they have.

 

>

>>We also know that Regulation, was

>>aware of both Zack and

>>the clients statement that this

>>was not a no show

>>because he responded to those

>>posts, and that despite being

>>aware of this fact has

>>continually accussed Zack of a

>>no-show appointment, and that his

>>claim is not supported by

>>the evidence. In fact,

>>fact the statement Regulation has

>>made has been a lie.

>>

>

>Nope, I read the entire thread

>and I think what reg

>said is a reasonable description

>of what the people involved

>said. You are just

>repeating over and over again

>a really minor difference in

>words and claiming that makes

>someone a liar. Your

>behavior seems really creepy to

>me. You remind me

>of Bob Barr. You

>ever hear of him?

 

Well, let me provide you with an example of it: On June 23, in message #75, Regulation said, "I don't like escorts who no show and then deny it, as Zack did with N.N.

 

I'm sorry you find my behavior "creepy." I just do not want to set by and watch the name of another person harmed by lies.

 

I also think it is really creepy that also in this thread, Regulation has implied that escorts are in serious need of therapy.

 

>>

>>Now that Regulation has been exposed

>>as a person who will

>>needlessly lie to harm someone

>>else,

>

>He hasn't been exposed as anything

>except somebody that doesn't like

>getting hate mail because he

>criticized a hooker for standing

>up a client. I

>wouldn't like it much either

>so he has all my

>sympathy in this situation.

 

People are innocent until proven guilty. All we have is Regulation's word that Zack sent this so called hate mail. Zack has denied it. In my eyes, Regualtion is now a proven liar, and a review of the message center will show that he frequently twists words to take on the meaning he wants them to, and then presents those things as facts.

 

>

>if all we have

>>is his word that he

>>received this hate mail then

>>I am not inclined to

>>believe that he did.

>>The fact remains, in this

>>thread Zack has not been

>>exposed as someone who does

>>not tell the truth,

>

>Yes he sure has. I

>don't know why you want

>to lie about that,

>after calling somebody else a

>liar telling an obvious lie

>yourself is pretty dumb.

 

I have not told any lies.

 

>Zack denied ever "flaking" on

>someone in #7 of the

>Why I Escort thread

 

I never said that Zack denied flacking on someone in that message. I said he denied knowledge of a no show appointment.

 

and

>in #15 of the same

>thread N.N. told reg that

>Zack later admitted to him

>privately what he did.

 

No, that is not what N.N. admitted in thread 15. I'd suggest you read it again. On June 16th, in message #15, N.N, in response to Regulation's post and suggestion, informed us that he had sent copys of their e-mails to Zack, that Zack then remembered the situation, and that Zack had explained to him privately what had happened.

 

>N.N. said the same thing

>in #4 of the Another

>Loss thread. So either

>N.N. is lying or Zack

>is.

 

I think both N.N and Zack agree that Zack "flaked." That he failed to confirm or schedule an appointment that had talked about. That is not a no-show though, because before you can no show you have to have an actual appointment to meet in the first place.

 

Either you forgot

>to read all those posts

>in your comprehensive review of

>these threads or you're trying

>to cover up something.

>The second reason seems more

>likely to me.

 

I have nothing to hide, and I am confident I have addressed your points, above.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Theron]

>And now to a question that's

>been forming in the mists

>of my mind, or what's

>left of it: what is

>it about all this that

>gets you going so, apart

>from your already voluminously detailed

>posts? Do you know Zack

>personally and want to defend

>his honor? Are you standing

>up for beleaguered escorts everywhere?

>Are you chained to your

>computer and don't know how

>else to pass the time?

>What?

 

>Because it can't -- it simply

>can't -- be good for

>business.

 

Hi :-)

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts --BIG SMILE. I do not know Zack, personally. I think one thing many people will agree on, escorts who post here are frequently trashed. Recent examples are Jason Reardon, and Zack. Possibly, even I will become trashed for expressing my opinions. Clients can, and do, all the time, have lengthy debates about issues, but it appears that if an escort attempts such a thing it is looked down upon.

 

I sincerely feel in my heart that what Regulation has done has been personal, mean spirited and has been wrong. All of it has been based on his word, which in my opinion, is not very reliable. What about Zack's word? Both Zack and the client have agreed it was not a no show appointment, but Regulation, in what I believe is nothing more than a smear campaign, has said that is was. This obvious, and intentional misrepresentation of the facts causes me to question everything Regulation has said. What evidence exists to prove Zack, or anyone for that matter, ever sent Regulation hate mail? Zack has denied sending it. But, he is guilty because Regulation, a man who has already misrepresented facts, says he is??? Heck, in Regulation's attempt to run down Zack he even went on record to say escorts are in need of serious therapy.

 

This type of abuse of escorts simply needs to stop. Escorts are people, too, and their reputations should not be based on the word of one person who comes into the message center and attacks them. Just because someone is a client does not give them any greater credibility than an escort.

 

Because I sincerely believe this situation is wrong, I am willing to stand up for it. If I lose clients because I am not willing to roll over and play dead, and allow the good names of people to be destoryed because someone has alleged an escort has done something, with no evidence, then I am prepared to do that. Dignity, after all, is more important than money.

 

Once again, I do thank you for your response. I hope you better understand my position.

 

Hugs,

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest curtenz]

>>I read those messages and that's

>>not the way I see

>>it.

 

>Well, then you see it differently

>than the parties who were

>directly affected by it.

>Both Zack and N.N. have

>said this was not a

>no-show appointment. One would

>think they would be the

>onces who could most clearly

>comment on this, and they

>have.

>

 

No, both of them didn't say that, only N.N. did. Zack said in #7 that what N.N. was talking about sounded like a "no show." If he can call it that I don't see why someone else can't.

 

 

>Well, let me provide you with

>an example of it: On

>June 23, in message #75,

>Regulation said, "I don't like

>escorts who no show and

>then deny it, as Zack

>did with N.N.

>

>I'm sorry you find my behavior

>"creepy." I just do not

>want to set by and

>watch the name of another

>person harmed by lies.

 

What you say makes no sense. You're prolonging this and focussing a lot more attention on the accusations about Zack than if you had left it alone, like bluenix just told you. For your motive to be what you say it is you'd have to be clean out of your mind since you are getting the opposite of what you say you want. I think you just hate clients and like dissing them whenever you can.

 

 

>

>I also think it is really

>creepy that also in this

>thread, Regulation has implied that

>escorts are in serious need

>of therapy.

 

That isn't what he said. He was replying to Zack's statement that he should get therapy and he said that most psychiatrists would probably say that someone who does what Zack does would need therapy. He never said that's what he thought. You're quick to accuse others of lying or twisting words but that is just what you're doing here.

 

>People are innocent until proven guilty.

> All we have is

>Regulation's word that Zack sent

>this so called hate mail.

 

I'll take his word before I do yours.

 

>>if all we have

>>>is his word that he

>>>received this hate mail then

>>>I am not inclined to

>>>believe that he did.

>>>The fact remains, in this

>>>thread Zack has not been

>>>exposed as someone who does

>>>not tell the truth,

>>

>>Yes he sure has. I

>>don't know why you want

>>to lie about that,

>>after calling somebody else a

>>liar telling an obvious lie

>>yourself is pretty dumb.

>

>I have not told any lies.

 

You just told one when you said that no appointment was "scheduled." How do you like it when someone uses a minor difference in words to call you a liar? That's what you've been doing all day.

 

> and

>>in #15 of the same

>>thread N.N. told reg that

>>Zack later admitted to him

>>privately what he did.

>

>No, that is not what N.N.

>admitted in thread 15.

>I'd suggest you read it

>again.

 

 

I did and I stand by what I said.

 

>>N.N. said the same thing

>>in #4 of the Another

>>Loss thread. So either

>>N.N. is lying or Zack

>>is.

>

>I think both N.N and Zack

>agree that Zack "flaked."

 

But in #7 Zack said he NEVER did that.

 

 

>That he failed to confirm

>or schedule an appointment that

>had talked about. That

>is not a no-show though,

>because before you can no

>show you have to have

>an actual appointment to meet

>in the first place.

 

Once more you are focussing on a minor difference in words to cover up what an escort did. He dissed a guy because he was HIV+ and then denied it. You can try to make this about someone else all you want to but that is what this is about. If you say it isn't a hundred times I'll say it is a hundred times.

[Guest Theron]

>I don't think the hissy fit

>you've been throwing on this

>board is any too mature

>either, if you want to

>know.

 

Hi :-)

 

I'm not sure I can agree with you that I am having a "hissy fit." I am merely standing up for something I believe in, to protect the good name of someone else. Something you are not used to seeing escorts do in the Message Center. Clients have differences of opinions all the time and debates without being accussed of having a "hissy fit."

>

>>Zack made a mistake, pure and

>>simple,

>

>

>Whoa! Dissing someone because they're

>HIV+ is a lot more

>than a "mistake" in my

>book. So is sending

>people hate mail because they

>criticize you for it.

 

Zack absolutely did not "diss" someone who was HIV+ He made a choice not to have sex with him. That was his right. I do not believe you could get any reasonable person to believe that making their own choice about whether or not to have sex with an HIV+ person would be considered "dissing" that person. This is simply a personal choice that we all get to make for ourselves, period.

 

>

>

>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.

>

>You're not telling the truth here.

> Anybody who read all

>of the posts on this

>subject, and that takes some

>doing right there, knows that

>all of reg's posts after

>the first one were in

>response to the hate mail

>messages Zack sent him and

>in response to later comments

>from Zack and others on

>this board, including you.

>If Zack and you others

>had just kept quiet about

>it, this whole thing would

>have died away last week.

 

Oh, so would be that Regulation should have been able to come on the Message Center, and make the very strong statements he made concerning the good name of another person, and with no proof, whatsoever, and then everyone should have just been quiet about it, and let him get away with it? End of the matter...Regulation said it so it is now fact?

 

>

>>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.

>>

>

>Like I said, he's been relentless

>in responding to what others

>have said to him and

>about him. I can't

>blame anybody for that.

 

Regulation is the one who stirred the pot, lol. We do not even know he even received any messages. Only that he has told us he did, and at the expense of another person's good name. I'm sorry, having read quite a few of Regulation's posts I cannot say that I believe that the possibiliy does not exist that he simply made it all up.

>

>>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.

>

>I don't think you do.

>I guess I didn't make

>myself clear yesterday. I'm

>saying I don't like what

>you're doing. That clear

>enough?

 

Well, I'm sure there are quite a few things on the list that not everyone likes --ya know. I was not aware that I needed your permission to post or approval. I'm certainly as entitled to my opinion as you are yours.

 

I don't like

>to hear that someone is

>getting hate mail because they

>criticized an escort on this

>message board. That's what

>this thread is about in

>case you didn't notice.

 

And I don't like to see the name of a good person harmed because someone has said, with no evidence, whatsoever, that they are getting hate mail. If you attack someones good name then the burdon of proof rests on the person who does that. Regualtion in this case needs to offer a lot more than his word if he wants to tear down the reputation of another person.

 

>There's another guy in the

>Deli section complaining about the

>same thing because he criticized

>an escort agency in California.

> And I think it

>stinks for you to criticize

>someone just because they complain

>about that. IMHO, it

>makes you no better than

>the one who sent the

>hate mail in the first

>place.

 

lol, no proof exists that any hate male was sent, in the first place. Only the word of a man, who if you read the message center, has proven many times he will twist words to make his point, and then preset those things as facts.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

curtenz,

 

Don't wish to get between you and Theron here, but I think Reg needs sticking up for...

 

"Once more you are focusing on a minor difference in words... "

 

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.

:-)

[Guest Theron]

>Personally, having read all of this,

>I'd hire both Zack and

>Theron just on princple.

>I just don't go in

>for all the trashing of

>escorts. They provide a

>valuable service for many of

>us, and are then raked

>over the coals. They

>deal with alot, and often

>receive nothing but money; certainly

>not decent, respectful, and humane

>treatment.

 

Hiya :-)

 

Thank you for your kind comments.

 

BIG HUGS,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Boston Guy]

TY, you have used the normal spelling for focusing.

 

I suggest searching the forums for 'focussing'.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Geez curtenz,

 

IMHO, it makes you no better than the one who sent the hate mail in the first place.

 

That seems to me a little harsh... projecting the actions of one onto another just because the other stands up in some way for the one (not denying that the one may have committed some inapproriate action). I mention this only because I'm a little sensitive to it, as Reg in a post a few days ago expressed a similar sentiment to me when said he considered me a coauthor to Sean's posts (some quite intemperate).

 

I'm dubious of the accusatory tones issued against those who choose to stand up for others -- more accurately for the principles used in the treatment of others -- just because they are willing to stand and be counted. This conjures up images of Torquemada, Cotton Mather, and Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

 

Please reconsider this statement. The rest of your remarks seem to me in the realm of the give and take of debate.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Boston Guy,

 

Yes, I see...

 

May I suggest you reread:

 

in this thread:

 

post #35, last paragrpah, first sentence

and

in the thread "I Like Escorts..."[/b]:

post #39 , last paragraph, last sentence.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Sorry Boston Guy, corrected reference: post 35 should read post 25

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Boston Guy,

 

Yes, I see...

 

May I suggest you reread:

 

in this thread:

 

post #25, last paragrpah, last sentence

and

in the thread "I Like Escorts...":

post #39 , last paragraph, last sentence.

[Guest Theron]

Hi :-)

 

Question for you. I've noticed that when someone does say something concerning Regulation that curtenz speaks up. He has come to his defense in this post with both me and a poster called AIM. curtenz has 0 posts. But then the message counters have also been off, so that might not mean anything at all. I just have this feeling. 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?

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Theron]

>No, both of them didn't say

>that, only N.N. did.

>Zack said in #7 that

>what N.N. was talking about

>sounded like a "no show."

> If he can call

>it that I don't see

>why someone else can't.

 

Here are Zack's exact words from message number 7 in the post Why I Escort, "I am also clueless as to the "No-Show" implication that was made towards me. I NEVER flake on anyone and do not recollect ANY incidents where that would have been posible."

 

Okay, where do you see there that Zack says this "sounded like a

no show?" Where do you see in in message nubmer 7 that Zack called it a "no show?" Zacks words are posted immediately above you. He said he was "clueless as to the No-Show" implication. That is a denial of a no-show, not an admission of one.

>

 

>I think you just hate

>clients and like dissing them

>whenever you can.

 

No, I don't hate clients, or anyone for that matter. I do dislike it when the good names of others are harmed without proof to substantiate the accusers claim.

 

>>

>>I also think it is really

>>creepy that also in this

>>thread, Regulation has implied that

>>escorts are in serious need

>>of therapy.

>

>That isn't what he said.

>He was replying to Zack's

>statement that he should get

>therapy and he said that

>most psychiatrists would probably say

>that someone who does what

>Zack does would need therapy.

> He never said that's

>what he thought. You're

>quick to accuse others of

>lying or twisting words but

>that is just what you're

>doing here.

 

Well, when I asked him about it I said, "

>

>>People are innocent until proven guilty.

>> All we have is

>>Regulation's word that Zack sent

>>this so called hate mail.

>

>I'll take his word before I

>do yours.

>

>>>if all we have

>>>>is his word that he

>>>>received this hate mail then

>>>>I am not inclined to

>>>>believe that he did.

>>>>The fact remains, in this

>>>>thread Zack has not been

>>>>exposed as someone who does

>>>>not tell the truth,

>>>

>>>Yes he sure has. I

>>>don't know why you want

>>>to lie about that,

>>>after calling somebody else a

>>>liar telling an obvious lie

>>>yourself is pretty dumb.

>>

>>I have not told any lies.

>

>You just told one when you

>said that no appointment was

>"scheduled." How do you

>like it when someone uses

>a minor difference in words

>to call you a liar?

> That's what you've been

>doing all day.

>

>> and

>>>in #15 of the same

>>>thread N.N. told reg that

>>>Zack later admitted to him

>>>privately what he did.

>>

>>No, that is not what N.N.

>>admitted in thread 15.

>>I'd suggest you read it

>>again.

>

>

>I did and I stand by

>what I said.

>

>>>N.N. said the same thing

>>>in #4 of the Another

>>>Loss thread. So either

>>>N.N. is lying or Zack

>>>is.

>>

>>I think both N.N and Zack

>>agree that Zack "flaked."

>

>But in #7 Zack said he

>NEVER did that.

>

>

>>That he failed to confirm

>>or schedule an appointment that

>>had talked about. That

>>is not a no-show though,

>>because before you can no

>>show you have to have

>>an actual appointment to meet

>>in the first place.

>

>Once more you are focussing on

>a minor difference in words

>to cover up what an

>escort did. He dissed

>a guy because he was

>HIV+ and then denied it.

> You can try to

>make this about someone else

>all you want to but

>that is what this is

>about. If you say

>it isn't a hundred times

>I'll say it is a

>hundred times.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Justice]

>I think one thing many people

>will agree on, escorts who

>post here are frequently trashed.

> Recent examples are Jason

>Reardon, and Zack.

 

Sigh! Unfortunately, its true. I for one will be very surprised if either Zack or Jason ever post here again. That's too bad. I enjoyed Jason's posts very much. Zack was so new that I wasn't able to form an opinion his posts. Neither one of them deserved to be treated the way that they were. They both have feelings!

 

>Possibly,

>even I will become trashed

>for expressing my opinions.

 

Unfortunately, it's only a matter of time before you get torn to shreds. Let's just leave it at that.

 

>Clients can, and do, all

>the time, have lengthy debates

>about issues, but it appears

>that if an escort attempts

>such a thing it is

>looked down upon.

 

And that's why very few escorts bother to post here on a regular basis. Think about it -- Rick Munroe is the only established escort who still posts here on a regular basis. Rod Hagen and Matt from Vancouver both used to post here every couple of days. (And sometimes several times a day!) Now their posts are few and far between. Their absence speaks volumes. Joey Ciccone is fairly new to the board. When he first started posting, he was here a couple of times a day. His posts caused several well respected posters to hire him before he got a single review! Now we hardly ever hear from him! What's wrong with this picture?

 

The board is one of the best ways to get to know an escort. We get to know something about his sense of humor, his values, his personality, and so on and so forth. Please stop the madness! Please stop driving them away! Thank you.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

See post #40 below.