Why Zack Escorts

[Boston Guy]

TY:

 

I think you've got it. :-)

 

But is it possible that the second reference above is not correct?

[Guest Theron]

>TY:

>

>I think you've got it. :-)

>

>

>But is it possible that the

>second reference above is not

>correct?

 

Hiya :-) I am wondering the same thing.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Esc_Tracker]

Well guys, this has been some cat fight. I now feel I know a lot more than I want to about several of those involved.

 

I am not including you in that list Theron, but I will offer you a bit of debating advice.

 

1. Don't quote at length, and keep your responses short and pointed. Some guys don't fight fair and will ignore the substance of your arguments if you provide them with peripheral stuff they can focus on instead.

 

2. Also, some debaters just can't let go and will repeat the same arguments over and over no matter how often you refute them. Trust in the good judgement of those following the thread and try to avoid the trap of a yes/no argument.

 

3. Some debaters seem to feel that they win if they are the last one standing and so insist on being the one with the last word. Learn to anticipate this, offer them the last word, and let their empty remarks echo in silence.

 

4. Intelligent discourse ends with the first insult or ad hominem attack. When facing a sustained barrage of mud flinging, trust the reader to notice that the one flinging the mud is the dirtiest, and pull out.

 

I hope you all got this out of your system, though I will admit to a certain perverse enjoyment in reading this thread after having held off until the ticker reached 50. ;-)

 

Esc-Tracker

[Guest Theron]

Hi :-)

 

Yes, the words they use are different. I believe, if they are the same person that regulation would be clever enough to try and change the style of writing, and words he uses. However, some characteristics never change.

 

If you review the message center, and read a few posts by them, you will find at least a couple of similarities. For example, the both insist on being right, and will argue a point over and over. They also both like to ask questions to attempt to get you to draw a conclusion that they set up immediately before asking the question. Also, curtenz sure seems to be up on what is happening with regard to Regulation in both this and other threads. I wonder if we search the message center if we will find that curtenz has any original thoughts of his own, or if he only responds to posts concerning Regulation? I don't know, but it would be interesting to find out.

 

At this point it is all speculation, but in reading this tread I got the feeling that at least four people may be wondering about the connection between them, as well --hmmmmmm.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Theron]

Hi :-)

 

A complete review of the message center (including archives) shows curtenz first posted in the Message Center on June 9th, 2001 at 9:46 A.M. Since that time he has posted a total of 14 messages, 8 of which are dedicated to defending Regulation. Oh, and both spell the word "focussing" the same way. Interesting!

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Theron]

Hello, Esc-Tracker, :-)

 

Thank you for your good advice. It was really nice of you to take the time to share this with me, and I very much appreciate it.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Gosh... you are right. I thought I corrected that -- it should be post #34. Sorry it was late.

 

:-(

[Guest curtenz]

>curtenz,

>

>Don't wish to get between you

>and Theron here, but I

>think Reg needs sticking up

>for...

>

 

 

Not sure why you care since you are one of the folks who always attacks people who criticize escorts here including reg. Anyway, he and I have IM'ed about this thread so if he has anything to say to me he knows how.

[Guest curtenz]

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.

 

 

Why don't you just save time by giving us a list of all the people you hate instead of putting the information out in dribs and drabs. I can't remember any post by you in which you didn't diss somebody. We really need folks like you because there isn't enough bad feeling here as it is.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

curtenz #58

 

Not sure why you care since you are one of the folks who always attacks people who criticize escorts here including reg.

 

I don't like to see anybody maligned or inaccurately represented.

 

Anyway, he and I have IM'ed about this thread so if he has anything to say to me he knows how.

 

Does this mean you have coordinated your response with reg and have his authoriztion to represent his intent in his posts? I'm surprised that reg would want anyone else clarifying his position -- but I have no reason to doubt you.

[Guest regulation]

>I don't like to see anybody

>maligned or inaccurately represented.

>

 

That's great, TY! After maligning me (among others) on a few occasions in the past, I'm pleased to see you have turned over a new leaf.

 

 

>Does this mean you have coordinated

>your response with reg and

>have his authoriztion to represent

>his intent in his posts?

> I'm surprised that reg

>would want anyone else clarifying

>his position -- but I

>have no reason to doubt

>you.

 

Having just been attacked by several people for posting what they insist was a "private" communication on this message board, I don't think I or my AOL buddy Curt should be asked to provide information about our private communications. For the record, no other person has been authorized to represent me in this forum. That's why I found it so odd that you purported to do just that in your post prior to this one. There's really no need. Thanks anyway.

[Guest regulation]

I see a great many posts have been added to this thread and the previous one on this subject since yesterday! I promise to take the time to read each and every one.

 

In what I have read so far, I don't see a tremendous amount of new information. Those who can always be relied upon to attack anyone who criticizes an escort have continued to do so. They've done all they can to make me the issue rather than the behavior that is the real subject of this discussion. Those who don't agree with that sort of behavior have made that clear and there's not a great deal I can add to what they have said.

 

In regard to the messages I have received from Zack, the latest of which appears at the top of this thread, I will simply repeat, for the benefit of anyone who doubts that they are real, my invitation to HB to examine my inbox on this website and post any information he can find about the sender.

[Guest Theron]

>In regard to the messages I

>have received from Zack, the

>latest of which appears at

>the top of this thread,

>I will simply repeat, for

>the benefit of anyone who

>doubts that they are real,

>my invitation to HB to

>examine my inbox on this

>website and post any information

>he can find about the

>sender.

 

Hi :-)

 

 

You must be referring to the alleged messages you received, that were also allegedly sent by Zack.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest regulation]

>You must be referring to the

>alleged messages you received, that

>were also allegedly sent by

>Zack.

 

To be precise -- I believe I already made this clear in the "Another Loss" thread -- I am referring to messages that have appeared in my inbox on this website under the username "Zack Evans." As I have said before, either the person who sent those messages is the same as the person who has posted messages on this board under that same username, or there is someone who has the ability to appropriate the usernames of other members and utilize them without their consent. If HB would care to do so he is most welcome to examine my inbox in order to verify what I have said about the "Zack Evans" messages.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Reg,

 

I'll let the cheap shot go by...

 

For the record, no other person has been authorized to represent me in this forum.

 

What I suspected myself.

 

That's why I found it so odd that you purported to do just that in your post prior to this one.

 

Reg, you are not reading today as carefully as you write... I did not and would not take it on myself to represent you without your authorization.

 

I expressed my opinion that you are a careful poster and choose your words carefully and that if you felt they needed defending you would want to do it yourself and are more than up to it. I do not see how this opinion 'purports' to represent you.

 

There's really no need.

 

Just exactly my point to curtenz... but not as succint I guess.

[Guest Theron]

>>You must be referring to the

>>alleged messages you received, that

>>were also allegedly sent by

>>Zack.

>

>To be precise -- I believe

>I already made this clear

>in the "Another Loss" thread

>-- I am referring to

>messages that have appeared in

>my inbox on this website

>under the username "Zack Evans."

> As I have said

>before, either the person who

>sent those messages is the

>same as the person who

>has posted messages on this

>board under that same username,

>or there is someone who

>has the ability to appropriate

>the usernames of other members

>and utilize them without their

>consent. If HB would

>care to do so he

>is most welcome to examine

>my inbox in order to

>verify what I have said

>about the "Zack Evans" messages.

 

You mean the messages that allegedly appeared in your in box? See, no proof has been presented that substantiates those messages even exist. And if they do exist, no proof has been presented that substastantiants the user "Zack Evans" authentically sent them. Zack has denied sending them, as you know. By the way, HooBoy has no responsibility to come in and rescue you. If you want to make a claim against the good name of another person you have the complete responsbilty of meeting a burdon of proof, which you have absolutely failed to do. I'm confident, though, if Hoo has something he wants to contribute to your defense he will. So far he has not.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[+ deej]

I'm confident, though, if Hoo has something he wants to contribute to your defense he will. So far he has not.

 

And he is not likely to chime in. Due to threads like this one, HooBoy is reading very little in the message center right now. He even removed himself as moderator so as not to have to read the posts that still get queued.

 

He genuinely dislikes seeing *any* escort dissed, much less with the tenacity often displayed by some of our regular posters on this board. It creates a hostile environment and discourages participation. As others have said, escort participation in this message center is at an all-time low due to the hostile environment created by posters.

 

Information about genuine crooks and con-artists is allowed and encouraged (as long as it isn't libel). Massively attacking an escort over what seems to me to be a minor incident is petty and vindictive, particularly since the only two parties involved appear to have resolved their differences amicably.

 

*Continuing* the discussion does not help the situation either.

 

Let's let it go. The parties involved have. Theron, you yourself recommended "take the high road". Now would be a good time to heed your own advice, I think.

[Guest regulation]

>You mean the messages that allegedly

>appeared in your in box?

> See, no proof has

>been presented that substantiates those

>messages even exist. And

>if they do exist, no

>proof has been presented that

>substastantiants the user "Zack Evans"

>authentically sent them. Zack

>has denied sending them, as

>you know. By the

>way, HooBoy has no responsibility

>to come in and rescue

>you. If you want

>to make a claim against

>the good name of another

>person you have the complete

>responsbilty of meeting a burdon

>of proof, which you have

>absolutely failed to do.

 

 

I think that you are suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of this forum, of any internet message board. Although you are not a lawyer, you persist in using legal terms of art such as "burdon [sic] of proof" and "hearsay" that you only partially understand and that are completely inapplicable in this setting. No participant here has the ability to "prove" anything regarding the identity or actions of any other participant. There are no rules or standards by which such proof could be judged, and no one to do the judging. To say that anyone has the obligation to meet a "burdon of proof" under such circumstances is patently absurd.

 

Nothing can be presented here except the personal opinions of those who choose to participate. Earlier in this thread you offered the opinion that I had done something wrong by posting a private message here. Now you have reversed yourself and are taking the position that the message, so far from being the sacrosanct private communication you implied it was earlier, is nothing but a fake. Both positions are nothing other than your personal opinion, and you have no proof of either.

 

If you want to continue the silly legal analogies that you have come up with from time to time, then you should take account of the fact that in this country it is the person who complains of defamation who has the burden of proving he was defamed, not the alleged defamer. In other words, you have been quoting the standard backwards. :-) If you want to live in a country that takes the opposite view, you will have to move to the United Kingdom.

[Barry]

>You mean the messages that allegedly

>appeared in your in box?

> See, no proof has

>been presented that substantiates those

>messages even exist. And

>if they do exist, no

>proof has been presented that

>substastantiants the user "Zack Evans"

>authentically sent them. Zack

>has denied sending them, as

>you know. By the

>way, HooBoy has no responsibility

>to come in and rescue

>you. If you want

>to make a claim against

>the good name of another

>person you have the complete

>responsbilty of meeting a burdon

>of proof, which you have

>absolutely failed to do.

>I'm confident, though, if Hoo

>has something he wants to

>contribute to your defense he

>will. So far he

>has not.

>

>Theron

 

I personally feel this thread/subject has not produced anything new or interesting in some time. The argument (I wouldn't call it a debate) has become circular and will probably only end when the redundant postings stop or the server runs out of disk space.

 

I would like to make a couple of points solely from my perspective........

 

- Having read Regulation's posts in many threads, I seriously doubt he would post something false then invite the webmaster to verify or refute his claim publicly. Frankly I don't think many of us with more than 2 functioning brain cells would do that.

 

- Having observed HooBoy on this site since the beginning I feel that a) he would feel no obligation, need or desire to come to Reg's defense if his claim were true and b) would have attested to the facts if the claim were false or the private message was indeed sent by someone other than the username owner. In fact he probably would have deleted some of the posts if not the entire thread. I'm no lawyer but without a retraction it would come close to libel and minimally would be against the posting rules of this board.

 

All in all I think many if not most of the readers of this board have long ago drawn their own conclusions and doubt seriously that anything said now will change that. This seems to have become more of a Theron vs. Regulation issue with semantics at the heart of the battle. Being an open board all are welcome to continue but may I respectfully suggest starting a new thread with a more appropriate heading.

[Guest Theron]

>I'm confident, though, if Hoo has

>something he wants to contribute

>to your defense he will.

>So far he has not.

>

>

>And he is not likely to

>chime in. Due to threads

>like this one, HooBoy is

>reading very little in the

>message center right now. He

>even removed himself as moderator

>so as not to have

>to read the posts that

>still get queued.

 

Well, Regulation could have privately written him and asked him to verify that the messages were even sent, and asked him if he could say they were authentically from Zack. I actually surprised Regulation, as much as he likes to be right, has not pursued this --unless the messages never existed at all.

 

>Let's let it go. The parties

>involved have. Theron, you yourself

>recommended "take the high road".

>Now would be a good

>time to heed your own

>advice, I think.

 

I think you are right. I've made my point. People can now read the messages and decide for themselves if they would like to believe the claims Regualtion has raised against Zack.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Theron]

>I think that you are suffering

>from a fundamental misunderstanding of

>the nature of this forum,

>of any internet message board.

 

I think you would like to take advantage of the fact that the statements you made were in this forum. You have raised serious allegations concerning another person's good name. The Internet has allowed many things that are in bad taste to transpire between people when they communicate, but that does not make it right. Talk is cheap, Regulation, let's see some real proof, and if you can't provide it why don't you retract your statment that Zack sent you those messages, and apologize.

 

> Although you are not

>a lawyer, you persist in

>using legal terms of art

>such as "burdon [sic] of

>proof" and "hearsay" that you

>only partially understand and that

>are completely inapplicable in this

>setting. No participant here

>has the ability to "prove"

>anything regarding the identity or

>actions of any other participant.

 

It could be easily proved, that (1) You did in fact receive messages of hate mail in your in box; and (2) If the messages were authentically sent by Zack. You have just failed to do that. I believe it is because you can't. As much as you appear like to be right, there is no doubt in my mind, if you had messages to prove anything you would have long ago done it.

 

> There are no rules

>or standards by which such

>proof could be judged, and

>no one to do the

>judging. To say that

>anyone has the obligation to

>meet a "burdon of proof"

>under such circumstances is patently

>absurd.

 

No, it is absurd that people should believe you, or anyone for that matter, who comes forward and makes statements that harm another person's name. If you cannot support your statements, then you should not have made them in the first place. We are talking about people's reputations here, which you apparently care very little about.

 

>

>Nothing can be presented here except

>the personal opinions of those

>who choose to participate.

>Earlier in this thread you

>offered the opinion that I

>had done something wrong by

>posting a private message here.

> Now you have reversed

>yourself and are taking the

>position that the message, so

>far from being the sacrosanct

>private communication you implied it

>was earlier, is nothing but

>a fake.

 

Well, I reversed myself after I discovered you intentionally misquoted facts about what happened between Zack and N.N., in what can only appear to be a smear campaign. And then logic stepped in. Where the good name of another person is concerned, it is not reasonable for people to merely accept, at face value, statements that are made but cannot be supported.

 

Both positions

>are nothing other than your

>personal opinion, and you have

>no proof of either.

 

You raised the claim against Zack, and not you have an obligation to either support it or lose credibility in the eyes of some.

 

>

>If you want to continue the

>silly legal analogies that you

>have come up with from

>time to time, then you

>should take account of the

>fact that in this country

>it is the person who

>complains of defamation who has

>the burden of proving he

>was defamed, not the alleged

>defamer. In other words,

>you have been quoting the

>standard backwards. :-)

 

In order to win a liable suit and get damages, that is true. But I think reasonable people exercise extreme caution before makeing claims that might reflect back poorly on the good name of another person when doubt exists. You have acknowledged that the possibility does exist that the messages may not be authentic, if there even are any mesages. Yet, even having acknowledge this, you have moved forward in your effort to attribute it to Zack, and you've been pretty relentless about it. What good people do something like this to another person?

 

>in a country that takes

>the opposite view, you will

>have to move to the

>United Kingdom.

 

No, I won't, lol. And I'm not letting you off the hook, either. I stand by my statement that you have made a serious claim against Zack, and have continued to relentlessly advance that claim with nothing to support it. I believe this has been small, evil and mean spirited of you.

 

That said, I really don't believe there a lot more to say about this, other than I encourage people to give Zack the same degree of respect they would want if someone came in here and started making claims about them that could harm their name...and that is the benefit of doubt. Clients use handles in this fourm. Nothing they say or do in here can come back to hurt them in their real life. Most escorts identify themselves here by using their name. Those names are used in their career, and to tarnish an escort's name can affect their ability to earn a living, and directly impact their real life. I think we should all dismiss Regulation's claims, entirely, and consider the type of person who would raise such a claim where doubt exists.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest EastWest Coast]

I read and participate in many online forums on all kinds of subjects and almost always enjoy the ones on this site. Only once before have I felt the need to post a comment here. This is the second.

 

This thread is comprised of the most juvenile collection of content-free comments I've seen on any board on the Net. I no longer remember the precise "issue" that begat this contorted exchange of vapidities. (Please don't remind me.)

 

Can you say "tedious?" :-)

[Guest Theron]

>This thread is comprised of the

>most juvenile collection of content-free

>comments I've seen on any

>board on the Net.

>I no longer remember the

>precise "issue" that begat this

>contorted exchange of vapidities.

>(Please don't remind me.)

>

>Can you say "tedious?"

>:-)

 

Hi :-)

 

Go read some other threads in the Message Center. Gosh, I can think of a multitude of examples where people have made "juvenile content-free comments," although, by pointing that out, I am not admitting my comments have been that.

 

There are also a multitude of examples where the original thread takes a turn from where it started.

 

This seems to be true in this Message Center, on listservs, and usenet groups. And you belong to many of those but have not seen this before? I disagree.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest regulation]

>I think you would like to

>take advantage of the fact

>that the statements you made

>were in this forum.

 

Huh?

 

>You have raised serious allegations

>concerning another person's good name.

> The Internet has allowed

>many things that are in

>bad taste to transpire between

>people when they communicate, but

>that does not make it

>right.

 

True. It is after all the Internet that allowed "Zack Evans" to send me the messages I have posted here.

 

 

Talk is cheap, Regulation,

>let's see some real proof,

 

Such as?

 

>and if you can't provide

>it why don't you retract

>your statment that Zack sent

>you those messages, and apologize.

 

 

Because I am telling the truth. To retract my statement would be a lie.

 

>It could be easily proved, that

>(1) You did in fact

>receive messages of hate mail

>in your in box; and

>(2) If the messages were

>authentically sent by Zack.

 

Could it?

 

>You have just failed to

>do that. I believe

>it is because you can't.

> As much as you

>appear like to be right,

>there is no doubt in

>my mind, if you had

>messages to prove anything you

>would have long ago done

>it.

>

 

And how would I have done that?

 

 

>No, it is absurd that people

>should believe you, or anyone

>for that matter, who comes

>forward and makes statements that

>harm another person's name.

 

But I made no statements. I simply published the words of the person we are discussing. If there is in those words anything that harms his "name," then that is hardly my fault. He wrote them. I didn't.

 

 

>If you cannot support your

>statements, then you should not

>have made them in the

>first place. We are

>talking about people's reputations here,

>which you apparently care very

>little about.

 

I have to give you that. It is true that the reputations of prostitutes are not among the things I care about most.

 

 

>Well, I reversed myself after I

>discovered you intentionally misquoted facts

>about what happened between Zack

>and N.N., in what can

>only appear to be a

>smear campaign.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

 

And then

>logic stepped in. Where

>the good name of another

>person is concerned, it is

>not reasonable for people to

>merely accept, at face value,

>statements that are made but

>cannot be supported.

 

 

But I think that people who have seen a number of "Zack's" posts in this message board are well able to make a reasoned judgment on whether the message I quoted above was sent by him. And I think they have done so.

 

 

>In order to win a liable

>suit and get damages, that

>is true. But I

>think reasonable people exercise extreme

>caution before makeing claims that

>might reflect back poorly on

>the good name of another

>person when doubt exists.

>You have acknowledged that the

>possibility does exist that the

>messages may not be authentic,

>if there even are any

>mesages. Yet, even having

>acknowledge this, you have moved

>forward in your effort to

>attribute it to Zack, and

>you've been pretty relentless about

>it. What good people

>do something like this to

>another person?

 

 

I think the person who sent those messages must take responsibility for whatever effect they have on his "good name," and I think I will not allow you to deflect that responsibility onto me. I did not send them nor did I ask that they be sent to me. I merely showed them to others. That is the extent of my responsibility for them.

 

As for my "relentless" behavior, the truth is that I started this thread on June 20 when I received the above message from "Zack." My next post does not occur until June 23, in response to a post from YOU. All of my subsequent posts in this thread are nothing more than responses to posts from other people, including you, directed at me. I certainly have the right to respond to things said to me or about me on this message board, and that is all I have done. You have tried to make that sound like a crime. It isn't. :-)

 

 

 

>No, I won't, lol. And

>I'm not letting you off

>the hook, either.

 

Uh-oh! :-)

 

I stand

>by my statement that you

>have made a serious claim

>against Zack, and have continued

>to relentlessly advance that claim

>with nothing to support it.

> I believe this has

>been small, evil and mean

>spirited of you.

 

 

And I believe that you are one of a number of people, escorts and others, who want to drive away from this site anyone who dares to say anything negative about an escort, true or otherwise, so that this site will become nothing more than another escort referral service. That would suit your personal and financial interests very nicely. But you are not going to drive me away. Deal with it. :-)

[Guest Theron]

>>I think you would like to

>>take advantage of the fact

>>that the statements you made

>>were in this forum.

>

>Huh?

 

You are far to bright to play coy, Regulation. You set this up by implying the standard was different on the Internet. I agreed, the standard of polite communication between people is different on the Internet, but that does not make it right, and I am not going to allow you to get away with using that as an excuse to attempt to minimize your horrible behavior.

>

>>You have raised serious allegations

>>concerning another person's good name.

>> The Internet has allowed

>>many things that are in

>>bad taste to transpire between

>>people when they communicate, but

>>that does not make it

>>right.

>

>True. It is after all

>the Internet that allowed "Zack

>Evans" to send me the

>messages I have posted here.

 

The alledged messages.

 

>Talk is cheap, Regulation,

>>let's see some real proof,

>

>Such as?

 

Well, for example, ever consider contacting HooBoy directly, and personally asking him to verify that the messages even exist? If he said they did I doubt anyone would question his word. Or do you only send private e-mail to your friend, curtenz, who suspiciously, has some similarities to you? Why you both even spell "focussing" in the same way, and there are several other similarities.

 

>>and if you can't provide

>>it why don't you retract

>>your statment that Zack sent

>>you those messages, and apologize.

>

>

>Because I am telling the truth.

> To retract my statement

>would be a lie.

 

No it wouldn't. You have acknowledged at one point that the possibility exists the messages, if there even are any messages, were forged. You go back and forth on that. Sometimes you say Zack sent them to you. Other times you admit the possibility exits they are not authentic. That is a lot of moving around for someone like you who likes to present themself as so "matter of fact." Why you can't even live up to your own standard. By the way, that fact that you have acknowledge that the alleged messages you received may not be authentic, but then later with great passion attributed them to Zack, is really very telling of you. You can't have it both ways. You cannot agree at one point the messages may not be authentic, and then later passionatel attribute them to Zack. But then if you didn't attribute them to Zack that would mess up your smear campaign.

 

>

>>It could be easily proved, that

>>(1) You did in fact

>>receive messages of hate mail

>>in your in box; and

>>(2) If the messages were

>>authentically sent by Zack.

>

>Could it?

 

Yes, it sure could. You just have no interest in doing it because they probably don't exist in the first place.

 

>

>>You have just failed to

>>do that. I believe

>>it is because you can't.

>> As much as you

>>appear like to be right,

>>there is no doubt in

>>my mind, if you had

>>messages to prove anything you

>>would have long ago done

>>it.

 

>And how would I have done

>that?

 

Being coy really does not suit you well, Regulation. In fact, it's laughable. It was, as a matter of fact, pointed out to you, when you first raised these claims, how you could have done that. You would not be the first person to receive a forged e-mail. Standards and methods have been established to determine if a message is authentic. I do not believe anyone views you as incapable, Regulation.

 

>

>But I made no statements.

>I simply published the words

>of the person we are

>discussing. If there is

>in those words anything that

>harms his "name," then that

>is hardly my fault.

>He wrote them. I

>didn't.

 

No, you say he wrote them, that is all, period. He says he didn't. And you have just told a complete and total lie. You have made no statements, lol! You have only published the words... Since this thread began you have absolutely made quite a few statements in numerous posts.

 

>

>>If you cannot support your

>>statements, then you should not

>>have made them in the

>>first place. We are

>>talking about people's reputations here,

>>which you apparently care very

>>little about.

>

>I have to give you that.

> It is true that

>the reputations of prostitutes are

>not among the things I

>care about most.

 

Then why don't you do prostitutes a HUGE favor and leave them completely alone. Prostitutes are just a good and worthy as any other human being.

 

>

>I think the person who sent

>those messages must take responsibility

>for whatever effect they have

>on his "good name," and

>I think I will not

>allow you to deflect that

>responsibility onto me.

 

No proof exists that any messages even exist. NONE, whatsoever! ABSOLUTELY NONE!

 

>I merely showed them to

>others. That is the

>extent of my responsibility for

>them.

 

You have showed the actual messages to NO ONE! All you have done is quote alledge text from messages you alledgely received, period. Heck, anyone could start a thead right now and say, "Just thought you would all like to see the message in my in box today that was sent from the poster Regulation," and then quote as the text of the message anything they wanted to say. Make no mistake about it, Regulation, you have not shown those messages to anyone at all.

 

>

>As for my "relentless" behavior, the

>truth is that I started

>this thread on June 20

>when I received the above

>message from "Zack." My

>next post does not occur

>until June 23, in response

>to a post from YOU.

> All of my subsequent

>posts in this thread are

>nothing more than responses to

>posts from other people, including

>you, directed at me.

>I certainly have the right

>to respond to things said

>to me or about me

>on this message board, and

>that is all I have

>done.

 

And you could have easily done that without intentionally misrepresenting facts about a no show appointment and also without making many of the statements you have made. But then your smear campagin would not have been as successful.

 

You have tried

>to make that sound like

>a crime. It isn't.

> :-)

 

No, I don't believe what you have done to Zack is a crime. I do think it is dishonest, evil and mean spirited.

 

>And I believe that you are

>one of a number of

>people, escorts and others, who

>want to drive away from

>this site anyone who dares

>to say anything negative about

>an escort, true or otherwise,

>so that this site will

>become nothing more than another

>escort referral service.

 

No that is not what I want, at all.

 

That

>would suit your personal and

>financial interests very nicely.

>But you are not going

>to drive me away.

>Deal with it. :-)

 

Oh, I think there are already quite a few people on the site that are on to you. I imagine in time even more will become wise to who you are. Heck, eventually you may just totally wear out your welcome, and no one will respond to you -- you never know.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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