Why Zack Escorts

[Guest Esc_Tracker]

Theron, you are ignoring *all* my advice. You are not going to convince regulation. From our experience, he is beyond convincing. You are just giving him a platform. Show you can rise above this and give him the last word. Continuing with this discussion is merely an act of self-indulgence that is not going to make you any friends. It's a trap and you are falling for it, big time. Learn to cut, and have confidence in the good sense of your fellow list members. The last word does not win the argument. :-(

 

Esc-Tracker

[Guest regulation]

>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,

 

 

No, I referred to the difference between the standards that apply in a court of law, which you have brought up again and again, and the standards that apply on an internet message board. I thought you were bright enough to understand the distinction, but perhaps not.

 

 

>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.

 

 

LOL! That is your brilliant idea for resolving this? The elephant labored and brought forth a mouse!

 

As you know, I have already asked HB to verify the messages no less than three times. And as Barry pointed out elsewhere in this thread, his silence in the matter is very telling.

 

 

> 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.

>

 

According to my online dictionary (Merriam-Webster) the spelling I used is correct. As a fellow AOL member I imagine Curt uses the same source. We talk often. But since you have told us how wrong it is to share private communications with others I am sure you would not want me to say anything about our conversations. :-)

 

>>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.

>

 

Your statements above are nothing but a tissue of lies. I have repeated the same assessment of this situation again and again. The messages sent to my box here bear the username "Zack Evans." Only if someone has hacked this site and can utilize usernames without the consent of their owners could those messages have been sent by someone other than the author of "Zack's" posts on this board. I don't really believe that has happened and I don't think anyone else does either. If there were any truth to it HB would have intervened long ago with or without a request from me.

 

>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.

>

 

 

Despite several requests from me you have yet to come up with any suggestions for verifying these messages other than the one I have already followed -- asking HB. I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly what else I could have done. Well? Cat got your tongue? :-)

 

 

>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.

 

 

Isn't this what you have called "twisting words" in other posts? Do you want me to post several more examples of occasions on which you have done this? I'd be happy to. :-)

 

 

>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.

>

 

That is far too general a statement for me to support. And it certainly differs from the opinions of the vast majority of the human race.

 

 

>>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!

>

 

Once again, as Barry said, I think HB's conduct speaks for itself. But I am curious about something. Suppose he does intervene and supports my account of the messages. What will you do then, after insisting again and again and again and again that I have invented them? Ever thought about that?

 

 

>>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.

 

 

That is false. What I posted at the beginning of this thread is exactly what I received on June 20, no more, no less.

 

 

>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.

>

 

You are lying again.

 

 

>>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.

>

 

The only person running a smear campaign on this message board at the moment is YOU. In this thread I have merely responded to things YOU have said, a fact you cannot deny.

 

 

> 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.

>

 

In fact, in my worst moments I have never even contemplated the kind of hateful behavior you have engaged in on this message board. But as a teacher of mine once said, one can learn something from almost everybody one encounters.

 

 

>>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.

>

 

Oh, I think it is. Every new post of yours only provides more evidence of it. So please keep posting.

 

 

>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,

 

Now where else have we heard the phrase "wear out the welcome" recently? A suspicious similarity? Hmmmmmm.

 

and no one

>will respond to you --

>you never know.

>

 

 

But I think YOU always will. You just can't seem to help yourself. :-)

[Guest AIM]

Oh, and

>both spell the word "focussing"

>the same way. Interesting!

 

Now that IS interesting. You have a much greater eye than I! :-)

[Guest YR]

Barry,

 

Thanks for the non-partisan response to this (these) question(s). Finally, a cool, sane and uninvolved mind has spoken on this thread.

 

Theron, please read and understand what Barry has written - baby, c'mon see the light! While many may disagree with what Regulation writes, he would never continue to say he has received emails through this system when it is something that HooBoy could not only verify, but could use to totally discredit Regulation in the eyes of this message board and by doing so basically remove any credibility that Regulation may have enjoyed by anyone.

 

Save your fingers and thoughts for another post. :-)

[Guest Theron]

>While many may disagree with

>what Regulation writes, he would

>never continue to say he

>has received emails through this

>system when it is something

>that HooBoy could not only

>verify, but could use to

>totally discredit Regulation in the

>eyes of this message board

>and by doing so basically

>remove any credibility that Regulation

>may have enjoyed by anyone.

 

Hi :-)

 

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm really trying not to respond to any additional posts in this thread.

 

I would like to address this new idea that Regulation would never raise a claim that could easily be discredited by Hoo. I think if he believed he could get away with it he might. The reality is, Hoo is no longer reading messages in the lounge, and has not been responding to them. In fact, he even removed himself as a monitor so he would not have to read them. Anyhow, I did speak with Daddy In Training tonight, he is the person who would have the ability to verify if Reg has received the messages or not. I told him of the many times Reg had openly invited Hoo to check his in box and verify that the messages were sent, and that were also authentically sent by Zack. He said that because the in box of every member is private that neither he or Hoo would do that based on invitations in the thread unless Reg specifically contacted them and expressely granted them permission to do it. So that is how Reg could provide us all with proof, which has already been pointed out to him, and he merely dismissed the idea. As much as Reg likes to be right you think he'd jump at the chance to do that if it would settle this once and for all.

 

And speaking of Reg not telling lies that could be easily disproved, read the messages in the other thread, "Why I Escort," carefully, because he already has.

 

Hugs

 

Theron :-)

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest regulation]

>I'm really trying not to

>respond to any additional posts

>in this thread.

 

I'm afraid you'll have to try a bit harder. :-)

 

 

>

>I would like to address this

>new idea that Regulation would

>never raise a claim that

>could easily be discredited by

>Hoo. I think if

>he believed he could get

>away with it he might.

> The reality is, Hoo

>is no longer reading messages

>in the lounge, and has

>not been responding to them.

> In fact, he even

>removed himself as a monitor

>so he would not have

>to read them. Anyhow,

>I did speak with Daddy

>In Training tonight, he is

>the person who would have

>the ability to verify if

>Reg has received the messages

>or not. I told

>him of the many times

>Reg had openly invited Hoo

>to check his in box

>and verify that the messages

>were sent, and that were

>also authentically sent by Zack.

> He said that because

>the in box of every

>member is private that neither

>he or Hoo would do

>that based on invitations in

>the thread unless Reg specifically

>contacted them and expressely granted

>them permission to do it.

> So that is how

>Reg could provide us all

>with proof, which has already

>been pointed out to him,

>and he merely dismissed the

>idea. As much as Reg

>likes to be right you

>think he'd jump at the

>chance to do that if

>it would settle this once

>and for all.

 

 

Note to those (if any) still interested: I have just sent HB exactly the sort of email that this character has repeatedly demanded that I send. I await developments.

[Guest regulation]

>>I would like to address this

>>new idea that Regulation would

>>never raise a claim that

>>could easily be discredited by

>>Hoo. I think if

>>he believed he could get

>>away with it he might.

>> The reality is, Hoo

>>is no longer reading messages

>>in the lounge, and has

>>not been responding to them.

 

 

By the way, that isn't true. I see a post from HB in the most recent thread by Peterlau dated June 21. Unless of course you're claiming that he is an impostor also? :-)

[Guest EastWest Coast]

A very valid point, Theron!

 

In no way did I mean to imply that this thread -- or this site -- has cornered the market on inane dialogue. I stay away from the Usenet groups and generally post on boards like the ones on washingtonpost.com. It's great fun to point out the stupidity of the Religious Right wackos who post there, especially because they get really, really pissed when you do so.

 

:-)

[Guest regulation]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

Here is the complete and unedited text of HooBoy's response to my email of this morning.

 

And yes, I did get his permission to publish it. :-)

 

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

 

Hi Regulation,

 

The only way someone would be able to send a private message through the MESSAGE CENTER software would be to have access to that individual's password. Perhaps Zack should change his password -- it is possible that someone could have it.

 

I do not have access to any passwords. The email that goes out with the passwords is done automatically.

 

I hope this helps answer your questions.

 

HooBoy

 

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

 

In the email I sent him I repeated once again my offer that he feel free to examine my inbox here to verify the source of the messages from "Zack Evans." I also offered to send him my password. And given the fact that he has started a new thread on this board today I think we need no longer pay attention to the claim that he sees nothing and knows nothing of what is written on this message board.

 

Anything else? :-)

[Barry]

>

>Thank you for your thoughts.

>I'm really trying not to

>respond to any additional posts

>in this thread.

 

I'm not sure if this is focus, tenacity or obsession? A few days ago you responded to Deej by saying.......

 

"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."

 

We are intelligent adults and by the rapidly diminishing number of new posts from others I assume decisions have been made and people have moved on.

 

>I would like to address this

>new idea that Regulation would

>never raise a claim that

>could easily be discredited by

>Hoo. I think if

>he believed he could get

>away with it he might.

 

And why would you think Reg would believe he could get away with it? This Board has a long history of not letting posters get away with revealing personal information or defamation.

 

> The reality is, Hoo

>is no longer reading messages

>in the lounge, and has

>not been responding to them.

> In fact, he even

>removed himself as a monitor

>so he would not have

>to read them.

 

This is not true. Hoo has posted at least 7 times in the past 2 weeks. He has reduced his involvement here partially because he doesn't have the time to run the site, have a job, have a life and moderate.

 

I stand by my previous post. I do not "believe" Hoo would knowingly allow any poster to be openly defamed on this Board.

 

>I did speak with Daddy

>In Training tonight, he is

>the person who would have

>the ability to verify if

>Reg has received the messages

>or not. I told

>him of the many times

>Reg had openly invited Hoo

>to check his in box

>and verify that the messages

>were sent, and that were

>also authentically sent by Zack.

> He said that because

>the in box of every

>member is private that neither

>he or Hoo would do

>that based on invitations in

>the thread unless Reg specifically

>contacted them and expressely granted

>them permission to do it.

 

That's heresay. ( :-) Sorry Theron, I just couldn't resist)

 

>As much as Reg

>likes to be right you

>think he'd jump at the

>chance to do that if

>it would settle this once

>and for all.

 

Settle it for whom? The original issue is settled for many if not most of us. And what if Hoo chooses not to post here one way or the other? In the past he has been blasted for getting involved in some controversial threads. He's been told by some that he should stay in the backround. You are trying to pull him openly into the thread when IMHO he is very diligent in his role behind the scenes.

 

Respectfully, Barry

[Boston Guy]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

The idea of using someone's id and password (in this case, Zack's) to send a message that would discredit the owner of the ID shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

 

I believe Reg received the emails he said he received. What has been hard for me to understand is how the Zack I know could have sent them -- he seems to be way too kind, mature and considerate to be sending that stuff.

 

If he did send them, as I said someplace above or below, it was wrong and he should both acknowledge his mistake and apologize. If he didn't, he should certainly change his password.

 

And everyone else should take this as fair warning not to use passwords like 'Zack' when your username is also 'Zack': it's hard to believe someone would steal ID's here just to embarrass someone, but stranger things by far have happened on the Internet. And I am constantly amazed at the entirely-guessable passwords most people choose for their ID's at work and elsewhere.

[Guest regulation]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

>The idea of using someone's id

>and password (in this case,

>Zack's) to send a message

>that would discredit the owner

>of the ID shouldn't be

>dismissed out of hand.

>

 

But the idea that someone could be clever enough to mimic the style of Zack's posts on this message board so exactly should be dismissed out of hand -- unless you think the culprit is Stephen King. Good grief, BG! Is there no end to the excuses you would make for this guy?

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

>>The idea of using someone's id

>>and password (in this case,

>>Zack's) to send a message

>>that would discredit the owner

>>of the ID shouldn't be

>>dismissed out of hand.

>>

>

>But the idea that someone could

>be clever enough to mimic

>the style of Zack's posts

>on this message board so

>exactly should be dismissed out

>of hand -- unless you

>think the culprit is Stephen

>King. Good grief, BG!

> Is there no end

>to the excuses you would

>make for this guy?

 

It's hard for us to admit we may have been fooled by someone we thought we knew. Zack made some mistakes, hopefully he's

learned something from all of this. But to characterize him as

any less of a human-being or escort would be even more wrong. If

he hasn't learned anything from this...well, that's another

story. I don't believe his original intent was to disrespect this

client. I think he may have thought about it, but didn't have the

maturity to tell N.N. immediately...he thought he was sparing

his feelings. He then thought N.N. would just fade away. Little

did he know what would transpire.

 

Jeff4hire@aol.com

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

I suspect this is pretty close to the truth.

[HooBoy]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

Jeff wrote:

>>I don't believe his original intent was to disrespect this

client. I think he may have thought about it, but didn't have the

maturity to tell N.N. immediately...he thought he was sparing

his feelings. He then thought N.N. would just fade away. <<<

 

Actually, Zack submitted a couple of posts which revealed NN's situation and the moderators did not let them go through because the posts revealed personal information.

 

Zack was notified by me via email and private Message Center mail why his posts were not allowed and advised him that was that not tolerated, but he could post what he wanted, without HIV details.

 

NN later negated all that with his post.

 

I wish NN all the best.

 

I hope Zack comes to grip with all this. I have enjoyed most of his posts.

 

HooBoy

Email: HooBoy@male4malescorts.com

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

>Jeff wrote:

>>>I don't believe his original intent was to disrespect this

>client. I think he may have

>thought about it, but didn't

>have the

>maturity to tell N.N. immediately...he thought

>he was sparing

>his feelings. He then thought N.N.

>would just fade away. <<<

>

>

>Actually, Zack submitted a couple of

>posts which revealed NN's situation

>and the moderators did not

>let them go through because

>the posts revealed personal information.

>

>

>Zack was notified by me via

>email and private Message Center

>mail why his posts were

>not allowed and advised him

>that was that not tolerated,

>but he could post what

>he wanted, without HIV details.

>

>

>NN later negated all that with

>his post.

>

>I wish NN all the best.

>

>

>I hope Zack comes to grip

>with all this. I

>have enjoyed most of his

>posts.

>

HOOBOY, this is info. you could have shared a days ago and possibly avoided this mess of a thread. I know you may not like

to hear escorts bashed on this site, particularly those for whom

you may have developed a fondness. But you chose until now to re-

veal Zack's intercepted posts which exhibited ill-will towards

N.N...who acknowleged his HIV status, what, 70 posts ago. That info. to me is very telling. Kind of puts a different spin on

things. Zack started digging a hole and just kept digging himself

in deeper apparently. The e-mails to REG, to N.N. AND his attempt

to post personal info. on this site. I think Zack was backed into

a corner and came out fighting...using whatever he thought he had

to inflict pain upon others. I was sorry to hear this information. My advice to Zack is, "honesty is the best policy",

some people don't want to deal with the short-term consequences,

but in the long-run situations like this are much less likely to come up. Sometimes we learn life lessons the hard way, I know I

have. I wish Zack nothing but the best.

 

Jeff4hire@aol.com

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

Jeff,

 

I don’t recall Zack’s posts revealing any ill will for N.N. and I don’t see Hoo Boy indicating that about Zack’s moderated posts either. I don’t see your different spin by anything Hoo revealed because I see no news in it. Losgatan (I believe) indicated that Zack had posts moderated… and N.N.’s revelation clued me in as to why – not a big leap.

 

I’m unsure if you are leveling a charge here but I get that impression. If so, it seems to me that you would be sensitive to making careless charges given that you have been the subject of such on another thread.

 

 

"Zack started digging a hole and just kept digging himself

in deeper apparently. The e-mails to REG, to N.N. AND his attempt to post personal info. on this site. I think Zack was backed into a corner and came out fighting..."

 

This is probably the case but it seems to me that he had some help too. And your advice to Zack is ‘right on’

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

>Jeff,

>

>I don’t recall Zack’s posts revealing

>any ill will for N.N.

>and I don’t see Hoo

>Boy indicating that about Zack’s

>moderated posts either. I

>don’t see your different spin

>by anything Hoo revealed because

>I see no news in

>it. Losgatan (I believe)

>indicated that Zack had posts

>moderated… and N.N.’s revelation clued

>me in as to why

>– not a big leap.

>

>

>I’m unsure if you are leveling

>a charge here but I

>get that impression.

>If so, it seems to

>me that you would be

>sensitive to making careless charges

>given that you have been

>the subject of such on

>another thread.

>

>

>"Zack started digging a hole and

>just kept digging himself

>in deeper apparently. The e-mails to

>REG, to N.N. AND his

>attempt to post personal info.

>on this site. I think

>Zack was backed into

>a corner and came out

>fighting..."

>

>This is probably the case but

>it seems to me that

>he had some help too.

> And your advice to

>Zack is ‘right on’

 

Tampa, I was referring to the "intercepted" posts that contained

personal info. regarding N.N.'s HIV status. How would you

characterize such posts? It seems to me Zack wanted to exact some

sort of revenge. That is what I meant by the "digging a hole

and kept digging" remark.

 

Jeff4hire@aol.com

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

Jeff,

"Tampa, I was referring to the "intercepted" posts that contained personal info. regarding N.N.'s HIV status. How would you characterize such posts? It seems to me Zack wanted to exact some sort of revenge. That is what I meant by the "digging a hole and kept digging" remark.

 

My take was that Zack was trying to offer an explanation about why he flaked after being urged, and in some instances raked over the coals, to do so several times. It was an error in judgment on his part surely, but I did not see it as an attempt to harm N.N. He had no reason to harm N.N. --they had achieved a resolution of the incident between them, and even if N.N. was not fully satisified, he was willing to let it go. Just doesn't fit with Zack's behavior I previously observed and heaven knows he was undergoing an onslaught of pressure for an explanation.

 

My meaning of digging a hole had to do with attempting to fend off the attacks even after he and N.N. resolved the issue -- it was a no-win propostion given the circumstance and he buckled. Not all that surprising given his age and experience or rather inexperience in dealing in public with a crowd as we have here -- you and Theron are much more sure-footed and experienced. But that doesn't make the experience any more pleasant, I'm sure you'll agree.

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

Tampa...Agreed!

 

I can understand Zack wanting to offer an explanation for why he

flaked, but including N.N.'s HIV status was at best thoughtless

and at worst deliberate. Who knows what Zack was thinking when

he was writing that post? But I can't imagine that if he was

aware of what he'd done already and didn't want show any more

disrespect to N.N., that he wouldn't want to make matters worse

by revealing private information. I don't believe the flaking

was intended to disrespect, but his subsequent handling of the

was, shall we say, immature. We can become better people if we

are able to admit we were wrong and learn from our mistakes.

 

Jeff4hire@aol.com

[Guest regulation]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

>My meaning of digging a hole

>had to do with attempting

>to fend off the attacks

>even after he and N.N.

>resolved the issue -- it

>was a no-win propostion given

>the circumstance and he buckled.

> Not all that surprising

>given his age and experience

 

 

I don't think that is an accurate description of the sequence of events. N.N. announced in a post dated June 15 in the "Why Do I Escort" thread that Zack had finally owned up to the problem N.N. had mentioned earlier in the thread. On June 16 I noticed the first of three email messages from Zack in my box and posted it in the same thread. To the best of my knowledge there were no "attacks" for Zack to fend off between N.N.'s announcement and Zack's message to me. Certainly there were none from me. Had he not sent that message there would have been nothing more to say so far as I am concerned.

[Guest Theron]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

Very well said --BIG SMILE! I could not agree more. We were all young once, and not many 22 year olds have the life experience to know how to handle the type of pressure Zack was put under. We must remember, Zack only offered the information after being put under the figurative "gun," because people persistently wanted an answer. I do not believe he ever intended to harm N.N.

 

Concerning the messages to Regulation, well, it sure has not yet been established that Zack did send those. It is really unimportant, anyhow. Regulation sure seems to do a good job of attacking and frustrating people on the list. While I do not support the idea of sending hate male to anyone, and that would include Regulation, the fact remains that when you develop a pattern of making choices to go after people in the manner he does...someone may go off the deep end and tell you to stick it in your ear, from time to time, and in not a very polite way. Not that it excuses the behavior, but Reg. is far from an innocent victim --but then some of the biggest bullies on the play ground will cry the loudest when someone finally does something back to them.

 

Hugs,

 

 

Theron :-)

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest Theron]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

Give it a a rest, Reg. Haven't you milked it for all it's worth?

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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

[Guest regulation]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

>Very well said --BIG SMILE!

>I could not agree more.

>We were all young once,

>and not many 22 year

>olds have the life experience

>to know how to handle

>the type of pressure Zack

>was put under. We must

>remember, Zack only offered the

>information after being put under

>the figurative "gun," because people

>persistently wanted an answer.

 

 

LOL! Apparently your resolution to post nothing further on this board didn't last very long!

 

And my goodness, what a blatant distortion you have posted! Whatever the "pressure" on Zack to explain his actions the fact remains that the situation was created by his actions, not by me, N.N. or anyone else connected with this website. That "pressure" was only increased by his initial and categorical denials, of which I count no less than two, that what N.N. alleged could ever have happened. Had he been truthful about what occurred from the beginning the whole matter would have ended ten days ago. Who can he possibly blame for this other than himself?

 

At least he had the sense to stop showing up here after the falsity of his denials was exposed. Young as he is, he seems to have more sense in that regard than you do. You have done more than any other person to keep this topic alive. If I were Zack I would want to shoot you.

 

 

>Concerning the messages to Regulation, well,

>it sure has not yet

>been established that Zack did

>send those.

 

No, merely that the person who controls Zack's username, and posted all of the messages we have seen from him on this message board, did so. And that is the person we have all been talking to, and talking about, from the beginning.

 

 

>It is

>really unimportant, anyhow. Regulation

>sure seems to do a

>good job of attacking and

>frustrating people on the list.

> While I do not

>support the idea of sending

>hate male to anyone, and

>that would include Regulation, the

>fact remains that when you

>develop a pattern of making

>choices to go after people

>in the manner he does...someone

>may go off the deep

>end and tell you to

>stick it in your ear,

>from time to time, and

>in not a very polite

>way.

 

 

And what would be the appropriate response to someone like you, who has insisted on this board again and again and again and again and again that I invented these messages, and who is now forced to come to terms with the fact that his accusations are completely and utterly false?

 

I'm reminded of the line Woody Allen spoke in "Annie Hall" when accosted outside a theater by a preposterous blowhard: "What I wouldn't give right now for a tube sock full of horse manure." :-)

 

 

Not that it

>excuses the behavior, but Reg.

>is far from an innocent

>victim --but then some of

>the biggest bullies on the

>play ground will cry the

>loudest when someone finally does

>something back to them.

>

 

 

I have to give you this: you are consistent. From the very beginning you have sought to place the blame for Zack's behavior on me and to attack me in order to divert attention from what he did, and though your position has been completely discredited by subsequent events on this board you are still doing exactly the same thing. Even after you have been warned by several different people how little your actions serve the cause you claim to care about, you are still doing it. A better example of obsessive behavior, I have never seen.

[Guest Theron]

RE: HooBoy's Response

 

>

>LOL! Apparently your resolution to

>post nothing further on this

>board didn't last very long!

 

It wasn't the board, only the thread, but then Hoo came forward with new information, so there was something new to discuss. The rest of your comments, awww, gee, I simply have to many other things I would prefer to do than take the time to engage you with answers.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

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