Anyone read Matt Top's response today?

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>If I wanted your opinion I'd

>take your dick out of

>my mouth.

 

 

This reminds me of my all-time favorite country and western song title: "Get Your Tongue Out of My Mouth, I'm Trying to Tell You Good-bye"

[Guest CZ]

Hooboy's answer

 

Sorry, Hoo, that excuse (i.e. maybe they were fake names) doesn't really wash--besides (again & typically) sidestepping the real point.

 

Fake or not, enclosed in quotes or not, the gratuitous use of ANY names at all has only one clear (and menacing) intent: a queeny kind of 'So there!' bitchiness on Matt's part. By choosing not to edit out proper names, real or otherwise--which BTW were totally unnecessary to Matt's describing events or making his point--you seem to be seconding your protege's bitchiness. Or at the very least, showing that you disbelieve the reviewer's account & feel we should ALL discount it.

 

If that's so, why publish either of these highly embarrassing statements in the first place? Why not just forget the whole thing? If you have no respect for the reviewer, why would you fear any eventual complaint that you didn't run his review? And isn't that what the message center is for? Let him air his grievance (which I'm sure he wouldn't have done anyway), and let everyone judge him on the basis of his rant!

 

Or is it possible that the key to the whole thing lies in that odd remark at the top of the review? The one that claims that Matt actually WELCOMED a bad review---presumably hoping it might stir up exactly what it has stirred up, providing him with some needed promotion, and at the end, a paean of praise from the Hooboy Chorale. Just a thought...

[Guest jizzdepapi]

Matt's response was totally appropriate, i think

 

hi guys: read the review, the response and earlier reviews carefully.

 

matt referred to the client as "john," (as in client, john--hello?). he, in no way, compromised the client's privacy. and the client totally dissed his experience with matt, although matt, credibly in my mind, gave a much different account of things. when a reviewer gives a false sequence of events in detail, i think it's fair for the escort to give the true sequence of events in detail in order to rebut the review.

 

it sounds like the client fabricated his experience and also seems like he was a bargain hunter, wanting to pay little or nothing for his experience with matt since he decided using escorts was not for him

 

in my mind, there's no question who's telling the truth on this one.

 

thanks,

jizz

[Guest Rastignac]

RE: Hooboy's answer

 

I think you're onto something CZ. It seemed clear to me that the client's reaction was excessive, but the escort's inclusion of those names and the reference to the client's hometown was not done casually.

 

Including the names of the client and his ex-boyfriend bothered me enough that I read the escort's response twice yesterday. (Some of the posts here indicate that others were also bothered by Matt's indiscretion.) There were no quotation marks around the names yesterday. Today the names are enclosed in quotation marks. Is something not quite right in Denmark?

 

RES IPSA LOQUITUR.

[Justice]

RE: Hooboy's answer

 

I never thought that Matt used his client's real name -- with or without the quotes.

 

A couple of weeks ago, an escort (who has received HooBoy's seal of approval) used the message center to express his indignation over a less than perfect review. According to the client's response, the escort used his real first name. HooBoy pulled the entire thread as soon as he saw it.

[Traveller]

>

>This reminds me of my all-time

>favorite country and western song

>title: "Get Your Tongue Out

>of My Mouth, I'm Trying

>to Tell You Good-bye"

 

Very good.

 

Kinda like what I told my last BF, "How can I forget you if you won't ever leave."

 

Later.

 

PS. I've had roughly the same experience in FI over the last 15 years. The late eighties to early nineties were particularly bleak. Luckily the E (or X as we then called it) was much stronger and better. Happy-happy instead of wacky-trippy. Or maybe I'm just about out of seratonim.

[+ deej]

>Finally, you have to

>wonder why the client hired

>him in the first place.

>How can make a judgement

>on escorts in general after

>only one bad experience?

 

Sadly, it happens. "Unzipped" magazine recently ran an article about hiring escorts. Sadly, they chose a first-timer to author the article and he described each mistake he made without realizing it was a mistake.

 

[ul]

[li]Bargain hunting

[li]Agreeing to less service in the process

[li]Hiring an inexperienced escort

[li]Not checking here for reviews

[/ul]

 

His experience was less than stellar (duh!) and he concluded that he probably wouldn't do it again. It was a travesty of an article to see in a national magazine. (The same writer recently wrote of his first bathhouse experience, which didn't go well either. Hmmmm.)

 

Some guys DO make bad decisions based on only one experience. We're men, dammit! ;-)

[+ Unicorn]

RE: Matt's response was totally appropriate, i think

 

>in my mind, there's no question

>who's telling the truth on

>this one.

>

>thanks,

>jizz

 

I think most people agree that the reviewer was a little disturbed, and that Matt's version was closer to the truth. What people seem to be bothered by is (1) Matt's inclusion of names and details which were not necessary, and (2) Hooboy's allowing these names to be posted. Of course, these names may indeed be fake, but in that case they should be put in quotes. Allowing names to be posted has the effect of intimidating reviewers from describing less than wonderful experiences.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

huh?

 

Unicorn:

 

are we reading the same review? the one to which i refer lists the client's name as John--again, a well-known handle for a client. how many males in NYC; how many named John? additionally, no last name, address, phone or email is mentioned. don't think the client's privacy was compromised.

 

guess we disagree on ur other point. when a review details events which the escort refutes, the best way to refute them is to detail his own version. i see no problem with this.

 

jizz

[Guest CZ]

RE: huh?

 

Jizz, this isn't about who's telling the truth in the John/Matt exchange. It's about how Hooboy handled this incident & what that tells us about how he runs the site. Seeing you had again missed that vital point, I was going to ask you to re-read the last part of the thread, starting with Hooboy's explanation, then my reply (#27), followed by Rastignac's & Unicorn's posts about the mysterious quote marks.

 

But guess what? Hooboy's post (#18 I think it was) has now disappeared! The Ministry of Truth strikes again! And once again it's the attempt at cover-up (in two phases this time)that really gives the whole game away.

 

So re-read those few posts & piece it together as best you can. But even before you do that, please tell me if you think 'Walter' is a likely choice for a fake name, and how many John/Walter couples there are in Baltimore--since the client's hometown was gratuitously mentioned, too--and if, in your opinion, these little details could have been included by Matt as anything but a veiled threat to the client. And this, with Hooboy's blessing (if not his seal of approval.)

[HooBoy]

RE: huh?

 

This guy reminds me of the Edward G. Robinson character in the movie "The Ten Commandments." Always trying to stir up trouble.

 

I regularly remove my own posts because a few heretics like him complain that I have too great a presence here and I agree, however they take great delight in writing about me so I get pulled back in. I am not trying to do anything underhanded, I just think my posts are meaningless. I feel the same way about theirs, but I do not remove them.

 

As for Matt's response, I probably should have deleted the first names, but I didn't. I do not know Matt, have never spoken with him and I wonder how he could be labeled as one of my favorites...he isn't a twink. (Isn't that the prerequisite?) I think a few folks are just jumping on any crusade they can to keep the ant bed stirred up.

 

This post, too, will probably come down in about 24 hours.

 

 

HooBoy

Email: HooBoy@male4malescorts.com

[Guest CZ]

Huh? Not underhanded?

 

>

>I regularly remove my own posts

>because a few heretics like

>him complain that I have

>too great a presence here...

 

Heretics from what religion? Hooyboyinanity?

Whatever your critics are, they probably agree with me that it's not so much that you have too great a presence, but that you have the wrong kind of presence.

 

>I am not trying to do anything

>underhanded, I just think my

>posts are meaningless.

 

Yes, many of your posts are meaningless (burbling on about the Backstreet Boys, etc.) but the one you just yanked from this thread is very meaningful indeed. It shows you pretending you had put quote marks around the allegedly made-up names. When an alert poster pointed out you'd done this only AFTER the uproar began, you suddenly made your little self-indictment disappear: a blatant cover-up, with one underhanded move made to conceal another. If the word 'cover-up' strikes anyone here as too strong, how about 'manipulative'?

 

>I wonder how (Matt) could

>be labeled as one of

>my favorites...he isn't a twink.

>(Isn't that the prerequisite?)

>

 

Not always. Some of your past pets, Billyboy for instance, were just twink-impersonators, it now seems. Another Seal laureate & rug-wearer, your dinner-date, SeanWorldShmuck, was more of a superannuated starlet than a twink. Still another 1999 top-10 escort, porky old Steve Teron, apparently won favor by some means other than via the bedroom (according to Billyboy's 'extortion' allegation)--so there's just no telling how & why Matt moved from being a much-dissed player over at Muscleservice to top-ten status over here. But it isn't hard to see why you'd side with an escort hailed on your own site as one of the best in the business.

 

Finally, regarding Hooboy's little self-deletions, I notice that Hooboyettes who clamored for specific allegations and proof thereof are now remarkably silent. The Chorale isn't even warming up to sing.

[Guest Rastignac]

RE: huh?

 

Exactly right CZ. For the record, I don't believe the review is a strictly accurate account. The reviewer was overly emotional about what had happened, and I think his emotional state colored his interpretation of the encounter. However, if even some of the statements attributed to Matt are correct (complaints about the size of the client's dick, for instance), then this escort is revealed to be a pretty unpleasant character.

 

I would never have commented on the review itself, and probably would not have paid very much attention to it. Matt's response, however, is such a damning self-indictment that it begged for some reaction. All of the gratuitous and embarrassing details in Matt's response only serve to reinforce the basic message of the review itself. (Not to mention the fact that they are far from credible.)

 

The people who focus on the fact that the client is referred to as John seem to have missed the boyfriend's name and the reference to their hometown. Those references troubled me enough that I re-read the response a few times on the day it appeared. There were no quotation marks around the names. Later, after it became obvious that many people were bothered by Matt's indiscretion, quotation marks mysteriously appeared.

 

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

[HooBoy]

RE: huh?

 

Isn't this interesting.

 

When I went to release messages in the queue, both CZ's and Rastignac's were there, with Rastignac responding to CZ.

 

Could it be they are one and the same, taking great delight in corresponding with themselves?

 

Methinks there is a feckless thug at work here.

 

HooBoy

Email: HooBoy@male4malescorts.com