Kirk strikes again

[Guest steveyboy]

The escort review of 'Brad' in Toronto posted today October 12, 2001 is a review of the infamous Kirk.

[Guest NakedTony]

OK, I'm kind of new to this site. What's the 411 on the "infamous Kirk"?

[Guest TruthTeller]

>The escort review of 'Brad' in

>Toronto posted today October 12,

>2001 is a review of

>the infamous Kirk.

 

How do you know that? Kirk is usually way more creative and abusive and demeaning and HOT than the boring loser described in that review. Kirk doesn't just take the $200 and leave - he stays and tries to exploit the situation for all it's worth. That didn't sound to me at all like Kirk; why do you think it was?

[Guest TruthTeller]

>OK, I'm kind of new to

>this site. What's the 411

>on the "infamous Kirk"?

 

Kirk is the hottest, most superior guy in the universe. He exploits the power that he has over needy pigs by making them give him money and fall deeper and deeper into his web.

 

Then, after they jerk off, the pigs feel ashamed and resentful about what *they* did, and so they lash out at him, accusing him of every crime they can think of and depicting him as Hitler.

 

Then, they see him again at the Gaiety, or see his picture again, or think about him, and they crawl back to him. Steps 1, 2 and 3 then repeat themselves.

 

Basically, Kirk is God.

[Guest steveyboy]

Brad's ad in Xtra had a huge picture and it is definitely Kirk. The picture has been seen on this site before.

[+ deej]

Thank you to Truth Teller. I posted a potentially libelous statement and he suggested it should be removed. It has been.

 

NakedTony, to reply honestly and WITHOUT tounge in cheek, Kirk is a phenomally attractive guy who has reportedly been ripping off clients for several years.

 

His image has been used far and wide on the net, so this could just be someone using his picture. Heck, he was even seen on Showtime's "Queer as Folk" but it could have been stock footage from videosecrets.com where he used to do online shows.

 

TT, thank you for pointing out my indiscretion. I deleted your post from the queue along with my post here, since your post quoted my post.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Thank you to Truth Teller. I

>posted a potentially libelous statement

>and he suggested it should

>be removed. It has been.

 

Glad to see that you apply the rules consistently and honestly - it's particularly commendable that you applied them to your own post.

 

>NakedTony, to reply honestly and WITHOUT

>tounge in cheek,

 

I already did this. I seriously think Kirk is a fucking amazing specimen on every level - not just physically - and that he is the victim of clients who regret what he gets them to do. They accuse him of being dishonest in order to hide their shame and embarrassment at what they did in order to be around him.

 

It's quite similar to the woman who hungrily spreads her legs, begs for cock, then feels guilt and shame about it the next morning, and thus yells rape and claims she didn't consent - all in order to absolve herself of the guilt and shame she feels.

 

If you read those reviews, you'll see that everything those clients do, they do willingly and by consent.

 

>TT, thank you for pointing out

>my indiscretion. I deleted your

>post from the queue along

>with my post here, since

>your post quoted my post.

>

 

My proper, rule-abiding post got infected with your corrupt, rule-violating post, and so they both had to die. My post was an innocent victim of your wrongdoing.

 

But as I said, I appreciate your objective application of the rules and your ability to acknowledge that your post violated them.

[+ deej]

Whatever.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Whatever.

 

If -- as is apparently the case -- you're incapable of saying anything less pointless and adolescent than "whatever," why not just save the bandwith and keep your silly mouth shut?

[BewareofNick]

>I already did this. I

>seriously think Kirk is a

>fucking amazing specimen on every

>level - not just physically

>- and that he is

>the victim of clients who

>regret what he gets them

>to do. They accuse

>him of being dishonest in

>order to hide their shame

>and embarrassment at what they

>did in order to be

>around him.

>

>It's quite similar to the woman

>who hungrily spreads her legs,

>begs for cock, then feels

>guilt and shame about it

>the next morning, and thus

>yells rape and claims she

>didn't consent - all in

>order to absolve herself of

>the guilt and shame she

>feels.

 

>If you read those reviews, you'll

>see that everything those clients

>do, they do willingly and

>by consent.

 

While I tend to agree that the statement about SOME women who cry rape is indeed as you describe above, your statements about Kirk are also only half true.

 

Yes, these clients did what they did willingly and without using a lot of common sense, but because they felt guilty about it afterward? Nonesense.

 

Kirk is a con-artist, plain and simple. His incredible beauty is part of the reason he is successful and the stupidity of the clients is the other. But to suggest he is some sort of victim? Nonesense.

 

Kurt is a conman who works the game very successfully. Until he gets old and ugly or until clients start wising up, he will always be this way because the con works very well for him.

 

If you were truly a truth teller, your name would be 'Half-Truth' Teller.

[BewareofNick]

Does Half-Truth Teller sound familiar to anyone else??

[+ deej]

>>Whatever.

>

>If -- as is apparently the

>case -- you're incapable of

>saying anything less pointless and

>adolescent than "whatever," why not

>just save the bandwith and

>keep your silly mouth shut?

>

 

Oh, I'm perfectly capable of being less pointless, but I reserve it for worthy causes.

 

You don't own the bandwidth bubba, and you are not authorized to say who may or may not use it or how.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Does Half-Truth Teller sound familiar to

>anyone else??

 

I haven't seen very much of you (thank God), but what I have noticed (and who wouldn't?) is that you seem to have a pathological, petty, creepy, and extremely unhealty obssession with some escort whom you once met. You even created your entire fucking identity - not to mention a whole web site - based on this obssession.

 

So if you're now going to milk that obssession by trying to imply that I'm him, I'd like to request that you go hang yourself instead. Your internal emptiness knows no bounds.

[BewareofNick]

>>Does Half-Truth Teller sound familiar to

>>anyone else??

>

>I haven't seen very much of

>you (thank God), but what

>I have noticed (and who

>wouldn't?) is that you seem

>to have a pathological, petty,

>creepy, and extremely unhealty obssession

>with some escort whom you

>once met. You even

>created your entire fucking identity

>- not to mention a

>whole web site - based

>on this obssession.

 

When you consider that 98% of my posts have nothing to do with Nick, your logic is entirely faulty. It never even occurred to me that you might be Nick. I was referring to other loquacious posters who have posted with the bile-ridden angry style that you do. I spend extremely little time thinking about or dealing with Nick, which gives the lie to your claim of pathological and unhealthy obsession. Petty might perhaps be an accurate adjective, but considering your lack of perspective, you are incapable of making a sound judgement in this area (as well as most others) Creepy of course is in the eye of the beholder, so once again you live up to your name, Half-Truth Teller.

 

 

>So if you're now going to

>milk that obssession by trying

>to imply that I'm him,

>I'd like to request that

>you go hang yourself instead.

> Your internal emptiness knows

>no bounds.

 

 

So just to reiterate, I have never thought you were Nick. I am not sure who you are, but initially I suspected perhaps Ethan, Sean WorldEscrt or Darin Powers. I am certain you are not Ethan or Sean (both of them are much more eloquent and there posts reflect a higher degree of logic and intelligence than you have to date). You could be Darin.... but you could also be someone new. As we've all noticed since September 11th, ALL the whackos are coming out of the woodwork. Your presence here could simply be as simple as that.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Yes, these clients did what they

>did willingly and without using

>a lot of common sense,

>but because they felt guilty

>about it afterward? Nonesense.

 

If they did everything willingly, then where is the wrongdoing on Kirk's part? I was responding to Deej's (still) libellous statement that Kirk was "reportedly ripping off clients". Someone who "rips you off" by definition takes what you didn't consent to give. Kirk only takes what pigs WANT and CHOOSE to give - so how is he to blame for their desperate acts?

 

>Kirk is a con-artist, plain and

>simple. His incredible beauty

>is part of the reason

>he is successful and the

>stupidity of the clients is

>the other.

 

Every escort, to some degree or another, is a "con-artist." Kirk is no different than the scores of escorts in this forum who - not having Kirk's looks - have to extract money by falsely making the clients think the escort "likes" them; that there is more to it than sex-for-money; that the escort is interested in the client's thoughts, ideas, and desires, etc. etc.

 

These escorts use what they have - their ability to contrive affection and interest - to extract money from their clients. Kirk uses what he has to do the same thing.

 

>But to

>suggest he is some sort

>of victim? Nonesense.

 

He is a victim of resentment and self-hatred masquerading as objective criticisms of Kirk. Deej recklessly spewed the resentment-driven accusation that Kirk "rips off" his clients. He does not. He gets the clients to WANT to turn their money over to him, and, hating themselves, they blame him.

 

>If you were truly a truth

>teller, your name would be

>'Half-Truth' Teller.

 

That is so very, very clever. Don't you have some important Nick matters to attend to?

[BewareofNick]

Based on the assumption that Brad from Toronto is indeed our fabulous Kirk/Voltaire. it's time to take Half-Truth Teller back to school:

 

On the phone he had alot of attitude, but wasn't as rude as our first conversation. We arranged for him to come to my hotel and he said he was not far away and could be there in a few minutes. He told me he would top, bottom, and or kiss as long as it was safe.

 

After returning from the washroom he did remove his clothes but would only model for me while he told me to jerk off. When I asked him if there was actually anything he really does that he had promised about on the phone, he said that if I didn't like it he could leave right now and began to start putting his clothes back on. I convinced him to at least stay until I jerked off.

 

There's the lie about what he told the client he would do. There's the reality of what he actually did. And before your hole starts spewing, Kirk is already known to use different identities and his track record record speaks for itself.

 

He ripped the client off by not providing what was agreed upon.

 

victim: one that is tricked or duped <a con man's ~>

victimize: 1 : to make a victim of

2 : to subject to deception or fraud : CHEAT

 

Neither of these definitions describe Kirk or support any of the statements you made about him. They are on the other hand accurate words where his clients are concerned.

 

I let him in and he asked for his $200 up front. Though I didn't think it was a good idea, he insisted saying "that was just his policy", so i paid him. I instantly had the feeling he was going to walk out right then and there, or at least had no interest in being there.

 

Did the client make a mistake? Absolutely. Was he conned? Yes. Did he let himself be conned? Yes. Is he a victim? Yes. Is Kirk a victim? No.

 

Now, on to your lesson on manners....

[Guest TruthTeller]

>When you consider that 98% of

>my posts have nothing to

>do with Nick, your logic

>is entirely faulty.

 

This is demonstrably false. You have written about 460 posts here. 2% of 460 is 9. I know for a fact you've written way more than 9 posts about Nick because - just in the couple of weeks that I've been here - I've seen way more than that.

 

The first sign of someone with a pathological, petty, creepy, extremely unhealthy obssession is denial. Did I mention that your whole fucking identity is created around it, not to mention a whole website?

 

>I spend extremely little time

>thinking about or dealing with

>Nick, which gives the lie

>to your claim of pathological

>and unhealthy obsession.

 

Except when you're posting about him, creating screen names about him, and making and updating web sites about him? Who knows what other little dirty things about Nick you do when you're alone.

 

> I am not sure

>who you are, but initially

>I suspected perhaps Ethan, Sean

>WorldEscrt or Darin Powers.

>I am certain you are

>not Ethan or Sean (both

>of them are much more

>eloquent and there posts reflect

>a higher degree of logic

>and intelligence than you have

>to date). You could

>be Darin.... but you could

>also be someone new.

 

Sounds like you're spending almost as much time thinking about me as you do about Nick. I'm flattered - and sickened.

[BewareofNick]

>This is demonstrably false. You

>have written about 460 posts

>here. 2% of 460

>is 9. I know

>for a fact you've written

>way more than 9 posts

>about Nick because - just

>in the couple of weeks

>that I've been here -

>I've seen way more than

>that.

 

The 98% was a generalization, but with some as self obsessed as yous eem to be, it's not surprising that you missed that subtle point (Talk about your unhealthy obsessions!:O

 

Since you seem to enjoy crunching numbers, perhaps you'd care to provide the exact number to the class?

 

>The first sign of someone with

>a pathological, petty, creepy, extremely

>unhealthy obssession is denial.

>Did I mention that your

>whole fucking identity is created

>around it, not to mention

>a whole website?

 

I believe everyone read this the first time. The first sign of someone without a valid point to make is repetition of something that was clear to bgin with.

 

>Except when you're posting about him,

>creating screen names about him,

>and making and updating web

>sites about him? Who

>knows what other little dirty

>things about Nick you do

>when you're alone.

 

I post update warnings about his various screennames. As regualtion will tell you, this is done to provide information to unsuspecting clients. The web site took all of 30 minutes, if that, to make. And that last part made me lol.

 

>Sounds like you're spending almost as

>much time thinking about me

>as you do about Nick.

> I'm flattered - and

>sickened.

 

Thank you for confirming what we all suspected: that in your world, everything revolves around you. Is the sky blue there too?

[+ deej]

<<I was responding to Deej's (still) libellous statement that Kirk was "reportedly ripping off clients">>

 

I said reportedly. I made no accusations. Therefore, the statement is not libel.

 

If I say you are an unmitigated asshole, and present it as fact, it is libel. If I say it is my opinion that you are an umitigated asshole, it is an opinion and not libel.

 

It happens to be my opinion that both statements are true. <shrug>

[Guest TruthTeller]

>If I say you are an

>unmitigated asshole, and present it

>as fact, it is libel.

>If I say it is

>my opinion that you are

>an umitigated asshole, it is

>an opinion and not libel.

 

You're wrong about this. Whether a statement is fact (and therefore actionable in defamation law) or opinion (and therefore not actionable) does not depend on whether you couch the sentence in terms of "It is my opinion that. . . " Defamation law is not guided by the use of magic words. It is determined by the substance of the statement.

 

If I say "It is my opinion that deej is a child molseter," that is defamatory (assuming it's not true), even though I prefaced it with the phrase "it's my opinion."

 

Conversely, if I say "Deej is a stupid cunt," that is NOT actionable nor can it ever be defamatory, notwithstanding the fact that I did not preface it with the magic words "It is my opinion that . . . .", because the statement is intrinsically opinion.

 

Thus, when you say that I am an unmitigated asshole, that can never be "libellous," even if you don't preface it with "it's my opinion." And, if you make a statement of fact about someone, even if you preface it with the phrase "it's my opinion," it's still defamatory - saying that a factual statement is an opinion doesn't make it so.

 

Although it's cute when people who know nothing about the law try to speak about it, it can be tiring having to correct it. I don't mind though, because in addition to being the Truth Teller, I'm also the Truth Teacher.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>If I say you are an

>unmitigated asshole, and present it

>as fact, it is libel.

>If I say it is

>my opinion that you are

>an umitigated asshole, it is

>an opinion and not libel.

>

>

>It happens to be my opinion that both statements are true. <shrug>

 

Given that - as you claim - the first sentence is libel, and given that you endorsed that libellous sentence with your last sentence, didn't you just (yet again) violate the rules which you, as Hooboy's free rule bitch, are supposed to enforce?

[BewareofNick]

>Although it's cute when people who

>know nothing about the law

>try to speak about it,

>it can be tiring having

>to correct it. I

>don't mind though, because in

>addition to being the Truth

>Teller, I'm also the Truth

>Teacher.

 

 

No, you would be the Half-Truth Teacher. What a stupid fucking cunt!

[+ deej]

Took you two messages to respond to my one, eh? Did I push a button THAT hard?

 

You can call me any petty names you want, bozo. I'm used to it. People I respect a LOT have called me worse names than what you just did. The difference is that I respect their opinions.

 

I do not respect yours.

[+ Lucky]

Just what we need. An unmitigated teacher. Of course, truth is an absolute defense to libel anyway, so if the fact is that you are an asshole, then there is no libel. But I will leave that judgment to my classmates.

[Minneapolis]

My experience with him was bad. He and his brother convinced me to go with them. If I had seen his reviews and picture on this site, I would have used better judgement. He and his brother are two hot looking guys. They told me they would go down on each other, kiss each other and have sex with each other for me. Well, we got back to my hotel and they took off their shirts and asked for the money up front. Stupidly, I gave it to them, thinking they were honest guys. Well, they took off their clothes, but didn't even touch each other and only wanted me to jack off. I touched Kirk's brother's butt and he smacked me across the face--no lie! I told them to leave and they got dressed and left. No matter what you hear from them or others, they are scam artists. What kills me is that every time I'm in Stellas, one of them is there and comes on to me (they can't even remember they guys they scam!). I have fun with the attention, get them to talk about all the things they will do, then tell them I'm not interested. All I can say is FUCK THEM! I let every guy in the bar know about them. They both suck! Very hot looking, but just a couple of loose cannons. That has been my experience with both of them.