New Las Vegas Escort "Chrystopher"

[Guest LG320126]

E-mailed a new escort in Vegas yesterday who I saw in a Las Vegas chatroom and goes by the screen name "AccOmpaNyUinLV". Told him I would be in Vegas over the 4th of July weekend and may be interested in his services and would he please send pics, rates, and list of services he provides. Received a reply with pics (looks cute if it is really him), saying he did not do anal, but "everything else is fine with me" - so far, so good.

 

Today I got an IM from him on AOL wanting to know why I had not replied to his e-mail and I told him that due to not doing anal, I would probably not be interested in hooking up. His smartass reply was "good for me". I replied that I didn't think that remark was necessary as I had not said anything derogatory to him at all. The more I thought about it, the more pissed I became, so I e-mailed him telling him that of all the escorts I have seen in Vegas over the last couple of years, none had been as rude as he was and that he expected to bde successful as an escort, he needed to lose the attitude. I then received another e-mail back from him stating that he did not want to be successful, he was not a whore and I should go f--k myself.

 

Anyway, if anyone comes across this twink punk in a chatroom or anywhere else, beware! No telling what kind of shit he may try to pull. Buyer Beware!

[Chuck50]

Show us his pic so we can be on the look out for him

[Guest LG320126]

>Show us his pic so we can be on the look out for him

 

 

Have never posted a pic before, but here's an attempt.

 

 

http://CHRYST~1.JPG

[+ deej]

Now you know why some escorts are hesitant to provide photos in the first place. Some jackass feels it is appropriate to publish photos on the internet that were provided in private e-mail, not even knowing for sure if it's a picture of the escort in question or not.

 

It's difficult for me to believe, from the correspondence you described, that you got his permission to post his picture (if it's his, which you seem to question).

 

Simmer down and think this through, big boy.

[Guest LG320126]

>Now you know why some escorts are hesitant to provide photos

>in the first place. Some jackass feels it is appropriate to

>publish photos on the internet that were provided in private

>e-mail, not even knowing for sure if it's a picture of the

>escort in question or not.

>

>It's difficult for me to believe, from the correspondence

>you described, that you got his permission to post his

>picture (if it's his, which you seem to question).

>

>Simmer down and think this through, big boy.

 

 

Deej - are you stalking me?

:-)

[+ deej]

>Deej - are you stalking me?

>:-)

 

You're not exactly my type, babe. :-) I'm trying to help you keep from becoming moderated.

 

It really is inappropriate to publish an unpublished picture provided to you in confidence. And, look at it this way ... you are broadcasting a message to any escort reading this board that you cannot be trusted with a confidence.

 

Is that the image you wish to project?

[duke37]

RE: New Las Vegas Escort

 

>

>Today I got an IM from him on AOL wanting to know why I had

>not replied to his e-mail and I told him that due to not

>doing anal, I would probably not be interested in hooking

>up. His smartass reply was "good for me".

 

Okay at this point I get a voice in the back of my head that says "Thank you! Have a nice day!" and I say goodbye usually muttering to myself "well another friend made."

 

You chose a different path. Do you think it worked well for you?

 

Jeff

[guyinsf]

RE: New Las Vegas Escort

 

Yes, and the voice in my head would add, "I'm glad I didn't hook up with him, given his attitude," and felt grateful that he showed it so early on.

 

I have to say that encountering this kind of nonsense on AOL is not uncommon. There are a lot of real, quality escorts there. Most of them are also listed elsewhere (meetlocalmen, etc) and many are reviewed here. On occasion I have found a real escort who is only using AOL to market, and who hasn't been reviewed yet, but more often I have encountered variants on the original poster's experience. Unfortunately, the relative anonymity of being online brings out the worst in some people. Why someone would waste his time pretending to be an escort is beyond me -- seems like an awfully boring way to spend one's time. It must serve some sort of pathological need (feeds their moral superiority, is a bizarre sexual outlet, etc).

[Guest LG320126]

RE: New Las Vegas Escort

 

>You chose a different path. Do you think it worked well for

>you?

>

>Jeff

 

Jeff, its not a matter of "did it work well for me". The prelude to how he and I got to where we were, communications wise, is unimportant. All I was trying to do here is make other members aware of the jerk. Seeing as how I did not and would not hire him, it is impossible to write a negative review, so I chose this forum to alert others to him - in my mind, a plain and simple effort to be of help. Apparently others don't see it that way. I can understand why a lot of guys have quit posting at all.

[duke37]

RE: New Las Vegas Escort

 

Well thanks for putting up the red flag on this guy. Sorry that didn't come through earlier. The tone and tenor of your post seemed to invite commentary about your interaction with the guy. Sorry I went down the wrong path on your post.

 

The ironic thing is how difficult it would be for anyone to avoid this guy based on your warning. Considering the smallish number of guys who read this site and factor in the ease your "dreamboy" can change his id makes warning anyone off somewhat problematic.

 

Well we can wait for the other shoe to drop and wait for someone to post on how great the guy was and how he was misunderstood. It seems to go that way on these things. Whats the truth? shrug. I dunno.

 

In any case have a great day and don't take my post as discouragement.

 

Jeff

[Guest wekmass]

With all due respect - you inquired about this guy's availability for specific dates and induced him to send pictures, pricing information etc. and then failed to tell him you wouldn't be interested. How come you're surprised that he showed you a little attitude when he finally got you to respond? Then you blast him with a lecture on etiquette and sound business practices! And I won't even go into the outrageousness of your public attack on him through your posting. I think Chrystopher is not the one of whom we should beware.

[Guest LG320126]

>With all due respect - you inquired about this guy's

>availability for specific dates and induced him to send

>pictures, pricing information etc. and then failed to tell

>him you wouldn't be interested. How come you're surprised

>that he showed you a little attitude when he finally got you

>to respond? Then you blast him with a lecture on etiquette

>and sound business practices! And I won't even go into the

>outrageousness of your public attack on him through your

>posting. I think Chrystopher is not the one of whom we

>should beware.

 

 

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! bigboy - not so fast. I didn't "induce" anybody into anything. The boy's screen name "AccOmpaNyUinLV" led me to believe he was an escort in Vegas, in which I was defintely interested, and when I inquired into details, he sent his pic and his rate and said that he did not do anal. The next day he saw me online and IM'd me and asked why I had not yet got back to him. At that time I explained that due to his not being into anal, that I probably would not be interested in his services at which time he began to be belligerant as hell. At that time I did blast him due to the fact that up until then, I had not said anything or acted with any disrespect toward him.

 

As for the "outrageousness of my public attack" by warning the membership here of his attitude, I think that if you are that thin-skinned, it is you that needs to look in the mirror if you're looking for someone to beware of. Have a great day.

[Guest wekmass]

Gee - the chronology in your reply to me (message #11) is a little different from that in your original message. The first time you told your story, the initial encounter ended with Chrystopher making a smartass remark (note: smartass but not belligerent) and you telling him that you thought the attitude was unnecessary. Then, as you originally told the story, YOU re-established contact to blast him (including, I surmise, calling him a whore, since his response to this, as you report, was to deny being a whore). Sounds like you were the belligerent party. And after prodding him into sending you a nasty e-mail, you take the matter public by warning everyone that there's a dangerous whore on the loose. By message #11, you ignore the fact that the guy apparently went away quietly until you took it upon yourself to get back in touch with him solely for the purpose of teaching him a lesson. I don't particularly want to become the defender of a Las Vegas hustler whom I don't know, but I see very little public service and a great deal of malice in your postings on the matter.

[Guest Stephan-Lacoste]

RE: New Las Vegas Escort

 

I don't see anything wrong with LG post. he has proven by far he is not a liar neither a jerk like some out there. He has hired more than one escort in the country , published more than one review, met Hooboy in person and he is more than a nice guy. I don't understand why you are against his post .... or trying to make his post " a big deal " when you could use your time doing something else.

This message board is really becoming annoying to me. It used to be good, used to be a lot of fun to read all the post, but it became dirty and I hate it today. That is it for me, I'm out of here, last message for me in this message board...... never or ever the way you understand it..

 

stephan Lacoste

http://www.stephanlacoste.com

http://www.vegasboyz.com

stephanlacoste@gmail.com

[Guest LG320126]

>Gee - the chronology in your reply to me (message #11) is a

>little different from that in your original message. The

>first time you told your story, the initial encounter ended

>with Chrystopher making a smartass remark (note: smartass

>but not belligerent) and you telling him that you thought

>the attitude was unnecessary. Then, as you originally told

>the story, YOU re-established contact to blast him

>(including, I surmise, calling him a whore, since his

>response to this, as you report, was to deny being a whore).

> Sounds like you were the belligerent party. And after

>prodding him into sending you a nasty e-mail, you take the

>matter public by warning everyone that there's a dangerous

>whore on the loose. By message #11, you ignore the fact

>that the guy apparently went away quietly until you took it

>upon yourself to get back in touch with him solely for the

>purpose of teaching him a lesson. I don't particularly want

>to become the defender of a Las Vegas hustler whom I don't

>know, but I see very little public service and a great deal

>of malice in your postings on the matter.

 

 

1.)Smartass, beligerent, - call it what you may.

2.) My re-establishing contact was due to his smartass/beligerent comment to me.

3.)I could care less what the hell you "surmise". He was not called a whore by me but replied in that fashion due to the fact that he did not do anal.

4.) Once again you're into this "inducing" and "prodding" shit - you can think anything your little heart desires, but once again you don't have the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about, though you choose to "guess" that you do.

5.)You don't want to be the "defender of a Las Vegas hustler" and yet you continue to defend him without full knowledge of the facts that only I have, including his and my e-mails - could you possibly have a personal interest in the young jerk?

6.) Once again, I really don't give a damn what public service you think I served here - I think I did and that is all that counts to me, and apparently someone else did also as I got private e-mail attesting to that fact.

7.) I would tell you to once again have a nice day, but I really don't care anymore whether you do or not.

[Guest 7Zach]

RE: New Las Vegas Escort

 

All sorts of people here keep saying they're leaving for good, but they always come back. Should we welcome u back now, or wait?

[Guest LG320126]

RE: New Las Vegas Escort

 

>All sorts of people here keep saying they're leaving for

>good, but they always come back. Should we welcome u back

>now, or wait?

 

 

Smartass comments like this are what causes people to leave.

[Guest 7Zach]

RE: New Las Vegas Escort

 

Obviously, u and Step are double teaming on this one. And my smart-ass comment has nothing to do with his leaving; he already is or isn't. I made my bet.

[Chuck50]

RE: New Las Vegas Escort

 

I dont think Step or LG are double teaming anyone. Not sure why there has to be this contention all the time. Both are well respected on here. You may be as well but don't know you and don't get it from the jump on response. Wish we all could get along. HUGS Chuck

[Guest 7Zach]

RE: New Las Vegas Escort

 

All 3 of u are just silly, Step stepping to the defense, and then taking his marbles and leaving; yours in talking about respect; and the original poster changing his story, and my favorite, then posting (or attempting to post) the picture of the escort in question because the poster was just pissed off at the moment.

And to buttress the above acts as being ok among friends, i.e., let's get the rude escort who didn't follow our own particular rules of etiquette, each of u ignores the inconsistencies of the original post, and instead make arguments touting the poster's reputation here on the boards and/or instead going negative and personal about those who thought that the story just didn't add up as told.

Appreciate the hugs, but in my circles, a handshake is preferred with people you don't know.

[Guest Jake]

RE: New Las Vegas Escort

 

Would this be the same CHUCK50 who just called me a liar and trashed a legitimate posting - and experience - on the Adrian thread?