Do You Tell Them?

[SAdler]

>Since then I do recall my

>previous name but no sense confusing people more.

 

Hmmm ... me thinks something is rotten in the city of Dallas. LOL. If you wanted to quash assumptions of your "green-ness," why not tell people who you "were." What could it hurt?

[Steven_Draker]

http://www.geocities.com/stevendraker/cutebarkingdog.jpg

 

:+

[+ Charlie]

If I have discovered an escort through this website, I always say so in my initial email or phone approach. If it appears that an appointment is forthcoming, I add that I participate in this message board and that I have written some reviews. Like OneFinger, I assume that this will both reassure the escort that I am not a flake, and enable him to find out more about me, if he has the inclination. I never say that I intend to write a review about him--after all, I don't write reviews of everyone I hire, for various reasons. If I am going to write a review, I normally tell the escort at the end of the appointment, but don't explain what I will say. However, I am beginning to rethink that part, since I have published a few reviews that I would probably have rewritten if I had got some feedback about them from the escorts before I submitted them.

[KY_TOP]

>Wow...reading into it much? I wasn't even THINKING of you

>when I wrote that but meanwhile ... while we're on that topic

>... potential clients should respect when an escort asks to

>keep dialogue via email as in our situation I had. You

>INSISTED on a phone conversation and I told you that it wasn't

>convenient for me at the time but would indulge you if

>necessary.

 

Have you got me confused with someone else??? My initial contact with you was in e-mail for a possible meeting on short notice and I gave my cell #, you called. I never INSISTED on anything much less a phone call since 90% of all my escort contacts are by e-mail.

 

>

>Like I said, even your response here lingers of a threat of

>retaliation -- much like I almost find this post. I had told

>you I'd rather not speak by phone but you insisted. In

>hindsight I should have simply told you I was not available.

 

Again I never INSISTED on a phone conversation and I don't understand your "threat of retaliation" comment. Why or what do I have to retaliate for? Me thinks you have me confused or are reading too much into my comment as to why someone might tell you they are a reviewer even when not meeting.

 

>Frankly there's no ill will and I'm sorry if that came out

>antagonistic ... I just would rather you'd portray the whole

>story if you felt the need to bring it up and relay PRIVATE

>COMMUNICATION on the board. It would appear that the next

>frontier in reviewing might be reviewing the process at which

>an appointment was made or not.

 

What story? I asked, by e-mail for a possible hookup for 2 hours on short notice. You called, told me your rate and I said no thanks and you pretty much ended the short conversation. You then followup with with an e-mail apologizing if you came across as short on the phone. Actually that could be seen as a sign of class. I also don't see anything that is so PRIVATE about that. No hard feelings on my part. So what if you charge more than I wanted to pay, who cares, that is your business. LA has got to have some of the best escorts in the world. If one is not available there is always another excellent choice to move on to. Don't be so defensive just because someone responds to you, life is too short.

[+ deej]

Well said!

[+ deej]

This is one of the best replies I've ever seen here.

[SAdler]

>Have you got me confused with someone else??? My initial

>contact with you was in e-mail for a possible meeting on short

>notice and I gave my cell #, you called. I never INSISTED on

>anything much less a phone call since 90% of all my escort

>contacts are by e-mail.

 

Exactly. You made a point of saying that it was short notice and that if I didn't call it wouldn't be happening; I don't like to dissapoint so I deferred from my norm and called.

 

>Again I never INSISTED on a phone conversation and I don't

>understand your "threat of retaliation" comment.

 

Referring to my original post about people who tell you they are posters only after the fact as if they are going to start a problem -- as you have initiated.

 

>Why or what

>do I have to retaliate for? Me thinks you have me confused or

>are reading too much into my comment as to why someone might

>tell you they are a reviewer even when not meeting.

 

Retaliate is probably an improper word choice but nothing else really seems to fit. It's extreme but the underlying implication of making me look bad is what I was referring to.

 

>What story? I asked, by e-mail for a possible hookup for 2

>hours on short notice. You called, told me your rate and I

>said no thanks and you pretty much ended the short

>conversation. You then followup with with an e-mail

>apologizing if you came across as short on the phone. Actually

>that could be seen as a sign of class. I also don't see

>anything that is so PRIVATE about that.

 

Thank you but that is exactly the point. We had a private exchange that had no need to be referenced on the board. I wrote about ANONYMOUS past experiences in my post not even referencing you. Had you felt the need to mention our interaction the appropriate thing to do would have been to leave it anonymous and not attach names to it. The story I'm referring to has a BIT more light shed on it in this post; but regardless, it's nobody's business but our own.

 

>No hard feelings on my

>part. So what if you charge more than I wanted to pay, who

>cares, that is your business. LA has got to have some of the

>best escorts in the world. If one is not available there is

>always another excellent choice to move on to. Don't be so

>defensive just because someone responds to you, life is too

>short.

 

I had said no hard feelings as well. I'm not being defensive but I really get upset when someone tells a story that negatively depicts someone and isn't sharing all the details. Regardless, the overall point was that the story shouldn't have been shared in the first place.

 

Again, no hard feelings. Just a note that maybe you should have taken your own advice and not been so defensive. Afterall, think about why this little disagreement began...you responding to a story you THOUGHT was about you.

[KY_TOP]

>

>Exactly. You made a point of saying that it was short notice

>and that if I didn't call it wouldn't be happening; I don't

>like to dissapoint so I deferred from my norm and called.

 

Sorry but you are not exactly correct. I am terrible at deleting e-mails and I just went back and read what I sent to you. I could forward the whole thing to you if your memory needs refreshing.

 

No "insisting" and no desperate "wouldn't be happening" plea.

 

 

>Referring to my original post about people who tell you they

>are posters only after the fact as if they are going to start

>a problem -- as you have initiated.

 

Let's see, that was back in early August. How did my telling you who I was then start a problem?

 

>Retaliate is probably an improper word choice but nothing else

>really seems to fit. It's extreme but the underlying

>implication of making me look bad is what I was referring to.

 

Scott, unfortunately you have a terrible habit of making yourself look bad with some of the things you say (post). You don't need my help in that area. But I do enjoy your comments at times.

 

>Thank you but that is exactly the point. We had a private

>exchange that had no need to be referenced on the board. I

>wrote about ANONYMOUS past experiences in my post not even

>referencing you. Had you felt the need to mention our

>interaction the appropriate thing to do would have been to

>leave it anonymous and not attach names to it. The story I'm

>referring to has a BIT more light shed on it in this post; but

>regardless, it's nobody's business but our own.

 

You were the one questioning WHY a client reveals himself to you after not meeting, so you started the subject regardless of which non-clients you were referring to.

 

>I had said no hard feelings as well. I'm not being defensive

>but I really get upset when someone tells a story that

>negatively depicts someone and isn't sharing all the details.

>Regardless, the overall point was that the story shouldn't

>have been shared in the first place.

 

Again, you are the one that brought up the subject.

 

>Again, no hard feelings. Just a note that maybe you should

>have taken your own advice and not been so defensive.

>Afterall, think about why this little disagreement began...you

>responding to a story you THOUGHT was about you.

 

Whether about me specific or not, a general comment about such clients could also refer to me. Keep in mind when you post something you just might get a reply from someone.

 

Getting back to the original posters comment... just remember the client that pays you next week, next month, or in 6 months just might be me. I'll let you know after the fact.

[SAdler]

>Sorry but you are not exactly correct. I am terrible at

>deleting e-mails and I just went back and read what I sent to

>you. I could forward the whole thing to you if your memory

>needs refreshing.

>

> No "insisting" and no desperate "wouldn't be happening"

>plea.

 

I too am guilty of never deleting ANYTHING. I believe the new DSM term for it is Cyber Packrat Neuroses Anyway, you say tomato and I say well .... tomato. This illustrates my point perfectly; email and posting boards are notorious for lacking tone, voice and imagery. You can only get so much across with smiley faces and ::actions:: . You wrote something one way, I wrote something another.

 

I wouldn’t want to appear hypocritical and do the same thing that got me involved on the posting boards years ago and copy and paste direct emails, but I can summarize what was said in your email to the effect of, “I’ll be available only tonight for a couple hours.” I can’t recall my state of mind at the time but it’s quite possible that my interpretation due to experiences with clients at the time made me believe you were rushing. Shit happens.

 

Reading the rest we had a lovely conversation and I even got “Happy Birthday” wishes

 

>Let's see, that was back in early August. How did my telling

>you who I was then start a problem?

 

LOL. Perhaps you read that out of context. You didn’t start a problem right then and there, you started it here.

 

>Scott, unfortunately you have a terrible habit of making

>yourself look bad with some of the things you say (post). You

>don't need my help in that area. But I do enjoy your comments

>at times.

 

LOL. I don’t make myself look bad, I simply don’t care about being blunt and displaying unpopular opinions. What I’ve found over the years is that the general consensus (80/90%) of posters that I dialogue with on this board are not potential clients. I’m not sugar coating anything for people. The people that do hire respect me for being willing to put it all out there. The point is, this dialogue here is accredited to you if you’d like to scroll up. I made a generalization that you took personally and felt the need to respond antagonistically and make comments like “think twice.”

 

>You were the one questioning WHY a client reveals himself to

>you after not meeting, so you started the subject regardless

>of which non-clients you were referring to.

 

When I say I never really understood it that was men sarcastically and rhetorically. Again, an instance of tone being lost in writing. You could have easily privated me with your interpretation of why if you thought I was asking about our situation. I didn’t start any subjects if you notice, you’re the only one who decided to take it personally. I’m not saying this to be rude, just point out that you’re calling me defensive is probably just a bit of projection 

 

>Again, you are the one that brought up the subject.

 

Again … I didn’t bring up ANY subjects

 

>Whether about me specific or not, a general comment about such

>clients could also refer to me. Keep in mind when you post

>something you just might get a reply from someone.

 

A reply is one thing, a personalization is quite another. If you wanted to reply to the idea you thought was a concept you could have done JUST that without bringing up a personal history that can be misconstrued out of context.

 

>Getting back to the original posters comment... just remember

>the client that pays you next week, next month, or in 6 months

>just might be me. I'll let you know after the fact.

 

I’m sure I’ll look forward to it But you’ll be too busy with the new grandbaby to make time for little ol’ me

[+ Lucky]

>Scott, unfortunately you have a terrible habit of making

>yourself look bad with some of the things you say (post). You

>don't need my help in that area. But I do enjoy your comments

>at times.

 

You know, Scott, you would be doing yourself a favor if you actually reflected on these remarks and considered how they might be true. Sometimes one can't see the forest for the trees and another perspective can be helpful. KYTop is not the only one who sees this about you.

[SAdler]

>You know, Scott, you would be doing yourself a favor if you

>actually reflected on these remarks and considered how they

>might be true. Sometimes one can't see the forest for the

>trees and another perspective can be helpful. KYTop is not the

>only one who sees this about you.

 

LOL Lucky. I believe I addressed that DIRECTLY in my consensus statement. Like I said, it's up for interpretation as to what looks "bad." What some think looks bad I've gotten compliments on in emails from actual potential clients. Thanks for your concern though!

[+ Lucky]

RE: Do You Tell Him?

 

Okay, then, I will continue to think of you as an obtuse egotistical twit. Happy Holidays!

[SAdler]

RE: Do You Tell Him?

 

>Okay, then, I will continue to think of you as an obtuse

>egotistical twit. Happy Holidays!

 

I'm glad that's settled

 

And as long as your thoughts don't really matter so much to me I'm sure I'll be just fine with that Have a happy holiday as well.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Do You Tell Them? NO!

 

I ended up getting a really good whipping from Scott. He kept trying to get me to reveal Dallas O's previous screename(s), but I wouldn't!

I told him, I says, it would just be too confusing!

[SAdler]

RE: Do You Tell Them? NO!

 

LOL. Well first Neal now you ... I'll assume I've apparently met with Dallas at SOME point then too