SA Review #22...Scott Shares

[+ Lucky]

Does anyone else think this reviewer has ever met Scott? He may be fresh as a Daisy, but Apollo in capital letters??? At least in this review there is no suggestion of any unsafe behavior. But that third time, well, who knows? :)

 

I want Scott to "share" himself with me! I just can't wait! But we have to re-enact everything today's reviewer says they did!

 

:)

[Guest TNT Ted]

That review is a perfect example of one that has no particular value to me. Scott, and many of the other popular escorts, already have multiple excellent reviews, so I really don't need any more information to know whether or not I'd like to hire them. The reviewer prides himself on reviewing only excellence, then admits that he should really tell us about the bad ones. How do we get him to do that?

 

__________

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

So, what you're essentially saying is that once a reliable/popular escort receives a certain number of glowing reviews, he should simply be cut off from collecting any more? I don't see much logic in that.

 

Maybe i'm just misinterpreting

 

A positive review, for me, is like a badge of pride. It lets the escort know (and whoever's reading) that he did an incredible service, was entertaining/thought-provoking/enjoyable throughout and really made a personal connection. While the review isn't ultimately the goal i strive for when meeting with someone, it is a nice 'icing on the cake' when a guy takes the time to submit something. Always appreciated, but never expected.

 

I'd much rather see someone garner mounds of great reviews than know an escort is outwardly giving crap service. Granted, that's what this site is all about, seeing the good as well as the bad, but there's no reason to just harp on the negatives. There are way too many of us out there that work hard at what we do and enjoy who we see to let the aspect of positive reviews fade away.

 

 

 

~BN

[Guest DickHo]

The reviewer needs to take a Valium and lay off the exclamation marks!

[bigguyinpasadena]

Having met Scott in person I could see an "Appololike"nature to his appearence.No he is not some bulked up "Appolo"but rather a young Appolo with his curly hair(which he should stop fucking around with)and his very beautiful chisled(but not bulky)body.

As to the reviews,well I have to admit I am usually more interested with new talent,but there are those that like to see a 'scort with lots of positive reviews behind them.

[SAdler]

To know that reviewer is to definitely know his exclamation marks. He's a fun personality and most of his speech would be punctuated by exclamation marks.

 

I really have to agree with Benjamin on TNT's remarks. I find it funny how people complain about things they dont get, then complain when they do get something. I'd also be inclined to agree that this review among many of mine is one of the less detailed which was the reviewers right by all means.

 

In my experiences the point of the review is to give you an idea of the quality of experience. I believe he did that and then some giving you lots of details about me in the standard form. Do you really need novels (sorry Ben you knew I'd go there ) for every review to count them as worth while?

 

>but Apollo in capital letters???

 

Inside joke

 

>At least in this review there is no suggestion of any unsafe

>behavior. But that third time, well, who knows? :)

 

Lucky, I take SERIOUS offense to that ... pretty much libel. If I'm wrong and there are ACTUAL inferences to unsafe sex in ANY of my reviews I'm happy to apologize .... but I have not and will not ever put my body or any of my partners at risk. EVER. Two more friends of mine were diagnosed positive this year. My generation is pretty damned stupid and seems to think it can't ever affect them, it appears that Angels in America should be required reading for all my homogeneration. Again, I have no problem apologizing if wrong but to be wrong you'd have to find something pretty blatant.

[Guest TNT Ted]

>So, what you're essentially saying is that once a

>reliable/popular escort receives a certain number of glowing

>reviews, he should simply be cut off from collecting any more?

> I don't see much logic in that.

>

>Maybe i'm just misinterpreting

 

Yes, Ben, I think you are misinterpreting. What I said (or at least thought I implied) was that an additional positive review doesn't have any value to me when it comes to deciding whether or not to hire. And I certainly didn't say they shouldn't be submitted. I enjoy reading them just as much as the next guy.

 

My issue is that Scott's reviewer admits to submitting only positive reviews. He, along with probably far too many others, simply ignores the bad encounters, and leaves the bad guys for the rest of us to discover. Not fair to clients, and definitely not fair to you. I don't think I even need to start listing the obvious advantages to you and all of the really good escorts if more bad reviews were submitted.

 

As to your badge of pride, I don't blame you for wanting to amass as many as possible. I would absolutely do the same thing.:-)

 

__________

[Guest TNT Ted]

>I really have to agree with Benjamin on TNT's remarks. I find

>it funny how people complain about things they dont get, then

>complain when they do get something. I'd also be inclined to

>agree that this review among many of mine is one of the less

>detailed which was the reviewers right by all means.

>

>In my experiences the point of the review is to give you an

>idea of the quality of experience. I believe he did that and

>then some giving you lots of details about me in the standard

>form. Do you really need novels (sorry Ben you knew I'd go

>there ) for every review to count them as worth while?

 

Since it appears as if two of you have missed my point, I guess my point wasn't clear. I'm not complaining about positive reviews. I'm complaining about clients who have less than stellar experiences and fail to do anything about it. How many times have clients been disappointed by an escort's service, and just let it go?

 

As I said in my response to BN, we all should welcome the publishing of less than excellent reviews for those escorts that deserve it. Think of benefits: First, it might be good feedback to the escort, who may not even realize that he's got a dissatisfied customer. He may try harder. Second, the really bad escorts would not continue to get business from unsuspecting clients. Third, less competition for the good escorts. Hell, I haven't got time to think of all the advantages, but I'm sure the list could get longer.

 

Does that make my point any clearer?

[+ Lucky]

"But that third time...who knows?"

 

Well, honey, I was not trying to suggest that you were going to do anything unsafe, I was trying to point out that the "reviewer" wrote his review before he saw you, so we don't know what happened. But we really don't know what happened between the two of you the first times either because he didn't review you. If he thought you were so wonderful, Apollo, oops, APOLLO, why didn't he review you before? As it is, what he wrote is merely a promotion for you, not a review, and, as such, is totally SILLY. Did he have the pom poms in his hand when he arrived at your door?

 

Here's the review:

Experience: Look! Don''t even think about it! Run...Don''t walk to experience the sensuality of this young APOLLO! His pictures do not do him justice... His prior reviews do not do him justice! Scott is just too Damn Hot! That''s it! Done deal!! Guys, please do yourself a favor and find out how awesome it is for this young man to share himself with you! Tonight will be my third time with Scott, and I just can''t wait!

 

Handle: Rob

 

So now this client has seen you THREE times and not reviewed any of those events!

[SAdler]

>At least in this review there is no suggestion of any unsafe

>behavior. But that third time, well, who knows?

 

By your logic every single unreviewed escort encounter is then possibly an unsafe sexual encounter. It's bullshit and an attempt to stir the shit, and was completely uncalled for. Insinuating in an open forum that I would have unsafe sex is crap and you owe me an apology and a clarification for your shitty post.

[Mouth]

Lucky,

 

I gotta go with Scott here. It's not like he's lacking review attention on this site. So what if the guy is enthusiastic. Scott gets plenty of specific and enthusiastic reviews. If if was the only review posted on Scott, I could possibly see your point, but as it is you're just causing trouble. You need to get some bootie my friend.

[+ Lucky]

The complain department is open!

 

Okay, it was not my intent to make this thread about Scott and unsafe sex. My wording is inartful in that I follow the comment about unsafe sex with the reference to the lack of info from the review about what Scott and the reviewer did after hooking up. I have already told Scott that I was not trying to suggest that any unsafe sex occured, but he wants to make a mountain out of it. So I will state again that I did not, and do not, infer any unsafe behavior on Scott's part.

 

Mouth: Your point is well taken about the need! Yet it is beside the point of my thread as I am complaining about someone posting a review that is merely promotional and does not review any activity between the client and the escort. But I will take your advice.

[SAdler]

>>Well, honey, I was not trying to suggest that you were going to do >>anything unsafe, I was trying to point out that the "reviewer" >>wrote his review before he saw you, so we don't know what >>happened. But we really don't know what happened between the two >>of you the first times either because he didn't review you.

 

Is that what you're referring to about "telling me you weren't trying to suggest something"? If that's the case you're still full of shit. If ANYTHING that comment is an even STRONGER referral to safe sex.

 

>Okay, it was not my intent to make this thread about Scott and

>unsafe sex. My wording is inartful in that I follow the

>comment about unsafe sex with the reference to the lack of

>info from the review about what Scott and the reviewer did

>after hooking up. I have already told Scott that I was not

>trying to suggest that any unsafe sex occured, but he wants to

>make a mountain out of it. So I will state again that I did

>not, and do not, infer any unsafe behavior on Scott's part.

 

Your wording is STILL inartful! Just admit you're wrong and apologize and stop blaming everyone else for your fuck up. I'm not making a mountain out of anything. I'm calling you on bullshit and I expect you to take responsibility for it. You DID infer it SEVERAL times, in your initial AND subsequent post -- stop trying to say otherwise.

[uwsman2]

Well, even if the review is not detailed on what happened but just very enthusiastic, it is useful to me. I've seen Scott twice during his visits to NYC in recent years, and hope to connect with him again on a future visit... Having more recent reviews posted confirms that (1) he is still in the business and (2) continues to provide an exciting and fulfilling time for his clients. Sometimes a frequently and well-reviewed escort suddenly stops getting reviews -- that tells you something may be going on. And sometimes a frequently and well-reviewed escort starts getting luke-warm or negative reviews -- that tells you maybe it's time to forget about making another connection because the escort has lost his enthusiasm or otherwise become less interested in pleasing his clients.

 

So every time I see another positive review of Scott, that reinforces my interest in seeing him when next he's in NYC. And remembering my astonishment the second time I saw him, as a major transformation of his body had occurred since the first. (He had really gone to work on muscling up and it showed - the transformation from the hot boy to the very hot man. I can understand why this latest reviewer used "Apollo", especially if Scott's bodybuilding program continued to progress after I saw him. Now waiting becomes even more tantalizing....)

[+ Lucky]

Interesting that you have seen Scott twice, just like Rob, and not written any review of him! But I am glad that you had a favorable experience. Scott gets much higher marks from people who have met him in person than some, like me, who only know his internet persona.

 

You state that you find Rob's review helpful because it lets you know that Scott is still escorting and providing a fulfilling experience. Yet Rob's "review" states nothing of his recent performance since he hadn't seen him yet. And surely, as a regular poster here, you know that Scott is still escorting.

 

Scott may be the Barry Bonds of escorts, but I have not yet seen the impressive side of him.

[+ deej]

You've written to Daddy expressing your concerns about this non-review, yes?

 

If you haven't, then shame on you! You know the reviews are handled as a separate process and unconnected to the MC and your only interest here is dragging an escort (or reviewer) through the mud in public.

 

That address is daddy@male4malescortreviews.com

 

HTH

[+ Lucky]

deej, I know you are a fan of Scott's, so I will take your remarks as such. Commenting on the reviews here is perfectly acceptable.

 

If you think I have thrown mud at someone, then you are the one that should be contacting daddy. Hit the alert button if you wish, but I think my remarks have been fair comment.

[+ deej]

You're wrong again. I wish Scott all the success he's capable of, as I do all the other posters here, but his success won't be coming out of my wallet. I'm pretty sure he knows that.

 

In this case, though, I agree with him. (Mark your calendars, folks! This is a rare occasion!) You still owe him an apology. You started with allegations of unsafe sex and morphed your position several times never apologizing for the original gaffe.

 

If you have a problem with a review, there's a place to report it. This isn't it.

[+ Lucky]

I specifically clarified my point after Scott misconstrued it and did not take the bait when he tried to escalate the situation. Why are you trying to escalate it?

[jackhammer91406]

Lucky, I think Scott is right. I think you meant to state in your initial post that it was more a promo than a review. That's fair. but your post went on and did infer (as I read it) that maybe unsafe sex could have occured the third session. You may not have meant that, but that is how I read it.

I agree, you owe Scott an apology unless you are saying that you have reason to suspect his practices with clients (no evidence of which seems to be present).

 

Sorry buddy, I can't agree with you this time.

[+ Lucky]

Having considered the criticism I have received for the comment, I apologize for it. It was not a good way to make my point about the review.

[SAdler]

Which comment would that be Lucky? You do nothing but reinforce my point here. You were wrong on a severely rude, attacking, and libelous level. I would appreciate an apology that demonstrates an acknowledgment that *isn't* a justification.

 

Knowing the internet persona that I have only had the chance to get to know to date, I dont expect it. But I just want to make sure it's clear to any other posters.

[jackhammer91406]

And you young man could be a bit more gracious in accepting an apology. It would have shown a lot more class and let you keep the high ground.

GEESH

[Mouth]

Lucky,

 

I'm astonished at some of the idiotic reviews I read here. This is a great site, but often reviewers tell me nothing I want to know about their escort encounters. It can be very frustrating, and sometimes it sounds like promotion rather than an accurate description of the experience. I've come to understand that some people can recreate their encounters very descriptively. Others lack the eye and the imagination to share that experience. Well some of us are writers, some of us are inarticulate, some of us are shy...I hope you get my point here. I've found the best thing to do with reviews that don't tell me a thing is to move on to the next posting.

 

Life is too short. The Internet is too big, and I already spend too much time here!

[SAdler]

Indeed and I should probably apologize for that as it were. This board is a vacuum sometimes...And it's never good to do housework intoxicated.

 

Not to create a justification myself, but I was still just angry at the insinuation and wasn't quite sure I was ready to accept that apology in the form it was given. It was pretty out of line to not just let it go.