SA Review #22...Scott Shares

[twinklover]

I am as bored and crazy as the rest of you reading through this thread, only to find Scott and Lucky kissing and making up at the end. I'm trying to visualize that (lol). I read Lucky's intial post as potentially insinuating unsafe sex, and for that, he did apologize. Scott's response to Lucky's apology was not gracious. It reminded me of a porn agent's comment about a rogue porn producer now in prison: "If you gave him a million dollars, he'd still steal your ashtray on the way out the door." But Scott backed off from that. All's well that ends well.

[VaHawk]

Let me guess?? You live on the West Coast? Why else would you be supporting all the sobbing and handwringing?

 

How about "apologizing" for your comments? Calling a grown man, such as Lucky with a lifetime of experiences behind him and one with multiple positive contributions to the world, let alone this very site, a "boy", is insulting! And praising a boy acting like a bratty 2 year old, is only adding to the insult, especially when that "boy" has openly insulted his clients on this site, and has openly and unaplogetically admitted that he jeopardized his first clients' very freedom by engaging in sex with them while under the age of legal consent.

 

But then again, Lucky did succumb to all the tears and offered up an apology that was unmerited and definetly not called for, as unlike JH, I didn't read anything into his comments except the still true fact that he was criticizing a review that was a promo. You know, just following the terms of this site as advocated by the late HooBoy, that you can't criticize the meal unless you've eaten it. Perhaps all you lambasting Lucky should re-read the tos.

 

I especially loved the "libelous" comment by SA. I suggest that he pursue that in the courts. I can hear the judge and jury laughing now! Wow, some people read Lucky's comments, and heard what they wanted to hear, and whipped out their little pink lace hankies and tears to defend the "poor little innocent child"! Even if was hinted that a prostitute might engage in unsafe sex, WHY JUST LIBELOUS, MISS SCARLETT! :7 :7

 

Sheesh, sometimes the comments on this site are just unfathomable. How SA, who has openly insulted clients in general and disparaged his very own clients on this site, who imo, has offered nothing worthy to this mc, other than his own hyping self-promotion postings, should be the "aggrieved" party in this thread over Lucky, is just I don't know, RIDICULOUS?

 

Like Lucky, I don't know SA other than what he's posted here and at other sites and what others, some who know him and some who don't have posted on those sites. But then again, I don't know Lucky either except under those very same parameters. But I do know, based on those parameters, for me anyway, who I believe was honest and mature and "adult" in the back and forth on this thread! So you can rightfully conclude I was "feeling" lucky! :7

[uwsman2]

I wrote two reviews of Scott under a different screen name. I use a different screen name for reviewing from the screen name I use for posting in this forum.

And my interpretation of the review was that the guy had met Scott but just wasn't getting into details.

[+ Lucky]

RE: SA Review #22...

 

Me too! I guess I should listen to the former teacher I know who tells me some essays can read really bad and the good ones are like finding diamonds.