Why bother?

[+ deej]

>Mark - I have a better idea. Since you feel the readers of

>this site are creepy; why don't you not write any more

>reviews. You are an ASSHOLE

 

This saddens me.

 

The usual complaint is there aren't ENOUGH reviews, and you're actively campaigning to have fewer reviews.

 

Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

 

The name calling is pointless and certainly doesn't bolster whatever position you're defending, and you're broadcasting to EVERY POTENTIAL REVIEWER that they face being called an asshole for their voluntary contributions to this site.

 

Sad. Very sad.

[rvwnsd]

In Bob's post, he takes today's three reviewers (one of which is me) to task for leaving out details in reviews. Funny, but some of the details in hs post are incorrect.

 

For example:

 

"...The first two want to keep the details private. "

 

The first review is of JAK. Nowhere in that review does it say anything about wanting to keep the details private.

 

"...The review of JAK keeps referring to his wonderful web site..."

 

I wrote the review of JAK. First, I referred to JAK's website in passing. Twice. Hardly the same as "keeps referring to..." Also, nowhere do I state that the website is wonderful. In fact, I don't make any comment about the quality of the web site in the entire review.

 

"...but never gives a link...."

 

Unbeknown to Bob, I did indicate the URL when I filled in the review form, however, it did not make it into the review. I do specify that I found JAK via a Rentboy ad, so a search for LA-based guys in Rentboy will lead to JAK's ad.

 

Bob also states:

 

"...The three reviews of today tell little or nothing so don't waste your time reading..."

 

Hmm...In case some of you have not read my review, here a few selections which, in my mind, are pretty damned detailed.

 

"...It was a real treat to gaze into that face as he deep-kissed me and played with my cock and butt..."

 

"...I mentioned that I like to rim, and he was more than happy to bend over and let me go to town..."

 

"... I've found that many very muscular guys are a little challenged in the butt department, but not this guy..."

 

"...those huge legs that frame a massive, uncut cock. JAK is easily 8" in length and probably 7-8 inches around (I didn't measure, but I had to open very wide to get my lips around him)..."

 

"...while feeing his muscles and feasting on his cock..."

 

Note the typo. Should be "feeling" and not "feeing."

 

"...He has tons of foreskin which you can stretch over his head even when he is completely erect..."

 

Anyone care to tell me how, short of providing video footage of the session, I could have made this more descriptive?

 

And finally...Bob's post states:

 

"...Since the reviewer mostly wanted to admire his beautiful body and not much else it would have been nice to be able to see the body..."

 

Two things:

 

1) OK, I'll concede that the sentence reading "...My intent was to have a muscle worship and servicing session..." could have been expanded. What I intended to say was "My intent was to have a session where I worshipped his muscles and provided him with oral service," where oral service refers to the activity of providing a man with stimulation by licking and sucking sensitive parts of his body including, but not limited to, his cock, ass, and nipples. Does this clarify that I did, in fact, want more than to admire his beautiful body?

 

2) Pictures are provided by the reviewee (in this case JAK) and not by the reviewer (in this case me). Therefore, I have no control over the picture provided in conjunction with this review. If you have an issue with the picture, then I suggest that you direct your complaint to JAK.

 

Looking back at some of my previous reviews, I now see where I could have provided more details and explanations. In a future post, I will explain what I meant when I stated in my review of Nate that "...his cock was buried as deeply up my asshole as it could go..." and "...[he could] experience my tongue while sitting on my rim chair..." It's a good thing that my review of Jack Sanders was lost when the HooBoy's-to-Daddy's switch occurred because I don't know how I could expand upon the statement "Jack's penetration was incredible and was likely the best I've ever had."

 

In conclusion, just in case the detail hounds notice a discrepancy between the handle I used in this post versus the one I used in the review, rest assured that they are attached to the same person.

 

Oh, and Bob, one more thing. Before you decide to pick on people, let's make sure your facts are in order, OK? Thanks.

[ariadne1880]

It's the tyranny of the bully. Do what I want in the way I want or go the fuck away.

 

Think of all the people who "lurk" here who will be turned off by posting or reviewing because they know they will risk the wrath of some of the children who have posted here.

 

Bullies -- gay or straight -- are not fun. One would think that given most gay men's experience that they wouldn't turn out to be bullies themselves.

 

Sad is definitely the work for it.

 

Mark

[Philly Guy]

>>Mark - I have a better idea. Since you feel the readers

>of

>>this site are creepy; why don't you not write any more

>>reviews. You are an ASSHOLE

>

>This saddens me.

>

>The usual complaint is there aren't ENOUGH reviews, and you're

>actively campaigning to have fewer reviews.

>

>Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

>

>The name calling is pointless and certainly doesn't bolster

>whatever position you're defending, and you're broadcasting to

>EVERY POTENTIAL REVIEWER that they face being called an

>asshole for their voluntary contributions to this

>site.

>

>Sad. Very sad.

 

Deej:

 

I am sorry to have engaged in name calling; it is not my normal style.

 

But what can you say about a guy that is a member of a forum that deals primarily with the topic of guys paying for gay sex that:

 

a. Wants to read about what other's do with their escorts -and-

b. Refers to individuals that want details of his encounters as creeps.

 

Asshole may have been a poor choice of descriptive but I could not think of a better one.

 

Hell, like I say in my post; we probably are creeps but we still want the details, that's why we are here in the first place.

 

Now, as far as there being fewer reviews if they take a little more time to write:

 

Face it, there are guys like Silver Dollar (I try to do the same) and others that take the time to provide an informative review; that is why I go to the site.

 

If someone is only interested in Muscle Worship, Kissing, or Oral Service; that can still be an informative review. At the very least, I will be able to make a determination if the escort is right for me.

 

As prices seek there higher ground ($300 seems to be a new benchmark) I have turned away from some of the guys that I would take a chance on at $200. Why? Because I don't have enough facts.

 

Yes, we need more reviews and we need better reviews. OR a lot more of us will get ripped off. Tell me - Who does NOT want to see a genuine review of the $1000 Brodie Sinclair? I don't want to know whether he can carry an intelligent conversation; I already know that answer.

[ariadne1880]

Bullies like Bob never let silly little things like facts get in the way of making a stupid argument.

 

Mark

[Guest CURIOUS35]

>In Bob's post, he takes today's three reviewers (one of which

>is me) to task for leaving out details in reviews. Funny, but

>some of the details in hs post are incorrect.

>

>For example:

>

>"...The first two want to keep the details private.

>"

>

>The first review is of JAK. Nowhere in that review does it

>say anything about wanting to keep the details private.

>

>"...The review of JAK keeps referring to his wonderful

>web site..."

>

>I wrote the review of JAK. First, I referred to JAK's

>website in passing. Twice. Hardly the same as "keeps

>referring to..." Also, nowhere do I state that the

>website is wonderful. In fact, I don't make any comment about

>the quality of the web site in the entire review.

>

>"...but never gives a link...."

>

>Unbeknown to Bob, I did indicate the URL when I filled in the

>review form, however, it did not make it into the review. I

>do specify that I found JAK via a Rentboy ad, so a search for

>LA-based guys in Rentboy will lead to JAK's ad.

>

>Bob also states:

>

>"...The three reviews of today tell little or nothing so

>don't waste your time reading..."

>

>Hmm...In case some of you have not read my review, here a few

>selections which, in my mind, are pretty damned detailed.

>

>"...It was a real treat to gaze into that face as he

>deep-kissed me and played with my cock and butt..."

>

>"...I mentioned that I like to rim, and he was more than

>happy to bend over and let me go to town..."

>

>"... I've found that many very muscular guys are a little

>challenged in the butt department, but not this guy..."

>

>"...those huge legs that frame a massive, uncut cock. JAK

>is easily 8" in length and probably 7-8 inches around (I

>didn't measure, but I had to open very wide to get my lips

>around him)..."

>

>"...while feeing his muscles and feasting on his

>cock..."

>

> Note the typo. Should be "feeling" and not

>"feeing."

>

>"...He has tons of foreskin which you can stretch over

>his head even when he is completely erect..."

>

>Anyone care to tell me how, short of providing video footage

>of the session, I could have made this more descriptive?

>

>And finally...Bob's post states:

>

>"...Since the reviewer mostly wanted to admire his

>beautiful body and not much else it would have been nice to be

>able to see the body..."

>

>Two things:

>

>1) OK, I'll concede that the sentence reading "...My

>intent was to have a muscle worship and servicing

>session..." could have been expanded. What I intended to

>say was "My intent was to have a session where I

>worshipped his muscles and provided him with oral

>service," where oral service refers to the activity of

>providing a man with stimulation by licking and sucking

>sensitive parts of his body including, but not limited to, his

>cock, ass, and nipples. Does this clarify that I did, in

>fact, want more than to admire his beautiful body?

>

>2) Pictures are provided by the reviewee (in this case JAK)

>and not by the reviewer (in this case me). Therefore, I have

>no control over the picture provided in conjunction with this

>review. If you have an issue with the picture, then I suggest

>that you direct your complaint to JAK.

>

>Looking back at some of my previous reviews, I now see where I

>could have provided more details and explanations. In a

>future post, I will explain what I meant when I stated in my

>review of Nate that "...his cock was buried as deeply up

>my asshole as it could go..." and "...[he could]

>experience my tongue while sitting on my rim chair..."

>It's a good thing that my review of Jack Sanders was lost when

>the HooBoy's-to-Daddy's switch occurred because I don't know

>how I could expand upon the statement "Jack's penetration

>was incredible and was likely the best I've ever had."

>

>In conclusion, just in case the detail hounds notice a

>discrepancy between the handle I used in this post versus the

>one I used in the review, rest assured that they are attached

>to the same person.

>

>Oh, and Bob, one more thing. Before you decide to pick on

>people, let's make sure your facts are in order, OK? Thanks.

 

 

 

:-) :-) :-) :-)

 

Mark!

 

Is this you? Hmmmmm... call me please.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Bullies like Bob never let silly little things like facts get

>in the way of making a stupid argument.

>

>Mark

 

In defense of BOB

 

Bob didn't like a review you posted because it lacked the specifics he prefers to read in reviews. He posted a message that basically said he thought such reviews were of little value.

 

You replied to his observation - no doubt you would call it a complaint - and he wrote back saying that you find it OK to criticize others but can't take it when it is directed at you (or words to that effect), and ended by calling you an asshole.

 

Mark, how can you consider that to be bullying? Are you so thin skinned, is your ego so fragile that if someone criticizes you or calls you a name you immediately call him a bully?

 

Get a grip man! I don't think you have the slightest idea of what bullying really is. It certainly isn't what has transpired here and if you don't understand this then I really think that the wonderful world of the internet is not for you.

 

Can you honestly tell us that you have never called anyone an asshole? Is the use of the word asshole any more offensive that the word idiot, which you love to throw around to anyone who does not agree with you.

 

It's time to grow up!

[alanalt]

If your review was "straightforward and speaks for itself", why are you investing so much time and emotion in defending it?

 

And as for throwing around the words 'creepy' and 'sick', maybe you should consider that there are large numbers of people who would feel the same way about your hiring another guy for sex...