wot hoppened??

[taylorky]

so what happened with the "what don't kill me" post??

[Doug69]

>so what happened with the "what don't kill me" post??

 

It got deleted. Apparently, it's inappropriate to point out (and post proof) that an escort who claims (loudly) that he only engages in safe sex is, in fact, lying, and that, contrary to his claims, he actually eagerly seeks out unsafe sex recreationally.

 

One would think that this website would be exactly the website where one should post this sort of information, so that clients aren't deceived into thinking they are hiring an escort who claims to practice safe sex but who, instead, seeks to bareback as a bottom.

 

One would be wrong in thinking this. Apparently, protecting certain escorts here is a higher priority than exposing dangerous lies by escorts and/or protecting clients from things that could endanger their health.

 

It's weird, though. I've seen lots of threads here talking about escorts who claim to practice only safe-sex, but who secretly bareback. None of those threads got deleted.

 

I wonder what was different about this thread?

[OneFinger]

Didn't get a chance to read the thread before it was deleted. But, assuming your summary is correct, is it possible the thread is only temporarily removed until the "proof" is researched and verified?

 

I also wonder if it violated the privacy rules.

[Zippy]

I would have loved to have seen the "proof" myself.

[Flower]

Did you see it actually posted for a time? I have posted a couple innocuous posts that never made it to the board--I was sure they were being held up, but then redid and it posted, so I concluded that I prolly hit the "preview" button mistakenly for the "Post" button.

 

It was always the policy here to allow posting of information that was "public" already, such as on another web site, even though it was contradictory to what was posted here about the escort. Hooboy allowed several very similar posts to run even though they involved well known or thought of escorts on the mc.

 

To many, safe sex of a partner is a vitally important, although overrated topic, and to most all of us, truth in advertising is even more important; Political, financial considerations, and a take over by another web site should NOT prevent this information from being disseminated, AS LONG AS the banner still says: "Honest in our judgments and truthful in our reporting"

 

Personally, I assume everyone I have sex with may be poz so whether they BB or not is insignificant to me, but I don't like the idea of false advertising, since that calls into question everything the person may say.

 

If there wasn't anything else about your post that got it bumped, then we should be alarmed, since deleting a post with such a relevant topic certainly indicates a change in direction of new management and owners and we, who assume a continuing policy and act accordingly, should at least be told that the banner "Honest in our judgments and truthful in our reporting" is no longer applicable.

[taylorky]

yes i did see the post,with the two pictures (it looked like it was pasted from another website)

 

the contents of that post caused me to have some questions about certain practices.

 

it should be noted here "this is not a desantis bashing",unlike the exalted b.n. i think desantis is sort of cool...a little long winded...but o.k.

[Guest arbee]

...a little long winded...

 

Huh? A little? How about agonizingly verbose?

[taylorky]

:+

[+ deej]

The post in question contained member-only data from another website. If you have member access to that site, rock on. But you have no right posting the member-only content here. (I'm intentionally staying away from false pretense for acquiring information, intentionally planting bogus ads, and stalking.)

 

In fact, its the only post I've seen recently that violated the TOS on two different websites all at once.

 

I didn't have time to deal with it so I sent an alert asking the other moderators to act their conscience. They did.

 

We are investigating, and should the posts turn out accurate the thread will be returned here (without another site's proprietary content). However, another outcome is possible.

 

In the old days, there would be a flag on this play.

[Doug69]

>The post in question contained member-only data from another

>website. If you have member access to that site, rock on. But

>you have no right posting the member-only content here.

 

I know you're desperate to find excuses to justify not allowing prospective clients to see the critically important information I posted which reveals the serious, repeated lies of an escort about whether he engages in safe sex (an escort who oh-just-so-happens to be your friend), but this excuse is just pathetic.

 

If this were truly the reason not to allow other people to know about what the escort was doing, there were numerous easily solutions available: simply have the link, rather than the image, in the post or delete only the image and ask that the link be placed there instead. Posts are allowed here ALL THE TIME that link to the content of other sites; that is an easy solution.

 

But you're not interested in the "copyright" issue. You're interested in making sure nobody knows the barebackin' truth about your escort-friend.

 

>intentionally staying away from false pretense for acquiring

>information, intentionally planting bogus ads, and stalking.)

 

This is simply idiotic. I've had this information for more than a year. A good friend sent it to me, with even more documentation.

 

I never posted it or used it because I personally don't think it matters if an escort barebacks, since everyone should engage in safe sex and assume they're all HIV-positive when making sex choices.

 

But to watch an escort whom I know for a fact barebacks as a bottom come here and start a thread, the sole purpose of which was to announce to prospective clients that he engages only in safe sex, was really too much to bear. It was only at that point - once the escort started making affirmative, voluntary false claims that he engages only in safe sex - did I post this.

 

That's supposed to be one of the principal purposes of this site - to expose lying, dangerous escorts. The fact that the escort in question is a friend of the moderators here should hardly grant him an exemption for lying to clients about safe sex.

 

>We are investigating, and should the posts turn out accurate

>the thread will be returned here (without another site's

>proprietary content).

 

LOL! There have been countless escorts who have been accused of secretly engaging in barebacking and none of those posts have ever been "investigated," let alone deleted. The accusations were permitted to simply remain on the Board, and prospective clients could make up their own mind about whether to believe them.

 

But, for some reason, the same thing here - this time with PROOF - prompts deletions, an investigations, and really, really scary threats against the person who exposed the escort's lies. I wonder why the reaction is so different this time?

 

Anyone who would like to see the evidence about this escort's barebacking activities, please contact me and I'll send it to you, since this site apparently doesn't want you to see it.

 

>However, another outcome is possible.

 

Oh, no - scary, deej! If you think I'm going to refrain from preventing an escort from lying about safe sex practices, you're fucking hallucinating! Anytime you want, feel free to block my access or whatever other oh-so-powerful measures you and your little friends are talking about in your secret "moderators' club," but walking around playing with your dick threatening it is a little pathetic, even for you.

 

How sweetly ironic it would be to get banned from this site for exposing an escort's lies to prospective clients about safe sex practices.

[Doug69]

>Did you see it actually posted for a

>time?

 

Not only did my posts get deleted, the ENTIRE THREAD got deleted.

 

I wrote 4 posts in that thread all about the same topic - the fact that the escort who started the thread by claiming only to have safe sex is, in fact, lying, because I know for a fact that he secretly seeks bareback sex AS A BOTTOM on recreational sex sites. Before posting any evidence, I asked him if he would acknowledge that he does this and admit that his safe sex claims are false. Rather than answer, he said I have a poor command of English and called me an asshole.

 

Since he refused to admit the truth when presented the opportunity, I then posted 2 screen shots posted by that escort from one of those sites which: (a) makes clear that it's him and (b) makes clear that he is, at the very least, shall we say "open" to having unprotected sex. As I told him when I posted that, there is other stuff I have (such as screen shots of his chats) making clear that he asks for loads in his ass (using almost identical language that he attributed to a prospective client whom he claimed contacted him, and whom he then mocked for asking if he could have a load).

 

I didn't want to post any of that. I actually don't think it's relevant in general if an escort barebacks, for the reasons you said, and I'm surprised at how many people think it's important to know - as though they could possibly ever really know for sure.

 

I've had this stuff for over a year, and even though this escort is not my favorite person here, to put it mildly, I never posted it or used it in any way, UNTIL . . . .

 

. . . the escort started a thread in the last couple days in which he affirmatively stated that he does not bareback. Knowing this to be a lie, and knowing that there are prospective clients who (foolishly) rely upon these types of representations when making sex choices, I could not sit by and let him get away with condemning people who take loads and lying that he engages in safe sex when I know he doesn't.

 

So, I posted what I posted. Not only my posts, but the whole thread, got deleted. Deej's excuse - that they were upset because the screen shots I posted of the escort's sex ads are "proprietary" to another site - is just idiotic. Legal reasons aside, if that were really the concern, all they had to do was edit the 2 posts to replace the pictures with the links to the pictures (links to other sites are allowed here EVERY DAY), and leave everything else as is.

 

Concern over proprietary screen shots would hardly be a reason to delete the entire thread. The only reason to do THAT would be to prevent people from knowing that the escort is lying when he claims he engages only in safe sex - or at least to prevent people from seeing the evidence I posted, hear from the escort if he has anything to say, and then make up their own mind about it. I specifically asked the escort to address this concern before I posted any of that stuff and he refused, opting instead to calling me obscene names.

 

It's amazing that the moderators here are willing to place a desire to protect their escort-friend above the core mission of this site: to prevent clients from being swindled, defrauded and lied to (especially when such lies could endanger their health). Or, to put it another way:

 

. . . deleting a post with

>such a relevant topic certainly indicates a change in

>direction of new management and owners and we, who assume a

>continuing policy and act accordingly, should at least be told

>that the banner "Honest in our judgments

>and truthful in our reporting" is no

>longer applicable.

>

[kjun]

To Deej,

 

This is your most blatant case of self-serving bullshit yet. Your "protection" of certain people is making a mockery of this forum's stated purpose of helping us to find escorts who are both good and safe.

 

Moderators is some joke for what should be correctly labeled censors.

 

the Cajun

[trilingual]

>I never posted it or used it because I personally don't think it matters if an escort barebacks, since everyone should engage in >safe sex and assume they're all HIV-positive when making sex choices.

 

Well, here's the real operative sentence in this whole thread! It's good to see Doug69 understands this particular life-saving principle. However, if Doug69 understands it, there's no need for his entire "truth squad" posting. After all, Doug69 isn't the ONLY person on the planet who understands this principle. ALL of us understand it, and have for years. Whether all of us (escorts or clients) choose to PRACTICE this principle know is another issue, but it's up to each one of us to make that decision when we have sex. It's our OWN responsibility to protect ourselves from exposure to HIV, and nobody else's.

 

As for the objectionable posting, there was no "proof" in it. The screen shots of the personal ads from another site that are the subject of the controversy only said that Franco was open to discussing non-safe sex. Without knowing first-hand if he actually practices non-safe sex, the statement in his personal ad is far from "proof." And, in any case, it's all irrelevant if in his professional capacity Franco only has safe sex.

 

This site is about escorts, and if Franco is acting safely with his clients there's no issue. What Franco or any other escort does in his personal life, sexually or otherwise, is simply irrelevant to the readers and the purpose of M4M and doesn't belong here. The only exceptions I can think of would be if an escort's non-escorting activities adversely affect clients, like news that an escort was arrested and his computer (with lists of clients) has been seized, or a news report that an escort has been breaking into the homes of clients, or assaulted or murdered one. However, an escort's not practicing safe sex in his private sex life doesn't fall into this category.

[+ deej]

You are welcome to your opinion.

 

>There have been countless escorts who have been accused of secretly

>engaging in barebacking and none of those posts have ever been

>"investigated," let alone deleted.

 

You'd be surprised how many of those claims have been investigated. We don't allow libel, in case you haven't heard. But they didn't have to stoop to posting member-only content from another site, did they? Going so far as to post a year-old screen shot of a profile that no longer exists, and photos that require approval of the owner to see, certainly doesn't add to the credibility of your post.

 

You know as well as I do that guys use photos that are not their own in those hookup ads all the time. A screen shot of a year-old profile that no longer exists may well have been one of those, and it actually could have been created solely for the use you just made of it. The goading you did to get "justification" to post it doesn't help your cause. (It's called trolling, Doug, and we don't allow it.)

 

Out of curiosity... if it was so urgent to present this information, why did you sit on it for a year? Doesn't seem very community-spirited to me. Sounds more like a grudge post, which doesn't enhance credibility.

 

We'll check it out. I won't have time until next week, although I will likely see the webmaster of that other site this weekend so the process may be shortened. (He'll probably be curious which of his members is using his site for stalking purposes.)

 

Thank you for owning up to being the poster. I intentionally left your name out. I must have been <gasp!> showing favoritism.

[+ Charlie]

I was actually writing a response to the original thread at the moment that it was pulled. Doug69 keeps claiming that the copies of the personal ads that he had posted there were "proof" of his allegations against the escort. Since when does the use of a photo prove that the person in the photo posted the ad? We have discussed plenty of situations on this board in which we have seen ads with phony photos, and pictures of this escort are certainly available on the Internet. And why did the personal info in the ad claim that the poster lived in New York (and presumably wanted to meet people there) when it is well known that the escort in question lives in California? This jury member is very sceptical.

[Doug69]

>You are welcome to your opinion.

 

I know. I don't need your permission to know that.

 

>>There have been countless escorts who have been accused of

>secretly

>>engaging in barebacking and none of those posts have ever

>been

>>"investigated," let alone deleted.

>

>You'd be surprised how many of those claims have been

>investigated.

 

As anyone who has been around here for any period of time knows, posts spreading innuendo about this escort or that escort engaging in unsafe sex are extremely common on this Board. I can't recall any of them ever being deleted, and if there were any, they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of "this-escort-secretly-barebacks" posts are left here forever.

 

The only difference between those posts and my post is those posts simply asserted the innuendo without evidence, whereas I presented evidence - and oh, those escorts weren't your friends and this one is. That's another difference.

 

>We don't allow libel, in case you haven't heard.

 

How come we haven't heard from the escort in question? Can't he clear all this up?

 

>But they didn't have to stoop to posting member-only content

>from another site, did they?

 

I think it's a lot more admirable to post something like this with some evidence than it is to just assert it as innuendo with no apparent basis at all, as is true for virtually every other post of this kind which I've seen.

 

Going so far as to post a

>year-old screen shot of a profile that no longer exists, and

>photos that require approval of the owner to see, certainly

>doesn't add to the credibility of your post.

 

As I made clear, I also saw (and believe I still have) snapshots of chats he involved himself in under that screen name. The idea that someone created that name, got some private pictures of his, and then sat around on m4m4sex.com waiting around in the hope that someone from Hooboy's would see that profile and conclude that he barebacks and then come here and write posts about it is really too stupid to merit any further thought.

 

That's ESPECIALLY true since the face pic was NOT viewable by anyone on the site EXCEPT for those who IM'd him and got the password to the private picture. If the point of that profile were to harm the escort's reputation - rather than to enable the escort to secretly get loads in his ass - why would the face pic be locked and require a password. Doesn't that fact prove pretty definitively that the creator of the profile wasn't trying to harm the escort, but is far more likely the escort himself?

 

At the end of the day, the only DISPOSITIVE proof that an escort is barebacking is video of them doing it. Short of that, everything is merely informative or relevant evidence. Why not let his prospective clients decide? If what I posted is as unpersuasive as you (shockingly) claim it is, then nobody will believe it, right?

 

Why not let them decide instead of you deciding for them? What do you fear?

 

>Out of curiosity... if it was so urgent to present this

>information, why did you sit on it for a year? Doesn't seem

>very community-spirited to me. Sounds more like a grudge post,

>which doesn't enhance credibility.

 

I already explained this. I personally don't think it's relevant if an escort barebacks, and as long as an escort makes no claims about it, I think it's nobody's business what they do.

 

But once a barebacking escort starts making claims that he doesn't bareback - as this escort did for the first time (at least that I saw) in the thread he started yesterday, then it becomes outright lying and misleading people. Call me old-fashioned, but I think that's wrong, and in this case, quite dangerous.

 

>We'll check it out. I won't have time until next week,

>although I will likely see the webmaster of that other site

>this weekend so the process may be shortened. (He'll probably

>be curious which of his members is using his site for stalking

>purposes.)

 

I'm about as afraid of the consequences of that guy's actions as I am of yours, deej. But I'm glad to know that you'll be spending your time talking about me this weekend. I can't say I'll be doing the same for you.

 

Having said that, I never said that I was the one who found the ad or did the chat. To the contrary, I said that a good friend sent the screen shots to me along with other evidence. Your fear of your friend being exposed seems to be clouding your reading comprehension.

[Doug69]

>Well, here's the real operative sentence in this whole thread!

> It's good to see Doug69 understands this particular

>life-saving principle. However, if Doug69 understands it,

>there's no need for his entire "truth squad" posting. After

>all, Doug69 isn't the ONLY person on the planet who

>understands this principle. ALL of us understand it, and have

>for years.

 

Are you really so self-absorbed and arrogant that you think you can talk for "everyone" and assert that what you believe is what "everyone" believes?

 

Lots and lots of escorts will tell you that lots and lots of clients care greatly about trying to find out if they are HIV-positive. Clients on this Board all the time say that they DO NOT WANT to hire escorts who bareback or who engage in unsafe sex.

 

For such clients - whose existence you baselessly and stupidly deny - it is extremely important to know whether or not an escort engages in unsafe sex, becuase they don't want to hire escorts who do that.

 

Therefore, it is outright deceitful and fraudulent, not to mention dangerous, to mislead someone into believeing that they are hiring an escort who only engages in safe sex when, in fact, the escort takes loads in his ass.

 

Is that really a concept that eludes you?

 

>As for the objectionable posting, there was no "proof" in it.

>The screen shots of the personal ads from another site that

>are the subject of the controversy only said that Franco was

>open to discussing non-safe sex. Without knowing first-hand

>if he actually practices non-safe sex, the statement in his

>personal ad is far from "proof." And, in any case, it's all

>irrelevant if in his professional capacity Franco only has

>safe sex.

 

Well, he's free to address all of these things, but has remained strangely silent.

 

"Proof" does not mean something that is infallable and indisputable. It simply refers to evidence that is RELEVANT to a particular question. And I have more of it, but am sure it would be deleted the second it was posted here.

 

My guess is (and my e-mail box certainly confirms this, as do other posts in this thread) that there are lots of prospective clients who would be very interested in seeing this evidence if they are considering hiring him.

 

If he can convince them that it's not authentic, or if they believe that it's not authentic, then that's great. On the contrary, if they believe it is, that's great, too.

 

Who the fuck do you think you are to make decisions for other people about what they should consider relevant or significant when hiring an escort? Lots of people want to know if an escort engages in unsafe sex, and no escort - including Franco - has a right to lie about it. Do you really dispute that?

[Doug69]

>I was actually writing a response to the original thread at

>the moment that it was pulled. Doug69 keeps claiming that the

>copies of the personal ads that he had posted there were

>"proof" of his allegations against the escort. Since when does

>the use of a photo prove that the person in the photo posted

>the ad?

 

As I pointed out, "proof" does not mean evidence incapable of being disputed. It means "that which bears on, or is relevant to, the truth of a proposition." As to whether or not this escort was being honest when he claims never to engage in unsafe sex, what I posted is unqestionably relevant to that proposition.

 

The idea that someone purposely set up a profile to harm this escort's reputation is, under the circumstances, truly idiotic.

 

That's ESPECIALLY true since the face pic was NOT viewable by anyone on the site EXCEPT for those who IM'd him and got the password to the private picture. If the point of that profile were to harm the escort's reputation - rather than to enable the escort to secretly get loads in his ass - why would the face pic be locked and require a password. Doesn't that fact prove pretty definitively that the creator of the profile wasn't trying to harm the escort, but is far more likely the escort himself?

 

>And why

>did the personal info in the ad claim that the poster lived in

>New York (and presumably wanted to meet people there) when it

>is well known that the escort in question lives in California?

 

They have these things now called airplanes that enable someone to go from one place to another. This escort claims to use them a lot, and if you're a member of that site, you can create visiting profiles for cities to which you travel.

 

>This jury member is very sceptical.

 

Great, well than go hire him to top you. Everyone should be able to make up their own mind about what they think of the evidence. But they can't do that now because the evidence is deleted and I can't post the other evidence I have because it will be deleted, too.

 

Thus, thanks to this site, anyone hiring him or considering doing so will be deprived by this site of information which many people consider to be quite relevant in making escort hiring decisions. Isn't that result the exact opposite of the ostensible purpose of this site.

[Barry]

In this thread you have claimed no less than 10 times that the thread in question was deleted. NO it wasn't! As is clearly stated in this forum under the original thread Subject, it was moved. I moved it to the Mod forum. Even though a basic foundation of propaganda states if repeated over and over again you can make people believe anything....in this case it just ain't so. Does this make you a lier?

 

For those that have not read the Message Center Rules, let me copy something here.

 

"The action may involve moving a thread to a private area for discussion prior to final resolution, editing replies in a thread rather than moving the whole thread, or simply deleting posts and/or threads."

 

>Not only did my posts get deleted, the ENTIRE THREAD got deleted.

 

>So, I posted what I posted. Not only my posts, but the whole >thread, got deleted.

 

No it didn't. While we could have deleted your individual posts, we can only move entire threads. One or so years ago there was a lot of discussion here about the Mods deleting things. If I recall you and Lucky had some strong and good points here on that issue. After quite a bit of discussion we decided to delete less and edit or move more.

 

In this thread you have stated your posts were:

 

>...this time with PROOF...

 

>...(b) makes clear that he is, at the very least, shall we say "open" to...

 

>At the end of the day, the only DISPOSITIVE proof that an escort is barebacking is video of them doing it. >Short of that, everything is merely informative or relevant evidence.

 

Additionally, everything you state about this escort's private behavior is in the present tense. Then you state the "evidence" you posted for this behavior is over a year old. So any action by anyone in the past should be assumed to be current? Well there was a time in my past that I didn't use condoms. I do now. Does that make me a barebacker?

 

Here's the bottom line. I moved the thread for discussion since you appeared to have posted screen captures of an escort's personal, non-business profile on another site. That crosses the line between business related and personal information. Personal information about any member of the MC is not allowed unless presented by that individual.

 

We all have professional and personal lives. They are seperate. If you want to discuss something about an escort's statements or behavior in the course of escorting, fine. Your and their personal lives are off limits here. In your own words...

 

>I personally don't think it's relevant if an escort barebacks, and >as long as an escort makes no claims about it, I think it's >nobody's business what they do.

 

If what an escort does at work doesn't jive with what they say they do at work, it's open for discussion here.

 

Now for the tired accusations of escort protection. Franco is not a friend of mine. I've met him once at a dinner with him and his client. Seems to be a nice guy. I don't hire escorts so special treatment isn't my motive. The fact is we do give escorts an added measure of protection here. Clients posting here are protected by anonymity while escorts are not. Their pics and other information are out there as a matter of business. As you have shown if someone wants to, they can dig around and find out personal things about an escort. As I recall we have booted 3 members over time. Two of those were escorts and it all started with them posting personal information about someone else then ignoring our warnings. Several others were smart enough to heed the warning and are still members here.

 

All of this is outlined in the MC Rules and shouldn't surprise anyone. That's the way it is.

 

Barry

[woodlawn]

>Here's the bottom line. I moved the thread for discussion

>since you appeared to have posted screen captures of an

>escort's personal, non-business profile on another site. That

>crosses the line between business related and personal

>information. Personal information about any member of the MC

>is not allowed unless presented by that individual.

 

>Your

>and their personal lives are off limits here.

 

Then why did the moderators allow Rick to post personal information about Doug a few weeks ago -- to wit, facts about Doug's hiring of a certain other escort? Doug objected to it at the time, but you guys did nothing. If I recall correctly, your excuse for letting it pass was that the information posted did not include anything about Doug's real identity. Now you seem to be saying that the rule against posting personal information is a lot broader than that. So when did it change?

 

I find it hard to believe you don't understand why such inconsistent application of the "rules" makes some of us think that you have one set of "rules" for the people you like and another set for those you don't.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Fading Memory

 

Hey Barry,

 

General question here. Please refresh my memory. I recall the ban against personal information (in the beginning) being directed only at information that would compromise the identity of escorts or clients -- the pimrary concern being harassment or stalking considerations. Other personal information seemed of little interest and concern -- maybe a cause and effect phenomenon. This policy may well have changed along the way without me noticing or maybe it just evolved without anybody really noticing. What's your recollection?

 

Note added in edit: While writing my post I see that Woodie posted the same recollection that I have.

[+ deej]

RE: Fading Memory

 

From the mc rules:

 

Personal information is extended to include other information about an individual that is beyond the scope of client or escort activities that could be interpreted as severely detrimental to one's reputation.

 

It has been there since day 1 of the rules. Wasn't it you that suggested this sentence way back when? :o

[+ Charlie]

Where did you get the idea that my post proposed that someone was setting the escort up? I was assuming that whoever posted the ad might be using someone else's photo, rather than his own, to attract responses, as we know from experience happens on commercial sites. It always amazes me that people think that respondents won't be able to tell the difference if they actually do meet, but many who do this probably don't actually intend to meet at all--they get their jollies from the correspondence, like those who call escorts about making appointments that they are not serious about keeping. The fact that someone posts an ad that contains a picture is no guarantee that the poster is the person pictured, or that he intends to go through with whatever fantasies he has described.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Fading Memory

 

>It has been there since day 1 of the rules. Wasn't it you that

>suggested this sentence way back when? :o

 

It is certainly possible. Hence the subject line of my post...lolol :7

 

If I did then there must have been an excellent reason and this must be an excellent policy.

 

Are you sure? :o

[Rick Munroe]

>Then why did the moderators allow Rick to post personal

>information about Doug a few weeks ago -- to wit, facts about

>Doug's hiring of a certain other escort? Doug objected to it

>at the time, but you guys did nothing.

 

Because that "certain other escort" was me, and because the post contained no personal information. Here is how it went:

 

ChgoBoy posted: What do I have to do to make Rick Monroe love me?

Doug replied: Find a way to gather together 10 twenty-dollar bills every week or so. Then you´ll feel like the love is flowing.

Rick's response: That's funny, Doug. You paid me a lot more than that, but it never changed my opinion of you. :o

 

Woodlawn, I know you've been sarcasm-challenged in the past, so let me explain it to you: that was sarcasm. As guyinsf later posted, "...I would have assumed that Rick was just making a joke and that you had never actually hired him."

 

Doug and I have moved on; you might want to try it sometime.

 

Btw, woodlawn, you were great last night. Especially after the dentures came out.