JAG is host of new Julie's web site - JAG is not Consumer Reports anymore!

Rufus Moses · Apr 18, 2002

Hotpuppy...I will grant this...I can carry a grudge...JAG did me wrong and I still expect a public apology...since they banned me it was difficult to defend myself properly...

but yeah...Rufus being banned is a dead horse...

BUT...

JAG still tells members that JAG is free of supply-side readers, and that JAG itself is free of compromises and ties to the supply-side.

When (as this recent IP address info shows now more than ever) this is clearly not true.

JAG's corruption and deceit is very much alive. *You* may know about it...thousands of lurkers here may not....

Ozzy · Apr 18, 2002

bill...

picture the best of UG mixed with the best on *** or any review board*, with absolutely Zero chance of providers peeking in because jag never had a real web address and was pretty hard to find even if you were looking for it, then throw in about a 100-200 tightly knit group of guys bull-shitting about the girls and being brutally honest and NO SHILLS.....

and you have somewhat an idea of what the old jag was about.

*.... and remember, when jag was the oldjag..... there were no other review boards. at least none that i knew of with any substance. TBD like UG was always more of a discussion board than a review board. jag had the best of both worlds, and then some. it was the original mens club. also.... you don't have the membership of the old jag... members who posted about sweedish nanny's and 150/hr UTR girls who grew into internet legends charging upwards of 500-1000/hr (ie diana of dallas and tasha ray). jag wasn't about the board... it was about the members who made it. those same members who were stabbed in the back sometime later. the current jag talks about julies, julies and julies...and when not talking about julies they throw stones at people like April who has been nothing but the most straight foward person on the providing end that this little corner of the world has ever seen.

RoosterC74 · Apr 18, 2002

NADA To One That Does Not Really Exist

I will start once again with the continued slogan-"NADA". And yes, it will remain my slogan-as per my recent resolution. Additionally, guys-thanks for the several private e-mails of encouragement. You are correct-NADA is the correct path to take. Your private suggestions were quite helpful.

It amazes me how much time some people have to waste on the negative aspects of what should be a very enjoyable hobby. I believe the problem occurs when it becomes all they have in life-and then it becomes the most important thing and in fact at times-the only thing in life to them. I guess they will continue to see the cup as half empty-instead of half filled. Pretty sorry state of life!

I do have to thank a few of the guys over the past couple of days (since I last checked in on the Board) for writing some very interesting positive and negative information about providers. The positive ones regarding Catrina (I hope the spelling is correct), Alini, etc. certainly create a nice To-Do-List for some of us guys. And the negative ones, certainly provide us with information where not to spend our hard earned bucks.

Ozzy · Apr 18, 2002

it's caterina (patricia)....

and if i were the person you are..

i'd be fielding her e-mails and preventing you from seeing her..... just like you guys did to poor phantom and i'm sure to a few others.

but i'm not you........i'm better than you. go see P/C and enjoy the ride.

take care rooster...i'm done with you now.

Aristotle · Apr 18, 2002

rufus moses writes: "Nothing you've said here undermines any of the information I posted at the start of this thread."

1) You said that other day that "rufus moses" was, in effect, nothing more than a brand name. (Of course that's wrong -- like of all of us who post too much, including me, there's a superabundance of the real you in "rufus.")

Still, even granting your claim, the question in my mind is whether "rufus moses" deserves to be ranked with Phillip Morris, Arthur Andersen and Enron or something much simpler -- such as "Pee Wee Herman."

In any event, I'm quite content for people here to form their own judgments on the basis of your own posts.

2) So far as I know, I have never been lied to by anyone connected with the management of JAG. For any number of reasons, I don't think they'd do that. And while I don't countenance mistakes they've made over the past couple years, and recognize that I may be wrong, I don't think I am.

P.S. Since I'm apparently the only living JAGster with an intact memory, let me also point out that the business about rufus's difficulties with another Mad Chaos -- which apparently involved personality dysfunction on both ends (and threats of personal violence culminating in a call to the police) -- was discussed on JAG without complaint long before it was resurrected by Mad Mach. The time for rufus to complain it was a lie was then -- not later, when he decided to mount his own intifada.

Ozzy · Apr 19, 2002

ari...

i agree with most of what you said and i have a pretty good memory of jag from when i got there in it's infancy. i'm not rufus moses so i couldn't care less about his "intifada". for the few things we do agree on.... rufus and i usually agree on those issues for very different reasons. my little "intifada" is more like hiding behind some big IDF soilder and yelling over his shoulder at yassar arafat, than barging thru town on the best built machinery in the world and blowing away anything in sight, as rufus is doing. i agree with you that this is not the right timing for this.... unless this intifada leads to a revolution and eventual over throw or take over of the current tyrant. (not that that's what i'm implying or advising).

that said, i gotta disagree with you that jag never lied to any of us. for one they lied about the cost of maintenance to run jag and the equipment they were claiming they needed, used or bought. i know little about web hosting but i've met enough webmasters (some far bigger than the mad twins) thru being involved in all this internet BS we dabble in and all have the same conclusion that in no way were those numbers they threw around accurate or even remotely ballpark. now they run the place and they're entitled to charge whatever they want, throw who ever they don't want out and not allow any one in they don't want....in. but they still lied. they also showed Zero respect for the membership at large by calling 90% of them (i think they said only10% ever donated) dead- beats and free-loaders. how could anyone do that when the place was free and they only asked for DONATIONS and only after it was upgraded and even then only once every few months. now since i was always a donator and later a paid member i didn't think this was a big issue with me. although i personaly felt not offering me a lifetime membership over some of the low-life free loaders they did lately was an insult to me, and something i thought was due to my involvement in UG (before i ever spouted an evil word about jag or julies).

i think jag also lied about no providers having access. i don't think i've ever gone as far to say that they knowingly gave access (free or otherwise) to the providing end (although it's my guess, Yes) but , they definitely knew they were there (and who they were) and did nothing to correct the situation. even if they didn't know infobooth was candy day (which i find hard to believe since they had to know the IP's matched with their own miss jag) they still knew providers were there as i'm sure they received e-mails with questions about the site from them. i know for certain two ladies who e-mailed jag about issues they had... either questions about posting or advertising or in one case, a lady who wanted her review edited or removed after reading it. both made it clear in e-mails that they were members of jag and both actually gave their screen names since they didn't know they weren't supposed to be members in the first place. one was on jag last i heard (about a yr ago) and one is there today for certain.

we also know they lied about the identty of their most prominent poster (john b) since we all know how he outed himself on the non-member board last summer(?). but that's a dead horse i won't beat for now.

now, i don't really care about jag just like i don't care about bigdog. there's nothing there for me (since i know everything *joking*) and i choose not to post on either voluntarily (although jag later banned my old IP for speaking up on that anti semitic issue) and don't read either all that much unless someone points out a funny or useful post (both of which are rare) to me. i just like to keep the facts straight when i can. and i can tell you this..... the rufus who posts (although as you say there is a lot of the real him in rufus).... is quite a different fellow when you meet the real him. that's why i said he was the first person i ever met in this hobby because i am one of the very few who can actually vouch for the real rufus, and i don't think he's the person jag painted that evil picture of.

but thats just my call, you don’t have to abide by it.

Aristotle · Apr 19, 2002

ozzy --

1) I merely meant to say that I didn't think anyone in JAG management had ever lied to me *personally." (*Of course* all that business about costs was always a little screwy.)

2) I'm quite willing to believe that the person who posts as "rufus moses" is a hell of a guy. I've read enough of his posts over the years to believe that.

My problem isn't with the real him -- it's with what "rufus moses" posts.

(I sometimes let Mephistopheles phone in my posts -- so I know what it's like to be chased by daemons.)

P.S. I once said that the proximate cause of the old JAG's "distemper" -- which ultimately led to its collapse -- was the way we dealt with guy catelli. I still think that. For the same reason, I think there may have been a better solution to JAG's "rufus problem" than turning him out. But it wasn't my call. (It's too bad -- because now he doesnt have access to daily info on all the Episode clones where they don't charge extra for paper towels.)

Ozzy · Apr 19, 2002

i never paid for paper towels there but, maybe that's just because my CSW (commercial spanish wife) works there. matter of fact the apm and i stopped by and sure enough she was there (waiting for me with open arms) and we celebrated our first anniversary in the palatial 10x10 bridal suite*.

only down side is that there were two very cute FSW's (future spanish wives) there but of course felicia won't allow me the freedom to choose. once again being Ozzy is not all it's cracked up to be.

*.....my felicia always gets the best rooms.

Thorn · Apr 19, 2002

Frankly, I use both.

I only log onto JAG about once a month now, but its still a resource. I still get a good lead now and again from there.

I have a rule about burning resources, as they tend to be finite.

Now, I do log on to UG much more often. When its good, UG has a lot to offer. I do tend to have a good "skimmer" though and rocket past much of this stuff. It doesn't hold much in the way of what I am looking for, viable information.

Hotpuppy · Apr 19, 2002

Re: NADA To One That Does Not Really Exist

Originally posted by RoosterC74
I will start once again with the continued slogan-"NADA". And yes, it will remain my slogan-as per my recent resolution.

It amazes me how much time some people have to waste on the negative aspects of what should be a very enjoyable hobby. I believe the problem occurs when it becomes all they have in life-and then it becomes the most important thing and in fact at times-the only thing in life to them. I guess they will continue to see the cup as half empty-instead of half filled. Pretty sorry state of life!

This is very thinly veiled "NADA" , but nice try anyway
hp

Geezy Muldoon · Apr 19, 2002

JL:

Is that to say that you will never be as good on UG as you were on JAG?

Geezy Muldoon · Apr 19, 2002

Re: "Department of Clarification"

(Entirely accurate statements of fact. I read absolutely every word in JAG's archives during the time I was a member. The private members' discussion threads were laid over the earlier random reviews like a completely different geological strata. There was nothing that even hinted at a learned discussion of the whys and wherefores of commercial sex until the later discussion threads.)

hombre · Apr 19, 2002

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Ari, I suspect that you administer your daemons as handily (cronically) as any other system lord.

littleguy · Apr 19, 2002

While I have no personal information about JAG, who runs it and/or what it costs to run, I can tell you (and I am in the industry, although not directly Internet connected) that if you've never had any reason to learn about or otherwise know what "computer services" (to cover the entire spectrum) costs in general, you'd really shit your pants.

Frankly, in the beginning I never understood how JAG could possibly have survived giving memberships to men who submitted 2 reviews and only asked for occassional "donations"

I'm betting Allen or Slinky can confirm or deny.

Ozzy · Apr 19, 2002

LG.. no one is saying it's cheap.... just not what they claimed. for example UG which has way more traffic, has an ad section with pictures and flashing banners etc..... probably uses far more bandwidth than jag and i'm willing to bet that UG doesn't cost in the ball park jag was claiming.

Rufus Moses · Apr 19, 2002

This is a response to Littleguy (who wonders how something like JAG can break even) and Judge Crater (who opines that the early JAG was indeed quite different (and by implication worse) than later JAG.

Here is something simple that explains much of the above and tends to be forgotten...

The early phase JAG was oriented towards *reviews only* and was funded by using the numerous *free hosting* services available at the time.

The first implication being that if one judges a board by the quality of the discussion that takes place one would of course find early JAG disappointing...there was no intent or even mechanism to be a discussion board. However the quality of the reviews was as good, or better, than anything you will find today. We actually acted as *editors*. We would send reviews back for rewrites with suggestions for extra info and the like. Useless reviews, such as those that provide no contact info whatsoever, were prevented.

The second implication was that there were limits to growth under the old JAG. Which, I think, time has proven to have been a good thing. Because small means you can have some degree of trust among fellow posters, and it is actually possible to police the membership to keep out supply-side influence and readership.

The turning point came when the current MC decided (1) bigger is better (2) to add a discussion area (3) to pay for the web hosting. With all of this in place it became impossible to keep the supply-side out and way too tempting to find financial advantages to recover part of the cost.

The irony is if MC had just been up front about this I, and I think many others, might have been disappointed, but at least not enraged by what later became unfair treatment.

As is the case so often, it wasn't the initial act so much as the cover-up that generates the heat.

Rufus Moses · Apr 19, 2002

Aristotle posts more sophistry (how ironic!) including ...

first -

"So far as I know, I have never been lied to by anyone connected with the management of JAG."

but then -

"I merely meant to say that I didn't think anyone in JAG management had ever lied to me *personally*."

Ari of course completely ignores the deceits that are the focused concern of this thread.

* That MC under the mask of John B has shilled for Julies on JAG.
* That MC had financial interest in Julies at one time
* That MC hosts Julies site now and JAG is thus further supply-side entangled
* That MC has given providers access to JAG
* That MC has extended the blockage of those banned from JAG to also be
banned from Julies

JAG does all of this while posing as a sort of Consumer Reports for Johns...and promising no supply-side participation, membership, shilling, etc....that is the big lie...

So of course you weren't lied to *personally* Ari...you were lied to with the rest of us...MC has too many lies to tell to allow for the personal touch...

Your continued personalization of this with comments about me is not important or interesting...

It is the above specific bullet points, of concern to any current or would be member of JAG, I wish you would address...especially given your implied "personal" relationship with the operators of JAG...

(edits made to correct typos...)

Rufus Moses · Apr 19, 2002

2 footnotes to Ari's above smoke-fest...

(1) I have always denied making any threats, any violence, or there being any police activity regarding interactions with the old MC#3.
MC#3 had significant mental health issues, or at least that is the most charitable interpretation I can place on his behavior. Perhaps these are stories he told the current JAG...he was, frankly, paranoid in the true sense of the term (as best as I can tell).

But that stuff simply never happened, and whenever it has been brought up I've always tried to respond with a correction or a retelling of the the story of the 4 MC's...I told that story so much, in fact, that it became something of a joke in some parts...

(2) If you can't provide any evidence that I abused my post as JAG MC#2 by trying to get freebies and the like...and of course you can't because I never did...perhaps you should have the courage to say so...

People wonder why I keep posting about this. It is to prevent the case where a lie is told so many times people start to believe it is true.

(edits made to correct typos)

Ozzy · Apr 19, 2002

none of us will JC...... and for the obvious two reasons.

1) provider/public access

2) amount of members (too many members, ruin the mix)

Slinky Bender · Apr 19, 2002

You mean I'm not as funny as I used to be ? It's all downhill after 40......

JAG is host of new Julie's web site - JAG is not Consumer Reports anymore!

Rufus Moses

Ozzy

RoosterC74

Ozzy

Aristotle

Just another girl on the IRT

Ozzy

Aristotle

Just another girl on the IRT

Ozzy

Thorn

Hotpuppy

Mr.Butterworth

Geezy Muldoon

Gold

Geezy Muldoon

Gold

hombre

littleguy

Gold

Ozzy

Rufus Moses

Rufus Moses

Rufus Moses

Ozzy

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator