Threatening Accusations!
- Thread starter Carl M
- Start date
- Status
Not too sure what, if anything, you CAN do.
In the not too distant past, I learned, by way of a hobbyist no less, that a provider said something about me that was inaccurate and it was apparently corroborated by a 2nd lady.
When I confronted the hobbyist, of course he wouldn't tell me who she/they were, so I don't even know if I've ever seen her/them, never mind being able to confront them.
Now, perhaps they were inaccurate with the way they worded what they said to him. Perhaps he was inaccurate the way he worded what he said to me. Don't really know, but bottom line was, what he said to me was not correct.
After more than 1 or 2 angry e-mails, it was clear he was not about to relent or give up some names so I had no choice but to simply let it drop.
In the not too distant past, I learned, by way of a hobbyist no less, that a provider said something about me that was inaccurate and it was apparently corroborated by a 2nd lady.
When I confronted the hobbyist, of course he wouldn't tell me who she/they were, so I don't even know if I've ever seen her/them, never mind being able to confront them.
Now, perhaps they were inaccurate with the way they worded what they said to him. Perhaps he was inaccurate the way he worded what he said to me. Don't really know, but bottom line was, what he said to me was not correct.
After more than 1 or 2 angry e-mails, it was clear he was not about to relent or give up some names so I had no choice but to simply let it drop.
well-I have been there too-and this provider told a second provider(who I had planned on seeing),something about me that wasn't true.This provider has been known to lie to keep business out of other providers hands,mouths and pocketbooks-regardless I have chosen not to see the second provider and to date haven't.Why? Because even though I would have to see her,and "prove"-or disprove actually-it will always be in the back of her mind-which would take away from the session
my brother, Carl M:
1. if you are (more or less) innocent (eg, Whittaker Chambers, Clarence Thomas): prompt, public (and polite) denial of the charges.
arrogantly maintaining that you will not dignify the charges by responding to them is generally disasterous (eg, John D. Rockefeller Sr, Alfred Dreyfus, and (much more recently) Bill Bradley). you cannot defeat dishonest charges with honest silence.
2. if you are (more or less) guilty, it gets much trickier. unless you're as sharp as Bill Clinton (and you're *certain* you didn't leave a uniquely identifying 'stain'), it's best to just clam up.
one of the more difficult tasks of a criminal defense attorney is to convince his/her client not to take the stand. the negative inference that will be drawn from silence is not nearly as problematic as having to keep publicly contradicting yourself and/or pile on one implausible alibi after another (eg, Alger Hiss, or, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is").
if complete silence becomes impractical, the classic defense is to blame the character of the accuser (eg, Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Roy Cohn, Ken Starr) and/or the victim.
thus, in the parable of the Garden of Eden, Adam blamed both his accuser (the Lord) and the victim (Eve) for his wrongdoing, by saying, in effect: ~i did it because of the *woman* that *You* gave me~
{chuckling} well, yeah.
[Edited by guy catelli on 04-16-2001 at 08:54 PM]
1. if you are (more or less) innocent (eg, Whittaker Chambers, Clarence Thomas): prompt, public (and polite) denial of the charges.
arrogantly maintaining that you will not dignify the charges by responding to them is generally disasterous (eg, John D. Rockefeller Sr, Alfred Dreyfus, and (much more recently) Bill Bradley). you cannot defeat dishonest charges with honest silence.
2. if you are (more or less) guilty, it gets much trickier. unless you're as sharp as Bill Clinton (and you're *certain* you didn't leave a uniquely identifying 'stain'), it's best to just clam up.
one of the more difficult tasks of a criminal defense attorney is to convince his/her client not to take the stand. the negative inference that will be drawn from silence is not nearly as problematic as having to keep publicly contradicting yourself and/or pile on one implausible alibi after another (eg, Alger Hiss, or, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is").
if complete silence becomes impractical, the classic defense is to blame the character of the accuser (eg, Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Roy Cohn, Ken Starr) and/or the victim.
thus, in the parable of the Garden of Eden, Adam blamed both his accuser (the Lord) and the victim (Eve) for his wrongdoing, by saying, in effect: ~i did it because of the *woman* that *You* gave me~
{chuckling} well, yeah.
[Edited by guy catelli on 04-16-2001 at 08:54 PM]
back in town
ok what is going on here? who may i ask is saying what i feel so out of the loop on this..?
dawn
http://www.cajuncumfort..
ok what is going on here? who may i ask is saying what i feel so out of the loop on this..?
dawn
http://www.cajuncumfort..
I don't think Carl was aiming at any one person,just from past experiences-of course I am sure he(and I..as could you and most on the board )could point a few fingers at providers we have known who don't play quite fairly,and spread dirty little lies and things to slant the market a little..how many things have you heard about "clients" that were not true when you finally saw them...yes,girls tell secrets to each other in the business-but when you start spreading little stories...well,you know..I could site past examples,but why bother...kinda like the "ratings" on ebay-they are really worthless in reality--I asked a provider once,after seeing her a few times,if she travelled to Greece-she got all bent out of shape,cancelled our appointment and then spread a dirty little rumour about me to another provider she knew I saw AND one she knew I was going to see eventually...you have to trust the girls in the business to give fellow sisters then inside scoop,especially when we use providers as references for other providers-but it's a bad double edged sword in the wrong hands--rogue
ref: http://www.utopiaguide.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=551 and
http://www.utopiaguide.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=628
does anyone know, or have reason to believe, that all 3 of these threads refer to the same client?
http://www.utopiaguide.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=628
does anyone know, or have reason to believe, that all 3 of these threads refer to the same client?
Re: Sorry GC
i couldn't agree more. my brother Carl M, there is no way an 'innocent' person would be hurt by your emailing me the name of the *guilty* party.
i can only conclude that both of you have something to hide; and, therefore, as a mutual accomodation, have agreed to mutual silence. while that outcome may be satisfactory to both of *you*, it leaves the *rest of us* out in the cold -- and at continued risk.
you say that it's an escort that is making false charges against you. but, as a matter of fact, the charges i have been reading against you haven't come from escorts, they've come from *clients*.
more than just one or two clients have explicitly or implicitly made charges against you on this board -- going back *months*. charges have also been made on the tbd board.
i can see the economic logic of an escort making false charges to another *escort* in order to keep a favored escort to herself -- or to punish a client who wrote a bad review of her. but, for an escort to make false charges about a client (who, to all appearances, writes *only positive* reviews) to other *clients* just doesn't make any sense at all.
i am very disappointed. personally, i bought into your whole 'nice guy' bit. it's not the first time (or, no doubt, the last) that i've misplaced my trust in a client. after all, i *want* to believe the best about other clients -- because *i'm* a client too. well, let's put it this way: if the ugly and menacing harrassment of half a dozen or so independent escorts that's been taking place on the tbd board is simultaneously "officially over", that would constitute a 'coincidence' that would raise the eyebrow of even the most rigorous skeptic.
[Edited by guy catelli on 04-17-2001 at 07:28 PM]
i couldn't agree more. my brother Carl M, there is no way an 'innocent' person would be hurt by your emailing me the name of the *guilty* party.
i can only conclude that both of you have something to hide; and, therefore, as a mutual accomodation, have agreed to mutual silence. while that outcome may be satisfactory to both of *you*, it leaves the *rest of us* out in the cold -- and at continued risk.
you say that it's an escort that is making false charges against you. but, as a matter of fact, the charges i have been reading against you haven't come from escorts, they've come from *clients*.
more than just one or two clients have explicitly or implicitly made charges against you on this board -- going back *months*. charges have also been made on the tbd board.
i can see the economic logic of an escort making false charges to another *escort* in order to keep a favored escort to herself -- or to punish a client who wrote a bad review of her. but, for an escort to make false charges about a client (who, to all appearances, writes *only positive* reviews) to other *clients* just doesn't make any sense at all.
i am very disappointed. personally, i bought into your whole 'nice guy' bit. it's not the first time (or, no doubt, the last) that i've misplaced my trust in a client. after all, i *want* to believe the best about other clients -- because *i'm* a client too. well, let's put it this way: if the ugly and menacing harrassment of half a dozen or so independent escorts that's been taking place on the tbd board is simultaneously "officially over", that would constitute a 'coincidence' that would raise the eyebrow of even the most rigorous skeptic.
[Edited by guy catelli on 04-17-2001 at 07:28 PM]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry GC
HP, thank you for your understanding that in posting the url to the original context of your quote, it most certainly is my intention to disassociate your post from any intent on your part to take a position on the issue raised by this thread.
as you know, certain quotes so succinctly summarize universal truths that they are widely repeated in a variety of contexts. "what goes around comes around," is one such example.
HP, thank you for your understanding that in posting the url to the original context of your quote, it most certainly is my intention to disassociate your post from any intent on your part to take a position on the issue raised by this thread.
as you know, certain quotes so succinctly summarize universal truths that they are widely repeated in a variety of contexts. "what goes around comes around," is one such example.
- Status