Very important....
- Thread starter Ozzy
- Start date
Jseah
Jseah- Well said.
Just as hobbyists say they pay the girl "to leave," I view the retail, non-discounted prices I pay as evidence of an arms-length transaction -- when the session is done, I owe [insert escort or madam name here] nothing, no special false allegiances, no financial link, much less of a "guilt by association." Others who choose to barter and receive special deals, or are self-appointed "white knights" probably can't say the same thing. (nothing against that, as long as the info is accurate and honest)
The real issue here seems to be credibility and discretion ... and on that front, I think Ozzy & Rufus are making some good points.
More serious: As for brash statements like "the feds are about an inch away" and making representations about what is in a D.A.'s file (pre-indictment!) -- let's see the proof!
Jseah- Well said.
Just as hobbyists say they pay the girl "to leave," I view the retail, non-discounted prices I pay as evidence of an arms-length transaction -- when the session is done, I owe [insert escort or madam name here] nothing, no special false allegiances, no financial link, much less of a "guilt by association." Others who choose to barter and receive special deals, or are self-appointed "white knights" probably can't say the same thing. (nothing against that, as long as the info is accurate and honest)
The real issue here seems to be credibility and discretion ... and on that front, I think Ozzy & Rufus are making some good points.
More serious: As for brash statements like "the feds are about an inch away" and making representations about what is in a D.A.'s file (pre-indictment!) -- let's see the proof!
Last edited:
Re: maybe I'm naive.......
Ah, but what would you think if, let's say, that person was hanging out at one particular madam's establishment on just about a daily basis, and being given freebies and 50% off sessions in exchange for posting reviews and doing computer work for said madam?
Is this something you think ought to be known upfront about the john in question, so as to figure into the account when reading his reviews?
This type of thing IS going on and the people involved are NOT telling YOU!
Ah, but what would you think if, let's say, that person was hanging out at one particular madam's establishment on just about a daily basis, and being given freebies and 50% off sessions in exchange for posting reviews and doing computer work for said madam?
Is this something you think ought to be known upfront about the john in question, so as to figure into the account when reading his reviews?
This type of thing IS going on and the people involved are NOT telling YOU!
Exactly. The big deal isn't that JAG's sysop is doing all of these things...it is that he is doing them and then telling JAG members that he *isn't*.
(And kicking off lifetime members who post the truth about it).
If the Editors of Consumer Reports were being given all manner of bribes for good reviews it would be quite a scandal wouldn't it?
JAG was once like Consumer Reports. It no longer is. But they won't admit it.
(And kicking off lifetime members who post the truth about it).
If the Editors of Consumer Reports were being given all manner of bribes for good reviews it would be quite a scandal wouldn't it?
JAG was once like Consumer Reports. It no longer is. But they won't admit it.
Thorn and RM
If he was bartering computer work or changing the sheets on the beds in exchange for sessions, I couldn't care less. If he was getting free sessions in exchange for reviews, I probably would not care *IF* he was honest in his reviews. Of course, there would always be that cloud over his head about the validity of his review. If he posts that the girl did everything for and to him, including washing his clothes and cooking him dinner, when in fact she didn't, wouldn't subsequent reviewers confirm or deny these facts and then everyone would know that he is full of it and would take any review written by him for what it is worth (this is also assuming (and we ALL know how correct that is) that he posts under one name and one name only). What I find confusing is why he (JAG's sysop) feels he must lie about it.
I suppose it all boils down to the personal ethics of the individual in that situation.
If he was bartering computer work or changing the sheets on the beds in exchange for sessions, I couldn't care less. If he was getting free sessions in exchange for reviews, I probably would not care *IF* he was honest in his reviews. Of course, there would always be that cloud over his head about the validity of his review. If he posts that the girl did everything for and to him, including washing his clothes and cooking him dinner, when in fact she didn't, wouldn't subsequent reviewers confirm or deny these facts and then everyone would know that he is full of it and would take any review written by him for what it is worth (this is also assuming (and we ALL know how correct that is) that he posts under one name and one name only). What I find confusing is why he (JAG's sysop) feels he must lie about it.
I suppose it all boils down to the personal ethics of the individual in that situation.
jseah...
if you had made that post a few months ago and or if everyone was intelligent and un-biased as you and viewed these boards as you do... we wouldn't be having the problems we have now.
So I totally agree with everything you’ve said but, to answer one of your points...
4. If JAG and Julie's are sharing the same server, so what? Why all the big fuss?
well, the only reason i'm making any fuss about this at all is because of all the accusation being made about UG and clpc and all the stones being thrown in UG/Ozzy/april/slinky's direction from some of those on jag who seem to support julies rather heavily. as the old saying goes... "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". And frankly what you have hear or whats been posted on the boards is just the tip of the iceberg compared to whats been tossed around back channel. I have been accused of being everything from the owner of CLPC and or Aprils Elite all the way down to being a driver for their outcall service an april’s maid. Now I’ve had everyone near me telling me to ignore it and forget it cause it will go away. Well it hasen’t gone away and it’s only gotten worse and more out of control as it goes along. So I take a few days off from the board and I don’t make any comments and it culminates with my and slinkys names being posted on jag….. so what’s next or who’s next?
if you ask me…. I think these guys have been looking in the mirror while they’ve been throwing all those stones.
Now if anyone wants to search back on UG, you will find that i never really had issues with jag beyond 6 months ago or so. we parted company on *MY* terms due to a few posts that were made on jag that i didn't agree with. (one was the posting of slinky's name and the other was what *I* felt was an anti semitic post). so i stopped posting and let my membership run out as i left rather quietly (around august 2001). Now i've never accused JAG nor it's operators from owning julies or even financially benefiting from julies. i have questioned what i feel is a conflict of interest in jag hosting julies site among other (circumstantial) things. i only question this practice because as rufus says... jag is supposed to be a "consumer reports" type website, and because they charge a fairly steep fee (according to some), i feel that they should come clean if that's the case.
Now for the truth about Julie and April...
when April entered the picture back around October/November last year, Julie was the darling of UG as far as agencies go. she had a banner and she posted quite frequently. she even held a contest co sponsered by UG. at the time everything was fine and dandy because april was running a small outcall service from Brooklyn and an occasional (part time) incall from Kelly’s place (also in Brooklyn). At that time she and Julie were pals and it appeared to some that Julie was somewhat aprils “mentor”. However…. as soon as april opened up her incall in manhattan…. all the shit hit the fan. All of a sudden Julie was no longer taking aprils calls. Then the Anna/olivia issue came along and others followed. Since Julie choose not to post on UG any longer she had her minions come her to trash april and her agency. For that she apparently dolled out discounts and or freebies. Some of those posts trashing April came from Julies computer. We know this is the case because (and slinky can confirm this) several (not all) of those posts originated from Julies computer. And if anyone thinks that slinky can’t tell what posts are coming from Julies computer…. Just ask bill furniture.
now i don't know what Julies problems are latley and although there's lots of people to point fingers at for escalating this to the boiling point it’s reached (april and I included), Julie is heavily to blame for a lot of this simply by condoning some of those posts bashing april and i due to her allowing guys to make those bashings from her own computer. Now any of you who were around and remember what i did to alyssa when she came here and started this same shit with the LI girls should know that i'm not gonna allow Julie to pull it here either. alyssa learned it was better to cease and desist than to go head to head with "Ozzy". if Julie was smart, she’d call tank and the rest of her dogs off and go about her ways. if she doesn’t, she will take more of a beating on this board that she ever thought possible and her business will eventually suffer, because as I’ve stated… I barely even thrown my first stone at Julie let alone break out my howitzer. this really (as hard as it is to believe) has nothing to do with April or CLPC. it could be anyone Julie chooses to fuck with on this board. it's not gonna happen. not here and not while i have anything to say about it.
now if anyone doubts *MY* version of the chain of events... just give this board a good read and figure it out for yourself. it's all here in black and white.
if you had made that post a few months ago and or if everyone was intelligent and un-biased as you and viewed these boards as you do... we wouldn't be having the problems we have now.
So I totally agree with everything you’ve said but, to answer one of your points...
4. If JAG and Julie's are sharing the same server, so what? Why all the big fuss?
well, the only reason i'm making any fuss about this at all is because of all the accusation being made about UG and clpc and all the stones being thrown in UG/Ozzy/april/slinky's direction from some of those on jag who seem to support julies rather heavily. as the old saying goes... "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". And frankly what you have hear or whats been posted on the boards is just the tip of the iceberg compared to whats been tossed around back channel. I have been accused of being everything from the owner of CLPC and or Aprils Elite all the way down to being a driver for their outcall service an april’s maid. Now I’ve had everyone near me telling me to ignore it and forget it cause it will go away. Well it hasen’t gone away and it’s only gotten worse and more out of control as it goes along. So I take a few days off from the board and I don’t make any comments and it culminates with my and slinkys names being posted on jag….. so what’s next or who’s next?
if you ask me…. I think these guys have been looking in the mirror while they’ve been throwing all those stones.
Now if anyone wants to search back on UG, you will find that i never really had issues with jag beyond 6 months ago or so. we parted company on *MY* terms due to a few posts that were made on jag that i didn't agree with. (one was the posting of slinky's name and the other was what *I* felt was an anti semitic post). so i stopped posting and let my membership run out as i left rather quietly (around august 2001). Now i've never accused JAG nor it's operators from owning julies or even financially benefiting from julies. i have questioned what i feel is a conflict of interest in jag hosting julies site among other (circumstantial) things. i only question this practice because as rufus says... jag is supposed to be a "consumer reports" type website, and because they charge a fairly steep fee (according to some), i feel that they should come clean if that's the case.
Now for the truth about Julie and April...
when April entered the picture back around October/November last year, Julie was the darling of UG as far as agencies go. she had a banner and she posted quite frequently. she even held a contest co sponsered by UG. at the time everything was fine and dandy because april was running a small outcall service from Brooklyn and an occasional (part time) incall from Kelly’s place (also in Brooklyn). At that time she and Julie were pals and it appeared to some that Julie was somewhat aprils “mentor”. However…. as soon as april opened up her incall in manhattan…. all the shit hit the fan. All of a sudden Julie was no longer taking aprils calls. Then the Anna/olivia issue came along and others followed. Since Julie choose not to post on UG any longer she had her minions come her to trash april and her agency. For that she apparently dolled out discounts and or freebies. Some of those posts trashing April came from Julies computer. We know this is the case because (and slinky can confirm this) several (not all) of those posts originated from Julies computer. And if anyone thinks that slinky can’t tell what posts are coming from Julies computer…. Just ask bill furniture.
now i don't know what Julies problems are latley and although there's lots of people to point fingers at for escalating this to the boiling point it’s reached (april and I included), Julie is heavily to blame for a lot of this simply by condoning some of those posts bashing april and i due to her allowing guys to make those bashings from her own computer. Now any of you who were around and remember what i did to alyssa when she came here and started this same shit with the LI girls should know that i'm not gonna allow Julie to pull it here either. alyssa learned it was better to cease and desist than to go head to head with "Ozzy". if Julie was smart, she’d call tank and the rest of her dogs off and go about her ways. if she doesn’t, she will take more of a beating on this board that she ever thought possible and her business will eventually suffer, because as I’ve stated… I barely even thrown my first stone at Julie let alone break out my howitzer. this really (as hard as it is to believe) has nothing to do with April or CLPC. it could be anyone Julie chooses to fuck with on this board. it's not gonna happen. not here and not while i have anything to say about it.
now if anyone doubts *MY* version of the chain of events... just give this board a good read and figure it out for yourself. it's all here in black and white.
Listen Ozzy, before it was just stupid and annoying. Now your insistence that i'm Tankcommander is something different altogether cuz you guys have issues WAY beyond petty whoreboard arguments. To end this once and for all, i saw Brenda in Battery Park yesterday. Ask her if she saw a young guy named Sean at about 6:30. Ask her anything you want about me, and it'll finally put an end to this shit that i'm TC. If for whatever reason, cuz nothing surprises me anymore, this doesn't do it for you, i'd be happy to meet up with you and put an end to this bs.
Re: maybe I'm naive.......
The claim has been made that negative posts about that agency get erased on UG. If that is/were happening, I don't think it would be irrevelant. That's why those comments are being posted ( even though there is no evidence of it actually occurring, and when those making the accusations are asked for such evidence, they simply reply that they can't be bothered to look for it ). I do agree that there is some acceptibility to those who "support" a site being given some forms of "preferential treatment", but I don't agree if that treatment extends to having negative information removed.
Again, it may not be what is here, but what is not here. If negative info were being deleted because of a financial arrangement, I think that would not be cool. Also, I think most people would want to have such information as an aid in determining the veracity of comments by those why a financial interest in any enterprise being discussed. I'm sure most people view the comments of Kevin regarding not only NJE, but any other NJ agency in a difrerent light than other "regular" posters, even if his comments are 100% accurate.
In and of itself, it's not all that meaningful. It's in conjunction with other "facts" where it takes meaning ( like when JAG claims not financial connections with Julie's whatsoever ). It also becomes meaningful in knowing that the owners of JAG are now julie's webmaster, and in fact have banned members of Julie's from accessing that site simply because they have been banned from accessing JAG. In other words, the owners of JAG are helping to select Julie's customers, and weeding out their "enemies".
Firstly, the concept that people are getting discounts and writing reviews, but those reviews are "just as honest" as one's for "normal" sessions is just a bit utopian. Not only won't it happen because of the client's bias, but on the provider's end as well. The provider knows it's a freebie because the person is some sort of VIP. Odds are, they aren't going to get the "usual session", but in fact some sort of "enhanced session". Therefore, even if by some miracle the reviewer is dead right on the facts, odds are that the "facts" themselves are altered due to the situation. this is the reason many review magazines of various sorts refuse to accept "review copies" from manufacturers, and isist on purchasing the items to be reviewed "on the open market".
Secondly, in this case, the reviews on the site by the person who is accused of being the owner of the site, being a partner in the enterprise, and not acknowledging the relationship, are also beng accused of not being truthful. In fact, not only does it seem like subsequent reviewers rarely get the same services claimed by that reviewer, on multiple occasions even the physical description of the person being reviewed are alledged to be vastly overstated ( and by none less than the most respected poster of all time on the board ).
That's the real crux of the issue. And I think that's what at least some folks are posting about. Whether or not the information is true. The "rest of it" is just giving a reason, because the answer to the accustions that the reviews, etc. were bogus was "why would they do that ?". And remember, one of the "things" which we are talking about is that it appears that one long standing member was booted simply for saying that Julie's was "the MacDonalds of sex". If that's taken as the truth, I certainly think that whether or not there in fact is some financial connection is a valid issue.
AH !!!!!!!!!!!! But what if somehow you found out that in fact he wasn't paying for any of the sessions, and that in fact all of these sessions were either for free or substantially discounted ? I think most people would want to know that, and would use that information to filter how they preceived his reviews.
Again, that's one of the reasons why the whole discussion is occurring. There appears to be people who not only have no compunction about pushing a service, but at the same time giving inaccurate information, and being compensated for doing so, all while claiming to be "the friend of the common man".
The claim has been made that negative posts about that agency get erased on UG. If that is/were happening, I don't think it would be irrevelant. That's why those comments are being posted ( even though there is no evidence of it actually occurring, and when those making the accusations are asked for such evidence, they simply reply that they can't be bothered to look for it ). I do agree that there is some acceptibility to those who "support" a site being given some forms of "preferential treatment", but I don't agree if that treatment extends to having negative information removed.
Again, it may not be what is here, but what is not here. If negative info were being deleted because of a financial arrangement, I think that would not be cool. Also, I think most people would want to have such information as an aid in determining the veracity of comments by those why a financial interest in any enterprise being discussed. I'm sure most people view the comments of Kevin regarding not only NJE, but any other NJ agency in a difrerent light than other "regular" posters, even if his comments are 100% accurate.
In and of itself, it's not all that meaningful. It's in conjunction with other "facts" where it takes meaning ( like when JAG claims not financial connections with Julie's whatsoever ). It also becomes meaningful in knowing that the owners of JAG are now julie's webmaster, and in fact have banned members of Julie's from accessing that site simply because they have been banned from accessing JAG. In other words, the owners of JAG are helping to select Julie's customers, and weeding out their "enemies".
Firstly, the concept that people are getting discounts and writing reviews, but those reviews are "just as honest" as one's for "normal" sessions is just a bit utopian. Not only won't it happen because of the client's bias, but on the provider's end as well. The provider knows it's a freebie because the person is some sort of VIP. Odds are, they aren't going to get the "usual session", but in fact some sort of "enhanced session". Therefore, even if by some miracle the reviewer is dead right on the facts, odds are that the "facts" themselves are altered due to the situation. this is the reason many review magazines of various sorts refuse to accept "review copies" from manufacturers, and isist on purchasing the items to be reviewed "on the open market".
Secondly, in this case, the reviews on the site by the person who is accused of being the owner of the site, being a partner in the enterprise, and not acknowledging the relationship, are also beng accused of not being truthful. In fact, not only does it seem like subsequent reviewers rarely get the same services claimed by that reviewer, on multiple occasions even the physical description of the person being reviewed are alledged to be vastly overstated ( and by none less than the most respected poster of all time on the board ).
That's the real crux of the issue. And I think that's what at least some folks are posting about. Whether or not the information is true. The "rest of it" is just giving a reason, because the answer to the accustions that the reviews, etc. were bogus was "why would they do that ?". And remember, one of the "things" which we are talking about is that it appears that one long standing member was booted simply for saying that Julie's was "the MacDonalds of sex". If that's taken as the truth, I certainly think that whether or not there in fact is some financial connection is a valid issue.
AH !!!!!!!!!!!! But what if somehow you found out that in fact he wasn't paying for any of the sessions, and that in fact all of these sessions were either for free or substantially discounted ? I think most people would want to know that, and would use that information to filter how they preceived his reviews.
Again, that's one of the reasons why the whole discussion is occurring. There appears to be people who not only have no compunction about pushing a service, but at the same time giving inaccurate information, and being compensated for doing so, all while claiming to be "the friend of the common man".
GoJ,
"Firstly, the concept that people are getting discounts and writing reviews, but those reviews are "just as honest" as one's for "normal" sessions is just a bit utopian. Not only won't it happen because of the client's bias, but on the provider's end as well. The provider knows it's a freebie because the person is some sort of VIP. Odds are, they aren't going to get the "usual session", but in fact some sort of "enhanced session". Therefore, even if by some miracle the reviewer is dead right on the facts, odds are that the "facts" themselves are altered due to the situation. this is the reason many review magazines of various sorts refuse to accept "review copies" from manufacturers, and isist on purchasing the items to be reviewed "on the open market".
I'm not too sure that's logical. If a provider gives freebies for good posts or gives frequent posters better sessions than "normal", once that tactic "works" and more guys see her there will then be more posters writing negatize things about her and then guys will begin to stay away. What does she do then ?
If a lady pays attention to the "boards" and uses them to market herself properly and then gives poorer service it appears as though sooner or later that becomes self-defeating, no ?
As far as bad reviews/posts being deleted, who's going to remember ? I mean, that's almost like trying to prove a negative. "I know there was a bad post about XXXX and NOW I can't find it". That sort of thing. How're ya gonna know ?
As far as the "McDonald's of sex comment goes, that thread is about 2 years old and it is still there. The poster that said it has been banned but it purportedly was not for that one comment . But who really knows ? Not I.
"Firstly, the concept that people are getting discounts and writing reviews, but those reviews are "just as honest" as one's for "normal" sessions is just a bit utopian. Not only won't it happen because of the client's bias, but on the provider's end as well. The provider knows it's a freebie because the person is some sort of VIP. Odds are, they aren't going to get the "usual session", but in fact some sort of "enhanced session". Therefore, even if by some miracle the reviewer is dead right on the facts, odds are that the "facts" themselves are altered due to the situation. this is the reason many review magazines of various sorts refuse to accept "review copies" from manufacturers, and isist on purchasing the items to be reviewed "on the open market".
I'm not too sure that's logical. If a provider gives freebies for good posts or gives frequent posters better sessions than "normal", once that tactic "works" and more guys see her there will then be more posters writing negatize things about her and then guys will begin to stay away. What does she do then ?
If a lady pays attention to the "boards" and uses them to market herself properly and then gives poorer service it appears as though sooner or later that becomes self-defeating, no ?
As far as bad reviews/posts being deleted, who's going to remember ? I mean, that's almost like trying to prove a negative. "I know there was a bad post about XXXX and NOW I can't find it". That sort of thing. How're ya gonna know ?
As far as the "McDonald's of sex comment goes, that thread is about 2 years old and it is still there. The poster that said it has been banned but it purportedly was not for that one comment . But who really knows ? Not I.
The point isn't that the guys who get freebies get "great" service and everybody else gets "poor" service. It's that everybody else gets ordinary service. And I'd submit to you that board psychology is such that the most of the guys who read the reviews and then get ordinary service won't know enough to complain. Either because they're cowed or because they don't have the experience or the confidence to decide for themselves what they think. (Of course, if any negative comments are being deleted, then they really won't know there's another viewpoint, will they?)
Just what was the "MacDonald's of sex" guy banned for, BTW?
Just what was the "MacDonald's of sex" guy banned for, BTW?
Re: Re: maybe I'm naive.......
Well, it wasn't like it was totally for free. There was come computer work done. Like maybe some posting and stuff.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
[When it all comes down to it, except for the really sinister and evil parts like actually laying hands on someone against their will, or the pain and mental anguish that you know has to go hand in hand with some of the things that have been going on, its all way to stupid for words and I can't help being flippant about it.]
Well, it wasn't like it was totally for free. There was come computer work done. Like maybe some posting and stuff.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
[When it all comes down to it, except for the really sinister and evil parts like actually laying hands on someone against their will, or the pain and mental anguish that you know has to go hand in hand with some of the things that have been going on, its all way to stupid for words and I can't help being flippant about it.]