I think I sometimes get better sessions than normal because of how "I" treat the lady. Most of the agency girls have no idea of how the boards work. Brenda from NNJE/Amber's said she didn't give a damn what people said. I think she actually had to take a week off after Paul heard about it. Indies normally know me before I see them and we feel comfortable together because of it.
Very important....
- Thread starter Ozzy
- Start date
brenda.....
no bbbj, but the cbj isn't all that bad. the rest is all available including da butt (with some exceptions, sorry bill). my take on her from my one experience and others who have seen her is that if you're younger and maybe semi attractive to her, you might get a real good ride for your money. even if you're not, she's still better than a lot of others out there at her rate when you consider the total package.
no bbbj, but the cbj isn't all that bad. the rest is all available including da butt (with some exceptions, sorry bill). my take on her from my one experience and others who have seen her is that if you're younger and maybe semi attractive to her, you might get a real good ride for your money. even if you're not, she's still better than a lot of others out there at her rate when you consider the total package.
Re: Re: Re: maybe I'm naive.......
Bill,
You missed the point entirely. It wasn't a statement that you did get freebies; it was that IF you had, then even your reviews would be suspect.
Obviously you agree, or you wouldn't be so adamant about your defense that you've never accepted them. If you disagreed, you'd be all "what's the difference ?".
Let me ask you, if you were going around getting freebies, would you trust your reviews ?
Bill,
You missed the point entirely. It wasn't a statement that you did get freebies; it was that IF you had, then even your reviews would be suspect.
Obviously you agree, or you wouldn't be so adamant about your defense that you've never accepted them. If you disagreed, you'd be all "what's the difference ?".
Let me ask you, if you were going around getting freebies, would you trust your reviews ?
I can't believe that someone who has been around the boards for any length of time would make that argument. How many HUNDREDS of times have we actually seen providers themselves actually self post in that manner ? Besides, how many times have we seen some "Board God" write a good review, and then later one ( or even a few ) "lesser guys" write less favorable reviews. I don't know about you, but what I've seen is the sentiment of "well, Board God said she was good, so why should I trust this newby over Board God ???". Since most girls get mostly "new business ( i.e. rather than repeat ), the strategy works very well business wise.
But it's even more than that. I'm not only talking about a provider who gives a guy superior service because he gets his reviews read, and she wants good reviews. I'm also talking about a girl who's been told she better give some VIP "special service" ( the Husband treatment ??????? ), if she wants the owner to treat her well and have her stay on the "A" list at the house.
But it's even more than that. I'm not only talking about a provider who gives a guy superior service because he gets his reviews read, and she wants good reviews. I'm also talking about a girl who's been told she better give some VIP "special service" ( the Husband treatment ??????? ), if she wants the owner to treat her well and have her stay on the "A" list at the house.
And if it were to be the case that Board God secretly is the person who runs the review site (so he can control discussion by editing or deleting posts and banning members), and also secretly has a financial interest in the place he touts . . . well, you can see what would happen.
Yet, some people have been blind enough to say that they don't see how it would make a difference.
(IMPORTANT NOTE: The foregoing isn't an accusation. I have no way of knowing that anything like that actually happened. It just kills me when people insist that they can't see why that stuff would matter if it were true.)
Yet, some people have been blind enough to say that they don't see how it would make a difference.
(IMPORTANT NOTE: The foregoing isn't an accusation. I have no way of knowing that anything like that actually happened. It just kills me when people insist that they can't see why that stuff would matter if it were true.)
But it's still bad even if Board God isn't secretly the review site owner.
I mean, you really do see people relying a lot on Frequent Reviewers just because they're frequent reviewers. And refusing to believe contrary reviews then posted by Infrequent Reviewers. Certainly gives the Frequent Reviewers a lot of power that they can misuse.
I mean, you really do see people relying a lot on Frequent Reviewers just because they're frequent reviewers. And refusing to believe contrary reviews then posted by Infrequent Reviewers. Certainly gives the Frequent Reviewers a lot of power that they can misuse.
HP,
You had an open tee time and you didn't invite ME. [sob] ?
I'm heading up toward Montreal in the next couple of weeks. Maybe we could play a round.
jl,
To answer your question, the McDonald's guy was banned purportedly for either being a liar, spreading false rumors, his attitude when JAG became a pay site, or his constant bitching and moaning. The writer claimed he really didn't remember as the issue came up apparently several months after the banning actually occurred.
GoJ,
"I can't believe that someone who has been around the boards for any length of time would make that argument. How many HUNDREDS of times have we actually seen providers themselves actually self post in that manner ? Besides, how many times have we seen some "Board God" write a good review, and then later on ( or even a few ) "lesser guys" write less favorable reviews. I don't know about you, but what I've seen is the sentiment of "well, Board God said she was good, so why should I trust this newby over Board God ???"."
Sorry I'm so dense. From what I've seen (and I don't even pretend to be as knowledgable about these sorts of things than many of you others), "self posters" seem to be discoverd rather quickly, no ?
Who are these "board Gods" exactly ? Please name names because I have no idea who you are referring to. I personally know of no such people. I weight reviews far more heavily from people who's opinions I have followed in the past that have turned out as well and sometimes even better than I would have expected. If I follow someone's review and do not have (within YMMV) a good time I will note that as well.
"Since most girls get mostly "new business ( i.e. rather than repeat ), the strategy works very well business wise. But it's even more than that. I'm not only talking about a provider who gives a guy superior service because he gets his reviews read, and she wants good reviews. I'm also talking about a girl who's been told she better give some VIP "special service" ( the Husband treatment ??????? ), if she wants the owner to treat her well and have her stay on the "A" list at the house."
Don't know myself how well that strategy actually works though. I wonder how *you* do. As long as guys (newbies or not) post about the so-so or out and out bad times they've had with a provider, the prepoderance of evidence, at least in my mind, will keep me away from her.
Granted I weight the reviews more towards known and "followed" posters more heavily than newbies (especially if the newbie *seems* to have an agenda).
If a lady gets mostly positive reviews and a few so-so or even an occasional bad one, I still pay more attention to who reviews them and whether I know how they "grade"
As far as the "husband" treatment, obviously you are referring to a "board God". Since I already said I don't know any, I have no knowledge of that situation therefore I can't answer that.
You had an open tee time and you didn't invite ME. [sob] ?
I'm heading up toward Montreal in the next couple of weeks. Maybe we could play a round.
jl,
To answer your question, the McDonald's guy was banned purportedly for either being a liar, spreading false rumors, his attitude when JAG became a pay site, or his constant bitching and moaning. The writer claimed he really didn't remember as the issue came up apparently several months after the banning actually occurred.
GoJ,
"I can't believe that someone who has been around the boards for any length of time would make that argument. How many HUNDREDS of times have we actually seen providers themselves actually self post in that manner ? Besides, how many times have we seen some "Board God" write a good review, and then later on ( or even a few ) "lesser guys" write less favorable reviews. I don't know about you, but what I've seen is the sentiment of "well, Board God said she was good, so why should I trust this newby over Board God ???"."
Sorry I'm so dense. From what I've seen (and I don't even pretend to be as knowledgable about these sorts of things than many of you others), "self posters" seem to be discoverd rather quickly, no ?
Who are these "board Gods" exactly ? Please name names because I have no idea who you are referring to. I personally know of no such people. I weight reviews far more heavily from people who's opinions I have followed in the past that have turned out as well and sometimes even better than I would have expected. If I follow someone's review and do not have (within YMMV) a good time I will note that as well.
"Since most girls get mostly "new business ( i.e. rather than repeat ), the strategy works very well business wise. But it's even more than that. I'm not only talking about a provider who gives a guy superior service because he gets his reviews read, and she wants good reviews. I'm also talking about a girl who's been told she better give some VIP "special service" ( the Husband treatment ??????? ), if she wants the owner to treat her well and have her stay on the "A" list at the house."
Don't know myself how well that strategy actually works though. I wonder how *you* do. As long as guys (newbies or not) post about the so-so or out and out bad times they've had with a provider, the prepoderance of evidence, at least in my mind, will keep me away from her.
Granted I weight the reviews more towards known and "followed" posters more heavily than newbies (especially if the newbie *seems* to have an agenda).
If a lady gets mostly positive reviews and a few so-so or even an occasional bad one, I still pay more attention to who reviews them and whether I know how they "grade"
As far as the "husband" treatment, obviously you are referring to a "board God". Since I already said I don't know any, I have no knowledge of that situation therefore I can't answer that.
It's worse than that. There are guys ( on here and elsewhere ) who, if they see a contrary review from a "newer guy", jump on the poster, and claim he has "an agenda" and the he "must be" someone who is afraid to post under his own handle ( I guess everyone who is "real" starts out with 300 posts ). Moreoever, they hurl invective at the guy, and never seem to back themselves up with any facts, just simply trying to shout the guy down, saying how horrible he is, and never once countering his statments with actual facts. The funny thing is, it's exactly this behavior which makes a guy want to post such things under "alternate handles" to begin with. They know that if they give such a "contrary view" under thier "regular handle", that simply stating it will get them in all sorts of hot water ( perhaps thrown off a site ??? ). Now, I can see how this might have some relevance when it comes to reviews ( i.e. someone might not trust a review from someone who they have only seen one review from ), but this even gets extended to ideas/concepts. I can understand if facts are in question, and you have to trust someone as to the accuracy of such facts, that one factor might be how you viewed the history of facts presented by a poster. But exactly how does this extend to logic and thought processes ? If someone who has never made a post before in his life, takes a set of facts which has been presented from some "trusted source", and draws a logical conclusion from it, how does this relate to how many posts they have made ? If someone's logic works, it doesn't matter how many prior posts they have, and if the logic doesn't work, it doesn't matter if they have 10,000 posts. The "trusting" of faulty logic, simply because someone has made a whole bunch of posts, is exactly the type of "clubby", political, "gangsterism" which leads guys to pull the type of nonsense we are talking about here. ( splunge ).
Last edited:
Ozzy:
I admire you for your restraint by choosing to not post other persons' personal information.
Best regards,
Judge Crater
To No-One in Particular:
All the whores I have ever seen have been atrociously ugly, bad tempered, dirty footed, older than advertised, vexatious little harpies. That I found any of them even remotely interesting is solely a function of my personality and what I brought into the room with me when I saw them.
Best regards,
Judge Crater
I admire you for your restraint by choosing to not post other persons' personal information.
Best regards,
Judge Crater
To No-One in Particular:
All the whores I have ever seen have been atrociously ugly, bad tempered, dirty footed, older than advertised, vexatious little harpies. That I found any of them even remotely interesting is solely a function of my personality and what I brought into the room with me when I saw them.
Best regards,
Judge Crater
JC...
thanks, but i was never going stoop to that level.... i just wanted to get the attention of a few people... and since the info was edited and some of the more respected members at jag are now finally requesting the removal of those "april watch", "Ozzy watch" and "april/Ozzy/Slinky watch" threads...... it seems i got the attention and results i wanted. i also wanted them (and everyone else) to know that there's simply no way they can spin their way out of condoning those kind of actions from their posters.... and i don't just mean the posting of personal info either..... but the slanderous posts pertaining to DA indictments as well. you just can't post that kind of shit cause where does it end? in my opinion thats no different than catelli's false rape accusations. and the fact that some of them shell out the $120, doesn't entitle them to break the most important cardinal rule of these boards...... confidentiality concerning ones personal info
maybe now they'll finally realize who's behind all this shit, and just maybe they'll start to weed out the trouble makers and finally put an end to all this bullshit. and they can start with their Queen who is very far from the virtuous woman they paint her to be.
thanks, but i was never going stoop to that level.... i just wanted to get the attention of a few people... and since the info was edited and some of the more respected members at jag are now finally requesting the removal of those "april watch", "Ozzy watch" and "april/Ozzy/Slinky watch" threads...... it seems i got the attention and results i wanted. i also wanted them (and everyone else) to know that there's simply no way they can spin their way out of condoning those kind of actions from their posters.... and i don't just mean the posting of personal info either..... but the slanderous posts pertaining to DA indictments as well. you just can't post that kind of shit cause where does it end? in my opinion thats no different than catelli's false rape accusations. and the fact that some of them shell out the $120, doesn't entitle them to break the most important cardinal rule of these boards...... confidentiality concerning ones personal info
maybe now they'll finally realize who's behind all this shit, and just maybe they'll start to weed out the trouble makers and finally put an end to all this bullshit. and they can start with their Queen who is very far from the virtuous woman they paint her to be.
Last edited:
Re: The Virtue of Prostitutes
Ozzy:
I am only acquainted with two genuinely virtuous prostitutes: (1) Mary Magdalene from the New Testament; and, (2) Kamala from Herman Hesse's Siddhartha.
None of the prostitutes we have ever met (or are likely to meet) possess either of their virtues. They are only themselves (for better or worse) in a business which does not easily lend itself to virtuous behavior on anyone's part.
Best regards,
JC
P.S. I knew you were never going to stoop to that level. It would have been against everything you ever stood for on whoreboards, and thus completely out of character.
Ozzy:
I am only acquainted with two genuinely virtuous prostitutes: (1) Mary Magdalene from the New Testament; and, (2) Kamala from Herman Hesse's Siddhartha.
None of the prostitutes we have ever met (or are likely to meet) possess either of their virtues. They are only themselves (for better or worse) in a business which does not easily lend itself to virtuous behavior on anyone's part.
Best regards,
JC
P.S. I knew you were never going to stoop to that level. It would have been against everything you ever stood for on whoreboards, and thus completely out of character.
1)New Testament and Siddhartha: arent they incall houses on the upper east side?
2) Mary Magdalene and Kamala: c'mon Judge, acronyms, how many cups, you know the drill? And who's that Herman guy? A psycho pimp BF?
(Note: If I didnt ask, someone surely would have- only seriously)
Take care
HP(dusting off my classics)
2) Mary Magdalene and Kamala: c'mon Judge, acronyms, how many cups, you know the drill? And who's that Herman guy? A psycho pimp BF?
(Note: If I didnt ask, someone surely would have- only seriously)Take care
HP(dusting off my classics)
Last edited:
OK, I Can't Stop Myself From Saying This Much
Littleguy, do you remember what the "lies" and "false rumors" that guy was banned for were?
They were his statement of his opinion that in view of how public and frequently-discussed a certain very popular brothel was, it seemed to him that there was a risk that it might get busted.
Would anyone without an agenda call such a statement of opinion a "lie" or a "false rumor" -- much less ban someone from a review site for expressing it?
Littleguy, do you remember what the "lies" and "false rumors" that guy was banned for were?
They were his statement of his opinion that in view of how public and frequently-discussed a certain very popular brothel was, it seemed to him that there was a risk that it might get busted.
Would anyone without an agenda call such a statement of opinion a "lie" or a "false rumor" -- much less ban someone from a review site for expressing it?
jl,
No. Not only don't I remember but I really didn't even want to go back and find the McDonald's quote, never mind the reported reason(s) why the guy was banned. I'm already sorry I did.
The reasons I stated above were the reasons given by the moderator. That post was not explicit because he said he didn't remember exactly why the guy was banned.
So, no, I don't know that "his statement of his opinion that in view of how public and frequently-discussed a certain very popular brothel was, it seemed to him that there was a risk that it might get busted." was the reason for his getting banned, but if you say so, perhaps you are correct.
Whatever. I've already confessed to not knowing half of what you guys know. I do not participate in the hobby nearly as much as you guys (at least that's my perception anyway)
"Yes! Anyone who believes that that "certain very popular brothel" can't be busted nor has ever been busted, or is somehow above the law."
Yes, and the finish to that statement is ???
And the reason for even mentioning that was ?
I mean, that incident, assuming it's true was almost 2 years ago.
Have I missed somewhere where someone recently stated that "certain very popular brothel" couldn't be busted ?
Or was this just another convenient opportunity to take a potshot at her ? You never seem to miss one.
No. Not only don't I remember but I really didn't even want to go back and find the McDonald's quote, never mind the reported reason(s) why the guy was banned. I'm already sorry I did.
The reasons I stated above were the reasons given by the moderator. That post was not explicit because he said he didn't remember exactly why the guy was banned.
So, no, I don't know that "his statement of his opinion that in view of how public and frequently-discussed a certain very popular brothel was, it seemed to him that there was a risk that it might get busted." was the reason for his getting banned, but if you say so, perhaps you are correct.
Whatever. I've already confessed to not knowing half of what you guys know. I do not participate in the hobby nearly as much as you guys (at least that's my perception anyway)
"Yes! Anyone who believes that that "certain very popular brothel" can't be busted nor has ever been busted, or is somehow above the law."
Yes, and the finish to that statement is ???
And the reason for even mentioning that was ?
I mean, that incident, assuming it's true was almost 2 years ago.
Have I missed somewhere where someone recently stated that "certain very popular brothel" couldn't be busted ?
Or was this just another convenient opportunity to take a potshot at her ? You never seem to miss one.