Very important....
- Thread starter Ozzy
- Start date
JohnnyK --
I'm not relying on backchannel communications. I'm relying on what appeared on the face of the board. I don't necessarily expect people who weren't around then to go back to study what happened. But I'm certainly not gonna let them tell me that what I saw happen didn't happen, just because I saw it on the internet. It's true that whoreboards are of only minimal importance in the scheme of things. But I fully agree with JC's comments about intellectual honesty, even on whoreboards. (And if you haven't seen "the minions of Johns flocking blindly to follow any of the people that have flung shit around," you haven't been looking very carefully. Sometimes I think that's all I've seen.)
I'm not relying on backchannel communications. I'm relying on what appeared on the face of the board. I don't necessarily expect people who weren't around then to go back to study what happened. But I'm certainly not gonna let them tell me that what I saw happen didn't happen, just because I saw it on the internet. It's true that whoreboards are of only minimal importance in the scheme of things. But I fully agree with JC's comments about intellectual honesty, even on whoreboards. (And if you haven't seen "the minions of Johns flocking blindly to follow any of the people that have flung shit around," you haven't been looking very carefully. Sometimes I think that's all I've seen.)
Last edited:
Rufus,
I really don't wish to go into the whole "evil" jag debate with you. Especially since its clear you're on a "crusade" of sorts against them. (whch you've admitted that you wont stop until the end a couple of posts up) To me it would be like arguing my point that Oswald killed Kennedy alone with Oliver Stone. The guy knows so much more about the subject compared to me for starters and its so obvious that he has an agenda to fulfill (and you would even have a bigger stake involved than he does with JFK).
But to get to your question, knowing that I dont have the wherewithall to properly answer and/or contest your points of view (which I wont deny the possibly that you could be 100% right, its just I tend to tune people out who incessantly belabor the point to something that is not of grave importance to me).
Yes, I believe there is some sort of connection between Julie's and JAG. To how big the connection is I wouldnt be able to fathom a guess. Yes I saw your big revelation of similar IP adresses, but as a computer user and not a computer programmer or expert, all that could mean to me as is that it could be as little as JohnB/MC helping out his favorite incall place or its as big as you say it is. The thing is I dont know. Who am I going to trust? I have a jaded eye when it comes to this business anyway. Whether its hidden, out in the open, or just showing its face somebody has a $$$ interest going on. Yes you are right that JAG is not a consumer reports in the truest sense and it wasnt even when you were in charge either. (was every review without slant or bias? Consumer reports has a scientific way of doing things, this is subjective review, and there is no way to avoid influence in subjective opinion) So what do you do? Well, you can either not use JAG at all OR you can learn to find other Johns who have similar tastes in the membership who arent as influenced as others and even then you could go wrong. But JAG for the most part is place for me to hang, I would hang around here more often but I dont feel as welcome as I have inferred that JAG members around here are either clueless or troublemakers. (and the same could be said for a UG member coming onto JAG, its the same handful of guys who have personal issues that I dont wish to get sucked into a pick a side.)
The most helpful thing youve let me know is that JohnB is MC. Okay I can discount his reviews and skews (but I like to make fun of ego and some of the things he says, his character is fun to read ) But I didnt heed his reviews anyway before I knew it.
(and I have already read the whole "just because it doesnt affect you, doesnt mean its right" debate with LG a few months ago so let me save you some typing time)
I really don't wish to go into the whole "evil" jag debate with you. Especially since its clear you're on a "crusade" of sorts against them. (whch you've admitted that you wont stop until the end a couple of posts up) To me it would be like arguing my point that Oswald killed Kennedy alone with Oliver Stone. The guy knows so much more about the subject compared to me for starters and its so obvious that he has an agenda to fulfill (and you would even have a bigger stake involved than he does with JFK).
But to get to your question, knowing that I dont have the wherewithall to properly answer and/or contest your points of view (which I wont deny the possibly that you could be 100% right, its just I tend to tune people out who incessantly belabor the point to something that is not of grave importance to me).
Yes, I believe there is some sort of connection between Julie's and JAG. To how big the connection is I wouldnt be able to fathom a guess. Yes I saw your big revelation of similar IP adresses, but as a computer user and not a computer programmer or expert, all that could mean to me as is that it could be as little as JohnB/MC helping out his favorite incall place or its as big as you say it is. The thing is I dont know. Who am I going to trust? I have a jaded eye when it comes to this business anyway. Whether its hidden, out in the open, or just showing its face somebody has a $$$ interest going on. Yes you are right that JAG is not a consumer reports in the truest sense and it wasnt even when you were in charge either. (was every review without slant or bias? Consumer reports has a scientific way of doing things, this is subjective review, and there is no way to avoid influence in subjective opinion) So what do you do? Well, you can either not use JAG at all OR you can learn to find other Johns who have similar tastes in the membership who arent as influenced as others and even then you could go wrong. But JAG for the most part is place for me to hang, I would hang around here more often but I dont feel as welcome as I have inferred that JAG members around here are either clueless or troublemakers. (and the same could be said for a UG member coming onto JAG, its the same handful of guys who have personal issues that I dont wish to get sucked into a pick a side.)
The most helpful thing youve let me know is that JohnB is MC. Okay I can discount his reviews and skews (but I like to make fun of ego and some of the things he says, his character is fun to read ) But I didnt heed his reviews anyway before I knew it.
(and I have already read the whole "just because it doesnt affect you, doesnt mean its right" debate with LG a few months ago so let me save you some typing time)
On the contrary, the majority of the members who are left still miss and respect your previous handle. I dont think very many have taken MC's side on that issue at all and he still gets chastised for it. It was one of the few things that have "proof" (as it was an issue that something should have been deleted from the start and not allowed to continue rather than an outside event that people can only recount), and I think the whole issue was mishandled from the get go. I am glad he finally deleted the post (although it was way too late and I *hope* it was for the right reasons.)
Last edited:
I never wanted to talk about this again, but since you raised it I feel I have to (albeit with some regrets).
My problem with that post was not that JAG management failed to delete it. I'm not a big fan of deleting posts, even if they offend me. I believe in more speech, not less.
My problem with that post is that I believe that JAG management wrote it. (I fully admit that I have no proof of that, and could well be wrong.) And I could not participate in a forum whose management I believed could stoop to such tactics.
In fact, rather than solving the problem, I believe that the recent deletion of that post is an attempt to hide the evidence. So that now, when people discuss the issue, they can't even read the post under discussion.
My problem with that post was not that JAG management failed to delete it. I'm not a big fan of deleting posts, even if they offend me. I believe in more speech, not less.
My problem with that post is that I believe that JAG management wrote it. (I fully admit that I have no proof of that, and could well be wrong.) And I could not participate in a forum whose management I believed could stoop to such tactics.
In fact, rather than solving the problem, I believe that the recent deletion of that post is an attempt to hide the evidence. So that now, when people discuss the issue, they can't even read the post under discussion.
JohnnyK, I know you don't want to get into a long debate about this...neither do I...that is the whole point...the matter is short and clear and simple...
You said,
"Yes, I believe there is some sort of connection between Julie's and JAG.".
and that this could be
"as little as JohnB/MC helping out his favorite incall place"
Folks can debate as to whether they should or shouldn't...that isn't my concern here.
In my mind the other important question is...do they deny doing this? And I think you would have to agree the answer is clearly YES. Their advertisments brag about being independent with no supply side involvement.
Therefore, even by your own carefully circumscribed standards, you must conclude that JAG lies to its membership and is guilty of false advertising in this most basic aspect of their site.
I'll allow that for you, trusting me is an open issue.
But I hope you see that trusting JAG is a closed one...because even by your own standards you have to conclude that they are lying *to you*.
You said,
"Yes, I believe there is some sort of connection between Julie's and JAG.".
and that this could be
"as little as JohnB/MC helping out his favorite incall place"
Folks can debate as to whether they should or shouldn't...that isn't my concern here.
In my mind the other important question is...do they deny doing this? And I think you would have to agree the answer is clearly YES. Their advertisments brag about being independent with no supply side involvement.
Therefore, even by your own carefully circumscribed standards, you must conclude that JAG lies to its membership and is guilty of false advertising in this most basic aspect of their site.
I'll allow that for you, trusting me is an open issue.
But I hope you see that trusting JAG is a closed one...because even by your own standards you have to conclude that they are lying *to you*.
jl,
Thank you. You're right. I really don't obsess over these boards or the hobby. I do get my panties in a twist when contributions (if I may be so bold) that I make to the boards/hobby get twisted and turned every which way. That is why I resist when those things are not accurate.
I guess it's a flaw in my character.
Is that (the link above) the entire post that you believe was written by JAG management ? I am not Jewish so perhaps I just don't see it. I thought there was a good bit more than that, no ?
As far as the "warning" not to solicit from WGS, to the uninitiated (which I am) I can read that as one person telling another that's it's unwise to try to deal with them, that's all. (Although the innuendo about UG behaving badly towards the provider(s) was definitely uncalled for IMO)
Rufus,
Johnny K make his points much better than I ever have. The fact is that while I've learned to respect and ever admire the accuracy and objectivity of so many former Jagsters (and probably more than a few UG'ers without knowing they were not ex-Jagsters) such as justlooking, yourself, Judge Crater and a fair number of others whose handles excape me just now, I still take with a large grain of salt anything anybody says around here (or there).
What I know to be true is only what I've seen and touched. While I may or may not doubt that what anybody else says is true I base my actions (vis-a-vis) and my posts based on a "track record" of that individual and whether or not my experiences match his or whether or not his posts hang rung true to me over the years.
"Proof" is very hard to obtain in cyberspace. So, as far as being lied to by JAG management, I don't care. Frankly, everyone around here, including myself, has their very own reasons for doing what they do and saying what they say. I think there is very little chance that there is anyone around here that can say they have been perfectly objective and perfectly truthful about everything they have ever posted and and hobyy related activities. Therefore, since I cannot really trust anyone, it really doesn't matter whether I can trust them or not.
Frankly, the IP addresses, while not my particular area of expertise (I'm a computer guy) would not constitute proof, nor would the "same server" theory. Servers serve 10's, 100's, even thousands of customers. Assuming JAG is based in NY (and obviously Julie's is), they certainly could have simply gone to the same Web hosting service. Keep in mind now, I am NOT saying that is what I believe, I'm simply saying it's possible.
Would I bet my house that JAG and Julie's was NOT connected ? No. Or that it didn't have a financial interest in Julie's ? No. Would I bet that UG doesn't have an interest in April's. No I don't have enough knowledge to make those bets ? Do I think JAG and Julie's is connected ? I'd say there was a pretty good possibility. JAG and Julie's financially tied ? Not as sure, but possible. Do I think UG and April's are financially tied ? Other than marketplace and advertiser, no. But again, WTF do I know ???
Bottom line is, I don't care, because I only trust anything around here or there, so far.
I probably said that poorly but I guess you guys get my drift.
Thank you. You're right. I really don't obsess over these boards or the hobby. I do get my panties in a twist when contributions (if I may be so bold) that I make to the boards/hobby get twisted and turned every which way. That is why I resist when those things are not accurate.
I guess it's a flaw in my character.
Is that (the link above) the entire post that you believe was written by JAG management ? I am not Jewish so perhaps I just don't see it. I thought there was a good bit more than that, no ?
As far as the "warning" not to solicit from WGS, to the uninitiated (which I am) I can read that as one person telling another that's it's unwise to try to deal with them, that's all. (Although the innuendo about UG behaving badly towards the provider(s) was definitely uncalled for IMO)
Rufus,
Johnny K make his points much better than I ever have. The fact is that while I've learned to respect and ever admire the accuracy and objectivity of so many former Jagsters (and probably more than a few UG'ers without knowing they were not ex-Jagsters) such as justlooking, yourself, Judge Crater and a fair number of others whose handles excape me just now, I still take with a large grain of salt anything anybody says around here (or there).
What I know to be true is only what I've seen and touched. While I may or may not doubt that what anybody else says is true I base my actions (vis-a-vis) and my posts based on a "track record" of that individual and whether or not my experiences match his or whether or not his posts hang rung true to me over the years.
"Proof" is very hard to obtain in cyberspace. So, as far as being lied to by JAG management, I don't care. Frankly, everyone around here, including myself, has their very own reasons for doing what they do and saying what they say. I think there is very little chance that there is anyone around here that can say they have been perfectly objective and perfectly truthful about everything they have ever posted and and hobyy related activities. Therefore, since I cannot really trust anyone, it really doesn't matter whether I can trust them or not.
Frankly, the IP addresses, while not my particular area of expertise (I'm a computer guy) would not constitute proof, nor would the "same server" theory. Servers serve 10's, 100's, even thousands of customers. Assuming JAG is based in NY (and obviously Julie's is), they certainly could have simply gone to the same Web hosting service. Keep in mind now, I am NOT saying that is what I believe, I'm simply saying it's possible.
Would I bet my house that JAG and Julie's was NOT connected ? No. Or that it didn't have a financial interest in Julie's ? No. Would I bet that UG doesn't have an interest in April's. No I don't have enough knowledge to make those bets ? Do I think JAG and Julie's is connected ? I'd say there was a pretty good possibility. JAG and Julie's financially tied ? Not as sure, but possible. Do I think UG and April's are financially tied ? Other than marketplace and advertiser, no. But again, WTF do I know ???
Bottom line is, I don't care, because I only trust anything around here or there, so far.
I probably said that poorly but I guess you guys get my drift.
LG...remember when JAG started charging? Remember how MC and MM went on and on about how expensive it is to run your own server, etc. And how the only reason they could do it so far was because they run other servers for their businesses?
MC clearly owns the JAG IP address because he has basically said so. This means he must also own the Class C span it is a member of. So he clearly hosts Julies website. (Tech aside...I didn't say JAG and Julies are on the same server...I said the same person owns their (differing) IP addresses...MC is the one who has bragged/complained about owning his own servers)
If you feel you must remain agnostic as to whether JAG mgmt, contrary to their public claims, is in bed with the supply side, that MC shills for Julies as JohnB, etc etc etc despite all the hard evidence and soft evidence...
well then I don't know how you can get through the day. How, for example, can you vote for a candidate, or pick a new vacation location, or make an investment, or make any decisions about a thousand other things you haven't "seen and touched."?
In any case, there was a time when JAG mgmt could be trusted. You say you can't trust them now. And that, ex-jagster to jagster, is exactly the change I've been talking about this whole time. Sad isn't it?
MC clearly owns the JAG IP address because he has basically said so. This means he must also own the Class C span it is a member of. So he clearly hosts Julies website. (Tech aside...I didn't say JAG and Julies are on the same server...I said the same person owns their (differing) IP addresses...MC is the one who has bragged/complained about owning his own servers)
If you feel you must remain agnostic as to whether JAG mgmt, contrary to their public claims, is in bed with the supply side, that MC shills for Julies as JohnB, etc etc etc despite all the hard evidence and soft evidence...
well then I don't know how you can get through the day. How, for example, can you vote for a candidate, or pick a new vacation location, or make an investment, or make any decisions about a thousand other things you haven't "seen and touched."?
In any case, there was a time when JAG mgmt could be trusted. You say you can't trust them now. And that, ex-jagster to jagster, is exactly the change I've been talking about this whole time. Sad isn't it?
Last edited:
Rufus
You had me this entire thread.... until the above statement. If MC has been lying, denying and misrepresenting facts to its "audience" (JAG members), as you suggest, HOW can we assume that he is telling the truth about owning the IP address -- much less that such ownership is "clear"?
Don't get me wrong... you have painted a very convincing picture (thru SOFT evidence (your term)) of why JAG is probably not the "Consumer Reports" of the hobby. But I'm also beginning to see that, as littleguy stated, [hard] "proof" is very hard to obtain in cyberspace.
You had me this entire thread.... until the above statement. If MC has been lying, denying and misrepresenting facts to its "audience" (JAG members), as you suggest, HOW can we assume that he is telling the truth about owning the IP address -- much less that such ownership is "clear"?
Don't get me wrong... you have painted a very convincing picture (thru SOFT evidence (your term)) of why JAG is probably not the "Consumer Reports" of the hobby. But I'm also beginning to see that, as littleguy stated, [hard] "proof" is very hard to obtain in cyberspace.
RM - I think you are in error in extrapolating LG's "seen and touch" modus operandi to areas of his life beyond this Board and his "whoring". His post clearly indicates that his comment about that is limited to these activities. (Whether he does it in other areas of his life I have no idea, but that is not the point).
And I, for myself, don't disagree with him. And I'm not disputing with you what JAG was and is but that is because I have seen and touched for myself. When active in this hobby, I still approach it much like I did pre-internet which is by my own trial and error. To a certain extent the internet has made it both easier and harder. Easier certainly because I can rely to an extent on those reviews written by posters whose experience and tastes have matched mine. Harder for much the same reason with respect to seeing new people because tastes are never exact either in terms of service and looks and because of all of the bullshit that now flows between the defenders and attackers of various women and agencies and those who stir the pot because they either simply have nothing better to do, are giving vent to their immaturity or are, unfortunately just assholes.
It is also why I agree with Jseah's early post (I think it was this thread) that it doesn't much matter to me what JAG does or doesn't do, who is getting freebies or not). I rely and trust my own instincts and experiences and ability to tell the difference between shilling, puffing, egotism and reality. Sometimes I find myself wrong but mostly right. That of course comes from whoring and being a john since the early 70's.
I agree that to try and be the guiding light (don't read more into that than I meant) for the uninitiated newbie is a noble endeavor but, I fear, in this vein a fruitless one. I am not by any stretch telling you that because I think it fruitless you should stop the endeavor - but I think it fruitless nonetheless. I think the only way the uninitiated will learn is by their own trial and error. Why should they believe one anonymous person over another anonymous person (regardless of how many posts they have - and I would never - and don't think I have ever attacked anyone based upon numbers only content - and I'm not saying you have) who says don't beleive them, believe me instead these are the real facts and this is how I know. Truthfully, the only way any of that will change is changing the behavior of those who mislead, puff or agitate for whatever reason and we both know that is not going to happen.
I applaud and to an extent encourage you to continue your fight (but only because having been on JAG and here since the beginning) I trust my OWN judgment about the validity of what you are trying to do. It's a noble ideal but you can't expect or be surprised if people don't believe you, don't trust you or don't want to hear it. Or, of course, those who are threatened by it and just pick a fight to defend their ill gotten turf.
Sorry for putting in my less than $.02. As opposed to JL and JC and others who engage in this hobby to learn something about themselves, I do not like to take this too seriously at all - that is for other areas of my life. I like to restrict myself to (other) inane and unimportant bullshit like Torre shouldn't have taken Ventura but Chavez and I would have left off Vizquel and Jeter too and taken Damon and Thome or Ordonez.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
And I, for myself, don't disagree with him. And I'm not disputing with you what JAG was and is but that is because I have seen and touched for myself. When active in this hobby, I still approach it much like I did pre-internet which is by my own trial and error. To a certain extent the internet has made it both easier and harder. Easier certainly because I can rely to an extent on those reviews written by posters whose experience and tastes have matched mine. Harder for much the same reason with respect to seeing new people because tastes are never exact either in terms of service and looks and because of all of the bullshit that now flows between the defenders and attackers of various women and agencies and those who stir the pot because they either simply have nothing better to do, are giving vent to their immaturity or are, unfortunately just assholes.
It is also why I agree with Jseah's early post (I think it was this thread) that it doesn't much matter to me what JAG does or doesn't do, who is getting freebies or not). I rely and trust my own instincts and experiences and ability to tell the difference between shilling, puffing, egotism and reality. Sometimes I find myself wrong but mostly right. That of course comes from whoring and being a john since the early 70's.
I agree that to try and be the guiding light (don't read more into that than I meant) for the uninitiated newbie is a noble endeavor but, I fear, in this vein a fruitless one. I am not by any stretch telling you that because I think it fruitless you should stop the endeavor - but I think it fruitless nonetheless. I think the only way the uninitiated will learn is by their own trial and error. Why should they believe one anonymous person over another anonymous person (regardless of how many posts they have - and I would never - and don't think I have ever attacked anyone based upon numbers only content - and I'm not saying you have) who says don't beleive them, believe me instead these are the real facts and this is how I know. Truthfully, the only way any of that will change is changing the behavior of those who mislead, puff or agitate for whatever reason and we both know that is not going to happen.
I applaud and to an extent encourage you to continue your fight (but only because having been on JAG and here since the beginning) I trust my OWN judgment about the validity of what you are trying to do. It's a noble ideal but you can't expect or be surprised if people don't believe you, don't trust you or don't want to hear it. Or, of course, those who are threatened by it and just pick a fight to defend their ill gotten turf.
Sorry for putting in my less than $.02. As opposed to JL and JC and others who engage in this hobby to learn something about themselves, I do not like to take this too seriously at all - that is for other areas of my life. I like to restrict myself to (other) inane and unimportant bullshit like Torre shouldn't have taken Ventura but Chavez and I would have left off Vizquel and Jeter too and taken Damon and Thome or Ordonez.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Last edited:
JackT, I can understand your skepticism...but consider the following...
If I were to summarize all my concerns into a single proposition it is this...
that JAG members can no longer trust JAG management because MC/MM/JohnB lie to the membership when it is to their advantage.
In response to your concern then...
CASE 1
IF MC does own his own servers and operate them as part of his larger business...THEN from the technical information available to all it is clear that he also operates the Julies web site. So he has lied to JAG membership about not having a conflicts of interest, supply side ties, etc.
CASE 2
IF MC does not own his own servers and operate them (and pay JAG staff like MM) as part of his larger business...THEN he has lied about *that* during his various posts when he was selling the idea to the membership that he had to start charging them.
Now he either does or doesn't own his own servers. So either CASE 1 or CASE 2 is in effect. So one way or another we have caught him lying to the JAG membership to suit his own advantage.
Which is the primary point I've made all along.
If I were to summarize all my concerns into a single proposition it is this...
that JAG members can no longer trust JAG management because MC/MM/JohnB lie to the membership when it is to their advantage.
In response to your concern then...
CASE 1
IF MC does own his own servers and operate them as part of his larger business...THEN from the technical information available to all it is clear that he also operates the Julies web site. So he has lied to JAG membership about not having a conflicts of interest, supply side ties, etc.
CASE 2
IF MC does not own his own servers and operate them (and pay JAG staff like MM) as part of his larger business...THEN he has lied about *that* during his various posts when he was selling the idea to the membership that he had to start charging them.
Now he either does or doesn't own his own servers. So either CASE 1 or CASE 2 is in effect. So one way or another we have caught him lying to the JAG membership to suit his own advantage.
Which is the primary point I've made all along.
SkellyChamp, I appreciate what you are saying, but rather than getting into long epistemological debates I wish some of you old timers would step up to the plate and say something like this:
"Nothing in life is sure, but my feeling to a reasonable certainty is that Rufus and the others are right. That at one time JAG management did not have conflicts of interest and JAG was more or less like Consumer Reports. Now JAG management has supply side interests and benefits. And worse, they won't admit it. So I can't trust JAG like I used to."
"Nothing in life is sure, but my feeling to a reasonable certainty is that Rufus and the others are right. That at one time JAG management did not have conflicts of interest and JAG was more or less like Consumer Reports. Now JAG management has supply side interests and benefits. And worse, they won't admit it. So I can't trust JAG like I used to."
OK, here goes:
"Nothing in life is sure, but my feeling to a reasonable certainty is that Rufus and the others are right. That at one time JAG management did not have conflicts of interest and JAG was more or less like Consumer Reports. Now JAG management has supply side interests and benefits. And worse, they won't admit it. So I can't trust JAG like I used to."
Im sorry, I couldnt resist. Curious though: would this be enough to bring peace and contentment to your body and soul?
BTW, my relatively short(6 months) experience with JAG came to an end the day I couldnt access the reviews due to it becoming a pay service. Guess you could say my distrust started there and I havent been back since.
take care
HP
"Nothing in life is sure, but my feeling to a reasonable certainty is that Rufus and the others are right. That at one time JAG management did not have conflicts of interest and JAG was more or less like Consumer Reports. Now JAG management has supply side interests and benefits. And worse, they won't admit it. So I can't trust JAG like I used to."
Im sorry, I couldnt resist. Curious though: would this be enough to bring peace and contentment to your body and soul?
BTW, my relatively short(6 months) experience with JAG came to an end the day I couldnt access the reviews due to it becoming a pay service. Guess you could say my distrust started there and I havent been back since.
take care
HP
Last edited:
peace and contentment?
sure...if I can get another 39 honest men to take the oath!
Seriously, this is (like for most of us) just one facet of my life...I never lose sleep over this stuff or anything like that...
And keep in mind that as the person who handed the keys to JAG over to the current management this is, in a way, my way of kicking myself for not doing a better job of finding someone that would have carried JAG forward as something more like Consumer Reports...and less like his personal whoring resource to be traded away for favors at will...or should I say at Julies?
sure...if I can get another 39 honest men to take the oath!
Seriously, this is (like for most of us) just one facet of my life...I never lose sleep over this stuff or anything like that...
And keep in mind that as the person who handed the keys to JAG over to the current management this is, in a way, my way of kicking myself for not doing a better job of finding someone that would have carried JAG forward as something more like Consumer Reports...and less like his personal whoring resource to be traded away for favors at will...or should I say at Julies?