If you perceive me as having trashed somebody because I pointed out *and characterized* their comments, then so be it. I'm not sure what all to make of your post, but I'll give it a try:
Posted By: BigPapasan
Re: vigerous - you've been posting and reviewing on TER for about four months...
Yet you trash a monger who has been posting and reviewing on TER for NINE YEARS. You couldn't even get his handle right - it's not "Fitz." It's "Fritz" short for "Fritzmurphy."
Right there is a BIG problem for me: he's been posting here longer than I and that makes him unassailable, by me at least? Really?! Well, just like I called his comment stupid, I'm calling this dumb. Either that, or stop objecting to the stupid shit a lot of other people say, as well. They deserve the same deference, or lack thereof as I would contend. His longevity here and your obvious sense of fraternity with him curries him no favor with me. I take him at face value.
Re: "Fitz": Fitzmurphey is not an unknown name where I'm from and I never noticed his play on it... adding the 'r.' I read what I thought I saw (it'll be hard to shake now that 'Fitz' is burnished in my mind).
Posted By: BigPapasan
You called Fritzmurphy's post "...stupid and malevolently specious..." Why? What basis do you have for calling his post "...stupid and malevolently specious...?"
Since you are obviously a Newbie to TER, I'll educate you before you cast baseless aspersions again. You can research a poster's previous posts to check if his current post is "...stupid and malevolently specious..." Seven months ago there was a thread on the DC board about the top tier agencies in the area. At that time, Fritzmurphy posted that one of his Top Tier agencies was "sweetangels." Obviously something happened to change his opinion of SWEET ANGELS since that post. Fritzmurphy's experience with SWEET ANGELS made him change his mind about the agency. That renders YOUR opinion of his post stupid and malevolently specious.
Let's start with what he said in that thread, all of it baseless (since that's a word you seem to like):
1. "... it’s a fake review and the fake reviewer included the NOVA area on the location of the review. --Unsupported
2. "I was approached by this agency a few months ago to submit reviews of a girl I hadn’t seen. Needles to say I didn’t comply as I want this site to be an honest resource but unfortunately it’s filled with fake reviews and shills." --Unsupported
Yes, I'd say both of those were stupid. Also worth pointing out: Those are the ONLY two comments from him in that thread, despite having a lot to answer for after making those remarks/attacks.
Posted By: BigPapasan
You also called "kyungjean" an "a-hole." Why? Because he had the audacity to post that he had a bad experience with SWEET ANGELS? It is YOU who are the "a-hole" for insulting another poster simply because he describes a negative experience he had with SWEET ANGELS.
Again, but in this case casting aspersions on an agency based on a single experience, is way way stupid and and the nature of which makes him an a-hole (which is not an irreversible condition, I might add).
It's pretty clear to some of us that "Fritz" either made his *story* up from whole cloth for effect (which it appears he has run from since he didn't get the effect he was expecting), or it was a mistake by the agency where they got the wrong person when they contacted him -- they wanted a previous customer to write a review of a girl that person had seen. And think about it, considering all the shit about writing fake reviews of late, what they did was take the honest and honorable approach, it seems.
It was probably a girl who they wanted to have show up on the Escort Reviews page after she'd gone for some length without a review. They wanted to hasten it along. THEY DID NOT, according to the now discredited Fritz post, ask for a good review or a bad review... THEY JUST ASKED FOR A REVEIW, if it's to be believed at all. His silence leads me to believe it didn't happen in the first place and he twisted some story to take a jab at SA.
Let me say this (it was going to be a PM), I was impressed with your takedown skills in response to a reply to an early post of mine (one of my first) . It was somebody who was an unknown quantity to me at the time, and you took him down Fact by Fact. It took a while for me to refer to each of your references, but it was an interesting read. It was an impressive display of a combo of mad research skills and what appears to be a steel trap for a memory. I've seen you do the same thing in reaction to other posts of his. I'm honestly as impressed with your seemingly endless recall ability as I am with the willingness of many to overlook his lack of reliably truthful posts. You left nothing to the imagination, which I respect. If you're going to take me to task for what I've written, I wish you would use the same approach (without all the animosity you have for him).
But here, you're protection (not 'defense,' because you offer no defense) of Fritz and kyung seem out of character to me. It doesn't matter that Fritz said a nice thing about SA once, and I don't know why you keep harping on it. You're clearly smart enough to see its irrelevance. In fact, if it is relevant, I would posit that it's because he said something nice once that, when he felt scorned by AS, he turned around and told this lie (my opinion is unchanged), to get back at them. I stand by my comments. And if you stuck to the facts, you would too. Why? Because I supported each of my claims with facts, unlike they who are shooting from the hip. And that's a fact!