The message below from a provider came in last night and is buried on page 2.  I thought I should bring it to the top because I believe it disposes of the issue of alleged abuse by a hobbyist.  

Obviously, many of us have what others would regard as peculiarities or special needs -- if we didn't, we might well not be in this hobby.  Sometimes we can go overboard, sometimes we can be misunderstood.  Here, maybe it was a mix of both.  The point, however, is that the hobbyist involved has recognized he may have been in error, has apologized, and has pledged to be more careful in the future.  This is a sign of real responsibility and respect for the provider -- which I think is what we all want.  The flip side is that the rest of us -- hobbyists and providers alike -- should recognize that we're all human and all susceptible to error.  When someone recognizes that they might have been at fault and takes responsibility, then the rest of us ought to accept that.  I think the discussion was healthy; I think it's time to move on.  Here is the message from Suzanne of San Diego:

Please be aware that I am speaking for myself only in this post, not for anyone else who has contacted Michelle on the subject of 'rough' treatment from this particular hobbyist.  I stand by my original statements wholeheartedly, which contributed significantly to Michelle's post.  Michelle heard my statements from a third party, and I'm very grateful that she had the courage to bring my situation and the entire issue of potential for injury to escorts into this open forum.

I want to be fair and honest now and say that since Michelle posted originally, the individual concerned has contacted me and I have received a very sincere apology for any rough treatment which occurred. I have been assured that it was never his intention to hurt me or anyone else, and have been assured that he will be much more careful and pay more attention to feedback from his partners in future.  I have fully accepted this apology and intend to put this behind me and move on.  

Michelle's public disclosure has resulted in a heightening of awareness of the potential for injury during a session, and a great deal of good has come from her courageous disclosure.  I would like to sincerely thank all parties who have contributed to allowing me to be at peace with this issue and I hope other escorts involved will find their peace also.  

Sincerely
Suzanne in San Diego




-- Modified on 6/24/2004 6:58:58 AM

I really thought this was the kind of thing that could just absolutely explode.  This is big-league, high caliber play by the hobbyist for contacting her, Suzanne for going public with it, and Turkana for having the wisdom to repost it here at the top.

-- Modified on 6/24/2004 8:30:40 AM

Thanks to the principals for stepping forward and resolving this.

Hear Hear-  This situation was fraught with bad karma.  Glad to see we are back to bidness...

My TC brethren are high roaders at heart- we all know it.  I knew when we stayed civil during the NBA playoffs.  (Before my team ruptured its team chemistry and imploded, that is...)

Good on yah mates!

I just wanted to say I was the person that contacted Suzanne.  The situation has been further discussed and handled by all parties and taken care of. This whole situation was overly blown out of proportion and further got worse with everyone jumping on the "Witch hint" band wagon which was further worsened by physical threats by the original provider.  This is not and should not be how issues should be handled. Both parties have closed the issues and are moving forward.

My apoligies to this board and anyone that adversly affected.


-- Modified on 6/24/2004 12:03:45 PM

You'd think I could just let this be a happy ending and let this whole thing die down by itself, but no, I just gotta open my big yapper and get this off my chest.

I kind of felt like I was stuck in the middle of this, as many of the people involved are people I know.

As I said earlier in this thread, this could have been a powder keg and instead cooler heads prevailed, and it just couldn't have turned out any better in the end, given the circumstances.

But I just gotta say that this shouldn't have played out this way.  MDL can be kind of a blunt SOB, and the "Godfather" moniker, which he was given rather penned himself has really rubbed some people the wrong way too.  (You oughta just let that go away)  

But my suspicion right from the start was that something like this happened:  Hobbyist mentions that he posts pointmen reports that can really help a traveler out.  Provider interprets this as  intimidation, as "give me extras or I'll give you a bad report."  Provider mentions this to others, and each time it's repeated, the intimidation gets embellished like ALL stories, good or bad, ALWAYS do.  By then end of day two, the hobbyist is abusive, by the end of day three, he's a child molestor and by the end of day four, we have an axe-murderer and serial rapist loose in a gorilla suit and packing heat lurking around school playgrounds.

The accusations I heard from others by PM or e-mail just kept piling on and none--not one--was consistent with any other so I knew something was up.

My concern is that so many "minor" incidents in the twin cities end up being escalated to the serial rapist level that when serious issues do come up, we're just all kind of numb to it and don't know what to believe.

The fact that this happened at all has damaged MDL's reputation, and that's too bad.  He can be coarse but I don't believe he's a serial rapist.  I don't think he deserved the hit he took on this.  It may have damaged NetMichelle's local credibility as well, as the ease with which this was resolved makes her initial alarm and subsequent threats of whoop-ass look a bit out of place.  I have met her, like her (a lot, NM!) and it's unfortunate, she doesn't deserve that hit either.  I believe her intentions were quite honorable, as I posted in the original thread.

This didn't play out well and just made everyone involved, myself included, and the TC scene as a whole, look bad.  I don't have any answers but I know we have to do better next time.

-- Modified on 6/24/2004 12:41:47 PM

As on outside with no vested interest in either side, but as someone that has watched these boards for the better part of 3 or 4 years, I can't believe this is being dismissed so easily.  I believe Michelle mentioned more than one instance of this behavior, and because this ONE instance was apologized for that makes the actions appropriate, or somehow just misunderstood?  Not that there is any comparison to the 2 events, but just as an example, if Richard Nixon had apologized to the DNC would have that made it all right for him to continue as a trusted leader of our country?

Of course I know many of you will dismiss what I have to say because I have not been vocal before, but when I saw this I was horribly disappointed not only in Turkana for applauding a forced apology, but also for the rest of you in following along like sheep because he is one of your fearless leaders.  

What you see here is a control freak, pure and simple - one that wants to control not only publicly on the boards, but also behind closed doors.  I know many ladies would not want to stand up publicly and say so for fear of ridicule and outright exile from the boards, and that is well known among anyone that follows the boards - mistakes are not tolerated by escorts, much less showing the mistakes and/or short comings of any client - even in a general way of speaking.  

Let me answer one question before you all jump to conclusions or start making accusations - I am not an escort, I am not a client - do I associate with either side of the equation?  Yes, absolutely, I have friends on both sides.  Do I side with one or another?  It depends on the situation - but I do tend to favor the wonderful ladies because they put so much on the line, including most importantly personal safety, to provide a valuable service to all their clients.  

All I ask is don't be blinded when someone is caught with their hand in the cookie jar into thinking that an apology is good enough.

Interestingly enough....I discussed this incident with a travelling provider and the gist I heard was that agencys will screen clients that have had a history of abusive behavior and subsequently deny the opportunity to that individual with their providers and their services. It's a good plan by some of the more established agencys and an incident such as this should not take away the quality and reputation of the Twin Cities because we do have a plethora of tremendously generous and gentlemanly hobbyists that would be very hard to ignore based on a singular individual.

This issue should take care of itself...and without knowing the parties or exact situation.  Its perhaps best to take care of yourself and the person you are with,  its a recreational and very pleasurable hobby that requires two to tango and a respect for the lady's limitations and boundaries.  

Its all about having fun and I don't think it should go any further than whats been batted around the board.  MDL contributes to the board and even with his laughable pretentious moniker of "Gawdfadder", hell it makes for entertainment on a boring afternoon.  

Thanks for your opinion.  It's important.  

Here's why I have taken the position that I've taken:  (1) the hobbyist involved apologized to the provider and to the community.  I don't think that we can ask any more of someone in a civilized society.  I certainly do not condone abuse in any way.  But I think the man is entitled to be taken at his word.  I do not have any reason to disbelieve the apology.  He deserves our support for standing up and acknowledging responsibility.  

(2)  You say it's a forced apology and that it's not "good enough."  Well, what's the alternative?  Castrate him?  Flog him on Nicolette Mall? Ban him from TER so he has absolutely no visibility and can operate in stealth mode?  C'mon...  

(3)  Making judgments about folks' behavior and intent in this hobby is risky business.  What is taking place on these boards every day is something that has, to my knowledge, never taken place before -- an honest and open discussion of the oldest profession.  I think the exchange that we've had has been valuable for all.


-- Modified on 6/24/2004 4:10:14 PM

Madison apologized after it was assumed she posted with malicious intent and no harm came of that.... and she was banned for life - as you just laughed off.  In this case there was actually physical abuse - is this a case of a double standard or is it just that the customer is always right?

Turkana, I respect the way you have conducted the board in your time as mod, but this is clearly as bad if not worse than previous offenses commited just on the boards....  of course, that is my opinion, as well as you are entitled to yours.

Don't misunderestimate the power of this board.  Only a very
small percentage of it's readers actually post.  Also, other
moderators on other TER boards have posted links to these thread
so as to warn travelling ladies.

Also, notice that no providers have posted in this thread.  They
don't need to - all the information that is needed is there.  No
comment is necessary.

fr

NetMichelle brought up a delicate situation in the correct
manner.  It was discussed in a civilized manner and both the
accused and the accuser have posted.  Readers know what happened
and can act accordingly in the future.

I think NetMichelle, far from taking a hit, will should be canonized as a saint.

TC didn't take a hit - just the accused - and rightly so.

Also, I think your rep is taking a hit for trying to distort the
facts with innuendo.  You keep mentioning axe murders.  The
charge was roughing up a provider.  Stick to the facts.

fr

Suzanne seems like a well respected provider who provides above average service based on reviews.She was intimidated or even just uneasy to the point that she had to cancel other apointments. That seems unfortunate for any provider. The other thing I do not see other providers standing up for the accused perhaps it is time for the accused to re-evaluate his particpation in the hobby I know his credibility has suffered in my view and I will no longer be interested in his comments or opinions. Just my .02 cents

"Also, I think your rep is taking a hit for trying to distort the
facts with innuendo.  You keep mentioning axe murders.  The
charge was roughing up a provider.  Stick to the facts."

Negative red leader...  If you go back and read the thread...

The initial proposition that, left unchecked, this situation would escalate into a provider being hurt or killed was brought up by several others, not through innuendo, but through direct, unequivocal quotation.  If you prefer, I can cut and paste those quotations but I will not allow you to attribute any of these notions to me.  My reference was specifically to illustrate how wildly explosive the accusations were becoming and re-reading my posts, there's no question that this is the case.

I think my reputation, whatever the hell it is, will remain largely intact.  I am not a cohort or "co-conspirator" of the "accused" party, merely someone who injected myself into this more than most would (a) because I know and think very highly of NetMichelle, and (b) because the local "hobby" scene is important to me and I care quite a bit about it...  and my posting history here I think reflects that.

It became clear to me just minutes into this episode that this was potentially explosive and had far-reaching consequences for a number of people, so I chose to work behind the scenes with the parties involved to bring about the best possible resolution for all of us.  I didn't fan the flames with innuendo, I did not threaten the hobbyist with violence as others here have, I merely talked frankly and honestly with the individuals involved.  I welcome whatever effect that has on my reputation.

-- Modified on 6/25/2004 12:40:36 AM

"The other thing I do not see other providers standing up for the accused perhaps it is time for the accused to re-evaluate his particpation in the hobby"

I hate to even address this, anything I say here will sound like I am a shill for MDL, when in fact I have never met him in person.  In fact, if you look back at the original thread, you'll see that my first post on this entire topic was in defense of Michelle's position when her original statement was being questioned.  I hope that establishes some degree of balance in my perspective.

But I will say this:

1.  When people became aware that I was snooping around behind the scenes to try and find out what was going on, (see my reply to Frankie just below) I received a number of e-mails and PMs about what a total freak this guy was.  So I asked "did you see him?"  The answer is always "No, but I heard from so-and-so."  Let me say that again because it's important:  The answer was ALWAYS "No, I haven't."  I'm not sure what to think about that, draw your own conclusions.

2.  Turns out, unbeknownst to some of those first parties, the "so-and-so's" they would quote were providers I knew well, or at least had seen, and could call up and ask.  Guess what.  Not one of those people had anything negative to say about him.  Not one.  I'm not sure what to think about that, draw your own conclusions.

3.  Also turns out, that one provider has come forward publicly.  Suzanne, of her own volition, came forward publicly and said the issue was resolved and closed.  Do you think for one second that she would have done this if she didn't feel that MDL was sincere in this being a misunderstanding rather than a physical threat?  Do you think she would have done this if her encounter with him had left her with even the slightest suspicion that he might be a threat to any other provider?

Again, I don't know him personally, but I keep hearing about what a bad guy he is from people who haven't seen him, and have heard exactly the opposite from people who have.  For me, that sentence alone sums it up.


-- Modified on 6/25/2004 1:42:00 AM

I went back and read the postings by NetMichelle as well as some of the others.  It's not clear to me whether this is one incident that she heard about twice or two different incidents.  Subsequent postings have provided no specific evidence of a second occurence of such behavior.  Based on the postings of the people who were actually there, I see that we now have confirmation of one case of crossing the line for which the hobbyist has apologized and the provider has accepted that apology.  No one else has stepped forward  to provide HARD evidence why we should not accept this.  Don't take me wrong, I do not in any way, shape, or form condone such behavior.  However, we are obviously not going to have a public lynching atop the Metrodome or the Target Center and I think it's past time to stop adding fuel to the fire.

Comparing this to Nixon and the DNC is not reasonable.  Providers and hobbyists are not in opposition to each other (at least I sure has hell hope not).  Furthermore, unless I missed it somehow, no election was ever held where MDL was elected "President of the Twin Cities chapter of TER hobbyists".  I have read his reviews and postings and corresponded with him a couple of times.  Sometimes I have found his thoughts useful.  Other times my reaction has been more along the lines of "yeah, whatever." I imagine a lot of people who read this board are going to be more skeptical of what he has to say at this point.  I am sure there will be a number of ladies he would like to see who will not see him because of this.  Maybe no lady who becomes aware of this will be willing to see him.  That is ALWAYS their decision to make.  What else can you reasonably expect?

Something bad happened.  It's been brought up and dealt with.  Move on.

These are fairly serious claims, so if you would, please be very specific in enumerating your evidence that the apology was forced.  It is really the seminal claim upon which the rest of your post hinges and is stated as fact.  Your entire thesis further hinges on this not being a singular isolated incident, yet you present no claim that it was anything more than that.

Further, none of the replies I've seen on any of these threads sound like "sheep" following their leader.  A hobbyist being more vocal on the boards than others does not make him our guru, it makes him a more vocal hobbyist.  And finally, I have to say that Turkana has handled this just about perfectly, and clearly didn't deserve the shot you took at him.

-- Modified on 6/25/2004 1:12:57 AM

Speculate, talk... rumor... We have so few nice summer days out there.  Go golfing or better yet, get laid!  

I don't know what happened with MDL and Suzanne.  I feel sorry for both, what a mess!

This is the first I've heard of MDL coming remotely close to disrespecting or harming another person.  

MDL is able to see agency girls and gets tons of repeat business from whomever he pleases.  He's never tried to use his "status" on TER from what I know to bolster favor.  

My suggestion to all of you gent's who hobby and are vocal on this board.  Don't mention to ladies who you are on these boards.  Keep a low profile and things like this will never happen!  There are plenty of ladies that avoid vocal hobbyists for this reason.  Whether intimidation was the intent or not.  

This is not my attempt to get involved.  To the contrary.

The head shep spoke up, said leave this one alone.....  could tell right away, he was bad to the bone

I have received unsolicited correspondence from providers that have not seen MDL and have said that rumors are swirling, but none had seen him, and other providers that have met him, like him, think he is a gentleman, and will SEE again. I think unless you have 1rst hand knowledge of behavior you can do great harm to someone. Everyone has a right to an opinion to see or not to see, but lets be careful not to slander for the wrong motives. I think that the guys that have relished in MDL's information and contributions, and now go so low as to pile on, is deplorable behavior. The moderator has been very unfair throughout this whole episode, and could not have done a worse job, as much of this could have been avoided, and I don't mean hidden, just avoiding the public lynching with lack of knowledge.

Peachs, you were one of the very FIRST to join the lynch mob earlier this year.  Why is it that when someone has a differing opinion than yours they are automatically wrong, and the moderator is being unfair because both sides have been discussed?  Turkana was the one that brought the apology forth in the first place, or are you so blind you can;t see that?  The reason I have an issue with it is that it is NOT an isolated incident, based on what Michelle posted, who is someone that can be inflamatory, but had nothing to gain and everything to lose in this area by getting involved.  

This is the reason providers DON'T stand up when something bad happens - they are fearful of ostracizing themself from the community because the board has become a board by the client, of the client, and for the client.  Pretty much all the guys want to see is how much the ladies love you (which they do), when they will show up at a given place (helpful information), and your all so important pointman reports - but, and this is a HUGE but, when something negative happens with one of your own, you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen.

From the original post

"Word has gotten to me twice now that one of your hobbiests has been extremely rough with travelling providers. He will not listen to a woman saying no, and continues to be very rough during the session."

"I have concerns for two reasons: there is no mention of this in his numerous reviews, (only vanilla sex) secondly, his aggresive behavior is getting worse."  

From her second post

"I have heard from 2 separate sources regarding this in another state, and now I have numerous personal e-mails that confirm this. Coincidence? I think not."

"Being very rough with someone when they keep saying no seems like sexual battery to me."

I imagine that is all just hearsay though, and since michelle CAN'T be a valid source you can brush it under the rug.  You know damn well that a provider with a problem would not take it public, or even tell you in private because of the fear of damaging her reputation, let alone her business - yet information from an outside source is not valid because you didn't hear it personally, and furthermore you don't WANT to believe it.  I'm not sure how things are in the land of OZ, but in the real world we try to make judgements based on every piece of information.

Furthermore I have the UTMOST respect for Turkana in how this incident has been handled - I honestly didn't even expect my first post to be allowed to see the light of day - and I will be pleasantly surprised if any of the rest make their way through.

"I was horribly disappointed not only in Turkana for..."

18 hours later:

"I have the UTMOST respect for Turkana..."

Yes, and I stand by that OZ - I was disappointed in the moderator for applauding a forced apology, I did not say anywhere that I disapproved of how he handled the postings.  I know he is entitled to his opinion, but tend to think the moderator should present and weight the facts, not pass public judgement.

"I'm not sure how things are in the land of OZ, but in the real world we try to make judgements based on every piece of information."

Outside, as I point out in threads below, I initially got involved in this because NetMichelle is a friend of mine and I took her initial accusations to the bank, as my very first post back in the original thread shows.

Rather than casting stones, I started asking people questions, and I now have a LOT of pieces of information.  You can blast away at me as you see fit, but as I stated in both of my replies to Frankie below, all I have done is gathered lots of data points, including conversations with Michelle, and rather than making any judgements about that information myself, have simply posted it and allowed you to make your own judgements.

You said in a thread below that Michelle should be extended some latitude because she "had nothing to gain and everything to lose in this area by getting involved."  I am in the same boat, I had nothing to gain and everything to lose by getting involved...  So why can you not extend to me the same?

-- Modified on 6/25/2004 8:30:44 AM

I have to apologize for this post - it was a knee jerk reaction when I first woke up in the morning, it was inappropriate, and strayed from the issue at hand.

I don't want anything swept under the rug.  Doing so means the original problem will continue and likely get worse.  That could blow up very badly.  At the same time, you are simply repeating what NetMichelle said.  That does not constitute new evidence of wrongdoing.  We have one confirmed incident, which has been resolved.  Beyond that, we're just not sure are we?  At least I am not.  I don't assume the information is invalid because it became it from an outside source; I'm just not automatically willing to accept it as gospel either.  That sounds reasonably real world to me.  What is your purpose in keeping this alive?  What do you want to see happen?  Please answer these questions because I genuinely want to know.

-- Modified on 6/25/2004 10:36:38 AM

As an outsider to this board but one who has read all the posts on both threads,I can not DISAGREE more with your uneven assessment of Turkana's role in this episode.

In fact,I believe Turkana did a commendable job under very uneasy,difficult circumstances.Something happened that should not have happened of which an apology was subsequently offered by the hobbyiest and accepted by the provider and posted on this board for all members of the community to see.Do you imagine if this matter was swept under the rug and then something terrible were to happen at a later date.There are too many here whose consciences would suffer tremendously because of their inaction.

As an aside, I don't know how much TER compensates their moderators but I'm sure with situations like these that need to be  mediated...It's probably not enough.

Cheers Turk!...and to NetMichelle for getting involved.

P.S.  To quote Odysseus-NY..."Women are made for lovin,not shovin!"

This is a classic way to shift focus.

There is no doubt this ONE incident did happen.

You can blab all you want about what happened in the aftermath,
who said what to whom.

BOTTOM LINE IS THAT MDL ROUGHED UP SUZANNE.

fr

That is not the bottom line and you know it.

The bottom line is that there was a misunderstanding that MDL took sole responsibility for having caused, and the only first-person witness to the incident has accepted his explanation that this was a misunderstanding and not an attempt to "rough up" a provider.

Suzanne has chosen to publicly restore much of this hobbyist's ability to see other providers.  Are you suggesting that she felt that this was a physical threat, and not an honest misunderstanding, but chose to "sell out" and put her fellow providers back in harm's way?  I don't believe that for a second.

I've never met Suzanne, and, since you're posting anonymously, I'm not sure if I've ever met you.  But I choose to accept the version of the bottom line spelled out by her actions over yours.

There seemed have been a misunderstanding but whether that was
the cause of the roughing up or not it does not mean that there
was not a roughin up.

Acknowledging and accepting the appology doesn't have anything
to with selling out other providers.  By doing this publicly
she has stopped the second guessing and proved the incident
has happened.

Not sure what you mean by me posting anonymously.  This is and
always has been my TER handle.  This is not an alias - can't
you tell?

fr

It ends in axe murdering.

But make no mistake, you created the esclation scenario
specifically to deemphasize the incident itself.

People aren't stupid.

fr

Frankie, sorry, you are correct regarding the alias.  Honest, when I was on my laptop earlier and read your last reply there was no envelope.  Dammit.  I swear it wasn't there!

Not to split hairs...  OK, I admit, I'm splitting hairs here...

Suzanne's publication of having received an apology did not prove it happened.  It was MDL's post, and MDL's post alone that proved this incident actually occured.  Up to that point it was only an accusation.  I could easily post an accusation of some wrong you committed, then follow it up with another post that said you admitted the wrong doing, but that would prove nothing.  The original accusation was not only 2nd, but actually 3rd-hand information.  Suzanne's post did provide first-hand the actual context of Michelle's post, but did not prove it actaully happened.

What I'm saying is that Suzanne's post was enough to convince me that, having looked back on the events and on his explanation, she believed that this was not an incident that demonstrated a threat to any provider.  Again, I don't know her, but I do extend to her the presumption that she would not have posted what she did had she not felt that the accusations of providers being at risk were beginning to outgrow the incident.

While you arereplying to a post, the envelope doesn't show up.

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the following:

You say that her accepting the apology implies that this guy is
not a threat to other providers.

I say it doesn't necessarily mean that.

fr

Frankie, this is absolutely and patently false.  

The notion that left unchecked, the end-state of this would be a dead provider was advanced by someone else, not by me, and I will not just sit silently by while you continually attribute the introduction of this notion to me.  You were wrong the first time you said it, and you are wrong to again repeat it.  You'll be wrong when you say it again in reply to this post.

My original "disappointed" post that started this sub-thread was not an attempt to dissuade attention from the incident, but rather to say that, while the involved principals wer handling this in a very upstanding and honest way, many others were fanning the flames by making additional accusations, not one of which--not one--has been based on anything but a distant rumor that was now being presented as fact.

Don't forget that my first post in the original thread was exactly the opposite of what you accuse me of; I countered someone else's attempt to brush aside the importance of the initial incident as being heresay from Michelle.  So this notion that I'm trying to sweep the seriousness of this aside...  It is nonsense.

I have made no attempt to assign motives to ANY of your postings, no matter how pugilistic my tone may have been.  Yet you purport to understand my motives here?

My reason for using the example is exactly as I have stated it was.  To imply that I haven't taken the original incident seriously, or have some motive for deflecting attention away, is a patently false statement.  I challenge you to ask ANY of the first-person participants of the incident or the original thread if my private conversations with them did not acknowledge the seriousness of the situation.

You're just plain and simply speaking out of school here and attempting to associate my reputation with whatever bad things have happened as opposed to my having worked hard to be part of the solution.



-- Modified on 6/25/2004 9:53:03 PM