First of all I did not take a cheap shot at you. My post was in response to you taking up for a virtual nobody(new poster with 2posts)and your cheap shot at Macy...read it.....
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=27025&boardID=28&page=
http://www.eros-philly.com/files/mi-sara59-samantha1.htm
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/newreviewsList.asp?searchreview=1&tersearch=1&version=0.1&Phone=7869420079
-- Modified on 7/6/2007 9:55:42 AM
-- Modified on 7/7/2007 7:13:41 AM
"Kill this ridiculous attitude of us(hobbyist) against them(providers)."
Have any idea who put that line up on the boards? I'll be happy to refresh your memory if you can't recall.
-- Modified on 7/6/2007 6:27:43 PM
let me see...... 5 reviews.....3 diffrent names and an average performance of 3.75...
I hope you don't bet at the horse races because you are sure to back the looser everytime.
-- Modified on 7/7/2007 7:26:25 AM
Yeah, you guys are right. Whatever Chris says is always the truth. After all, he posts every day so it must be right. FO
It seemed like he was simply pointing out what others said. Isn't that the information sought after on a review website?
Same bunch of clowns piling on one of my posts. Sort of a gang mentality. Where's the other idiot, the one from D.C.?
-- Modified on 7/8/2007 10:50:27 AM
... I have a question. Please don't consider this piling on, criticizing or having any other negative connotation. I am really just trying to understand.
Chris posted that a provider's pics may not indicate positive performance and included a link to her reviews - your response was to take a shot at chris, not to say anything about the provider.
A couple of us posted that we didn't see what the problem was with chris' post - you responded with an abbreviated vulgarity and a sarcastic remark.
Someone else adds the opinion that he/she didn't see what the problem was with chris post - you responded again sarcastically calling posters clowns and making reference to an idiot. And that people were piling on.
What exactly are looking for? Everyone to agree with you? Everyone to also start calling everyone else clowns and idiots? Why is it everyone else who is piling on but it's OK for you to call everyone else names? Other than chris' post re: get a life -no one said ONE WORD to you personally, made any criticism about you or called you any names. The comments were all about an opinion about his post. So why are you taking this so personally?
Do you want an answer as to why I responded curtly to Chris? If you really do, fine. I don't have a problem with Southpaw. If this is simply a rhetorical question, I'll end it right here. But reason I gave him the response that I did was that he is simply getting a dose of what he gave me when I posted something he didn't like EARLIER. Chris' post probably was fine....just like mine was when he chose to took the cheap shot. My post was fine, essentially the same TYPE of thing he posted about. But, it seems that posts are only OK if he agrees. OK, now on to Step 2 - here's how we can all become self-actualized. It's simple. If you want to mediate this, OK, he leaves my posts alone, and vice versa. I'm reasonable, I just don't like the double standard.
First of all I did not take a cheap shot at you. My post was in response to you taking up for a virtual nobody(new poster with 2posts)and your cheap shot at Macy...read it.....
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=27025&boardID=28&page=
Didn't I say I previously KNEW this poster nickde claimed was some random innocent poster that I viciously attacked, and perhaps that I had more insight into both Ana Lee's reputation as well as his behavior? It's almost like a Pavlov experiment gone awry at this juncture where nickde reads NAMES of posters and not the post itself and without doing any research before his little temper tantrums start. He is complaining about the same people "attacking" him all the time. How many people have attacked me besides nickde, sutquig2, treasures, some carlucci guy, etc. It's the same people doing the same. You say if you got banned people would stick up for you and nobody would do the same for me (riiiiiiight, they would for my adposts if nothing else!). You said in that same post you referred to that you have you buddies that you won't reveal the names of. People have defended Chris and myself publicly. We don't have to name names. There is no secret society of sorts. You just want to be treated differently for how you act. Have you taken a vaca recently nickde? Maybe you need one.
-- Modified on 7/9/2007 6:20:31 AM
I've talked to and pm'ed Nick...I think he's a pretty ok guy. Not my best friend, but certainly a good guy.
I've also met Macy, and like her an awful lot.
Wow...how do I reconcile this dilemma?
I know: screw what others write....Macy is still the best and nicest provider I've met, and Nicky boy is still someone I trust and enjoy reading.
There...that was easy!!!!
Frankie
Frankie:
Treat yourself to a cannoli
Huh? I haven't said word one about you since you threatened to "out" me. But that reminds me, why haven't you either "outed" me or refunded my $$$? You seemed pretty serious at the time.
One more thing, I know Nick, and he's OK with me too.
Refund? That's even more hilarious. You wish you had the pleasure of my company, but, since you have not and I have a sense of humor... if you'd like $$$ just let me know when and where you'd like it *wink*
This is the first. A "provider" who doesn't remember who I was, so she just says she didn't see me. What a riot.
So, do I understand that you want to maintain the status quo, or just opt out and we'll respect each others posts? That's all I'm after - Leave my posts alone, I leave yours alone. It's very simple, no hidden motives. Don't bring your provider buddy into the equation. That's not the issue. It's pretty much a Yes / No answer. It is a way to end this, as Southpaw observed. Why not just take the out?
-- Modified on 7/9/2007 1:52:48 PM
It was not a rhetorical question as you correctly surmised.
There's only one person who controls what's on the board and he chooses to severely limit his use of options available to him; no one else can really act as a mediator, therefore, in my view. As you have said yourself in many posts, let people have their say...unless the mod chooses to limit that.
Speaking of self-actualization, I don't think Maslow had this kind of board in mind when he came up with his hierarchy, lol.
There's still many things I don't get but at this point I don't want to keep this going, as it looks like it already has, unfortunately. I'm sure we'll see more back and forth and I hope this flips to page 2 quickly as it is never ending but was certainly not my intent to foment.
Right here, Nickie. I just enjoy watching you make a complete ass of youself. No comment required from me...you seem to be able to do it all by yourself. I know that you are just a blow hard and really can't back anything up so I'll just watch you implode.
...don't see what the issue is with chris' post. It's not like he ripped a well regarded provider. He informed those who read the board of empirical data which indicated a less than favorable history. What's wrong with that?
He also posts positively about providers. In fact, I've heard others say he is TOO one-sided in favor of providers. His post is far from an "us against them" message.
YOur right South... Chris is a great resource..
Nick..you have taken this the wrong way!!!