I’ve been recently filling some of my economic down-time by performing “screening” duties for a busy provider.  
This has brought me to the conclusion that less than 10% of modern male Homo-sapiens can follow more than ONE written instruction at a time.
   
    Geeee’z; did Evelyn Wood forever cripple our ability to read and comprehend directions? No matter how simply, plainly or laconically the screening prerequisites are spelled out; the response is either total non-compliance, or a blathering autobiography of useless personal information.  

always had leftover parts.

Some guys who pretend that they didn't read the directions clearly, or appear dumbfounded,  could merely be trying to bypass the screening process, by providing the bare minimum information to see if it flies, or the provider (or the screener in this case) comes back asking for more...

Its an old trick..  

Now if you really want to test their comprehension skills, you need to put them in a room and give them a comprehension test.  

No hot women should be allowed to enter the room, as they serve nothing but distraction

-- Modified on 4/14/2013 11:00:53 AM

and NO; I'm not "getting off" on it.

or more accurately GFYTWYRIO!!! lmao

Do you really think that someone like me is capable, or willing for that matter, to follow directions from the likes of you?

Now follow this instruction and GFY!!!!! roflmfao

My sister never had that problem...maybe women are better at men at something.

And you damn well know it  

or maybe a female assistant who is in the biz. what happens when john from the office who you can't stand, sends his info? you gonna keep quiet? doubtful. as to your post, guys looking at tits can't think properly. that's a no brainer. if this provider is that busy, maybe she should raise her rates vs hiring some john to do her damn work for her.

Is every "agency" owned and run exclusively by "women"?

And I trust that the hooker discloses this on her site?  That some johnnie boy is her "assistant"?  Nope...the johns sending their personal info in have NO fucking clue that another TER lackey is "reviewing" their private information.

Agencies don't hide this..at least the ones I am familiar with.  And I certainly have NO issues with a guy running it either.  BUT I know in advance of who is who.

And its an endoscope BTW....you many want to go back to school and get your spelling degree.  Or are you that sloppy with your hooker pals info as well?  Care to tell us who she is?  At least have some cojones.  Or has she stolen those from you as well!

The issue is that the OP is behind the scenes reading supposedly private emails to a hooker.  

Do you think a female assistant who also works in the real world would keep quiet about the same situation? Bringing up the gender of the screener is a red herring, as is their client status. If anything a client is going to be quiet too, since they're screening for a provider and they have almost as much desire to keep it quiet that the provider does. Any screener with an attachment to the biz is going to keep quiet, regardless as to which end of it they're on.

Forgot to change my alias.

Just because you are now playing Johnny Scheduler, doesn't mean that you have to be the hooker advocate of TER.
Starting a thread like this to curry favors from your new boss? You will never get your man card back after today. It's one thing to to "help" out a provider, but yet another to come on here and critique your fellow hobbyists. You should have went about your business and kept your mouth shut.    

I also have to agree with Curley. Those "forms" are invasive and I would never fill one out to completion. In fact, I would never even attempt to have my personal information in a storage unit on a hooker's computer where the information in not secure.

Let me know how logical it is when some BSC hooker or even worse, some BSC johnnie boy decides to "out" you.  Or try and extort from you.  

"Yo; are you available later tonight?"  
That is about as romantic, racy, or graphic as the e-mails get; ChgoCPA.  Once I receive favorable affirmation by a prior provider, P411, etc, and relay it to my employer; my job is then done, and the ball is in HER court.  

Has the possibility of some one just anonymously outing an enemy ever occurred to you?

and before you say the chances of that are negligible, I might add that very thing happened to me, and many others on this board. In my case, there were no ill effects, because I am "blackmail proof" but I am living proof that it can happen to anyone.

So please try to do a little less broadcasting and a little more receiving, at least until you stop being wet behind the ears, or you grow a brain, whichever comes first.

A simple typo and you're all about impugning and epithets.  

If you're contacting someone who does not like you and wants to do you ill, they're going to do it, provider or screener. Anything that a client screener who happens to know you outside the hobby could do more than a provider places them in a personally compromising situation.

I thought based on your prior posts that you had actually graduated 8th grade...but your cognitive skills are so underdeveloped that I was quite wrong to assume that.

Rethink what you are doing...it's not good.

Posted By: GhostWriteroftheDamned

A simple typo and you're all about impugning and epithets.  
   
   Growthefuckup

YOU are just plain stupid.

The terms naive and stupid are not mutually exclusive you know. He could actually be both naive AND stupid. Let's not be too hasty in our rush to judgment.

but yes, if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on stupid.

but I WILL NOT beg to pay for pussy.

Anyone who has been here for any length of time knows who is responsible for that quote, but it seemed very appropriate to this thread.

Name one instance where a client screener can do more damage to you personally than a provider. The circumstances have to be equal - if the client screener is employed by the same company as you, then the provider is as well, or they both know you from high school, etc.

Big tough Chigago guy screams like a little girl when his "fantasy" is rattled.

have you looked at a scoreboard lately?

I don't normally like to gloat until the game is over, but as the saying goes "it's not looking too good for the home team" lol

no and that's the fucking point! i don't mind an agency (legit one) that is run my a male, but I do mind some random john screening emails on the sly. if a provider has an assistant, she needs to flat out say so, and not pretend it's her reading your emails.

you would still see her vs. she 'might' have it, but you are given no clues. i would not send my private info over email to begin with, so it would be done over the phone with the provider or not at all. I don't mind sending references to whoever, but somene who is a client has no business screening a providers email. that's called a pimp.

English Composition that I've seen on these boards in a very long time.  

Your logic is simply illogical.

it's obvious on so many levels that most clients prefer a female to deal with. even agencies who have guys answering the phone will tell you they get more hang up calls than a female answering it.

If you only had a clue...but you don't!

Posted By: GhostWriteroftheDamned

Big tough Chigago guy screams like a little girl when his "fantasy" is rattled.  
   
  Who the fuck is "backtracking"? I'm in it for some unreported income. If anyone should be crying like a little girl it's the IRS. Oh; that's right; CPA’s are a serendipitous parasite born of the IRS.  
 

are you really this dumb? a random screener does not have a name or review history! if someone says "Stacy's screener is a jackass and outed me" that person is not being reviewed, only stacy is! The provider can of course cause you harm, but you have the ability to hurt her in the process, by writing a bad review. You can't review a screener who you don't know! you can't blacklist a screener you don't know, and the thing you are missing is when some john does the screening the client did not agree to that! he agreed to talk to the provider, not her asisstant, pimp, booker, etc.  

Emma has no use for a TER johnnie boy pimp.  She likes to handle her own affairs and not have some doofus have access to information that he shouldn't have.

Good point.  Me either.  I have my own personal blacklist for providers who make me beg to give them $$$ to fuck them. There are plenty of good providers in my area who screen but don't require a DNA sample.

And FWIW, you could  have used a comma or two in your second sentence, couldn't you?

Nah...I need them for next week. May be after next week? LOL [e]

-- Modified on 4/14/2013 7:06:26 PM

Now that's a legitimate, logical argument, but you're still reacting on emotion, because the situation isn't fully considered. That screener affects the provider's business. If you think a provider's business wouldn't be affected by a negative review caused entirely by a bad screener, you're wrong.

you are a blind idiot. most of the providers who post here can articulate save one or two.

You have no idea if that "agency owner" is a pimp. a BF, legit, or not.

do you think smart guys want to blow money on the "what ifs?" you are kind of clueless. you can't give a lady a bad review for looks or performance because of what her screener did! are you high on glue? how can you drop a 10 to a 5 because of what a screener did? it makes no fucking sense! all you can do is mention "so and so has a screener who is a dumb ass" and guys are still going to see her, because many have no standards. you are the one going on and on about how good it is to have a john screening emails. are you doing the same?

once again for the clueless. if a provider 'told me' a fucking john on ter was screening her emails, I would not see her. just like I would not see a provider who told me she had herpes. what you and brain dead fail to comprehend is the 'knowing' part. if I don't 'know' its not the provider reading my emails, how can it bother me. put down the bottle. also a reputable agency with 20 girls is not the same thing as some john pretending to be the provider, and not the assistant. agencies, you know upfront your shit is not going to the provider. when you book an indy you are trying to avoid the middle man. hope that was clear enough.

Very appropriate in this thread. I have seen that quote used on various boards several times by you and others. I actually thougth you were responsible for it, but since you are not claiming it, I am going to say LP might have been the originator.

So, the screener being an asshole isn't a reviewable part of the experience?

you can put it in the comments, but you are a jackass to punish a provider for what some screener did that she may not even be aware of. bottom line, a third party makes things more complicated. most guys want things simple and having to go through a third party before they can even talk to a provider is not something they sign up for. you obsiously don't mind and that's great for you, but you should really stop telling other men what they should find acceptable. if they don't want to deal with some pimp, that's their right. do what you want and don't worry about what others want. do you like getting fucked with a strap on? many guys do. are you going to tell them they have no right to do that? same principle. you are drilling this thing home so hard, it becomes obvious you are not a newbie but possibly a pimp. what GUY takes so much issue with what other guys do? cpa is right. you keep digging that hole.

No, I'm not saying just being uncomfortable is a bad reason to avoid providers who have a screener. If that's your feeling, who the hell am I to say you're wrong - it's a preference based on feelings.