JAG

Discussion in 'New York' started by musicmannyc, Jan 23, 2001.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    thank you, wsb.
  2. wsb

    wsb

    Messages:
    523
    I actually have to agree with GC on this one.

    While I agree that pissing matches should be avoided, I don't see anything wrong with addressing a post to someone who may be lurking or not present at all. Since this is an open board, it's that person's choice whether to participate and respond on not.

    Ozzy's suggestion would actually seem to support GC's position regarding JAG and other similar boards.

    --WSB
  3. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    guy,

    it's simple respect. if the person/persons don't want to be acknowledged on a public board, then we should respect that.

    as far as your pissing contest with them.......go piss in jag and not on UG.
  4. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    uhhh...

    does the UG reference library have a copy of A Layman's Guide to Chloenic Logic? (i left mine at the office.)
  5. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    GC,

    you answered your own question..........open board vs closed board. i just think that if you want to debate some one go do it to their face.

    i did say that the same applies to escorts who aren't here either, ie....AY.
  6. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    simple fairness

    *those two* have the right to appear here if they *chose*.

    if it's not right to talk about them in ways that have no real life consequences for them on an *open* board where they *can* appear, then it can't possibly be right to talk about escorts in ways that can and do damage their livelihood on a *secret* board (JAG) where they *can't* appear.

    from all this, i see what the left wingers mean: zero-rights to notice-and-appearance for a female sex worker whose careeer is on the line, yet absolute immunity from any comment about male employers whom no one is stopping from finding out and appearing. failure to appear is not normally grounds for immunity; rather, it's grounds for a default judgment.

    and, because life isn't fair, you *can* have it *both* ways. that's because 'the majority rules' applies to those with a majority of the *money*, even without a tax cut ;-)

    all power to the escorts! (i haven't had my morning coffee yet -- and i'm late for work. screw 'em, this is more important ;-)



    [Edited by guy catelli on 02-10-2001 at 06:59 AM]
  7. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    not WSB........ the other two, who aren't here to defend themselves.
  8. justme

    justme <i>pop and click tainted</i> Vinyl ( is dead )

    Messages:
    9,566
    FWIW, I don't think Oz was talking about WSB.
  9. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    sheesh!

    hey, wsb, what does someone have to do to get your attention!?!

    i've been thwacking you over the head with a verbal 2X4 so hard and so often that i'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome! to make things worse, Ozzy got me to stop using your name, so i had to whack even harder!

    now that you've finally woken up, i will reveal my true purpose in drawing you back to UG in a new thread.

    until then,

    guy
  10. wsb

    wsb

    Messages:
    523
    Re: "*nothing* is more damaging to an escort's reputation in my eyes, and from what i've read posted by other clients i am far from alone on this, than the way she handles adverse comment on an open board."

    Wow! Scary when I find myself agreeing with Guy C.

    Re "i will just say that the reason why rules were eventually adopted against star chamber proceedings and hearsay testimony is that too many *innocent* people were being taken down along with the truly guilty.

    none of the supposed legal geniuses at JAG have ever addressed this irrefutable fact of the history of the common law -- because they *can't*, and they *know* they can't. instead, they just change the subject, pretending that they just didn't notice."

    Putting aside the fact that your position regarding JAG would seem to be somewhat queered by the circumstances surrounding your exit (no offense), an intelligent *guy* like yourself ***must*** understand the difference between the examples you cite and an organization that is essentially analogous to "Consumer Reports", the "New York Times Book Review" or Ruth Reichl's column. It goes without saying that the subjects of such reviews are not given space to respond to their critics, nor do they enjoy any sort of common law right to respond.

    Of course, the foregoing isn't exactly an original argument. I've read very similar arguments made in response to your past anti-JAG tirades, but I don't recall any logical rebuttal on your part.

    Regards,

    WSB
  11. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    most of this is going over my head

    1st, i should say that i'm on good terms, and have exchanged emails, with both AY and Dawn. Dawn has been particularly warm and fun.

    i have seen photos of Dawn. i like what i see a *lot*.

    i remember the Brenda thing in terms of what was said on the ny board. (btw, it's another example that plenty of negative stuff winds up on even the most escort-friendly board long enough for word to get out. but, at least if it's a public board, the accused has the right to appear and defend herself.) however, i don't know anything about what has gone on 'backstage'. maybe Dawn is going down on AY the way you are going down on the APM. i just don't know.
  12. Rufus Moses

    Rufus Moses

    Messages:
    549
    When Ozzy asks "wanna bet?" be very careful how you answer!

    :)
  13. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    guy,
    i don't know who you think it is but *I* can say that dawn is far....very far from a "ton of fun", and i am the last person to defend AY or her employee's.

    it's no different than the brenda shit........this is how it starts.

    [Edited by Ozzy on 01-29-2001 at 07:04 PM]
  14. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    1itt, and all, here's a case in point ....

    here's a decidedly mixed review of a presumably 'protected provider':

    http://www.bigdoggie.net/newyork/posts/20117.html

    even if it's deleted by the time you read this, it's already been read by many -- and this kind of news circulates fast.

    yes, her many fans are 'ganging up' on the reviewer. but, really, is he going to burn to a crisp?

    btw, the air of the savoire faire bon vivant, the way the glistening prose seems to gracefully glide from the keyboard, and the dagger inside of every bouquet -- could the author be our own ... no, no, it couldn't be! could it?
  15. Rufus Moses

    Rufus Moses

    Messages:
    549
    Time to out GC...in real life he is Mugger from the New York Press.
  16. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
  17. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    dialoging ...

    {(GC's) word count: 595; average reading time: under 2 minutes}

  18. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    r u serious?

  19. musicmannyc

    musicmannyc

    Messages:
    9
    I'm almost sorry I posted the question, but I think that we see one of the basic problems with JAG and any and all internet review/discussion sites, when the Testosterone levels gets high everyone starts to compare who is bigger. When JAG first started it had a very simple and basic premise for hobbyists to share information. Given that each and every one of us has different tastes and that every provider will react to individuals differently all that we really need is the basics (Who, Where, How Much, How Long). The more information the better, JAG management failed to understand that and moved to a pay site that now serves a small group of people.
  20. frog

    frog

    Messages:
    1,059
    gc, if I may ask, do you discriminate based on looks? by that, I obviously mean in your choice of [ooops, self-censor] dance partner.