hi guys

[lisa]

Hi every one

i just wanted to say hi and i cant wait to meet some of you when im in ny give me a call 347-432-3281

xoxo
lisa

[frog]

Hi Lisa. Please allow us to worship you on this board.

ps, your ad is expiring today. sb, I thought ads ran for 3 months?

[dicer5]

lisa,

do you know when you plan to be in ny?

[Slinky Bender]

frog,
The "free" period is for 90 days. However, when you first "write" your ad, you have to specify how long you want it to run for. So, if you only choose 30 days when you write it, that's how long it's up for. it can be renewed, however.


Everyone else,
If you haven't looked at lisa's picture yet, you owe it to yourself to do so.

lisa,
I think there is some confusion by us as to what your schedule is. Is it that you are in NYC for part of every week ?

[wimpy]

Hey Lisa,

What are your rates? Are you in NYC 1/22-1/26?

Wimpy0704@hotmail.com

[TuckernotSucker]

I spoke to this utterly charming woman today. Unfortunately business got in the way of my hobbying plans and we could not meet. But, she is definately a must see for me next week, if she is in town.
Jake

[Ozzy]

lisa is in nyc most of the time and never away for that long a time.

i met her once outside the biz,(she's a friend of a friend) and she is hot guys.

[fletch]

frog, stop being so fluffy!

[Ozzy]

frog i am truly dissappointed in you.

what a fucking hypocrite........sorry, but i had to spell that one out. besides i was getting too many requests to explain the inner workings of this board.




i think we need a thesaurus here on UG.


lisa, we're friends and nothing against you, but i have to keep the troops in line.


please allow us to worship you on this board

aaaggggghhhhh, you make me want to vomit.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy

frog i am truly dissappointed in you.

what a fucking hypocrite........sorry, but i had to spell that one out. besides i was getting too many requests to explain the inner workings of this board.




i think we need a thesaurus here on UG.


lisa, we're friends and nothing against you, but i have to keep the troops in line.


please allow us to worship you on this board

aaaggggghhhhh, you make me want to vomit.


looks like frog is 'wizeing up' and becoming a Romantic!

[Phantom]

GC,

Have you ever given a seconds thought to the fact that maybe allot of guys here are in fact romantics, but they don't feel the need to tell the world about the things they do to boost their egos as you do?

How does that expession go, "those that can do, those that can't teach". Or try to teach others?

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Phantom
GC,

Have you ever given a seconds thought to the fact that maybe allot of guys here are in fact romantics, but they don't feel the need to tell the world about the things they do to boost their egos as you do?

How does that expession go, "those that can do, those that can't teach". Or try to teach others?

...then why the need for the put-down of Carl M?

[Phantom]

Only in your mind GC, are my so called put down of CarlM and my being a romantic, somehow connected.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Phantom:

Only in your mind GC, are my so called put down of CarlM ...

i was not the first to note it as a putdown.

and my being a romantic, somehow connected.

i assume you mean my implication that you are *not* a romantic.

and, there *is* a connection. by attacking both Carl M and myself, you've revealed yourself as an anti-Romantic. people can pretend to themselves that *i* am the one being 'controversial' (if they see "equal rights for 'whores'" as some kind of 'controversial' position). but, no one can fairly say that Carl M is controversial.

yet, he has been attacked here and elsewhere for being a Romantic -- in spite of the fact that here and elsewhere other clients have thanked him for steering them straight on which escorts to see.

the anti-Romantics have repeatedly made it clear that their antipathy to Romantics stems from their fear that the escorts will become 'uppity' if treated like ladies instead of like an office temp. they see Romantics as subversive of their Victorian views on keeping 'them' in their place.

[Ozzy]

GC.........if you only knew the truth!

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy
GC.........if you only knew the truth!

the truth is...?

[Phantom]

GC,

if you only knew how wrong you are about me NOT being a romantic, but then I do not have a need or desire to post openly about how I treat these women and any woman.

Thanks Oz.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Phantom
GC,

if you only knew how wrong you are about me NOT being a romantic, but then I do not have a need or desire to post openly about how I treat these women and any woman.

Thanks Oz.

okay, i'll take you at your implied word that you are not an anti-Romantic (for now ;-) and, i know you're not mr. pitiful, because he would be posting from here to sunday.

but, i still feel like your attacks against me are completely unwarranted.

so ... whatever.

[Phantom]

[/B][/QUOTE]



so ... whatever. [/B][/QUOTE]

Gee, THAT has to be the shortest GC response ever!

How can you be so sure that I'm not Mr. Pitiful? I mean if I went through the trouble of using another screen name would not I also change my writing style to further confuse?

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Phantom


so ... whatever. [/B][/QUOTE]

Gee, THAT has to be the shortest GC response ever!

wrong! the shortest "GC response ever" were the words: "i concur". it was a response to something mr. pitiful had posted.

How can you be so sure that I'm not Mr. Pitiful? I mean if I went through the trouble of using another screen name would not I also change my writing style to further confuse?

he had a completely different m.o. he was never anti-intellectual as such. you are obviously some kind of out-west 'strong silent' type. not mr. pitiful.

[Ozzy]

if mr pitiful could bring GC to his knees (so to speak) by only posting two word responses.....

P we need your help !

[Rufus Moses]

Perhaps the best help Mr. P has to offer is his example...

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy
if mr pitiful could bring GC to his knees (so to speak) by only posting two word responses.....


mr pitiful happened to have been correct on that occasion. since the issue touched upon escort safety, i did not want my support to be a reason for sullen malcontents (cough) to oppose it.

after mr. pitiful's proposal carried the day is when the most blistering attacks on me started coming from certain quarters. but, since p's proposal had already passed, i didn't care.

P we need your help !

he always maintained that he didn't have the courage to state his convictions in a forum where a woman would be allowed to reply.

[Slinky Bender]

he always maintained that he didn't have the courage to state his convictions in a forum where a woman would be allowed to reply

Don't you think that you are changing his words around just a little there ?

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by slinkybender
he always maintained that he didn't have the courage to state his convictions in a forum where a woman would be allowed to reply

Don't you think that you are changing his words around just a little there ?

yes, i'm editorializing just a wee bit ;-)

[Phantom]

Hoisted on his own petard.

[Ozzy]

he always maintained that he didn't have the courage to state his convictions in a forum where a woman would be allowed to reply


again GC...if you only knew the truth.


guy, let me say this....... the fact that i know most of the fine posters on this board, i can tell you that your super powers are not needed here. You’re more than welcome to post your opinions, but by alienating yourself from the populace at large will only cause problems down the road. everyone here pretty much agrees with your opinions of how a girl/lady should be treated....so we don't need to be hit over the head with those opinions.

i might be the nastiest most sarcastic SOB you will ever run into on this or any other board, but i still know how to treat a lady. and i am responsible for quite a few of them being here in the first place......that goes for two of the bigger names in this hobby, both of whom trusted me enough to come here and join this board based on my word that they would get treated fairly by the APM, who happens to have stellar judgment in these matters. the board is in good hands and doesn't need a deputy running around town in a super hero's cape and mask protecting all the woman by bashing their past, present and future clients.

[Ozzy]

now if you wish, i'm sure i can have mr P pen a spectacular letter (and i'll post it) expressing how i and many others feel about your opinions on us.... if my writing is not up to the task.

[Phantom]

Well said Ozzy!

[Phantom]

Ozzy, I guess your much anticipated dated didn't happen. Sorry to hear that.

[Ozzy]

it's gonna be the weekend after next....it's better since i'll have more time to spend with her. this is a bad two weeks for me to find quality time.

[Phantom]

Are you absolutely sure about that date?

[Ozzy]

check your mail.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy
he always maintained that he didn't have the courage to state his convictions in a forum where a woman would be allowed to reply


again GC...if you only knew the truth.


guy, let me say this....... the fact that i know most of the fine posters on this board, i can tell you that your super powers are not needed here. You’re more than welcome to post your opinions, but by alienating yourself from the populace at large will only cause problems down the road. everyone here pretty much agrees with your opinions of how a girl/lady should be treated....so we don't need to be hit over the head with those opinions.

i might be the nastiest most sarcastic SOB you will ever run into on this or any other board, but i still know how to treat a lady. and i am responsible for quite a few of them being here in the first place......that goes for two of the bigger names in this hobby, both of whom trusted me enough to come here and join this board based on my word that they would get treated fairly by the APM, who happens to have stellar judgment in these matters. the board is in good hands and doesn't need a deputy running around town in a super hero's cape and mask protecting all the woman by bashing their past, present and future clients.


i'm not bashing anyone. i've been subject to a few potshots, and responded with lower, not higher, heat and volume. and, you're not remotely the nastiest and most sarcastic sob on this thread, much less any place else.

i have made it abundantly clear to the APM that i fully support him. for the record, i will state: it's *his* football -- and *his* stadium too!

hey, i've never given *** a hard time! (lol) i'm certainly not ever going to give one to the slinkmeister!

chronology:

1. i said 'hello'.
2. some good natured jousting followed.
3. you brought up Chloe and i thought you asked me to review her (i later reread it and realized you were asking for a review of 'A' -- naughty, naughty, Oz!)
4. i wrote that i wouldn't write a review if that would result in an escort being attacked solely to get at me.
5. i was therefore accused of saying that no one should write an honest but negative review.
6. i tried to explain that i have nothing against honest but negative reviews; just a problem with people attacking women they've never met as a way of getting at me.
7. i was moved by Val's posting to offer her a compliment. i got a rotten egg in my face. someone else chimed in.
8. i attempted to begin a colloquy about differences in client types, using a post elsewhere by Outsider as a jumping off point.
9. since which i've been accused of causing headaches, not knowing the 'truth' (at the risk of sounding like Pontius Pliate, what is this great 'truth', Oz?)

one of the brightest stars of the cyberscort firmament has posted here at my behest, to which her post here makes oblique reference. i have notified several others of this board's existence (including Chloe, because i know you actually miss her, Oz).

but, as the APM pointed out in a 12/15 post, UG has not yet been overrun by escorts. until then, i thought it would be fruitful to compare and contrast collectivists being courtly and transactionalists going into their checklist of features.

i don't see this as bashing.




[Edited by guy catelli on 01-21-2001 at 02:13 PM]

[Ozzy]

just stop the preaching.

if chloe does come here....she and her sister have to register under two seprate names or they won't last long. your not dealing with bigdog here, APM is rarely fooled.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy
now if you wish, i'm sure i can have mr P pen a spectacular letter (and i'll post it) expressing how i and many others feel about your opinions on us.... if my writing is not up to the task.

that won't be necessary. you and others have not been shy about expressing your opinion of me. the attacks on JAG began before i even said 'hello' for the first time. (the attacks were predicated on the review i had written -- which never mentioned one word about my views on clients). as a matter of fact, prior to coming to JAG my view of clients was overwhelmingly favorable -- because i was the only client i knew.

and (i hope he's reading this), after coming to ***'s boards, mr. p's stock rose immeasurably -- in comparison to what i read there.

now, i never brought this up on JAG, and i've never brought it up on ***. but, since you've raised the issue here, i will address the matter -- putting this as delicately as i can out of deference to the APM.

unpopularity with certain clients seems to be thought of as some kind of devasting 'indictment'. that's not the way the overwhelming majority of the world sees it. i had always thought the civilian world had it all wrong about clients. alas.

[Ozzy]

guy, i am probably public enemy # 1 now over at jag for reasons you would never believe if i explained it all to you. lets just say that your lucky you aren't at jag anymore. you would have had a coronary last month if you were.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy
guy, i am probably public enemy # 1 now over at jag for reasons you would never believe if i explained it all to you. lets just say that your lucky you aren't at jag anymore. you would have had a coronary last month if you were.

have you and i ever had a *real* disagreement about *anything*!?!

[Ozzy]

guy,

i understand a lot of your points, and agree with you as most people do. it's just that no one wants to hear about it in long rambling posts.

i was not a big reader of the discussion boards on jag when you had your problems there so i can't really comment on that. we did have some disagreements on *** a short time after you left jag, but i don't even remember what it was about at this point.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy
guy,

i understand a lot of your points, and agree with you as most people do.

thank you, Ozzy; that means a lot to me, coming from you.

it's just that no one wants to hear about it in long rambling posts.

{grins} ah, there was a *catch*!

well, Oz, that's true for the 99% of people who are 'normal' (though there's no technological barrier to their just scrolling down to something shorter and sweeter, just as they mite with a magazine or newspaper ;-).

but, there will always be about 1% of us who are not normal, in that we would rather read and write than, say, watch mtv or vh1. like they say, it takes all kinds.

as it happens, 'writing' is part of 'my thing'. so is photography. there are things i want to communicate. words and pictures are the way i communicate them. sort of a 'show-and-tell' kind of a thing.

i was not a big reader of the discussion boards on jag when you had your problems there so i can't really comment on that.

as briefly as possible, *my* version of the case was, and continues to be:

1. sensitivity: we will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. i spilled a lot of vinegar myself; but, as just noted elsewhere, i'm more interested in being popular with flying escorts than with fleas on a 'dog'. like i said, it takes all kinds.

2. fairness: whatever the *pragmatic* advantages might be (and i think these were vastly, and naively, exaggerated), there is no *morally* defensible reason why the same fundamental human rights that apply to everyone else should not apply to escorts.

if the service being reviewed on an internet message board were, say, italian restauranteurs, a-a lawyers, jewish camera store owners, korean deli owners, etc, no one would question what would be fair, and what would not, in terms of openness.

we did have some disagreements on *** a short time after you left jag, but i don't even remember what it was about at this point.

thank you, Oz, for refreshing my recollection of this one little point of divergence. for those just tuning in, i will reprise as briefly as possible:

a d.c. escort had outed the first name and phone number of one 'Gerald', whose m.o. was booking escorts touring nyc with the intent to take liberties with them through fraud. in law and logic, no one can 'consent' to *fraud*! (duh!) the new york penal law has codified such situations, and proscribed them as 'sexual abuse in the 3rd degree' (an analysis that i went to the trouble of having confirmed by two 'civilian' lawyers at that time).

every honest escort wants frauds posing as escorts to be outed as such -- if for no other reason than to make life easier for genuine escorts. with one exception, no client other than myself seemed to grasp this same enlightened self-interest applied vis-a-vis genuine clients.

however, sensitive as i am to human rights and the many false accusations that appear on boards, there was one thing i had to do before accusing Gerald of a crime. there was no doubt that the perp was using the name 'Gerald', because well known escorts from all over the country were posting that he had attempted or already accomplished his scheme to sexually abuse them by posing as a client. but, the phone number that was posted could have been the wrong number -- for instance, a schlub with a phone number one digit different, or the like.

and, *i* was the one that had been pounding the table all along that the *accused* have a right to be apprised of the accusations made against them, and an opportunity to respond to those accusations in the forum in which they had been made (this is as fundamental as *Magna Carta*!). under the circumstances, i was in no position to withhold the same standard of fairness from Gerald.

so, i called the phone number and discreetly informed the middle-aged male who answered that certain charges against someone named 'Gerald' with his phone number had been made on an internet bulletin board. the snake who answered was obviously very "practiced in the art of deception" and quickly slithered back under the rock whence he had come.

i posted to the board that this episode had left no further doubt in my mind -- and all hell broke loose! the number and intensity of flames that ensued would have befitted Hitler or Stalin. "what if {this}!!!"; "what if {that}!!!" "what about the pain and embarrassment to his friends and family!!!" (as if that were not the consequence when *any* criminal has been publicly exposed).

in the midst of all of these "what *ifs*", the "what *is*" of the situation was that Gerald was continuing to attempt to sexually abuse touring escorts while the controversy on the boards was still raging.

i do not know what has subsequently become of Gerald. whatever it is, i hope it has been "nasty, brutish, and short". i do know that, contrary to the tone and intensity of the rage that accrued thereto, my simply confirmatory phone call to Gerald did not result in the end of life as we know it.

in passing, i will note that *every* escort was intimidated into publicly recanting her original support for the outing of Gerald {because, as one of them put it to me privately, it was "bad for business" not to}. every escort, that is, except for one little escort who continued to stand tall for human rights.

she had come of age in a society where dissenters against illegality had been subsequently ostracized by friends and colleagues. she did not come to America to remain silent in such circumstances. it was her courageous willingness to put principle before her pocketbook that led to our first face-to-face rendezvous. as a result, our mutual loyalty and friendship is now eternal.

for her troubles, a few clients {cough} began a mean-spirited disinformation campaign to the effect that the in-person escort a client meets was reflected in the sour notes her wacky russian literary editor was posting, rather than the sweet ones. as some well knew, and others would have known had they ever bothered to actually meet her {cough, cough}, the in-person escort has as sweet a disposition as any escort in all of nyc.

but, all of that is now part of the early history of the internet. today is the first day of the future history of the internet. onward and upward!

[Rufus Moses]

Another GC post too long to be worth reading, so I didn't.

But I do want to mention that Ozzies problems at JAG were fairly specific to him and his situation.

The rest of this post is not in response to Ozzy or anyone in particular. Don't take it personally please...

As a whole JAG is not much different now than it was a year ago. Its biggest problem remains the changeover to charging a membership fee which has chased a number of otherwise good members away. (Yeah yeah, we all know, "its not charging the fee, its the way it was done" or "its just too much" etc. Lets not rehash that very old argument here please)

Nevertheless, JAG still fills an important niche...

1) its "open" in the sense that any consumer can join if they pay their dues (a combination of $ and reviews) and follow the rules. Its not a private club in that you don't have to be someone's friend or be specially invited to get in.

2) its for consumers only. Supply-side people love to sneak in, and to the extent possible are chased out. Being consumer only (even with leakage) has advantages...the primary one being reviews and posts are much more candid than on mixed boards.

Would I want every board to be like JAG? No. But do I want JAG to be more like other boards (e.g. ***, UG?) NO!

Nobody has to be a JAG member. But JAG members should be free to be JAG members. There is room for diversity and choice.

[mr. wonderful]

Well, I just gave the lovely Lisa a call, and after being unable to clearly understand who I was (I gave her my name and told her I was a contributor to Utopia Guide), she unceremoniously hung up on me. Well, another one on the scrapheap. I hate girls that are dumb.

MW

[badz]

.

[Edited by badz on 05-23-2001 at 09:46 PM]

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy
....if chloe does come here....she and her sister have to register under two seprate names or they won't last long. your not dealing with bigdog here, APM is rarely fooled.

does this also apply to Rabbi Berlin? http://209.164.24.17/newyork/posts/19803.html

[Edited by guy catelli on 01-21-2001 at 04:57 PM]

[BigBucksNYC]

I've always thought Chloe was hot but it is really too bad she doesn't do incall. Because I live in the city and have roommates, my only option is get a hotel (way too expensive) or do incall (the obvious choice).

Just wish I could experience Chloe because she looks really good. Has anyone seen her? Does she speak greek?

[Ozzy]

chloe doesn't even speak english.....


she speaks her own language........................that no one has yet to understand.

[frog]

oh, I am not so sure about that oz. There is probably someone here among us who is fairly fluent is Chlo-ese.

[guy catelli]

if 1000 words is "too long to be worth reading" for some, no problem -- here's 40:

"if the service being reviewed on an internet message board were, say, italian restauranteurs, a-a lawyers, jewish camera store owners, korean deli owners, etc, no one would question what would be fair, and what would not, in terms of openness."

[guy catelli]

Ozzy: chloe doesn't even speak english.....she speaks her own language........................that no one has yet to understand.

Guy: pay no attention to Ozzy, frog - he just likes to be 'controversial' ;-)

Frog: oh, I am not so sure about that oz. There is probably someone here among us who is fairly fluent is Chlo-ese.

Guy: frog, you have shown the courage to announce that you have become a Romantic. predictably, some of the others have called you names, and so forth. ignore them, they are merely jealous of the far superior level of service you will be receiving ;-)

now that you are a Romantic, one of the mysteries of Romanticism will herewith be revealed to you. i am referring to the Mystery of the Chloenic Dialect.

if the truth be known, frog, i myself am not able to understand every single nuance of *written* Chloenic. in part, this is because written Chloenic, unlike spoken Chloenic, is often the product of a 'committee' -- like a zebra.

further, the purposes of written Chloenic are sometimes to obscure, rather than clarify. for example, what might otherwise get deleted as flaming might be able to remain on a board if it is sufficiently mystifying in its true meaning.

and, here is where the political goal of avoiding censors intersects artistic considerations. as everyone knows, the great artistic innovation of the 20th century has been abstract art. in those regimes where all art had to be produced in the service of the state, abstract art was a way to befuddle the censors, who usually did not understand it. thus, dictatorships bestowed a comfortable living to hack artists who turned out government-approved 'realism', while some of the greatest artisitc visionaries of the 20th century had to eke out an existence however they could.

but, when it comes to *spoken* Chloenic, the matter is quite different. though it is heavily accented, the meaning of spoken Chloenic is anything but obscure.

however, two things should be noted about spoken Chloenic. the first is that the Chloenic Love Bug is quite shy in person. unlike the english language, the human anatomy is universal. and, since Chloe is a trained gymnast, she is much less shy about showing off her exceptional physical grace and coordination than she is about conversing in english.

one evening over dinner, however, she explained to me the secret to effective communication in spoken Chloenic. in her mind there is a little compartment that memorizes what the speaker is saying. her mind then translates this into russian; and then she reverses the process to reply. but, if the speaker does not pause after a burst of words, it exceeds the storage capacity of her mental translation device, and she loses her way in the conversation.

so, the key to effective conversation with the Love Bug is to speak a sentence or two at a time so that her mind can translate what is being said. then she can reply, and you can continue exchanging a sentence or two at a time in this way.

my personal experience of being with people who are still learning english is that it is much more interesting to speak with a bright and intelligent person with a limited vocabulary, than with someone who grew up speaking english, but doesn't have much going on 'upstairs'. if you are looking for a very bright and intelligent escort with the body of a gymnast, the Chloenic Love Bug is a top choice.

[Carl M]

Hey Im sorry If I got the passion, as you get older things change my brothers. I like a good smootch thats all. My main brother Ozzy knows what the deal is. Does not have to be with just tongue, but with lips-rubbing of lips, light sucking and biting- there are very few who do that. Dawn of Alyssas place comes to mind, Cecilia of Nicole Rio is very passionate once you get past the tatoos and piercings, also I do not want to start anything but Jackie of Ct is another who will surprise you!

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Carl M:
Hey, I'm sorry If I've got the passion, as you get older things change my brothers.

amen, brother.

.... My main brother Ozzy knows what the deal is....

so, frog was right -- Ozzy *is* a Romantic! verrrrrrreeeee intahrethting, brother Carl M.

brother Carl M, i have read a number of postings from other clients thanking you for steering them in the 'right direction'. so, it's *not* that Romantic posts are "useless" for *everyone*. they may be useless for *some* -- but the 'some', or even the 'many', need to stop thinking that they speak for the 'all'.

but, Carl M, even though i am a fellow Romantic, i have an interest in the general 'credibility' of the Romantic viewpoint. so, it is only partially in jest that i ask you: have you *ever* had a disapointing experience with an escort!?!

[Ozzy]

GC, i told you......i know how to treat a woman........it's not always romantic.....sometimes they just want their lights banged out........you gotta just be able to seperate the two.

[Edited by Ozzy on 01-22-2001 at 03:16 PM]

[Carl M]

Believe me I have had my share of losers- but my policy is if you have nothing nice to say don"t say it. Sme people get pissed about this- too bad!

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy
[B]GC, i told you......i know how to treat a woman........it's not always romantic.....sometimes they just want their lights banged out........you gotta just be able to seperate the two.

this has been a common misunderstanding all along. i have criticized the attitudes expressed in a *few* postings by a *few* clients toward escorts (ok, maybe sometimes a little more than a 'few' ;-)

the comeback has often been, ~oh guy, you don't get it, [X] is wonderful to escorts; they all love him~

i am very happy to hear that [whoever] is wonderful to escorts. really, i am.

but, let me give you an example of what i am concerned about -- from the civilian world. a certain candidate in the last presidential election has for many years made public statements that were grossly insensitive to one particular group of voters. as it happens, he has *many* close friends and associates who are members of that group. some of them came forward to publicly defend him. i am very happy that members of that group have had good things to say about him.

and yet, even though i myself am not a member of that group, the whole thing still leaves me wondering: what's up with all those insensitive statements?

do you see what i mean?

[lisa]

Hi everyone again
i would like to let you all know that i am usually in ny on thurs fri and sat but i will be in ny this week from mon jan 29th til fri feb 2nd you can reach me at 347-432-3281 and my rates are 200 pr hr i do in and out call and im looking very foward to meeting and chatting with you .i love your board :)

XOXO
LISA

[lisa]

i dont mind a romantic on the board if you dont its always nice to hear something nice like
being worshipped ( lol) or something nice like that )

but its its your board not mine

lisa

[TuckernotSucker]

Lisa,
You are romantic. I cant wait to meet you. Hopefully at the end of next week.
Jake

[lisa]

GOODMORNING EVERYONE :0)

MY PIC SHOULD BE UP ON MY AD TODAY HOPE YOU ALL LIKE THEM

[foger]

Lisa,
where can i find your ad????

[Allen]

foger,

go to the classifieds above the board. top left.