JAG

[musicmannyc]

What has happened to JAG? No updates, lame reviews and bad support.

[SS]

But they want you to send money anually to support them? It's unfortunate that JAG has become what it is.

Saturation has been reached at JAG regarding posts of people we all know already.

On JAG, the discussion groups are current, but we have that here too and I believe it is better here.

[wimpy]

It is sad about JAG. But the way things went concerning pay for play. I was not happy about that. Nuff said. Let's leave that behind. I like it here. Slinkybender and Allen have done an excellent job here!!

[DannyNJ]

I'm a member of both JAG and here (obviously), and I agree that it's a shame how slow things have been on JAG lately - but it's still a great board. My question - being new to this board - is are there any reviews on this site? I've looked around a bit and can't seem to find any. Am I missing them? Or are there any plans to add reviews in the near future?

[Slinky Bender]

Danny,

There is no review section here currently. Part of the problem is that on a "mixed site", reviews can quickly become a "bone of contention" ( no, that's not a euphamism for "little slinkybender" ). It's something we have wrestled with, and will continue to do so.

There are some reviews mixed in with the threads, however.

[Geezy Muldoon]

Am

[Edited by Judge Crater on 07-25-2001 at 02:29 PM]

[Rufus Moses]

I share JC's optimism. The operators of the board say they are working on an instant review posting mechanism. With that in place JAG should regain its posture.

[wimpy]

Originally posted by Judge Crater
Am registered here on UG and am a Premier Member of JAG. Since the two sites serve different functions, I think there is a place for both in the hobbying world. JAG is more for reviews and frank discussions about women. UG, being a mixed site, is or should be , I think, *** without the bullshit ratings, favortism and puff ball throwing between providers and johns. As soon as the backlog of new reviews are cleared at JAG, it will be every bit as good as it has been in the past.

Now, as a premier member aren't you kind of pissed that JAG is a pay site and there is a backlog?!?! Where are the refunds from the mad boyz?????

[Edited by wimpy on 01-25-2001 at 03:11 PM]

[Geezy Muldoon]

living

[Edited by Judge Crater on 07-25-2001 at 02:30 PM]

[Julienyc]

Originally posted by musicmannyc
What has happened to JAG? No updates, lame reviews and bad support.

I don't know much about the inside operation of Jag but I know that I give all Jag members a discount and I must always be thankful to all you Jag members for making my establisment what it is today and I would hate to see it fail. I know Jag is for men only and I do respect that. We did read the reviews when guys would bring them in and it was fun. We felt like we were bad little girls into daddys private diary.

[guy catelli]

JAG's policy of attempting to exclude women does have one justification: to the extent that men are sharing with other men their own vulnerabilites and dilemmas in relation to women.

nevertheless, publishing in secret anonymous postings that economically damage people who are excluded from seeing the charges, much less responding to them, is as inexcusable as the worst excesses of McCarthyism.

worse still, the demeaning of certain women as being 'ugly pigs', or equlivalent characterizations, sends a signal to sadistic predators that these were victims that no one would defend or rescue.

one of the victims of this practice of JAG's came forward on JAG's public board, and with astonishing deference under the circumstances, begged JAG to stop promoting violence against women in this way. only moral monsters could have ignored so moving a plea.

needless to say, there was the predictable clucking of tongues from on high, that no one would condone such a thing.

but the practice of implicitly signalling to the many predators and sickos known to lurk there which 'pigs' were safe to victimize continued unabated. in this respect, JAG resembles secret socieites far more unsavory than the notorious "Red Channel" of the McCarthyism era.



[Edited by guy catelli on 02-10-2001 at 06:46 AM]

[Ozzy]

two ringleaders

what would their proud mommys say if they read that.

[Rufus Moses]

GC, you have made quite a bit of progress. You've been able to find a way to make short and concise posts...that are *still* not worth reading.

Given that JAG members really soundn't talk about the content of JAG in places other than JAG, you've just done what you accused JAG of doing. You've made accusations about JAG in a place where it can't defend itself.

But I can give this general bottom line defense, as if its really needed:

Consumers have a right to get together for private discussions about their vendors and experiences. Freedom of speech, right to privacy, freedom of association...its all in there.

You have a right to talk about the local shop with your neighbor over the backyard fence. And the local shop owner does *not* have the right to demand to come in your backyard, hear what you say, and argue with you about it.

So you can carp about this if you want to...everyone has their kink...but I hope you aren't saying any basic freedoms should be taken away.

[Slinky Bender]

Ah, the mental image of the shopkeeper running into rufus' backyad and yelling at him about him talking to his neighbor about his criticism.

I don't know why, but it reminds me of the Woody Allen movie 9 Annie Hall ? ) where he stops the film school guy in line and drags in Marshall McCluhan to tell him he is totally wrong.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Rufus Moses
GC, you have made quite a bit of progress....

so have you, Rufus Moses. in fact, i am so grateful that you have begun to dialogue with me instead of just wildly attacking me that, for the time being, i will not comment on this latest characterization of *me* as some kind of human rights violator {chuckling}.

btw, in spite of everything, i still admire you for your correcting the lies Onlooker told about me on the aspd board when he was (unsuccessfully, i might add) attempting to flame-bait me there.

regards,

guy

[Rufus Moses]

well .... you know .... every once in a while I just go a wittle cwazy ....





[Edited by Rufus Moses on 01-26-2001 at 02:23 AM]

[Ozzy]

GC not for nothing. but if someone perfers not to post here(in UG), for what ever their reasons. i don't think you should mention him/them by name anymore.

[One Eyed Trouser Trout]

This was actually a pretty decent thread for a while, and I was bonding with the writers who expressed discontent with JAG of the past month or so while the technology has been updated.

And I appreciated Julie's comments about the support she's received from JAG.

The true value of JAG, imho, was the fact that it is a men's only board where truth can be shared without the risk of provider retalliation.

There will always be some who feels the need to assume the role of defender of providers, and I for one am really disturbed when providers are abused. That being said, I don't find it disturbing to learn that a provider is a complete whack job or involves herself in dishonest business practice. These are the types of things you'll rarely find written about any of the 'protected' *** girls on *** or boards where providers have unlimited access.

[frog]

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.

[musicmannyc]

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.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by slinkybender
Ah, the mental image of the shopkeeper running into rufus' backyad and yelling at him about him talking to his neighbor about his criticism.

I don't know why, but it reminds me of the Woody Allen movie 9 Annie Hall ? ) where he stops the film school guy in line and drags in Marshall McCluhan to tell him he is totally wrong.

[guy catelli]

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by One Eyed Trouser Trout
..... I appreciated Julie's comments about the support she's received from JAG.

i've said so before and i'll say it again: i don't think they come better than Julie.

but, dialog is not on her agenda. nowever, dialog is on the agenda of some clients and escorts. the issue i've been raising is: what conditions would enhance that dialog? the course of the sole prec****t to date, the thread with Val, does not encourage me. others may disagree in good faith -- jmo.

The true value of JAG, imho, was the fact that it is a men's only board where truth can be shared without the risk of provider retaliation.

without reviewing the whole history of swiss watchmaking, 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.

There will always be some who feels the need to assume the role of defender of providers,

in Ozzy's inimitable phrasing, "if you only knew the truth", in this case about how *outspokenly* skeptical i am in *civilian* life (where i can't hide behind anonymity {ahem}) about SAPs (what i call "spoiled american princesses") carrying on as if they were somehow the wretched of the earth.

and, "if you only knew", how *outspokenly* skeptical i have been in civilian life about all the whining about "McCarthyism" {eg, hey dudes, you got *caught*; and you got a slap on the wrist under the circumstances -- get over it!} -- not as easy as you may think for someone whose entire life has been spent in new york city in the company of artists, intellectuals, and left wing politicos.

so, it is with no small chagrin that i have been forced to admit to myself by what i've seen on asp boards, especially JAG, that the communists had a point. {gagging}

and I for one am really disturbed when providers are abused.

and i for one am really disturbed that in civilian life any woman can permanently damage the reputation, and possibly ruin the livelihood, of any man she claims made her feel "uncomfortable" -- without a *scintilla* of corroborative evidence.

That being said, I don't find it disturbing to learn that a provider is a complete whack job or involves herself in dishonest business practice.

i have from the very beginning on asp boards stated that no professional should be able to suppress the publishing of charges of unprofessional conduct or demeanor. it is with much amusement and satisfaction that i am watching the medical profession currently losing its campaign against the public's right to know about charges of medical misconduct.

These are the types of things you'll rarely find written about any of the 'protected' *** girls on *** ...

perhaps that is what the something or other is about concerning the someone or another i am not supposed to mention by name.

speaking as someone who is not one of the 'protected' posters on *** (trust me on *that* one), i see plenty of negative info about highly 'ranked' escorts on the ny *** board, which is the only local board i follow.

some of it gets deleted; some of it doesn't. i'm not saying it is or isn't favoritism. but, i am saying that by the time the deletions are made, the cat is out of the bag, the cow is out of the barn, and the genie is out of the bottle. and, in the immortal metaphor of Justice Cardozo in Cooper, only "brain surgery" could remove the information from the collective memory of the client-community at that point.

or boards where providers have unlimited access.

may i disagree on this one small point? *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.

good dialoging with ya.

guy

[guy catelli]

this could only happen on an open board -- just watch the fun begin ;-)

compare: http://www.*********.net/newyork/posts/19962.html

and

http://www.*********.net/discussion/posts/34963.html

guy {rofl}


[Edited by guy catelli on 01-27-2001 at 09:45 AM]

[Rufus Moses]

Time to out GC...in real life he is Mugger from the New York Press.

[guy catelli]

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

http://www.*********.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?

[Ozzy]

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]

[Rufus Moses]

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

:)

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy
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. i guess in a few days we'll hear how dawn is suddenly on her own or split from AY.....
wanna bet?............

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.

[wsb]

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

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by wsb
Wow! ....I find myself agreeing with Guy C......

WSB

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

[justme]

FWIW, I don't think Oz was talking about WSB.

[Ozzy]

not WSB........ the other two, who aren't here to defend themselves.

[guy catelli]

justme
Bronze

FWIW, I don't think Oz was talking about WSB.

Ozzy
Silver

not WSB........ the other two, who aren't here to defend themselves.



*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]

[Ozzy]

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.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy
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.

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

[Ozzy]

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.

[wsb]

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

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by wsb

I actually have to agree with GC on this one....

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

--WSB

thank you, wsb.