Quick question...

[cframp]

I know JAG gets talked about a lot, but I just want to get in. I submitted a review (a thoughtful one at that) but now I am being told I have to pay. Truth is, I would, if I could figure out for the life of me how to do that. Can someone please explain to me what the hell I am doing wrong?

[cframp]

APM - just so you know, this board still holds the first spot in my heart.

[Carl M]

Keep your money, stay clear of JAG!

[HornDogBuddah]

cframp,

Despite CarlM's rant, JAG is definitely worth your while. It's not ideal, but it also attempts to maintain a supply-side free environment (which only makes supply siders try all that more to penetrate -- it's not impossible to do, that's for sure). It has a number of articulate, well-intentioned, funny and insightful guys posting there. Sadly, a number of super posters left when the site went private (i.e., subscription).

As with many things in life, YMMV with what you get out of JAG.

[Slinky Bender]

cframp,
No need to appoligise. JAG probably has the largest archive of reviews of any site ( that I know of ). It used to have a much more active and comprehensive discussion section, but......what HDB said.

My editorial comment is, however, that I don't know why everyone is trying to pretend that the "supply siders" are not present. Just about every supply sider I have spoken to lately has some form of access there ( they just can't post under their own names ). Anyone who posts anything there under the delusion that it is safe from the "prying eyes" of the supply side is, well, deluded.

To see the "good stuff" will cost you $120 a year ( or maybe less, or maybe more; who knows ? The "rules" seem to change on a fiarly frequent basis, and everyone seems to have cut their "own deal" ).

[jmcurry]

cframp: there is little on JAG that is any longer relevant. By way of historical iconic representation, JAG contains information that would predate relativity, after the bomb was dropped. UG is by far the best, with *** struggling to survive as a now distant second. But, both *** and UG are critical, since they tend to attend to different audiences and different needs. Email me for more specifics.

[K.S.]

I refuse to post there at all. I'm convinced that the message can be traced to the password.

This is why I have to talk to Mr. Pitiful here:
Yes, you ARE TOO trading fluff balls. The only technicality you can claim is that I am no longer a provider. Hence, this may be genuine flirtation.

[Phantom]

KS,

Since you obviously have access to JAG, you now how much MM/MC have sworn to keep out ANY provider IF they have proof. I guess? that you are free and clear there. And yes they know who posts what.

[Phantom]

Oh BTW KS, I think it's pretty dam funny watching you and Mr.P trading fluffballs here and on JAG.

[K.S.]

Nope! Never. I'm too smart for that.

You know, I actually feel kinda bad about this - I really think that you guys should have a private place to talk about these things.

I had access to a provider-only board once. It wasn't wildly useful for exchanging info on clients, because paranoia meant we couldn't accept many members.

It was just a place to let our hair down and talk.

[Ozzy]

KS, so we can assume that your not john b?

[Phantom]

Here's a scary thought,

Maybe it's actually Mr.P posing as KS here on UG?

[frog]

it is really funny, albeit a pain-in-the-ass to follow, to watch the KS / [unmentionable] flirtation across two board.

[Ozzy]

maybe we should tell them about e-mail...

[frog]

that MFH

[guy catelli]

if you believe that a review board that encourages anonymous postings about the merchants of an already marginalized cutural group, and that excludes any members of that group even if they are not merchants, will provide 'balanced', 'accurate', and 'objective' information about those merchants (and not attract like a magnet those who have serious 'issues' regarding that group), then you have the intellectual equipment necessary to become one of the 'brothers' at jag.

if you also enjoy the sights, sounds, and smells of guys in a circle licking the smegma from between mr. p's toes, you will even love belonging to jag.

don't get me wrong, i'm not being judgmental.


[Edited by guy catelli on 02-09-2001 at 08:37 PM]

[nypete]

what about TER?

[Rufus Moses]

The problem is that folks who like JAG can't really defend it because public discussion of JAG's content is discouraged.

I will say this. There are a number of sex workers who have broken in or otherwise gotten access. They tend to be the cyberhookers who tour or otherwise have a high online profile. But relative to the number of women reviewed its a small single digit percentage. The vast majority of the providers reviewed have no access to JAG.

And, other than small private boards or lists, I know of no site, including this one, that provides the level of detail in its reviews that JAG does.

Many many have noted that avoiding a single bad session is well worth the $120/yr.

YMMV...but its a good bet...

[Slinky Bender]

Sorry, Rufus, but I'm going to have to "call" you on that one. Since you have absolutely no idea how many women have access to JAG, you can't possibly make the statement "But relative to the number of women reviewed its a small single digit percentage". For all you know, the number is greater than 100%, because I can tell you for 100% for sure there are women who have not been reviewed on JAG who are looking in on it. I understand that you feel that there are whole categories of women reivewed who almost definitely are not looking in ( notably such whole sections as "Street" and Massage - Asian ), but that doesn't leave the numbers to be calculable as single digit percentages due the the afformentioned non-reviewed lurkers.

And as long as we're at it, let's not forget that it seems that lately more and more JAGsters appear to be making a practice of showing reviews ( theirs and other's ) to the ladies when they see them. I'll add this to those who have access themselves, since it really doesn't matter whether they come in themselves or are shown the info by someone else. It seems like "group" viewing of JAG has become a more popular "date" activity than dinner ( I guess it's both cheaper and safer - in terms of public exposure - so it's more popular. Besides, it's less filling. ).