Impulsive CLient, John_Tx. Dangerous!

Look around sir.. you are standing in a crowd of ONE. Cool down and let it go. You've vented far to much to keep playing victim here.
It'll all be gone by Monday, (if you let it). Originally Posted by nuglet

per "advice" of a mod i am going to stop posting on here. i understand that many have piled on me, not just about this, but about many other issues as well.

it is my opinion that if you simply let people dogpile on you and don't stand up to the false accusations, etc., then you are simply allowing people to say whatever they want about you. hobby rep or real-life rep, it is all important.

i think it is interesting, that the title of this thread has the description of the word "dangerous" when there is nothing in these 3 pages that remotely suggests that i am "dangerous." and the "impulsive" is also unwarranted as it is untrue with no evidence to back it.

anyway, i will be taking a vacation from this thread. feel free to talk more trash about me on here while im gone.

Classic example of "Give someone enough rope...".
Thanks HarleyGuy. Love this ignore feature. He and all of his rantings have simply vanished like magic. Poof! If someone else appears and does the same thing then I'll have a pretty good idea of who it is.
Business associate once stated that 98% of your problems come from 2% of your clients. Dump the 2% and whalah! No problems.

I have enjoyed this thread.

I was NCNS by Roxanne on Monday night.

Just so everyone know, cause this is getting confusing as HELL, he is talking about ROXXANNE on Demand and not ROXANNE (being me). She has 2 x's in her name.

I was NCNS by Roxanne on Monday night. Originally Posted by JustinRLATX

YOOO HOOOOO!!! NUGLET!!!!
Can I have some popcorn, please?
(I'll let you eat it off my tummy )

MODERATORS are you getting kickbacks for protecting certain persons on this board like the ASPD moderators were? getting all kinds of PM's about receiving points for warnings here.

looks like the Mods are out to ban me....warrantless points assigned for no reason and there is no way for me to contest them.

looks like the old ASPD is back.

its ok for others to lie about me without sanction by the moderators. it is not ok for me to post things about others....the moderators i believe are protecting certain members on this board. in exchange for what...if any? Originally Posted by John_TX

Man.... If there was even the inkling of "the old ASPD" being back you would be reading page long posts by me and others as well.....

I haven't seen anyone come along and do such a tremendous hatchet job on himself and his own credibility in a long time.


In reading the alert about you and knowing what I've read in your posts it is very easy to believe what the OP has said about you in regards to an impulsive and demanding attitude as well as your feelings of entitlement.

You continue to come across as a three year old having a tantrum.

I don't defend Providers and I give newbies and other hobbyists the benefit of the doubt more than most other posters but you Sir, are truly a case in need of some vacation time away from here.

Looks like I'm late to the party. From what I've read, my understanding of it is:

1) Roxanne canceled because John had some suspicious growth down below
2) John got pissed, and on his way out decided to get back at her by alerting the hotel employees.
-In John's rebuttal, he tries to cast doubt by:
a) questioning if the caller was even a hotel employee (Who else would impersonate a hotel employee? Why would the call come not long after John left? Impersonation or not, no one else would have known her room number or have the motivation to scare her)
b) suggesting that Roxanne had a pimp and insinuating that the hotel somehow gained knowledge of that and called her (not convincing - there are many ways to book a hotel room and of the guys who have met her, none have reported knowledge of her pimp)
c) suggesting that it could have been some other illegal activity (like what? If it was drug related, John would have pointed it out. Can't think of any other illegal activity the management would know about without entering the room).

3) Anyway, John being pissed (as he had every right to be after being denied service), called Roxanne to tell her he's writing a negative review. Regardless of the negative review, Roxanne already had enough grounds to report him here at that point, so I don't see it as being a preemptive act to defend herself.

Roxanne's brief history of NCNS and YMMV on BBBJ/CBJ does raise questions about her maturity and professionalism. However, I cannot think of a good reason for why she would choose to cancel the session only upon seeing John bare, other than for what she claimed she saw. To make all these details up about being called by the hotel management just to negate the negative review that was coming from John seems counter intuitive. The risk of getting caught lying and the drama that ensues would have a bigger negative impact than a negative review about a session being canceled.

Granted, it is difficult for John to disprove any of Roxanne's claims about the hotel management calling. However, Roxanne's side of the story sounds convincing enough - she has shown that John had motive for what he did. I'm not convinced of Roxanne's motive for starting this thread/drama.

Looks like I'm late to the party. From what I've read, my understanding of it is:

1) Roxanne canceled because John had some suspicious growth down below
2) John got pissed, and on his way out decided to get back at her by alerting the hotel employees.
-In John's rebuttal, he tries to cast doubt by:
a) questioning if the caller was even a hotel employee (Who else would impersonate a hotel employee? Why would the call come not long after John left? Impersonation or not, no one else would have known her room number or have the motivation to scare her)
b) suggesting that Roxanne had a pimp and insinuating that the hotel somehow gained knowledge of that and called her (not convincing - there are many ways to book a hotel room and of the guys who have met her, none have reported knowledge of her pimp)
c) suggesting that it could have been some other illegal activity (like what? If it was drug related, John would have pointed it out. Can't think of any other illegal activity the management would know about without entering the room).

3) Anyway, John being pissed (as he had every right to be after being denied service), called Roxanne to tell her he's writing a negative review. Regardless of the negative review, Roxanne already had enough grounds to report him here at that point, so I don't see it as being a preemptive act to defend herself.

Roxanne's brief history of NCNS and YMMV on BBBJ/CBJ does raise questions about her maturity and professionalism. However, I cannot think of a good reason for why she would choose to cancel the session only upon seeing John bare, other than for what she claimed she saw. To make all these details up about being called by the hotel management just to negate the negative review that was coming from John seems counter intuitive. The risk of getting caught lying and the drama that ensues would have a bigger negative impact than a negative review about a session being canceled.

Granted, it is difficult for John to disprove any of Roxanne's claims about the hotel management calling. However, Roxanne's side of the story sounds convincing enough - she has shown that John had motive for what he did. I'm not convinced of Roxanne's motive for starting this thread/drama. Originally Posted by beaglebeagle

of course you have it all wrong as well. factually and chronologically incorrect. but all of you have already made up your minds....which is why you have all these errors. had you actually read everything you'd understand which parts are factually and chronologically incorrect.

Yes, Beagle, I'd say that about sums it up.

Of course, I'm being paid by the MODs to say that.


** that was a joke. **

Beagle
I second that. When it looks, walks and acts like a duck ...

im glad there are absolutely no sanctions for others who make false allegations against me. there are only sanctions against me for defending myself.......gotta love this board!

and i believe cody may be a multiple handle post for NaughtyGurlz......since he took instant offense to me saying that the girl he reviewed is also working for other another agency. who besides an agency owner would care about that?

@ John - I'm trying to dissect this the best I can. What time of the day was your appointment, if you don't mind me asking? Narrow it down to the hour.

Could you elaborate on the mistake with my understanding of the chronology, from your side of the story?

sometimes its better just to not say anything,, you count on me never meeting these two