Guys/Gals... (Raw Dog)

Has never decided to review any others he's seen until now????

A few he decided to mention

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=657384&highlight=

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=640847&highlight=

I find it interesting that he was quick to back up his point POV and opinions in other threads until he officially outed himself with his review and now he has remained silent in this one,maybe he has chosen to slither back under his rock!

His signature line
If someone tells you they never did anything without a condom, their setting you up for the BAREBACK! Because if it slips off they won't STOP.

The Answer is bold enough for the majority rule.

This guy was bragging about it on another site, I brought it up about going BB then I got slammed for bringing it up. What the hell!

I am thinking this is some joker to scare gents and ladies or some scam artist to slander other ladies. I agree with mrriley ban this profile.

I was sent the
Exact Answer.

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1163292
Post #17
Raw Dog
But I love it. Had a good one once. Could say it was almost aaa good as bbfs
__________________

+1 "mriley"
Where's the full photo of RawDog...lol. The dawgs wanna be safe. Agreed. The VPs & and working girls want the same. It's tip for tap.

#SteerClearOfTheCessPool Originally Posted by LisaLyonz

LisaLyonz, if I had a pic of him I would have put it on front page for all to see..

Let me get this straight: does everybody here want Raw Dog banned? If so, which rule(s) did he violate? I’m not seeing where engaging in bareback sex, nor bragging about it, is even discouraged, let alone prohibited.

Or, alternatively, don’t you want him to stay around and keep posting and/or reviewing? That way, everyone can continue condemning him, plus any provider whom he has ever posted about, posts about in the future, comments on in any given thread, or in any way mentions. So as to warn everyone that all those women, too, need to be objects of the collective scorn on here. For this purpose, it apparently doesn’t matter what actually happened, nor even what, if anything, the women knew of whatever was going on, in advance or otherwise.

Raw Dog outed the first provider mentioned in this thread when he reviewed her, but only to those with PA access. Quickly thereafter, BigPapa1 outed her to everyone else. Some people seem to think that was a public service; regardless, that was a very clear violation of the board prohibition against revealing PA material to non-PA members, and to the literally thousands of unregistered, non-board people viewing at any given time.

Now, others here are inflicting the same double whammy on various providers that RD has perhaps may or may not have been in contact with, whether or not the posters know any of it to be true.

@BigPapa1: did you not consider PM’ing the girl in question to warn her, and any other provider that you thought needed such a warning? Would that have been less satisfying as the public humiliation that you gave her instead?

Certainly, everyone is entitled to your opinion of Raw Dog, based on his own posts. But what gives you the right to degrade providers on double hearsay and speculation?

One of my favorite poets said it better than I can. He postulated that it was a “sin” when “…you simply criticized somebody you hardly knew, you ruined part of their life for them, part of your own life too.” W. Zevon, 1981.

And finally, there exists the possibility that Raw Dog is simply another shit-stirrer, joining the large fraternity/sorority dedicated to that exercise on this board already. In fact, the shit-stirrers are second in number only to the Society of the Unforgiving Righteously Indignant.

Please, say what you want to say, and need to say, to about Raw Dog; just consider leaving the providers out of it.

For what it is worth, Raw Dog posted the girl's pics in subsequent replies to his review so they were not PA access only, Big Papa simply re-posted one of the pics in this thread.Was he wrong in doing this, maybe so, but he did not violate any policies in doing so since RD had already outed the girl himself.

Ummm excuse
me, I was given
the impression
that RAW DOG
was tampering
with condoms
and the girls
didn't know.

Let me get this straight: does everybody here want Raw Dog banned? If so, which rule(s) did he violate? I’m not seeing where engaging in bareback sex, nor bragging about it, is even discouraged, let alone prohibited.

Or, alternatively, don’t you want him to stay around and keep posting and/or reviewing? That way, everyone can continue condemning him, plus any provider whom he has ever posted about, posts about in the future, comments on in any given thread, or in any way mentions. So as to warn everyone that all those women, too, need to be objects of the collective scorn on here. For this purpose, it apparently doesn’t matter what actually happened, nor even what, if anything, the women knew of whatever was going on, in advance or otherwise.

Raw Dog outed the first provider mentioned in this thread when he reviewed her, but only to those with PA access. Quickly thereafter, BigPapa1 outed her to everyone else. Some people seem to think that was a public service; regardless, that was a very clear violation of the board prohibition against revealing PA material to non-PA members, and to the literally thousands of unregistered, non-board people viewing at any given time.

Now, others here are inflicting the same double whammy on various providers that RD has perhaps may or may not have been in contact with, whether or not the posters know any of it to be true.

@BigPapa1: did you not consider PM’ing the girl in question to warn her, and any other provider that you thought needed such a warning? Would that have been less satisfying as the public humiliation that you gave her instead?

Certainly, everyone is entitled to your opinion of Raw Dog, based on his own posts. But what gives you the right to degrade providers on double hearsay and speculation?

One of my favorite poets said it better than I can. He postulated that it was a “sin” when “…you simply criticized somebody you hardly knew, you ruined part of their life for them, part of your own life too.” W. Zevon, 1981.

And finally, there exists the possibility that Raw Dog is simply another shit-stirrer, joining the large fraternity/sorority dedicated to that exercise on this board already. In fact, the shit-stirrers are second in number only to the Society of the Unforgiving Righteously Indignant.

Please, say what you want to say, and need to say, to about Raw Dog; just consider leaving the providers out of it. Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Hank, I love to debate and in normal circumstances I would dissect every word, sentence and paragraph you spewed, however for the sake of saving my breath/brain cells, I won't dive into the minutiae of your message. It's really simple, I think everyone in this community should know hobbyist and providers who provide BBFS. It is only fair to ALL who are in the community to know. Why? So, they can make a informed decision to proceed in seeing that provider or the hobbyist. Nothing more/nothing less.. I didn't "OUT" the young lady, Raw Dog did. I merely called his lame ass out on it.
If the provider in question (Redd) was a member on here then I would have private messaged her, but she isn't. I guarantee you that several hobbyist also noticed her BP ad and either saw her or attempted to see her, but I'm sure they didn't know she was allowing raw dicks to be placed inside of her.. You say we are assuming, I can only go off of what Raw Dog wrote, and he wrote that he ejaculated (raw dick) in this girl.. I didn't make that up. Not sure of what we are "assuming"..
In conclusion, I (Big Papa) would want to know which providers saw this POS, because I (Big Papa) would choose not to see them. Conversely, a provider should know about Raw Dog's practices so that they can make a conscious decision and weigh the risk/reward of seeing Raw Dog... As I mentioned in the initial thread, I have no fear of being banned, if so, I accept that punishment. I would prefer banishment over a guaranteed "death sentence" from a piece of scum who acts as his American Right of choice doesn't significantly impact the rest of the human population....

For what it is worth, Raw Dog posted the girl's pics in subsequent replies to his review so they were not PA access only, Big Papa simply re-posted one of the pics in this thread.Was he wrong in doing this, maybe so, but he did not violate any policies in doing so since RD had already outed the girl himself. Originally Posted by Riverstud

@Riverstud: you are correct about the pics.
But...(and this, too, needs to stay PA)



Sorry, it's just plain wrong, and BigPapa1's perhaps well-intentioned motive to protect the hobbying society at large doesn't justify his breach of PA confidentiality.

@Riverstud: you are correct about the pics.
But...(and this, too, needs to stay PA)



Sorry, it's just plain wrong, and BigPapa1's perhaps well-intentioned motive to protect the hobbying society at large doesn't justify his breach of PA confidentiality. Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Hank, I am not defending Big Papa by any means because he has proven that he is quite capable of doing that for himself, but take a look at this.
First is copied from Raw Dog's review, the Activities,which is not PA access:

Activities: lfk, breast play, body worship, Daty and a little Raw dog in the end

Now in his own words,which is can be seen without PA Access, Raw Dog admits to "a little Raw Dog in the end"

Next is the Urban Dictionary's definition of "Raw Dog"

Raw Dog
V. To engage in sexual intercourse without the use of a condom.
I blacked out and raw dogged my ex-boo last night

Now Raw Dog from day one on this board has pretty much let it be known that he not only seeks BBFS, but promotes it as well.His sig line and self promoting avatar is a testament to those facts.

Just my 2 cents.

You need the bbtards to remain out in the open. If they go underground its a lot harder to track them.

@Riverstud: you are correct about the pics.
But...(and this, too, needs to stay PA)



Sorry, it's just plain wrong, and BigPapa1's perhaps well-intentioned motive to protect the hobbying society at large doesn't justify his breach of PA confidentiality. Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Hank, this comment I will agree with, but I liken it to taking one for the team. Yes, I may be banned or excommunicated, but the community as a whole should remain safe...A price I'm willing to pay.