"behindthegreendoor" FAKE REVIEW/PROFILE

I would've won the bet. Prepare for a quotation of the rule in question and a long-winded literalist interpretation of same that will succeed only in illustrating that the underlying intent of the rule is in no way served by said interpretation in this instance. Originally Posted by eccienewbie

Come on now...he can't actually use common sense...the rules are in black and white and super moderators have no power...I mean it's THE RULE. What choice did he have?

To stay on topic:
As for your issue Lana....it does seem suspicious to me as well.
Maybe when some of the moderators are done doing the important stuff like ensuring that people trying to lighten the mood and be funny are pointed they can investigate your claims.

I thought the photo was kind of funny myself, but we all know I have my own unique humor. 10 pts in one linked photo.... OUCH.

It kind of looks like Point 1 -- the contention that there were no communications between Ms. Kane and btgd, and therefore no meeting -- can't be refuted without violating board rules by publishing private communications, assuming the initial communications were in writing. THAT SAID, I'd kind of like to see btgd at least state HOW he got in touch with Ms. Kane. Speak up, son. I don't think that point is going away until you do.

As for Point 2 -- that btgd and pvvvt (or whatever the handle is) are one and the same -- I'd appreciate a little intervention by the mods to see if they can find an IP address match between the 2. Aside from that, the "two" hobbyists have denied being the same guy, so we're kind of at a stalemate. This saga has now stretched across multiple threads with no end in sight, so the mods might be saving themselves a little time and additional threads on the same subject matter by looking into the matter. Not that the absence of an IP address match would be conclusive, but it would be something more than we have now. But, on the other hand, an IP address match would be pretty much game, set, and match on the question of a single hobbyist with 2 handles. Originally Posted by eccienewbie

Just getting in from work so catching up. Someone other than Lana thought I was vague so I will be specific in fairness to the community - If it is possible to get the IP info then I am ALL in favor of this. I will send a request to the mods and see what they say.

I have no association with BehindtheGreenDoor. Never made any comments about Marilyn Chambers and am not a fan of her, never have been, never talked about her since high school which is several years ago. The other providers mentioned, I have no idea who they are, never have seen them.

So another inconsistency I have noticed is the review from BTG deviates significantly from my style. When I write a review, I have the review guide open when I write it. There is a part one, part two, and part three as the guide suggests. Now a provider would not necessarily see this. This one is clearly absent of any of that and doesn't fit my style. Does that prove anything, no but a curious observation. Still I did not write this review, nor have any association with BTG.

Now on that same thought I have no idea of whether that review is really genuine or not, as I had nothing to do with it and if someone wrote a bogus review that should be vetted out. So as much as my disagreements with Lana over something she did I have no intention of doing anything that further involves her in anything I do. So my comment on the review was generic, if was a valid review then yes I am speechless, if it was a bogus review again I am speechless.

Another point I would like to make - What would I have to gain from this? Being a businessman I look at things that way. I already said my piece in my review, Lana in her last posts substantiated most of what was said in the review, at least in my opinion with some technical disagreements. This accomplishes nothing for me as far as I can see. Seems like a lot of work to accomplish nothing and further involves me with someone I would rather not have anything to do with anymore. Where is the win for me here? I really wish her no harm. The old saying don’t go away angry just go away. If she made an effort to try to resolve what she did that does not involve spending time with me, I would rather be the stand up guy and get this resolved than drag it out. She could go her ECCIE way and I could go my ECCIE way. It would be nice to get part of the donation back that she didn’t earn, so I can “invest” it with another provider that I do want to spend time with. I want her to be successful, that way she is busy doing what she does and I can go about my hobbying and leave me alone. So that would be a win for me and setting up a fictitious handle to write a fictitious review does nothing to distance myself from her, or accomplish any of that.

Can I propose a fund raiser? See Lana so I can get my portion back? Hercules, Eccienewbie?

For the first five sessions Lana seemed like a great person, fun to be with, enjoyed her company, great to talk to, irritated that she was always late, and always had hard stops sometimes earlier than the agreed upon time, but I was willing to live with that through the first five sessions as again I enjoyed her company and she certainly seemed to have enjoyed mine. If you get this experience, she is worth the money. The behavior in the sixth, warranted the review that I posted and warranted me ending our association when it was clear there was going to be no reasonable resolution. There are no lies, no spin in that review.

In the other post it was purported that I had "minions", and much was attributed to me that is far beyond my abilities to summon people. Now I had a couple of friends stick up for me, and if you treat people right they tend to become your friends. After page one, I actually started texting folks discouraging them from responding since it was becoming a spectacle, and I certainly didn’t want the spectacle to continue. Some listened, some didn’t, but that is their first amendment right, just as Lana has hers.

My powers over P411 are non existent. I sent a message to P411 to refer Lana to get her established and P411 told me that I did not have enough Ok’s and she did not have enough reviews at the time. With my first review she was half way, then after her second she got her P411. I did share with P411 my experience on our sixth session. What P411 did after that was their business decision, and they didn’t share with me what they were going to do, nor was I so conceited as to try to dictate to them what they should do.

She kept a shirt of mine to commemorate when she got her P411, so you could say I literally gave this girl the shirt off my back. Now in all fairness it was a 5.97 Wal-Mart T-shirt.

Hopefully this was specific enough for the community, and maybe we can get down to some revelation.


I think it is going to point to BCG is a real person, and that his review, although a little incomplete, is real.

Just getting in from work so catching up. Someone other than Lana thought I was vague so I will be specific in fairness to the community - If it is possible to get the IP info then I am ALL in favor of this. I will send a request to the mods and see what they say.

I have no association with BehindtheGreenDoor. Never made any comments about Marilyn Chambers and am not a fan of her, never have been, never talked about her since high school which is several years ago. The other providers mentioned, I have no idea who they are, never have seen them.

So another inconsistency I have noticed is the review from BTG deviates significantly from my style. When I write a review, I have the review guide open when I write it. There is a part one, part two, and part three as the guide suggests. Now a provider would not necessarily see this. This one is clearly absent of any of that and doesn't fit my style. Does that prove anything, no but a curious observation. Still I did not write this review, nor have any association with BTG.

Now on that same thought I have no idea of whether that review is really genuine or not, as I had nothing to do with it and if someone wrote a bogus review that should be vetted out. So as much as my disagreements with Lana over something she did I have no intention of doing anything that further involves her in anything I do. So my comment on the review was generic, if was a valid review then yes I am speechless, if it was a bogus review again I am speechless.

Another point I would like to make - What would I have to gain from this? Being a businessman I look at things that way. I already said my piece in my review, Lana in her last posts substantiated most of what was said in the review, at least in my opinion with some technical disagreements. This accomplishes nothing for me as far as I can see. Seems like a lot of work to accomplish nothing and further involves me with someone I would rather not have anything to do with anymore. Where is the win for me here? I really wish her no harm. The old saying don’t go away angry just go away. If she made an effort to try to resolve what she did that does not involve spending time with me, I would rather be the stand up guy and get this resolved than drag it out. She could go her ECCIE way and I could go my ECCIE way. It would be nice to get part of the donation back that she didn’t earn, so I can “invest” it with another provider that I do want to spend time with. I want her to be successful, that way she is busy doing what she does and I can go about my hobbying and leave me alone. So that would be a win for me and setting up a fictitious handle to write a fictitious review does nothing to distance myself from her, or accomplish any of that.

Can I propose a fund raiser? See Lana so I can get my portion back? Hercules, Eccienewbie?

For the first five sessions Lana seemed like a great person, fun to be with, enjoyed her company, great to talk to, irritated that she was always late, and always had hard stops sometimes earlier than the agreed upon time, but I was willing to live with that through the first five sessions as again I enjoyed her company and she certainly seemed to have enjoyed mine. If you get this experience, she is worth the money. The behavior in the sixth, warranted the review that I posted and warranted me ending our association when it was clear there was going to be no reasonable resolution. There are no lies, no spin in that review.

In the other post it was purported that I had "minions", and much was attributed to me that is far beyond my abilities to summon people. Now I had a couple of friends stick up for me, and if you treat people right they tend to become your friends. After page one, I actually started texting folks discouraging them from responding since it was becoming a spectacle, and I certainly didn’t want the spectacle to continue. Some listened, some didn’t, but that is their first amendment right, just as Lana has hers.

My powers over P411 are non existent. I sent a message to P411 to refer Lana to get her established and P411 told me that I did not have enough Ok’s and she did not have enough reviews at the time. With my first review she was half way, then after her second she got her P411. I did share with P411 my experience on our sixth session. What P411 did after that was their business decision, and they didn’t share with me what they were going to do, nor was I so conceited as to try to dictate to them what they should do.

She kept a shirt of mine to commemorate when she got her P411, so you could say I literally gave this girl the shirt off my back. Now in all fairness it was a 5.97 Wal-Mart T-shirt.

Hopefully this was specific enough for the community, and maybe we can get down to some revelation.


I think it is going to point to BCG is a real person, and that his review, although a little incomplete, is real. Originally Posted by pvittt

You gave me that shirt for meeting you at five in the morning, you said I was your "ray of sunshine". Of course you will deny you have 2 screen names to avoid being punished. You say you proved the review is real .... Um .... HOW ? And of course you would switch up the writing and character style ... But there is no one who has vouched for "Btgd" and he has no reviews. The profile was created long ago. Also if you never mentioned "Marilyn Chambers" then how did I know that you had knowledge of her at all ? That's before my time and fits right in with your era as you just admitted sir.

"Can I propose a fund raiser? See Lana so I can get my portion back? Hercules, Eccienewbie?"
I'm sorry are you trying to "Pimp" me sir ?
Creating advertisement for your own personal monetary gain ?

As for the "friends" um you met "GCB" (who was one of your "supporters" which she coincidently verified you through me on the 20th ) a month prior to this incident so quit acting like its been an on going "friendship".

As for what you gain ... How's satifaction cause "I showed her". If you wanted me to succeed you would no have bashed me in your review ... Your first review was written when your eyes were still glazed over ... After I cursed you out and walked out of your life and purchase power for implying that I was a hoe and I had a pimp (in your hotel room the night a make up session was scheduled) then you decided to become vindictive. There are many inconsistencies in both screen names stories and I suspect that the same "genius" mind is behind it all

sorry, but this is far more interesting than a bs "points" rant for a camel/cryus post.

the op is challenging two hobbyists about the legitimacy of their reviews and/or persona. has nothing to do with that idiot miley cyrus and a camel. funny or not.

mod bashing is a little bit overrated

Man, I'd like to help you get your money back, pvittt, but I'm still hot on the trail trying to find yambs' lost money from the Tay of Dallas shower caper of a couple weeks ago. Somebody else will have to take up your cause. I just can't be in 2 places at the same time.

If nothing else, I'm digging this girl's spunk and resolve. Plus she owns one of the bad reviews. And she does bring out a lot of good points that are unanswered. If I was a conspiracy theorist, i would say that there seem to be a lot of "sleeper" ID's out there that rise and give their first and only review to a provider that's being attacked at the time. Again, that's speculation if I was a conspiracy theorist which I'm not.

I'm wondering, if she says she was not contacted, can the reviewer answer to the mods how he did do that? If PM's, the evidence should be out there. If phone or e-mail, should be out there as well.

"You say you proved the review is real .... Um .... HOW ?"
Clarification, the only review I am attesting to is my review.

Also if you never mentioned "Marilyn Chambers" then how did I know that you had knowledge of her at all ?
I think information on Marilyn Chambers is available on this thing called the internet, and many people talk aboutwhich is perhaps where you might have gotten the information you posted. So to be clear I have never talked about her and am certainly not a fan. Now I have talked about Shawna in sessions, since I am a fan of hers.

Anyone heard from the mods on this? Funny I have.

Girl be winning. So far.

"You say you proved the review is real .... Um .... HOW ?"
"Clarification, the only review I am attesting to is my review." Originally Posted by pvittt

That is why I am asking you about either review in an open statement to either party ... I don't care which screen name you address me under just answer some questions with real facts as opposed being inquisitive, vague and evasive please ...

[U][I
Also if you never mentioned "Marilyn Chambers" then how did I know that you had knowledge of her at all ?
"I think information on Marilyn Chambers is available on this thing called the internet, and many people talk aboutwhich is perhaps where you might have gotten the information you posted. So to be clear I have never talked about her and am certainly not a fan. Now I have talked about Shawna in sessions, since I am a fan of hers.. Originally Posted by pvittt

Show me an old post I have access to that you mention her in since you claim I may have found the connection on line. You said yourself that in high-school you spoke about her ... During this stage in your life (and the time the movie was out) I was either not born yet or just a baby.

Again how would I know that you had knowledge of her ... Just cause she is on the internet does not mean you knew of her .... A prime example is this scenario with "Btgd" and me. He has been online for awhile(although dormant until you and I have a problem) but I never knew about him until like Marilyn chambers you decided to bring it to my attention.
As for this "Shawna" you keep speaking of :
"Urban Dictionary: Shawna
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Shawna
Shawna is the name used to describe hotties that have brown hair,beautiful green eyes, and a very bootilicious booty."

[U][I
Anyone heard from the mods on this? Funny I have. Originally Posted by pvittt

Well that makes sense since I sent them a pm about this(I'm sure "Btgd" has too huh) .... Unlike p411(and when providers can't pull strings for you) the mods here must believe in giving you a chance to say your part ... Go figure ...

sorry, but this is far more interesting than a bs "points" rant for a camel/cryus post.

the op is challenging two hobbyists about the legitimacy of their reviews and/or persona. has nothing to do with that idiot miley cyrus and a camel. funny or not.

mod bashing is a little bit overrated Originally Posted by fletch

And so far neither has said anything with substance ... Just half ass attempts to save face ...

If nothing else, I'm digging this girl's spunk and resolve. Plus she owns one of the bad reviews. And she does bring out a lot of good points that are unanswered. If I was a conspiracy theorist, i would say that there seem to be a lot of "sleeper" ID's out there that rise and give their first and only review to a provider that's being attacked at the time. Again, that's speculation if I was a conspiracy theorist which I'm not. Originally Posted by Looking41today

Thank you at least I'm not the only one digging .
How coincidental is it that i have a problem with Pvitt and all of a sudden "Btgd" gets past my screening protocol after coming out of a very long stretch of never posting a single review, although there is plenty of bad posts about providers.

I'm wondering, if she says she was not contacted, can the reviewer answer to the mods how he did do that? If PM's, the evidence should be out there. If phone or e-mail, should be out there as well. Originally Posted by Looking41today

Nope he can't, that's why he hasn't. I will gladly allow the mods to search for any record of contact between me and "Btgd", and strongly challenge anyone else on E to do the same for that matter.
Again a pm on E is the only way to contact me, and receive a reply. Then I only reply if you have reviews and a provider vouches for you ... I will not deviate from my protocol, which is the same reason the 2 1/2 hr out of 4 hrs scheduled, session with Pvitt was terminated.

Girl be winning. So far. Originally Posted by JohnnyYanks

Lol this made my day!!! Thank you for the support ...

"You say you proved the review is real .... Um .... HOW ?"
Clarification, the only review I am attesting to is my review. Originally Posted by pvittt

That's not what this little quote right here says ....

I think it is going to point to BCG is a real person, and that his review, although a little incomplete, is real. Originally Posted by pvittt

Oh wait the "Btgd" review is yours ...

Can I propose a fund raiser? See Lana so I can get my portion back? Hercules, Eccienewbie?. Originally Posted by pvittt

Translation; You feel jilted so a smear campaign is in order and you'll do anything until you get your $'s back. Seen it before.

The line for reimbursement from the overdrawn I-want-my-hooker-bucks-back fund is very long. Now serving #1 out of 2,356,978. Good luck.

(P.S. Come on! Even camels have standards!)