TampaYankee

Speculation and insider information about Scott's past is moot at this point for this forum. Scott's problems are of a public nature with a public resolution down the road. Our interest is in following the public story based on the public record which is a set of facts that has been through some kind of vetting process.

I'm in total agreement with these sentiments.

A careful reading of my post reveals that it I wasn't taking sides. I was acting as a referee. Something that an admin/moderator is called upon to do occasionally.

If you don't have the forthrightness to repsond to me over here that is your call. I'm not concerned that you are telling on me over there. We are an open book, no secret handshakes to get in. I know many over there are readers here. Word gets around. Probably the bigger news is that you felt compelled to tell on me. You remain welcome always, we take family as they come. I hope that applies to me as well.

Matrix, Lucky is free comment as his heart and head dictate. You also are free to comment on his remarks. However, it is my impression that some of your remarks border on personal attack. If I understood them better I might have a more definitive view. Please keep all discourse free of personal invective and as objective as possible. It makes for a more cogent argument that we all can follow. If you are compelled to express emotional remarks it is better to describe your own frustrations than the other person's perceived personal shortcomings. Thanks.

Well, you were that day! Hands down. But you are not beyond redemption as I attempted to explain. you sometimes walk yourself back out of the dark abyss. I really 'don't have it in for you'... well maybe that day. If I did then I would send you limburger-cheese-flavored potato chips for Valentines Day.

Of course it is a West Coast thing, as manifested here so far anyway. If it is broader then it has yet to establish itself as such. Your comment shows that you do not understand the criteria. Lord knows I have posted it here and elsewhere in great detail Where are your well-wishes for Scott or your offer of help? (Those who live in glass houses...) Also, his circumstances have only been open for discussion less than a day. You seem quick to make judgment of all of us here and me in particular. I'm sorry, I have no personal experience to draw on in order to offer inspiration. I must have missed your own exposition somewhere. For those that might, they may not wish to share that experience with all of us. Perhaps you can post contact information for Scott to facilitate private communications of support? Even though I don't know Scott I do wish him the best. I certainly take no glee in his misfortune. Please point out where I gave you that impression. In addition, it seems you missed my clear admonition about using this forum for abuse and pursuit of personal agendas with regard to Scott, or anyone else for that matter. It is always disappointing, disheartening and sad to see a young person with so much potential get into a difficult spot whether of his own making or not. It is sad to see any young life wasted or significantly sidetracked and stained with considerable baggage going forward. I felt the same way for Harlow Cuadra. That doesn't diminsh the fact that anyone doing the crime has to do the time. As far as I'm concerned Scott is innocent until proven guilty. Anywhere I've posted I have held out the possibility that he could have been set up. I don't know it. I don't know that he wasn't. I understand that the has his share of detractors, if not enemies. I'm content to wait for the trial. The fact is that Scott has become a public figure in the mainstream press. That is unfortunate for him. You may not like it. Write Musto about it, don't piss and moan here. I suspect the real interest at that level is the Vallanch angle but that really doesn't matter as everything is out in the open with Scott as the centerpiece. Speaking of Harlow Cuadra, where was your outrage and cloth-rending compassionate appeal for him and Joseph Kerekes after they had been dragged through the press time and time again, made the subject of long threads here and at daddys, in addition to elsewhere? Finally, Scott has become an open news story. With that his privacy and any expectation to it is gone. That is a fact, any other idea is fiction. To prohibit members from following and commenting on the story doesn't preserve Scott's privacy at this point. It only punishes members who have an interest and wish to follow the story. Many members are interested in the case. Some because they know him, others because they know of him. Some concerned about him, others curious for whatever reason, just as in the Cuadra case. It is not our place or desire to adopt a paternalistic attitude that dictates what issues our members can and cannot discuss here when it is an open story available to everyone else. That does not serve our members interest, in our opinion. We are dedicated to preserve privacy when there is privacy to preserve. However, we do not exist in a vacuum. The line between private and public is not absolute. We draw the line when a story hits the mainstream press. We could arbitratily dictate what members can engage in here, regardless of facts and practical considerations. We choose not to treat our members that way. We believe that is a measure of respect for our members. We believe they deserve that. I suspect most would agree. Every now and then you ride into town on your high horse, with a burr up your ass, making semi-emotional comments exhibiting barely contained outrage about some issue or another. The history is there. Often as not, your back not too long afterward offering a semi-apology or better. The history is there. I don't expect any apology down the road nor do I seek one. I only bring it up to point out your volatility in these cases. What I do want, though, is to know where you get that high horse. I think I want one. Lucky, you remain always welcome even if we sometimes upset you. A little bit of tough love... TY P.S. My comment regarding non sequiturs in another post expresses my wonder that some posts are made as if what had gone before them never existed. How can that be?

I understand that some people have different views and may even be upset. What I don't understand are these non sequitur, almost emotional, responses. It seems to be a West Coast thing.

This story has evolved from gossip to purportedly-authortative speculation to a public news story in a recognized reputable publication. Michael Musto has put his professional reputation on the line that this story has factual legs. He is a known quantity with public reputation from a recognized mainstream media outlet. Like it or not the story is out. Scott has become a public personality, whether through his own actions or the actions of others, with no reasonable expectation of privacy at this point. As a news story it is fair game for fair and responsible discussion about the case history and legal proceedings. It will not be a forum for personal agendas and abuse per our Site Policy.

When this episode began I had no knowledge of any of his legal difficulties, suspicions, arrests, or convictions. Plain and simple. The rest of your post is food for thought.

Please exercise a little more precision in your reading. I didn't warn Lurker... to do anyting. It was a general heads up. Lurker expressed concern about being around someone who might be associated with drugs, in this case the escort in question was the concrete example, who was with several others. I simply pointed out that it is commonly believed in cricles that drugs are likely to be associated with any gathering of porn/escort boys. Thus if he has concern about the potential of being around drugs then he should more broadly assess his comfort with any such gathering of boys. That is not to say that all escort/porn models do drugs. Many do not. Only that when a number of them aggregate in one place, especially a party, it is not unexpected that drugs will make an appearance.

Conway, thanks for the nice words. It is always a pleasure to have an exchange with you whether we are on the same or opposite sides of an issue. Your comments sometimes educate me and often provoke thoughtfulness about the issues. You are an example that there is no need to be disagreeable in a disagreement. As for the the environment here, it stems from the very simple principle of mutual respect. Nothing more complicated. Thanks again for your contributions to the site.

For a media outlet to qualify as mainstream it must be immersed in the mainstream of society, commonly found on TV or coffee tables or in newpapers or frequently referenced as authoritative by other reputable news sources. The Village Voice is a recognized reputable news and literary media oulet found commonly on news stands. Michael Musto is a natonally recognized journalist (if a bit flakey) that appears frequently as a guest on mainstream broadcast and cable channels. The short answer is yes. This story has evovled from gossip to semi-authortative speculation to current events in a recognized reputable publication. Mr. Musto has put his professional reputation on the line that this story has factual legs. He is a known quantity with reputation. Scott has become a public personality, with no reasonable expectation of privacy whether through his own actions or the actions others.

Bruce Vilanch's Assistant Arrested For Coke Dealing By Michael Musto See story at: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/archives/2009/10/bruce_vilanchs.php

So have you now judged today's Village Voice website to be illegitimate? It carries the story. Please reconsider if you are on the slippery side of this issue. Better judgment at the beginning would have been helpful, but failure to exercise good judgment now is actually damning. Trying to help, not harm. jack, Why do you attempt to put words in my mouth? Have I treated you that way? Please tell me where I have made any mention of the Village Voice. Certainly not in the post of mine you reference. Not anywhere else yet either. I have only just seen the new VV link offered by Matrix when I then read your post with your cheap shot. Please try to do better.

In fairness, when I made this remark I should have also stated that the overwhelming number of escorts are honest law-abiding guys, may of those just really great persons. It is a shame that a few bad apples can occupy our attention and we forget to keep in perspective that most working guys are honest and reliable in addtion to being fun.

Lurkespeaks, Although I have NO first-hand knowledge, based on what I've been told over the years you should avoid all of the gatherings of the type you attended. I have been told that drugs are de rigueur at almost any gathering of boys in the porn and escort industries. It might be prudent to assume that reasons for all of your concers are in full bloom at these gatherings.

Reviews reflect the experience of the reviewer -- the good, the bad, the ugly. When verifable negative outside information comes to light that has potential to impact client/escort relationship it is added as an Admin comment. The devil is in the details. Profiles are the domain of the escort, entirely. He lists at his own intiative and it survives as long as he desires or until it is removed for cause by admin.

This makes perfect sense to me. The alternative only gives rise to those who are now speculating that the site owners/decision-makers who suppress information that exists in the public record are trying to protect the escort as an indirect way of protecting themselves from their own "business" dealings with the escort. Why encourage such foolishness? There are always foolish twits that let their imagination rule their conspiratorial paranoia. The whole damn country is full of them -- birthers, deathers, census-for-concentraton-camp believers, the list goes on and on. We cannot even get an American Company to distribute a British made movie about Darwin because of fear of retribution from the anti-evolutionist head cases. There are those who are going to believe what they want notwithstanding logic, facts, and even the truth. We should parse our lives and shade our principles to placate these nuts? You give in to these characters then you become no better. Please see my response to Conway that respsonds to your comment. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind. It isn't as any obejctive one-eyed observer could tell. Correction, no eyes necessary, only one passably working ear. I hold out Shep Smith as an excetpton willing to stand up to and resist much of the conservative propaganda slant that the news writers pass out at the directon of Roger Ailes.

Conway, I appreciate your general concern and concede this is a close issue in some ways, not so much in others. We have a broad policy for the site to guide us and our particpants in what is allowed and what is expected. However, that policy must be interpreted in light of the specifics of any particular situation. How would you know that was true? Based on an anonymous post about an escort with a 'work name' that was the only name you knew him by? The purported documentation presented wasn't in that name. Neither was any authortative documentation presented linking the escort to the named individual in those purported documents. Do you leave that thread up while the veracity of those charges remain in some doubt? As the circumstance evolves into the public arena with some reliable public verification the standards for coverage evolve too. Maybe the stage name and the private name have been associated reliably. Maybe the purported documents are demonstrated to be truthful public documents. All well and good. It is critical that charges move into the public arena to begin to shed light on the legitimacy of those charges. Is that alone enough to ruin someone's career and personal reputation with family, friends, and a life long list of potential employers, bankers, credit rating agencies etc? Is it known that he is guilty of the accusations beyond a reasonable doubt? Does this person have enemies that might have set him up for a fall? I don't know. I don't know what the evidence is. That is what pretrial hearings and trials are about. Somewhere along the way this crosses over into the public arena where not only is his life fully exposed but a sufficient public case has been made for the charges. Were we there last week? Not in my opinion. Are we there today? Maybe, I don't know. (I have only just awakened and haven't yet surveyed today's events.) Will we be there tomorrow? We'll see. I share your concern, believe me. However, this is where the specifics of the instance arise. You already may have done this several times in your hiring life. Would you have known about this without some anonymous player executing a private agenda? Doubtful at this point. I likely wouldn't have known. The fact is that any number of escorts may be plying their trade while in legal limbo. More who probably should be in legal limbo. The point is we are at risk of that anytime we deal with people we don't really know. The fact that they work under assumed names doesn't add to our security. This goes with the territory every time one hires. Getting back to the specifics of this case, no one has been at risk since this came to light. The subject has been incarcerated. He seems likely to remain so. What stain he carries forward in the future depends on the disposition of his present predicament, or it should. You reinforce my point above. No one will be hiring him before this process plays out. If he acutally goes to trial then the cat is pretty much out of the bag. If it turns out that he has been set up by someone (I am not saying he has, just a what if.) do believe it is warranted that his arrest and private identity be trumpted on escort billboards across the cyberspace highway with all of the attendant personal damage mentioned above?

Conway, you are correct that this is a business issue but not in terms of profit and loss, at least short term. Rather in terms of site integrity and a covenant with site visitors, participants and all others who are showcased here -- the long term prespective. From a profit/loss POV it probably would behoove us to boost our traffic by faning the flames of this controversy. Traffic is the primary basis of whatever income the site generates. If we wanted to attempt to maximize profit opportunity we are going in the wrong direction. We are a community, some vocal, most silent. All participants are anonymous to one level or another and expect to remain that way. No one wants the harsh public light shone on their private life. It doesn't take but a few exceptions to this covenant of confidentiality before everyone might think "this could happen to me". Just an anonymous voice here or there that makes an egregious charge about the personal life of client or escort in support of some agenda. It's all about the covenant which is the basis for long-term integrity of the site.

Believe me when I say I put the client interest on an equal footing with escorts -- both privacy and business interests. In the past I have taken heat from some members about posts that I have allowed about escorts. I have had members tell me they are leaving the site because I allowed business complaint posts about escorts with personal issue crossover. I have lost several escort profiles because I would not comply with their demands to remove client reviews or posts. Taking heat from both sides is an indicator that I dont favor either side over the other. I am not omniscient. I usually have no independent way of knowing where truth lies in controversies. I do my best to protect everyone's privacy unless and until personal issues of clients or escort cross over into the business area. When a potentially plausible business related circumstance is reported and I am not confident that I can determine an accurate assessment then I feel compelled to let it be reported and both sides encouraged to have their say. I know no fairer way to each party and to the community. If there are client complaints about escorts and escort actions, business related, that cross over from their personal life I consider it relevant for discussion. The same is true for escorts complaining about clients actions related to crossover personal life issues. We are all in this together. Escorting is not a relationship between adversaries, but a cooperating arrangement between clients and escorts for mutual benefit. Each deserves the same respect and privacy.

Thanks for the feedback. This is a known bug we are working on. Hope to have it resolved soon.

Moving speech. Let's wait and see what becomes of it.

I like the entourage. Her, not so much. Why is it that I have a special interest in the guys second from the right in all photos. Not to mean I would kick any out of bed for eating crackers. (hmmm... double entendre? )