AdamSmith

No, very different package -- I meant the JohnnyMontreal reviewed here by TY: http://www.maleescortreview.com/index.php?...rt_id=106070976 (Yours sounds good too!)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dice-man/sanford.jpg First TY with Johnny/Montreal, now you with Francois. The old Jarvik-7 won't stand much more of this...!

The ghost of Catherine the Great must be hovering somewhere nearby...!

>This is interesting enough for it's own thread. Kinda burried >here. Thanks -- done.

I wish more people would use the Buffet as a dumping ground for their first impressions of sessions, good or bad. As well as contacts made but not followed through for reasons such as those above. I understand and try to follow the policy of not using the message boards as a substitute for full-bore reviews. But I find this forum a useful drafting ground for setting down first impressions right after the fact, which I can then self-plagiarize in writing a review later. (Besides capturing impressions while they're fresh, storing my notes here helps me find them again.) And whenever you can do it without being grossly unfair, NAME NAMES, for heaven's sake. These anonymous mentions always leave me wondering if I am about to step on a snake that already bit someone else. Not a plea for anything less than decorous discourse. But if someone else feels the impressions you report are less than fair, there's no better place than here for them to be corrected or counterbalanced by others with different experiences. Or for the escort himself to chime in.

>As always, >the mouth open wide for one reason or another. ROFL Didn't someone already allude to the second coming of Ethel Merman? http://www.sondheimguide.com/graphics/merman.jpg But maybe we are actually blessed with the reincarnation of another vaudeville great... http://img.slate.com/media/63/020328_MiltonBerle.jpg ...or more aptly: http://www.classictvhits.com/shows/670.jpg Dividing my time these days between AA (Andre Anonymous) and EST (End-RockHard-Bashing Seminars Training). So many temptations, so little willpower.

>Why else have there been no other >posts today? Still recovering from yesterday's post working out the Grand Unified Theory of Hiring. :-) Second Pepperpot: Oh. Perhaps it's from the zoo. First Pepperpot: Which zoo? Second Pepperpot How should I know which zoo? I'm not Doctor bloody Bronowski. First Pepperpot: How does Doctor Bronowski know which zoo it came from? Second Pepperpot: He knows everything. First Pepperpot: Oooh, I wouldn't like that, that'd take all the mystery out of life. http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode22.htm

>Saying that children are born to liberal or conservative >parents is like the nature vs. nurture argument about being >gay. > >In the end, people vote for what they think (rightly or >wrongly) is in their best interest, labels be-damned. Maybe so, but then again maybe not quite... Circling the Wagons By David Brooks ...In a perfectly rational world, citizens would figure out which parties best represent their interests and their values, and they would provisionally attach themselves to those parties. If their situations changed or their interests changed, then their party affiliations would change. But that is not how things work in real life. As Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist and Eric Schickler argue in their book, "Partisan Hearts and Minds," most people either inherit their party affiliations from their parents, or they form an attachment to one party or another early in adulthood. Few people switch parties once they hit middle age. Even major historic events like the world wars and the Watergate scandal do not cause large numbers of people to switch. Moreover, Green, Palmquist and Schickler continue, people do not choose parties by comparing platforms and then figuring out where the nation's interests lie. Drawing on a vast range of data, these political scientists argue that party attachment is more like attachment to a religious denomination or a social club. People have stereotypes in their heads about what Democrats are like and what Republicans are like, and they gravitate toward the party made up of people like themselves. Once they have formed an affiliation, people bend their philosophies and their perceptions of reality so they become more and more aligned with members of their political tribe. Paul Goren of Arizona State University has used survey data to track the same voters over time. Under the classic model, you'd expect to find that people who valued equal opportunity would become Democrats and that people who valued limited government would become Republicans. In fact, you're more likely to find that people become Democrats first, then place increasing value on equal opportunity, or they become Republicans first, then place increasing value on limited government. Party affiliation often shapes values, not the other way around. Party affiliation even shapes people's perceptions of reality. In 1960, Angus Campbell and others published a classic text, "The American Voter," in which they argued that partisanship serves as a filter. A partisan filters out facts that are inconsistent with the party's approved worldview and exaggerates facts that confirm it. That observation has been criticized by some political scientists, who see voters as reasonably rational. But many political scientists are coming back to Campbell's conclusion: people's perceptions are blatantly biased by partisanship. For example, the Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels has pointed to survey data collected after the Reagan and Clinton presidencies. In 1988, voters were asked if they thought the nation's inflation rate had fallen during the Reagan presidency. In fact, it did. The inflation rate fell from 13.5 percent to 4.1 percent. But only 8 percent of strong Democrats said the rate had fallen. Fifty percent of partisan Democrats believed that inflation had risen under Reagan. Strong Republicans had a much sunnier and more accurate impression of economic trends. Forty-seven percent said inflation had declined. Then, at the end of the Clinton presidency, voters were asked similar questions about how the country had fared in the previous eight years. This time, it was Republicans who were inaccurate and negative. Democrats were much more positive. Bartels concludes that partisan loyalties have a pervasive influence on how people see the world. They reinforce and exaggerate differences of opinion between Republicans and Democrats. The overall impression one gets from these political scientists is that politics is a tribal business. Americans congregate into rival political communities, then embrace one-sided attitudes and perceptions. That suggests that political polarization is the result of deep and self-reinforcing psychological and social forces. This theory doesn't explain how the country moves through cycles of greater and lesser polarization. Still, I have to say, depressingly, this picture of tribal and subrational partisanship does accord with the reality we see around us every day. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/05/opinion/...artner=USERLAND

What we do here is central to us but, let's face it, pretty marginal to the grand scheme. (Excepting of course discussions of Francois, Vincent(s), Andre, and Oz's nameless beauties!) From that starting block, Rico's project of meta-commentary on us commentators takes marginality and pointlessness to an extreme that would almost be admirable, if it were not so banal in its Hannah Arendt kind of way.

Danger when things get bigger, danger when things get smaller... Polar bear genitals shrinking due to pollution Shrinkage could endanger animals with already low reproduction rate The icecap may not be the only thing shrinking in the Arctic. The genitals of polar bears in east Greenland are apparently dwindling in size due to industrial pollutants. Scientists report this shrinkage could, in the worst case scenario, endanger polar bears there and elsewhere by spoiling their love lives and causing their numbers to diminish... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14485634/

>claimed that he >fucked 20 girls in high school. What a giveaway.

I like water sports but have no scat fetish. Nonetheless this seems like a good place to post this interesting web site: http://www.cromwell-intl.com/toilet/ "We've all been there. Nature calls and the only answer is a toilet with more levers, switches, and buttons than Wily E. Coyote's latest invention. What to do? If you're Bob Cromwell, the answer is obvious: You take a picture. Dedicated to the man and the latrines he's dared to use, Toilets of the World features photos and captions from Bob's many encounters with the cryptic, the seatless, and the downright weird. During his travels through Russia, East Asia, and South America, Bob never met a commode he didn't want to remember. From an Ottoman-era throne of a more modest variety to a hole-in-the-ground kind enough to offer tips on feet placement, you're bound to gain a quick appreciation for Bob, the Indiana Jones (and Ansel Adams) of latrines."

>The sex was simply amazing. I was almost taken to a place I >had not been in years. There was no penetration and it was >mostly sweet kisses and hard hands. Sugar mixed with spice >always feels right. :9 :9 First step on one of the sweetest of all stairways to heaven. Most especially when romance is in the air...

Growing up, forced exposure to Lawrence Welk inured me to these commercials... http://geritol.com/images/product.jpg ...but never, thankfully, to these: http://www.vagisil.com/images/cremeorig_new.jpg

As I was saying to Ben the other day... :+ Right now in the middle of what's-her-name's book A Great Improvisation about Franklin's virtuoso courting of the French during the Revolutionary War. Especially delightful are all the instances of John Adams's puritanical irritation at Franklin's embrace of French ways, wine and wives.

>Hmmm...we agree again. On both Sabu and the ass shot, I presume. And how was your weekend with >Andre??? Yes, speaking of Sabu. To repeat myself from another thread, I had gotten wise counsel to keep one foot on the ground. But with both legs in the air... So, it was an overnight, not a weekend. Started with a late afternoon fuck, in which was discovered for the first time my inner ring. Then a stroll through Boston's North End, taking in the street fairs and parades marking the various saints' festivals this time of year. Nice Italian dinner in a restaurant across a square from Paul Revere's house. Back home, sat up half the night talking; more devastating personal openness, both ways. Then sex, then sleep. Promise of more soon. >The last pic there is from a program being presented this >weekend in Santa Monica featuring men from Spain, Lebanon, >Egypt and North Africa performing in "Mediterranea >Exotica" an all-male exotic dance piece. I followed the image URL to the site. Jealous!

Shades of Sabu! Libido has sprung to attention, be assured. As for TY's 'Buns...' post, the 3rd ass shot down is the hottest image I have seen in many moons.

>I would envy him if he were on an African Safari (a dream for >me). But, I have never been much of a resort kind of guy. Resorts can be almost as dreadful as cruises. "Being in a ship is like being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned." -- Samuel Johnson (Also, nice nuance in your comment on RH. "The satirist shoots to kill while the humorist brings his prey back alive and eventually releases him again for another chance." -- Peter de Vries)

>Not all of us are lucky enough to be born fully grown and >breaking the womb at a full gate at high speed. Upstarts take >time to start up -- a law of birthing. On the 21st of November 1783, in Paris, Benjamin Franklin was among the hundreds of people who gathered in the gardens of the Rue de Montreuil to attend a wonderful spectacle: the first manned flight in history. The courageous followers of Icare were Francois Pilâtre de Rozier and the Marquis d'Arlandes, using a device invented by the Montgolfier brothers: the hot-air balloon ("Montgolfière" still means "balloon" in modern French). Of course, people who watched the sight were amazed beyond description; however, as often happens with great discoveries, some sceptics loudly expressed their contempt for the invention. One of them clutched Franklin's arm and asked him scornfully: "Monsieur, franchement, à quoi peut bien servir de s'envoler dans les airs ?" (Sir, frankly, what's the use of flying in the air?) To which Franklin replied: "Monsieur, à quoi peut bien servir l'enfant qui vient de naître ?" (Sir, what's the use of a newborn baby?) http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1048646

>Andre (who coincidentally happens >to be due at my door within the hour -- the beat goes on). Footnote: Flame of obsession burns bright. I received sage counsel to keep one foot on the ground. A challenge when both legs are in the air! }(

>At its worst, it was like trying to >converse in a roomful of Rottweilers in full cry. How did my original post end up letting loose the dogs of war? x( I was trying to make the case for keeping them penned up.

marc, thanks for the affirmation. OK, enough earnestness. We can now put our Edith Sitwell masks back on. :+

>>... but your achievements distort the bell curve! > >You can say that again. :7 Emphasis through understatement.

>Well consider yourself ridiculed! It's ridiculous that you >could get infatuated by anyone who is not named Vincent! Don' >you read my posts??? >:7 With drool cup in hand. And nor have I managed to surround myself with 5 Andres. One does one's best but your achievements distort the bell curve! Your Vincent reports, my Andre posts, Oz's account of falling hard -- for some of us it is not possible to share these things even with those closest to us in everyday life. This community, here, is where these experiences find recognition and understanding. That's how I conceive the heart of the mission here, and what I laud (note the absence of doug69 saying "suck up to") site management for working to preserve, protect and defend.

Let me try to do this without too much sanctimony. The welcoming, accepting mood here stands in marked contrast to some other MCs. Reviewing many old threads on Hooboy's boards, I'm struck by how direct, honest, unguarded and even heartfelt many were. By the time I discovered that MC in 2003, it still had lots of good attributes. But it was already turning into a place where one was as liable to be attacked out of nowhere for something innocuous as not. I remember making some post about Andrew Sullivan, admittedly a banal observation and ultra-bleeding heart to boot, and immediately getting smacked by doug69 with the label "you whiny liberal." OK, the shoe fits. But did it have to be jammed on with such force? And of course that was a tiny example. At its worst, it was like trying to converse in a roomful of Rottweilers in full cry. Here, from the outset I've felt free to be open, direct and blatantly biographical, far less arch and guarded, than ever over there. There I would never have thought to post an ongoing narrative about my in some ways absurd but nonetheless quite real infatuation with Andre (who coincidentally happens to be due at my door within the hour -- the beat goes on). Lord knows what kind of ridicule it would have garnered, at least in certain latter days. The understanding reception here has been a welcome assurance that I may be nuts but I'm not that unusual. These thoughts may draw barbs about advocating censorship. Hardly. I overindulge in cracking wise at poor RockHard's expense despite trying to restrain myself. And plenty of other failings. Mea culpa. So. Just one poster's experience of some of the virtues of this place, and why it would be good to see them furthered.