So fevrd
you seem to be a little hazy as to what actually happened. Let me take some time to address your points.
Firstly I can't be held responcible for the excuse the model used to the agency for not turning up. I agree were I looking to stay in bed I would find a better reason and certainly one which might cause less problems professionaly.
It is true that I spoke to walpole and not the girl as she didn't have the courtesy to call me! As to being removed from the event, I was the guy rearraning the shoot with a lot of help from the true professionals who having taken a booking had the decency to turn up.
It would then appear that in this particular intercourse you are the one most removed from the actual event.
As to what I will find out before I am "much older" we will all have to see but I did enjoy your patronising tone.
With regard to spin when you have been around the adult trade as long as I have you will learn that I honour my commitments and am happy to stand up to scrutiny.
I am less surprised than you that other people were willing to slag the girl off as others inform me that she has also let them down.
I can look forward to being slagged off myself one day then can I? Well it wont be because I have failed to meet my commitments I assure you. I feel I will be able to rely on you to let me know though.
With reference to your bottom line I can assure that I was very close to the situation and only failed to verify the story with the model because she failed to either show up or even phone.
I know better than to conduct myself in such a way as to leave myself open to arf-arfing.
Lastly I am happy to answer your points but am offended that you suggest the mods remove the posting. Who are you to act as a censor? Not another who speaks for everyone.
Robbie
no shows
Re: no shows
big red wrote:
> Firstly I can't be held responcible for the excuse the model
> used to the agency for not turning up. I agree were I looking
> to stay in bed I would find a better reason and certainly one
> which might cause less problems professionaly.
Hold you responsible? What's that supposed to mean? Please read what I wrote. You are now agreeing with me that the reason she gave is not one that you would expect to be used as a mere excuse.
> It is true that I spoke to walpole and not the girl as she
> didn't have the courtesy to call me! As to being removed from
> the event, I was the guy rearraning the shoot with a lot of
> help from the true professionals who having taken a booking had
> the decency to turn up.
>
> It would then appear that in this particular intercourse you
> are the one most removed from the actual event.
Precisely the point I'm making. From my point of view it all starts to look like hearsay. And I don't see why I can't say so.
> With regard to spin when you have been around the adult trade
> as long as I have you will learn that I honour my commitments
> and am happy to stand up to scrutiny.
Nothing to do with the point I made which did not concern your own reputation or probity. Every story one hears will be told in the way that suits the teller.
> I am less surprised than you that other people were willing to
> slag the girl off as others inform me that she has also let
> them down.
Where did say I was surprised? On the contrary, if you read what I wrote you will see that the point I'm making is that you will always find someone to slag off anyone you care to name.
> I can look forward to being slagged off myself one day then can
> I? Well it wont be because I have failed to meet my commitments
> I assure you.
Well of course it won't (see point above)
> With reference to your bottom line I can assure that I was very
> close to the situation and only failed to verify the story with
> the model because she failed to either show up or even phone.
To your own satisfaction no doubt, but not to mine. I assume you posted because you want to convince your readers. Well that's why I feel there is room for doubt.
> I know better than to conduct myself in such a way as to leave
> myself open to arf-arfing.
I mean all the retired colonel type harrumphing about the younger generation that is elsewhere on the thread. Also nothing to do with you. God, you're touchy.
> Lastly I am happy to answer your points but am offended that
> you suggest the mods remove the posting. Who are you to act as
> a censor? Not another who speaks for everyone.
I'm not acting as a censor. That's the mods' job which I am suggesting would be appropriate because it is against the FAQ to to make potentially libellous allegations against anyone by name in the way you have done.
To sum up Robbie, you didn't check your story before you accused her by name and you didn't read my post properly before you answered it.
fevrd
> Firstly I can't be held responcible for the excuse the model
> used to the agency for not turning up. I agree were I looking
> to stay in bed I would find a better reason and certainly one
> which might cause less problems professionaly.
Hold you responsible? What's that supposed to mean? Please read what I wrote. You are now agreeing with me that the reason she gave is not one that you would expect to be used as a mere excuse.
> It is true that I spoke to walpole and not the girl as she
> didn't have the courtesy to call me! As to being removed from
> the event, I was the guy rearraning the shoot with a lot of
> help from the true professionals who having taken a booking had
> the decency to turn up.
>
> It would then appear that in this particular intercourse you
> are the one most removed from the actual event.
Precisely the point I'm making. From my point of view it all starts to look like hearsay. And I don't see why I can't say so.
> With regard to spin when you have been around the adult trade
> as long as I have you will learn that I honour my commitments
> and am happy to stand up to scrutiny.
Nothing to do with the point I made which did not concern your own reputation or probity. Every story one hears will be told in the way that suits the teller.
> I am less surprised than you that other people were willing to
> slag the girl off as others inform me that she has also let
> them down.
Where did say I was surprised? On the contrary, if you read what I wrote you will see that the point I'm making is that you will always find someone to slag off anyone you care to name.
> I can look forward to being slagged off myself one day then can
> I? Well it wont be because I have failed to meet my commitments
> I assure you.
Well of course it won't (see point above)
> With reference to your bottom line I can assure that I was very
> close to the situation and only failed to verify the story with
> the model because she failed to either show up or even phone.
To your own satisfaction no doubt, but not to mine. I assume you posted because you want to convince your readers. Well that's why I feel there is room for doubt.
> I know better than to conduct myself in such a way as to leave
> myself open to arf-arfing.
I mean all the retired colonel type harrumphing about the younger generation that is elsewhere on the thread. Also nothing to do with you. God, you're touchy.
> Lastly I am happy to answer your points but am offended that
> you suggest the mods remove the posting. Who are you to act as
> a censor? Not another who speaks for everyone.
I'm not acting as a censor. That's the mods' job which I am suggesting would be appropriate because it is against the FAQ to to make potentially libellous allegations against anyone by name in the way you have done.
To sum up Robbie, you didn't check your story before you accused her by name and you didn't read my post properly before you answered it.
fevrd
Re: no shows
Dear fevrd
It is evidant that you have read my posting, although obviously you have either failed to understand it or have an alterior motive.
I have no more time to waste in explanations for your benifit so might I suggest that you get some body to explain it to you or that you re-visit my posting when you are not on your monthly cycle.
I hope that leaves my position clear as you are boring me now and I would rather spend the rest of my evening catalouging toe nail clippings.
Yours
Robbie.
It is evidant that you have read my posting, although obviously you have either failed to understand it or have an alterior motive.
I have no more time to waste in explanations for your benifit so might I suggest that you get some body to explain it to you or that you re-visit my posting when you are not on your monthly cycle.
I hope that leaves my position clear as you are boring me now and I would rather spend the rest of my evening catalouging toe nail clippings.
Yours
Robbie.