Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

As noted by all it is very clear that Vagabond has an ulterior motive outside the realm of truth.

"When I go to a foreign country to meet a potential wife, the history of various business owners has little to no relevance to my needs and objectives."
If the history of the owner is one of dishonesty than one should very well take this into consideration for elimination. It is the continued use of such businesses that perpetuates their continuation of dishonest and poor service. If an owner is going to steal from another owner what makes you think he is not going to steal from the client? The theft may not be as direct but men making purchases for contacts that are not real or service that are not diligently accommodated to fruition that are not really viable services is no less a theft. What makes you think that a man that steals and is dishonest will be someone to trust and why would you want to do business with someone you don’t trust? If this is no "relevance" to you than I suspect good morals are not either.

"...it’s probably not likely as he is so busy...”
Yes someone is attacking your business and reputation publicly but you don’t have time to defend such falsehoods. Just don’t have that hour. But for a guy who only has a samaritan interest you seem to have much time.

"I think you should do has Robert has, move on and worry about your own agency and stop dwelling on the past with "he said, she said" games. If you run a better agency, then you'll have the larger client flow, and vice-versa. Competing agencies means better services for us the clients, but throwing old dirt around doesn't do anybody any good."

If someone stole your car would you say to the thief that was the "past" lets "move on" or do you think it is more likely the criminal would say such a thing and not the victim?
As someone who has had to fight such theft of my own material from Russia to Asia to Brazil and much of Colombia such "dirt" should not be hidden but exposed. You are very wrong to say it does nobody any good. It does good for all except of course the thief.

Jamie
Engage the Exotic – Latin Women
http://International-Introductions.com

... in response to My take on the Medellin Agencies, posted by Jamie on Dec 23, 2004


I would like to respond... but please, read what I have to say with an unbiased frame of mind.  It seems many times my posts are read, but (perhaps because I'm the only one on this side of the opinion) the reader reads it to fit what they are already thinking in their head instead of what I've actually written.

"Vagabond has an ulterior motive outside the realm of truth."

Please tell me when I have said something other than the truth.  Just because I question outrageous and unsupported statements by others, as any person should do, does not mean I'm adverse to the truth.

"If the history of the owner is one of dishonesty than one should very well take this into consideration for elimination."

Yes, I totally agree.  But you notice you started the statement with "IF", and that is exactly the point I was trying to make.  When a competing owner makes an outrageous and unfounded attack on another agency, that's a big "IF" in my book.  It didn't seem like the other board members where taking that into account, so this is one of the main reasons I wanted to respond to the post.  Are you telling me that if Robert came on the board first and posted that Steve had stolen all his profiles and pictures, then it would be Robert you would be siding with?  As I said before, only the owners know the real truth, so let’s leave it to them and not speculate merely on who happened to find this site and post on it.

"Yes someone is attacking your business and reputation publicly but you don’t have time to defend such falsehoods.”

There are many possible answers to this.
1. Robert may not even know about this post, so how could he make a post in defense?
2. If he does find out about it and wants to post a defense, it takes a few days to register, so allow a little time.
3. If he does know about it already, maybe he hasn’t posted because he feels it wouldn’t do any good to start a big war of words over something that would be hard to prove one way or the other.  If he came on here with a response, I’m sure he would just get a bunch of pessimistic inquisitions to the effect of “but he said…”

“ for a guy who only has a samaritan interest you seem to have much time”

Yes, unfortunately I have a lot of time on my hands.  I wish it weren’t so, but thanks for reminding me.

“ too much knowledge of the agency's internal functions/history to be just a simple, happy client.”

I may have missed something, but what knowledge do I have of the agency's internal functions/history?  This statement is a good example of erroneous statements being pulled out of the air in an effort to attack someone simply giving his opinion.  I wish I did have this internal information, as it would be much easier to define what my ultimate position should be.  Information like, who’s name is on the release form of each girls application?  What does the document of their agencies dissolution say?  This type of information is what would give us a much clearer picture of the true story.

... in response to I would like to respond..., posted by Vagabond on Dec 23, 2004


Have a happy holiday & a great New Year!

... in response to I would like to respond..., posted by Vagabond on Dec 23, 2004

And I also think you're more full of shit than a Christmas goose!

Merry Christmas Robert! :-)

... in response to I would like to respond..., posted by Vagabond on Dec 23, 2004

But, Dude!  None of this sounds like opinion. Unless you cuddled up to Robert during the evenings you stayed there, and he whispered this stuff in your ear at night, how could it be considered simply opinion?  

"Robert runs a marriage agency called CLC. These are girls he has talked to, are looking for marriage, and are available. PP is a bed and breakfast in another part of town. It is NOT and agency, and therefore does NOT introduce girls for marriage. PP posted some examples of the level of beauty you will see in the city and that's all. Why would you expect PP or Robert to have talked to the [girls in the] pictures, or have those girls "available" to the guys who visit?"

No opinion there.  And weren't you a little ticked off, having been a client, when those photos turned out to be just dud prospects?  Fantasy filler?  A mirage in the oasis of amor?

"Since when is showing a guy where a night club is considered prostitution??
Last time I checked having sex for money is prostitution.
And the guy running the club where prostitution is taking place is pimping.
But the guide at Playboy Penthouse is not doing either of these, or getting any money from it."

How can you be so confident of this?  Other clients may have been offered it, or inquired about it.

"I think it’s good that things related to this other side are a separate business
on a separate site."

But if you've already expressed your confidence that PP is not involved in prostitution, why is it such a "good thing" that "things related to this other side" are separate.  There should be NO concerns regarding their affiliation if nothing contriversial is going on.  Now, if you knew the inside scoop, of course it'd be a good idea to state it as you did.

"I know Robert works very hard to make sure
all the women in the agency are upstanding girls serious about finding
a husband."

Too much certainty of his work ethic there, too.

"Robert, like any guy having lived in one place for a long time,
knows all about the city, including where Colombian guys go for adult
entertainment, massages, etc. Being the helpful guy he is, he often shows
guys around who are interested in this side of the city, while at the same time
never letting it interfere with the operation good standing of the agency."

Unless you are Robert, how could you possibly know everything he does on the side?  Do you audit his books (official and/or unofficial)?

"If Robert wanted to make a bunch of money selling contact information, he’d throw any girl he could on the site, instead of just the ones serious about meeting a husband."

How do YOU know that he is or is NOT throwing any girl he can find on the site?  Do business owners really reveal that much of their operation to clients?

"I too saw the older version of www.playboy-penthouse.com and you have mis-read it, as well as taken it out of context. It did have a chart to give guys an informative comparison of the differences between living in the US and in Colombia, and part of that chart stated:

"Night with a Playboy Quality model in the USA $3000"
"Night with a Playboy Quality model in Medellin $250"

But the site also made very clear that this was an informative comparison of the differences between the two places, and in no way provided these types of services.
Last time I checked, the disclaimer is still on their site and the only reason they may have removed what used to be on there was to be extra clear that they DO NOT cross that line."

How did you suddenly have access to such data if the site no longer displays it?  And what makes you so confident that "they DO NOT [pretty emphatic] cross that line?"

Scott Petterson's parents had that kind of confidence in their son--and they are family members!

"Information like, who’s name is on the release form of each girls application? What does the document of their agencies dissolution say?"

How would one begin to even think of such questions, unless that person were somehow involved in the owner's parting of ways?  "Dissolution?"  "Release forms?"  The mere mention of such terms borders on--or suggests--"intimate knowledge."

"Yes, I realize my statements will be taken with a grain of salt because I’m registered using a p-p.com email."

The bow on the package.

"I'll call Robert to see if he wants to come on the board to comment and give more clearity."

Been waiting for that chapter of the novela.  Though, I suspect the actor has been on stage all along.

If an agency owner would go so far as to defraud a partner, what's to say that he wouldn't come to this forum incognito and defend his agency as you have?

... in response to Re: I would like to respond..., posted by doombug on Dec 24, 2004

[This message has been edited by Vagabond]

>>Note to board moderator, "density" is not an insult, merely an observation that has been supported below.<<
.
.

"weren't you a little ticked off, having been a client, when those photos turned out to be just dud prospects?"

I don't understand what the heck you are referring to here.  If you are talking about the pictures on CLC?  All of the pictures seemed to be legit, as I dated many of the girls.  So no, I would have no reason to be "ticked off".  If you are talking about the pictures on PP, they are not presented as prospects or girls they offer for introduction, so again, no I would have no reason to be "ticked off".  How long is it going to take some of you guys to understand this very simple concept?  I figured it out the first time I visited their site.  PP does not offer introductions to girls.  It is not an agency.  It is a bed and breakfast.  
.
.

""the guide at Playboy Penthouse is not doing either of these, or getting any money from it.""
How can you be so confident of this? Other clients may have been offered it, or inquired about it."

I'm not saying I am confident about it.  I have only based my opinion on my observations.  To go beyond that, as you have, is merely speculation.  Yes, maybe the PP guide introduced a girl for sex, maybe Steve has introduced girls for sex, maybe the president of Colombia introduced a girl for sex, maybe aliens came down from space and introduced girls for sex.  We could speculate for ever and that's all it would be, speculation.
.
.

"if you've already expressed your confidence that PP is not involved in prostitution, why is it such a "good thing" that "things related to this other side" are separate. "

The answer to this seems pretty obvious doesn't it?  One business introduces girls for marriage and the other business shows guys where the strip clubs are.  I'd say those are pretty separate activities and objectives, don't you?
.
.

"Unless you are Robert, how could you possibly know everything he does on the side?"

I'm not saying I do, but like I illustrated above, anything beyond what I've observed would be merely speculation, and that's not useful to anybody.
.
.

""If Robert wanted to make a bunch of money selling contact information, he’d throw any girl he could on the site, instead of just the ones serious about meeting a husband.""
"How do YOU know that he is or is NOT throwing any girl he can find on the site?"

AGAIN, I never said I did.  All I said was I considered that having less girls may be a good thing, for the reasons I explained.  Stop putting words in my mouth please.
.
.

""I too saw the older version of www.playboy-penthouse.com"
How did you suddenly have access to such data if the site no longer displays it?"

Hello!! Is anybody home??  Maybe you didn't read my sentence.. "I too saw the older version".  It would better to first read the post you are replying to.
.
.

"How would one begin to even think of such questions, unless that person were somehow involved in the owner's parting of ways? "Dissolution?" "Release forms?" The mere mention of such terms borders on--or suggests--"intimate knowledge."

AGAIN, hello... maybe you are not aware, but these are basic terms known by the general population for any such type of business in most countries around the world.  If you collect and use someone's information or image, they have to sign a release form, weather it's TV, Movies, agency, advertising, etc.  And any time a company or group splits up or buys the other parties out, the details are normally documented.  This is basic public knowledge, not "intimate knowledge."  
.
.

"Been waiting for that chapter of the novela. Though, I suspect the actor has been on stage all along."

Well, I guess you have the right to be wrong.
.
.

"If an agency owner would go so far as to defraud a partner, what's to say that he wouldn't come to this forum incognito and defend his agency as you have?"

Besides the fact that I'm NOT Robert, you could very well be right, but keep in mind, your statement could have just as easily read, "If an agency owner (Steve) would go so far as to defraud a partner, what's to say that he wouldn't come to this forum and tell lies about the competition?"  Both statements have equal probability of being true.

... in response to I would like to respond..., posted by Vagabond on Dec 23, 2004

"I would like to respond... but please, read what I have to say with an unbiased frame of mind."

Why would I or the others have a bias for one or the other? We wouldn’t and we don’t. We read exactly what you saying you just don’t like the conclusion.

"Please tell me when I have said something other than the truth. Just because I question outrageous and unsupported statements by others, as any person should do, does not mean I'm adverse to the truth."

You accuse Steve of throwing "mud" but he laid out specific charges that could be verified or disputed and invited Robert to respond. This is not throwing out mud but you call it that. The only mud throwing was by you when you said other customers "made the switch because of bad experiences at Colombian SweetHearts." This is an empty complaint and is an example of mud throwing.

""If the history of the owner is one of dishonesty than one should very well take this into consideration for elimination." Yes, I totally agree. But you notice you started the statement with "IF", and that is exactly the point I was trying to make. When a competing owner makes an outrageous and unfounded attack on another agency, that's a big "IF" in my book."

The accusations were very specific it would be very easy to determine the validity if Robert was being wronged and wanted to point this out.
 
"Are you telling me that if Robert came on the board first and posted that Steve had stolen all his profiles and pictures, then it would be Robert you would be siding with?"

If someone lays out a case that is verifiable it does not mater who is first.

“As I said before, only the owners know the real truth, so let’s leave it to them and not speculate merely on who happened to find this site and post on it.”

This is not true and foolish. Evidence and facts determine the truth. You don’t have the makings of an unsolved mystery here that only requires the involved parties to concur for the truth to be determined.

"1. Robert may not even know about this post, so how could he make a post in defense?"

Are you trying to tell us even though you have been in contact with his office, as you so noted, you did not tell his office or the owner what was going on? It just slipped your mind?

"2. If he does find out about it and wants to post a defense, it takes a few days to register, so allow a little time."

Lets see you are able to contact his office to have them set you up with his email domain so you can post in his defense, but he is not able to do the same thing?

"3. If he does know about it already, maybe he hasn’t posted because he feels it wouldn’t do any good to start a big war of words over something that would be hard to prove one way or the other. If he came on here with a response, I’m sure he would just get a bunch of pessimistic inquisitions to the effect of “but he said…”"

Everything Steve mentioned can be disputed with evidence or verified with evidence and would be easy to prove one way or the other it does not have to be a he said you said discussion. You are just making up excuses.
Jamie
Engage the Exotic – Latin Women
http://International-Introductions.com

... in response to Re: I would like to respond..., posted by Jamie on Dec 23, 2004

You seem like a nice and objective guy.  I feel bad we do not agree on some things.  
I checked out your website and it's really nice.  I'd like to check it out when I go to Barranquilla.
Is it a bed and breakfast agency?  $75 to meet one of the girls sounds a little high, but not too bad.

Nothing against you personally, but I would like to clarify...

When I accused Steve of throwing mud, it was in reference to him going into a public place and saying extremely negative things about the competition.  Some of his statements have already been proven to be false.  If Robert comes on the board, more of his statements may be proven false as well.

"Steve's customers making the switch because of bad experiences at Colombian SweetHearts."

I'm sorry for its "emptiness" but I don't have the emails of the people who told me this.  I don't ask for the email of everyone I meet, do you?

"If someone lays out a case that is verifiable it does not mater who is first."

OK, so tell me in what way you, or anyone else on the board has verified the statements Steve made.

"it only requires the involved parties to concur for the truth to be determined."

Exactly, and this has not happened yet, so why do so many of you think you know the truth?  I have admitted many times I don't know the details of their separation, and only stated things I know personally.  All I expect is that the rest of you do the same.

"Are you trying to tell us even though you have been in contact with his office"

I have not called his office even once, or written them an email.  Why do you make this accusation?  I contacted PP for assistance in responding to Steve's unsupported accusations of prostitution.  They are two different businesses in two different parts of the city.

... in response to You seem like a nice guy, posted by Vagabond on Dec 23, 2004

“Nothing against you personally, but I would like to clarify...”
I don’t take any of this personal.

“When I accused Steve of throwing mud, it was in reference to him going into a public place and saying extremely negative things about the competition.”
As I noted to you before this is not throwing mud. He made a formal accusation that Robert has decided to ignore. Since no information was provided to counter these accusations one can only assume that they must be true. If is it not worth Robert’s time to expose what you claim is mud throwing why would it be worth your time over and over again? It is now in Robert’s hands to counter any false charges since you have said you are not involved with his business. How could you defend someone who has not filled you in on what really happened but you keep making attempts at doing so by only selectively answering questions put to you.

“Some of his statements have already been proven to be false.”
None of his key accusations have been proven wrong.

“If Robert comes on the board, more of his statements may be proven false as well.”
Don’t you think by now you would know the answer to this instead of commenting: “if he does this he may show that” type of statements which only an OJ jury mentality would buy?

“"Steve's customers making the switch because of bad experiences at Colombian SweetHearts." I'm sorry for its "emptiness" but I don't have the emails of the people who told me this. I don't ask for the email of everyone I meet, do you?”
No, but I do throwing mud as you did at other businesses by saying in a public arena that some unknown customers of theirs said unknown bad things about them that can not be substantiate in any way or form. This makes the complaint empty. This information could never be brought up in court because it is meaningless and useless and you know this.

Many who I debate will counter with stupid and irrelevant points because they either have comprehension difficulties or their thought process is not logically sound or they are ignorant of what they speak or they allow bias and feelings to taint a clear perspective. I have had many discussions where I can quickly surmise if I am dealing with a reasonable man or not. In your case I am wondering if you are in the legal field because you know how to debate but your position is so weak that you have to selectively choose what questions to answer, or what points to skirt, or as in this last response you take it another direction. Instead of acknowledging this as hearsay (your own attempt at mud throwing) as not being appropriate for public light you sarcastically apologize not for your mud throwing but for not retaining information at the time that no one would expect you to retain. You than turn the direction from having to defend what you did to the party challenging you, to asking a rhetorical question that I would not of done anything differently. But the collection of emails is not the issue the issue was your own pronouncement which was nothing less than hearsay and mud throwing.  Again your avoidance is all very clever for an OJ juror but by now you should have realized some of us are not so “dense”. Yet you continue with a weak defense only a compensated representative would be motivated to stand by with. I commend your valiant attempts because you are doing the best that you can with the defendant you have but to open, unbiased eyes your attempts don’t pass.    

"If someone lays out a case that is verifiable it does not mater who is first." OK, so tell me in what way you, or anyone else on the board has verified the statements Steve made.”
That is not for us to do. Steve invited Robert to do so.

"it only requires the involved parties to concur for the truth to be determined." Exactly, and this has not happened yet, so why do so many of you think you know the truth? I have admitted many times I don't know the details of their separation, and only stated things I know personally. All I expect is that the rest of you do the same.”
Please read more carefully I said the opposite of this read my quote in context.

"Are you trying to tell us even though you have been in contact with his office" I have not called his office even once, or written them an email. Why do you make this accusation? I contacted PP for assistance in responding to Steve's unsupported accusations of prostitution. They are two different businesses in two different parts of the city.”
If the businesses are not connected and that still appears to be an open question, the question would then be why have you not contact the office and the owner? But enough with the questions you left too many unanswered as is, and as you said, how could you answer such questions you have not been in contact with the owner on this mater you are just an independent samaritan.

Jamie
Engage the Exotic - Latin Women
http://International-Introductions.com

... in response to You seem like a nice guy, posted by Vagabond on Dec 23, 2004

[This message has been edited by pablo]

Quote:

"I have not called his office even once, or written them an email. Why do you make this accusation? I contacted PP for assistance in responding to Steve's unsupported accusations of prostitution. They are two different businesses in two different parts of the city".

You said you were going to contact Robert about all this.  Did you change your mind or just didn't have time to write him?  

Unless CLC has moved their operation away from the P-P recently their location is one in the same.  One of the few photos of a new lady member at CLC was taken at, yep you guessed it, P-P!  Check out member number MC10100 and you will see it was taken at P-P, er, I mean CLC.

If they are two different agencies in different parts of the city, why do they both share the same phone number as listed on their sites?

Quote:

"Since when is showing a guy where a night club is considered prostitution??
Last time I checked having sex for money is prostitution.
And the guy running the club where prostitution is taking place is pimping.
But the guide at Playboy Penthouse is not doing either of these, or getting any money from it".

You're right, showing someone a night club is Not considered prostitution but P-P IS making money.

Taken from P-P:

Naughty Night
4 hour tour of the city's best night time adult hot spots.  We will provide an informative list of what Medellin has to offer and let you select which ones you would like to visit.  An informative bi-lingual guide will drive you around and assist you with getting the best deal on all transactions so you can focus on enjoying your experience.
$60.00

Need I say more?

... in response to Re: You seem like a nice guy, posted by pablo on Dec 25, 2004

"You said you were going to contact Robert about all this. Did you change your mind?"

Yes.  I don't think it would do him any good to come here to post his side.  Based on what I've experienced here, nothing positive seems to come from it, just a lot of arguing back and forth.
.
.

"Unless CLC has moved their operation away from the P-P recently, their location is one in the same."

CLC is on 10th street and PP is near the transversal.  I think CLC used the PP location for photo shoots while the office was being renovated.   PP is a cool photo location, so I think that was an added bonus.
.
.

"You're right, showing someone a night club is Not considered prostitution but P-P IS making money.

Taken from P-P:

Naughty Night
4 hour tour of the city's best night time adult hot spots. We will provide an informative list of what Medellin has to offer and let you select which ones you would like to visit. An informative bi-lingual guide will drive you around and assist you with getting the best deal on all transactions so you can focus on enjoying your experience.
$60.00

Need I say more?"

Yes, if your intent is to insinuate anything more than what is already clearly stated on their site, you must say more.. like evidence they are making money from the prostitution.  So far, all you've done is pointed out the obvious.  PP is making money giving tours... wow, what a revelation.
.
.

Below is my last statement I will make on this board…

I wish you all good luck in your travels and finding a wonderful Latin wife.  If you visit Medellin and desire assistance of an agency for finding a wife, go to Steve’s agency CSH.  If you’re the type that likes to shop around to gain a larger selection of girls, or doesn’t believe everything you hear, you may want to also check out Robert’s CLC agency.  Each agency has some girls the other agency does not, and each agency has different personnel and pricing structures.  If you’re looking for an alternative to Hotels and Agencies, PP seems to be the city’s best bet.  Have fun and good luck.

... in response to Pablo and Planet-Love, posted by Vagabond on Dec 26, 2004

[This message has been edited by pablo]

Vagabond,

I've been a member at P-L for quite some time and there is a lot of helpful information here.  There are also many different personalities and people from different walks of life represented making for an eclectic membership.  I don't think the board is negative nor do I think the recent discussion about CLC, P-P and CSH could be considered arguing.  Although some posters doubted who you were based on your email address and what some would consider your overzealous defense of P-P, I believe you had a good experience with this agency.  When you said something that I thought needed clarification, for example, P-P and CLC having the same location, you responded back with more information (even though you did not explain why they have the same phone number).  I don't see how this exchange could be considered negative or arguing.

I still think that Robert's agency would benefit if he came on the forum and explained his side of the story.  I honestly think he is aware of the posts though and has decided to ignore what's been said.  A mistake in my opinion, especially if he is innocent of Steve's charges or if there has been over/misstatements.

I wasn't trying to insinuate that P-P was making money from prostitution but it is very obvious that they make money from mongering assistance.  You word it slightly different and say they make money "giving tours" which actually is fine with me.  Based on what is said at P-P's site and what posters have said at WSG (BTW, you don't need to be a member to read that forum like you previously stated) I can't see how anyone could arrive at any other conclusion.  I just think that Robert is skating a fine line of presenting a respectable agency on one hand and on the other, running P-P which I think will only hurt CLC in the long run.  What respectable young lady would want to be associated with a marriage agency where the owner had a sideline business dealing with such things?  I think Robert should do one or the other but that is just my opinion.

I do hope that you reconsider about staying on at P-L as I imagine your experiences in SA would benefit the board.  Either way, the beer is still on me next time you're in town.

Pablo

... in response to Pablo and Planet-Love, posted by Vagabond on Dec 26, 2004

.

... in response to My take on the Medellin Agencies, posted by Jamie on Dec 23, 2004

That statement--"The history of various business owners has little to no relevance to my needs and objectives"--is an appeal to the naivete of any newbies here.  He's been coaxing people into overlooking the criticisms, while exagerrating (like the spiel of a late-night infomercial) the scenery and women of Colombia to compensate.

Sort of reminds me of the used-car salesman who, no matter how many times you refuse to bite, keeps pitching the sale of the lemons on his lot.

Pretty apparent that he has an interest in the agency.  Either the sole owner himself--incognito--or a new partner.

Just too much knowledge of the agency's internal functions/history to be just a simple, happy client.  Add to that the vigorous defense and promotion of the agency.

... in response to Re: My take on the Medellin Agencies, posted by doombug on Dec 23, 2004


Can you say "BUSTED"....

... in response to Ditto...., posted by Hoda on Dec 23, 2004

dont think he would make a very good attorney

... in response to My take on the Medellin Agencies, posted by Jamie on Dec 23, 2004

Hey Jamie.......Merry Christmas!!!!!!  :-)