as much as i don't want to, deny you or invalidate your post DK, in this case it's a matter of opinion is it not? in this situation everyone here posting the names of their Legends , many of which are common knowledge and shared, but it is their personal opinion none the less,"These are the providers who are a rarity in the hobby, ones who provide an inimitable experience on a consistent basis. "
if there was a woody for escorts then boom that wold be more solid but, at the end of the day all threads like this are just opinion and 2c
earlier someone mentioned THN, as much as i don't like her, she has a legend similar to tara's and her name stirs pots just as easily... so just speaking as someone who is reading this list and learning about the providers before me Originally Posted by !VI!
This was my absolute first sentence in this thread. This sentence also establishes the "criteria". Establishing criteria eliminates the 2 cent theory. Also note that one of my main reasons for saying this about Tara is that her reviews aren't "consistent". I pointed out that she has "yes" as well as "no" reviews.
As an avid reader of reviews, I am informed enough on the review contents to deduce that my two votes "Reese" and "Melannie" are stellar providers who consistently produce happy customers.
Your opinion about THN doesn't apply as, based on the criteria, she has consistently produced happy customers as well. This, my dear, is what puts providers in the legendary status on this thread. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough on that.
Additionally, we know reviews are bullshit from time to time, but it's the corroboration that matters. I don't think we will get any hobbyist coming on here posting how much RF or MS sucks bcd.
In my mind, and as I have established in my initial post, this is what puts the provider in the legendary status. An over abundance of approval and corroboration. Why, this is what led me to seeing Reese (along with dat ass! Lol) and Melannie. I was not disappointed in the least.
Once again, apologies if my response came out wrong, but this is the criteria I wanted to elude to on this thread.
