Blowpop's List - OTC Edition

What they're claiming is the "I showed it to her before I posted the review, so it wasn't ROS when I shared it" argument. It's horseshit of course, because their intent is to post the review afterward, which is guaranteed to make certain areas of it inaccessible to the providers viewing it.

If you were sharing a comment with a provider like "I like Whataburger, they have a cool menu" and then posted that in the Men's Lounge, it's okay, that was just a random comment. When you're sharing a review, which is GOING to be posted here, and is GOING to be made inaccessible to the provider, then you're deliberately violating the rules about sharing ROS info to people who don't have access to it. The timing is irrelevant...

But I guess that's why they call them pussywhipped hobbyists instead of men. Originally Posted by Wakeuр

So if any fucktard shares info with a hooktard it's okay as long as he does it before posting it in a private area?

Or does it depend on who the fucktard is sharing the info or who the hooktard is receiving the info?

Originally Posted by Sarunga

Putting on my godturd hat for a moment.......technically, theCFE violated the rules when she acknowledged that she knows the ROS. PussyWupped did not violate the rules by allowing her to review the ROS before posting it. Once the review was posted and responded to it was no longer just his. It now belongs to the ECCIE community. That is why (as a rule) retards are not allowed to get reviews removed after they are posted (there are rare exceptions).

I have no interest in seeing theCFE get points over this matter. She has been punished enough just by being put on that retarded Top 10 List.........see how I made that on topic?

.......technically, theCFE violated the rules when she acknowledged that she knows the ROS. Originally Posted by dearhunter

Hmm...I don't have enough interest to pour back through and see what she actually said (about the session that got her on the list - also on topic!), but I have a point to question about that. My understanding is that you would be correct if she said that she "knows the ROS". However, acknowledging that he showed it to her and making statements about what she read is not a violation if she has no way of knowing whether that is actually what he posted. She can assume that it is and may be correct, but unless she acknowledged knowing that for a fact, then there is no problem. He could send her a version and post something entirely or partially different. If someone wanted to play chess they could have asked her if she knew whether his posting and what he previewed to her are the same. If she said yes, then she would be screwed.

Not that I share the view of hoping she doesn't get points or anything...ijs

The only point here is that that the moderators have been told that its perfectly okay for anyone to share their review with the provider before they post it.

St.C is a fucking idiot for allowing it, but the mods don't have a choice.

So now, for the masses, go tell the hooktards anything you want, just do it BEFORE you actually post it here...

I have no way to see what is written about me via ECCIE. All I know is what is sent via email. It is true that what is posted could be vastly different from what is sent to me, but I would judge that it is not, as I look over the retelling of our time together to ensure accuracy. It seems to me that reviews are most useful when they are accurate. If what I read is judged to be accurate, why would someone change it to be less accurate? That said - no, I have no way of knowing for sure. I prefer to trust the men who I've allowed into my inner sanctum, and would hope they prove themselves worthy of that trust. Not every hobbyist is a full sack o'dicks.

Additionally, anyone who feels I have no right to know what is being said about me, good or bad, can exercise their right to never see me. I use my feedback to improve my services. That seems like it would be a GOOD thing. I can say without hesitation that my performance has improved vastly over the past seven months, which again, is a vast improvement over me as baby provider from twelve years ago (back when my performance was my version of terrible, yet still garnered corners of gents' minds that remained unswept for over a decade).

I understand there are some vindictive women out there - I'm not one of them. I am good natured, intelligent, and sweet. I like to think that comes across in my posts; it is definitely obvious in person. I also have a sense of humor, and can laugh at myself as well as others. I don't find myself to be terribly restrictive or unreasonable. Those who do are not required to see me. I certainly don't want to be a bother or a burden on anyone. This is supposed to be fun, after all.

Back on topic - I was present for the session with BP. I know exactly what happened and what didn't happen. He emailed me his depiction, and it was accurate to my experience of our time together. He could have edited it before posting it. As far as I'm concerned, sharing information prior to posting on a website is still obeying the letter of the law, if not the spirit, but that's my interpretation. I am not currently a moderator, although I've worn that hat before. I am, however, a fantastic provider and a wonderful woman, regardless of unasked for, non-negotiated rankings on silly lists. I could turn this into a threAD and say anyone with any doubts should just experience time with me to discover how accurate my reviews and advertising are, but that just seems over the top, so I won't do that.

Don't let the trolls get under your skin as there is nothing out there but damn positive things about you! Some just have more fun starting shit than playing with a real woman like you!

Ironic......

You're too kind, EA. I think the word is hypocritical. But, hey, at least he's "chilled" now.

From what I can tell from reading this thread we should be contacting Blowpop for companionship?

Why's that humorous? I'm the only one here who EVER questions the enforcement of the rules...the rest of you blindly follow along. Where you been old man, this isn't even close to the first time I've questioned the moderators interpretation of the rules... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Again, I feel it's ironic you crying about the rules. You break the rules more in one week that 99% of the members do in a year.

How cool, an old man joke............getting kind of desperate to reach down to that sophomoric level of name calling. I'm disappointed, because I expected more from you than some 'old man' drivel.

St.C is a fucking idiot for allowing it, but the mods don't have a choice. Originally Posted by Wakeuр

That should get you a time out and is a classic (really better than a classic) example of what I mentioned. Thank you very much for solidifying my thoughts.

Do you mean irony, along the lines of, people who no longer hobby who hang out on hobby boards; that kind of irony?

If so, then me too! That always brings me a chuckle. Originally Posted by SofaKingFun

Yep, I still have friends here. Male and female. Plus I still care about the hobby in the Houston area.

On this page alone, I have as many reviews as dearhunter, WTF, and Texas Gator. Also wakeup's 3 reviews are on restaurants............going to bitch about them also?

Hey bp, your list sucks. What year is this, 2007? I wish some ladies would come out of the woodwork and give your old ass a free bj, then maybe you could come out with a better list.

This thread has evolved into damn near THREE different topics

It won't be long now ....

Thank god...

On this page alone, I have as many reviews as dearhunter, WTF, and Texas Gator. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

Actually, you have fewer reviews than I do...nice try though...

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=116311

P.S.-You honestly think I break rules and don't get punished? Ever hear of Occam's Razor?