... or quaff a half dozen cheeseburgers ... Originally Posted by 19TreesIs Trees suggesting he liquifies the cheeseburgers first or was this just a lazy verb choice?
When did oregano become illegal, and thus forbidden topic?
- JohnnyYanks
- 10-01-2013, 12:00 PM
When did oregano become illegal, and thus forbidden topic?
- 19Trees
- 10-01-2013, 12:20 PM
Johnny,
No. Trees was suggesting that Whimpers liquefies the burgers and that Trees goes puff puff. To each his own. Regrets for the lazy-verb mixup, lol.
19Trees
No. Trees was suggesting that Whimpers liquefies the burgers and that Trees goes puff puff. To each his own. Regrets for the lazy-verb mixup, lol.
19Trees
- JohnnyYanks
- 10-01-2013, 12:37 PM
Then quaff was an excellent choice.
- Still Looking
- 10-01-2013, 12:42 PM
Ok I'm confused! Is Trees a chef, man whore or smoke jumper?
- 19Trees
- 10-01-2013, 01:08 PM
"Smoke humper" seems to fit.
19Trees
19Trees
- Qziz
- 10-01-2013, 01:13 PM
If you are inclined to give it away Vikki, consider Whimpers. You look adorable together. Maybe DD McGee will join and there will be jolly threesome? Originally Posted by 19TreesOh, yes, isn't that just fucking jolly.
You don't like larger women? That's great! I'm not attracted to many of the women you post pics of either! It's awesome that our community has enough depth to have something for everyone. What is *not* awesome is your consistent attempts to shame the physical appearance of people who pop up to disagree with you publicly.
Whether or not you are guilty of what Whispers accused you, your own words do convict you as a loutish ass.
- 19Trees
- 10-01-2013, 01:46 PM
lout·ish: adjective, (of a man or boy) uncouth and aggressive.
Qziz,
Trees got attacked and accused without justification. Does this justify countering as Trees has? Maybe not. Trees regrets any lines that were crossed.
But Trees' was crossed and thought it helpful (though was wrong) to cross back.
If that makes Trees loutish, that is regrettable sorry. As much as we try to get-it-right, sometimes we fail.
19Trees
Qziz,
Trees got attacked and accused without justification. Does this justify countering as Trees has? Maybe not. Trees regrets any lines that were crossed.
But Trees' was crossed and thought it helpful (though was wrong) to cross back.
If that makes Trees loutish, that is regrettable sorry. As much as we try to get-it-right, sometimes we fail.
19Trees
- Whispers
- 10-01-2013, 02:23 PM
- Whispers
- 10-01-2013, 02:26 PM
You said "I spend about 3 hours a day engaged in sexual activity," which is about 6x Trees daily averages. That makes Whispers a very, very strong man. Or a liar? Originally Posted by 19TreesA very lucky man actually..... A 22 (about to be 23 yo) that I sleep with every night and a (just turned) 20yo SB I see 3 or 4 times a week...... Plus I get a little "strange" here and there....
Lots of luck man,,,,,, a little game...... a little cash at times.....
- 19Trees
- 10-01-2013, 03:20 PM
Whimpers,
What you say in post 323 only, has some truth or least some basis in fact. To best of Trees knowledge, its the only post of yours in this thread that has a shred of truth. At least to the best of knowledge Trees has.
Yes. Once a hobbyist solicited Trees directly with a request to see a newbie before she she emerged. The hobbyists suggestion was appreciated for what it was and was not first time Trees approached in similar way before/during/after modtardary. You know why.
As it happened the prospective provider (or the hobbyist setting her up) did NOT agree on the rate, and the meeting was never made nor confirmed. There was never a "meeting of the minds" so no meeting ever happened. Trees could RTM the emails from the hobbyist (on behalf of the newbie) with pics, or presumably post it here. Though disinclined to do so at this time perhaps that time may come? Seems worth sleeping on that question...
Those would be of interest to the mods since Trees suggested in the email to the solicitous hobbyist and his 'you wont regret it' girl - - that maybe "one of the other mods" or another hobbyist might do it?
Had s/he done a 200.45 or 150.30, Trees might have confirmed ... she looked pretty hot. That was a rate that Trees felt comfortable with given the unknowns. Either that hobbyist or that newbie (?) provider believed that rate was not appropriate for that girl, so no meeting happened.
When Bob Hobby respectfully attempts to find a time, location and rate with a provider, he must accept one possible consequence: no meeting, no booty... Again, we pay an amount that is set by the provider (and.or her handlers) or, meeting's don't get confirmed.
Is it possible she was a darling of peeps that had power and connections? Maybe. Or not. Did this have anything to do with this smear campaign? Maybe, though seems doubtful. Why do you raise it here? And why now? Seems to be consistent with your intentions in general, but does seem awful petty. And also grabbing for straws.
19Trees
What you say in post 323 only, has some truth or least some basis in fact. To best of Trees knowledge, its the only post of yours in this thread that has a shred of truth. At least to the best of knowledge Trees has.
Yes. Once a hobbyist solicited Trees directly with a request to see a newbie before she she emerged. The hobbyists suggestion was appreciated for what it was and was not first time Trees approached in similar way before/during/after modtardary. You know why.
As it happened the prospective provider (or the hobbyist setting her up) did NOT agree on the rate, and the meeting was never made nor confirmed. There was never a "meeting of the minds" so no meeting ever happened. Trees could RTM the emails from the hobbyist (on behalf of the newbie) with pics, or presumably post it here. Though disinclined to do so at this time perhaps that time may come? Seems worth sleeping on that question...
Those would be of interest to the mods since Trees suggested in the email to the solicitous hobbyist and his 'you wont regret it' girl - - that maybe "one of the other mods" or another hobbyist might do it?
Had s/he done a 200.45 or 150.30, Trees might have confirmed ... she looked pretty hot. That was a rate that Trees felt comfortable with given the unknowns. Either that hobbyist or that newbie (?) provider believed that rate was not appropriate for that girl, so no meeting happened.
When Bob Hobby respectfully attempts to find a time, location and rate with a provider, he must accept one possible consequence: no meeting, no booty... Again, we pay an amount that is set by the provider (and.or her handlers) or, meeting's don't get confirmed.
Is it possible she was a darling of peeps that had power and connections? Maybe. Or not. Did this have anything to do with this smear campaign? Maybe, though seems doubtful. Why do you raise it here? And why now? Seems to be consistent with your intentions in general, but does seem awful petty. And also grabbing for straws.
19Trees
- snoopdogg
- 10-01-2013, 03:26 PM
why is this still going on?
- Guest030824
- 10-01-2013, 04:00 PM
This continues because we are all morons and just have to see how far it will go. I have no dog in the hunt so I have just lurked on the out side looking in. No blood shed yet but may be later. I am happy in my own little corner even if I don't get laid twice a day.
- Iron Butterfly
- 10-01-2013, 04:42 PM
A very lucky man actually..... A 22 (about to be 23 yo) that I sleep with every night and a (just turned) 20yo SB I see 3 or 4 times a week...... Plus I get a little "strange" here and there....Sounds like your no different then Trees, good for you for taking as much advantage of the ladies as you can
Lots of luck man,,,,,, a little game...... a little cash at times..... Originally Posted by Whispers
IB
- Whispers
- 10-01-2013, 04:43 PM
Why do you raise it here? And why now? Seems to be consistent with your intentions in general, but does seem awful petty. And also grabbing for straws. Originally Posted by 19TreesOne of the ladies PMd me and asked why it had not been raised. So I raised it.
the allegations were
1) Booked 30s and overstayed welcome
2) Paid less than rack rate
3) Pushed for discounts and additional time
4) wrote reviews that did not accurately reflect time, activities or what was paid.
It seems to fit in there and you seemed to want more direct questions....
- Whispers
- 10-01-2013, 04:51 PM
What is *not* awesome is your consistent attempts to shame the physical appearance of people who pop up to disagree with you publicly.Calling people names and personally degrading them is pretty typical of the people around here that can win arguments or dig themselves out of some mess they get in.
Whether or not you are guilty of what Whispers accused you, your own words do convict you as a loutish ass. Originally Posted by Qziz