At least we know who's been using gtoman's handle for screening...
Douche...
Originally Posted by Wakeup
Not necessarily. She could have simply been following the member who led the witness by mentioning gtoman. She claimed this after first saying she had deleted the texts. We could clear this up if we knew who she contacted regarding the handle TCP gave her.
If TCP has simply been throwing out the gtoman handle to providers who can't be bothered to confirm via pm, that's one thing. But if he actually used another handle of his own with reviews and references, then that's a different thing, at least as far as the guidelines are concerned. The OP can clear this up.
Either way, TCP does admit to some fuckery in the thread following his review.
However, I'm still not clear exactly what the OP is disputing about his review. Did a session take place? Or, following some disagreement, did no activities take place despite TCP listing activities in his review? Or is the OP just pissed that a jackass deceived her about his identity and gave her a no?
OP?