I might stand alone... but DAMN IT I'm standing up for what I think is right!

WARNING ATTACK PACK SHARKS!



Swim at your own risk!

Now that’s funny. Quote one person, then bash another while turning the thread into you being in the Lime Light as you so eloquently put it. Classic Whispers!
Originally Posted by Still Looking

Gotta Agree with my pal SL on this one
it's just another opportunity for some people to be in the limelight
Whispers and his "protoge'" just want attention
If a provider f**ks up then post a review
if a provider deserves the benefit of the doubt post it
don't worry about these "board runners"
because in the end..their opinions matter less and less after post #100,000 and so on

I want to say thank you to everyone who PM'd, emailed, or came to see me and had kind words of encouragement.

I also want to say that I agree with the quoted post almost completely. I could be wrong, or it could just be wishful thinking on my part, but it really did feel like the guy came in intending to do exactly as he did. With $200 ready to go and everything. I don't know why he seems to be offended by the existence of independents, but it really boggles my mind that he doesn't just stick to the agency girls he seems to be happy with.

For those of you stating that I'm probably fine, you are exactly right. I worried about it for a few hours, went shopping, felt better, came back and still had a wonderful trip.

I probably won't be posting about this anymore as I feel that the issue as it pertains to me specifically is not really worth discussing anymore. Some great guys (and lady) verified that I am not repulsive (thanks SL, Paven, homer13, AcesHigh, and anyone I missed), and that's good enough for me. However, I do feel that the loophole that this guy is exploiting purposefully should be addressed.

Caroline

Have you guys noticed that often posters are so dedicated to show who they side with, that they lose track of most of the issues in the beginning of the post?

We, as a community, seem entirely dedicated to polarizing each post into right/wrong-one side/or the other-Republican/Democrat-Straight/Gay-Chevy/Ford-Apple/Oranges...

Then it digresses into one side slamming the other...

And this does have two sides to it...but the MAIN point, IMHO, is that a poster took advantage of a stupid rule to shaft a girl...

This is the point, this is the only point...

A poster set up a meeting with a provider...showed up...paid what HE considered equitable compensation...then walked.

*NO event took place
*NO exchange of bodily fluids took place
*NO rocks were gotten, nuts found, orgasyms experienced or even attempted

Yet, the review stands...the girl didn't get a chance to convince the writer how good (or bad) she could be...he never gave her the chance. The way I understand it, she didn't do a thing to misslead the reviewer. He came of his own accord. There was no bait & switch. As far as we know, she was ready and willing to provide what she was contracted to do.

NO activities took place, so NO review should be allowed...rules be damned.

Think about it this way...you want to trash a provider, motivation is immaterial...so you schedule an appointment...for which she clears her schedule...expecting FULL not partial payment...you show up, hand her 20 (amount DOES NOT MATTER EVEN IF IT WAS FULL PAYMENT)...walk out, and then write a NO review...according to the current rules, thats acceptable.

I'm not casting my vote for the OP...I am agreeing with the position. If you think about it, I don't see how you could feel otherwise.

As a side note, the hobbiest who wrote the "review" today writes a "compilation review" of various meetings with an agency provider...in my mind, further substantiating the allegations previously levied against him.

Whether the young woman is a yes or a no in experience, I have no idea. Haven't seen her, doubtful I will. But I hate to see someone trashed in a review UNLESS they earned it...she did not. Originally Posted by Toyz

This thread has served its purpose it would seem. While I'm not a believer in closing threads, if the MODS feel so inclined they may close it.

But SL, you're still trailing Mokoa by over 1000 posts. Don't you want to milk this thread for at least 10-15 more posts, and close the gap a little further?

But SL, you're still trailing Mokoa by over 1000 posts. Don't you want to milk this thread for at least 10-15 more posts, and close the gap a little further? Originally Posted by trynagetlaid

Good point! I almost forgot... I have in fact PM'D the powers to be and brought this issue to their attention. While slapping down $$ might entitle someone to write a review in the minds of some, the next guy will toss $10 bucks down. Now he can write a review??? Once again, I don't think I'm by myself when I say, I have no use for that INTEL in the form of a review. ML or Alerts seem to be better suited for that kind of thing.

I truly feel even those attacking me in this thread would not lower themselves to this cheap kind of behavior.

I have seen mods correct people with "No activities took place... no review. " Depends on their mood I guess.

WARNING ATTACK PACK SHARKS!



Swim at your own risk! Originally Posted by Still Looking

LOL!

LOL! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I almost forgot... Welcome back Yessup Rider!

I have seen mods correct people with "No activities took place... no review. " Depends on their mood I guess. Originally Posted by S O B

That is true. There doesn't seem to be a clear definition or guidance from ownership. In many other forums, if clothes don't come off and two people don't have BCD activities, it's considered that no activities took place. Under that definition, the referenced review would have been moved to Coed.

And SL I was just joking. I enjoy your posts and feel you bring a lot of needed sanity to this board.

That is true. There doesn't seem to be a clear definition or guidance from ownership. In many other forums, if clothes don't come off and two people don't have BCD activities, it's considered that no activities took place. Under that definition, the referenced review would have been moved to Coed.

And SL I was just joking. I enjoy your posts and feel you bring a lot of needed sanity to this board. Originally Posted by trynagetlaid

I just want to meet the chick in your avatar!

oh my what a mess!

WK to the rescue IJS!

yessup ur back finally!

Good point! I almost forgot... I have in fact PM'D the powers to be and brought this issue to their attention. While slapping down $$ might entitle someone to write a review in the minds of some, the next guy will toss $10 bucks down. Now he can write a review??? Once again, I don't think I'm by myself when I say, I have no use for that INTEL in the form of a review. ML or Alerts seem to be better suited for that kind of thing.

I truly feel even those attacking me in this thread would not lower themselves to this cheap kind of behavior. Originally Posted by Still Looking

X 2

That is true. There doesn't seem to be a clear definition or guidance from ownership. In many other forums, if clothes don't come off and two people don't have BCD activities, it's considered that no activities took place. Under that definition, the referenced review would have been moved to Coed.

And SL I was just joking. I enjoy your posts and feel you bring a lot of needed sanity to this board. Originally Posted by trynagetlaid

X 2

I just want to meet the chick in your avatar! Originally Posted by Still Looking

me first me first

oh my what a mess!

WK to the rescue IJS!

yessup ur back finally! Originally Posted by Absolutely

I agree Absolutely... I love your sig line. Al YES reviews. For $10 bucks that can be changed real quick!

I just want to meet the chick in your avatar! Originally Posted by Still Looking

So would I!!! It came to me by email from one of my crazy friends. The heading was: Sometimes it's Tough being a Super Hero