Discretion in ROS when Activities line is full of acronyms

I can understand why a guy might pull some punches in a review, if he believes that such details might contribute to increased legal risk for the provider or the studio where she works. (I don't think that that's the case, but, moving on ....)

However, if a guy thinks believes that, what's the rationale behind limiting, on that basis, discussion of the (ahem) blow-by-blow details, which are in the non-public ROS, while providing a list of 11 activities and acronyms in the Activities section, which anyone can see?

In other words, what protection does "I'm going to be discreet in my description of what transpired between us" provide in the private area when you've told the world that you got "FBSM, L1, L2, SS, DATY, HJ, BBBJ, DT, B2B, 69, BLS, BBBJTCIM"?

Damn man, you want guys to actualy think through what they are doing? Dream on!!!!!

I love taint and BBCR.

Depends on how he's stating it. I have been putting advertised activities in that section of the review in a few recent cases, and then just offering some general observations in ROS. There have been a few reported incidents of LE using the review (including ROS) as leverage in their "interviews" of (in particular) studio girls. I'd just as soon my review not be included in that stack.

Even with indies, I'm losing interest in writing or reading Penthouse-style reviews. Just show me what I can expect in the Activities section, then give me some analysis in ROS.

TinMan, the comments made in the review in question were in ROS, so I can't link the review or quote directly. But the verbiage in the OP within quotation marks is pretty close.

Are you saying that you would include only things she has advertised in your Activities list? What about cases where no activities are advertised, places where you might be able to "relax" or get a "massage" on the "westside," for example?

I haven't encountered that recently, SL. The studio I've recently reviewed is pretty open about their services. Frankly, I'm not worried about being 100% consistent. I sometimes am moved to be more descriptive, but recently I've been a bit more discreet in certain circumstances. The studio in question demonstrates pretty consistent service, so that makes it easier, too.

The new ad forum will likely also have a minireview sticky thread for more discrete mini-reviews since access ttobthe new ad forum is by screened invite only. Anyone is welcome to join provided they can pass basic provider/hobbyist screening methods, such as those of P411.

Looking forward to opening the new forum sometime this month.