Review: Waste of time with flaker/missmegan

Hmmm..... looks like someone needs a crash course in "lying 101". Think there was a thread for the topic....do a search.....

Maybe if you'd booked an hour. Originally Posted by JohnnyYanks

What? So was driving to and from there for an hour not good enough? I could've booked an entire week 5 months in advance and she still would've flaked out.

What? So was driving to and from there for an hour not good enough? I could've booked an entire week 5 months in advance and she still would've flaked out. Originally Posted by navy1814

He was probably being facetious

Sometimes I can just feel the love on here

He was probably being facetious Originally Posted by ExTr21

That would be way funnier if it wasn't true..

Awwww. One more little lying 20-year old immature, irresponsible cunt to mark off my list. So much money, so little good pussy. It's no secret why these little girls become whores. Because they're WORTHLESS and don't want to show up for work.

Awwww. One more little lying 20-year old immature, irresponsible cunt to mark off my list. Originally Posted by Bigandbad1959

That's kind of harsh. I wouldn't call her LITTLE.

OK. He said/she said. Both sides have aired their versions.

imho, I'd never journey nearly 100 miles to see someone unless I knew absolutely for sure that

1) the event would definitely happen because I had done all of my research and

2) try to have a pretty firm back up Plan B or C, even if that only involved a spa or somesuch.

A gent who has been hobbying since 2010 definitely should be aware of the above.

fyi -- imho the eccie rules determine what constitutes a "review" and that means that the encounter actually happened with $ being paid. Otherwise, not a review per se.

Any case, the review itself shows in both members' profiles, his and hers.

imho, I'd never journey nearly 100 miles to see someone unless I knew absolutely for sure that

1) the event would definitely happen because I had done all of my research and

2) try to have a pretty firm back up Plan B or C, even if that only involved a spa or somesuch.

A gent who has been hobbying since 2010 definitely should be aware of the above.

fyi -- imho the eccie rules determine what constitutes a "review" and that means that the encounter actually happened with $ being paid. Otherwise, not a review per se. Originally Posted by ck1942

And yet you're from SA. How unbiased.

Awwww. One more little lying 20-year old immature, irresponsible cunt to mark off my list. So much money, so little good pussy. It's no secret why these little girls become whores. Because they're WORTHLESS and don't want to show up for work. Originally Posted by Bigandbad1959

Yet you frequent said women ... interesting

And yet you're from SA. How unbiased. Originally Posted by navy1814

LOL

Merely restating the facts and the data.

No defense and no prosecution.

I have nevrr met either party to the dispute.

However. I should note that many providers I know make it a practice to look at any applying gent's review and any "circumstances" associated with drama.

I just find it unusual that a gent on board since 2010 and living in a target rich environment like Austin is so needy to plow 200 miles round tripw/o a Plan B.

LOL

Merely restating the facts and the data.

No defense and no prosecution.

I have nevrr met either party to the dispute.

However. I should note that many providers I know make it a practice to look at any applying gent's review and any "circumstances" associated with drama.

I just find it unusual that a gent on board since 2010 and living in a target rich environment like Austin is so needy to plow 200 miles round tripw/o a Plan B. Originally Posted by ck1942

On the contrary, it appears someone has condoned about every single detail I elaborately indicated. Was the syntax not clear enough? Is it too difficult to understand? Would it be more accommodating if I used a more primitive approach such as spelling this out in crayon so someone one here can finally comprehend what I have already established.

Obviously all these other users who aren't inordinately inept took the time to examine the specifics and also happen to support what I listed on the review.

Clearly someone did not take the initiative to read through the details I listed thoroughly. Certainly we can all unanimously agree that would be expected from an older gent who's been on board since 2009. However after examining your handle name, it's not really fair of me to make that judgement and you shouldn't fret on the matter. [Staff edit. M]

"I have nevrr "

[Staff edit. M] Then again it could be from inferior schooling in which case I find your lack of grammar disturbing along with your taste in avatars.

"I just find it unusual that a gent on board since 2010 is so needy"

Is that all you have to contribute to this conversation? I find this comment to be extraordinarily hypocritical, especially coming from a person who has been with OVER 100 people on here because he can't help being a secluded prehistoric fossil that clings on to providers.

Allow me to reiterate. And yet you're from SA. How unbiased.

he can't help being a secluded prehistoric fossil that clings on to providers. Originally Posted by navy1814

On the contrary, it appears someone has condoned about every single detail I elaborately indicated. Was the syntax not clear enough? Is it too difficult to understand? Would it be more accommodating if I used a more primitive approach such as spelling this out in crayon so someone one here can finally comprehend what I have already established. Originally Posted by navy1814

Classic Lecture FAIL.

Classic Lecture FAIL. Originally Posted by JohnnyYanks

Mr Johnny I got no beef with you. However. Touché well played sir.