The "other site"'s big wonderful world of hookers

[Guest tweety]

>If you have negative experiences you should report them.

I tried to post a review here of the well reviewed escort who wants $500 / hour to bottom despite the quoted $250 /hour rate in his review here and was told that is not the basis for a negative review. That in my view is why relevant information goes missing.

[Buddy2]

Given Tampa Yankees unusually curt reply to your comments, I would have immediately written a review of the sweaty bike rider and submitted it to this site. If you have decided not to write a review, my question would be why.

Do you and Tampa Yankee have a history of conflict?

On the other hand, escorts quote different prices for a variety of reasons.

In addition, you apparently did not hire the escort, so you really could not write a review anyway.

[Guest tweety]

> If you have decided not

>to write a review, my question would be why.

The sweaty escort incident is a year old now. It just came to mind when I saw yet again a fawning review for this escort on this site from someone who gave him a similar review on the other site.

>On the other hand, escorts quote different prices for a

>variety of reasons.

>In addition, you apparently did not hire the escort, so you

>really could not write a review anyway.

As a frequent consumer of escort services in many locales, I have to tell you that an escort who charges twice the going rate in his locale, and who advertises as versatile but differentiates in pricing for being a top or bottom is a huge red flag. That, plus the tone over the phone, bore no resemblance to the cute and cuddly persona of his reviews here.

In yet another experience, I recently contacted another "experienced" well-travelled escort with great reviews in a forum such as this but who was robotic over the phone and in person, had to be prodded to do oral, blew me with a condom on, and didn't kiss. In my experience, it is rare for a quality escort to be that robotic, and it seems at odds with the reported spontaneity from the reports on-line.

I have always believed that positive escort reviews are of little use because they shed more information about the reviewer than the reviewed escort. On the other hand, reviews that describe negative experiences from the time of first contact to the completion of the service are much more useful and indicative of future performance.

[TampaYankee]

>>If you have negative experiences you should report them.

>

>

>I tried to post a review here of the well reviewed escort who

>wants $500 / hour to bottom despite the quoted $250 /hour rate

>in his review here and was told that is not the basis for a

>negative review. That in my view is why relevant information

>goes missing.

Here is the substance of the review:

[em]I called xxxx to arrange something. When I asked his rate for bottoming, he said $ 500.00 / hour. I declined. Nice pics though. Sounds like this is another case of a good escort taking himself too seriously... Too bad, I might have become a regular customer....![/em]

and the substance of my reply:

[em]Tweety,

Thanks for taking the time and effort to submit your review. We appreciate it.

However, your experience does not meet our criteria for a reviewable engagement. No engagement took place. There wasn't even an agreement in default. It reduces to simple case of failure to reach agreement on a rate for service. No fault, no harm. Thus we must decline the review.

You may wish to consider posting your experience in The Buffet. Others may be able to confirm your experience.

Thanks again for your participation, we appreciate it.

The Management

[/em]

[TampaYankee]

>

>Given Tampa Yankees unusually curt reply to your comments...

No curtness intended. Question asked and answered.

No elaboration was necessary IMO. How many ways is there to say Yes? Ummm.... well... yes, I concede that in moments of passion I have heard it said several ways.

[AdamSmith]

I wish more people would use the Buffet as a dumping ground for their first impressions of sessions, good or bad. As well as contacts made but not followed through for reasons such as those above.

I understand and try to follow the policy of not using the message boards as a substitute for full-bore reviews. But I find this forum a useful drafting ground for setting down first impressions right after the fact, which I can then self-plagiarize in writing a review later. (Besides capturing impressions while they're fresh, storing my notes here helps me find them again.)

And whenever you can do it without being grossly unfair, NAME NAMES, for heaven's sake. These anonymous mentions always leave me wondering if I am about to step on a snake that already bit someone else.

Not a plea for anything less than decorous discourse. But if someone else feels the impressions you report are less than fair, there's no better place than here for them to be corrected or counterbalanced by others with different experiences. Or for the escort himself to chime in.

[Guest VoxPennae]

>I wish more people would use the Buffet as a dumping ground

>for their first impressions of sessions, good or bad. As well

>as contacts made but not followed through for reasons such as

>those above.

>

>I understand and try to follow the policy of not using the

>message boards as a substitute for full-bore reviews. But I

>find this forum a useful drafting ground for setting down

>first impressions right after the fact, which I can then

>self-plagiarize in writing a review later. (Besides capturing

>impressions while they're fresh, storing my notes here helps

>me find them again.)

>

>And whenever you can do it without being grossly unfair, NAME

>NAMES, for heaven's sake. These anonymous mentions always

>leave me wondering if I am about to step on a snake that

>already bit someone else.

>

>Not a plea for anything less than decorous discourse. But if

>someone else feels the impressions you report are less than

>fair, there's no better place than here for them to be

>corrected or counterbalanced by others with different

>experiences. Or for the escort himself to chime in.

This is interesting enough for it's own thread. Kinda burried here.

[Guest FourAces]

>>>If you have negative experiences you should report

>them.

>>

>>

>>I tried to post a review here of the well reviewed escort

>who

>>wants $500 / hour to bottom despite the quoted $250 /hour

>rate

>>in his review here and was told that is not the basis for

>a

>>negative review. That in my view is why relevant

>information

>>goes missing.

>

>

>Here is the substance of the review:

>

>[em]I called xxxx to arrange something. When I asked his rate

>for bottoming, he said $ 500.00 / hour. I declined. Nice

>pics though. Sounds like this is another case of a good

>escort taking himself too seriously... Too bad, I might have

>become a regular customer....![/em]

>

>and the substance of my reply:

>

>[em]Tweety,

>

>Thanks for taking the time and effort to submit your review.

>We appreciate it.

>

>However, your experience does not meet our criteria for a

>reviewable engagement. No engagement took place. There wasn't

>even an agreement in default. It reduces to simple case of

>failure to reach agreement on a rate for service. No fault, no

>harm. Thus we must decline the review.

>

>You may wish to consider posting your experience in The

>Buffet. Others may be able to confirm your experience.

>

>Thanks again for your participation, we appreciate it.

>

>The Management

>[/em]

>

Its probably just me but the so called review, as noted, isn't a review at all. TY suggested you post your experience in the buffet. I suggest you make us all aware of his apparent selective pricing as well. But if you won't name the escort then ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you note about the events has NO MEANING.

I was under the impression that one of the reasons for the MC was to share experiences good and bad. If the escort wants to respond in the forum he certainly can. But to assist him in hiding under this cloak of duped pricing makes you an enabler and shows you're not serious at all about the message.

[AdamSmith]

>This is interesting enough for it's own thread. Kinda burried

>here.

Thanks -- done.

[Guest tweety]

>Its probably just me but the so called review, as noted, isn't

>a review at all. TY suggested you post your experience in the

>buffet.

I am not surprised by the response here. That is why the overwhelming number of reviews here and on the other siite are useless, and as I say, tell more about the reviewer than the reviewed. If any of you don't think the information that I posted here would be material, relevant information that would affect your hiring decisions than good luck to you. I can't imagine why a client would not want to know that information. BTW, the attentive readers will see that I have indeed already named the price-differentiating escort....

[Guest FourAces]

>>Its probably just me but the so called review, as noted,

>isn't

>>a review at all. TY suggested you post your experience in

>the

>>buffet.

>

>I am not surprised by the response here. That is why the

>overwhelming number of reviews here and on the other siite are

>useless, and as I say, tell more about the reviewer than the

>reviewed. If any of you don't think the information that I

>posted here would be material, relevant information that would

>affect your hiring decisions than good luck to you.

Well if you haven't posted anything we can use. As soon as you post the escort's name then it becomes relevant. Otherwise, it is just you ranting about some unknown escort that does no one any good.

[Guest twinklover]

Your experience with the price-differentiating (gouging) escort does provide

"material, relevant information that would affect your hiring decisions." A client would want to know that information. But this experience is not a no-show and it's not a review of an actual escort encounter. It belongs, as TY has repeatedly pointed out, in a discussion forum, not in reviews. Prehiring communications are often noted in reviews where the escort was in fact hired and the encounter took place. However, if "reviews" were expanded to include merely and only prehiring communications (without an actual hiring and encounter), one can imagine all sorts of commentary and opinion showing up as a "review", such as one's impression of an escort's ads, failure to return phone calls or emails, etc., This information is "material, relevant", appropriate and often given in discussion topics, but it is not, in and of itself, the basis for a "review" of an escort engagement. In your case, there simply was no engagement for you to review.

"BTW, the attentive readers will see that I have indeed already named the price-differentiating (gouging) escort...." Hmmm, I didn't notice you actually naming him by name. But I think I know who you mean. If you are referring to Scott Adler, his price structure has been discussed many times before. He is a self-proclaimed "hobby ho". He has not only admitted aspects of his price structure but vigorously (some would say, shamelessly) defends it. I appreciate Scott's openness and honesty in this regard, irrespective of everything else I may think of him.

[Guest FourAces]

>

>"BTW, the attentive readers will see that I have indeed

>already named the price-differentiating (gouging)

>escort...." Hmmm, I didn't notice you actually naming him

>by name. But I think I know who you mean. If you are referring

>to Scott Adler,

Well our author notes that it was double his published price or words to that conclusion. Scott doesn't publish his rates and I don't recall seeing them in any review, but possibly they might be in a review.

However, regardless who the still unnamed escort is prices noted by clients are just that. It doesn't represent a escort's actual fee.

As I will continue to say to the author of the dispute post the escort's name in a proper threadin the buffest with your remarks. otherwise, all your cloak and dagger posts crying about why your non review was rejected are useless.

[Guest VoxPennae]

>"BTW, the attentive readers will see that I have indeed

>already named the price-differentiating (gouging)

>escort...." Hmmm, I didn't notice you actually naming him

>by name. But I think I know who you mean. If you are referring

>to Scott Adler, his price structure has been discussed many

>times before. He is a self-proclaimed "hobby ho". He

>has not only admitted aspects of his price structure but

>vigorously (some would say, shamelessly) defends it. I

>appreciate Scott's openness and honesty in this regard,

>irrespective of everything else I may think of him.

I believe the name of the escort was editied out if you note the #### which would indicate such.

As to whether it was Scot Adler, that's speculation.