Why are you reviewing a guy?
[QUOTE=Strych9999;3989321]I'm not calling out fake reviews or anything along those lines, however, [B]LonelyInBTown[/B] does make a point. I've been to Banner as recently as late September and Jenny is no longer there. The description of Jenny is correct but I didn't have the same experience, although I was very new to the hobby at that time so that may have contributed. The girl that is currently there goes by Cindy unless she uses multiple names or there is indeed a new girl there named Amy. I doubt a new girl is there as that would mean Cindy left after only a month or so, but again I could be wrong.
Also, when you look at the reviewer's posting content and date / timestamps you see where [B]LonelyInBTown[/B] may be correct. There is a pattern to all posts regarding sentence structure, description, and word usage. Reviews from this individual lack a lot of qualities you see in other posts--they have the appearance of being crafted in a specific way.
As far as whether or not this is a good thing to allow, I think the real question is--how can it be prevented? Some sort of analysis algorithm for writing would be required (or someone pouring over all these posts looking for specific patterns). Can't really say how feasible that is. Not my wheelhouse.[/QUOTE][BLUE]Your review is about this guy, who gives a fuck? If you went to the place then review the chick you fucked. Then guys read yours, they read his, they read others and they make up their minds.
Seriously why are you even wasting your time looking at time stamps in order to write this post? You guys complicate something so fucking simple.
[list]Read about pussy[/list][list]Fuck pussy[/list][list]Write about pussy[/list]How much fucking easier than that could it possibly be?
A2[/BLUE]
You're so stupidly wrong.
[QUOTE=Jjbee62;4087913]I hate to be piling on here, but you may want to raise the bar just a bit on "taking a decent human being stance. ".
You know her money priorities, have known them for months. You know she has 2 kids living with her. I'm going to make an assumption that you went to her place because she couldn't come to you. Curious. Was it because she had no transportation, or nobody to watch her kids?
The picture I'm getting is that you went to a known (to you) addict's house to session, knowing 1 or 2 children would be in the house. That's not too high on the DHB (Decent Human Being) scale. You've been helping a known (to you) addict with children feed her addiction for months. Another negative. You walk in, and apparently walk through the place, see children living in unlivable conditions, see an infant doing something that could kill the kid and you just threaten to call CPS? Where's the DHB stance come into play? Was it when you decided not to go ahead with the session, with a woman who hasn't showered and didn't even have a bed for the deed? I'm not sure there's a trophy for that.
Going off on her doesn't win the DHB award. She has problems. She has an addiction. You knew she has an addiction. You knew she was spending the money you gave her on her addiction and when faced with the reality of addiction, you yell at her and threaten her? Do you think that's going to change the situation? Think she's going to go spend $50 on cleaning supplies and start trying to make a livable home, because you yelled at her?
She needs help, not screamed at by some guy who's pissed off because there's no place to fuck. Her children need out of that environment. They don't need to be left there with a mother who might now blame them because she doesn't have the money to feed her addiction.
An addict's first priority is feeding the addiction. An addict's second priority is getting money to feed the addiction. There are no other priorities. She has continually messaged you for 9 months to get money to feed the addiction, not because she's bored, or for your charming demeanor. She doesn't have time to clean or care for her kids. As long as she's an active addict, they aren't a priority. They're lucky if she takes the time to feed them.
Something just clicked. You've been seeing her for 9 months and probably known she was an addict for 9 months. Yet you don't know whether her infant is 8 or 9 months old? You were either doing a 9 month pregnant addict, or doing an addict within a few weeks after she gave birth. I'm sure the DHB award committee will take that into consideration.
". I find myself taking a decent human being stance. " If that's your decent human being stance, I'd hate to see what you're like the rest of the time.[/QUOTE]I Never go to anyone's place for a session unless it's a first meet and my pants don't come unzipped, been that way fore about 3 years. I insist on the home court advantage. I stopped by her place bc I was out and she claimed to have drama that she needed immediate help with. You made a lot of stupid assumptions.