Getting tested for STDs. How often do you guys get tested, if at all?

[simon07]

The cutbacks from Councils funding STI clinic have made it more difficult to find a suitable discrete clinic. Leicester is now in a shopping mall.
They do the checks and say need to repeat HIV and syphilis in 3 months time. I guess that means no sex during that period at all?

[winkywanky]

Straight white men don't tend to suck African cock. 🔥

True, I was thinking more of Nigerian and Angolan girls on AW recently.

[Strawberry]

The cutbacks from Councils funding STI clinic have made it more difficult to find a suitable discrete clinic. Leicester is now in a shopping mall.
They do the checks and say need to repeat HIV and syphilis in 3 months time. I guess that means no sex during that period at all?

That depends on how accurate you want the test, HIV result is supposed to be only 100% accurate to 3 months prior - but can be in the high 90%s for 1 month or so (need to double check this).

So really just depends on when you want to back date to, and the accuracy you need. Of course everyone wants 100% but that isn't realistic unless we all become monks and nuns.

Here's a link which you may find useful;

External Link/Members Only

[Doc Holliday]

They do the checks and say need to repeat HIV and syphilis in 3 months time. I guess that means no sex during that period at all?

The 3 month test is just to confirm 100% negative. You can have protected sex as normal assuming that is your usual practice?

[winkywanky]

Of course everyone wants 100% [STI certainty] but that isn't realistic unless we all become monks and nuns.

Some of the Nuns & Vicars parties I've been to have been pretty wild, I wouldn't even bank on that.

[Marmalade]

Good overview from Doc Holliday and useful (patient as professional) input from Strawberry.

What I like about Doc H’s careful report (I’m pleased he wrote it cos I couldn’t be bothered writing all that) is that he set out a very clear logical and verifiable rationale. In other words it doesn’t matter whether he’s a doctor, a urogenital specialist, a hospital porter or just a sensible punter — and there’s no way of knowing online — but his report makes clear sense and is pretty easy to check. And it stops the obsessiveness.

Kudos also to Strawberry. Just as WGs have limited first hand knowledge of what happens from a punters POV, we have only second-hand knowledge of what WGs go through. It’s only one report but nevertheless useful, and also underlines another fact perhaps: most professional WGs (especially British) take a professional pride in regular checks. Necessary or not, it’s an industry standard. Part-timers, foreigners or careless slappers are a different matter. Clearly punting ‘across the board’ might make you want to get checked more often.

Any symptoms, a burst condom in Slagistan, or even regular OWO are all pointers to get GUMming. And if you are married or with an s/o, even more so, even for very minor things if you don’t want to get caught!

Happy punting. 

[Marmalade]

Hijacking the thread slightly...

...and on the subject of condoms and WG feedback

There’s a good site (I found it on Saafe actually) that has good prices for condoms. A lot of punters have a preference for Skyns (not to be confused with the Durex knockoff Skins) and order of Amazon. But one of the advantages of the — so I’m told NHS-linked — site below is a run down of popular condom lengths, widths, thicknesses and materials.

External Link/Members Only
See also condom size guide at
External Link/Members Only

Such charts are rare enough, but for those who get stuck with an OW punt though, a glaring admission is taste. Now I don’t give much of a fuck, and flavoured condoms are rarely available in large size, so considering lack of a yucky taste might possible improve the OW service, feedback from any sensible WG who offers mainly OW and can comment on taste differences would perhaps be helpful. 

[Strawberry]

Hijacking the thread slightly...

...and on the subject of condoms and WG feedback

There’s a good site (I found it on Saafe actually) that has good prices for condoms. A lot of punters have a preference for Skyns (not to be confused with the Durex knockoff Skins) and order of Amazon. But one of the advantages of the — so I’m told NHS-linked — site below is a run down of popular condom lengths, widths, thicknesses and materials.

External Link/Members Only
See also condom size guide at
External Link/Members Only

Such charts are rare enough, but for those who get stuck with an OW punt though, a glaring admission is taste. Now I don’t give much of a fuck, and flavoured condoms are rarely available in large size, so considering lack of a yucky taste might possible improve the OW service, feedback from any sensible WG who offers mainly OW and can comment on taste differences would perhaps be helpful. 

Thank you Marmalade, glad you've provided this link.

The Freedoms shop is very good I mainly provide OWO, however this is sometimes after a bit of intercourse for which I highly recommend the slightly sweet Mates Natural. Whatever is in the lube covers any rubbery smell and taste, they are very excellent even better in my opinion than the much lauded Mates Skyns which do smell strange despite being latex-free. Unfortunately Mates Natural do not come in a range of sizes, however I carry Mates Conform (slightly narrower than Natural) and Mates King Size, I also occasionally have some Mates Skyns Large. Pasante Trim are the smallest I provide.

[snaitram99]

I understand that the swab is only marginally more accurate in diagnosis than the current urine test both are 95+%. The main advantage of the swab is that any bacteria found can be cultured in the lab and tested for antibiotic sensitivity although in practice I'm not sure how often that is utilised?

My first visit I had a swab, but mildly uncomfortable cotton bud type thing, NOT a glass tube. Told it was because risk factor of OWO. This was a GUM that was based in Urology dept. of a General Hospital and went along with a judgemental attitude. Never had it since, using Sexual Health Clinic in larger city. Regards ethnicity, have only been asked where girls were from. Saying Chinese did not result in any more tests. Only blood and urine.

[Marmalade]

Thank you Marmalade, glad you've provided this link.

The Freedoms shop is very good I mainly provide OWO, however this is sometimes after a bit of intercourse for which I highly recommend the slightly sweet Mates Natural. Whatever is in the lube covers any rubbery smell and taste, they are very excellent even better in my opinion than the much lauded Mates Skyns which do smell strange despite being latex-free. Unfortunately Mates Natural do not come in a range of sizes, however I carry Mates Conform (slightly narrower than Natural) and Mates King Size, I also occasionally have some Mates Skyns Large. Pasante Trim are the smallest I provide.

So back to the taste question (if you’ve used them often enough to remember) Mates Skyns ‘smell a bit funny’, presumably Mates Skyns Large too? What about Mates King Size taste/smell? Pasante Large? Pasante King Size?

I’ve used Pasante before discovering Skyns. I imagine they are reasonable smell/taste free. But they don’t stretch much. I find them reasonably sensitive (for me) even though, like all the others listed, they’re several times thicker than Skyns. I’ve also used custom fit ones sometimes but I doubt if any WG would be likely to stock those.

fyi though you maybe know, the majority of WGs offering only OW will be doing it before vaginal intercourse as I believe it is the more common male preference unless it’s for 2nd pop. So condom issues that might help dissuade these OW-only WGs from pulling a face would be good.

Thank you for your feedback. Any other info on this would be welcome of course. 

[Strawberry]

So back to the taste question (if you’ve used them often enough to remember) Mates Skyns ‘smell a bit funny’, presumably Mates Skyns Large too? What about Mates King Size taste/smell? Pasante Large? Pasante King Size?

I’ve used Pasante before discovering Skyns. I imagine they are reasonable smell/taste free. But they don’t stretch much. I find them reasonably sensitive (for me) even though, like all the others listed, they’re several times thicker than Skyns. I’ve also used custom fit ones sometimes but I doubt if any WG would be likely to stock those.

fyi though you maybe know, the majority of WGs offering only OW will be doing it before vaginal intercourse as I believe it is the more common male preference unless it’s for 2nd pop. So condom issues that might help dissuade these OW-only WGs from pulling a face would be good.

Thank you for your feedback. Any other info on this would be welcome of course. 

Nothing jumps out in my mind regards the other types, I'll try to remember next time I use each. Yes I find Pasante thick, and a bit plastic-like I only use the Trim because Mates don't do a small I've not used their King Size, I have used their regular once again find them plasticy/rubbery.

I tend to come back to Mates N and Skyns because they are familiar and do what I want them to do.

[mrfishyfoo]

To answer the OP I get tested every month BUT I am a dirty twat as I indulge in licking arses both ways, period play and anal both ways.

I've had the jab for hepB as I'm more bothered about hepititus than owt else nowadays.

[akauya]

The high risk groups are now restricted to MSM and under 25s or pregnant females. (the under 25s account for the vast majority of cases of chlamydia and also with the highest rate of increase).

The under 25s bit above is very clear when you (one) visit a GUM clinic. I'm usually the oldest fucker sitting on the waiting room in any clinic I visit. I barely see anyone above their 30s.

[Marmalade]

Romanian doing a funny smelly taste test? Probably that was a short OW BJ 
Hidden Image/Members Only

[Itzmurph]

On that note it disturbs me that people are lying about having sex with men etc in order to have totally unnecessary tests carried out. Waste of resources for an NHS system under strain and with its GUM budget cut back.

Hi Doc, so this is interesting. Is it a case then that oral swabs for non gay men aren’t necessary? I mean just my case for example, I’m a bit grotty and if it can be licked, I’m in there plus (not that often tbh) I’ve received watersports and stuck my tongue up the odd girls bum. Doubt I’m alone in doing that here (well if you believe reports I know many others do hehe). How risky then? Wondering now

[Doc Holliday]

Hi Doc, so this is interesting. Is it a case then that oral swabs for non gay men aren’t necessary? I mean just my case for example, I’m a bit grotty and if it can be licked, I’m in there plus (not that often tbh) I’ve received watersports and stuck my tongue up the odd girls bum. Doubt I’m alone in doing that here (well if you believe reports I know many others do hehe). How risky then? Wondering now

This is about practicality and resources. I am talking about people being regularly screened when they have no symptoms as a preventative measure to control the spread of a disease.

In an ideal world all sexually active people with more than one partner would be screened on a short timescale in an attempt to treat asymptomatic carriers and therefore reduce the incidence of STI's within a population. But that just isn't feasible both from a compliance and financial aspect.

So instead we turn to epidemiology to see which groups we should target to get the best out of our screening programme. This tells us that heterosexual males are in a lower risk group generally and within that group oral STI's whilst they do occur are relatively rare.

On the other hand the prevalence of orally transmitted STIs in MSM is considerably higher and indeed rimming is a much higher risk factor in that group.

The activities you describe do put you at some degree of risk but the risk is small in the overall scheme of preventative screening and therefore not justified hence my statement about a waste of limited resources.

[Itzmurph]

Thanks for the feedback doc, that’s very interesting to know. I’d have thought getting pee in the mouth (sorry but there’s no polite way of putting it but we’re all adults on a certain type of mission here) would carry at least moderate risk, but perhaps not and it just isn’t a good way to transmit an std.

I had a friend who is a nurse and did a long stint in the gum clinic and he once told me the percentage infection rates for various stds. Chlamydia is extremely high and almost guaranteed if you don’t bag up,  gonorrhoea not as much and hiv quite hard to get. It’s not information I’ve passed on (zero pun intended) as it’s second hand info that I don’t trust I got the right end of the stick with but he also said (info between friends remember) that he was not keen at all on oral checks for non gays as it was so rare. Guessing semen is full of it, vaginal juices and pee not so much lol

[Doc Holliday]

Watersports are to all intents and purposes 'zero' with regard to transmission of STIs

[Ali Katt]

Watersports are to all intents and purposes 'zero' with regard to transmission of STIs

I thought it was common knowledge fresh piss is clean. Urea is used in make-up.

[winkywanky]

Unless the provider has a UTI.

But I don't know whether anything can be passed on to a receiver of WS?

[Horizontal pleasures]

I like this practice:
External Link/Members Only

[Horizontal pleasures]

I thought it was common knowledge fresh piss is clean. Urea is used in make-up.

some people drink it!

Jellyfish stings are uric acid so the Greeks rub their piss into the stings!

[Waterhouse]

Jellyfish stings are uric acid so the Greeks rub their piss into the stings!

Rubbish.  Jellyfish stingers contain a venom which is mainly composed of a protein known as porin.  This is what causes the pain and other complications in severe cases.

Pissing on a jellyfish sting can make it worse, as can fresh water since both can alter the chemical reaction.  Rinsing the area with salt water is the best option while waiting for proper medical attention.

[Krambo99]

I'm a 39 year old straight white male.

Never had an STD.

I see an average of six escorts per month.

Always use a condom for intercourse.

How often should I get tested?

And if I give/receive oral should that increase?

Thanks.

[Ali Katt]

I'm a 39 year old straight white male.

Never had an STD.

I see an average of six escorts per month.

Always use a condom for intercourse.

How often should I get tested?

And if I give/receive oral should that increase?

Thanks.

Six escorts a month and no reviews.

[Doc Holliday]

Six escorts a month and no reviews.

He has been somewhat controversial with regard to that?

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=25873.msg2581927#msg2581927

[Krambo99]

I don't like posting details of what I do.

Don't judge me on that.

But am happy to make more general comments about the girls I see.

If you don't want to answer my question that's fine.

But I'm no troll.

[smiths]

I don't like posting details of what I do.

Don't judge me on that.

But am happy to make more general comments about the girls I see.

If you don't want to answer my question that's fine.

But I'm no troll.

So you are on here to use UKP but not give back to it by way of reviewing any of the WGs you say you punt with, what a terrible attitude to have in my view. If we all thought like you there would be no UKP.

[winkywanky]

I don't like posting details of what I do.

Don't judge me on that.

But am happy to make more general comments about the girls I see.

If you don't want to answer my question that's fine.

But I'm no troll.

That is kind of the whole point of UKP?

Doc's link showed that early on here you did actually post up some half-baked 'reviews', so you have made an effort (albeit failry useless because they can't be indexed, so guys will not be able to do a search on the girls' service as you saw it).

You're an anonymous punter, there's absolutely no reason for you not to write proper reviews unless:

a) you can't be bothered

b) you're somehow squeamish about what happened

If you're worried about WGs sussing it's you, simply leave a gap of anywhere between a week and a month.

Unless you do, you WILL be judged, and harshly, especially every time you ask a question on here, the first thing guys will do is do a search and see what you've contributed. So far, despite you saying you see WGs regularly, it's effectively nothing, and members will indeed see you as a troll.

[Doc Holliday]

If you don't want to answer my question that's fine.

If you read the thread hopefully I already have?

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=257392.msg2628180#msg2628180

As you are new to punting I would get an initial baseline check and get a Hep B vaccination if you haven't already had a course? Six a month is a fairly high exposure rate but as penetration is protected and activity is heterosexual in nature this puts you in a much lower risk group with regard to screening.

[mh]

I don't like posting details of what I do.

Don't judge me on that.

Not your decision. I have judged you. A poster who doesn't post reviews is a leech. A poster who ignores advice to post reviews and instead continues to post multiple comments about girls they have seen on non-review threads is a lazy cunt.

[MrMatrix]

I posted in the past saying I wouldn’t contribute to these STI threads anymore because of the amount of ignorance/bad advice/paranoia etc they contain. However as Tailseeker who used to give good knowledgeable and balanced input seems to have disappeared? I feel the need to chip in again.

I can understand your comment here. However Slamboy who gave Tailseeker such a hard time (totally unneccessary) is no longer on the forum and I cant really blame her in no longer accessing this site. Tailseeker was an excellent source of knowledge and information. I hope she gives the forum a second chance but suspect she won't be back.
And Doc , thanks for picking this thread up.
 

[winkywanky]

I saw her recently and will possibly see her again at some point.

If I do I shall mention this. I thought she was OK.

[Krambo99]

So you are on here to use UKP but not give back to it by way of reviewing any of the WGs you say you punt with, what a terrible attitude to have in my view. If we all thought like you there would be no UKP.

Well, I did post some comments, which I suspect is a lot more than most have done. For example I very rarely see reviews from my neck of the woods, but I bet there are a ton of members from there browsing regularly. I didn't even realise posting reviews was a requirement. I thought this was a discussion forum and that if punters wanted to share their experiences they could do so.

Doc's link showed that early on here you did actually post up some half-baked 'reviews', so you have made an effort (albeit failry useless because they can't be indexed, so guys will not be able to do a search on the girls' service as you saw it).

That's a bit mean. But frankly quite a common attitude here. Let's just say this isn't the most welcoming place on the planet.

You're an anonymous punter, there's absolutely no reason for you not to write proper reviews unless:

a) you can't be bothered

b) you're somehow squeamish about what happened

If you're worried about WGs sussing it's you, simply leave a gap of anywhere between a week and a month.

Not squeamish, as such. I just don't enjoy going into hardcore detail. I'd like to think the info I do post is of some use to prospective clients. But only the most negative of posters ever seem to comment on anything here. Besides, I provide links which do come up in searches. Just because I don't post full reviews doesn't mean I should be thrown under the bus. 

Unless you do, you WILL be judged, and harshly, especially every time you ask a question on here, the first thing guys will do is do a search and see what you've contributed. So far, despite you saying you see WGs regularly, it's effectively nothing, and members will indeed see you as a troll.

That's strange to me. Why would you check someone's posting history every time a question is asked? It wouldn't even occur to me to do that. Unless it's a really weird question. But call me a troll if it makes you guys feel better. I get the feeling that the most vociferous members here take pride in alienating anyone who dares not do things exactly to their liking.

Not your decision. I have judged you. A poster who doesn't post reviews is a leech. A poster who ignores advice to post reviews and instead continues to post multiple comments about girls they have seen on non-review threads is a lazy cunt.

And vulgar, insulting members like you are the reason this forum has a bad name.

As you are new to punting I would get an initial baseline check and get a Hep B vaccination if you haven't already had a course? Six a month is a fairly high exposure rate but as penetration is protected and activity is heterosexual in nature this puts you in a much lower risk group with regard to screening.

Bloody hell! Had no idea we were talking about vaccinations. Needles scare the shit out of me! I looked up Hep B. and it seems like EVERYONE - unless you've been happily married since you were 19 - should get this, because short of living like a monk you're at risk (even if the exposure rate is low). Bit freaked out now. 

[Jonestown]

Bloody hell! Had no idea we were talking about vaccinations. Needles scare the shit out of me! I looked up Hep B. and it seems like EVERYONE - unless you've been happily married since you were 19 - should get this, because short of living like a monk you're at risk (even if the exposure rate is low). Bit freaked out now. 


Don't be a drama queen, take yourself off and get tested, then repeat it every six months, its worth it just for the peace of mind.

[Strawberry]

Well, I did post some comments, which I suspect is a lot more than most have done. For example I very rarely see reviews from my neck of the woods, but I bet there are a ton of members from there browsing regularly. I didn't even realise posting reviews was a requirement. I thought this was a discussion forum and that if punters wanted to share their experiences they could do so.

That's a bit mean. But frankly quite a common attitude here. Let's just say this isn't the most welcoming place on the planet.

Not squeamish, as such. I just don't enjoy going into hardcore detail. I'd like to think the info I do post is of some use to prospective clients. But only the most negative of posters ever seem to comment on anything here. Besides, I provide links which do come up in searches. Just because I don't post full reviews doesn't mean I should be thrown under the bus. 

That's strange to me. Why would you check someone's posting history every time a question is asked? It wouldn't even occur to me to do that. Unless it's a really weird question. But call me a troll if it makes you guys feel better. I get the feeling that the most vociferous members here take pride in alienating anyone who dares not do things exactly to their liking.

And vulgar, insulting members like you are the reason this forum has a bad name.

Bloody hell! Had no idea we were talking about vaccinations. Needles scare the shit out of me! I looked up Hep B. and it seems like EVERYONE - unless you've been happily married since you were 19 - should get this, because short of living like a monk you're at risk (even if the exposure rate is low). Bit freaked out now. 

I couldn't swallow pills until I had to take the pill, my fear of needles has abated with regular testing and a variety of vaccinations for a variety of reasons including preferring to avoid illness.

[winkywanky]

That's a bit mean. But frankly quite a common attitude here. Let's just say this isn't the most welcoming place on the planet.

Not squeamish, as such. I just don't enjoy going into hardcore detail. I'd like to think the info I do post is of some use to prospective clients. But only the most negative of posters ever seem to comment on anything here. Besides, I provide links which do come up in searches. Just because I don't post full reviews doesn't mean I should be thrown under the bus. 

That's strange to me. Why would you check someone's posting history every time a question is asked? It wouldn't even occur to me to do that. Unless it's a really weird question. But call me a troll if it makes you guys feel better. I get the feeling that the most vociferous members here take pride in alienating anyone who dares not do things exactly to their liking.

A bit mean?  I have been very polite with you.

Of course you won't be welcomed if despite the MO of this place being pointed out to you, you persistently fail to do what is required of members: if you see a WG you should properly review and give an opinion, then others can judge whether the WG is a good prospective punt for them. Other stuff, like joining in and contributing with a generally good attitude (which you seem very capable of) is desirable too of course. But the basic function of this place is to be a community where guys share information on WGs, because spending nearly a day's wages (inc. Tax & NI) on 1hr with a WG is bloody expensive, and if it ends up being a waste of money part of the reason is guys like you not warning others. Add to this the fact that you get the benefit of others' reviews and you can see why others might be pissed off at your assertion that you'll only give vague details about your punts.

And when you say you provide links to the girls, that's pretty well useless, all that does is link to the girl's AW page (which people can do anyway) and ultimately to other, existing reviews. The more reviews the better, to inform guys about WGs.

You seem like an intelligent bloke, but you must know you're talking bollocks when you try to defend your attitude.

Bearing in mind the above, why is it strange for established members to instantly notice you're a new presence on here, and see whether you've made any effort to contribute when you ask for help? And when it quickly becomes apparent that you don't seem to want to be a construcive member, is it any surprise that people might be pissed off?

This is not about doing stuff to existing members' liking, it's about being a useful member. Unless you write a proper review which others can easily search for under 'Reviews', and compare it with other reviews to form an informed idea of whether a WG is for them, your presence on here is meaningless and liable to cause offence, especially when you try to defend your stance.

[Strawberry]

A bit mean?  I have been very polite with you.

Of course you won't be welcomed if despite the MO of this place being pointed out to you, you persistently fail to do what is required of members: if you see a WG you should properly review and give an opinion, then others can judge whether the WG is a good prospective punt for them. Other stuff, like joining in and contributing with a generally good attitude (which you seem very capable of) is desirable too of course. But the basic function of this place is to be a community where guys share information on WGs, because spending nearly a day's wages (inc. Tax & NI) on 1hr with a WG is bloody expensive, and if it ends up being a waste of money part of the reason is guys like you not warning others. Add to this the fact that you get the benefit of others' reviews and you can see why others might be pissed off at your assertion that you'll only give vague details about your punts.

And when you say you provide links to the girls, that's pretty well useless, all that does is link to the girl's AW page (which people can do anyway) and ultimately to other, existing reviews. The more reviews the better, to inform guys about WGs.

You seem like an intelligent bloke, but you must know you're talking bollocks when you try to defend your attitude.

Bearing in mind the above, why is it strange for established members to instantly notice you're a new presence on here, and see whether you've made any effort to contribute when you ask for help? And when it quickly becomes apparent that you don't seem to want to be a construcive member, is it any surprise that people might be pissed off?

This is not about doing stuff to existing members' liking, it's about being a useful member. Unless you write a proper review which others can easily search for under 'Reviews', and compare it with other reviews to form an informed idea of whether a WG is for them, your presence on here is meaningless and liable to cause offence, especially when you try to defend your stance.

In another thread he expresses concern about trafficked SPs, so I'd have thought he'd want to share information?

[smiths]

Well, I did post some comments, which I suspect is a lot more than most have done. For example I very rarely see reviews from my neck of the woods, but I bet there are a ton of members from there browsing regularly. I didn't even realise posting reviews was a requirement. I thought this was a discussion forum and that if punters wanted to share their experiences they could do so.

That's a bit mean. But frankly quite a common attitude here. Let's just say this isn't the most welcoming place on the planet.

Not squeamish, as such. I just don't enjoy going into hardcore detail. I'd like to think the info I do post is of some use to prospective clients. But only the most negative of posters ever seem to comment on anything here. Besides, I provide links which do come up in searches. Just because I don't post full reviews doesn't mean I should be thrown under the bus. 

That's strange to me. Why would you check someone's posting history every time a question is asked? It wouldn't even occur to me to do that. Unless it's a really weird question. But call me a troll if it makes you guys feel better. I get the feeling that the most vociferous members here take pride in alienating anyone who dares not do things exactly to their liking.

And vulgar, insulting members like you are the reason this forum has a bad name.

Bloody hell! Had no idea we were talking about vaccinations. Needles scare the shit out of me! I looked up Hep B. and it seems like EVERYONE - unless you've been happily married since you were 19 - should get this, because short of living like a monk you're at risk (even if the exposure rate is low). Bit freaked out now. 

Reviews may not be a requirement YET but some of us want to contribute, you clearly cant be bothered doing reviews of your punting, and happily leech. And you seem to find it odd some are criticising you, wake up.

[MrMatrix]

Reviews may not be a requirement YET but some of us want to contribute, you clearly cant be bothered doing reviews of your punting, and happily leech. And you seem to find it odd some are criticising you, wake up.

I'm with you smiths. Admin is looking at this as a requirement as you mention. Members who make the effort to review are always going to feel aggrieved with members who punt yet can't be arsed to review. And some of the lame excuses they roll up with
IMO there is no excuse.

[smiths]

I'm with you smiths. Admin is looking at this as a requirement as you mention. Members who make the effort to review are always going to feel aggrieved with members who punt yet can't be arsed to review. And some of the lame excuses they roll up with
IMO there is no excuse.

It makes me chuckle when posters like this one get the hump and quote the rules when others criticise them, there IS a way of behaving on here, a punters forum. This poster reckons they punt but don't wish to do reviews on those punts, to me they are a waste of space.

[MrMatrix]

It makes me chuckle when posters like this one get the hump and quote the rules when others criticise them, there IS a way of behaving on here, a punters forum. This poster reckons they punt but don't wish to do reviews on those punts, to me they are a waste of space.

This is the sort of leech who really shouldn't be here at all. He offers no value to a punting forum.

[winkywanky]

In another thread he expresses concern about trafficked SPs, so I'd have thought he'd want to share information?

Yes I know that, it's highly commendable and I have commented in that thread also.

Doesn't get away from the fact that he's not contributing on what is basically a punting forum, where the MO is properly putting up details of your punting in order to help others.

[mh]

Not your decision. I have judged you. A poster who doesn't post reviews is a leech. A poster who ignores advice to post reviews and instead continues to post multiple comments about girls they have seen on non-review threads is a lazy cunt.

And vulgar, insulting members like you are the reason this forum has a bad name.

In your ever so humble opinion. 

OK, I'll make an apology: If you feel that I have maligned you with my statements of objective fact, then I'm very sorry indeed that you are so stupid as to think that I give a fuck!
 

[Rochelle]

Well, I did post some comments, which I suspect is a lot more than most have done. For example I very rarely see reviews from my neck of the woods, but I bet there are a ton of members from there browsing regularly. I didn't even realise posting reviews was a requirement. I thought this was a discussion forum and that if punters wanted to share their experiences they could do so.

That's a bit mean. But frankly quite a common attitude here. Let's just say this isn't the most welcoming place on the planet.

Not squeamish, as such. I just don't enjoy going into hardcore detail. I'd like to think the info I do post is of some use to prospective clients. But only the most negative of posters ever seem to comment on anything here. Besides, I provide links which do come up in searches. Just because I don't post full reviews doesn't mean I should be thrown under the bus. 

That's strange to me. Why would you check someone's posting history every time a question is asked? It wouldn't even occur to me to do that. Unless it's a really weird question. But call me a troll if it makes you guys feel better. I get the feeling that the most vociferous members here take pride in alienating anyone who dares not do things exactly to their liking.

And vulgar, insulting members like you are the reason this forum has a bad name.

Bloody hell! Had no idea we were talking about vaccinations. Needles scare the shit out of me! I looked up Hep B. and it seems like EVERYONE - unless you've been happily married since you were 19 - should get this, because short of living like a monk you're at risk (even if the exposure rate is low). Bit freaked out now. 

Admit it, just lazy. A review doesn't have to go into hardcore detail. I'm sure you've read enough reviews to know that simply stating the facts is all that's required. They don't have to be long stories. The comments you've made are basically reviews anyway. You only need to split them up, add a few bits and hey, presto!

[Waterhouse]

Admit it, just lazy. A review doesn't have to go into hardcore detail. I'm sure you've read enough reviews to know that simply stating the facts is all that's required. They don't have to be long stories. The comments you've made are basically reviews anyway. You only need to split them up, add a few bits and hey, presto!

That's not for you to comment on...

2 Service Providers
This site allows service providers to be members, but there is zero-tolerance for touting, flirting, attention-seeking and negative attitude towards punters. Service providers must respect the ethos of the site. This site is not a chat platform between clients and service providers, nor is it a support site for service providers. All service providers / non-punters must reveal their working identities - no 'anonymous WGs'.

[Strawberry]

Yes I know that, it's highly commendable and I have commented in that thread also.

Doesn't get away from the fact that he's not contributing on what is basically a punting forum, where the MO is properly putting up details of your punting in order to help others.

Which is what I was saying in my post, I wasn't praising him or giving Brownie points. Reviews are information for other punters which surely might help avoid potentially trafficked SPs ? Or are there really no signs ? Or am I up the wrong tree?

To me saying he's concerned, then not sharing information seems a double whammy or at least contradictory.

[winkywanky]

Sorry, I misunderstood Ms. Strawberry 

[mh]

negative attitude towards punters

I'd say you're misinterpreting that rule on this occasion. "negative attitude towards punters" surely means against punters generally? Not a prohibition on criticising one particular member. 

Now it may be that admins feel that a SP criticising a UKP member about their review posting habits is wrong, not for me to say. I just don't personally think it is caught under that segment of the rule about SPs.

[akauya]

I'd say you're misinterpreting that rule on this occasion. "negative attitude towards punters" surely means against punters generally? Not a prohibition on criticising one particular member. 

Now it may be that admins feel that a SP criticising a UKP member about their review posting habits is wrong, not for me to say. I just don't personally think it is caught under that segment of the rule about SPs.

Indeed. Also whether Krambo99 is really a punter is under question.