Has anyone seen Lovely Destiny lately?

[Courtney]

I think you should have an extra tally under the post and review number that states the number of trolls successfully banned. Might cut out all the "But I've got more reviews than you SO THERE!!" nonsense.

Yeah I should do a quote of all the people that have hit me with, I have more reviews than you...crap.

I didn't realise it was a competition.

[Matrix]

He is the one commenting in thread I started, if you dont like my posts, maybe you should ignore 

Actually, I'm finding this thread and you rather entertaining. 

[Courtney]

Stop being so super sensitive, just giving my opinion

No sensitivity there. It's a fact. I don't run the forum and neither do you.

[bhoywonder]

No sensitivity there. It's a fact. I don't run the forum and neither do you.

But funnily enough most bannings have you involved in some capacity, whether its reducing someone to bite and snap or reporting them, it'll be heavily involved in mine as soon as I post something wrong 

[bhoywonder]

Actually, I'm finding this thread and you rather entertaining. 

Glad to be of service And all I wanted was some recent reviews of Destiny  Views galore and pages of comments and only replies of use was through PM 

[Matrix]

But funnily enough most bannings have you involved in some capacity, whether its reducing someone to bite and snap or reporting them, it'll be heavily involved in mine as soon as I post something wrong 

People that get banned only have themselves to blame.   

[Courtney]

But funnily enough most bannings have you involved in some capacity, whether its reducing someone to bite and snap or reporting them, it'll be heavily involved in mine as soon as I post something wrong 

...this is becoming ridiculous. You are going to end up going round in circles here. It comes back to the ethos of the forum. Maybe you should read the rules. I did a good quote from James999 to help you and others understand why some members challenge other members integrity. It is allowed you know. Why mock this? ..and why disagree with the banning of a member who was trolling others (not just me) and slagging off UKP  ...unless you have some kind of hidden agenda. If anything I'm trying to help you out here.

BTW ..your original post. Maybe no one on here has seen her "recently"....hence the zero answers so far.

[bhoywonder]

...this is becoming ridiculous. You are going to end up going round in circles here. It comes back to the ethos of the forum. Maybe you should read the rules. I did a good quote from James999 to help you and others understand why some members challenge other members integrity. It is allowed you know. Why mock this? ..and why disagree with the banning of a member who was trolling others (not just me) and slagging off UKP  ...unless you have some kind of hidden agenda. If anything I'm trying to help you out here.

BTW ..your original post. Maybe no one on here has seen her "recently"....hence the zero answers so far.

I've had 3 pm's by members that seen her but didn't want to post, showed clattypants one earlier when we were discussing it by pm.  To be honest I dont really care about reading the rules (report this if you want) as I tend not to use the forum except to ask questions or post reviews (until this hijacking of my thread today)

[bhoywonder]

People that get banned only have themselves to blame.   

I know, they should know better  Great post 

[Courtney]

To be honest I dont really care about reading the rules (report this if you want)

....again there is just no telling some people.

[Matrix]

I know, they should know better  Great post 

Yes they should 

COURTNEY!!!! 

[Matrix]

But funnily enough most bannings have you involved in some capacity, whether its reducing someone to bite and snap or reporting them, it'll be heavily involved in mine as soon as I post something wrong 

Ah, the old self fulfilling prophecy.

[FCB]

.  To be honest I dont really care about reading the rules (report this if you want) as I tend not to use the forum except to ask questions or post reviews (until this hijacking of my thread today)

Hidden Image/Members Only

What an ass

[Courtney]

Yes they should 

COURTNEY!!!! 

Total dunce. ....is there something in the Scottish water today?

[Happyjose]

Total dunce. ....is there something in the Scottish water today?

There's a small, but vocal group of members who seem to want to attack the forum and change it so the low-life's can have their way. I'm starting to think there's actually an agenda. The bannings today will all help the site to stay on track and were all thoroughly deserved.

This fluffy bollocks about members not wanting to post because they might get challenged needs dealing with. If true, then why does UKP go from strength to strength, with more reviews and posts than all other punting sites combined?

The fact is, this is admins site, with no special status for any member. He's on record saying that he wants it to be a site for all punters - high reviewers, regular contributors, and lurkers. There are clear rules, a useful wiki, and an easily understood ethos for those that want to contribute. 

New members are always welcomed. If your intention is to cause mischief in any way, you'll be found out. If you're going to whinge because the forum isn't how you would like it to be, it isn't going to change.

[JustHilts]

There's a small, but vocal group of members who seem to want to attack the forum and change it so the low-life's can have their way. I'm starting to think there's actually an agenda. The bannings today will all help the site to stay on track and were all thoroughly deserved.

This fluffy bollocks about members not wanting to post because they might get challenged needs dealing with. If true, then why does UKP go from strength to strength, with more reviews and posts than all other punting sites combined?

The fact is, this is admins site, with no special status for any member. He's on record saying that he wants it to be a site for all punters - high reviewers, regular contributors, and lurkers. There are clear rules, a useful wiki, and an easily understood ethos for those that want to contribute. 

New members are always welcomed. If your intention is to cause mischief in any way, you'll be found out. If you're going to whinge because the forum isn't how you would like it to be, it isn't going to change.

I don't really know the history of what you're saying but today , what I thought was a reasonable, albeit rhetorical, question, was criticised by two members, one being the OP. All that was required was a yes or no response. So I can understand some member's reluctance to post.

[Happyjose]

I don't really know the history of what you're saying but today , what I thought was a reasonable, albeit rhetorical, question, was criticised by two members, one being the OP. All that was required was a yes or no response. So I can understand some member's reluctance to post.

Then read the post history of the two banned members and get some context

[JustHilts]

Then read the post history of the two banned members and get some context

Cheers

[Happyjose]

Cheers

Also, you say the OP's original question was criticised by two members. Help me out here, because I can't see what you're referring to?

Clattypats offered useful advice, and Juilius Sneezer did pretty much the same

[Brazilian Martian]

There's a small, but vocal group of members who seem to want to attack the forum and change it so the low-life's can have their way. I'm starting to think there's actually an agenda. The bannings today will all help the site to stay on track and were all thoroughly deserved.

This fluffy bollocks about members not wanting to post because they might get challenged needs dealing with. If true, then why does UKP go from strength to strength, with more reviews and posts than all other punting sites combined?

The fact is, this is admins site, with no special status for any member. He's on record saying that he wants it to be a site for all punters - high reviewers, regular contributors, and lurkers. There are clear rules, a useful wiki, and an easily understood ethos for those that want to contribute. 

New members are always welcomed. If your intention is to cause mischief in any way, you'll be found out. If you're going to whinge because the forum isn't how you would like it to be, it isn't going to change.

Great post

[JustHilts]

Also, you say the OP's original question was criticised by two members. Help me out here, because I can't see what you're referring to?

No I meant I was criticised by two members, including the OP 

[Happyjose]

No I meant I was criticised by two members, including the OP 

And rightly so. You in fact criticised a reviewers rating. That's poor form on here. Sometimes referred to as white-knighting.

The reviewer was quite right to post a neutral. Good reasons, and he said he wouldn't go back.

This is actually a good example of what I alluded to in my earlier post. You chose to join this site, had every opportunity to find out about the ethos and culture, then when you make a post which places you at odds with that culture, have a whinge about poor treatment.

[Matrix]

I'm a big boy so I think I'll be ok; but a lot of angry young(ish) men around 

But another touchy reply to a genuine post as per Lovely Destiny thread; man this is a harsh site   

No I meant I was criticised by two members, including the OP 

Can't imagine why. 

[JustHilts]

You guys just haven't got it have you? If you read my original post I merely asked the OP to confirm that the neutral was because of the WG being bigger than her stated size, suggesting her pics were out of date. Rather than just confirm that, the OP had a pop, as have you guys. How was my original post in any way white knighting? 

At no point have I criticised the reviewer's rating. Maybe you could show me where you think I have?

[Happyjose]

You guys just haven't got it have you? If you read my original post I merely asked the OP to confirm that the neutral was because of the WG being bigger than her stated size, suggesting her pics were out of date. Rather than just confirm that, the OP had a pop, as have you guys. How was my original post in any way white knighting? 

At no point have I criticised the reviewer's rating. Maybe you could show me where you think I have?

So your neutral is based on her size being bigger than stated? Does this mean her pics are out of date cos she doesn't look like a 16 in them; 12 maybe? Othgerwise it sounds like a positive to me 

The reviewer made it clear his rating was based upon more than her pics. Your last sentence, complete with puzzled emoji, is a de facto criticism of his rating and is text book white-knighting

It's clearly you that hasn't got it

[JustHilts]

The reviewer made it clear his rating was based upon more than her pics. Your last sentence, complete with puzzled emoji, is a de facto criticism of his rating and is text book white-knighting

It's clearly you that hasn't got it

Yeah ok, I get it now; thanks so much for pointing that out to me.

[Jock D]

I don't have an issue with the review at all, I was merely confirming what the OP's reasons were as the punt itself seemed ok? As I said earlier it was kind of a rhetorical question.

You don't have an issue with the review at all...but you come onto this completely unrelated thread whinging and whining...looking for sympathy Keep up the good work...I get the feeling your going to be an invaluable contributer to this board.

[Juilius_Sneezer]

Little sad I missed the rest of the thread today...Guess I will just pencil her in for the future and try to get to the bottom of it myself if these trolls can't be trusted to do so (because apparently I am just a dickhead). Got a few bookings to get through before that though... *edit* sorry, "twat" 

[Courtney]

There's a small, but vocal group of members who seem to want to attack the forum and change it so the low-life's can have their way. I'm starting to think there's actually an agenda. The bannings today will all help the site to stay on track and were all thoroughly deserved.

This fluffy bollocks about members not wanting to post because they might get challenged needs dealing with. If true, then why does UKP go from strength to strength, with more reviews and posts than all other punting sites combined?

The fact is, this is admins site, with no special status for any member. He's on record saying that he wants it to be a site for all punters - high reviewers, regular contributors, and lurkers. There are clear rules, a useful wiki, and an easily understood ethos for those that want to contribute. 

New members are always welcomed. If your intention is to cause mischief in any way, you'll be found out. If you're going to whinge because the forum isn't how you would like it to be, it isn't going to change.

Well said Jose.
This is UKP. Not a fluffers, touters, low life's, pimps paradise.
What I've highlighted in red, yeah ...it would seem that way.

[kazuma]

Yes, I saw her about a fortnight ago, for the first time.

I was a little bit worried before the meeting due to some of the negative reviews/comments.

It turned out to be one of the best punts I have had in a long while - her oral skill was very good.

The photos on her AW profile are pretty accurate, and I would say she is on the attractive side, at least to me.

The best bit was, unlike with those EE girls, I was able to communicate perfectly with her, and she also seemed a lot more enthusiastic about what she was doing compared to them. I know we don't go see them to have an intellectual conversation but it is very frustrating when the girl doesn't even understand when you ask where the shower is!

Would I see her again? Probably yes.

Kaz