Author Topic: 1Evie1 in Dudley. My punt of the year.  (Read 6916 times)


2 review(s) for Selene00 (2 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative) [Indexed by ]

Offline Troydor69

Thanks for the review LC. Reviews and useful info about experiences with WGs is what this site is all about. I look forward to your next review.

Dekka

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
If you can't see why punters allegedly turned on you then I suggest that you sit down with a nice glass of wine read how you started an unnecessary spat that offended fellow punters.  :hi:

Tosh. I called it as I saw it. The subsequent posts started the spat. I'll let one of the clique have the last word on this thread I don't live on here unlike some.

Offline largecock1234567


Dodo

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
Am I not a punter. Do you think my initial comment was not for the benefit of other punters. My shoulder's are broad but there is definitely a pack mentality which is displayed on this thread. IMO you're forgetting who "runs the door" around here.

As I posted earlier absolutely no clique. You misread/misunderstood  a review and as a result you have to be big enough and ugly enough to take any flak that comes your way. Just hold your hands up and move on  :thumbsup:

Offline largecock1234567

Flying high and Dodo still in on the action  :wacko:

Benson50

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
Tosh. I called it as I saw it. The subsequent posts started the spat. I'll let one of the clique have the last word on this thread I don't live on here unlike some.

Given that Largecock has the remarkable gift of channeling Barbara Cartland, and was able to convince at least 3 wily old punters that he is a delicate middle aged lady, I cannot, for the life of me, see what misdemeanour Dekka is meant to have committed.
If the conclusion of this toe curling fluff fest is that it is wrong to flag up suspicious reviews then I would suggest the "clique", in there hounding of Dekka, have forgotten the general ethos of this site and maybe Admin should be called upon for adjudication to put an end to the spat.

Dodo

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
Given that Largecock has the remarkable gift of channeling Barbara Cartland, and was able to convince at least 3 wily old punters that he is a delicate middle aged lady, I cannot, for the life of me, see what misdemeanour Dekka is meant to have committed.
If the conclusion of this toe curling fluff fest is that it is wrong to flag up suspicious reviews then I would suggest the "clique", in there hounding of Dekka, have forgotten the general ethos of this site and maybe Admin should be called upon for adjudication to put an end to the spat.

The story so far.

....LargeC, a reputable member, is good enough to post a review for the benefit of us all
....Another punter infers strongly that not only is this a fluffy review as it contains the 'yummy' word (fuck me he should have his bollocks chopped of for that) but also that the review is a fake, 'suspicious' review from the service provider
....2/3 regulars point out that LargeC has been around for sometime and that because of that his contributions should be taken in the spirit in which they are given and the overwhelming likely hood is that the review is indeed a genuine one.
....on the back of this we get accusations of there being a 'Clique' but no acknowledgement that the 'yummy' hater might, just might, have made a wrong appraisal of the situation.
....Benson then jumps in suggesting that Admin gets involved for reasons I can't quite comprehend.

A suggestion like that, for what really is a none issue, does seem a tad fluffy!!  :(
« Last Edit: December 09, 2016, 06:06:59 pm by Dodo »

Benson50

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
The story so far.

....LargeC, a reputable member, is good enough to post a review for the benefit of us all
....Another punter infers strongly that not only is this a fluffy review as it contains the 'yummy' word (fuck me he should have his bollocks chopped of for that) but also that the review is a fake, 'suspicious' review from the service provider
....2/3 regulars point out that LargeC has been around for sometime and that because of that his contributions should be taken in the spirit in which they are given and the overwhelming likely hood is that the review is indeed a genuine one.
....on the back of this we get accusations of there being a 'Clique' but no acknowledgement that the 'yummy' hater might, just might, have made a wrong appraisal of the situation.
....Benson then jumps in suggesting that Admin gets involved for reasons I can't quite comprehend.

A suggestion like that, for what really is a none issue, does seem a tad fluffy!!  :(

Don't just prattle.
Your hounding of Decca is actively discouraging the flagging up of suspicious reviews. Is that a none issue?

Dodo

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
.....and by using the same logic, (or should I say none logic) you are encouraging the likes of him to flag up none issues which this is so suggest we leave it at that.

Benson50

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
.....and by using the same logic, (or should I say none logic) you are encouraging the likes of him to flag up none issues which this is so suggest we leave it at that.

My "logic" seems pretty watertight to me.

The review is undeniably suspicious  (even if only because it provoked suspicion in at least 3 members).
A member has the right  (maybe even an obligation to other members) to voice his concerns - which is all Decca did.
Other members on viewing your hounding of Decca would undoubtedly be discouraged in the future from voicing their suspicions, for fear of similar treatment.
This would result in fake reviews going unchallenged and members being tricked into all kinds of scams.
Therefore we should not condone the harassment and baiting of those who voice their suspicions of reviews.

The conclusion is a necessary consequence of the premises, so no, you shouldn't say "none logic".




Benson50

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
My "logic" seems pretty watertight to me.

The review is undeniably suspicious  (even if only because it provoked suspicion in at least 3 members).
A member has the right  (maybe even an obligation to other members) to voice his concerns - which is all Decca did.
Other members on viewing your hounding of Decca would undoubtedly be discouraged in the future from voicing their suspicions, for fear of similar treatment.
This would result in fake reviews going unchallenged and members being tricked into all kinds of scams.
Therefore we should not condone the harassment and baiting of those who voice their suspicions of reviews.

The conclusion is a necessary consequence of the premises, so no, you shouldn't say "none logic".

God, listen to yourself man, we're just a bunch of aging blokes trying to find the perfect blowjob - you'd think we were trying to rewrite the American Constitution.
 :drinks:

Dodo

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
Sorry you don't want to put this to bed Ben so:-

...was there any hint of legitimacy in Dekkas initial observation concerning who wrote the review
...was there any subsequent evidence that LargeC was/is anyone other than a valuable member of the forum
...was LargeC guilty of anything other than using the 'yummy' word
...perhaps you could enlighten us as to who the membership of 'the clique' are.


Then leave it with you having the last word and let's move on.