Platinum Cindy - Caveat emptor

[west8]

When its agreed by the WG and she accepts your booking. So you ring or email a WG and agree a specific date and time for a punt, if she then doesnt stick to that agreement a review can be done whether you meet her or not.

This could actually be a whole new area of contract law.

Ordinarily an 'invitation to treat' and subsequent 'acceptance' is sufficient to form a contract.

But I wonder whether 'Can I meet you at XX' ... 'Yes, you can' would constitute the same!

[laidbackasiandude]

When its agreed by the WG and she accepts your booking. So you ring or email a WG and agree a specific date and time for a punt, if she then doesnt stick to that agreement a review can be done whether you meet her or not.

Absolutely, and has been mentioned several times during this thread.

[west8]

Yes she was assuming it was actually her of course. I cant recall the exact reason for her banning. What i do recall is the punter Bangers and Gash did a negative review on his punt with her and some punters defended her and the thread ran on and on.

Deja vu it would seem. But that's fine, the Cindy army can march on.

I was warned in PM not to write anything disparaging about Cindy .. interesting.

[James999]

This could actually be a whole new area of contract law.

Ordinarily an 'invitation to treat' and subsequent 'acceptance' is sufficient to form a contract.

But I wonder whether 'Can I meet you at XX' ... 'Yes, you can' would constitute the same!

Hidden Image/Members Only

And likely winner of Wanker of the Week

[smiths]

This could actually be a whole new area of contract law.

Ordinarily an 'invitation to treat' and subsequent 'acceptance' is sufficient to form a contract.

But I wonder whether 'Can I meet you at XX' ... 'Yes, you can' would constitute the same!

Admin sets the rules on here. If i ring a WG and book her sameday for say 1pm thats an agreed and accepted booking, if the WG reneges on that for any reason i can do a review on her fucking me about as i would view it.

[west8]

Got it! Cheers smiths

Good to see there are some members who are happy to help with advice - and who have actually met real girls as well as posting here.

[laidbackasiandude]

Deja vu it would seem. But that's fine, the Cindy army can march on.

I was warned in PM not to write anything disparaging about Cindy .. interesting.

But you never met Cindy and further more it's obvious she never agreed or confirmed your
booking hence the only criticism you could make of her is lack of clarity with respect
to communication.

Although she's banned from UKP, I would imagine she's an avid reader of forum threads
about her. Given the fact you're clearly desperate to meet her, why on earth would you
antagonise her by submitting a "non-review" with negative connotations?

[wench]

I don't know if a womans point of view is welcomed on this thread but to be honest I can see why the lady in question was being cautious.

It is reasonably known that a chap who contacts a lady and says a friend recommended us is often a time waster (not saying you are w8).
It can also feel unnerving, difficult to explain but it can be an uncomfortable feeling knowing that someone you have spent 121 time with very intimately has been discussing it with his mate. Who is his mate? Is he someone you might know? Someone a bit dodgy maybe?  Sounds mad when a woman can be reviewed on the web but that is something different and doesn't feel creepy as it is out in the open.

I have not seen guys who have said a friend recommended me as in my experience 99.9% of the time they can't give their friends name or they say a name that doesn't add up.

You should accept the ladies decision w8, and with respect I think if the lady see's this thread it could unnerve her reading what you have written and copying & pasting her correspondence here.

[OldAdmin]

As many here know, this site doesn't tolerate fluffy fanboys who gang up on another punter when they post something negative about their favourite prossie. That's why I previously banned so many.

But in this case it's plainly obvious the negative reaction he's gotten is kind of justified.

Punters must learn to take rejection and move on. Don't keep trying to book a girl.

[west8]

hence the only criticism you could make of her is lack of clarity with respect
to communication.

Which is precisely what I did?

Although she's banned from UKP, I would imagine she's an avid reader of forum threads
about her. Given the fact you're clearly desperate to meet her, why on earth would you antagonise her by submitting a "non-review" with negative connotations?

Because it was a negative experience.

Or would you honestly think I should only share the negatives?

[west8]

Thanks wench - very interesting!

Admin - noted with thanks!

[Wilson85]

It doesn't state confirmed. Nor do any of the other bookings from last week or those forthcoming next week.

As posted above, I only have emails with the ladies phone numbers.

As I understand it, any booking through AW needs to be confirmed by the prossie. Then it will display confirmed in the booking email.

The prossies you saw must have confirmed them as feedback was left by both you and prossies. Feedback can only be left if bookings are confirmed.

 I don't punt as often as I would like so I have only used AW three times, but I am confident that what I have described is how bookings work in AW.

 

[akauya]

West8 you sound a bit dodgy mate, seriously. Too much email/sms/whatsapp ping pong just to see a prossie. Seeing prostitutes is not going on a date!

Also what bothers me is that you posted your private conversations (emails) online.  I would have understood it if she had scammed you and you wanted to prove it - but she didn't.  I can imagine now that she and other prossies will be shitting themselves wondering if every Tom, Dick and Jimmy is going to plaster all their private conversations on UKP. Not good for anyone, punters and prossies. Discretion is paramount in this game.

And before anyone accuses me of being a fanboy I have not seen Cindy. Not sure if I even want to see her at present.

[west8]

Fair point akauya - and lesson learned.

I did make sure there was no personal info about either Cindy or myself in the messages posted in this thread. They are all very, very vanilla!

I think that in time - and if you guys know my AW ID - it will become apparent that I am simply too transparent.

I don't tell tall tales and nor do I lie, cheat or steal to get what I want. Never have and never will.

Perhaps I am honest to fault. If so, I am happy to apologise both to Cindy and to the readership.

[vt]

Just to add a lighter note here, El Guapo's conversation with El Jefe in The Three Amigos is very enlightening on this subject, from around 1:30 onwards...just substitute Carmen with Cindy...

External Link/Members Only

 

[cockneybstrd]

W8 interests me.

He seemed obsessed with fact that people might have a pop at him for slagging off cindy (rather than just because he comes off as a bell end).

I wonder if the members who he claimed told him not to slag off Cindy will post on this thread confirming this.

All seems very strange to me. I wonder if the point of this thread was to try and get other members banned for slagging him off.

Unfortunately for Holland Park he just came across as a bit of odd bod who seemed a bit obsessed.

[James999]

I don't tell tall tales and nor do I lie, cheat or steal to get what I want. Never have and never will.
Perhaps I am honest to fault. If so, I am happy to apologise both to Cindy and to the readership.

Well earlier in the thread you told us you sent her a picture / link saying you were third on the left, you later said the picture was not you, as such it's evident you do lie to get what you want 

[west8]

Cindy just suggested I post this - hopefully it at least shows that I was wrong and wench was correct:

Here's something for you that I'm hoping you will understand:

The booking you have made for 22/10/2014 @ 12:00 WILL NOT BE HAPPENING!!!! I have NOT accepted it and I'm not planning to do so. You have put me off you so much with your bad, needy attitude that your future childish comments about me will not matter to me.

Like you've said yourself, you are used to do calling up agencies and choosing any girl anytime - that's NOT me. I am not interested in what you are used to, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx or who your xxxxxx. Clearly you do not care exposing him as you told me his full name...

I treat all clients with respect but the way you have acted and gone to such extend.... I kindly ask you to leave me alone and please do not reply. Feel free to post this on UKP for others to see that I am stating the truth and I do NOT wish to meet you, E-V-E-R.

I'm grateful to Cindy for confirming my story vis-a-vis my friend - who told me to mention him by name. But nevermind.

Needless to say, I shall never contact Cindy again.

[cockneybstrd]

I think that in time - and if you guys know my AW ID - it will become apparent that I am simply too transparent.

I think in time your probably be banned.

And why would any of us what to know your AW ID... I am guessing its some kind of clever play on words on transparent or the W8 post code

[west8]

It's nothing special - just an ordinary word.

Again you missed the point: I have been polite and respectful to the ladies I have met and they have written so.

If I'm going to be banned for posting an account of my experience, then so be it. At the end of the day no-one is going to lose any sleep over it.

[Bartolomeo]

As others have said, just move on and leave this behind you.

Just curious...what have you blocked out with the 'x's?

[west8]

As others have said, just move on and leave this behind you.

Just curious...what have you blocked out with the 'x's?

I agree 100%. No idea why Cindy is so upset and neurotic, but that is her prerogative.

'xxxxxx' part is the fact I am retired and my friend. I didn't cover up the bit where I asked Cindy to dress up as a man!

[monstar]

I agree 100%. No idea why Cindy is so upset and neurotic, but that is her prerogative.

'xxxxxx' part is the fact I am retired and my friend. I didn't cover up the bit where I asked Cindy to dress up as a man!

You are so polite and respectful.. 

[west8]

I try. First time I ever had a WG so upset about nothing - which is odd considering I first punted almost 20 years ago.

Same modus operandi with every single AW girl I have met too: polite introductory email, followed by a booking request.

No-one else had a problem with it as meetings were duly arranged.

[cockneybstrd]

So you first punted 20 years ago as an Undergrad and now retired at say 41. (Well done W8)

Strange you mentioned to her your retired as that would imply to most people 55+

Anyway I am sure we can all move on from this strange mess

[west8]

Nah .. I'm still in my thirties (barely). I mentioned it in the context of being able to meet her whenever she was free - ie no time/date restrictions. Bad move too I guess.

I still blame Tara of Oxford for morally corrupting me all those years ago.

[SamLP]

Move on West. It doesn't help that you slighly refer to the people on this topic as fanboys when we pointed out the obvious. I haven't met Cindy, and don't need to defend her, and I haven't seen anyone defend her in this topic. We've pointed your error and you've ungraciously come back at us with retorts. I would gladly have accepted the review had a booking been confirmed, but you've come across as desperate both in terms of making the punt take place and in making your stamp on this forum. Chill out, book another girl and tell us how it went.

[west8]

Cheers Sam!

We all know there are fanboys here ... heck I'm a fanboy of Adele, Maggie and Emily! (and proud of it)

But a useful lesson has been learned and I shall be more selective about the girls I choose after this Cindy debacle.

Here's the irony: I'm only at home tonight (having cancelled on Adele yesterday) because I couldn't get our usual girl to mind the kids.

Bad luck or what?

[andrei]

Quote from: Cindy

   
    ...How come you want to meet me so bad anyway?
    Cindy xxx


I'm surprised nobody noticed this bit - you have early on given her the impression that you're desperate to see her - of course she would be on guard if she has had stalking issues

but something else intrigues me

we all remember the very public cindy/dee issues that went on here

you have spent a fair few posts denigrating cindy. who you have never met and then in the preeti and priya thread you divert the topic with the following:

From her reviews, I gather Dee looks a bit like these girls and the Kardashians.

Anyone agree?

spidey sense tingling

[The happy one]

The difference is she'll see me, she wont see you 

Hey

Then we can look forward to reading your review of your meetings with her then

[iPad3]

I appreciate I have not been a member here for that long but this thread has to be the most bizarre I have seen since finding UKP.

Is any one else a bit confused???

[iPad3]

Hey

Then we can look forward to reading your review of your meetings with her then

Yes come on James, what was she like and don't post anything negative now cos us fanboys will not be happy if you do!!!!!

[Bartolomeo]

Cindy is probably like...

Hidden Image/Members Only

[Dave2014]

This could actually be a whole new area of contract law.

Ordinarily an 'invitation to treat' and subsequent 'acceptance' is sufficient to form a contract.

But I wonder whether 'Can I meet you at XX' ... 'Yes, you can' would constitute the same!

There is slightly more required for a legally binging contract. You need the following elements:

Offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, legality, and capacity.

Unfortunately, paying for sexual services in this country fails the 'legality' element of contract creation (prostitution is legal, but making a contract for sexual services is not) which is why you cannot sue a WG for either (i) misrepresentation if her photographs are beautiful but she is ugly, or (ii) damages for breach of contract if her AW profile lists DFK and she only provides LFK (just to give two examples).

Anyway - West8, my view is that your original review was quite helpful, actually. Given an important element of service provision is the ease (or lack of ease) by which you are able to acquire those services, it is good to know that you had a rather convoluted experience with the WG in question. Your experience may not be as a direct result of either a 'confirmed' booking or as a result of having gone though a booking but not been impressed with the services themselves, but is nevertheless useful for those deciding if they even want to go through the hoops seemingly required to make a booking with this particular girl.

If I am hungry, I want to know if there is a drawn-out application process before I can get a pizza. There is often a greater urgency in matters of the heart  . For that very cogent reason, your review is worthy of print and I cannot understand why anyone would have an issue with it.

I've only joined this board today, but I'm a very experienced punter and shall post some reviews in the coming days. I've been a lurker for a while - but it is nice to meet you all, whether we agree about the necessity or otherwise of the review in question.

[fredpunter]

what tickles me is the assumption by most people on here that Cindy answers her own emails and looks after her bookings - hate to say it W8 but I expect you've mostly been talking to her pimp/boyfriend anyway.   

[akauya]

what tickles me is the assumption by most people on here that Cindy answers her own emails and looks after her bookings - hate to say it W8 but I expect you've mostly been talking to her pimp/boyfriend anyway.

Indeed! I forgot about the pimp/boyfriend/secretary. Good reminder 

[brolin_76]

Fucking hell who is this west8? Cindy's  ex-boyfriend?

[NightKid]

I was warned in PM not to write anything disparaging about Cindy .. interesting.

*Tinfoil hat on*

Just drop the bombshell already ... it was James, wasn't it? 

P.S. A prossie sending you her number can mean anything, why did you automatically assume it was a booking confirmation? Derp.

[tonysoprano]

Fuck's sake West8, man the fuck up and get the fuck over yourself. Posting up all her emails and messages just makes you look like a fucking weirdo. What the fuck were you trying to prove?

I won't be surprised if other WG's now start avoiding you once they see this thread. Truly sad behaviour.

[jsparky]

WTF is the thread about? I believe many of us has sent email/message to WG and never got a reply, yes, its annoying, but we move on to other WG, who are happy to take our money.

To be honest, I had sent booking request to Cindy years ago, she read it but never responded, so what? I didn't bother to book her eversince. Yet I am siding with Cindy here, move on W8, you appear needy, obsessed and even talk about you daughter/child care, etc. This is a punting forum not mumsnet!

[west8]

If this thread helps at least one person make an informed 'purchase' decision, it has served its purpose. Puntico explains that above in his rational, considered reply.

I'm happy for you folks to laugh and point out that I approached this the wrong way as I don't take it seriously. It's a sport - a bit of fun and escapism.

As I mentioned right at the very beginning, this was my first experience of Adultwork and I was clearly very naive. I made a bad 'purchase' decision and moved on.

I lost nothing and the WG in question lost nothing.

But I did win something: Wanker of the Week! 

[iPad3]

There is slightly more required for a legally binging contract. You need the following elements:

Offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, legality, and capacity.

Unfortunately, paying for sexual services in this country fails the 'legality' element of contract creation (prostitution is legal, but making a contract for sexual services is not) which is why you cannot sue a WG for either (i) misrepresentation if her photographs are beautiful but she is ugly, or (ii) damages for breach of contract if her AW profile lists DFK and she only provides LFK (just to give two examples).

Anyway - West8, my view is that your original review was quite helpful, actually. Given an important element of service provision is the ease (or lack of ease) by which you are able to acquire those services, it is good to know that you had a rather convoluted experience with the WG in question. Your experience may not be as a direct result of either a 'confirmed' booking or as a result of having gone though a booking but not been impressed with the services themselves, but is nevertheless useful for those deciding if they even want to go through the hoops seemingly required to make a booking with this particular girl.

If I am hungry, I want to know if there is a drawn-out application process before I can get a pizza. There is often a greater urgency in matters of the heart  . For that very cogent reason, your review is worthy of print and I cannot understand why anyone would have an issue with it.

I've only joined this board today, but I'm a very experienced punter and shall post some reviews in the coming days. I've been a lurker for a while - but it is nice to meet you all, whether we agree about the necessity or otherwise of the review in question.

Welcome to the forum but I'm afraid I disagree with you on this, and the reason is in my view the default position from a punters point of view is that in order to see a girl you are going to have an element of being fucked about.

If a thread is started that confirms by telling the girl she has a nice hat in photo x your guaranteed an accepted booking then this is helpful, a rambling rant which makes you look like a bafoon tells me firstly nothing I don't know already and secondly that the OP needs to be taken with a pinch of salt on any other post he makes.

[iPad3]

As I mentioned right at the very beginning, this was my first experience of Adultwork and I was clearly very naive. I made a bad 'purchase' decision and moved on.

Christ if this thread is an example of you moving on I'd like to see what happens when you get upset about something!!!

[Sedlmayer]

This could actually be a whole new area of contract law.

Ordinarily an 'invitation to treat' and subsequent 'acceptance' is sufficient to form a contract.

But I wonder whether 'Can I meet you at XX' ... 'Yes, you can' would constitute the same!

Obviously, you know that the normal rules of business don't apply to prostitution, right?
And even if they did, a contract to have sex for money would be legally unenforceable. 

[Sedlmayer]

If this thread helps at least one person make an informed 'purchase' decision, it has served its purpose. Puntico explains that above in his rational, considered reply.

I'm happy for you folks to laugh and point out that I approached this the wrong way as I don't take it seriously. It's a sport - a bit of fun and escapism.

As I mentioned right at the very beginning, this was my first experience of Adultwork and I was clearly very naive. I made a bad 'purchase' decision and moved on.

I lost nothing and the WG in question lost nothing.

But I did win something: Wanker of the Week!  :hi:

Trying to pull the Infowanker trick of pretending to think that winning WOTW is some kind of honour won't work pal. You win because you're being a WANKER 

[Tjkooker]

I try. First time I ever had a WG so upset about nothing - which is odd considering I first punted almost 20 years ago.

Same modus operandi with every single AW girl I have met too: polite introductory email, followed by a booking request.

No-one else had a problem with it as meetings were duly arranged.

I wouldn't say she was upset at nothing. You were basically harassing someone that obviously didn't want to see you. Perhaps if she had told you to fuck off more directly you would have got the message. Then you would have came on here crying about being abused by a prossie.

[TreyWalker]

I'm just going to say my final piece and be done with this thread.

I originally posted with a sympathetic vibe, so it was just the way you (w8) approached everything since that meant I wasn't agreeing with you.

First of all, your story changed. Sent photo, sent photo of someone else, but you never lie. That was the clincher for me.

That's just the main point that I remember changing in your story without reading the six pages of this thread.

I also don't understand how you can find it so difficult to understand the point about a confirmed booking and how a confirmed booking shows on AW. Some girls have their number on aw, does that meant I have a confirmed booking with all of them by your logic. I've got their number after all.

Also every time someone has said something had about cindy, which they are allowed to do as that is their opinion, you jumped at it, whether it was relevant to your grievance or not.

So finally I'd just like to finish by saying, you've said your piece on cindy, no need to carry on, or go to other threads and bash her. Also don't try and book her, either with another alias or something. Last thing we want is for you to put her off being a WG.

[west8]

Cool story, thanks.

It's over and done with and what I said about AW is true - the only place it states 'confirmed' is when a WG has marked it as so -after- a booking.

As far as booking Cindy ... lol

[TreyWalker]

Okay, just cause I'm not sure, so if someone can tell me. Can I post an image from my adultwork showing a confirmed booking to show this guy?

[west8]

Please do!