Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.




Author Topic: ~DEE~ - The best yet. Perhaps even the best it can ever get.  (Read 9131 times)


64 review(s) for ~DEE~ (58 positive, 4 neutral, 2 negative) [Indexed by Admin]


Offline west8

Luckily for me I didn't 'do the act' .. but it was close.

Moreover, it wasn't exactly a tranny, it was a Post-op TS.

Here 'she' is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGDjGXreANQ

 :(

Luckily for me I didn't 'do the act' .. but it was close.

Moreover, it wasn't exactly a tranny, it was a Post-op TS.

Here 'she' is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGDjGXreANQ

 :(

I am not sure if I believe you or not!  :rolleyes: You must have hosed down her tonsils though? Now that's a review that would be interesting!

 :sarcastic:

Offline west8

I am not sure if I believe you or not!  :rolleyes: You must have hosed down her tonsils though? Now that's a review that would be interesting!

hahaha :) No comment!

I tell you what though: 'he/she' is fitter than many girls I have met ... !  ;)

Actually, although we met back in July (I think), would a review of a three-month-old encounter be acceptable?

If so, I'm up for it!

Yeah. I'm a fan of fiction writing

Offline west8

Yeah. I'm a fan of fiction writing

Judging by all the reviews you haven't posted, it seems like you have serious writer's block  :wacko:

Better writers block than spouting verbal diarrhea  :hi:

Offline dezzatheblue2

Can see this thread being locked, slagging match again :hi:
Banning reason: Fluffy twat

Offline west8

Jason made a very good point in his earlier post about the need for a consistent, logical and reliable system to better assess my punts by using a more comprehensive rating in my reviews.

He was right - and my solution has produced quite surprising results. I think the variable of ‘Value’ is an important one as it is the only way to accurately score based on the cost differential per punt.

PALS Rating Scale (0-40) + Value (0-10)

P - Personality
A - Attitude
L - Looks
S - Service

Emily - 9.5/10/9/10/8 – 46.5
Dee - 9/10/8/10/9 - 46
Maggie - 9/10/7/10/9 - 45
Mel - 10/9/9.5/8/7 - 43.5
Adele - 9/9/7/10/8 - 43
Nicole - 8/8/10/6.5/10 - 42.5
Lola - 9/9/6/9/9 - 42
Brooklyn - 9/9/9/7/7 - 41
Girlfriend Dior - 8/7/7/9/8 - 39


Now, the interesting thing about the above is how it compares (for me) with my personal ‘Hall of Fame’. Naturally, memories endure but I think any of us look back at our early punts with perhaps a certain nostalgia – and therefore it’s harder to be as accurate as with recent punts. That said, I’m happy my top two (both long retired) remain firmly in place, but also surprised that I find myself honestly assessing 3 of my AW punts higher than old favorites:


Pandora - 10/10/10/9/8 - 47
Nicole Foxxx - 10/10/9/9/8 - 46
Chantel - 10/8/9/9/8 - 44
Jessica - 8/9/10/9/6 - 42


From Review #10 onwards, I will include a ‘Current Top Five’ at the end of each subsequent review for two purposes:
1.)   To keep myself mindful of the standards I am reviewing against.
2.)   To demonstrate just how well a girl being reviewed compares to the very best.

If you guys can think of any way to improve this new scoring system, I’d welcome your suggestions.

Offline LL

"tonguemanship"?
Who the fuck is this guy?
We haven't seen a more prolific London reviewer since Panel999 - but his reviews were actually enjoyable to read and he was a great guy.  I don't mind long reviews, with even a story to set the scene but this one is just drivel.  It reads like a cheesy romantic novel aimed at women - like this one.

 
 :lol: :lol: :lol:

Offline west8

"tonguemanship"?
Who the fuck is this guy?
We haven't seen a more prolific London reviewer since Panel999 - but his reviews were actually enjoyable to read and he was a great guy.  I don't mind long reviews, with even a story to set the scene but this one is just drivel.  It reads like a cheesy romantic novel aimed at women - like this one.

Yet another useful comment which adds zero to the thread. As mentioned elsewhere, if you don't like it, don't read it...  :dash:

Hope you feel better having said your piece though.


Offline monstar

Much better west, the 'PALS' rating scale has my approval. ;) :thumbsup:

It is also testament to how important and indispensable UKP is to us punters searching for the next good punt, as the girls with numerous positive reviews here scored ratings to put them into your "hall of fame".

Personally I'm happy to see Emily at the top as she is set to be my next visit.  :)

Offline Tailpipe

Yet another useful comment which adds zero to the thread. As mentioned elsewhere, if you don't like it, don't read it...  :dash:

Hope you feel better having said your piece though.

You are just pushing shit up hill , one by one pissing off member by member
Do you enjoy been disliked .

Online mrhappypants

Jason made a very good point in his earlier post about the need for a consistent, logical and reliable system to better assess my punts by using a more comprehensive rating in my reviews.

He was right - and my solution has produced quite surprising results. I think the variable of ‘Value’ is an important one as it is the only way to accurately score based on the cost differential per punt.

PALS Rating Scale (0-40) + Value (0-10)

P - Personality
A - Attitude
L - Looks
S - Service

Emily - 9.5/10/9/10/8 – 46.5
Dee - 9/10/8/10/9 - 46
Maggie - 9/10/7/10/9 - 45
Mel - 10/9/9.5/8/7 - 43.5
Adele - 9/9/7/10/8 - 43
Nicole - 8/8/10/6.5/10 - 42.5
Lola - 9/9/6/9/9 - 42
Brooklyn - 9/9/9/7/7 - 41
Girlfriend Dior - 8/7/7/9/8 - 39


Now, the interesting thing about the above is how it compares (for me) with my personal ‘Hall of Fame’. Naturally, memories endure but I think any of us look back at our early punts with perhaps a certain nostalgia – and therefore it’s harder to be as accurate as with recent punts. That said, I’m happy my top two (both long retired) remain firmly in place, but also surprised that I find myself honestly assessing 3 of my AW punts higher than old favorites:


Pandora - 10/10/10/9/8 - 47
Nicole Foxxx - 10/10/9/9/8 - 46
Chantel - 10/8/9/9/8 - 44
Jessica - 8/9/10/9/6 - 42


From Review #10 onwards, I will include a ‘Current Top Five’ at the end of each subsequent review for two purposes:
1.)   To keep myself mindful of the standards I am reviewing against.
2.)   To demonstrate just how well a girl being reviewed compares to the very best.

If you guys can think of any way to improve this new scoring system, I’d welcome your suggestions.

Your scale is suffering from a ceiling effect and I'd suggest you just used Jason's scale but that wouldn't sit comfortably with you would it?  I think your audience is demanding you share some of your wisdom by way of reviews from your more recent past; you wouldn't want to disappoint them and be excluded or ignored now would you?

Dave

"tonguemanship"?
Who the fuck is this guy?
We haven't seen a more prolific London reviewer since Panel999 - but his reviews were actually enjoyable to read and he was a great guy.  I don't mind long reviews, with even a story to set the scene but this one is just drivel.  It reads like a cheesy romantic novel aimed at women - like this one.

I agree. Its just nauseating drivel.

Offline west8

Much better west, the 'PALS' rating scale has my approval. ;) :thumbsup:

It is also testament to how important and indispensable UKP is to us punters searching for the next good punt, as the girls with numerous positive reviews here scored ratings to put them into your "hall of fame".

Personally I'm happy to see Emily at the top as she is set to be my next visit.  :)

Thanks a lot monstar. I'm really looking forward to your Emily review and I hope you have a lot of fun with her. Can't wait to return after half term.




You are just pushing shit up hill , one by one pissing off member by member
Do you enjoy been disliked .

It seems to me that a few members like to piss themselves off by getting overheated and failing to see I take a very, very light-hearted and self-deprecating approach to my reviews.

I am not here to enter a popularity content. If people don't like my reviews, they can skip them. I don't give a fuck.




Your scale is suffering from a ceiling effect and I'd suggest you just used Jason's scale but that wouldn't sit comfortably with you would it?  I think your audience is demanding you share some of your wisdom by way of reviews from your more recent past; you wouldn't want to disappoint them and be excluded or ignored now would you?

Exclusion is my middle name. You and I are like Marmite Dave: appreciated or detested. Reading through your Dee review that was conveniently bumped up by stayer, I can see that you also have no problem going 'against the grain'. Respect to you for that my good man.



I agree. Its just nauseating drivel.

Thanks. Glad you took the time to read it and share your (albeit limited) thoughts.

Offline hendrix



I am not here to enter a popularity content. If people don't like my reviews, they can skip them. I don't give a fuck.


This, I understand and can agree with completely :D  :thumbsup:

Offline PumpAction



(i)   Since 1995, I would suggest circa 3,000 – 3,500 punts, so yes you are roughly correct. Some of my earliest punts were through an agency called 'Stansted escorts'.


If the average girl you saw charged £100ph that's £350,000 you've spent over the last twenty years. Judging by some of your posts i'm skeptical but well done if true. Did you ever do any famous porn escorts?

Offline thebigrunt

I definitely agree that James999 has more than one profile  :lol:

Offline tonysoprano

Quote
PALS Rating Scale (0-40) + Value (0-10)

P - Personality
A - Attitude
L - Looks
S - Service

This is just laughable. The sort of utter bollocks some student would think up while high or drunk. How old are you?

Seriously dude, you have far too much time on your hands.
Banning reason: Troll

Offline PumpAction

I definitely agree that James999 has more than one profile  :lol:

If only he had more than one brain cell.

Offline west8

This is just laughable. The sort of utter bollocks some student would think up while high or drunk. How old are you?

Interesting post 'tonysoprano', thanks.

I think I might actually adopt your proven method of ensuring punting success (1 positive / 3 negatives).

That 75% fail rate says two things:

1. You're a lazy cunt who can't be arsed to do any research before selecting a girl.
or
2. You're the sort of boring, complaining cunt who is never happy about anything.

My money is on 2.

As for the student rating system, I'm glad you like it. You're well qualified with the sort of nick a teenage gamer might choose.

Moreover, given your fail rate above, it's no small coincidence that 'tonysoprano' is an anagram of 'stay on porno'.

Sound advice there mate - save your cash and stay at home for your next wank / imaginary punt  :hi:


Online mrhappypants


Exclusion is my middle name. You and I are like Marmite Dave: appreciated or detested. Reading through your Dee review that was conveniently bumped up by stayer, I can see that you also have no problem going 'against the grain'. Respect to you for that my good man.



Thanks. It must be said that as a strategy for courting popularity and promoting harmony giving Dee a negative review had it's limitations.   :D. Seriously though to return to the topic, I was sad to see the way the review blew up which was not my intention, and I think something of a "face off" that was not of my making got out of hand.   Although I think your review is "generous" there is no doubting that Dee is a fine service provider and an attractive woman though the slightly conspiratorial tone of positive reviews around her and others who may be associated on here is something I am willing to call and challenge.  What provoked me about your review of Mel was the lack of balance and detail, a hall mark of touts on here. As I said in my review I had two good punts with her before.  I was trying to point out that a rough patch - a bleary punt in a scruffy spare room - was sub standard and put me off.  I was not trying to trash her reputation.  Actually, if it did anything at all to prompt her to turn it around then that is good thing and good luck to her.

Dave


PALS Rating Scale (0-40) + Value (0-10)

P - Personality
A - Attitude
L - Looks
S - Service


That looks a fair starting point - but I have two immediate suggestions.
One, if the others are given relative importance of 10, then Service should surely have an importance of 50, if not more - because Service is what we are there for and by itself makes the difference between a good and bad review.
Two, there are other factors which surely ought to be included, like geographical location and cleanliness of venue - although you might say those are not factors personal to the SP.

Offline west8

That looks a fair starting point - but I have two immediate suggestions.
One, if the others are given relative importance of 10, then Service should surely have an importance of 50, if not more - because Service is what we are there for and by itself makes the difference between a good and bad review.
Two, there are other factors which surely ought to be included, like geographical location and cleanliness of venue - although you might say those are not factors personal to the SP.


Thanks for the feedback  ;)

I started off with an ideal scale of 1-100, but thought it too broad and open for debate. Cleanliness / presentation I have decided to include generally within the boundaries of 'Service' and 'Value'. Location will also be factored in under 'Value' as a girl in Chelsea will obviously have greater overheads than her counterpart in Haringey, etc.






Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)