First for a bit of context, the last time you and I were in a discussion I was challenging your positive review of a girl who threatened me with a knife and accused me of raping and robbing her. Smiths spoke for your authenticity and I believe him. I apologised for questioning your authenticity which I stand by, but you will understand given my experience why I consider your positiohn carefully.
Secondly, you misunderstand me and your post misrepresents my point. I think that a similar *pattern* is evident in both sets of reviews - not that the reviewers were the same. It is the same bland reviews deflecting from important negative details (Scarlett's misreprested weigth: Lucy's facial appearance). It is the same pattern of the reviewers having built a large post count relatively quickly, with a regularity and expenditure on punting that is very high, focused primarily on a small group of linked girls. It is the same pattern of respondents who continually reply to each others posts. But most crucially it is the same feeling of *persuasiveness* about the reviews that looks really suspect to me.
By contrast read my review of Sensual Brigit. She is a fantastic girl. Yesterday she gave me the best bj I ever had. But I dont give fuck about whether you or anyone else goes to see her which is why I am comfortable to give my honest impression of her looks in my review. Thats why I write balanced reviews. Same with Stunning Julie. I cannot wait until she gets back but yeah she is lazy. It does me no harm to admit it. I suppose she could refuse to see me, but then there are plenty more fish in the sea.
I did not mentioned any punter by name and I don't need really need to persuade you or anyone else I am right. If I raise a doubt, and board members do their research and form a view that is enough. And if I am full of shit and completely mistaken I will just be ignored. But people seem to get very sensitive around this issue, just like they did when I wrote a (slightly) critical review of a popular girl not to long ago. The emotion that this arouses is another thing that feels a bit odd, and is another reason that I think there is a bit more to this than meets the eye.
I have neither misunderstood nor misrepresented your posts on this thread, merely pointed out (with evidence in the form
of attached reviews links for both Scarlett and Lucy) that shows no pattern you are alluding to with respect to the OP for this
review that's a commonality for both aforementioned service providers.
There is considerable evidence to suggest (at least for Lucy) that by and large she's a good service provider, and facially wise, most reviewers have found her to be attractive if not a complete stunner. Now I accept that you did not find Lucy attractive or to your tastes, as beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder. With respect to Scarlett, if I'm not mistaken, the NEGATIVE reviews EXCEED all her POSITIVE ones. It's not as if your negative of Scarlett is somehow overshadowed by a deluge of "persuasive" positive reviews for her.
As Smiths wrote earlier in this thread, if any evidence is in your possession about a group existing here on UKP that's acting
"persuasive" as you believe, and if you have substantive evidence to back your claims, then do report it to the site owner.
And just to make it absolutely clear to you, I've neither met Lucy nor Scarlett.