Discussion in 'New York' started by BigMadM, Mar 2, 2006.
Long live Benny!!!!!!!!!!
this is your life
has been for a spell
losta guys would trade
go ahead and kvell
Just checked her agency web site(yes she works for one)and she will be her most of next week. Can't wait till monday.........will report back
I'm so pissed. I had an appt. yesterday but the snow kept me away. Hard to explain a car accident 30 miles from where you're supposed to be. BMM you're right on the money, that face gives me an instant hard on. I tend to like women with some meat on the bone and big tits(real or fake) so I hope see comes back soon.
I really dig the tiara. or whatever you call that little princess crown.
I hear the agency owner is still available for good customers
Google the girls number from CL and up pops the agency info immediately. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do a little due diligence to discover some info. I come to expect these glamour shots are agency girls anyway and assume so unless I find out differently.
Agency or not, she's a POA.
its now official, 10 thousand and one post, now the entire internet and whoring world knows I HAVE NO LIFE.
If any young girl 23-26 would like a sugardaddy, Im the one. Maybe it would get me off the board a bit.
(my last sugarbaby dumped me, but told me Im a fantastic fuck, and she was 25)
10,000 posts! Way to go man!
and the points ug staff made are understood.
the harping on the fact that she has 2 sets of pictures out there, mean very little since they are both her, and I dont believe either of them could be that old. I see pictures constantly posted of girls that are over a year old, and noone says anything. The girls shoot pics, they post an ad, and if that ad or agency is around for a while, its rare new pics are posted within 6 months or a year.
And as far as a different rate from eros to cl, or thinking its indie, well, a smart consumer would look at cl, and call them and say I want the lower rate.
Its a mistake by the agency to do that, but if they want to give the services away at a cheaper rate to a different advertising base, I dont think theres anything so misrepresented. Maybe not a good idea on the agency part, some guys might demand a 50 dollar credit now that they know shes advertised for 50 less somewhere else, but this has been commonplace for so many women. And if someone calls and says hey, I thought you were an independent, I think many of these indie girls have someone answering the phones for them anyway, cause they work busy schedules.
I see the point being made, but I think exposing a fact is one thing, making a mountain out of a molehill is another, but thats my opinion, and Im hoping Im entitled to it without any repercussions..
Ive gotten fucked over many times by many advertisers, no shows, service was nothing compared to what was promised, photos that were either so touched up the woman I saw was not even close to what I expected, and I had to walk, not making it easy, and then , theres always the ripoff girls, who seem to travel from agency to agency, and it seems agency owners never know this until I inform them I wont see a girl because shes a piece of shit, and it always strikes me as funny, since after posting about her 10 times, agencies still hire her. So yes, there are always truths to be exposed, but this for me, and I hope many others, was only a win win deal.
You walk in, no matter what rate or pic you saw, and the girl is still quite the looker, and her service is better than most would expect, so noone loses.
Who knows, maybe she placed the ads on CL to make some money WITHOUT the knowledge of her agency - this way the she gets to keep ALL of the money for that 'time'.
In regards to this thread, the only one who UG Staff is pissed off at is a guy who tried to downplay the truth and pretent that the advertising was 100% legit, even in the face of incontrovertable evidence to the contrary. No one has said there's anything wrong with th eservice provided. No one has said the girl isn't good looking. In fact, despite BMM's insinutaions to the contrary, he is the only one who mentioned thast she is 5 years older than claimed to be. There are only 2 points that UG Staff has made regarding this agency/sex worker in this thread:
1) That there exist other photos which have no been worked over which make her look somewwhat differrent, and
2) Her agency represented her as an indepemdent , and at a lower rate that way.
What anyone else has tried to imply is simply a smokescreen to cover up the above two facts. You'll notice no one is saying that those aren't her photos, or that they aren't accurate? And only one person tried to pretend that her agency did not try and advertis her as an independent, so rather than simply say "yes they did", the proof got posted.
Come down off the ledge.
No one is saying you did anything wrong by posting this review.
If anyone actually goes back and looks at what was written, they would see the problem started when someone didn't like that differnt pictures of the same girl (and no one has said it's not the same girl. In fact, BMM has said it is the same girl).
As opposed to some other places, this board has always been about exposing issues (however small they might be) that are not apperent from the ads or reviews (either here or in other places). In fact, those who have been here from the beginning know that one of the biggest dofferences between this places and just about every other coed board is that we don't allow any hiding of information which might be relevant, but might stop some guy from seeing her. This is not the kissy ass place where we let stuff slide. And if it became that, it's purpose would be lost.
BMM: no one is saying you did anything wrong. No one is saying your review was innacurate in ANY way. But wording in reviews, no matter how good or how truthful, is subjective. Showing a different set of pictures of some girl is both objective and meaningful to most of the guys viewing any review. If anyone thinks that showing real pics of some girl/agency (who used them for their own advertising) is somehow wrong, they are on the wrong board. They are also on the wrong board if they think that guys here should not be advised if an agency is placing ads pretending that the girls are independent, and at different rates than their5 standard agency rate. There is no question whatsoever that this is meaningful consumer information. So, what do you call anyone who tries to stiffle truthful, but potentially negative information about somone who may not be what they appear, in what is supposed to be a consumer forum?
I think it was a great review and I would like to bang her...
I just wish that UG Staff would let us know why/who they are piss at..
I'm sure its not you but the agencies she is working for...
actually, im sorry i posted this review,Id like to request if possible it be pulled and erased.
since hair plays an important role in a girls look, Id have to say she looked very similar to top pics in fishnet top.
she didnt have on that much makeup which I was happy about.
Is she 26? probably not, but its the girl in the pic, but the girl I saw looked better in person.
I think this is alot of nitpicking on such nonsense.
If the agency she works for is not welcome here, I should have been told, or the review could be pulled.
Its not my board, and nothing management does offends me.
I find what you claim to be such little things, that in a world of complete bullshit, this internet and escorting, she is the girl, she is a promised good provider, she is legit, no games, she was attractive, and the noses, well, Id say the top pic also, but this isone of the few times I felt the representation was fine, compared to the other 600 interenet girls Ive seen in the past few years.
I have no interest in the agency she worked for, nor do I have anything financially to gain, only trying to share what I think is a winner.
I hope this much concern and interest is put into every review from now on this board, so we can all see what is considered real misleading advertising.
Unless ofcourse, this is some way of trying to persuade me to leave this board, Im not really sure.
Im a pretty decent person, an ***** discussing what I did wrong would have been sufficient.
If my welcome here has run out, I will leave at the managemets request.
oooh la la...she looks HOTT and SEXXXY......make-up ...no make-up 25 or 35 y.o....real or fake tits....new or old pics.....WHATEVER MAN.......if i could look like that for ONE YEAR...i could have saved myself working the last TEN....somebody hog-tie that bitch and lock her in a closet please!!!!! LOL!!!
i like to piss on power lines
personally, I agree that an agency shouldn't advertise girls as if they were independent (these guys apparently were more honest on eros than CL). I also agree that the pics are all out there and it wasn't tough to figure out that they're all currently still hosted on the CL site (and hence none of them are "dug up" from anywhere very deep). But I also agree that it's nice when an agency doesn't send a completely different girl--I expect most girls to be a little more disheveled when I meet them than their pics. And it's even nicer when the girl provides good service from an agency.
PS Don't you think it's a very common thing in most guy's reviews to state what the age that they thought a girl was as opposed to the age represented?
Separate names with a comma.