A rant...or why do you guys undermine the earning potential of UG
- Thread starter MikitheMilf
- Start date
- Status
Egads. 14 pages.
This thread is like tuning into C-Span at 3:00 A.M. and watching a bunch of policy wonks brain fuck their audience with obscurities ......
Still, I did read the whole damn thing ......
I agree with Miki on one key point. I would like to see a separate 0 - 9 "looks" scale on girls over the age of 30, since they are generally more sensual and better in the sack. I'll take a "6" who is over 30 over a 21 year old "9" any day.
This thread is like tuning into C-Span at 3:00 A.M. and watching a bunch of policy wonks brain fuck their audience with obscurities ......
Still, I did read the whole damn thing ......
I agree with Miki on one key point. I would like to see a separate 0 - 9 "looks" scale on girls over the age of 30, since they are generally more sensual and better in the sack. I'll take a "6" who is over 30 over a 21 year old "9" any day.
Ozzy said:
Miki... No offense... but this the problem.
This is a 7 on ***...
and this is an 8 on ***...
How could Gizele who might be one of the hottest women in this business be an 8 and you a 7? Even if we take the 6 you say you got.... that's only two points under Gizele who looks like a victoria fucking secret model? She's only 25, a hard body with enhanced tits a near perfect 100% natural face and skin without a single flaw.... yes, she's a freak of nature. And not-4nothing..... But she's in the same price level as you are and gets about the same service ratings as you do.
But I'm not here to compare you to Gizele and I'm not talking about the *** reviews which are mostly made up by guys who've never met you or most others they've reviewed, and only written so they can get VIP access to that garbage site that bans any agency that competes with those that "Dave" has interest in.
I'm talking about the BS on the main mesg boards where guys are shouted down or their moderated posts never see the light of day if they speak ill of popular providers there or those agencies that Dave favors.
PS... I never saw your old pics. Only the ones that are linked to your banner and new site in the last few months.
This is a 7 on ***...
and this is an 8 on ***...
How could Gizele who might be one of the hottest women in this business be an 8 and you a 7? Even if we take the 6 you say you got.... that's only two points under Gizele who looks like a victoria fucking secret model? She's only 25, a hard body with enhanced tits a near perfect 100% natural face and skin without a single flaw.... yes, she's a freak of nature. And not-4nothing..... But she's in the same price level as you are and gets about the same service ratings as you do.
But I'm not here to compare you to Gizele and I'm not talking about the *** reviews which are mostly made up by guys who've never met you or most others they've reviewed, and only written so they can get VIP access to that garbage site that bans any agency that competes with those that "Dave" has interest in.
I'm talking about the BS on the main mesg boards where guys are shouted down or their moderated posts never see the light of day if they speak ill of popular providers there or those agencies that Dave favors.
PS... I never saw your old pics. Only the ones that are linked to your banner and new site in the last few months.
deposted post reposted
here is how miki began this thread: and here is where slinky himself has last taken this thread: slinky, this personal attack is over the top, even for you. even if you feel that way, it seems wacky for you to spit it out here and now. in fact, it kind of flips my tummy. reading your last posts i have the impression that you have crossed the line between hostility and hate. and this from the "moderator". please step back.
here is how miki began this thread: and here is where slinky himself has last taken this thread: slinky, this personal attack is over the top, even for you. even if you feel that way, it seems wacky for you to spit it out here and now. in fact, it kind of flips my tummy. reading your last posts i have the impression that you have crossed the line between hostility and hate. and this from the "moderator". please step back.
You are correct this is very childish. I do not see the need to create more rules. Rules are not going to change a some ones' mind. Like you have pointed out in the past, why read posts in the alternative section, and complain about them , if it is not your desire to participate in the lifestyle.
People need to realize each indivdual has defferent tolerance levels, and try to respect those boundry. Criticlal discures is welcomed, opinions should be tolerated, but childish comlaints should go away, Aren't we all adults?
People need to realize each indivdual has defferent tolerance levels, and try to respect those boundry. Criticlal discures is welcomed, opinions should be tolerated, but childish comlaints should go away, Aren't we all adults?
What do you need a different scale for? Your last sentence shows you already know how to do the conversion, to suit your tastes.
Since looks scales measure only one thing -- looks -- they shouldn't be adjusted to account for other factors. By your logic, you should also raise the appearance numbers for younger women who give better service, since most of us would prefer a "6" who gives good service to a "9" who gives awful service. But that doesn't change how they look.
Since looks scales measure only one thing -- looks -- they shouldn't be adjusted to account for other factors. By your logic, you should also raise the appearance numbers for younger women who give better service, since most of us would prefer a "6" who gives good service to a "9" who gives awful service. But that doesn't change how they look.
I don't think that works. What if I told you that Gizelle is actually over 30? (That's a hypothetical). Now what? I think for it to work, you'd need many categories, and then it wouldn't work because ther would be too much overlap.
PS Perhaps the biggest problem isn't the concept of a 0-10 scale. It's that it's really a 7 to 10 scale.
PS Perhaps the biggest problem isn't the concept of a 0-10 scale. It's that it's really a 7 to 10 scale.
Dear Oddfellow,
If you agree with Miki on the key point above, then I think it logically means that you don't think the over-30 "6" is a "6" at all, but rather a "9.5" or a "10". If you think you'd prefer an older "6" to a younger "9" then it means (I think) that you DISAGREE with Miki, think that a single scale for all these women are appropriate, but you want to qualify your judgements with info that you think is correlated with performance (i.e., age).
Why not just have age plus 2 scales -- one for appearance and one for performance?
If you agree with Miki on the key point above, then I think it logically means that you don't think the over-30 "6" is a "6" at all, but rather a "9.5" or a "10". If you think you'd prefer an older "6" to a younger "9" then it means (I think) that you DISAGREE with Miki, think that a single scale for all these women are appropriate, but you want to qualify your judgements with info that you think is correlated with performance (i.e., age).
Why not just have age plus 2 scales -- one for appearance and one for performance?
Again... On *** there is no relative rating system. They rate on an equal scale... Miki a 7 (I'm going by the numbers she gave me... I didn't check myself) and they rate Gizele from a 5 to a 9 with mostly 8's. But we've been thru this rating thing before so it's a dead horse.
The real point I was making is that on the *** "mesg board" the ass kissing fluffballers over there don't make the distinctions we're making now so as to not hurt anyone’s feelings. So anyone who happens apon that board without the knowledge of who these girls are or without the use of pictures to judge for themselves... they would be thinking Gizele and Miki are somewhat equal in looks, and that's just not the case.
But if those same people happen apon UG, they would find that guys here DO make these distinctions between the girls and they'd know there's a vast difference between the two..... And that's why women like Miki prefer the way things are over there rather than here. Over there they're on somewhat equal footing and over here they get pushed off a cliff and exposed.... so to speak.
Now in all fairness to Miki... as Bender pointed out... she's not deceiving anyone by using fake or obscured pictures. So it's not about her being dishonest... it's about the posters on *** who are being deceiving and dishonest. Here on UG as much as I have to say about the dopes who post here….. they’re way more honest (blatantly so) and the truth always comes out and unfortunately sometimes the truth hurts.
Now personally.. if I had to put numbers to the girls.... and I'll assume Gizele is an 8 (though I think she's more like a 9+), but sticking to that 8..... Miki would have to be a 4 or 5 tops. Now I might sound like a prick for giving Miki a 4.... But if I made her anything higher than that, where would I rate most of Vals girls, Blonde Kelly, Felicia, Victoria25 or any of the other advertisers on UG, who obviously are all someplace between Miki and Gizele on the 1-10 scale.
The real point I was making is that on the *** "mesg board" the ass kissing fluffballers over there don't make the distinctions we're making now so as to not hurt anyone’s feelings. So anyone who happens apon that board without the knowledge of who these girls are or without the use of pictures to judge for themselves... they would be thinking Gizele and Miki are somewhat equal in looks, and that's just not the case.
But if those same people happen apon UG, they would find that guys here DO make these distinctions between the girls and they'd know there's a vast difference between the two..... And that's why women like Miki prefer the way things are over there rather than here. Over there they're on somewhat equal footing and over here they get pushed off a cliff and exposed.... so to speak.
Now in all fairness to Miki... as Bender pointed out... she's not deceiving anyone by using fake or obscured pictures. So it's not about her being dishonest... it's about the posters on *** who are being deceiving and dishonest. Here on UG as much as I have to say about the dopes who post here….. they’re way more honest (blatantly so) and the truth always comes out and unfortunately sometimes the truth hurts.
Now personally.. if I had to put numbers to the girls.... and I'll assume Gizele is an 8 (though I think she's more like a 9+), but sticking to that 8..... Miki would have to be a 4 or 5 tops. Now I might sound like a prick for giving Miki a 4.... But if I made her anything higher than that, where would I rate most of Vals girls, Blonde Kelly, Felicia, Victoria25 or any of the other advertisers on UG, who obviously are all someplace between Miki and Gizele on the 1-10 scale.
- Status