Advertising creampies?
- Thread starter mcalandra
- Start date
speaking of degenerated....
un believable.....so a provider ADVERTISES that they offer CREAM PIES, then the provider ANSWERS that in fact THREE girls do....and then they request that it be removed and the whole thread goes....why cause it paints them in a negative light?????
so the 2 guys i was arguing with are actually correct and that negative comments or any criticism is not welcome....
Well that does it for me.....consider me gone. I have no use for biased reporting and favoritism.
I have enjoyed sharing and talking with many of you but this board is now officially a waste of time.....GOOD BYE
un believable.....so a provider ADVERTISES that they offer CREAM PIES, then the provider ANSWERS that in fact THREE girls do....and then they request that it be removed and the whole thread goes....why cause it paints them in a negative light?????
so the 2 guys i was arguing with are actually correct and that negative comments or any criticism is not welcome....
Well that does it for me.....consider me gone. I have no use for biased reporting and favoritism.
I have enjoyed sharing and talking with many of you but this board is now officially a waste of time.....GOOD BYE
I understand where your coming from, and if this were a case where an advertising provider requested the removal of a negative review, then I would completely agree with you. But this was not a review, or even close to one, it was a pissing match in an area where it did not belong.
Let me ask you this question mcalandra. If a provider posts an advertisement which she later decides is in error, whether it's because of a typo, a lapse in judgment or a service no longer offered, should she not have the right to delete that post to prevent future confusion? If the advertisement resulted in a heated argument over a morality issue that has nothing to do with the provider, does she not have the right to disassociate herself with that thread?
I suppose in some sense I do agree with you and would have rather seen the thread moved to a more appropriate section, but I wouldn't say this is biased reporting as none of us (myself included in my single, but longwinded post on that thread) were actually reporting anything but our subjective opinions. Keep in mind mcalandra that while I don't disagree with your opinions, that section of the board is meant for advertisements and reviews, not discussions on morality. Yes, the discussion could have been moved, but I'm sure our moderators are getting tired of moving discussions to the appropriate places. I know I've made plenty of comments in the wrong area as well so I'm not trying to be self righteous here, I just think you're overreacting a bit. There are plenty of negative reviews of paying advertisers that are left up for all to see and decide for themselves. This just isn't one of them.
I hope you reconsider your position as I for one have enjoyed reading your reviews.
Let me ask you this question mcalandra. If a provider posts an advertisement which she later decides is in error, whether it's because of a typo, a lapse in judgment or a service no longer offered, should she not have the right to delete that post to prevent future confusion? If the advertisement resulted in a heated argument over a morality issue that has nothing to do with the provider, does she not have the right to disassociate herself with that thread?
I suppose in some sense I do agree with you and would have rather seen the thread moved to a more appropriate section, but I wouldn't say this is biased reporting as none of us (myself included in my single, but longwinded post on that thread) were actually reporting anything but our subjective opinions. Keep in mind mcalandra that while I don't disagree with your opinions, that section of the board is meant for advertisements and reviews, not discussions on morality. Yes, the discussion could have been moved, but I'm sure our moderators are getting tired of moving discussions to the appropriate places. I know I've made plenty of comments in the wrong area as well so I'm not trying to be self righteous here, I just think you're overreacting a bit. There are plenty of negative reviews of paying advertisers that are left up for all to see and decide for themselves. This just isn't one of them.
I hope you reconsider your position as I for one have enjoyed reading your reviews.
Last edited:
I had actually just responded to one of mcalandra's posts in another thread on a similar subject disagreeing with him about deleted posts. He felt that if moderators deleted posts that reflect negatively on a provider then the board would be biased and useless. I disagreed because the posts in question were not reviews but instead were heated arguments based on subjective opinions that had little to do with the provider and didn't belong there in the first place.
Now I get to this thread and can't find mrrim82 or msbondteam's initial posts anywhere except for where they are quoted in Julie's response. Does that mean they were deleted? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the actual posts (I have yet to experience the CT girls), but shouldn't they be left up for all to see and judge for themselves?
For clarification, were those posts deleted because they were negative reviews of an advertiser, or because they were newbie posts that don't belong outside of the "beginner reviews" section?
Personally, I was considering a trip to see these girls based on all the favorable reviews, but the idea that these are only the positive reviews and that all the negative ones may have been deleted makes me think twice and may lead me to give preference to non-advertising providers where I can trust that the reviews are balanced and representative of everyone's opinions. Obviously, this is the opposite effect that advertising in UG should have.
I don't want to jump to conclusions here, but is this the way it works? I guess I'll know the answer if my post disappears within the next 24 hours.
Now I get to this thread and can't find mrrim82 or msbondteam's initial posts anywhere except for where they are quoted in Julie's response. Does that mean they were deleted? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the actual posts (I have yet to experience the CT girls), but shouldn't they be left up for all to see and judge for themselves?
For clarification, were those posts deleted because they were negative reviews of an advertiser, or because they were newbie posts that don't belong outside of the "beginner reviews" section?
Personally, I was considering a trip to see these girls based on all the favorable reviews, but the idea that these are only the positive reviews and that all the negative ones may have been deleted makes me think twice and may lead me to give preference to non-advertising providers where I can trust that the reviews are balanced and representative of everyone's opinions. Obviously, this is the opposite effect that advertising in UG should have.
I don't want to jump to conclusions here, but is this the way it works? I guess I'll know the answer if my post disappears within the next 24 hours.
Last edited:
Also, the moderator of the section recognized the thread had degenerated into a pissing match, and one which had already spilled over from another thread, where it had been removed from because it was a pissing match THERE. I don't find it in the least surprising under THOSE circumstances that he would have had the sentiment of "I'm tired of this bullshit".
Whoa there Kimosabe! You realize that not every monger reads this board- and now that the thread is gone, the post by Julie naming the barebackers on staff is gone too. So, lets play this out logically: Monger comes in and doesn't ask about creampie maybe because he figures that by default it's not available- but he engages in bbbj and/or day with the provider who has been exposed to anything from hiv, herpes, hpv, hep etc, and not just exposed perhaps once, but because of the fact that she FREQUENTLY does not use a condom with males that, by their very action of going bareback means that they have also have a higher likelyhood of exposure to something that can kill or stay with one forever, - so monger now has an exponentially greater risk of contracting a disease and doesn't even know it-
How'd you like to be that guy? Frankly this scares the shit out of me- This, coupled with the fact that lots of these girls use, and may even inject...... (and if they;r doing it at work bareback, you think they're using a rubber at home with junkie b/f?)
The point is (or at least one point) - besides the fact that this kind of activity seroiusly endangers the monger AND the provider, it also brings the attention of LE as well as Health Dept- scrutiny that Julie should well be aware of........ (is this the same Julie that went down a few years ago? and now boasts how she's back in the business? offering this?)
How'd you like to be that guy? Frankly this scares the shit out of me- This, coupled with the fact that lots of these girls use, and may even inject...... (and if they;r doing it at work bareback, you think they're using a rubber at home with junkie b/f?)
The point is (or at least one point) - besides the fact that this kind of activity seroiusly endangers the monger AND the provider, it also brings the attention of LE as well as Health Dept- scrutiny that Julie should well be aware of........ (is this the same Julie that went down a few years ago? and now boasts how she's back in the business? offering this?)
This might be a whoreboard and, IMO, there's nothing wrong with that. And there's nothing wrong with people making informed choices on the activities in which they want to engage.
But, also IMHO, there's nothing wrong with reminding people of the dangers of BBFS any time the topic comes up. I'm not saying they should not be allowed to make their own choices, and I'm not saying that the information should be presented in a judgmental way, just that their choice should definitely be an informed one.
For those of you who assume that everyone on this board is knowledgeable about the risks of BBFS and STDs, I'd ask you to look at some of the incredibly ignorant (not in the pejorative sense, some people are just uninformed) posts in various UG threads. I don't see why there's a problem with bringing up that danger each and every time BBFS is discussed. If even ONE person gets information they didn't have, that's a victory for UG. Then that one person can make an INFORMED choice about their activities.
By all means, post lists of providers that offer BBFS; if people want to know that information, they should be able to get it here. But also remind them explicitly of the possible ramifications. I know that sounds redundant, but pleasure and STDs are both important topics here. Neither one of them should be censored.
To the people who so strongly feel that the dangers of BBFS should be confined only to threads ABOUT that topic, I'd reply that if that were true, and if someone were to read a thread about BBFS WITHOUT any such information because you had discouraged it so vehemently, and that person engaged in BBFS and then contracted HIV, YOU would be culpable to a degree for discouraging the dissemination of information that could have saved their life. It's still primarily their responsibility, of course, but why would you want to play even a small role in something like that?
Peace out.
But, also IMHO, there's nothing wrong with reminding people of the dangers of BBFS any time the topic comes up. I'm not saying they should not be allowed to make their own choices, and I'm not saying that the information should be presented in a judgmental way, just that their choice should definitely be an informed one.
For those of you who assume that everyone on this board is knowledgeable about the risks of BBFS and STDs, I'd ask you to look at some of the incredibly ignorant (not in the pejorative sense, some people are just uninformed) posts in various UG threads. I don't see why there's a problem with bringing up that danger each and every time BBFS is discussed. If even ONE person gets information they didn't have, that's a victory for UG. Then that one person can make an INFORMED choice about their activities.
By all means, post lists of providers that offer BBFS; if people want to know that information, they should be able to get it here. But also remind them explicitly of the possible ramifications. I know that sounds redundant, but pleasure and STDs are both important topics here. Neither one of them should be censored.
To the people who so strongly feel that the dangers of BBFS should be confined only to threads ABOUT that topic, I'd reply that if that were true, and if someone were to read a thread about BBFS WITHOUT any such information because you had discouraged it so vehemently, and that person engaged in BBFS and then contracted HIV, YOU would be culpable to a degree for discouraging the dissemination of information that could have saved their life. It's still primarily their responsibility, of course, but why would you want to play even a small role in something like that?
Peace out.
Obviously I can not delete post on this board ,I am just a member here. I am sure that you are not accurate about the ladies. There are several ladies that do not appear on the site but every lady listed on the site has real pics. They are all nice and most do offer GFE. They all are unique n their looks but none would be considered nasty fat chicks or busted ,that is really out of line. Natalia is beautiful ,Vanessa is young slender very pretty, Nadia is a slender girl with an athletic body, Heidi is a slender blonde with 34dd/24/34 , Samantha is slender , a scores dancer so who the hell are you talking about ?? Any one who visits us can tell you that the ladies mentioned are fit ,Pretty and very nice, you are wrong.
I am sure that you are wrong in saying that we never have negative reviews , just look in the contest and you will see , not deleted. negative reviews. I think one of the negative reviews actually won the contest. UG is one place that does not seem to delete negative post, so I think you are really on the wrong track. We have been reviewed on several boards and it is what it is. YMMV , Providers are different in looks and service ,I dont like to see negative reviews but sometimes they are good to know what the provider needs to work on or needs to go elsewhere. Calling girls busted, ugly fat chicks ,dogs is obviously not a review but a slander and not constructive criticism which is what reivews are really for. Just a few of the day girls that were there on Friday Samantha a beautiful slender blonde scores dancer, Vanessa a slender pretty busty brunette, Nadia slender firm body, Natalia very beautiful, now it speaks for itself so it was actually not only slanderous but false as well. I am sure that if anything was deleted it was for a good reason. What you are saying is not correct and not accurate at all.
You did not complain, you litterally insulted the girls and the guys that see and review the girls. You said the pics are not real on the website when in fact they are. You posted on a site and called the posters liars and accused them of fake reviews. They know that they posted their reviews and their thoughts of the sessions and providers so who are you to come and say it all false ? This board is credible it is not always great reviews but honest reivews.
Holy fucking shit. I think I just joined the Waterclone fan club!
I have been saying for YEARS that BBFS is this so called "hobby's" dirty little secret.
There are all manner of customers that ask for it. All manner of providers who give it.
Some as a selling point right up front. Some as a little something 'extra' as a loyalty bonus for valued customers. Some because they had an awkward moment where they got lost in what was going on. It happens. No one is claiming its a good idea, but there it is to be dealt with.
So the answer is to presume that EVERYONE has BBFS someone, sometimes. A client with an also cheating spouse or girl-friend banging the tennis pro. The provider with the loser boy-friend banging half the known world BB and coming home to have sex with her.
You come into this with open eyes or you don't is the bottom line of it all.
I deal with it by taking safer steps [acknowledging there is no such thing as safe when it comes to sex now-days, just safer] and I get test for EVERYTHING every time I go to the doc for my diabetes check ups, whether I've been active or not. That's FOUR times a year.
I keep my eyes and ears open and do it with out judging the rest of the world from the confines of my little glass house.
And so it goes...
I have been saying for YEARS that BBFS is this so called "hobby's" dirty little secret.
There are all manner of customers that ask for it. All manner of providers who give it.
Some as a selling point right up front. Some as a little something 'extra' as a loyalty bonus for valued customers. Some because they had an awkward moment where they got lost in what was going on. It happens. No one is claiming its a good idea, but there it is to be dealt with.
So the answer is to presume that EVERYONE has BBFS someone, sometimes. A client with an also cheating spouse or girl-friend banging the tennis pro. The provider with the loser boy-friend banging half the known world BB and coming home to have sex with her.
You come into this with open eyes or you don't is the bottom line of it all.
I deal with it by taking safer steps [acknowledging there is no such thing as safe when it comes to sex now-days, just safer] and I get test for EVERYTHING every time I go to the doc for my diabetes check ups, whether I've been active or not. That's FOUR times a year.
I keep my eyes and ears open and do it with out judging the rest of the world from the confines of my little glass house.
And so it goes...
Ozzy's Public Service Announcement:
Anyone not interested in seeing a hooker who has done BBFS should take their dick and go home cause every hooker does it or has done it... period, end of story. If you wish a list of hookers who have never fucked an unwrapped dick then go home now cause she doesn't exist.
Anyone who speaks out against bbfs and remains here seeking hookers under the delusion they've never fucked an unwrapped dick is either the biggest hypocrite or the stupidest person here and thus should fall under the new "moron" rule I'm going to push for and have their membership revoked for the good of UG.
Anyone not interested in seeing a hooker who has done BBFS should take their dick and go home cause every hooker does it or has done it... period, end of story. If you wish a list of hookers who have never fucked an unwrapped dick then go home now cause she doesn't exist.
Anyone who speaks out against bbfs and remains here seeking hookers under the delusion they've never fucked an unwrapped dick is either the biggest hypocrite or the stupidest person here and thus should fall under the new "moron" rule I'm going to push for and have their membership revoked for the good of UG.
Last edited:
The assumption should be that she has /something/, and that is why you should be wearing your jimmy cap. Similarly she should be thinking that you have something. Tough truth; we are talking about prevention of infectious disease transmission. Obviously you can say that you will take your chances, which is 100% cool as well.