Jeop I think i am going to follow your advice and give this lovely lady a call this afternoon.. What a glowing review.. we do not see that, that often. i WILL LET YOU ALL NO OF MY EXPERIECE AS WELL.. Thanks jeop great review !!!!!
Saw her this morning. Everything pretty accurate. My only complaint is the length of session and lack of second cup.
JC's review hit on her better points -- beautiful boobs and butt, but missed her failings: No DFK, BBBJ no CIM but w/ teeth!, and her schedule/scheduler completely blew up my first appt.
She's gorgeous, and willing, and very inexperienced. Be careful when you fall in love, and even more so whenthe guy writing the review did.
His review is not a guarantee. None of them are. It represents his experience and doesn't portend anyone else's. You should know better.
I certainly don't blame Jeopcon1 for what I experienced. He did all of us a favor by verifying the pictures and services.
thaks Jeopcon1! Keep up the good work.
Absolutely agree, JT. One thing I DO want to point out though is there are some providers who are CONSISTENT in their inconsistency. To me, the DEGREE of inconsistency corresponds with the degree of YMMV (although a certain amount will always apply as you stated). IMHO, if the degree of YMMV is HIGH, then that would disqualify the gal as being a GFE. I feel with a GFE, there should be a certain amount of consistency for MOST customers, across the board. I feel a good GFE should be PREDICTABLE, in that regard, to a certain reasonable extent. The obvious exception would be customers (I fall short of calling them hobbyists) who are jerks who display obvious shortcomings: uncleanliness, bad breath, not a gentleman, inconsiderate, wants to negotiate, have signs of disease, etc.
Now, whether there is high YMMV with a particular provider is, of course, subjective (and in the mind of the beholder). To me, high YMMV would mean significantly different experiences for the majority of hobbyists who have used that provider. Put differently, it would mean that the provider offers "premium service" for a relatively small minority of hobbyists. Hence, good reviews MIGHT NOT be a good prediction of the experience for someone who might be pondering whether to see her.
Now, some might ask: why don't the reviews balance out so that an inquiring individual could see the degree of both sides, and make an informed choice? Well, ideally that is HOW it should work. However in practice, I believe that MOST people are more inclined to write good reviews than poor ones. One explanation for this could be the male ego thing, where a guy might feel humiliated that he would appear to be the only one who got lousy service (implying somehow that he was less of a man). In MY case, I hesitate to "trash" someone with a poor review, since this is often the provider's only means of support. What if I was wrong, or what if my experience was an exception to the rule? In reality, my feelings are rather shortsighted (feelings often are), because I would probably be doing other hobbyists a DISservice by not relating my negative experience.
Fortunately for me, I have not encountered any truly negative experiences (probably because I have been able to properly utilize reviews to only patronize consistently good providers). That was not true of many of my experiences prior to my utilizing TER. Fortunately, for those providers (but perhaps not hobbyists), I could not review them because of the "90 day rule".
-- Modified on 10/14/2004 8:01:19 AM
-- Modified on 10/14/2004 8:02:52 AM
I used to be more generous with my performance ratings but have since taken a different attitude.
I notice if you read some reviews the person spends the entire time telling you what went wrong then still gives the person an 8 rating. Go figure!
You bet, JT. Amazing how they spend the review trashing someone and then giving such a rating. It goes back to what I have said before; it often appears that reviewers have not read what each performance grade is specifically supposed to mean.