I don't know Gina Rollins, and i didn't see the review. But there must be a reason the review was pulled. It wouldn't be the first time. For example, if a review is proven to be a misstatement of the meeting, or it never actually took place, it is taken down. Let's not speculate or pass judgement on hearsay. The review is no longer part of the record. Let's behave like gentlemen.
Did anyone catch yesterday or the day before's review of Gina? It was crazy... gave me the willies. And now it's gone! What's going on here?
No I didn't see it before it was removed...But what was crazy about it and why did it give you the willies?
the review mentioned a smelly asshole and an offer of bbfs
not be removed. After all, this is the type of information that should be disclosed to TER readers. Information is power. Thanks sir_carpet_king.
People should stay away for their own health and safety. If a provider offers bbfs, it's not safe.
Dude, Gina is PrEPped and ready to receive your hot cum, stress free. If you don't like real sex, then don't have it. But don't cast aspersions.
Yikes! Hope that was false!!! She's on my list of providers to meet.
a negative light on her but with with activities becoming more and more "out there," seems like awfully risky business to engage in. Coming from one who's read her reviews for at least the past five-six years, I'm particularly disappointed... Seems maybe the lady is becoming a bit unhinged?
Don't believe all the bullshit...She's a legend for a reason. I read the review....he said he was freaked out because she had so many reviews...leave the girl alone...she is the best of the best.
I don't know Gina Rollins, and i didn't see the review. But there must be a reason the review was pulled. It wouldn't be the first time. For example, if a review is proven to be a misstatement of the meeting, or it never actually took place, it is taken down. Let's not speculate or pass judgement on hearsay. The review is no longer part of the record. Let's behave like gentlemen.
And who know the girls there will know that Gina is known for having some very extreme sessions. Sometimes it involves bodily functions, but that is because the freakier guys know she will accommodate them.
I don't think all of her sessions are like that, but just know that it is fairly common knowledge that she is into some extreme stuff. Whether that includes BBFS, I don't know, and really don't care to.
Gina has her client base, and it works for her.
Ok, just read through a ton of her over 500 reviews. She does definitely seem to push the envelope in sme areas that, while not my thing, have been discussed as being safe several times on this board. In terms of the specific accusations, would any of the 519 reviewers validate this here, not using an alias? If not, I think Gina deserves the benefit of the doubt...
I'm not one to traffic in rumor and I'd sure as hell hate to be responsible for anyone undeservedly getting a bad rap. If I have been off base or in any way caused damage to Gina, my sincerest apologies to her. TER seemingly has a pretty good thing going here. I DO wish there was a way to separate fact from fiction.
Gee Mad, if you had any guts you would have said what was on your mind in the first place. Now your claiming that you didn't want to start a rumor. You're like an old gossip monger, talking smack, and then playing innocent. Was it your review? Have you ever met Gina? Was it necessary to create a post after a review was already done? Is your concern that the post was removed? Could over 500 reviews be wrong?
The fact is that you were attempting to traffic in rumor and seek out comments beyond the review process without looking at all of her reviews proves that you were trying to start something. I suggest you do your homework before you crawl out of your hole again.
I have seen Gina a couple of times and can tell you she is a wonderful woman. She will take it to the edge if that's where you want to go, or not. She is very respectful of what you may want to do.
Sorry Polar, but I don't believe that Mad33 was trying to start any rumors. The review he's referring to was mentioned in the RO Board by a DIFFERENT member. And based on the post in the RO board, the original review was probably pulled because it apparently contained her actual address. However the review has since been reposted. So you can read the review and see for yourself that Mad33 was only reacting to what the reviewer states happened during his session with her.
Thanks for the response Trent. I just don't see it that way.
To me this really is about a bunch of guys talking like spectators at the game. If he was not interested in talking smack about Gina, he would have noticed that the reviewer has a very poor reviewing history with providers. The reviewer could barely say a nice word about any of them accept for maybe one. So then Mad 333 decides to blast away, twice, before apologizing that he meant no harm. That's like saying that he didn't know the gun was loaded after committing a heinous crime. He doesn't even mentioned whether he has ever seen Gina. This is the worst kind of rumor mongering. Since there seems to be little accountability on this website where these viscous rumors can ruin someone's life, profession, or both, it appears to me that there is an ulterior motive on both Mad 333's part and the original reviewer's part. Whether they know each other or not. We'll never know because it's doubtful that Mad 333 will ever admit why he posted the way he did. I read the review. Basically what I got was an old bitchy guy who decided he didn't get what he came for and was going let the world know what his interpretation of what Gina is. Frankly, after reading it, I thought the review should be pulled as well because the review wasn't honest in it's attempt to review, but only to disparage. And that's why I said that Mad 333 didn't do his homework. He was only putting lighter fluid onto the remarks that the original reviewer had submitted. I'm not saying all reviews must be positive, but criticism should placed as part of the event and not as such a global crisis that was the intent of the original review.