The provider you are referring to is Berlin (TER ID: 159272), based on your PM screed to me.  My rating on her looks is very similar to the other reviewers as is my rating on her performance.  Exactly what is your complaint? that your idea or degree of attractiveness is not the same as mine?  Get over it.

Did you have the chance to sample her menu, as I asked you previously?  Was the menu I portrayed accurate?  Based on the other reviews, I was accurate there as well.

It seems as if your ratings, and not mine, are out of the mainstream.

I saw that Tara joined Prime and was in town.  Just left my session with her and she is a firecracker.  Enthusiastic, bubbly, complimentary and she LOVES what she does and she is dynamite at it.  Huge recommend!

Location:  Incall, Tyson's
Donation:  $$$
Pix:  accurate, she looks even better in person
Tattoos:  several, all cute, none obtrusive or large.
Services:  LFK, DATY, DATO, BBBJ (not quite DT), BLS, HJ, CIM (gulp!), COB, MSOG, MPCFS
Looks:  8 (verging on 8.5 - Tara is an ex-cheerleader - awesome lithesome body, no fat, nice tiny ass, perky B-cups, very cute face and a beautiful pootie)
Performance:  9+ (if only she was greek-friendly, sigh)
Recommend:  YES, she is awesome

Tara is cool, I recommend her if you want a high-energy session - nearly porn-star like.

Review to follow.

I feel obliged to suggest to fellow hobbiest that you wait for additional reviews. I recently met a provider after Ken's glowing recommendations and found myself seriously disappointed. So unless you've followed Ken's recommendation in the past and agreed with his review, I say wait.   Especially if the provider's looks matter to you. Just my opinion.

7.5/9.5 from me.  All the same comments (and same grade) on performance....as much as everything for the full hour as I could take, with my favorite/outstanding bbbjdtnqns finish (yes, DT, not "almost"....maybe I'm smaller?).  Greek n/a for me also.

-- Modified on 11/3/2010 7:26:18 AM

-- Modified on 11/3/2010 7:32:41 AM

whether the photographs in an ad are a fair and accurate representation of the provider.  Looks are highly subjective; one man's 9 is another man's 7.  That's why numerical ratings are pretty much meaningless.  Photographs, however, speak for themselves.  The most useful information that can be provided on looks is whether the provider looks like her photos, and if not, why not - photoshop smoothing, softening of looks, appears older in person, appears heavier in person, etc.

Unfortunately, we know how that would end up - skewed like all the other ratings (IMO)

Maybe we should rate the accuracy of the photos, but then you'd need to keep the photos with your review.

Valid point Ken and I did notice the other scores were in the same range. I am admittedly astounded. I am confident I know what are generally accepted as attractive features but clearly not within the context of this hobby.  

and because of Ken302's mini-review history, we can all see where his reviews tend to over-inflate the looks ratings.

System, there's always a likelihood your opinion won't mirror previous reviewers.

K302's OPINION is as valid as the next guy's.

Why the alias?  It seems every other participant in this thread isn't afraid to express his opinion under his TER id, yet you hide behind an alias.  What are you afraid of?

I have to agree with Ken302, I thought she was gorgeous.  Nice tight body, lovely green eyes, and a smile that would not stop.  I loved the way this lady looked, and she rocked me.