"I won't go into details" "Treat with respect" yawn, yawn, zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[topgun]

Not hypocritical at all. You say I am complaining about people (apparently) racking up big numbers of reviews for the sake of it. Surely it would be hypocritical of me to complain about that only if I were also doing it? And as you helpfully point out I have a very small number of reviews. Have I complained about people giving only a small number of reviews? No, not at all.

You are desperately trying to find a disjunction between my observations here and my own carry-on. You won't find it in this case anyway.

You use reviews, complain they are too banal and lack detail, but don't leave any for others, am I to take it you've only seen
2 girls in 4 years? It's not a balanced argument.

[The Kerryman]

Nope - its the whole point of a forum: 'A public meeting place for open discussion', one definition anyway, and thats what
I believe we're all doing - isn't it?. Plus its very difficult to outdraw a fighter pilot !

Not on the evidence so far. Your fancy jet is going down in flames after a few hits from Mucker's surface to air missiles. Bail out before it's too late!

[Mucker]

You use reviews, complain they are too banal and lack detail, but don't leave any for others, am I to take it you've only seen
2 girls in 4 years? It's not a balanced argument.

Not a balanced argument? Let's remind ourselves of what the argument actually is.

The argument on the one side is that (and let's remind ourselves of the opening post again) a phrase like 'I won't go into detail'
is a little bit silly and useless in a review, and that 'treat her with respect' is somewhere between pointless (as it will not alter anyone else's behaviour) and arrogant/patronising (as if the poster has a personal monopoly on 'respect').

The argument on the other side should be making the case that a phrase like 'I won't go into detail' is in fact very useful or whatever, and that 'treat her with repect' is in fact a very good addition to a review as the overwhelmingly majority of people are disrespectful and need to be told this and will alter their behaviour as a consequence.

I seems to me that the latter argument is untenable but the more interesting point is that this argument has not been made at all. In that sense it is indeed an unablanced argument. The only counter arguments seem to be tangentially related at best and are simply personal attacks at worst.

The most egregious example might be your own effort in trying to make the number of reviews I have given the issue. There is no onus on anyone to leave reviews. Failure to do so regularly does not mean someone cannot comment on a couple of aspects of reviews.

The argument you're making would mean that only journalists who regularly do reviews on threatre, films or restaurants have the right to comment on other reviews. That if someone feels a review is unhelpful/misleading or appears simply to be an advertisment by another name they have no right to say so. Or that a sports journalist reporting a match and choosing not to reveal who scored the goals is beyond reproach except for comments from other journalists who write match reports - in other words the reporter has no responsibility to the general public. This is just a silly position to adopt.

You're entitled to complain that I don't leave more reviews and I am sorry if that causes an inconvenience for you but it is a separate matter and does not have any implications for my right to comment on aspects of other reviews.

[experiencedguy]

Not a balanced argument? Let's remind ourselves of what the argument actually is.

The argument on the one side is that (and let's remind ourselves of the opening post again) a phrase like 'I won't go into detail'
is a little bit silly and useless in a review, and that 'treat her with respect' is somewhere between pointless (as it will not alter anyone else's behaviour) and arrogant/patronising (as if the poster has a personal monopoly on 'respect').

The argument on the other side should be making the case that a phrase like 'I won't go into detail' is in fact very useful or whatever, and that 'treat her with repect' is in fact a very good addition to a review as the overwhelmingly majority of people are disrespectful and need to be told this and will alter their behaviour as a consequence.

I seems to me that the latter argument is untenable but the more interesting point is that this argument has not been made at all. In that sense it is indeed an unablanced argument. The only counter arguments seem to be tangentially related at best and are simply personal attacks at worst.

The most egregious example might be your own effort in trying to make the number of reviews I have given the issue. There is no onus on anyone to leave reviews. Failure to do so regularly does not mean someone cannot comment on a couple of aspects of reviews.

The argument you're making would mean that only journalists who regularly do reviews on threatre, films or restaurants have the right to comment on other reviews. That if someone feels a review is unhelpful/misleading or appears simply to be an advertisment by another name they have no right to say so. Or that a sports journalist reporting a match and choosing not to reveal who scored the goals is beyond reproach except for comments from other journalists who write match reports - in other words the reporter has no responsibility to the general public. This is just a silly position to adopt.

You're entitled to complain that I don't leave more reviews and I am sorry if that causes an inconvenience for you but it is a separate matter and does not have any implications for my right to comment on aspects of other reviews.

Ok, let's go back to the OP.

The first phrase was that you were bored with these 'catchphrases'. While some may use them as such, others don't. What information would you like to see included that doesn't leave you 'bored'? And, as we have started (as of your last post) using semantics, why do you use the exact phrase, of you being 'bored'? Do you want to be not bored by these reviews? The opposite is stimulation, either physical or mental.

Next, you would 'question the reason' why the reviewer leaves such a review. On this one basis of not divulging explicit facts? Why is that a reason to question the review if the reviewer is trusted? The mods are here to flag suspect reviews. Given that they exist, you must view that some reviews are suspect, even though the reviewer might be trusted, and that the mods examine the reviews and can track their IPs, logging those of known review fakers. I'm not suggesting that the system is perfect. A few fake reviews might get through. However, the opposite is that most, if not all reviews that state these things are suspect. Evidence?

Treating with respect.... I've previously said what I needed to about this. However, the 'odd renegade'? How can you comment on whether or not most punters treat escorts with respect or not if you are not one, or have never escorted yourself? Surely they would be the most qualified to comment on this, and given that most punters never post on these forums, it's safe to say that we know nothing of their character. There are some horror stories floating about of what escorts have to put up with on a daily basis. Any reminder of proper behaviour is a positive thing, given that it might make someone think about their attitude or hygiene in the cold light of day, rather than assuming that every punter respects escorts. It's not 'arrogant/patronising' in this light, and the proper treatment and possible averting of improper behaviour by this one phrase, however unheeded it might be, far outweighs the irk caused by it. So I must logically assume that the use of this phrase isn't pointless, and although the motive of the reviewer might be suspect, the result just might be a positive thing.

I would add that tolerance of all viewpoints is the only way to maintain a balanced view. I can understand the need to rant.

The number of reviews you have given is of no consequence to me, nor is your character. I have simply commented on your post and the language you used, and provided counter arguments.

You are entitled to your view as am I.

[blue8671]

This whole thread boils down to just one simple fact. We as members have the abilty to leave revievs of the ladies we choose to meet, as long as that remains within the bounds of decency as goverened by the moderators however we choose to write them is a personal choice. It is nobody elses concern if its 3 lines or 10 paragraps long, you dont like it read another its a simple as that.

[Mucker]

This whole thread boils down to just one simple fact. We as members have the abilty to leave revievs of the ladies we choose to meet, as long as that remains within the bounds of decency as goverened by the moderators however we choose to write them is a personal choice. It is nobody elses concern if its 3 lines or 10 paragraps long, you dont like it read another its a simple as that.

I couldn't agree more with you.

Nobody is questioning anyone's ability to leave reviews. That has never been the issue. The length of the review is indeed an irrelevance and how they choose to write them is certainly their own business.

However, the point actually at issue here i.e. the usefulness of reviews padded with stock phrases is an entirely different matter and since they are put up for public consumption people are entitled to comment on that.

[Mucker]

1) Ok, let's go back to the OP.

The first phrase was that you were bored with these 'catchphrases'. why do you use the exact phrase, of you being 'bored'? Do you want to be not bored by these reviews?

2) Next, you would 'question the reason' why the reviewer leaves such a review.

3) On this one basis of not divulging explicit facts?

4) Treating with respect.... I've previously said what I needed to about this.

5) Surely they [escorts] would be the most qualified to comment on this [respect]

6) I would add that tolerance of all viewpoints is the only way to maintain a balanced view.

1) Maybe you should reply to the OP then. I never used or latched onto the word 'bored'. I read reviews for information not entertainment.

2) I have no recollection of questioning that?

3) I never mentioned the word 'explicit'. You are the one talking about non-explicit vs explicit. Information regarding the quality of an experience with a view to possible punt with a lady is what I am looking for in a review.

4) Then why revisit it?

5) Yes, but I am assuming they don't do the reviews.

6) Ironic that you advise me on this considering I am the one who has been dismissed as a 'troll' and contradicted by all and sundry. Why not tell this to others?!

[The Kerryman]

Ok, let's go back to the OP.

The first phrase was that you were bored with these 'catchphrases'. While some may use them as such, others don't. What information would you like to see included that doesn't leave you 'bored'? And, as we have started (as of your last post) using semantics, why do you use the exact phrase, of you being 'bored'? Do you want to be not bored by these reviews? The opposite is stimulation, either physical or mental.

Next, you would 'question the reason' why the reviewer leaves such a review. On this one basis of not divulging explicit facts? Why is that a reason to question the review if the reviewer is trusted? The mods are here to flag suspect reviews. Given that they exist, you must view that some reviews are suspect, even though the reviewer might be trusted, and that the mods examine the reviews and can track their IPs, logging those of known review fakers. I'm not suggesting that the system is perfect. A few fake reviews might get through. However, the opposite is that most, if not all reviews that state these things are suspect. Evidence?

Treating with respect.... I've previously said what I needed to about this. However, the 'odd renegade'? How can you comment on whether or not most punters treat escorts with respect or not if you are not one, or have never escorted yourself? Surely they would be the most qualified to comment on this, and given that most punters never post on these forums, it's safe to say that we know nothing of their character. There are some horror stories floating about of what escorts have to put up with on a daily basis. Any reminder of proper behaviour is a positive thing, given that it might make someone think about their attitude or hygiene in the cold light of day, rather than assuming that every punter respects escorts. It's not 'arrogant/patronising' in this light, and the proper treatment and possible averting of improper behaviour by this one phrase, however unheeded it might be, far outweighs the irk caused by it. So I must logically assume that the use of this phrase isn't pointless, and although the motive of the reviewer might be suspect, the result just might be a positive thing.

I would add that tolerance of all viewpoints is the only way to maintain a balanced view. I can understand the need to rant.

The number of reviews you have given is of no consequence to me, nor is your character. I have simply commented on your post and the language you used, and provided counter arguments.

You are entitled to your view as am I.

Just to clarify some points. 1. Mucker did not leave the opening post - I did. 2. If I was to make a list of the information I would like to see included that doesn't leave me bored - and a similiar number of users parroted off that list to the extent that they currently parrot the two catchphrases I mentioned - then (just like now) I'd get bored quick enough. 3. You mention tolerance but you can't seem to tolerate the fact that I find this constant repetition boring. 4. To answer your question directly - I do not want to be bored by these reviews. You say the opposite is stimulation (is there an implication that you disapprove of either mental or physical stimulation?) and yes, the reason I read reviews is that I use them to decide if I'd like to meet an escort, so in my case well-written reviews are helpful. 5. You query why I would 'question the reason' why the reviewer leaves such a review and ask if it is on this one basis of not divulging explicit facts? Answer to that is NO. You're reading way too much into it - taking it personally perhaps? 6. You will note that "the odd renegade?" has a question mark - it's not a statement. 7. Like I said initially, treating Escorts with respect should be par for the course (it is for me) and the urgings in reviews don't assist me one iota and are, in my opinion, a possible effort at appearing patrician on behalf of the writer and therefore boring to me.

[The Kerryman]

As they say these days in the football shows cross-channel "tell you what" I'm not bored by the reaction to this thread - great craic altogether.

[experiencedguy]

1) Maybe you should reply to the OP then. I never used or latched onto the word 'bored'. I read reviews for information not entertainment.

2) I have no recollection of questioning that?

3) I never mentioned the word 'explicit'. You are the one talking about non-explicit vs explicit. Information regarding the quality of an experience with a view to possible punt with a lady is what I am looking for in a review.

4) Then why revisit it?

5) Yes, but I am assuming they don't do the reviews.

6) Ironic that you advise me on this considering I am the one who has been dismissed as a 'troll' and contradicted by all and sundry. Why not tell this to others?!

1: Apologies. I confused you with the OP.

2: This was a aimed at the OP.

3: Also, aimed at the OP.

4: The respect issue needed to be revisited because of a point you brought up in the post I quoted in paragraph three and four:

The argument on the other side should be making the case that a phrase like 'I won't go into detail' is in fact very useful or whatever, and that 'treat her with repect' is in fact a very good addition to a review as the overwhelmingly majority of people are disrespectful and need to be told this and will alter their behaviour as a consequence.

I seems to me that the latter argument is untenable but the more interesting point is that this argument has not been made at all. In that sense it is indeed an unablanced argument. The only counter arguments seem to be tangentially related at best and are simply personal attacks at worst.

The phrase 'I wont go into detail', while smacking of a stock phrase, may serve as a reminder to those reading that the escort in question does not like explicit reviews. Given peoples tendency to ignore things in plain sight (myself included, given my mistaking of you for the OP), the more reminders the better, resulting in the smoother running of the site.

Secondly, I'll have to copy and paste.....

...given that most punters never post on these forums, it's safe to say that we know nothing of their character. There are some horror stories floating about of what escorts have to put up with on a daily basis. Any reminder of proper behaviour is a positive thing, given that it might make someone think about their attitude or hygiene in the cold light of day, rather than assuming that every punter respects escorts. It's not 'arrogant/patronising' in this light, and the proper treatment and possible averting of improper behaviour by this one phrase, however unheeded it might be, far outweighs the irk caused by it. So I must logically assume that the use of this phrase isn't pointless, and although the motive of the reviewer might be suspect, the result just might be a positive thing.

To me, that's reason enough to put up with a stock phrase.

5: What has an escort doing the reviews got to do with my point here? I made the point that nobody who hasn't escorted can comment on whether punters are respectful or not in general, myself included. However, I would like to err on the side of caution, bringing me back to my fourth point.

6: A semantic point, but this is not irony. However, this was borne of the mistake I made thinking you were the OP. Again, I apologise.

It seems that most of us are coming from the same place. Some however, see the relevance and use of stock phrases, of which I will put up with (yes, even though some are grating) because they are little reminders for the less heedful. I view them as airplane pre-take-off announcements. Dull and rehearsed, but they might be useful to someone.