Thursday's Review - Josh #2

[jawjateck]

Did anyone notice that Josh's birthday is Jan 1988 and the date of the escort encounter was 12/2006? Three possibilities came to mind.

 

(1) The reviewer had a prophetic vision of what his date with Josh will be like next December.

 

(2) He entered the wrong year and had the appointment in 12/2005, when Josh was a mere 17yo boy.

 

(3) He entered the wrong month and had the appointment in Jan or Feb, after Josh had reached manhood.

 

Just offered this to stimulate discussion. Run with it fellas.

[+ Lucky]

According to the review, the appointment happened in 2003 making young Josh only 15 at the time! Yet a couple of the other encounters that the reviewer cites in his "previous reviews" happened after that date. My conclusion: The "3-16-2003" date is a typo on someone's part!

[+ Charlie]

Hmmm. Could the date of the meeting have been 1/2/2006 rather than 12/2006? That would have made Josh barely legal, provided his birthday was on New Year's Day. Or 3/12/2006, with the review written immediately after the date? There has to be a typo here somewhere, since an agency whose whole business depends on twinks is unlikely to take a chance of pandering an underage escort to someone who regularly reviews here.

[Fratboys]

Hello there guys ...

 

Just thought I'd post a note to clear up the confusion on the Josh "#2" review. For those of you who read this message center routinely, you will have noticed that this review has popped up in the "new reviews" three times over the past week or so.

 

When the review was first posted, somehow it got mixed up with our "original" Josh, who did in fact work for us back in 2003. Daddy was kind enough to correct it and create the "Josh #2" review.

 

And then when the new review was posted, we noticed that the review date was incorrect. Daddy once again made the correction.

 

Hmmm ... but now today I can't find the Josh #2 review at all ... only the "original" Josh review. Sometimes you just can't win!