Something Smells A Little Fishy - Harlow - Norfolk

[LovesYng]

Reading today's reveiw of Harlow (6-13-06) and the reviewer says he is 18+. Then lookin at his other reviews it really started to smell fishy. Reviewer Lexusman writes three reviews for the escort all within 4 months Review #9 4-11, #8 2-2, #7 1-23. I always thought that the same reviewer could not post a new review within a year of posting one. His older reviews stats he is 18+ then he turns 20+ in later reviews, now the new review stats he is 18+ again. DAMN wish I could go back in age.

 

When in doubt I whip it out :+

[bigguyinpasadena]

The whole Norfolk thing is so laughably obvious.These punks are really trying to rub Daddy's nose(and ours as well)in their BS!

Why are they not flagged/exposed as being the frauds they most certainly are?

[+ deej]

They've been abusing this site (or trying to) for a while. People only started noticing when Daddy started allowing through all the reviews that check out in every possible way but still smell.

 

This is one example (and a fine one) of why "less is more" works best as an editorial policy. If all the data is visible, you can make a smart decision. If the questionables are filtered, you won't see them and won't notice the undercurrent of BS.

[Guest skrubber]

I have one endearing memory of dealing with Harlow over the phone.

 

He: Are you in Norfolk?

 

Me: No, I'm in Jersey

 

CLICK

[LovesYng]

>They've been abusing this site (or trying to) for a while.

>People only started noticing when Daddy started allowing

>through all the reviews that check out in every possible way

>but still smell.

>

>This is one example (and a fine one) of why "less is more"

>works best as an editorial policy. If all the data is visible,

>you can make a smart decision. If the questionables are

>filtered, you won't see them and won't notice the undercurrent

>of BS.

 

I just like to know how three reviews from the same reviewer got thru the system within 4 months :-(

 

When in doubt I whip it out :+

[+ Lucky]

RE: Something Fishy - With Chips

 

"I just like to know how three reviews from the same reviewer got thru the system within 4 months"

 

How? Why some really scandalous reason, no doubt! Perhaps Daddy got comped a free fish and chips on his next visit to Norfolk?

 

[+ deej]

>I just like to know how three reviews from the same

>reviewer got thru the system within 4 months :-(

 

I doubt that. You know where to write. }(

[LovesYng]

>>I just like to know how three reviews from the same

>>reviewer got thru the system within 4 months :-(

>

>I doubt that. You know where to write. }(

 

Deej, I did write to Daddy over a month ago and he said he would check into it

 

When in doubt I whip it out :+

[+ deej]

Thanks for adding that detail that you'd left out.

[bigguyinpasadena]

So being "fishy"and working for an agency suspected of scamming its customers does not get a red flag alert?No it gets you coverboy of the day!

No good photos of Brock Lachkey available?

[+ deej]

Looking at the three pictures that show face from today's reviews, I'd probably chose the same coverboy.

 

Given a choice of three pictures, would you use the good, clear, well-composed image or the blurry one, or the poorly cropped one?

[bigguyinpasadena]

>Looking at the three pictures that show face from today's

>reviews, I'd probably chose the same coverboy.

>

>Given a choice of three pictures, would you use the good,

>clear, well-composed image or the blurry one, or the poorly

>cropped one?

Sorry Deej-this is not good enough.

There is no reason to give this guy face time-unless there is something we do not know about here.

I am sure the new pic was supposed to accompany the "new review"(read fluff piece)that was put up two days ago,but somehow the wires got crossed.

In the meantime-you want a great picture of an absolutely above board gourgeous guy?Brandon from Fort Lauderdale has a new pic-which was burried at the bottom of yesterdays reviews.

How abouts let's reward the "good guys"here and stop promoting the "bad apples"

[+ deej]

>There is no reason to give this guy face time-unless there is

>something we do not know about here.

 

It's an eye candy contest. Not an endorsement or anything else. It has been that way since it started, and somebody goes off the deep end every time someone like Anthony Holloway gets chosen because they had the best picture from that day's crop of reviews.

 

The few times Hooboy asked, I actually suggested dropping the feature just because of all the guys who get their panties in a twist over it.

 

>above board gourgeous guy?Brandon from Fort Lauderdale has a

>new pic-which was burried at the bottom of yesterdays

>reviews.

 

I agree that's a great new pic. I'm not willing to say it's better than the one chosen, and I *think* I recall Brandon being coverboy recently, which makes him ineligible. I suspect that pic will get selected next time he's reviewed assuming all other qualifications are met. It's not often he'd even have competition on any given day's reviews.