Michael Marino

[Jamesh]

Anyone notice that all this guy's review that are favorable are by first time reviewers. Other credible repeat reviewers have nightmare reviews

[JT Brooklyn]

Your point is "Newbie" being that he is not the only "Working Guy" on Daddys with Up and Down Reviews?

[+ Gar1eth]

What to say, what to say about Michael. Hmm. It was awhile back. So I can't really review him here in the Forum. I guess if people have questions, they can private me.

 

Gman

[JT Brooklyn]

What to say, what to say about Michael. Hmm. It was awhile back. So I can't really review him here in the Forum. I guess if people have questions, they can private me.

 

Gman

 

Or after seeing his Hunk Photos those really interested are better to "go to the source" with questions about a hookup!

[Guest]

Your point is "Newbie" being that he is not the only "Working Guy" on Daddys with Up and Down Reviews?

 

No, I think his point is that most, if not all, of the first-time reviews are probably ads placed by the escort himself. There are a lot of escorts who use this website simply as free advertisement. The more reviews they have, the more suspicious. Just one above Michael Marino is another escort who mysteriously has more reviews than almost any other escort, and has two successive notations as follows:

 

Review #82 - 12/03/2012

General

Positive review removed moved because the reviewer proved to be unreliable.

Review #81 - 12/03/2012

General

Positive review removed moved because the reviewer proved to be unreliable.

[+ Gar1eth]

No, I think his point is that most, if not all, of the first-time reviews are probably ads placed by the escort himself. There are a lot of escorts who use this website simply as free advertisement. The more reviews they have, the more suspicious. Just one above Michael Marino is another escort who mysteriously has more reviews than almost any other escort, and has two successive notations as follows:

 

Review #82 - 12/03/2012

General

Positive review removed moved because the reviewer proved to be unreliable.

Review #81 - 12/03/2012

General

Positive review removed moved because the reviewer proved to be unreliable.

Do you really think Rod Hagan might be a scam after all this time? Granted, it's always possible, but don't you think he would have been 'OUTED' on this Forum- long, long before if it were so? And I'm not ever planning to see Rod, as he's a strict top. So it's not like I have a vested interest in him.

 

Gman

[JT Brooklyn]

Well usually Newbie 1st Time Posts donot zero in on one particular "Working Guy"..UNLESS there's an Agenda!

 

Time will tell...as usual.

[Guest]

Do you really think Rod Hagan might be a scam after all this time? Granted, it's always possible, but don't you think he would have been 'OUTED' on this Forum- long, long before if it were so? And I'm not ever planning to see Rod, as he's a strict top. So it's not like I have a vested interest in him.

 

Gman

 

He may be a very good escort (but not in his 30s as he claims). However, I feel pretty confident that a substantial number of those reviews are written by himself. Fake reviews don't necessarily mean the escort is a "scam." Of course, sometimes fake reviews are used to hide bad ones, a situation which is probably happening with Michael Marino.

[Guy Fawkes]

Have you considered that you just flipped Daddy the finger?

 

http://gfhockey.home.bresnan.net/roughing.jpg

 

I'm going to close this thread: "Unnecessary Roughness!"

 

No, I think his point is that most, if not all, of the first-time reviews are probably ads placed by the escort himself. There are a lot of escorts who use this website simply as free advertisement. The more reviews they have, the more suspicious. Just one above Michael Marino is another escort who mysteriously has more reviews than almost any other escort, and has two successive notations as follows:

 

Review #82 - 12/03/2012

General

Positive review removed moved because the reviewer proved to be unreliable.

Review #81 - 12/03/2012

General

Positive review removed moved because the reviewer proved to be unreliable.