escort jake walker in san francisco

[denny]

Scorpio was right. My review of jake walker was initially accepted and then they refused to publish it. As i mentioned my one-time experience with him happened about two years ago. When i saw what had been posted recently (review #62) on him i decided to write up something to correct what i thought were some inaccuracies about this escort. So now instead of having an honest review on him for someone new to look at we have in its place this obviously phony review by either the escort himself or a friend of his. Does management really think that that helps out a new potential client. I hardly think so and pity the fact that daddy would allow a false review to stand and yet still turn down an honest accurate review---even though it occured some time ago.

[+ Charlie]

Daddy has a clearly stated policy of not accepting reviews that are of experiences that happened a couple of years ago. You wrote a review, lied about when it happened, and then openly posted on here that you had faked the date of the encounter. For Daddy to publish the review after that revelation would be to make an obvious exception for you, which would imply that he believed your review was more honest than the others. How is Daddy supposed to know that it honest and the others are not, especially when you have already admitted to lying about one fact in order to make your case?

[+ purplekow]

If you are going to right the wrong of a bad encounter, you need to write of the wrong promptly. No doubt your raising the issue in this forum will give additional information to a small group of people, but ultimately, you chose to wait two years for your reasons and written review time has elapsed. Kind of like at the end of Jeopardy when you have 3/4 of the answer written, you may have proven that you know whereof you speak but you still dont get a payoff.

 

I have never seen a purplekow;

I never hope to see one;

I can tell you anyhow;

I'd rather see than be one

 

Help there is a purplekow in my mirror

[denny]

Actually I would have waited forever not for just two years. The guy was nice to me but just not a great sexual partner. At that time I decided not to do a review because I really didn't want to say something negative about a guy. When I recently saw that his name was brought up again on this site and with a recent review that I believed to be preposterous and definitely phony thats when I decided to say something. Nothing wrong with that right? But I guess someone thinks that I am a felon for not being more timely.

[+ Charlie]

No, someone simply thinks that you are not too bright for writing a review two years late, lying in the review about when the appointment took place, and then blabbing here about the fact that you lied.