disputing cutepapi review

[Super Head 713]

This is why i always have guys to pm me to verify that they are whom they say they are.

[N.M.]

Originally Posted by Super Head 713

This is why i always have guys to pm me to verify that they are whom they say they are.

It never occurred to me that providers would do otherwise

It is scary to know there are people "providing" who have no clue what screening is.

[tbone77494]

I have no skin in this thread - pun intended - but don't literally 3/4 of papi reviews end in train wrecks?

[Marie.]

oh okay thanks for the advice girl !

[Marie.]

i have had a clue but obviously wasnt doing it correctly from being new to this site, now i know more and i appreciate the advise !

like ive mentioned im learning all of this on my own as a INDEPENDENT provider .

[Wakeup]

At least we know who's been using gtoman's handle for screening...

Douche...

[Marie.]

for sure girl thank you so much.

[NMEufdaST8]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

At least we know who's been using gtoman's handle for screening...

Douche...

Not necessarily. She could have simply been following the member who led the witness by mentioning gtoman. She claimed this after first saying she had deleted the texts. We could clear this up if we knew who she contacted regarding the handle TCP gave her.

If TCP has simply been throwing out the gtoman handle to providers who can't be bothered to confirm via pm, that's one thing. But if he actually used another handle of his own with reviews and references, then that's a different thing, at least as far as the guidelines are concerned. The OP can clear this up.

Either way, TCP does admit to some fuckery in the thread following his review.

However, I'm still not clear exactly what the OP is disputing about his review. Did a session take place? Or, following some disagreement, did no activities take place despite TCP listing activities in his review? Or is the OP just pissed that a jackass deceived her about his identity and gave her a no?

OP?

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by NMEufdaST8

Not necessarily. She could have simply been following the member who led the witness by mentioning gtoman. She claimed this after first saying she had deleted the texts. We could clear this up if we knew who she contacted regarding the handle TCP gave her.

Okay Perry Mason...

[N.M.]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

At least we know who's been using gtoman's handle for screening...

Douche...

You sound jealous of papi, what's the matter bugz?
You're mad cause he's a better troll than you ?

P.s not a good look for a Mod to be resorting to name calling other members and violating the guidelines by doing so. You should check your "moding for dummies" manual for future reference, sweets.

Originally Posted by Marie.

for sure girl thank you so much.

Wakeup is a boy-troll sweetie not a girl, but I can definitely see why one would be confused....

[Wakeup]

Wait...using someone else's handle for screening is just trolling??? No shit...I'll have to expand my repertoire. You heard it here first ladies, Natalia speaks for all of you...no more complaining about faking screening info...no harm, no foul...

Which member did I call a name?

[Guest021217]

Smh

[Guest021217]

Originally Posted by Marie.

i screened the handler he gave me by just reading reviews, i cant remember the handler he gave to me over text and i have been deleted our text . im not 100% sure how to work this site plus didnt know i would be able to take action . the MOD is who told me to do what im doing with the review.

guess im shit out of luck .

Obviously you need to learn how to screen you have nobody to blame but yourself

[Karlie Raines]

Screen screen screen!!!!!!!

Lord...

A quick search on gtoman would have brought up the recent scandal...

Glad you didn't get hurt,physically at least.

Damn shame

[the cute papi]

I did not use gtoman's name. I have the text messages on hand for exactly this bulkshit. Anyone want to see them give me your email and I'll send it to you