| There are 20 comments on this blog. |
|
|
Maybe because you called her a whore?
Why did you rate her as unsafe?
|
|
|
Nope, I have never done so… I have been asking her to give me a reason but she hasn’t.
I’d be more than happy to post the PM’s, I’ve never called her names or anyone else in this community
|
|
|
First of all, is it 2 tacos a day or tacos 2 days in a row. Perhaps 2 days a week for tacos. I'd like to know.
What days, Tuesday and Thursday or Sunday and Wednesday. And what meal? Lunch or Dinner, could it be lunch and dinner. Breakfast, are tacos good for breakfast. Can you please clarify. I am at the edge of my seat. I need to know. We need to know!
|
|
|
I messed up on my handle! It was supposed to say taco2sdaytoday meaning every day is taco tuesday
|
|
|
No wonder she rated u neg
Probably a huge taco fan
I know I am..........pink tacos, of course
|
|
|
Yes, post up the PM's, both of you.
She can prove that you called her a wh*re. You can prove you didn't.
One of you is a liar.
|
|
|
@yellowb2, I think you guys are missing the point.. she didn’t rate me negatively because I allegedly called her out of character. She rated me red on Feb 1 and on her profile she stated —on April 8–that she had given me a red and she “ thinks I text her that week calling her a wh**e.. how can she possibly rate me red for it when the red had been there for 2 months?? She simply won’t give me or anyone here an explanation as to why, not even on her profile. May be she can be invited to explain to us all why..
|
|
|
.....and maybe you can explain why you rated her as unsafe.
|
|
|
And you do have an interesting history of giving out your ratings
|
|
|
@notsofast, is that a crime? Isnt the whole point of a rating system to rate accordingly? We’ve all had issues at one point and they get worked out and we move on.. what I’m trying to accomplish here is to know why she negatively rated me because she hasn’t provided a reason to me or anyone, she hasn’t even responded to the blog.. I’m not looking for a guilty verdict, I’m simply asking for an explanation.. I don’t think I’m being unreasonable
So, respectfully, don’t come at me with shoulders out… let’s be objective and hear both sides
|
|
|
This public blob is the place to accomplish that. FYI.
|
|
|
@candy
It is unfortunate you received those messages but that is not me.. I’m sure you can google the number etc.. I only a 562 number that I use for playing and my personal which is not an 818 number. I am 100% sure this is not me
|
|
|
I have so many things to say about this that I don't know where to begin. (But I will try!)
Firstly, whenever I see the ONLY negative rating from either party being against each other, the first thing I think of is a common case of "miscommunication"! This is especially true with members that don't have extensive networks (newbies are very susceptible to this). It is especially true when the negative rating happens early in someone's tenure on the site and they have had a "clean record" since then. Sometimes we have to just learn by our mistakes. I have always looked past these and found that the person I was interested in seeing did not resemble the person that was portrayed. If a person has more than 1 negative rating, or if the other person never responded to a negative rating put on them, then I will more than likely give credence to the majority opinion.
Secondly, the basis of the original complaint here seemed to pivot on multiple contacts that ultimately appeared to be a "waste of time". That is certainly frustrating, if not annoying, but it does not rise to the level of someone being "unsafe". There is not one question in the network rating questionnaire that addresses if some wasted your time. If someone actually makes a commitment, agreeing to see you on a specific date and time, at a specific place, and for a specific donation, and then is a "no-show" or short changes you, then that is a different matter and there are questions related to that (e.g., "commitment). Due to my above average donation expectations, a good 90% of the PM's I get never result in a session. These could be viewed as a "waste of time", but I consider it the nature of the business. And yes, there are some people out there that just bombard me with incessant questioning about everything under the sun (more of an attempt at free phone sex) without ever making an appointment - and yes, I do get annoyed by it - but my solution to that is to either a) start to ignore them or,  just block them.
Thirdly, when these types of disagreements happen and are not resolved quickly, it is kind of human nature to lash out and start name-calling. Sad but true. But this tit-for-tat kind of bickering is only hurting both parties. Each one will suffer from a prospective provider or client that see some value in either one or the other arguments. Hence, this is a lose-lose proposition. Each party only hurts themselves in furthering the disagreement.
The rating system on HX is structured to provide information to both the providers and the hobbyists. It is a means of signaling to other members that you are proven to be safe (from a physical standpoint), reliable (from a commitment standpoint), and not working for or associated with any organization that could lead to legal problems. It is not a tool for revenge!
My suggestion is that both parties remove their negative ratings of the other party and move on. If you really don't want anything to do with the other person then simply block them. If another member should PM you specifically asking about that other person then feel free to give your unvarnished opinion - but don't declare them to be unsafe as a means of revenge. If that sort of thing is left unchecked it will ruin this site and all it stands for - which would be a shame!
|
|
|
Marrisa ❤️ ❤️ ❤️
You have said that eloquently
|
|
|
And I want to add that I recently had someone "Okie-Doke" me and after some careful thought realized that the person may have hacked a user's account. His name included the work "taco" (see ratings I issued on April 19, 2022) but I do not think this is the same person as "TacoLoverToday Today", which I have seen before and rated favorably (not passing judgment one way or the other in reference to the above). This person only had 2 people in his network and the most recent one was from 2016. I did not consider that as a huge red flag due to the fact that I have met several people that have gone quiet because they got married, then became active again after they got divorced. But this person asked way too many questions (HX messages) which I saw as an attempt to engage me in sexting and when I started to shut him down he then committed to an appointment (when they confirm by text I consider that a "commitment"). Then he asked to extend the appointment start time because he was late leaving his place in the IE a little late. When he was 10 minutes late for the appointment I texted him and asked for an ETA - he claimed unusual traffic. When he was 25 minutes late for the appointment I again asked for and ETA - he said he was "close" but had a flat tire on the freeway. At that point I realized that between the excessive messaging on HX and the delays associated while we were texting, I was probably being played so I told him if he could not get here within the next 30 minutes that it would have to wait for another day! When he never responded to that text at all I surmised that I had been played. I gave him a negative rating on both "commitment" (failed to keep an appointment after he had confirmed by text) and for "safety", primarily because I felt that the level of deceit he portrayed was a danger, not just because I was pissed at him for burning an appointment time.
The point I am trying to make is that I am not really sure that this person really was the HX person in the profile. I have had NUMEROUS people contact me pretending to be on HX, only to find that they cannot send a basic (and free) "kiss" flirt to me, so the question is always "who are they really?". So the bottom line is this; the negative rating will remain. If it is not challenged then either this guy truly did hack the site or the true profile holder is not longer active (which isn't a problem as long as he stays inactive). Or, the true account holder did become active again and is no longer the person he was back in 2016 (drug problem?). So no matter what, the negative rating stands unless the true account holder challenges me on it, at which time I will consider removing it if a plausible explanation is given. But you will notice he never gave a negative rating in return (revenge) so I think I really did do the right thing!
|
|
|
Marissa_G, you sound so smart and eloquent, I want to see you just for those attributes, not to mention your fantastic body; if only I could afford you on my fixed income; LOL.
|
|
|
I think Candy is tired of the booolshit. Don't know who is responsible for it but she's over it already I guarantee it.
|
|
|
Anyone who survived Attila is stronger than I am.
|
|
|
Zombie blog.
|
|
|
Do you think the Admin brings them back up top to keep things fresh with churn?
|
| There are 20 comments on this blog. |
