angus.mcgongagle

Not sure of your preferred "type" but try Namfon on BP. Decent quality massage plus bonus shower time.

Here were my recommendations to the OP, all of which I have or will have reviewed once I've seen them more than once: Heather Noel (the only rated NQNS of the bunch [snip}) [snip} Sultry Samantha Sheppard (spit but CIM 2nd best quality of the bunch) [snip} Diamond (no CIM, but the best quality of the bunch) [snip} Anastasia [snip} [snip}

I for one would've liked to see a communal response to the OP's question that was more in line with the question he asked rather than a diatribe on the 'rules' of the board or the nebulous definition of 'best or better'. Regardless, at risk of being heretical here's my two cents worth: As has been mentioned by previous posters, there is an air of uncertainty as to whether a simple kindly reply to the OP's question by recommending providers as a direct reply on the discussion board is against the 'rules' of the board. This sadly is the nature of the wording of rules and laws as they are not really black or white, but are more of a grey border of vaguery in the middle of an issue. We are still able to respond via PM's, so directly responding to the OP isn't an issue. What is problematic is that we all can't benefit from such queries and the communal function of such a discussion board when responses are only doable when they're private. And yes having such a rule to prevent schilling, etc... makes sense, but only up to a point. Perhaps slightly rewording or adding a qualifier to the rule is in order? Previous posters have also mentioned that the OP, and buy extension others, can go search the reviews, etc... themselves. But that too negates the function of a communal discussion board such as this. Many of us are probably here to learn from the experience, thoughts, and beliefs of others. Are the review sites and this sort of community board two distinct and different things? Surely there is room for some overlap. And yes these review sites contain info on providers, but sometimes those sites' search functions are ineffective, possibly as a result of poor design or they simply don't provide the option of a particular search query. Being newish to the game, I'm not fully aware of all the review sites out there, or available search terms, or terminology, etc... so maybe that would've been more helpful for others to post. I also have seen sites that appear to be review related, but after closer examination are more ad-like in nature. And Google searching isn't the answer either. The suspect and commercial nature of Google and it's elephantine preponderance of data available make the suggestion to just Google it foolish. If that were the reasonable response to the OP or any question for that matter, then why even have this or similar boards in the first place since the information in theory is contained out on the web somewhere. Lastly, despite the above and other issues, responses from the community on the best BJ providers remains a worthy discussion. For example I would've liked to have seen the experienced knowledgable members here talk about: - Are BBBJ's better? - Are they wise/safe? ...or what level of provider will/won't provide it? - Are unsafer providers (eg drug users or STD positive) more likely to offer BBBJ's? - Ratio wise what's the prevalence of providers who offer BBBJ's vs covered? ...or offer NQNS? ...or even allow CIM? - What's the reality of a provider listing BBBJ's, etc... as a service on p411 for example and they ultimately don't provide it at all? - What's the difference if the provider doesn't offer BBBJ's, etc... but is okay with DATY/DFK? - What's the implication of a YMMV description of a provider on whether BBBJ's a available? - Are review sites even reliable since the info they contain is theoretically 'fictional' and are dependent upon the format constraints of the site, the type of info provided buy the reviewer, and by the reviewers writing ability? Thank you for your ear/time. That is all.

Thanks for the feedback everybody. I'm newish @<a year to the hobby and although I dine from the straight side of the salad bar, I thought these ads would be helpful in learning/discussing the tricks and gotchas of ferreting out the good ads from the bad ones. Of note I found the following of interest: - As already mentioned, the same photos and phone numbers in both ads. - Also as already mentioned, both ads have different names for likely the same provider. - Both ads have similar yet different physical descriptions (5'5" & 130lbs and 5'4" & 135lbs). And cup size of 32A? Please, I have a 32A. - There appears to be none to little history of this phone number in the hobby. - The escort ad uses the phrase "passable" as already noted earlier. - Is there any significance or hidden meaning to the "&&"? I'm thinking it's a substitute for TS. - The TS ad ironically mentions "no scams". A TS posting an ad in the escort section is interesting. Certainly this would increase his/her abilities to attract patrons, but it speaks of dishonesty when the type of provider is not clearly indicated in the ad. I imagine a phone call with said individual could clarify any confusion, but it's kinda shady nonetheless and maybe it wouldn't clarify anything until you saw the "package" in person. As I said I'm new but, I don't think I've seen any TS's posting ads in straight escort sections before. The quasi duplicity of the ads would, if nothing else make me very suspect of my safety. - Historically over the last month both ads seem to be reposted every other day or so in either section and for different locations each time. - From a marketing perspective this individual seems kind of savvy. As I said above, having an ad in both places increases visibility, also the usage of two different names allows this person to determine from where prospective clients learned about him/her.

Saw an add on BP the other day and when researching the phone # (484-791-2532) another add popped up showing a TS provider. Same pics used in both. Any thoughts.