Hornnygenerator et al who made positive comments: thank you. If you like genuinely young, sweet, fresh and authentic Korean providers, and prefer dessert to deserts, yes -- you should definitely check out Nicole!
To the troll handles and 'Quark' (who says in post 17 above):
Quote:
|
Only images posted by the provider may be shared openly. If they find value in sharing images, they need to get an account here and put up a showcase.
|
That may be what Quark and related handles want, but
it's not at all what the image guidelines say. They say:
"Male members may only post photos of ladies that the lady herself has made available in her posts on ECCIE or the publicly viewable portion of her website or another publicly available internet source." (emphasis added)
Which is precisely what I did in posting the links from the spa-approved website (first ban) and from stock publicly available internet images of the sort found in the Quark (or for that matter the Chung) handles. Nothing more than a good faith attempt to comply -- and certainly
not the deliberate or intentional violation Quark/Chung/Purlie have
repeatedly and falsely alleged.
But the image guidelines supposedly apply to avatars as well ("all members should take note that avatar photos are also included in these guidelines"), so thousands (including Quark!) would be banned if they actually were so applied (equally and consistently). Blurred or blocked faces don't matter as I routinely do that too.
So 'Quark' (and 'Chung' and 'Purlie' and related troll handles), despite your repeatedly, ironically, and hilariously hectoring people for
supposed reading comprehension problems, you obviously can’t read or write proficiently (
“role call” [sic]?) or understand basic English well.
At a minimum. IMHO, the image guidelines need clarification, and whatever rules there are should be apply to all rationally, consistently, and fairly.
