Reply With Quote@Andrew V —Originally Posted by andrewv
I’m always up for a healthy debate.
Let’s make that clear upfront — this is not an argument.
No shots fired, no personal attacks. This is forum dialogue the way it should be — sharp, satirical, and (unlike some replies)… actually original.
But since you stepped in, let’s address what you said — and maybe what you didn’t realise you were doing.
⸻
“Take it easy, buddy.”
Classic tone-policing. You kicked it off with condescension before you even acknowledged the content.
I didn’t mention you.
Wasn’t writing about you.
But here you are — “buddy-ing” me from the sidelines like a dad trying to calm a 10-year-old with a melted Paddle Pop.
Let’s be real — this type of reply doesn’t add to the thread.
It’s not experience-based. It’s not intel.
Forum Rule 3 says no altercations — and framing a reply with low-key sarcasm like that isn’t a contribution, it’s bait.
⸻
“Sexual favours aren’t legal unless it’s a brothel…”
Ty.
Duh.
Freddy.
Mate, I’m talking hygiene, human psychology, emotional disconnect — and you pull out the legal script like you’re the compliance officer at Knock Shop HQ.
It’s the same energy as those “No sexual services offered here” signs taped above the bin — everyone sees them, no one believes them, and quoting it like scripture doesn’t elevate the convo — it just derails it.
That’s textbook thread derailment.
Forum Rule 3 again.
⸻
“Not compliant with consumer law.”
Come on now — I didn’t ask for a refund, I asked why half these punters walk into a room with BO and blind hope, and still expect fireworks.
This isn’t JB Hi-Fi, and no one’s trying to return a dodgy toaster. I was unpacking emotional value, expectation mismatches, and punter entitlement — and you’re reciting section 52 of the Fair Trading Act like we’re on a legal podcast.
If anything, that kind of off-topic flex feels more like attention-seeking than insight.
⸻
“This forum is for sharing intelligence…”
Exactly — which is what I did.
Only I wrapped my post in rhythm, satire, and actual layers.
You? You delivered a dry policy memo, slapped on some sarcasm, and called it “intelligence.”
Here’s the thing:
If we’re all just copy-pasting prices and NHJ summaries, this forum becomes a graveyard of half-baked stats.
Intelligence includes context, not just cost.
⸻
“We share so punters are prepared for let downs.”
Let downs?
That’s your baseline?
I’m not trying to prepare for garbage service — I’m trying to understand why the service is garbage in the first place.
I broke down a cultural trend. You called it overthinking.
But framing criticism as “too emotional” or “too intense” is another form of undermining contribution, especially when it’s aimed at tone instead of substance.
That kind of dismissiveness again flirts with Rule 3 — you’re not adding to the conversation, you’re trying to silence it.
⸻
“It’s only $100 and 60 minutes.”
And there it is — the spiritual shrug.
This is why the experience keeps degrading.
When punters reduce the whole thing to a “meh, move on,” we reinforce mediocrity.
You think it’s about money.
I think it’s about value.
You’re counting minutes.
I’m tracking meaning.
That’s the difference between transactional numbness… and insight.
⸻
So let’s wrap this up like adults:
I’m not attacking you, Andrew.
But you stepped into a thread about punter psychology, hygiene, fantasy, and self-reflection — and turned it into a courtroom monologue and a rulebook recitation.
That’s not how you contribute — that’s how you derail and police tone, which this forum’s rules clearly frown on.
If you’ve got experience to share, bring it.
If you’ve got insight, we’ll vibe.
But if you’re just here to nitpick tone, throw shade without review history, and regulate what should be posted — then maybe, just maybe…
you’re not defending the forum — you’re strangling it.
So again — healthy debate? Always.
Uninvited lectures in the wrong room?
I’ll take my massage from someone who actually offers it, thanks.
Cheers.
