Reviews and Undecover Inspections

A couple of Saturday ago, I woke up to an email alerting me that a review of my glorious performance had been posted on a popular review board. This is my second forray into the Zagat of companions. My first review itself was OK, but the questions that followed made me uncomfortable, so I requested it removed. That was awhile back.

I met the writer of my second review shortly before the said piece was written. He didn't directly ask or state that he had such a writerly ambitions, but did allude that he was curious about the entire review boards. I was ambivalent in my preference to be or not to be review, which I suppose he took as a permission, or an ambivalence, to it being published.

I read the review quickly. It was detailed. But it was accurate. I decided that I didn't care either way and left it be.

Life went on.

I read the Sunday NY Times. I read the Journal. I watched some porn.

Then, I read the New Yorker.

A quick scan of the table of contents immediately had me flipping to this article about the undercover world of Micheline inspectors immediately grabbed my attention.

"Maxine eats out more than 200 days of the year, lunch and dinner."
"She is required to eat everything on her plate."
"[S]he sould go home directly after finishing dessert and paying her bill, and begin filling out her report.."
"[S]he would list every ingredient in everything she ate, and the specifics of every preparation. She would rate these according to several criteria..."

Maxine's undercover work oddly sounded familiar.

I asked the writer to have his masterpiece removed. The board needed a confirmation from me that I wanted removed. Several emails later, it is now gone.

Another issue New Yorker arrived.

I dined at a Micheline rated restaurant.

I watched some porn.