refuting inaccurate criticism
Before I chose to visit an all men's “club”, I read the reviews on this site. At first I had doubts about Tandem because there was a lengthy, horrendous write-up. There is also another lengthy, but positive, review. Barenaked is ridiculously inaccurate, and Shynn accurately refutes Barenaked's harsh and unreasonable criticism.
Tandem is outstanding in all areas: staff congeniality, cleanliness and atmosphere. The food is an unexpected and welcome treat. Barenaked, I've been to hole-in-the-wall clubs with activity in the basement, and the seediness is appropriate atmosphere. But Tandem looks like an annex to a luxury hotel and earns 5 stars.
By evening's end, I did not have a good experience, however. It was not the staff that was indifferent, but the patrons. I'm old-fashioned: Conversation is foreplay; no emotional connection, no sexual response. But I can't blame Tandem, can I, Barenaked? To paraphrase Shakespeare, The fault is not in the stars, dear Barenaked, but in ourselves.
As for writing reviews, I avoid participating because they are time-consuming and thankless experiences. However, a serious injustice has been committed to Tandem which needs to be remedied, especially if it involves the fate of a business enterprise. Consider a motive: The unfair reviewer may be affiliated with Tandem's competition.
I can think of two solutions, one involving this website. Someone from this website should visit Tandem. Or Barenaked should be given a guest pass so that he can reevaluate his review. And if he refuses to return (which I'm sure that he won't), then his review should be appropriately removed.
Review sites serve purposes. They are a layman's version of the Better Business Bureau. But the BBR acts as intermediary and does not blindly accept one point of view. Otherwise, the power of a BBC can be abused. Which unfortunately is what is occurring to Tandem.