pie ūdens (35 metų)

Piedāvāju sievietei pa tikšanos 150-200€

Labdien meklēju uz pirmdienu pa dienu sievieti lai pasauļoties nūdistu pludmale Lielupe , paspēlēties ar Lovence un pasexot kkur meža . Es 30/187/80/18 . Dievinu kuni . Konfidenciāli . Nav komercija . Vieta un auto arī ir jurmala ja gribēsi nomazgāties vai turpinājumu . Atbraukšu pakaļ un aizvedīšu mājas . Привет . Ищу на понедельник днем девушку позагорать на нудистском пляже в лелупе , поиграть с Lovence и заняться сексом гдето в дюнах . Я 30/187/80/18 . Очень люблю Куни . Конфиденциально . Не комерция . Место и авто тоже есть в юрмале чтобы потом помыться или продолжить . Приеду заберу и отвезу домой .

Хочу найти женщину ПОЛНОГО телосложения, которой буду периодически лизать

Satikšos un dāsni atlīdzināšu koptai glītai meitenei.

Hey, varbūt kāda grib tikties ar 21 gadigu jaunu puisi

Aizbraukšu palaizīt jaukai, koptai dāmai. Varam sarunāt patstāvīgas tikšanās ar sexiņu. Attālumam un vecumam nav nozīmes.

Взрослый ухожен. Познакомлюсь с женщиной для приятных встреч. Мат поддержу. Есть место

Report design 0 - the report could be treated as a partial submission from the design point of view. The design does not follow the uniform style (different fonts, different styles etc). There are massive grammar errors, there are a lot of design issues that could be noted. The report should be rejected. 1-3: poor/weak design report most of the requirements are not followed. Major revision should be done. 4 – 7: the report design is moderate, there are some design issues, but in general, the report is designed in a uniform style. Minor revision should be done. 8 – 10: the report design follows a uniform style, there are no grammar errors or typos. Some small issues could be considered, but they are not impacting the quality of the report Maximum score10 Introduction 0 – no information is provided in this section, or it is not relevant. Partial submission. Report should be rejected. 1 – 5: the provided information is too generic and does not provide much value. Majority of the “must have items" are missing or are irrelevant. Major revision should be completed. 6 – 10: the introduction is moderate. All “must have" items are presented and they are relevant, but too generic to be valuable. Additional efforts should be put to extend and enrich this sections/specific items. Moderate revision should be completed. 11 – 15: introduction is good. All “must have" items are presented, they are relevant. Some corrections/change/update would be recommended. Minor revision should be completed. 16 – 20: Excellent introduction. All “must have" items are presented, they are specific and relevant. Only minor corrections/change/update could be recommended Maximum score20 State-of-art 0 - no information is provided in this section, or it is not relevant. Partial submission. Report should be rejected. 1-10: The report does not adequately summarize the state-of-art and does not provide a clear understanding of the current research landscape. 11-20: The report provides a basic summary of the state-of-art, but it is not comprehensive and may lack in-depth analysis or critical evaluation. 21-30: The report provides a good summary of the state-of-art, including relevant studies and key research findings, but it may lack a thorough analysis and synthesis of the literature. 31-40: The report provides an excellent summary of the state-of-art, with a thorough and critical analysis of the literature, and identifies gaps or limitations in the existing research. 41-50: The report provides an outstanding summary of the state-of-art, with a comprehensive and critical analysis of the literature that goes beyond the current research landscape and proposes innovative ideas or