|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » User Ranks » User Post History |
Post History:
Tree Rodent (0)
|
| 501-550 of 708 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 10 | Page 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | Next Page > |
| 03-31-09 06:16pm - 5745 days | #6 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User  Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I don't know how anyone could be surprised by this. But sometimes they are. Not me. As always, I believe the law is made by and for the rich and powerful, so I'm not the slightest surprised. The law is complicated and convoluted enough so that the rich and powerful can make it work for them and against the rest. It means if you have money you can afford to buy yourself a better deal than if you're poor. That applies in life across the board. Yes it's lousy, but that's the way it's always been and always will be. There is no justice, but as I have said before, we are all animals. If you look at nature, the strongest, and most ruthless always win. The poor, weak, and defenseless suffer incredible pain, anguish, and death. It's never going to change. Ik2, I think the fine was pretty disgusting, and I really don't think it would make any difference to them that you had a genuine badge. Just the opposite. These are the sort of people who revel in making the law work against the unimportant masses. You may challenge the fine and win. But the very fact that you will have an expensive, challenging, and hard fight, both financially and mentally, is by design. Even if you win, it's a demonstration that once again, the majority don't count, and are there to be bullied and exploited. It's not that you can't win, it's just that the fight is meant to be impossibly hard, as a demonstration to everyone, just who counts and who doesn't. | |
|
||
| 03-28-09 07:25pm - 5748 days | #9 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I just get the warm glow of satisfaction from knowing that sort of organisation will never get my money. If I was really desperate to get their stuff I would download it for free. But it's just the same as all the other stuff anyway. There's plenty of legit sites that don't practice regional discrimination. None of those that do will ever get my money. I have no problems about ripping that sort of company off and downloading for free, but those sites don't have such outstanding stuff, that it's really worth searching the file sharing sites for. | |
|
||
| 03-27-09 04:29pm - 5750 days | #2 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Sounds like a good idea. It encourages newer more active members, and reflects their more recent contributions, but any changes take time and money to implement. It wont affect me, as I will always be numero settantuno anyway. | |
|
||
| 03-19-09 06:38pm - 5757 days | #40 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Great post Wittyguy. I always thought of the Australians as a relatively civilised and open country. So much for that. There's nothing more dangerous for your safety than to expose government lies or deceits, so I'm not surprised about the government's reaction. A few of us have been thinking all along that these sort of moves are not about child porn, but about censorship and control of a more dangerous nature. Only thing is, I didn't expect their bullshit to be exposed so quickly. | |
|
||
| 03-19-09 09:45am - 5758 days | #4 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I do agree with what you are saying, and there is no questioning your integrity IMO. But if it becomes well known that a site offers a freebie for glowing reviews, then that potentially gives some problems to PU. As always, people can exploit goodwill and honesty to their own ends. I believe the site offered you the freebie with really good intentions, and you accepted it with integrity intact. Trouble is, people always seem to know how to use loopholes, and have a way of dragging people down to their level. Unscrupulous sites and reviewers could use that sort of thing to their advantage. Good thread by the way! | |
|
||
| 03-19-09 09:00am - 5758 days | #2 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
No is the short answer. Here is the reasoning. I think most of the long time members on this site know who the trustworthy ones are. I don't think there is any question of your integrity being questioned. But Khan and Rick may have a problem with this sort of thing because, although the reliable ones here aren't going to ask for any freebies, a situation could arise where newer or unreliable ones start asking for freebies of some sort. So Rick and Khan may well object to it, even though I think they probably know you are going to do honest reviews and give honest opinions. Do I have double standards? Yes, most definitely, and I don't mind admitting to it. Because of the quality of contributions from Denner, Toadsith, Messmer, Wittyguy, Drooler, Pat, Monahan, Exotics, Andy, Ace and a number of othe regulars, I am going to give them a greater amount of leeway on this sort of thing. That's just me. My opinion doesn't really count as it's not my site. The owner and manager may well disagree with my and your opinions, and say this breaks the rules or goes very close to breaking the rules. Some members will disagree, some will agree. I always consider trust is built up over a period of time. The ones I mention, are to me the most trustworthy. I am a relative newbie, so I have a long way to go, as do others, before people should start trusting us. This is in a sort of grey area, although once again, Rick and Khan may disagree. Personally I think it's okay, especially where it's stated. But the people who own and run this site have to be very careful about freebies of any kind, because of objections from sites who may consider a review clouded because of favouritism. To me, there is no question about your opinions being trustworthy. But I realise Rick and Khan may not like it. Then again they may totally surprise me by saying it's okay. So that's one more thing I am going to get wrong. Edited on Mar 19, 2009, 09:05am | |
|
||
| 03-18-09 07:05pm - 5758 days | #29 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Yeah loved it! I still use that phrase. Tom Baker is also one of my favourite Doctors. Maybe William Hartnell was my favourite, even though the special effects were so dodgy, but for its day it was remarkable. His acting overcame the badly painted sets. | |
|
||
| 03-18-09 03:16pm - 5759 days | #26 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I like the original ST series, and then TNG. I also like the movies. But I am pleased to see Babylon 5 given a mention. For me this is one of my favourite 3 TV series of all time. (The Avengers and The Prisoner being the other 2). I also thoroughly enjoyed the Lost In Space series, which I am old enough to have watched first time round. Doctor Who and Torchwood are great too. Even though I loved the Star Trek and TNG series, they could be a bit sanctimonious at times. | |
|
||
| 03-18-09 11:38am - 5759 days | #2 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I have to say I didn't know about that policy. If the foreign language site is a reputable one I don't know why PU do not include it, and why you're not allowed to review it. After all, it is more money for them, the more links are clicked. | |
|
||
| 03-17-09 04:02pm - 5760 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I was just wondering why people leave this forum. I am someone who is a member of a few forums, as many of you are. The only reasons I have had for leaving a forum were because, either there was censorship that I did not like, or because I did not like the owners or moderators. I am still wondering why Cybertoad left without a word of farewell. I sort of feel guilty because I called him a lawyer, and disagreed with him over the blacklist of rogue sites. But even then I could see his point. I hope that wasn't part of what made him leave, he was one of my favourites. Looking down the list I can see a number of people who used to contribute but no longer do. There will be periods when I will not be visiting this site, or I may leave because of a disagreement over censorship, or whatever, but I find it strange that people sort of disappear without a word of goodbye, especially when the forum seems to consist of people who can argue without getting really angry or silly. There seems to be a genuine feeling of bonhomie amongst most members. I wonder what makes them leave and why. If any of you leave, will you say goodbye, or just leave? What would make you leave this site? Edited on Mar 17, 2009, 04:05pm | |
|
||
| 03-17-09 11:46am - 5760 days | #6 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I have just sent the following email to Epoch billing concerning New Sensations. I followed the link from The Best Porn in order to get the New Sensations $14.95 offer. I found the site seems to support regional discrimination. The price is now £13.95. I find this an insult and am urging everyone on Porn Users to boycott these sites. I would never join a site that discriminates against me in this way. I have heard the arguments for this sort of discrimination, and I find them dishonest and an insult. It's just best to say "we are going to get out of you what we can, as europeans are stupid enough to pay more for the same service. Not me. | |
|
||
| 03-14-09 06:25pm - 5762 days | #2 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Good to see you're carrying on the protest. Time is money, so even if they don't reduce the ripoff prices for Europeans, they still have to deal with the enquiry. It also lets them know they are losing customers, if you don't subscribe after you complain to them about the regional discrimination. My cure is very simple. If they have regional discrimination, don't subscribe. This is the only way to make it disappear. Carry on the good work Denner. | |
|
||
| 03-14-09 01:51pm - 5763 days | #7 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Holy shit! Small world! They may well be our one hope when things start getting really bad. Or maybe I'm just being really negative. It is in my nature to be really negative, but I don't like the way things are going. Denner - check em out and see what you think. They have some great stuff on there. | |
|
||
| 03-14-09 11:03am - 5763 days | #4 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I very much agree with you Denner, both on the freedom of the internet thing and respecting the wishes of those who own and run this place. There is an organisation called the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who are perfectly legal but challenge copyright law and restrictions on freedom of expression, and those who would invade our privacy. I think you and others may well be interested in checking them out. TBP and the EFF may well be bedfellows in the future if things keep going the way they are going. | |
|
||
| 03-12-09 08:38pm - 5764 days | #8 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
In no way do I think it's easy running a site like this. But for what it's worth, I think the decision taken is the best one, even though I may sound critical at times. On the one hand I hate to see a bunch like that get any publicity of any kind, but I am hoping it will be counter productive when people see the comments from the members here. | |
|
||
| 03-12-09 05:53pm - 5765 days | #2 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
At first I was going to pm Rick or Khan to ask them what we should do. It occurred to me that maybe what they wanted, was for us to just ignore the site totally. I was thinking maybe we should do the opposite and with their permission, register twice just so we could do a review, without joining the site of course, and awarding it 50. I am sure we could do a better review after not joining the site than those other dickheads can do. Maybe the site considers bad publicity better than no publicity. Either way, in the end I don't really care, as it's Rick and Khan's problem, not mine. I am sure they are working on something in the background. If this is the fallout from having this particular system, then they either have to live with it or change it. Either way it isn't my problem. I have made a few comments about how it can be open to exploitation in recent times. As far as I can make out or care, the site in question seems to consist of some greasy bloke shaving his legs, and shoving objects up his arse (ass if you're American). The site is clearly so bereft of content and quality the reviewers don't dare to give specifications. If anyone reads those phony reviews and then joins the site, they are so ignorant, dumb, and lacking in intelligence, they deserve to lose their money. Those sort of suckers are going to lose their money one way or another. It's the law of natural financial selection. | |
|
||
| 03-12-09 06:37am - 5765 days | #36 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Who's paying for all this monitoring? The people of course. There is the usual unholy alliance of the groups who really do think they have a hotline to god and moral righteousnes, with vested interests who stand to make big bucks, if the internet is strictly controlled. I have been saying since I have been on here, that this could well be the golden age of porn, and better make the most of it. It isn't going to last. International laws will become more and more convoluted, which really suits the powers that be anyway. As always they can just interpret these laws in the way that they choose, in order to go after the people they choose to go after. Anyone who thinks something as vast and profitable as the internet, is going to be allowed to run for the benefit of the people, is off their tiny rocker. | |
|
||
| 03-09-09 01:07pm - 5768 days | #18 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Yes, I hate those really strong accents myself. The opposite of public school is not the way I have heard it described, but it fits perfectly. (Yes, "common" would be a good description, which makes me sound snobby - but I am English after all). Another awful accent is a really strong New York (especially Bronx or Queens), or Yankee type accent. Whereas I quite like a really strong Southern or even Californian accent. My favourite is South Carolina. | |
|
||
| 03-08-09 06:14pm - 5768 days | #15 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. All the times I have visited I never realised it was a Sunday only thing. One thing's for sure, the U.S. is a great place to eat! | |
|
||
| 03-07-09 05:15pm - 5769 days | #11 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Yes "hot toddy" or "a nice piece of totty" or "a tasty bit of crumpet" all amounts to the same thing. I may have mentioned this before but, one of the strangest local terms comes from the country folk of Hertfordshire, where they have an unusual word for a midday snack. That's the snack between breakfast and lunch. I think Americans call it "brunch" and most of the UK calls it "elevenses," but in that particular part of the country it is called "beaver" (I kid you not). So many a time I have heard some good old boy say that "I'm off to eat my beaver." There's no real reply to that. | |
|
||
| 03-02-09 06:28am - 5775 days | #17 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Be quiet jd1961, or I shall be forced to explode peace keeping devices to keep you quiet err....I mean to bring peace to your words of mass destruction...err I mean weapons of mass destruction. | |
|
||
| 02-27-09 05:31am - 5778 days | #25 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Thanks Drooler. I was beginning to feel mean and over critical with my rating. At least someone agrees with my rating, and since it is one of the big guns, I feel it wasn't too harsh a review. (Although from the avatar, maybe that should read "one of the big gums.") | |
|
||
| 02-26-09 11:03am - 5779 days | #6 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Thanks. Sounds like good advice. Just wish I'd got the external drive sooner. | |
|
||
| 02-26-09 10:32am - 5779 days | #4 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
So I presume it is better, if you store on an external drive, to transfer the files to computer before playing? I took the advice of you and Khan and others to get an external drive. I have already backed up my files on to it and am very happy with it. I wish I had done this before. It's just I presume it is better to play directly from your computer than from the external drive. | |
|
||
| 02-26-09 09:51am - 5779 days | #3 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I generally join sites with good customer service, or at least those not considered bad. Thanks to this site I can do that with some confidence. When I cancel I usually give at least 7 days notice. If I do not get a confirmation I continually email and pester until I do. If I do not get a reply I then email and add that I will be contacting my credit card company to challenge any further charges. If it got worse than that I would contact my credit card company and, if necessary, cancel my credit card. This would cause an awful lot of annoyance to the credit card company, who would then pass this on to the website. I haven't really even got close to that stage. Basically what has happened is that my cancellation has gone through and I have been notified. If I don't get the cancellation confirmation, I just end up being a bloody nuisance until I do get some sort of reply. | |
|
||
| 02-26-09 05:34am - 5779 days | #10 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
It's probably cos I'm nuts. | |
|
||
| 02-25-09 06:21pm - 5779 days | #8 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Since poor old Wittyguy started this thread with good intent I shall add my usual depressive thoughts. Obama seems like a decent guy. My worry is, it doesn't seem to matter what race, creed, colour, sex, or sexuality finds some power. They generally act in the same way all those grey old men in suits act, no matter what hopes the people have when they first come to power. In other words they are batting for the rich, powerful and privileged minority. The second observation is the number of times you see the media try to point out how low taxes help to drive the economy. I have seen very few individual and independant economists actually support this point of view. In fact I have heard them say just the opposite. They quite often consider there is absolutely no proof that low taxes help drive the economy in the long run. The reverse is usually the case. The reason you see reports in the media about how good low taxes are, is because they media is owned by very rich people who, believe it or not, don't really want to pay high taxes. When I first studied economics a long time ago there was a cross section of different thoughts and theories. A bit like scientists arguing over whether there were really 10 or 11 dimensions. Nothing much has changed. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, while the rich pretend what social consciences they have and really want to help the poor. As Darwin realised we are animals. The weak go to the wall. Deep down we are all treading on one another and don't care who we hurt to stay on top. I have no faith in human beings or the human race. Those we perceive to be the bad guys i.e. the totally ruthless will stay on top no matter who they hurt, and will nearly always win. Those we perceive to be the good guys i.e. those who we consider love their fellow human beings, are doomed to lose. There will always be a few powerful people who rule and stay happy while the other 99 per cent will lead desperately unhappy and painful lives. This is the way of the animal kingdom. Edited on Feb 25, 2009, 06:25pm | |
|
||
| 02-25-09 05:52pm - 5779 days | #36 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Welcome to the site. I'm a newbie myself. I think you can discuss just about anything here on the forum, but the reviewing is separate. You can only review the sites that have the review link. | |
|
||
| 02-25-09 05:08pm - 5779 days | #5 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Well at least he isn't gay. | |
|
||
| 02-25-09 03:32pm - 5780 days | #2 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
What?! - you mean Obama's BLACK?!!! | |
|
||
| 02-25-09 08:03am - 5780 days | #15 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I agree with the comments. Yes I think my score is low, but only using PU members marking, not my own criteria, which I would argue follows PU's and TBP's original criteria, but not the real way sites are marked. So many here and on TBP, seem to mark so abnormally high that a score of 88 could almost be construed as a poor site (at least relative to a lot of the others). I would say a mark of 84-86 is maybe fairer in many respects. I have not allowed for the difficulty in getting the site together and online. A bit like a rock concert. Everything is chaos beforehand but the performance is great on the night, without anyone knowing all the bad stuff and panic that lead up to a great concert. So I do take my hat off to the people that got it together. The relationship between members and owners here is to a certain extent symbiotic, at least at the moment. We may be on different sides of the industry but PU helps both fair porn websites and fair customers, while at the same time making a profit. | |
|
||
| 02-25-09 07:03am - 5780 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I absolutely hate sites that are filled with girls that have tattoos and/or fake breasts. I know I am not alone. It's the reason I would never join Brazzers, Reality Kings, or Naughty America sites. Virtually every girl on those sites seem to have either a tattoo or fake breasts, or both. What do you think are the sites with the best tattoo or fake breast ratio? My guess is the best TR or FBR would be around 50 per cent on any site. It seems at least 50 per cent of girls in porn now have at least one of those, and the best site would probably be one that only has 50 per cent of girls with one of those mutilations. | |
|
||
| 02-24-09 03:14pm - 5781 days | #6 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Well I could say you're wrong but.... The review is for PU. What I was referring to was not necessarily the reviews, but the way the place is run and managed in order to make a profit. One of these things is the way the rogue sites are pointed out, and also the way raffle tickets are awarded for reviews. Also anything that is posted on here has to be moderated, and is moderated by management. Therefore anything that appears here has gone through some sort of filter. Who knows what is left out. Maybe nothing at all. But as the site is a business, things are naturally geared towards customers linking to sites which can make money for PU. I am not totally sucspicious of this, but I am aware of it. As Rick has intimated, it is a very difficult thing to tread that fine line between review and business. This theme is as relevant here, as on TBP, because the whole site is a business geared towards getting people to join sites which brings in revenue. I do not mean this as a criticism but it is how it works. I think they have made it work very well, and with some integrity too. So although the site contains reviews by members, it is run by people who make money by getting customers to join sites through links from this site. Therefore everything that appears here has to be viewed in this light. | |
|
||
| 02-24-09 02:43pm - 5781 days | #4 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Thanks Rick - I don't do that many reviews, mainly because I only review sites I genuinely want to join, but I do mark considerably lower than the average reviewer. Therefore I think 83 is well deserved, and I'm glad you didn't take offence. That review and its contents is the one I would post if PU was doing reviews of...PU. This place is still the only porn review or forum around that I take notice of. | |
|
||
| 02-24-09 01:57pm - 5781 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Yes here it is. Totally unwanted and not asked for by anybody. This is what my review of PU would be if reviewing for another site. Rating 83 Pros Surprisingly intelligent members who can discuss things and argue without falling out and resorting to insults. Generally objective and intelligent reviews containing both pros and cons. The site is run by the amiable Rick and managed by the crusty but amiable Khan. They make enough contributions so the site does not become something run by a faceless corporation, while at the same time managing not to over interfere or intrude. The whole layout and look of the site is very customer friendly. Everything is linked in a very effective and easy to use way. Some good bargains for members when they use links from PU to reviewed sites. There seems to be some integrity with PU, as the real rogue sites do at least carry some sort of warning, but you really have to search. Members are genuine fans of porn, and are for the most part given a free reign to say what they wish, without censorship. Cons The site is a business which makes money by linking to the sites that are reviewed. This means it is bad business to be too critical, so not everything on the site can be trusted. There is no list of rogue sites, for instance. There are far too many reviews by newbies some of whom, are really lousy at reviewing. Too many reviews by members who just seem to join sites in order to review and then continuously give ridiculously high marks. There is too much quantity which buries the quality. By its very nature, the site falls to the lowest common denominator at times, resulting in difficulty sifting the majority of rubbish from the genuine quality. A system that awards comments, reviews or trust votes with raffle tickets can unbalance the objectivity of opinions. There is too much concentration on the reviews and too little on the forum, which is more relaxed. The problem here is the same as with any other forum: there are too few regular members who contribute. The raffle tickets are given for reviews which results in the forum being the poor relation. Bottom Line An entertaining and enjoyable site which contains some integrity. Most of the opinions seem to be open and honest. There seems to be too much rubbish to sift through, but at the same time management does not want to discourage anyone fron contributing. It's just at times there is TOO MUCH information available, and you really do have to work to find some opinions from the more reliable members, who have tastes similar to your own. | |
|
||
| 02-24-09 06:21am - 5781 days | #16 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I agree Wittyguy. It's why I said the more you stick your neck out, the more likely you are to get a negative. In fact the more you care, and the more passionate you are, the more likely you are to get a negative. The management here likes them so they're staying. I don't like them at all. That's irrelevant because I have nothing to do with the place. But if they are going to keep them, I think the system is about as fine tuned as it is going to get. Following on from your post, I think the ones who care the most, are the ones most likely to get a negative. This ties back with the disagreement I was having with some members about lists of rogue sites. Once again, management do not want them. I am repeating myself once again but, everything ties in with my opinion from last year. America is too much about not offending people. Excellence is a no no. Incisive, intelligent conversation and criticism is a no no, because people could get offended, and that could harm profits. America has evolved a system where you make the most out of offending the least number of people, by appealing to the lowest common denominator. My country is going along those lines too, although I don't think it's as bad yet. Having said all that, I still think this is possibly the most intelligent porn site. They have to run a fine line where they can make a profit, not offend too many people, run the place efficiently, and still keep it entertaining. | |
|
||
| 02-20-09 05:23pm - 5784 days | #3 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Love that new avatar. Brilliant! There's a real shortage of genuine orgy material. For those of you who don't know, an orgy is not two couples having sex. This is probably going to be more expensive to shoot because you have more people to pay. The nice thing about videos of orgies is because you have to see a lot of people having sex at once, you don't get all those really tedious boring close ups. I agree about one of the biggest turn offs being just close ups of groins banging away. I want to see the whole model and I love hardcore. Orgies are a bit different. You see very little genuine orgy material around. Videos of orgies shot in an "as it happens" sort of way make great viewing. Edited on Feb 20, 2009, 05:27pm | |
|
||
| 02-20-09 02:19pm - 5785 days | #7 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Although I personally don't like the trust ratings thing, I not only believe you, I think the system you now have in place is excellent, if you are going to have trust ratings. If webmasters really did want to get a negative in they would be able to, in the same way anyone who has a personal grudge against another member would be able to. No system is perfect. I do think what you have done though, is vastly improve things over the months I have been observing you. | |
|
||
| 02-19-09 07:06pm - 5785 days | #5 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I fully realise that webmasters can't give trust ratings, but I am well aware it is more than possible and likely, to get someone linked with a website (a shill), to register and then give a negative. It is still possible to do this, as all you have to do is leave a reason, but it does make it a lot more difficult. (Yes I also realise you have to have 5 points to vote, but it is still fairly easy to get 5 points for a few simple reviews - it isn't like qualification for Mensa or a university degree). I also think the policy makes it more difficult for someone who has a personal grudge or dislike of another member to leave a negative. Naturally it gets the thumbs up from me. I realise this is Rick's site with some great management from you, Khan. I am always grumbling and trying to change things (been doing that for 40 years), but I do think this helps the integrity and feel of the place. | |
|
||
| 02-19-09 06:41pm - 5785 days | #3 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Great stuff. I think the decision improves the integrity of the place. It makes it more difficult to blemish someone's record because you either have a personal grudge, or are involved with a website that has been given a bad review. It is still possible to do this, but the new policy makes it harder. Edited on Feb 19, 2009, 06:55pm | |
|
||
| 02-19-09 06:38pm - 5785 days | #24 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Great stuff. | |
|
||
| 02-19-09 06:20am - 5786 days | #19 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
There's the dichotomy. Gonzo is supposed to be about real sex, and putting the viewer directly into the scene, as he has sex with beautiful women. You are supposed to be part of it. Unless you visit prostitutes an awful lot, Gonzo seems to have the exact opposite effect. None of the women look or dress like normal women. The down to earth Gonzo niche has evolved into something totally different. There is nothing much more unnatural than Gonzo, especially given the nasty turn a lot of the stuff has taken. I still think Buttman was the best producer of straight porn ever. He was one of the originators of Gonzo, and for me, got it just about right. Edited on Feb 19, 2009, 06:23am | |
|
||
| 02-18-09 09:35am - 5787 days | #15 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Maybe it's for a number of reasons. Things generally seem to evolve. Porn makers probably think that this is what is wanted by porn watchers. Models think a certain look is what is wanted to get a job. Also models may well want to distance themselves from the job. They may consider that it is a different "me" doing all that on video, to normal life. It could be that what you see is what you get, and there's no getting away from it. Someone I used to know was going out with a "posh girl." He met her parents and commented " they can always tell can't they? They knew I was dead common from the moment I walked through that door. How can they tell?" Err...well they just can and that's it. As Oscar Wilde said, "only a fool doesn't judge by appearances." | |
|
||
| 02-18-09 08:56am - 5787 days | #2 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
A few years ago someone made a comment about porn positions. To paraphrase, they said that people having real sex in a normal way without cameras, choose totally different positions to porn. These positions are not porn friendly. It is generally not a good idea to try and show these in porn, because people viewing hardly get to see anything. It is so intimate that the viewer misses all the action. The necessity for porn is to show everything, which results in totally unnatural positions, different to what a couple would normally choose, if they were having "real" sex. Edited on Feb 18, 2009, 08:59am | |
|
||
| 02-17-09 02:46pm - 5788 days | #19 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Thanks - I realise I'm a pain in the arse. I'm either fighting my own battles or someone else's. But like Andy says, these guys all take pride in what they do, and that makes them some of the most trusworthy people here. Their contributions help to make the place what it is. It was the "no" for ace that really pissed me off, and inspired my above post. Ace asked again and again why the guy left a "no." All to no avail. I think Andy is right in that most of those guys who left an anonymous "no" have left the site. It would be nice to see those undeserved and unreasonable negatives go with them. | |
|
||
| 02-17-09 11:59am - 5788 days | #16 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I'm resurrecting this thread for a good reason I believe. Ace of aces, Messmer, pat362, jd1961, Monahan, Pink Panther, exotics4me - what do these members all have in common? They have a negative given without reason, left by an anonymous member. Not only that, if you look at the negative left for ace he asks them 4 times why they left him a negative and for which review. They never even bothered to answer. The same goes for most of the others. No reason given. Some of the negatives don't even make sense. Come on TBP, do something about this. I know Toadsith is going to say it doesn't make any difference, but if the site wants to keep up an intelligent, consistent, and reputable front it needs to remove some of those negatives. Nowadays there has to be at least a reason for a negative. I hate the anonymous thing, but if you're going to have to give a reason, I think some of the old negatives given without a reason should be removed. All of the names I have mentioned have, without doubt, a clean reputation, and clearly care about the subject for which they are reviewing and posting. Hmm - I have this strange feeling I'm about to receive my first negative. Maybe this is another point. A lot of the members here who do care, are more likely to stick their neck out and say something that someone doesn't like. This makes them highly susceptible to the anonymous negative rating. Edited on Feb 17, 2009, 12:08pm | |
|
||
| 02-15-09 03:59pm - 5790 days | #7 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
That you are even asking these questions, makes you a good reviewer IMO. Personally I like to see a good mixture of objectivity and subjectivity, but the best reviews come from those who really CARE. There are a few on here whose reviews I really take notice of. I am very wary if those who give very high marks all the time, or those who seem to review about 10 a day. The best reviews seem to come from those who have experience of writing reviews, and those who stay long enough on a site to give a genuine review, which means just an occasional one. I far prefer quality to quantity. Some may be able to do both, but the best ones come from those who really care about what they write. | |
|
||
| 02-14-09 09:51am - 5791 days | #14 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
See, Pat is nearly as old as me and Khan. He knows that no matter what a woman says along the lines of don't worry too much about Valentine's, or birthday or Christmas, or whatever, if you then believe her, you're an idiot. It's as bad a situation as "does my ass look fat in this dress?" Simply put, if you really care, you're going to make these events special. If you don't care then don't be surprised if lack of feelings are reciprocated. The country song needs some improvement. What's lacking is the terminal disease, the child killed by a truck driver, the mother falling out if her wheelchair over a cliff, and maybe twelve people cut up by a madman with a chainsaw. Think I may finally have a hit with this one. Edited on Feb 14, 2009, 09:56am | |
|
||
| 02-13-09 11:15am - 5792 days | #6 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Listen to Khan - he's old like me, we know these things. It doesn't matter if you think Valentine's is just a way of ripping you off, or that you are defeating the running dogs of capitalism by not spending anything. Spending money shows you care, and if you don't want 5 months of trying to guess what you did wrong, I suggest you do something NICE tomorrow. | |
|
||
| 02-13-09 10:22am - 5792 days | #11 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Too late Messmer - now we all know you're gay. No good denying it. | |
|
||
| 501-550 of 708 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 10 | Page 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | Next Page > |
|
