Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
51
|
N/A
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Reply
> As for where it was changed, you probably need to clear your cookies
> to get the Click yes if over 18 to enter. The changed part is in the
> last paragraph, "Female wrestling holds on UltimateSurrender.com
> include severe leg scissors, head scissors, boston crab, back
> breaker, full nelson, grapevine and more. Enjoy women in bondage
> photos, movies, streaming video, and shoots you can buy at
> UltimateSurrender.com!"
Very good, exactly as I've suspected. I don't think we can argue on ANY other issue until we clear out this allegation of yours. I would like to ask you (and everybody else for this matter) to take a look at the page http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:8LJi...esurrender.com/+site:ultimatesurrender.com+%22severe+leg+scissors%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
It is Google cache page for the page in question, and it clearly says TWO THINGS: 1. "It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Aug 13, 2009 00:11:47 GMT" (which was BEFORE this poll has even started, leave alone my comments on it). 2. "Female wrestling holds on UltimateSurrender.com include severe leg scissors, head scissors, boston crab, back breaker, full nelson, grapevine and more. Enjoy women in bondage photos, movies, streaming video, and shoots you can buy at UltimateSurrender.com! " - note "SEVERE leg scissors" there, and according to Google it has been there AT LEAST FOR A WEEK NOW!
Given this (unless you'll accuse me that my name is indeed Sergey Brin or Eric Schmidt and I've changed Google cache recently), it seems to me that you owe me some kind of apology. As soon as you admit it and apologize, we can continue our discussion.
Please try to use the following version of the URL, manually removing all the spaces within :
http://74.125.95.132 /search?q=cache: 8LJiOycjOhQJ :www.ultimatesurrender.com/+site:ultimatesurrender.com +%22severe+leg+scissors%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
|
08-20-09 08:59am
|
Reply
52
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Poll
>It changed from "Brutal leg-scissors" to "Severe leg-scissors".
BTW, where did you find this alleged change? Not on their home page, by any chance?
|
08-20-09 06:49am
|
Reply
53
|
N/A
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Reply
> and in it, I mentioned that you sounded like you were part of the
> kink.com family. The way you defend them and so on.
Really? I don't remember, though I didn't really care then and I don't really care now. FWIW, I'm not affiliated with kink.com in any way (except for being their loyal customer for ages).
> So, tell me, why is it that their main page for Ultimate Submission
> changed the wording over the last 24 hours? It changed from "Brutal
> leg-scissors" to "Severe leg-scissors".
No idea (though I agree it should look rather suspicious to you). If it has indeed happened (I didn't check their home page for years) it probably means that they've read this discussion (it's public, you know).
> Their site clearly says, "The rules are set. There are three tags
> per team per round and three 12 minute non-scripted wrestling
> rounds."
Ok, so sue them :-). Personally I don't see any conflict between what they're saying and what they're providing. If you do - ok, it's your right to disagree or sue them, or setup a poll at PU to ask the others about their feeling about it.
> IF ultimate submission is not scripted, they would be in jail. In
> the world of REAL wrestling, if one wrestler popped a finger in the
> other wrestler's ass, that would be molestation/sexual assault.
Depends on your definition of REAL wrestling, but for "unscripted" wrestling I don't see why it should be illegal by default, IF THE MODELS SIGNED AGREEMENTS WHICH EXPLICITLY ALLOW THEIR OPPONENT TO DO IT. Last time I've checked, US (and especially California) has been rather supportive of the idea of consenting adults being able to enter in a rather wide range of contracts; still, if you feel they're violating the law, please feel free to sue them (especially as you've said that you're browsing adult sites with some kind of government money - didn't you)?
> these moves are not done with the intention of hurting each other
I think yes.
> or winning the match, then it is scripted.
I hope no. Why you're making "hurting each other" a synonym of "winning the match"? Sport is indeed possible without hurting each other (at least hurting too much), isn't it? Then why are you so sure that it's impossible to create a set of rules which will allow for unscripted wrestling with elements of sex but not hurting each other? I tend to believe kink.com that it's indeed unscripted (though obviously their rules are VERY different from any other set of wrestling rules); could be that I'm too willing to believe it, but at this point I don't see reasons why it should inevitably be scripted (BTW, "real" professional wrestling like WWE looks and most likely is, MUCH more scripted, then UltimateSurrender, that's for sure).
> porn is a perceived fantasy
Right, but only "by default", until explicitly told otherwise. And BTW, majority here on PU (2:1 if excluding "Other" votes) is on my side about this whole "teen models" issue, which (as I've shown in one of posts above) does matter.
|
08-20-09 06:25am
|
Reply
54
|
N/A
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Reply
> When anyone who has surfed porn for
> even a relatively short time goes to a site, say like, Teen Dreams,
> they know there are models that are not 18 and 19.
Right. But IF the site says "we're using only teen models on our site", or "we're using only gay models on our site", it becomes verifiable and objective statement. "Mature" on the other hand is still subjective. Why? I don't know and don't care.
> Your monitor example did nothing but strengthen what I said. They
> said their monitors were 17 inches, but the viewable area was only
> 15.8 inches. That is specific.
Exactly. And that's exactly why they've got beaten pretty hard for doing it.
> The definitions I used were relevant in the discussion, as it
> showed that the word Teen does have definitions in different
> languages that mean a time of life.
There is no way how German translation can affect an ad in English, but I won't argue with you on it anymore, because I hope that it's already very obvious to anybody else, and persuading you is obviously impossible.
> You really believe "brutal" means hot and innovative?
Nope, and I've never said it. It is as subjective as those two, that's it.
|
08-20-09 05:57am
|
Reply
55
|
N/A
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Reply
> Honestly, I have no idea what the first half of your post is saying.
It basically says that reference to "how the word 'teen' is translated into German" is completely irrelevant to the question of honesty in advertising, see also below.
> I felt like I used the correct contextual definitions
Once again: if the word you've mentioned for German, is not STRICTLY EQUIVALENT to "teen models" within the adult site context, it's not a correct translation of "teen" (by definition of correct translation) and therefore is irrelevant. If it IS strictly equivalent, then I don't see any potential point which applies to "teen models" discussion (therefore, I see it as irrelevant too).
> I said if the sites got together and defined teen as 18-19 year old
> models, there would be a possibility of fraud. As it stands now,
> there is no clear definition of "teen" model.
Here you have a point, BUT here such a thing as user perception and expectation comes into play. Do you remember the case with advertised size of CRT monitors (which if I remember correctly ended up with penalties AND requirement to show monitor viewable size to the end-users)? It happened because when end-user have seen ad with "17"-monitor", he was reasonably expecting 17" of VIEWABLE area. The very same logic IMHO applies to "teen models".
> They advertise brutal leg scissors.
"Brutal" in my books is in the same league as words like "hot", "innovative", "attractive", "industry leader" and so on and so on; it's a very standard ad practice to use words which are essentially unverifiable subjective claims (with key words being UNVERIFIABLE and SUBJECTIVE, therefore it's up to ad writer if he thinks it's indeed "attractive", "industry leader", or "brutal"). It is BTW is VERY different from saying "award-winning" (which can be verified and therefore requires to be substantiated to be honest; which award it was is another story, but SOME award is indeed necessary to qualify as honest).
> They also advertise "unscripted" then say "3 tags per round" in the > tag team matches. That's scripted!
Nope. Per their rules, 3 tags per round are only ALLOWED for each of competing teams to be exercised (and they USUALLY happen, as they're very beneficial for the team), but are not required. Therefore, I don't see any false advertisement here either.
Overall, the only potential argument I see about "teen models", is if "teen models" claim is in the same league that '17"-monitor' and "award-winning" (opposed to "hot" and "innovative"). IMHO "teen models" is a verifiable and non-subjective claim, therefore I interpret deviating from this claim as false advertisement.
|
08-20-09 12:03am
|
Reply
56
|
N/A
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Reply
> For example, the German word for teen is "jugendlich",
Assuming that your further interpretation of this word is correct, it means that it is NOT a correct translation for "teen" in this context, as correct translation by definition is the one which preserves meaning, and this word doesn't. "Teen models" in English-speaking adult-only world means exactly as you've said, "18 and 19 year old models", and it is a job of translator to provide the same meaning when translating it into other languages (even if it will mean translating short English "Teen" into several words in German).
|
08-19-09 01:29am
|
Reply
57
|
N/A
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
> Nobody expects 100% truth in advertising in the porn world
I do expect 100% truth in advertising, EVERYWHERE, including porn. So IF they have explicitly said that ALL their models are teens, I expect just it. On the other hand, if they just said that "MOST models are teens", or just included "teens" in the name of the site, it has much milder implications (the last one IMHO requires them only to have SOME really teen models on the site).
|
08-19-09 01:22am
|
Reply
58
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Reply
Good comparison with Playboy, but you know, Playboy IMHO wins this comparison hands down. For me, Playboy models feel SO MUCH more "alive" then MetArts' "dead fish" ones.
|
08-18-09 05:02am
|
Reply
59
|
N/A
|
Reply of
dracken's Poll
For me BY FAR the most annoying technical thing is broken login system, when you're asked to re-enter your login/password just because they can ask for it, or because I went to restroom in the middle of browsing the site, and my "session has expired" (as if I care about "sessions" and similar stuff).
|
08-18-09 03:37am
|
Reply
60
|
3D Sex Games
(0)
|
Reply of
dracken's Reply
I agree that this site is not really about 3D sex, it is all about interactivity; if interactivity is your cup of tea, then it might be worth a try.
> thank you for pointing it out and thank you for a great review.
You're welcome :-).
|
08-18-09 01:53am
|
Reply
61
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
With Pamela that tape was exactly when it was needed (popularity started to decline etc.), so personally I'm pretty sure it has "leaked" intentionally.
> you should make sure that you keep all copies of the sex tape and
> then you can make a deal on it. This way you can't blame an ex
> boyfriend for releasing it at a time when you are trying to get a
> specific role.
Well, the whole idea in such cases is to blame ex boyfriend :-). But I agree that careful keeping of such tapes won't prevent you from blaming ex boyfriend anyway if necessary :-)).
|
06-26-09 09:50pm
|
Reply
62
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
Are you 100% sure it's ALWAYS a bad thing for celebrities? Publicity is always publicity :-), and "Pam Anderson" obviously became even more of a household word because of it.
|
06-26-09 12:29am
|
Reply
63
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Comment
Wait, I didn't compare VideosZ and VideoBox - maybe VideoBox is even more "same old", I didn't try it yet.
And what I've meant when I've wrote that VideosZ is "same old" is more about the overall sad state of adult DVD industry, where 90% of the scenes look exactly the same: fade in - one guy (maybe 2) and one girl (maybe 2) are coming into the motel room - crossfade - she sucks him - crossfade - they're fucking - crossfade - position change - crossfade - he's masturbating to cum on her face - fade out. IMHO, best www sites (and especially networks) currently provide MUCH better variety then average DVD stuff which is all over VideosZ (yes, you can find something good on VideosZ too, but it takes time and effort, and unfortunately there isn't enough of it there).
|
06-24-09 06:14am
|
Reply
64
|
N/A
|
Reply of
asmith12's Poll
Both me and my SO like it. Sometimes. For a change.
|
06-23-09 05:40am
|
Reply
65
|
Kedra Alliard
(0)
|
Reply of
Kedra's Reply
It's interesting that regardless of reading your reply with implied < sarcasm > ... < /sarcasm > tags around, or without them, I still like it :-).
|
06-17-09 11:01pm
|
Reply
66
|
Kedra Alliard
(0)
|
Reply of
Kedra's Reply
Wow, a REASONABLE webmaster, a rare find these days :-).
IMHO (though there can be disagreement from other members or even PU administration, I'm not sure) there is nothing wrong with posting link to PU on your site. On the other hand, for a PU review to be taken seriously, it's not enough to say something like "Kedra is the most beautiful girl on the planet", it's necessary to elaborate; the problem IMHO wasn't THAT your members wrote reviews, the problem was HOW they wrote their reviews: it looks that they've just tried to do you a favor, putting high ratings without enough explanation, which in fact lead to the exactly opposite effect, causing suspicions of dishonesty etc. And I have no idea if it's at all possible to avoid such effect when publishing a link to PU for site members :-(.
|
06-17-09 01:03am
|
Reply
67
|
N/A
|
Reply of
surferman's Poll
When I see pussy, my first thought is "how to eat it", and I prefer to eat it shaven.
|
06-13-09 02:13am
|
Reply
68
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Poll
While I agree that we don't need "yet another hardcore site", I'm still sure that I'd like to see a lot more of QUALITY hardcore sites. And really QUALITY site IMHO is not about resolution and even not about cameraguy work and lighting. QUALITY site is the "jerkable off" (or should it be "jerkoffable"?) one, and surprisingly 99% of hardcore sites are NOT jerkable off these days; most of the sites present the very same thing, without any fantasy; creativity is VERY RARE, and IMHO creativity is the MUST to make site a QUAILTY one.
So my feeling is that while we indeed have TONS and TONS of hardcore site, very few really qualify as QUALITY ones, and therefore we need more of them.
|
06-12-09 10:53pm
|
Reply
69
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Reply
> Until M&B, I had never joined a site with a pre-checked trial or
> anything like it. I'm aware that stuff like that is out there, but
> I've never joined a site like that.
Wow, you've got REALLY lucky. I would say that from my (pretty extensive) experience at least 1/3rd of sites these days are trying to swindle users using PRE-CHECKED trials (especially typical for the sites which credit card transactions are handled by Epoch).
|
06-02-09 11:29pm
|
Reply
70
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Reply
> It's merely a ploy to hook you. It's a classic bait and switch, which results in them being *that* much more likely to get you to sign on for the full subscription.
For me it would work as an exact opposite (unlike classic "bait and switch", these guys don't have good excuse of "being out of stock" for advertised item, which weakens their position greatly). On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'm a typical user in this regard.
> We're not outside of the adult industry.
Well, if the court would ever consider such a case of deceptive practices in adult industry, it will VERY LIKELY consider common terminology and practices not only within this industry, but on much broader scale. And it is the court which ultimately decides what is fraud and what's not, isn't it?
> The bottom line for me is, I've done a lot of trials and the ones
> that are limited tell me so, so I expect that. You can say it's
> redundant, but we clearly have different expectations for trials. I > consider a trial to be limited to length of subscription only.
Well, I understand your point, but on the other hand I see LOTS of MUCH MORE deceptive practices (like PRE-CHECKED "trials" with outrageous renewal rates when subscribing) in this industry, so compared to those "pre-checked" guys unannounced trial limitations don't look that bad to me.
|
06-02-09 05:38am
|
Reply
71
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Reply
> However, I think that the demo might have been the wrong choice for which video to promote for their site.
Nice to know, thanks. With this information, maybe I'll eventually try them :-).
> when I compare to the other sites that used 640 X 480 or 720 X 480 in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 kbps which I thought was the debate to begin with.
I won't argue that 4MBit/s is better than 1MBit/s :-). What I'm trying to argue is that even 4MBit/s doesn't guarantee quality in any way (and is still worse than best of DVDs made 10+ years ago), and is often far from being "crystal clear". Also from my perspective things like lighting and cameraguy work are much more important than sheer bitrate (within certain limits of course).
As for comparing HD to blue-ray - you're right about the lack of the bandwidth for downloaded clips compared to blue-ray, but given this lack of bandwidth maybe it's not a good idea for websites to release 1980x1080 video clips, and it's better for them to stay with less ambitious DVD-resolution? What I personally REALLY hate is when somebody makes (and obviously markets) something like "true 1980x1080 HD video" which wass in fact shot with poor lighting on Sony Z1 (or equivalent) camera; then it doesn't matter how much bitrate they will throw into encoding, it will still look HORRIBLE no matter what.
|
06-01-09 11:06pm
|
Reply
72
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Reply
> the company has a duty to tell you what to expect.
Right. But as I've said, the question is that if the very word "trial" implies some restrictions or not. And (playing devil's advocate) IMHO it can be easily argued that it does imply at least some restrictions (number of limited trials even in adult industry is not that small, you can see it on TBP, and if we'll go outside the adult industry, trials will become obviously limited). And if it is implied, what is the need to tell it once again?
> wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain.
Come on, $2 or so they're getting is not really a financial gain (they're paying almost all of it or even more for the transaction itself). The very idea of trial is to get you to stay more, and that's one of the reasons I think that limited trials (except for DL limits during trials) are more much more "stupidity" than "fraud".
|
06-01-09 10:01pm
|
Reply
73
|
Mac and Bumble
(0)
|
Reply of
Xororos's Comment
> There is a word for this: Fraud.
While in general I like to tell that some site is swindling it's customers ;-), I don't think I would name it "fraud" in this case (it's stupid on their part, but that's another story). And that's because at least for me, "trial" means something to try :-); kind of test drive without any guarantees that it will be the full thing. For example, when I'm taking a car for a test drive, I won't complain if salesguy will be in the car and I won't be allowed to drink my coffee and spill it all over the place :-).
Overall, it's all about expectations, but IMHO trials are generally not expected to be full; if somebody gives me full trial - good, if not - tough luck, but I don't have much to complain about.
So IMHO "Don't even bother with trial" is a useful warning, thanks, but naming it "fraud" is IMHO a bit too much.
|
06-01-09 05:51am
|
Reply
74
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Jay G's Reply
> Cock....oh, I guess that's poultry, Huh?
:-))
|
06-01-09 05:38am
|
Reply
75
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Reply
> I can account for them being just as good or even better than the hundreds of DVD's I've rented.
Wait, but DVDs have nothing to do with HD :-), to compare apples to apples, you should compare HD to Blue-Ray.
> That's strange that you find the lighting for that site to be bad
I've found it bad for at least one specific point in demo video (around 0:03 in the video I've referred to). Do you agree that specific half-second was far from being "crystal clear"? And them, from the fact that site owners even cannot find enough material to make REALLY good DEMO video, I obviously have doubts about the quality inside (if you would make demo for the home page of your site, you would make it THE BEST POSSIBLE way, wouldn't you?).
> if you found videos better than this, I'd like to know which sites so I can check them out.
Easy. Take a look at almost any Private DVD, and at least some Diabolic DVDs (for example, their Panochitas series). While DVD is 10+-year old technology now, and is below freezing point on "how hot/cool it is" scale, it still beats "great advanced modern stuff" hands down, especially when it is used professionally. And no encoding can possibly fix problems with poor cameras used by almost all of the sites.
|
05-31-09 11:44pm
|
|
