Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
76
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
For me it's about as annoying as a pop-up ad (or a banner which has flashing). And i HATE pop-up ads and flashing banners.
Visually the best-looking are Flash previews which start playing when clicking on it, but on the other hand I'm into downloads and not into streaming, and Flash previews can't possibly show video quality of downloads.
|
03-21-08 11:52am
|
Reply
77
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
"I wish they'd shut up" with one exception: pre-shooting interview.
|
03-04-08 01:52pm
|
Reply
78
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Goldfish's Poll
Buying hardware specially for porn? Sorry, no. Otherwise would like to take a look at thin MacBook.
|
02-21-08 04:41am
|
Reply
79
|
N/A
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tan_lines
Enjoy :-)
|
02-13-08 02:20pm
|
Reply
80
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Pinche Kankun's Reply
Unfortunately proof of doctor visits doesn't really provide 100% guarantee :-(. Sure, it's much better with it than without, but there is still some risk. Let's say it the following way: without STD checks it is plain suicide (and I hope at least decent companies never allow it without the check), with recent STD check it is much better, it's like a round of russian roulette :-).
|
02-08-08 08:55am
|
Reply
81
|
N/A
|
Reply of
roseman's Poll
As a fantasy - sure, in reality - come on, I have responsibilities in real life.
|
02-07-08 04:37am
|
Reply
82
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jd1961's Poll
Agree with Drooler and DivBZero above.
|
01-16-08 06:06am
|
Reply
83
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
As I'm a video kind of person, I never do it :-).
|
01-14-08 09:45am
|
Reply
84
|
N/A
|
Reply of
s1vus1's Reply
> So if we all do it why does it feel so wrong!
"It's all in your head, Mr. Tweedy, it's all in your head" :-). More seriously, modern society obviously still has prejudice against porn (just like 100 years ago there was prejudice against alcohol strong enough to amend US constitution to prohibit it), and most likely you have too much respect for society to throw away it's prejudices. But things will hopefully change, like it has already changed in many areas. As a prominent example, some time ago there was a very strong prejudice against gays, but now it has almost vanished; I'm pretty sure the same will eventually happen to porn. Meanwhile, I suggest to analyze WHY it's wrong? Because it hurts somebody or just because majority says it's wrong? If it's only the latter, it's a prejudice to be thrown away (why you should allow OTHERS to decide what's right and what's wrong for YOU as long as it doesn't hurt anybody?)
|
01-09-08 06:36am
|
Reply
85
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
I see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with viewing porn. Nobody gets hurt (except for people like those who established Prohibition back 100 years ago), and after all it is MY money I'm spending, and if I prefer to watch porn to other form of entertainment (like watching Gone With the Wind), it is MY right to spend the money the way I want (as long as my family doesn't get hurt by my porn spending).
Moreover, I feel that watching porn is helping me to avoid REAL problems, like going to prostitutes (for me it's all about variety, and I'm getting enough variety watching porn).
|
01-08-08 05:12am
|
Reply
86
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
About ACDsee - thanks for suggestion. About Windows viewer - sorry, not good enough for my eyes :-). But the most important thing for me personally is that I'm mostly viewing pictures in-browser only and quite rarely outside browser (I'm more of video fan than picture fan :-)).
As a side observation: if there are lots of people like me, some kind of plugin with decent downsize algorithm can have a business case :-).
|
01-05-08 06:38am
|
Reply
87
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
I don't like anything that requires scrolling on my laptop's screen (which is 1400 and is unlikely to go any higher any time soon). Viewers (like Irfanview) have 2 problems: they don't work inside browser and quality of resizing isn't that good.
|
01-04-08 11:54am
|
Reply
88
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
I see, thanks. For multi-month it isn't that big price :-).
|
12-31-07 12:48pm
|
Reply
89
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
149.99? Wow! If not a secret, what's the name of the site? (should have been something REALLY great to warrant such big spending, shouldn't it?)
|
12-31-07 10:48am
|
Reply
90
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
> if all porn was condom only, then any teen/young person who saw that
> would probably think that it's a good idea for him to wear a condom or
> her to ask that her partner does as well.
Exactly my point. On the other hand, I'm not that optimistic that it is possible to make ALL porn condom-only, and think that there are much better chances to make SOME porn condom-only, but restrict TEENS exclusively to this SOME condom-only porn (and even if this last restriction will be only 80-90% successful, it would still be a positive thing).
|
12-26-07 05:33am
|
Reply
91
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
> We know everything at that age, and our parents are the ignorant ones
Right! Exactly my point.
> You and I both know that since the hardcore porn exist most will bypass the mild stuff, and go for the hardcore one.
Sure, but my point is that even hardcore can easily be educational and promote desired behavior, so it is not about it being softcore. My point is that if there will be hardcore but with condoms all the way and with models/actors showing care for each other, it should be enough for a teen to stop looking for something more hard, and on the other hand will get used to the view that a guy ALWAYS puts a condom before starting sex. As I remember myself as a teen, I would definitely NOT try looking for anal or BDSM or anything else if I'd be able to see just simple plain hardcore, with condoms or not; and the younger the teen - the less chances for him to try going further, that's a good thing too. Compare it to what we have now: when teen starts looking for porn (and he starts for sure), most likely he'll find some stuff where women are treated like s**t, and/or all kinds of things which are really harmful at that age, from A2M to WS and beastiality; don't you think that if he would run into hardcore, but condom-only and "caring" porn, it would be much better for him?
|
12-21-07 03:03am
|
Reply
92
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
First of all, thanks a lot for taking it seriously (which I'm sure it deserves).
> I'm really tired of reading about teenagers having babies and how
> cute it all is.
Cute? Not until parents are making conscious decision to have a child, and I don't see how it can happen until about 20 (on the other hand, I think that waiting until 35 isn't really good either).
In general, I agree with you on most of the points, except one: I'm sure that influence of "educational porn" will be more significant than parent's talk (and in ANY case it will have positive effects in promoting responsible behavior, so it will help rather than hurt). The reasons are two-fold: first, teens in range of 13-17 tend to live in their own world, with one of the main rules "ignore what parents say", so while as a parent I spend significant time in such talks and there is enough trust between me and my children when we're talking to each other, I'm still afraid that when they're with the other teens, they can EASILY forget all our talks (probably they will be sorry later, but it might be too late).
Second, it will hopefully distract kids from extreme porn (which they will watch regardless of controls; keeping dedicated and smart 16-year-old from bypassing all the controls is IMHO hopeless, and to make things worse, the more extreme stuff is, the less companies that run such sites tend to abide by rules like site labeling).
|
12-20-07 03:53am
|
Reply
93
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
> Children should never watch that stuff.
With most of them are fucking like RABBITS at 17, do you think that ANY porn will really harm them? This is not rhetorical question as it might seem; I can't agree more that there should be a difference depending on type of stuff, and that anywhere extreme or condomless should be avoided, and that currently you won't be able to find anything besides that, but if somebody would produce love/educational stuff with right connotations (love, care about partner, using condoms and so on), don't you think it would be more useful for , say, 17-year "children" to watch it than not watch it?
|
12-19-07 12:03am
|
Reply
94
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
I used to think this is your quote I've answered: "the first three answer options in this poll are not options at all", isn't it?
|
12-18-07 11:57pm
|
Reply
95
|
N/A
|
Reply of
kkman112's Reply
> rather allowing them to go out to a bar where many provide fake ids and go seriously overboard.
And I should add it's a lot safer to start drinking (illegally) in small amounts at 16, rather than to get absolutely drunk on perfectly legal grounds all at once when child turns 18 and happily brings his ID to the bar.
On the other hand, aren't these laws there meant to protect children? If so, why we should sit and silently agree with laws which in fact HARM our children (if alternative options are safer, it means that the law at least isn't as good as it should be)?
|
12-18-07 12:31pm
|
Reply
96
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
> the first three answer options in this poll are not options at all
They can easily be options if interpreting the question the way as I've read it ("what would you do if you were making laws") or another way "what would you do if it would be legal"?
And as I understand US law (which I can easily misunderstand as I'm not a lawyer), this question and answers to it cannot possibly be illegal (in modern US; I'm not speaking of Iran or Orwell's Oceania, where most likely even thought about it would be punished) as they're covered by the First Amendment. Right to DISCUSS things freely is a fundamental right in modern liberal society, so let's not fear to DISCUSS even the most controversial (and even potentially illegal) issues.
|
12-18-07 10:48am
|
Reply
97
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
When I've seen this question, I've interpreted it as "if you were making laws, at what age would you make it legal to watch porn?"
And if I would make such laws, I would definitely put very big difference between 'mild' and even 'educational' porn (come on, average age of having first sex is about 15 years old (!)) - which should be legal at least from the age 15, and probably even earlier, especially if it promotes condoms and responsible behavior, and 'extreme' porn (which should be banned at least until 25). I'm 200% sure that porn that promotes condoms (by using them all the time) will do much more to ensure youngsters having safe sex then any blatant kind of propaganda (which teens tend to hate a LOT, and I cannot blame them).
|
12-17-07 01:58pm
|
Reply
98
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
Voted and was really surprised with current results: 4 out of 4 said "twenties" :-).
|
12-13-07 03:53am
|
Reply
99
|
N/A
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
For me it's a pity to end such an inspiring conversation. Anyway, obviously is up to you :-).
|
12-07-07 04:27am
|
Reply
100
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Reply
Thanks for explanation; that's the way I've already answered :-).
|
12-06-07 05:17am
|
|
