| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
It looks like the site to join, Drooler - NOT! It should be the first task of every one of our members to leave a comment by a site they belong to warning everyone of large and intrusive watermarks. There's absolutely no need for that. It's almost like finding spam in your inbox, except you paid for it. :-(
|
12-10-08 06:30pm
Reply To Message
|
2
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
Damn! This sounds worse and more migraine-producing than some of the old-skool vid sites that Exotic has reviewed. Even though I'm in the Bay Area and would like to support the home team, I'll be avoiding this turkey of a site like the plague.
|
12-10-08 07:20pm
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #2 - PinkPanther :
Well, you're being fair. And in fairness, the site does show a responsible attitude. They warn ahead of time if they need to go offline to do server maintenance or upgrading. And there's nothing deceptive about what they do. They've just gone overboard with their intellectual property protection by affixing that big watermark on their pics, which ruins things for the customers.
One model -- it's often just one -- really caught my eye. Angela Crow. There are about 12 sets of her, a couple with nice nude shots. But that watermark is all over her hair in too too many of them. Arrgghh.
|
12-11-08 12:32am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
Maybe I'm getting old, and trying to be careful with my porn dollars, but I wouldn't join this site unless someone I really trusted (and likes the same kind of pix I do) wrote a glowing review of this site and gave it a high score.
The free tour of the site (with it's lack of nice-sized sample pix) is a turn-off for me.
I want to see if the models inside are really attractive, and the free tour gives very little basis for knowing what the photosets will look like.
|
12-19-08 03:01pm
Reply To Message
|
