Poll Replies (42)
|
Replies to the user poll above. |
| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
It's not simply "wrong," in my view, but it's not that simple. When you say it's X, and it's not X, that is falsehood.
Personally, I don't mind if the models aren't actually 18-19 years old. The only thing that matters to me is that they're hot-looking.
I don't really understand why there's fuss about this when so many falsehoods of far greater magnitude are perpetrated on the average consumer/citizen/taxpayer.
But then I have to admit that I have my own pet peeves over things that some would say are trivial.
|
08-18-09 02:14am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
zzzins (0)
|
If a website says exclusively teens then yes - it really should only feature 18-19 yr olds. Personally I'm not bothered and am very happy look any girl naked as long as she's hot.
|
08-18-09 02:38am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Toadsith (0)
|
I'm a huge proponent of truth in advertising. While I'd probably not actually join a site obsessed entirely with teens (because I still contest that women look best at about 23 to 26 after they've naturally lost that teen "baby fat" and look a bit more cut) I would expect that the models fit that two year margin pretty damn closely. My recommendation is that sites focus more on getting attractive women rather than just young ones. The whole "teen" obsession in porn is a little bit creepy, honestly.
|
08-18-09 06:24am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Denner (0)
|
Other - if they have a vast majority of teens and some more mature, I see no problem...
But if it is - the typical deal where the models are somewhere between "girls" and "women" - it's a "Yes".
And (BTW): Take a look at a lot of the DVDs at either VideoBox or VideosZ where it's stated Teens somewhere in the title. But mostly the same models features in titles where there is nothing relevant to "teens".
|
08-18-09 06:25am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
dracken (0)
|
It all depends on how the girls look. If I like teens then seeing a girl that looks around 18-24 is cool but seeing a woman that looks 30 ish...well it's false advertising.
|
08-18-09 11:25am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
mbaya (Disabled)
|
Yes it is wrong as it is deceptive. I care a lot more about other times sites stretch the truth though. I don't care for teens much. To me they look like kids and seldom are all that hot. Their bodies need a few more years to truly mature.
|
08-18-09 02:09pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Wittyguy (0)
|
Like Drooler notes, it is deceptive but it's sort of par for the course in the porn world. So long as the content isn't stuffed to the gills with MILF's and the babes look youngish and have a fair amount of teen content then I'm satisfied.
Personally, I don't see the need to push a website as "teen" focused when it's not. If your content is hot just pic another name or focus less on the teen content in the preview. Doing so is just going to piss off the teen obsessed.
|
08-18-09 03:25pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
james4096 (Suspended)
|
As long as the look the part and I can't tell the difference it's cool. Well, unless they've been around for 5 years, then it's annoying.
Also, pigtails do not equal teen.
|
08-18-09 04:35pm
Reply To Message
|
9
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
Teen sites (at least the mega-sites) feature girls/women that are in their teens to early twenties. I can accept that. What's annoying is when the women who are supposed to be teens look like they are in their thirties or even beyond. Nobody expects 100% truth in advertising in the porn world, but if they advertise a site as teens, then the site should be mainly teens to early 20s.
|
08-18-09 05:33pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
pat362 (0)
|
I don't care as long as the actresses appear to be in their teens. It is false advertising, but it's not enough for me to start lighting my torch just yet. I have never come across a site that said all teens inside and then I found out that it was all a lie.
|
08-18-09 06:19pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
jd1961 (0)
|
It's fraud.
|
08-18-09 06:51pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
Monahan (0)
|
I don't care. There are gorgeous 22 year olds and ugly as sin underdeveloped young girls who can pass for under 20.
|
08-18-09 11:27pm
Reply To Message
|
13
|
exotics4me (0)
|
I picked no for a couple of reasons. The word teen can be taken different ways in different languages. For example, the German word for teen is "jugendlich", Spanish and Portuguese is "adolescente". Both of those words mean "juvenile" and adolescente as the English word adolescent means "minor". I think if the sites clearly defined teen to fit all languages by saying, "18 and 19 year old models" then there would be problems with fraud. Similar to a discussion we had on here before about "MILFs" and how this genre of porn is almost always 28-42 year old models, though a MILF by definition could be 18.
|
08-19-09 12:04am
Reply To Message
|
14
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #9 - lk2fireone :
> 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 To Message
|
15
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #13 - exotics4me :
> 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 To Message
|
16
|
exotics4me (0)
|
REPLY TO #15 - asmith12 :
Honestly, I have no idea what the first half of your post is saying. I felt like I used the correct contextual definitions, and have no idea how archaic "One which preserves meaning" would have to do with an age/perception question. I never said 18-19 means teen models. 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. Let me show you a few examples. Lesbian porn. No one is complaining that those women aren't lesbians. Gay porn, from what I've read, a good portion of those men are straight in real-life. Heterosexual porn, we know that many of those men are at least bi-sexual as are the women. Nobody has a problem with those. Teen to me has always meant the younger models, usually solo masturbation to show their perceived innocence. It is an age/look perception.
Think about something, your favorite site is Ultimate Submission. If you really are holding sites to truth in advertising, then you might want to reconsider that one. They advertise brutal leg scissors. Brutal leg scissors on the body or neck would cause serious damage. Broken larynx, broken ribs, the girls would be puking. And in my 20+ years of Lua/grappling, I was never taught the dreaded nipple twister or the pussy grind aided face sit or the 3 finger jammer-slammer. They also advertise "unscripted" then say "3 tags per round" in the tag team matches. That's scripted! If they were really wrestling, one could lock a brutal leg scissor on and hold the opponent in one spot until she was unconscious. Perception/fantasy is the rule in porn, always has been.
|
08-19-09 04:52am
Reply To Message
|
17
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
REPLY TO #16 - exotics4me :
I thought I was reading a James Bond parody when I read your reply of brutal leg scissors, the dreaded nipple twister, the pussy grind aided face sit and the 3 finger jammer-slammer.
Would even James Bond be able to stand up to female opponents using these dreaded techniques?
Lol.
|
08-19-09 05:55am
Reply To Message
|
18
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
Teen sites are not something I major in but I do believe that if a site defines itself as being a teen site that's what it should be. My problem is usually in connection with MILF sites that feature women who look as if they are in their early twenties. Of course a twenty year old can be a MILF but that's not what subscribers expect, neither do they expect a woman in her early twenties to be listed as a teen.
|
08-19-09 07:56am
Reply To Message
|
19
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
Here's a definition: If they don't know what they want, then they're 18.
Just listen to the Alice Cooper song.
|
08-19-09 12:58pm
Reply To Message
|
20
|
kkman112 (0)
|
I don't have a problem with it as long as they still offer what was advertised. I understand there may be times when they run low on models they can use or get the occasional older models who may have modeled for them before or are having trouble finding work, but as long as a majority of their work is as advertised I certainly do not mind the 1% difference.
|
08-19-09 04:46pm
Reply To Message
|
21
|
turboshaft (0)
|
REPLY TO #3 - Toadsith :
It certainly is creepy Toadsith, but also very likely a necessity in the porn business. This seems especially true because it is a quantitative rather than qualitative aspect, and there are some bizarre obsessions with numbers in porn (age, measurements, weight, etc.). Of course porn is almost total fantasy, and much of what we consume as fans is pretty much made up -- from models' names, to their 'backgrounds,' to the various fetishes and genres available -- so making up a girl's age should not be a surprise to anyone.
I disagree with you a bit on the "23 to 26" aspect, because even though many models do look better at that age, if they started in the business in their teens then they may now longer look that great, or even 'act' that great. A few years working in the business can really wear some of these women out, and force them to adapt a very typical, and sadly bland, look and act. I think most regular members at PU have expressed their pet peeves about these in the forum.
|
08-19-09 09:09pm
Reply To Message
|
22
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
Drooler's got it right - yeah, it's a falsehood if there are non-teens in a teens site, but if the babes are hot, it's not much to complain about.
|
08-19-09 11:03pm
Reply To Message
|
23
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #16 - exotics4me :
> 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 To Message
|
24
|
exotics4me (0)
|
REPLY TO #23 - asmith12 :
I may have to use two replies for this. First of all, tell me what the word in front of "model" is. Teen Models, Gay Models, Lesbian Models, Mature Models and lets say Transsexual Models? The word in front is the adjective that separates the models based on actions/age and look perception. None of those other adjectives are specific though. Mature is an age/look perception one. But no one has defined what is and what isn't a mature model. Why would teen be any different? 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. If the don't, all they have to do is preview the site and can see Sophie Moone (28), Eve Angel (26) just to name two. How is that site misleading or even wrong? Does a site stop putting new content of member favorites like Sophie and Eve up, just because they are no longer 18 or 19? And anyway, what adjective comes after "mature"?
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. Just like if a site was named 18and19yearoldmodels would be. If the monitor company had said, "Big monitor". There wouldn't be a problem. In porn, no genre, is age defined, unless the site defines the word teen or mature or as in the case of Allover30. Teen is no different than MILF, Mature, Lesbian, Gay. Sure, they could go re-program their site and put youngermodels dreams as the name, but it would then be subjective since you would say, "28 is not really a younger model...to me". What would be the point then of doing all of that reprogramming to only give those few complaining, something new to bitch about?
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. As in adolescent and juvenile. The actual numbers 18 and 19 are irrelevant since neither 18 nor 19 are the legal age in some countries/cities/states.
I'm going to end this one with the lead-in of the next one. You really believe "brutal" means hot and innovative? There is no definition in this world that lists brutal as those things. You can give me that bullshit about it is up to the ad writer's understanding of the word, but that is hypocritical since you are making "teen" be defined "correctly". Look up bullshit and you'll see a picture of that belief. Scroll down.
|
08-20-09 03:38am
Reply To Message
|
25
|
exotics4me (0)
|
REPLY TO #23 - asmith12 :
I've had one other long drawn-out mostly pointless debate with you on here before 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.
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". Not that severe is any better, since you like in context discussions. A severe leg-scissors would mean lots of pressure being applied. Like if you went outside and it was hot. You would say the heat is severe today.
You then say this about the 3 tags, "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." Their site clearly says, "The rules are set. There are three tags per team per round and three 12 minute non-scripted wrestling rounds."
There is nothing there about three tags not being required. So, either way, they are being dishonest. I could have my hope up that each team would tag 3 times and the front page says that, but you say it isn't true.
As far as it not being scripted, you really should think about that before saying 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. That is where they stretch the truth a bit, by saying, "REAL" wrestling. There is no such thing as sex in a real sport. You don't see players blowing each other during timeouts. Also, backbreaker, Boston Crab, moves they list, are not REAL wrestling moves. You cannot do a move intended to break a person's back. Now, if this is true, that these moves are not done with the intention of hurting each other or winning the match, then it is scripted. Which makes "unscripted" a lie. If those moves are intended to hurt each other, then the authorities should have already looked into it. Especially seeing that a man stands there as the "referee" while another videotapes, and the ref assists at times in the assault.
My whole point in all this, including Ultimate Submission, is that porn is a perceived fantasy. If you don't believe that, I recommend watching WWE and betting on the matches. Or watching Jerry Springer. And remember, Ultimate Submission claims "unscripted". Gay models aren't always gay. Mature models are only mature based on the viewer's age.
|
08-20-09 03:58am
Reply To Message
|
26
|
exotics4me (0)
|
REPLY TO #17 - lk2fireone :
I had other ones, but liked those 3 the best! Bond could possibly survive, depending on how many were scripted or not. I would give him a 0.07 chance if not scripted!
|
08-20-09 04:00am
Reply To Message
|
27
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #24 - exotics4me :
> 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 To Message
|
28
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #25 - exotics4me :
> 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 To Message
|
29
|
asmith12 (0)
|
>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 To Message
|
30
|
exotics4me (0)
|
REPLY TO #27 - asmith12 :
I don't think you understand that I consider "teen" a genre and not a number. When used in context with adult sites. You can look at most sites with Teen in their name and see something like this, "The #1 Teen Site". Just like you can look at an interracial site that says, "The #1 Interracial Site."
I don't know why you are saying "exactly" on the monitor part. Those numbers 17 and 15 were specific, when you find a site that says, "18 and 19 year old models only" then I will say that they are wrong for saying those specifics and not sticking within in them. Until then "teen" is not defined in the porn world.
I didn't say German could effect English ads. I said people from those countries could live under different laws about what age defines a legal age, meaning 18 and 19 could be illegal in some countries.
What gets me is this, "I don't know and don't care." About mature porn. Yet, you hope others are reading this and can see that I'm impossible to persuade?
That might be the worst thing anyone has said to me on here. Maybe I haven't made myself clear. I bring my own opinion, from my own mind. I don't say anything to make anyone else happy. I've been this way since I joined and I'm not changing. That is part of life that I enjoy called having my own opinion. I don't need you to persuade me. How highly must one think of themselves to think their opinion is so much better than others that they should persuade others to think like them? Just don't hold your breath on that one. It would be like a brutal head-scissors effect.
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!"
|
08-20-09 08:34am
Reply To Message
|
31
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #30 - exotics4me :
> 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 To Message
|
32
|
exotics4me (0)
|
REPLY TO #28 - asmith12 :
I'll get to the other one in a minute. There are some things you don't seem to understand. I first brought Ultimate Surrender up with this line "If you really are holding sites to truth in advertising, then you might want to reconsider that one." Because you were lecturing on truth in advertising, yet your #1 site had multiple false statements on it. You were being a hypocrite.
As for me questioning you about your relationship with kink.com, I said, "It sounds like you are part of the kink.com family because you defend them". Now you tell me, a member has 3 of their top 4 sites from one company. And your last contact with me before this incident was when you went off about me dropping 20 points from a kink.com website because they had a 10 GB per MONTH DL Limit. You were so adamant in their defense that you gave me my only no trust vote. You've since changed it to yes, but that was how much that deduction bothered you. And you've since posted a comment asking about why a kink.com site's score is not listed as high as you thought it should be. That sounds more like an employee than a customer to me.
Moving on, to have any kind of real violence against another human, without facing charges, you have to have sanctioning. Like the UFC has, they worked for years on getting sanctioning, they had to ban headbutts, groin strikes and a dozen other moves. Or they could have taken the WWE route and said it is staged or scripted. Or else, their fighters would be jailed for assault charges. Same thing against the Jerry Springer show and its fights. Which he admitted were staged and scripted. I know good and damn well if the UFC can't allow groin strikes that Ultimate Submission cannot allow sexual penetration during what they call a "unscripted match" without sanctioning.
A reality of real fighting/wrestling is that you are trying to injure the other person or else, they injure you. I wouldn't say WWE is anymore scripted, they've had performers end up paralyzed. But you see, my problem wasn't with Ultimate Submission. My problem was with you being a hypocrite. WWE is not "real" wrestling. WEC, K-1, UFC, those are the real wrestling events I was referring to. And you remember, it is just me showing you that you were supporting a site that did exactly opposite of what you believe in. That is what you should expect anytime you try to persuade another adult to believe like you.
I could give a damn about the 2 to 1 ratio. Do you follow polls and base your beliefs on the majority vote? I make up my own mind. Even then, I'm also not going to try and tell you to make up your own mind. I could care less if you follow the majority. I'm not here to persuade anyone. On that note, I'm not going to respond kindly to people who try to persuade me either.
|
08-20-09 10:31am
Reply To Message
|
33
|
exotics4me (0)
|
REPLY TO #31 - asmith12 :
Well, counsel, just as you suspected, huh? Like I've said before, you're always right. Of course, the link doesn't work and if you missed it in the previous post, my whole purpose of pointing out the false claims was to show you what a hypocrite you are. Now, I can show you what a know-it-all you are. I'll be happy to apologize to the site. Most likely, I saw the words "brutal head-scissors" on another page in the tour, as I said earlier, I had to clear my cookies to get back to that page which shows I had been beyond that page.
An apology to you? For what? The "allegation" wasn't against you. It was against the site. Unless you do work for the site. I see no reason that the allegation pertained to you. You've dodged everything else in this. You've talked in wannabe lawyer jargon, up until now. I never said you worked for the site. I simply said I've never seen a customer defend a group of sites like you do. You like to argue the meanings of things and you can figure out how to twist that into me saying you worked for these sites.
You're not touching the rest of it though? The parts about how you are a hypocrite. And how you have tried this twice with me now. As I told you before when you changed your trust rating to yes, I didn't care if you did it or not. I don't care if you change it back now to no. I just don't like someone singling me out to try and prove themselves right against me when we're just talking about opinions here. And that was the second time. It makes probably the 4th time by other members. I told them the same thing I will tell you. If you don't like my opinion and you're going to dodge any debate that comes from it, then don't reply to me. Your request of an apology on a site that you are anonymous on is hysterical.
But it is as simple as I said. Don't reply to me if you're planning to try and change my opinion, tell me how my opinion is wrong because you know everything and understand everything better than everyone else does or else, you're going to have another situation just like this one. If you want to reply and say, "I disagree because..." and it doesn't include anything about you being right, we'll be fine and can forget this, if not that's fine too. Just don't expect apologies from me when you replied to me to tell me that my opinion was wrong.
|
08-20-09 12:28pm
Reply To Message
|
34
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #33 - exotics4me :
> An apology to you? For what? The "allegation" wasn't against you.
You have alleged that "main page for Ultimate Submission changed the wording over the last 24 hours" because of your referring to "brutal leg scissors" in your reply to me, implying that I'm affiliated with kink.com. As you have already admitted above, this allegation was ungrounded; I'm still sure it requires an apology to me PERSONALLY for alleged affiliation, which is a very serious allegation for PU member. If you think otherwise - it's up to you, I don't care much, and will just hope that the rest of PU users will make their own conclusions about members who are making serious false allegations and not apologize afterwards.
As for your allegations (or whatever else) about kink.com - this is another story, and I don't care at all (I think you're wrong about it, but this is ok to have different opinions, the concept which you don't seem to embrace, resorting to personal attacks and allegations instead of discussing the subject).
|
08-20-09 10:53pm
Reply To Message
|
35
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #33 - exotics4me :
> Of course, the link doesn't work
As of now, it still works (if you removed all the spaces manually as I've asked); alternatively, there is an alias (I hope it won't be corrupted by forum software as it happened with the original one): http://tinyurl.com/mhenlz
|
08-20-09 11:09pm
Reply To Message
|
36
|
exotics4me (0)
|
REPLY TO #34 - asmith12 :
You're just being foolish now. If you remember, I plainly said that I had wondered about your affiliation with the kink.com sites long before this incident. The word mistake, was one that I admitted and apologized to the site for. That doesn't change me wondering about your affiliation with the sites. Because you're not going to shut the hell up until I explain that, I will do that now. You can see that my wondering had much weight to it before this incident.
#1 Your original problem with me was a 70 review for Ultimate Surrender. A review that clearly said the site would have been a 90 if they dropped their DL Limit or raised it to a more respectable number than 10 GB per month. I even said if they do one of those things, I will edit the score and add the 20 points back, which I have done. Why would a customer of a site get as pissed off as you did over my deduction? The regular PU or general public could read where I even said, if that download limit doesn't bother you, go ahead and add the 20 points back in your head. The only possible reason I can see for someone being upset over the deduction is because of the fact that the site went into PU's average score per site rankings with a 70. It would hurt the cumulative score.
#1a You have posted a comment on one of kink's sites questioning the calculation of the cumulative score. How many regular members go around calculating the scores of sites? And when added with #1, I think it is safe to say that anyone would have right to be skeptical of your involvement here.
#3 and #4 Three of your four top sites are kink.com sites. I don't have a problem with that. But when added to #1 and #1a, the skepticism rises. Especially seeing that you have those 3 sites about 20 points higher than you do your average site. Add to this, you, like other webmasters and site staff members that post here, do not participate in the weekly member raffle or collect tickets. Now, mind you, that is your business and I want no explanation for it. All I am saying is that there is 4 things to make me skeptical of you.
You're not helping matters by saying you have no problem with differing opinions. So, why exactly were you mad over my 20 point deduction? That was, in my opinion, the right deduction since the limit severely limited how much content I could download. But you don't have a problem with differing opinions?
How about in this very poll. You countered my opinion to it, by telling me what was correct. Maybe you missed the memo, but opinions cannot be wrong or right. It could be wrong to you, but unless you can list facts to show how someone is wrong, you're just saying your opinion is right, theirs is wrong.
{continued due to word character limits)
|
08-21-09 12:41pm
Reply To Message
|
37
|
exotics4me (0)
|
REPLY TO #34 - asmith12 :
(continued)
Now, my allegation against you, is not an allegation. I'm not posting it on the forum. I'm not chasing your every review with "I think this guy has something to do with kink". It is just something that had went through my mind over the last couple of years. And anyone with the ability to comprehend those 4 points I made, can see why I would wonder. I wonder if Jennifer Lopez' ass is flabby. I wonder if Burger King has the Angry Whopper back. I wonder a lot of things. But, this is not my site, I'm sure Khan and Rick have more means than I do to know if you are affiliated with the kink sites. If they're okay with you, than so am I. Doesn't mean I can't still wonder though. You are welcome to find one time where I have said, "I know you work for kink". Go ahead. That's an allegation. My opinion is that there are some things that makes your membership here a little fishy. That's my opinion.
Tell me, how many times have I replied to you without you replying to me first? Zero. I know your type all too well. You like to argue meaningless shit while soothing your ego by trying to talk over others.
Why do you keep mentioning the other members reading this? What are they going to do? Say, "Oh hell asmith is right about everything, I no longer trust exotics because he won't apologize to him." You don't think they will look at those 4 points and understand why I would wonder? And see that I never allegedly said you worked for the site? And then wonder why in the hell you keep asking me to apologize to you? And then see how petty you are?
The members here, whether they like me or hate me, know that I am mainly here to post reviews filled with factual information, and offer any help to any of them with any site they are interested in and I've been a member of. You think this little petty shit is going to change that? You've got serious problems if you believe any of this was "serious allegations" or if you think I "attacked" you. Why don't you dip into the old sensationalistic writing bucket a little? Create a little drama there.
Most of all though, when you start to wave your moralistic values flag again, remember that you are claiming not to have a problem with different opinions. Then, ask yourself, who replied to who in this poll? Then ask yourself if you agreed with my opinion. If not, did dispute it? Yes? So that is you showing how you have no problems with differing opinions? And to think, you really think you have everyone on your side. Catch the next train, the one that says "Reality" on the front. At least my harshness at times, is known and isn't directed at other long-time members. I won't argue this with you anymore. Go change my trust vote. I'll leave yours at yes. Like before, unlike you, I take members for their reviews and contributions to the site. Doesn't mean I necessarily like them though. So, get over it or don't.
|
08-21-09 01:11pm
Reply To Message
|
38
|
Khan (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #37 - exotics4me :
As we've now been drawn into this "discussion", I feel compelled to say (for the record) that we (PU Mgm't) see absolutely no indication that asmith12 is associated with kink.com
Now, as I've mentioned to both of you privately, I feel it's time for you guys to wrap this "discussion" up ... it's starting to turn into a discussion about the discussion and personal differences rather than a discussion dealing with real issues related to the poll question.
Perhaps you can just agree to disagree and move forward from here.
Make no mistake, we appreciate the adult manner with which you've both conducted your debate thus far but, at this stage, have to wonder if continuing the debate can really have any productive results. So, neither of you has to lose face by quitting the debate ... just consider it doing me a favor.
Thanks guys.
|
08-21-09 02:50pm
Reply To Message
|
39
|
exotics4me (0)
|
REPLY TO #38 - Khan :
No problem Khan, one thing, you mentioned talking to us privately? I mention this because I am using a free Yahoo account with PU and I didn't know if I'm missing emails. It sends everything I want to read to spam and everything that is spam to my inbox.
|
08-21-09 04:25pm
Reply To Message
|
40
|
Khan (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #39 - exotics4me :
The "private" was referring to a "staff reply" made to earlier posts by each of you ... not email.
Sorry for any confusion.
|
08-21-09 06:18pm
Reply To Message
|
41
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #38 - Khan :
As usual, just when the real fun has begun... :-)
> I feel compelled to say (for the record) that we (PU Mgm't) see absolutely no indication that asmith12 is associated with kink.com
Thanks a lot, Khan (as you understand, it's important for me).
> Now, as I've mentioned to both of you privately,
I see now (and BTW sorry for posting URL after your first note on it - I just didn't see your notes until you've told where to look for them); the problem with such comments in "Approved" messages is that they don't pop up in any way; to compare: new "Denied" messages pop up as "Denied" at the top of the every page and attract immediate attention (and therefore one can understand that something went wrong), but such comments to "Approved" messages can easily go unnoticed forever; maybe it would be a good thing to highlight such non-standard "Approved" comments in some way (and/or to send e-mail about it)?
|
08-22-09 01:05am
Reply To Message
|
42
|
Khan (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #41 - asmith12 :
Yeah, I know the staff replies don't "stand out" for approved post ... that's ok. Generally they're standard system msg's or friendly asides. If something were real important, or kept up after the friendly aside, I'd send an email.
Again, my thanks to you both.
|
08-22-09 06:04am
Reply To Message
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
