After following the can spam shelleehale fiasco, it occurs to me that I used to post on this very forum about rampant spammers and how they cost us all money. This forum was driven by nick@ilynx and his partner who was one of the biggest "mailers" ever. I used to post how it was costing all of us very large, and was shit on for being a whiner. But I knew that these guys were thieves and lacked real talent. A lot of "old school" guys made a lot of money out of what we are discussing today. And they still talk fondly of those good old days, which I think were actually immoral and criminal, whether you escaped by the skin of your teeth or not. I always maintained that this had nothing to do with acumen…it was more akin to selling crack (any moron can do it), but I have to say that I was dumped on from a very high altitude for saying what is being posted on this board today. Y’all know who posted what (except for Rcourt who has no clue), but it is nice to know that what was so obvious, actually happened. Fortunately, as we know now, guys like the previous owners of this board are not doing so well …and that is an understatement. There is something to be learned from genuine "old school" which is not just ten fucking years (yeah pat yourselves on the back)….but true wisdom…like the tortoise and the hare.
Read more at: oprano.com
What??? So the flat board is gone, that doesn’t mean Nostalgia Week had ended! So let’s go!!!
Feel free to add your own.
Do you remember when …
Lensman had a links list and took photos?
SweetT’s claim to fame was GeorgiaGirls?
MarcDe had only four gay pay sites?
Bob Botto posted on a free website he and Rich owned called Karas?
DragonKing and Meatman lived in Antiqua?
Nick was known for Ilynx?
CashQuest was a top sponsor with five sites?
The first time Penthouse tried to make it on the web?
You saw /knights/ in your click code URL sending traffic to Serge?
Woody’s listed the best top lists?
The top traffic site was called Cliffie’s?
Read more at: oprano.com
On the Showtime reality series chronicling the making of the adult video Debbie Does Dallas… Again, the sloe-eyed porn actress Cassidey disparaged the ambitions of Debbie lead Stefani Morgan, whose entrée into porn had come via some relatively chaste appearances in Girls Gone Wild videos. "She thinks she’s gonna get into mainstream through porn," Cassidey scoffed.
"Nobody ever gets into mainstream through porn."
Who knows just what personal bitterness Cassidey spoke from? After all, she herself was co-starring in Debbie after she had retired from, and then come back, to porn. Like Morgan (who recently retired from porn and described herself as "scarred for life" as she did so), she has looks that say "girl next door" rather than "smut queen." But while recent advances in sexual frankness onscreen seem to be constantly bringing porn and mainstream entertainment closer and closer together, crossing over remains an elusive dream for performers who come up through the world of adult. IS there a double standard? Given that the likes of Kerry Fox, Mark Rylance, and Chloë Sevigny, to name just a few well-regarded actors, have appeared in explicit unsimulated sex scenes and not been tagged with some sort of career stigma suggests there is. But it’s a little more complicated than that.
Ironically, in the era of porno chic that began with 1972′s Deep Throat, porn films were stocked with trained performers who weren’t getting enough "legit" work. Mike Horner was an operatic tenor. Future director (he’s the man behind the camera for Debbie Does Dallas… Again) Paul Thomas was in a touring company of Jesus Christ Superstar. Ron Jeremy, not yet round enough to be called "The Hedgehog," proudly received his SAG card after doing extra work in Woody Allen’s Stardust Memories (he didn’t make the final cut). It was not unusual, on a New York City porn set, to see most of the performers doing the New York Times crossword puzzle on their lunch breaks. Once the industry made its move out to California for good, the ranks of porn performers began to be filled with individuals who, we should be frank, often did not have much talent extending beyond the ability to credibly participate in sex acts in front of a camera. While the culture has gotten to the point that porn people are more visible in mainstream media than ever (VH1 and Howard Stern have provided semi-regular outlets for the likes of, say, a Tera Patrick, while Showtime’s done reality shows on both the aforementioned Debbie and the porn actor/producer known as Seymore Butts) this fact has only made a particular line of demarcation more definite.
The latest performer making a serious, or perhaps we should just say earnest, stab at post-porn mainstream fame is Jenna Jameson, possibly the world’s most famous contemporary porn star. She retired from hardcore a couple of years back (not before caching a fair amount of footage for gradual release over time) and now stars in the horror satire Zombie Strippers,
costarring Robert Englund of Nightmare on Elm Street fame. Before further examining her case, let’s look at some of the cautionary tales of sex stars trying to get some respect.
http://www.premiere.com/features/452…ll-it-off.html
Read more at: oprano.com
Free speech is an issue that affects all Americans, whether they realize it or not. Hanging an American flag upside down in a window, declaring communist views and walking in a protest are all protected under the First Amendment, and all seem to be weighty and important ways to communicate an idea. However, I doubt many people think about the First Amendment.
One person, Professor Catherine MacKinnon of the University of Michigan law school, has been spearheading the anti-pornography movement, forcing people to think about porn as free speech. She believes there is a direct link between the prevalence of pornographic material and crimes against women, and defines porn as material which shows women (or men, or children) being degraded, hurt or raped. This is different from erotica, which is sexual material in which both parties involved in the sexual activity can be perceived by the viewer as being equal participants.
Viewed in this light, should the right to view pornography be protected? When violence is involved, I believe restriction may be warranted. When it comes down to free speech rights in making porn to the equal protection of women under the law, we have to strike a balance.
Traditionally, the religious right has criticized the pornography industry for its ‘moral degradation’ and its ability to corrupt those who watch it. Religious leaders often claim pornography is an affront to family and religious values.
They maintain the corrupting force of pornography is severe enough to warrant government control over the media. These leaders have gained allegiance from an unlikely source-portions of the feminist left.
Pornography has recently come under attack from this group because of the idea that the material being distributed is inherently degrading to women. Porn, according to MacKinnon, leads to women being harassed in the workplace, leads men to believe women enjoy being humiliated and raped and leads society to feel women hold a lesser place than men.
read more nazi bullshit here
Read more at: oprano.com
Dear clients,
In 2008 the challenges of ‘principle’ facing the adult online industry are
fundamentally the same as when I began in 1999. In my opinion, there have
always been two underlying considerations for every business practice: 1) is
it legal, and 2) is it the right thing to do.
I had my own birth by fire in our industry nine years ago after purchasing a
business that I thought answered yes and yes to those questions… but
post-purchase discovered it was, as a whole, not legal and not right by my
own standards. I made many mistakes but the long story short is I "deleted"
everything and started from scratch as soon as I figured out what needed to
be done and how I was going to pay for it during that, my first year of
poverty and self employment.
As a hosting service provider MojoHost has a rich 6 year history of
providing exceptional service, personal support and great value. We have
certainly made mistakes over the years but overwhelmingly are proud of our
service history and reputation for good business practices.
It is my personal belief, and now the official position of MojoHost, that
tube sites whose business model relies predominately on revenues generated
from the dissemination of obviously stolen content are unacceptable and we
will not host them. Any sites discovered on our network that fall into this
category of publishing a preponderance of unlicensed videos will be given 60
days to bring their business model into compliance or may have our
assistance in choosing and moving to another suitable host.
Everyone has to do what is right for their business. This is simply our
choice and it is motivated purely by what I feel is best for our industry as
a whole. This proliferation of stolen content has gone on for too long and
affected content producers and publishers in ways that everyone does not yet
understand. I am of the belief that we will continue to see these tube
sites legitimize their business models, and as each of them finish we would
be happy to provide them with a hosting solution.
I invite your calls, emails and ICQ messages to discuss this matter if it is
important to you. We are completely committed to providing you with an
exceptional hosting solution and helping you with business transition,
growth and challenges.
Sincerely,
Brad Mitchell, CEO
MojoHost
248-233-2045
ICQ #56950199
Read more at: oprano.com
