PU - Jimmy Diamond Productions - All Activity

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:57:20 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-21-08 01:57pm

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (6)

To Khan (Staff):

Khan,

I realize the rules are set up to make the member postings informative and useful.

I kinda like the idea that "my thoughts (are) really cast in stone, to stand the test of time".

So I am comfortable with the 10-minute limit for editing.

I will stand by my words. With further modifications as needed.

Regards,

lk2fireone

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:12:49 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-21-08 11:12am

REVIEW REPLY by Khan (Staff)

To lk2fireone (6):

Ik2fireone said:
//--
On a different side note: Quibble me this: Why is there a 10 minute limit on editing these replies?

Are my thoughts really cast in stone, to stand the test of time?
//--

As messmer rightly guessed, it's to keep you from editing something that someone may have responded to. You're always welcome to add additional remarks (after the 10 minutes) to modify or add to your position.

If you're interested, you can see in an earlier poll that only a small percentage of users have a problem with the time limit on a regular basis.

Has the 10 minutes limit to edit replies ever been a problem?

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:16:36 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-21-08 10:16am

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (6)

To messmer (24):

I took my mother to see "Out of Africa" and "The Color Purple" when they were playing together at a movie theater in 1986.

Out of Africa won 7 Oscars.
The Color Purple was nominated for 11 Oscars.

The movies were supposed to be excellent, but I was bored out of my mind.
I kept going out to the lobby, and smoked half a pack of cigarettes because I was so bored.

Lol.

That was when it was still legal to smoke in theaters.

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:54:39 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-21-08 08:54am

REVIEW REPLY by messmer (24)

To lk2fireone (6):

I, too, don't pay too much attention to a score because it's too subjective. Same holds true when it comes to movie critics, I find most of the movies they deem Oscar worthy mind-numbingly boring while the ones they pan usually turn out to become favorites of mine! :-)

I do pay attention, however, to really low ratings in their fifties and sixties because quite obviously the reviewer had a very negative experience with the site.

As to your follow-up re. time limitations on editing a reply I really have no idea. Could it be that someone will respond to a point you made and you have edited out that very point in the meantime?

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:05:18 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-21-08 08:05am

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (6)

To messmer (24):

Just a side note: You write reviews that clearly give the reader plenty of information to decide on the value of a site.

I think pornusers is helpful in spending my porn dollars more sensibly. As well as offering discounts on pay site subscriptions.

On a different side note: Quibble me this: Why is there a 10 minute limit on editing these replies?

Are my thoughts really cast in stone, to stand the test of time?

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:48:24 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-21-08 07:48am

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (6)

To messmer (24):

You hit it exactly when you say, "a 98 (rated) site for one might be the epitome of boredom for another."

That's why I am quibbling about the value of a score.

I've seen pay sites rated 90+ I would not want to watch for free. Either the models don't appeal to me, or the action is a real turnoff. Personal taste (site content) is more important than ease of use (site layout).

I want a site that's easy to use. But more importantly, I want:
-great looking models.
-lots of high-quality pics or vids
-a price that I think reasonable (based on content)

Still looking for the perfect site. In the meantime, I enjoy window shopping.

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:04:18 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-21-08 07:04am

REVIEW REPLY by messmer (24)

To lk2fireone (6):

Hi, I usually try to go by the guide listed under the review I write but must admit that, of course, a score is subjective. To me, 68 is a clear rejection of a site. It was so for the web owner who let me know how disappointed he was with my assessment of his site. If you look at the scores given to good sites then you will agree that 68 is as low as one can go on a site that is bad but not quite "junk." He did have some exclusive material that might appeal to some but the name of the site is misleading. And I agree with you about scoring in general, to me it is much more important that reviewers go into as much detail about a site as possible because a 98 site for one might be the epitome of boredom for another.

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:01:55 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-20-08 04:01pm

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (6)

To messmer (24):

I like the review of Old Spunkers. Clean, easy to understand, lots of details.

What I don't understand is the score. I have a hard time figuring out how to score a site. I've only done 3 site reviews. 2 of the sites I scored at 75, and I like the sites, think they are worthwhile joining, even if you only join for a month to download whatever files you want to keep (Domai and Glamdeluxe).
One site I scored 97, because its got massive content, lots of great models, lots of quality photosets, and a low annual price of $99 (Metart). That's the best value I've seen for softcore teen.

But you give a score of 68 to a junk site.

What counts is the overall impression of the site, which you make clear. But I wonder how useful these scores are, even as a general guide. People really need to read the complete review of a site, and not just look at the score as a major factor.

I wish I had a more objective way of scoring a site, because I don't think a score means very much.

On the other hand, I'm also glad we can score any way we want, because I wouldn't like to be bound by some formula that Pornusers developed for scoring.

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:55:49 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-15-08 09:55am

REVIEW REPLY by TheRizzo (19)

To messmer (24):

Yeah Toby can be frustrating as his sets have their own look but but not as crisp as I would like. Its like he wants to look amateurish or something. At least they made him pull back a bit and shoot more full body shots instead of all closeups like he used to do. And you are right he does get some of the best models. I'd love to see a few other photographers shoot the same girls just for comparison.

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Sat, 15 Nov 2008 06:59:36 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-15-08 06:59am

REVIEW REPLY by messmer (24)

To TheRizzo (19):

I might just have to re-subscribe to AO30 one of these days soon! :-) It is a quality site even though I found many of their photo sets less than inspiring (see my rant in the forum), and I keep hoping they'll replace some of the photographers like Toby who can be found on entirely too many sites. I hate that bluish/pinkish tinge and the unnecessary "softness" he gives his sets .. especially since he is the photographer of one of my favorite models.

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:55:32 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-14-08 08:55pm

REVIEW REPLY by TheRizzo (19)

To messmer (24):

The everlasting quest for the older ladies is damn near impossible to find. If All Over 30 can't find them I doubt these other sites will. But we can hope to get more options and variety one day!

BTW you see AO30 has a few newer girls late 40's and early 50's and I see they got a new girl Sandra who is 64.

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:44:53 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-14-08 01:44pm

REVIEW REPLY by messmer (24)

To Monahan (29):

Thanks, that means a great deal coming from you, Monahan!

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:43:53 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-14-08 01:43pm

REVIEW REPLY by messmer (24)

To mbaya (78):

You're not just whistling Dixie, my friend. I was going to include that in my review but couldn't be sure it was them. After my little session with the site AVG informed me during its daily check that I had acquired 6 little spy bots. They're gone .. and thanks!

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:22:37 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-14-08 01:22pm

REVIEW REPLY by Monahan (29)

To messmer (24):

Great review, as always, Messmer. It's efforts like this that make Porn Users so far superior to any other porn review sites.

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:15:32 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-14-08 01:15pm

REVIEW REPLY by mbaya (78)

To messmer (24):

Very good and complete review. I hate to add to the problems, but adultfriendfinder is notorious for leaving spyware counters on your computer. That alone makes me uncomfortable about the site.

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:07:39 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-14-08 01:07pm

REVIEW REPLY by messmer (24)

To WeeWillyWinky (70):

As you can tell by the review I had the same problem with the name as you, www. I even hated to do a review with that title so prominent on the page but it was my hope to find, in a site like that, not necessarily a gray-haired retiree, even though that wouldn't be bad, depending .... :-) but someone who was an honest to goodness, real life, mature person over fifty. I am running out of options, man!

Can't promise what weird site I'll visit next just because it promises older, just like your neighbor, ladies.

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:47:30 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-14-08 12:47pm

REVIEW REPLY by WeeWillyWinky (70)

To messmer (24):

Top-notch review, messmer.

In regard to the site's title: I would never even wind up at the welcome page of a site with a name like that. I ended up subscribing at one site, or network, more correctly, with a real dud of a name because of a rewiew here. It's called Monster Pimps. The network is very docile and tame and is mostly about softcore shots of cheerleaders, with a few mild HC sites. Monster Pimps sounds like the EXACT opposite of that. Old Spunkers makes me think of gray-haired retirees at a Pinocle table suddenly feeling an itch in the diapers.

**No dis-respect to aged persons intended.

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:31:21 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-14-08 12:31pm

REVIEW REPLY by messmer (24)

To TheRizzo (19):

Thanks, Rizz! I tell you how I feel about this site. I'm not going back even though I paid for a month. First time I've done that with any site.

View Thread (19)

RE: messmer's Review

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:09:48 PST

Old Spunkers (1)

11-14-08 11:09am

REVIEW REPLY by TheRizzo (19)

To messmer (24):

Great review with good details so that I can make a good informed decision about this site. And based on how you feel about All Over 30 I know we have similar tastes in older women.

I will stay away from this one.

View Thread (19)

Multiple Site News

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:45:22 PDT

Multiple Sites (2)

04-18-08 08:45am

NEWS by JimmyDiamond (1)

Whole scenes now available

Seems like some people are still not aware but whole scenes @ 2MB 640x480 WMV now available for download :)

View Replies - Add Reply

RE: I tried the trial membership -and have remained a member.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:36:08 PDT

Chubby Loving (1)

04-17-08 07:36am

COMMENT REPLY by sniffer (0)

To malikstarks (8):

Thanks for the tips, mate. I'll check out the sites you recommend.

View Thread (2)

RE: I tried the trial membership -and have remained a member.

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:52:07 PDT

Chubby Loving (1)

04-16-08 08:52pm

COMMENT REPLY by malikstarks (8)

To sniffer (0):

This looks like more of a review than a comment. I have been a member here before; does a fairly good job for what it is. Although, if you like such content (particularly the hardcore) I would refer you to sites like, BBWsuperstars, BBWpornpass, and perhaps all kinds of girls.

View Thread (2)

Chubby Loving Comment

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:28:24 PDT

Chubby Loving (1)

04-16-08 04:28pm

COMMENT by sniffer (0)

I tried the trial membership -and have remained a member.

+ Hundreds of lovely chubby ladies in a wide variety of picture sets.
+ Full access to sister site Old Spunkers.
+ Access to free scheduled webcam shows included in extras.
+ The ability to save pictures to a favourites folder
+ Fair value for money all in all. I have been a member for around a month, and I haven't been bored at all!

- Site needs updating, the interface seems a little tired.
- No slideshow function when viewing a picture set.
- No streaming of DVDs. Though films are broken into clips, they take an age to load, even with a 20meg connection.
- The quality of the photo sets varies from excellent to very poor indeed.
- There are some rather old photo sets -only a small percentage is exclusive.
- The bonus sites (webcam excluded) are a waste of time -very poor.

Visit Chubby Loving - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: powerman's Review

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:57:37 PDT

Chubby Loving (1)

04-10-08 12:57pm

REVIEW REPLY by JimmyDiamond (Webmaster)

To powerman (28):

Sir, thank you for your comments I am sorry you did not enjoy your time at chubbyloving.com. We work *very* hard but we realize that we cannot please all of the people all of the time

I think that your main concerns with the site have been addressed by the fact that whole scenes @ 640x480 2MB are now available. When you was a member movies were available as 5 min clips @ 320x240 1MB (these are still available)

Site design is kept simple so that members can get on with enjoying 200+ chubby DVDs & 45 Exclusive models ;)

Best regards
Jimmy Diamond

View Thread (1)