PU - Met Art - All Activity

RE: Great site, but...

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:35:28 PST

Met Art (15)

03-02-10 05:35pm

COMMENT REPLY by Drooler (194)

To slutty (33):

I don't think they're too big, even the ones that exceed 5600 pixels. But I don't download zips of that size myself. Mid-res and/or low res usually does fine. The largest size I get just of my favorite pics.

View Thread (1)

Met Art Comment

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:15:31 PST

Met Art (15)

03-02-10 05:15pm

COMMENT by slutty (33)

Great site, but...

This site is clearly above all others at what it does - at least in my opinion - gorgeous natural women with fantastic photography.

Just wondering, however, does anyone else think maybe they are taking the picture resolution too far? I mean 3000x4400 seems a tad excessive. A zip file of one of the photo sets I downloaded in high was over 500 MB.

This seams especially odd considering their "mid resolution" sets are usually better quality than the vast majority of other sites.

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: greatness in control

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:18:30 PST

Met Art (15)

01-08-10 06:18pm

COMMENT REPLY by Winston (0)

To Monahan (34):

Yes they have a pretty decent search system.. hair color, breast size, location,ethnicity ect.and my favorite photographer. I'm a big fan of Met Art, if you like glamour that's what they sell. Not that i don't like the colorful stuff too

View Thread (3)

RE: squirrel's Review

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:36:13 PST

Met Art (15)

01-04-10 10:36pm

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (194)

To squirrel (3):

I'm also more with ik2fireone. I really like the site and don't mind the skinny girls with small tits. I guess it's just a matter of taste. And you were fair enough to give it an 85 in spite of it all. That's pretty close to what I'd give, too, but for different reasons (bad lighting, blurriness, overly done scenes such as girls in puddles, etc.).

View Thread (5)

RE: squirrel's Review

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:01:30 PST

Met Art (15)

01-04-10 08:01am

REVIEW REPLY by PinkPanther (38)

To lk2fireone (44):

Count me in with lk - the amount of excellent material for my tastes is pretty much un-paralleled, though there are many sets that I'm not interested in - given their rate of updates, I'm rarely going a day without finding a photo-set that I like quite a bit.

Their vids set the standard for "how boring can you be?"

Their cam shows - which go on for much of the day - are frequently wonderful. Though if you're craving babes banging themselves and screaming "EddieRascal411, fuck my ass now!", stick to the cam shows at Naughty America - you won't see that here.

View Thread (5)

RE: squirrel's Review

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:59:31 PST

Met Art (15)

01-04-10 06:59am

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (44)

To squirrel (3):

I agree that the videos are mainly a waste of time.
But you get a huge amount of photosets of yummy knockout babes.
You also get a huge number of contributing photographers, so the differing styles of the photography, while not wildly different from each other, should give most softcore teen fans of photosets plenty to find satisfaction with.
This is the best teen softcore site on the net for photosets, based on quality of photosets, quantity of photosets, the huge number of contributing photographers, the huge number of attractive models.
The large number of free live-cam hours for the models (part of the membership) is just a bonus.

View Thread (5)

RE: squirrel's Review

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:13:38 PST

Met Art (15)

01-04-10 06:13am

REVIEW REPLY by Denner (200)

To squirrel (3):

Different and refreshing review - and I agree....

Like Monahan, I go for the videos - AND they are not worth a membership.

And all those outdoor scenes are getting too much at MetArt.

But, I like skinny girls - just wish MetArt could make better and sexier shoots (indoor) and BETTER videos...

View Thread (5)

RE: squirrel's Review

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:02:35 PST

Met Art (15)

01-04-10 12:02am

REVIEW REPLY by Monahan (34)

To squirrel (3):

I was a member for a few months 2 or 3 years ago and felt the same way. Way too many standard set ups. But on several occasions a real knockout babe showed up with a super pro photographer shooting some outstanding stuff.

I quit because the videos (I'm more of a video guy) were tepid and mostly videos of the photo shoots (yawn...wake me when it's over please)and I found myself both bored and frustrated; bored with the sameness and frustrated with the difficulty finding good stuff to download.

So I'm in agreement 100% with your review. The score of 85 you gave it is very fair given the quality and quantity compared with other photo sites and reflects my view more than the higher scores posted by others.

View Thread (5)

RE: Worth 90 in the 1990s

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:00:13 PST

Met Art (15)

12-13-09 12:00pm

COMMENT REPLY by adrenalinrush (5)

To Denner (200):

I've just joined MET (1 month only and it will be my last one forever!) because of this discussion.

Ok, naked girls might be a reason to join the site BUT after all MET does not stand the standards of today!

Compared to other sites the images are always mid or just low resolution, you can kick 3/5 of there archive because the images often over-sharpened, blurry or just plain boring.

In the galleries the browsing experience sucks. It's like the Ugh-factor is hitting me like a stone. Who the hell is still using the popup feature from the Stone Age? I don't want to use my browser's back button over and over again anymore.

MET finally has 3-5 top photographers that kept my head up but that's it :/

And something I nearly forgot, I never felt to be welcome in the memberzone. It's plain black and dreary and has additional promotion of other sites and that's something I can't accept as a paying customer!

View Thread (4)

RE: Worth 90 in the 1990s

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:59:37 PST

Met Art (15)

12-09-09 01:59pm

COMMENT REPLY by propaGhandi (5)

To Denner (200):

Yes, 'A shitload of naked girls' is a bit heavy there ...
But MetArt is definately overrated in score at TBP and adrenalinrush is right - sets and videos are really boring here.

View Thread (4)

RE: Worth 90 in the 1990s

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:28:06 PST

Met Art (15)

12-09-09 08:28am

COMMENT REPLY by Denner (200)

To adrenalinrush (5):

Well, well, well: 'A shitload of naked girls' a bit heavy there...
MetArt MAY be a bit overrated in score at TBP in some ways - but it's still a site who comes up with great amounts of entirely exclusive photosets of great - mostly great - euro/easteuro girls - you cannot take that away from them - og what are we here for - but 'naked girls'....ect.
Always had the main complaint: boring videos - but that's almost a historic fact - so skip those as a reason to join.

View Thread (4)

RE: Worth 90 in the 1990s

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:08:13 PST

Met Art (15)

12-08-09 07:08pm

COMMENT REPLY by Drooler (194)

To adrenalinrush (5):

I remember the '90's. I even have an old, faded copy of the Whole Internet User's Guide & Catalogue, published in '92.

Exaggeration does not lend itself to credibility.

View Thread (4)

Met Art Comment

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:17:59 PST

Met Art (15)

12-08-09 03:17pm

COMMENT by adrenalinrush (5)

Worth 90 in the 1990s

MA is the most overvalued page on TBP ever!
A shitload of naked girls might be a reason to join but they should start to rebuild their technical concepts and design. The browsing experience is equally boring as the sets they offer!

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

Met Art Comment

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:06:03 PST

Met Art (15)

11-23-09 06:06am

COMMENT by Denner (200)

Better price for europeans

Well, here we go - if your're in Europe, you have to pay more via CCBill - when you try to join from TBP.
But here are the price in dollars for europeans - and SAVE money - mailed to this user by the Met Art-folks:

https://bill.ccbill.com/jpost/signup.cgi...ish&allowedTypes=139,419,150,295&subscriptionTypeId=136¤cyCode=840

Sorry, I cannot get the entire link marked up/with underlining, but try it anyway (I'm messing with a new pc and a rather unknown Windows Vista)

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

Met Art Comment

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:31:33 PST

Met Art (15)

11-21-09 03:31pm

COMMENT by Denner (200)

Currency help

Met Art got an ok deal at the moment where you can join the Mother-load ( main-site) and the Errotica Archives for a better price: $ 29.95.
But the deal - AND generally the joining-procedure for Met Art comes up different, if you try to join from anywhere in Europe - THEN the price is EURO 29.95 - which is somewhere around 40 Dollars.
But:
Write the webmaster and get another link direct to 'the dollar-deal' and save some money.
I did - and it took about four hours to get a link to 'the right price'
Can I place that link here, webmasters of TBP/PU??????

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Vastly Over-Rated Site

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:50:54 PST

Met Art (15)

11-03-09 12:50am

COMMENT REPLY by asmith12 (117)

To lk2fireone (44):

Just a purely personal opinion :-): for me fake smile is SO MUCH worse than fake boobs, and in "fake smile" department Met Art is FAR ahead of the Playboy :-((.

View Thread (4)

RE: oogles's Review

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:40:09 PST

Met Art (15)

11-02-09 08:40am

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (44)

To picdude (3):

There's no problem if you want to sign up for 1 month. Just sign up for the 1-month recurring membership for $19.99, then cancel your membership before the month is over.

View Thread (10)

RE: Vastly Over-Rated Site

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:28:51 PST

Met Art (15)

11-02-09 08:28am

COMMENT REPLY by lk2fireone (44)

To asmith12 (117):

IMHO, personal taste varies, which is part of what makes it personal. :)

One problem with Playboy, for me, is the models use too much silicone for the boob jobs (or maybe it's saline, for some of them).

View Thread (4)

RE: oogles's Review

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:28:44 PST

Met Art (15)

11-01-09 03:28pm

REVIEW REPLY by picdude (3)

To oogles (9):

great review just a question on pricing though.
Is it possible to sign-up for just ONE month? ie can you cancel instead of letting it recur?

View Thread (10)

RE: nutcrackr's Review

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:37:55 PDT

Met Art (15)

10-02-09 01:37am

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (194)

To nutcrackr (8):

It's why I call Majoly "The Master Shellacker." Same everything but done by Tim Fox would have been a lot nicer.

View Thread (4)

RE: nutcrackr's Review

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:07:37 PDT

Met Art (15)

10-01-09 06:07am

REVIEW REPLY by nutcrackr (8)

To Drooler (194):

Are you seeing this latest stuff Drooler? A set just released today.

Pure A - Accept (Majoly) is a prime example of the crap I am a disliking. Her face looks like a plasticine doll and her skin has no definition because somebody has taken out the blur brush and gone crazy.

I mean I've even noticed some other artists doing similar stuff now on Met-Art to varying degrees. RYLSKY has taken the wonderful face of Loreen and decided her smooth skin wasn't smooth enough by itself and applied a very agressive filter over some of the close shots.

Is this fakeness appealing to anybody? I registered to these sites to see some genuine beauty and they insist on photoshopping a lot of models. :(

View Thread (4)

Met Art Comment

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:36:09 PDT

Met Art (15)

09-14-09 11:36pm

COMMENT by axel2001 (20)

Best in nude art niche

I think Met Art is one of the best site in Nude Art niche. I like models very much.

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Vastly Over-Rated Site

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:02:49 PDT

Met Art (15)

08-18-09 05:02am

COMMENT REPLY by asmith12 (117)

To Wittyguy (71):

Good comparison with Playboy, but you know, Playboy IMHO wins this comparison hands down. For me, Playboy models feel SO MUCH more "alive" then MetArts' "dead fish" ones.

View Thread (4)

RE: Vastly Over-Rated Site

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:07:24 PDT

Met Art (15)

07-27-09 03:07pm

COMMENT REPLY by Wittyguy (71)

To BigLouie (0):

If you're into movies then this site is/was not for you. Met Art is essentially the webs version of what Playboy was years ago - the biggest and best of the softcore photography world. Because they do use a lot of different photographers and tend to focus on euro cuties a lot of sets tend to come off feeling a bit unsensual (that's been a mild beef on my part as well). Anyway, the vids are really just teasers, the good stuff in is pix which are very good indeed.

View Thread (4)

Met Art Comment

Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:59:02 PDT

Met Art (15)

07-26-09 10:59am

COMMENT by BigLouie (0)

Vastly Over-Rated Site

Of all the sites I have joined over the years this is the most over-rated. Not one ounce of sensuous or sexual feeling in anything. The movies are a total joke. My idea of a good movie is NOT to have the stage hands walking back and forth in the scene. In videos with two girls the girls are usually laughing so hard they can barely stand. What's sexy about that?

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: oogles's Review

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:15:25 PDT

Met Art (15)

07-09-09 01:15pm

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (194)

To lk2fireone (44):

Thanks, man. There seem to be 1-2 reviews of MetArt per month. Good to keep close tabs on things. Maybe I'll crank one out for Caesar Augustus.

View Thread (10)

RE: oogles's Review

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:59:06 PDT

Met Art (15)

07-09-09 07:59am

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (44)

To Drooler (194):

Drooler, I wouldn't mind reading one of your reviews on Met-art. You usually manage to come up with something worthwhile to say.

Mbaya posted a couple of days ago that "The reviewers I respect the most are Exotics and Gcode. I feel their reviews are simply awe inspiring and wish I could write as well. The two reviewers I find most helpful as their tastes are similar to mine are Drooler and Denner."

I would put Drooler and Toadsith at the top of my list for the reviewers I respect the most. Though some other PU members come close.

View Thread (10)

RE: oogles's Review

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:52:52 PDT

Met Art (15)

07-09-09 01:52am

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (44)

To Monahan (34):

It continuously surprises me how much personal tastes can differ.
I was thinking the models of the last year were not up the the previous standards of attractiveness. There were a good percentage of lovely young girls in the past, and I've found very few that I really liked this past year.

We agree on the videos, though, but I don't know what they can do, since Met-art is strictly softcore. I find that Femjoy videos are more watchable than Met-art videos, but not by much.

If the videos went very high-definition, that might help a little. Better music background would help a little. But the main problem is the girls don't do much of anything: they walk, they sit, they lay down, stand up. If there was some story to the video, that would help, but these girls are not actresses. And the photo people are not writers that would be able to write a short plot that makes sense and holds interest.

View Thread (10)

RE: oogles's Review

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:10:53 PDT

Met Art (15)

07-08-09 11:10pm

REVIEW REPLY by Monahan (34)

To littlejoe (13):

The clean shaven aspect doesn't bother me that much but the absence of any heavier eroticism, such as finger insertions and/or labia play reduces the appeal of this site.

That said, perhaps it's me but it seems like the models are getting more busty, are doing a lot more leg spreading than before and are, on average, prettier than in past years.

And I wish they would do something to make their videos watchable. They are usually videos of photo shoot sessions which are not nearly as interesting as the stills.

View Thread (10)

RE: oogles's Review

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:48:39 PDT

Met Art (15)

07-08-09 07:48pm

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (194)

To oogles (9):

Nice review. For lovers of softcore, you make important points briefly and well (no fake ta-ta's, no plastic schlongs, and eroticism over "art").

Now, there have been galleries at MetArt with too much "deer in the headlights," or what jd1961 coined as "JC Penny poses," but they're more the exception than the rule.

MetArt, while not perfect, is still tops in my view for erotic softcore. I'm on what's probably my 3rd 365-day membership. I'll spend a little time not subscribed, but then I'm back and at $99 for a year, considering the volume and quality of the content, it's a good deal.

Funny how I've never written a review of it. It's so popular that I really don't have much to add to what others have already said about it.

View Thread (10)

RE: oogles's Review

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:15:04 PDT

Met Art (15)

07-08-09 07:15pm

REVIEW REPLY by oogles (9)

To lk2fireone (44):

Good point; I suppose I need to clairfy.

I have been a member three times, but the first time was for ONE YEAR. That's how I moved through most of the content. Then I returned twice for one month each just to catch up on the new stuff.

That's why in the bottom line section I recommended taking a one year subscription deal if you have never been a member before.

I also agree with you that most of the video is 'skippable.'

View Thread (10)

RE: oogles's Review

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:33:00 PDT

Met Art (15)

07-08-09 03:33pm

REVIEW REPLY by littlejoe (13)

To oogles (9):

i agree, ive been disappointed how many women shave completely

View Thread (10)

RE: oogles's Review

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:37:05 PDT

Met Art (15)

07-08-09 07:37am

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (44)

To oogles (9):

Solid review with nice details and opinions.
But if you were able to get through the massive photo content of this site in three months, you must have been spending a huge amount of time here. And that's if you skipped the video content, which I think is almost all skippable, anyway. :)

View Thread (10)

RE: greatness in control

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:16:46 PDT

Met Art (15)

06-22-09 11:16pm

COMMENT REPLY by GCode (79)

To Monahan (34):

Man, it's been awhile since I was a member but I know there was a search engine that was quite comprehensive as far as tags goes. Meaning, I do believe you can do searches including breast size, hair color, location, and so on. Hopefully a current member can give you more insight.

View Thread (3)

RE: greatness in control

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:14:51 PDT

Met Art (15)

06-22-09 11:14am

COMMENT REPLY by Monahan (34)

To fortherecord777 (0):

Quick question.

Is there a comprehensive search function that one can use to find models with specific attributes, such as large breasts, small breasts, blond, large labias, outdoors, etc., etc.?

View Thread (3)

RE: Create Your Own Galleries

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:50:36 PDT

Met Art (15)

06-19-09 07:50am

COMMENT REPLY by fortherecord777 (0)

To jd1961 (95):

Its a step in the right direction but 2 steps back in execution. Very limited to the ability this feature has. I wish it was more like flickr so we can have our own sets and streams.

View Thread (6)

Met Art Comment

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:38:19 PDT

Met Art (15)

06-19-09 07:38am

COMMENT by fortherecord777 (0)

greatness in control

Like the models very much and the selection is out of this world.

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: zzzins's Review

Wed, 27 May 2009 02:41:59 PDT

Met Art (15)

05-27-09 02:41am

REVIEW REPLY by nutcrackr (8)

To zzzins (11):

Good review, I personally see the lack of explicit content as a pro as it keeps the standard pretty high. But that's just personal preference. Of course I agree that some of the recent vids have been sadly of photoshoots with the camera clicking and people talking in the background which is really unappealing - only Erro pulls this off. Really disappointing, when I look back years at some movies I see some quite good ones, but movies aren't the main thing here anyway. And yes download manager support is very good although others sites I use (hegre, met models and errotica archives) also support dl managers.

View Thread (10)

RE: zzzins's Review

Mon, 11 May 2009 11:41:39 PDT

Met Art (15)

05-11-09 11:41am

REVIEW REPLY by Wittyguy (71)

To zzzins (11):

As some have mentioned, this site is definitely more on the artsy side rather than the erotic. If Met-Art branched out and did some shoots with toys and actual lesbianism it would score out at a 98 on a review for me. While the girls are amazing and there's tons to see it's just a tad too softcore for my long term viewing tastes despite my love of pictures over videos.

View Thread (10)

RE: zzzins's Review

Mon, 11 May 2009 05:51:43 PDT

Met Art (15)

05-11-09 05:51am

REVIEW REPLY by Jeffrey99 (27)

To zzzins (11):

Thanks for the reply. It looks like Met Art is atop my list of sites to try soon.

View Thread (10)

RE: zzzins's Review

Mon, 11 May 2009 02:05:09 PDT

Met Art (15)

05-11-09 02:05am

REVIEW REPLY by zzzins (11)

To Monahan (34):

Totally agree Monahan. I'm a video guy too but joined MetArt because the photos are just so damn good. I see the video content on MetArt as a bit of a bonus really - not why I joined but occasionally nice to have a vid of a girl you've been admiring the photos of. Uma B was a good example for me - major hot babe with about 5 photo sets and all of a suddden 2 or 3 vids appeared - a nice addition.

I agree with you regarding the model names but at least the names are unique. I'm currently writing a database/website to act as a central model "lookup" for as many popular websites as possible and will let the PU community know as soon as I have a beta sit ready to test.

View Thread (10)

RE: zzzins's Review

Mon, 11 May 2009 02:00:09 PDT

Met Art (15)

05-11-09 02:00am

REVIEW REPLY by zzzins (11)

To Jeffrey99 (27):

I'ts a bit of a mix. I'd say 8 out of 10 sets start off fully clothed and gradually strip. On average about 40% of a set of photos will be totally naked and most get progressively more explicit - although none get to spread pussy shots.

View Thread (10)

RE: zzzins's Review

Sun, 10 May 2009 22:33:34 PDT

Met Art (15)

05-10-09 10:33pm

REVIEW REPLY by asmith12 (117)

To PinkPanther (38):

> If you enjoy softer nude stuff well-presented with gorgeous babes - updated daily, this sites's pretty awesome.
Do you mind if I amend it a bit? "If you enjoy softer nude stuff well-presented with gorgeous babes WITH BORED "I'M THE QUEEN AND YOU'RE DIRT" EXPRESSION CLEARLY WRITTEN ON THEIR FACES" - updated daily, this sites's pretty awesome." would be MUCH better description IMHO :-).

View Thread (10)

RE: zzzins's Review

Sun, 10 May 2009 20:20:09 PDT

Met Art (15)

05-10-09 08:20pm

REVIEW REPLY by Jeffrey99 (27)

To zzzins (11):

Nice review. I've always wanted to give this site a try but I'm just wondering, do they start the photo sets off already nude? Or are they clothed at the beginning and then strip to full nude?

That was one thing that killed me about FemJoy, was that 90% of the gallerys the model was already full nude at the start. To me just kinda makes all the photos run together. So was just wondering if that's the way it is here?

View Thread (10)

RE: zzzins's Review

Sun, 10 May 2009 18:56:59 PDT

Met Art (15)

05-10-09 06:56pm

REVIEW REPLY by Monahan (34)

To PinkPanther (38):

I hear you, Nubiles is on my short list to replace a site that I eventually tire of.

Interesting side note that shows you are definitely on target...Nubiles has a check box on their signup page for...yup...MetArt. (Unless you uncheck it you get a $2.99 trial followed by a full membership at $29.99.

View Thread (10)

RE: zzzins's Review

Sun, 10 May 2009 18:04:35 PDT

Met Art (15)

05-10-09 06:04pm

REVIEW REPLY by PinkPanther (38)

To Monahan (34):

Yep - all true. If you enjoy softer nude stuff well-presented with gorgeous babes - updated daily, this sites's pretty awesome.

If you're looking for boy/girl stuff or harder solo stuff, this site will frustrate the hell out of you.

I would highly recommend Nubiles.net for people that are frustrated by Met Art but like the type of girls that they post. Nubiles.net also has multiple updates a day, lots of great HQ masturbations vids, some boy/girl vids - and you can be delighted to find girls that went on to be notable porn babes who did great stuff here early in their careers.

View Thread (10)

RE: zzzins's Review

Sun, 10 May 2009 17:24:06 PDT

Met Art (15)

05-10-09 05:24pm

REVIEW REPLY by Monahan (34)

To zzzins (11):

Although I'm a video guy, I signed up for Met Art for a few months and was blown away by the volume and quality of the photo content. As zzzins suggests in his review, the videos are not why one signs up...and his comments are why I decided to drop the site altogether.

In photos, I prefer erotic over artsy fartsy, and Met Art does provide some good erotic stuff. But the majority of their material is more of the artsy style. There are no men in any of their material at all, no overt pussy or tit play, no insertions, but tons of gorgeous babes of all shapes, sizes and sexiness.

One other point. If you see a babe you'd like to see more of, you'll be frustrated because the site uses just first names and in more than one case the names they use are totally different than those used in other sites.

View Thread (10)

RE: exotics4me's Review

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:47:37 PDT

Met Art (15)

04-07-09 12:47am

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (194)

To exotics4me (365):

Really it's 4 photo updates some days; 3 photos and 1 video on others

View Thread (1)

RE: nutcrackr's Review

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:35:29 PDT

Met Art (15)

04-05-09 01:35pm

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (194)

To nutcrackr (8):

I'd taken to calling Majoly the "Master Shellacker" for what are obvious reasons. But actually, the most-most recent stuff is looking more natural/less 'shopped. Maybe we're being listened to. And maybe it's not just us.

There was a photographer who was even WORSE -- Magoo! Haven't seen that name for a while at MetArt. Fortunately.

View Thread (4)

RE: hondaman's Review

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:17:24 PDT

Met Art (15)

04-03-09 01:17am

REVIEW REPLY by asmith12 (117)

To hondaman (7):

Oh, this background of yours indeed explains "attention to details" which sometimes crosses the border of "not seeing forest for the trees". And it's not your fault, but the one of the whole huge legal system which is built to make formalities dominate over common sense and reason. BTW, if I would be in your place (which is not too likely), I would care much more about "not guilty person behind the bars" rather than about "guilty person walking free".

Anyway, I don't see how this background of yours is relevant to the concern I have raised.

View Thread (24)