PU - 40 Something Mag - All Activity

RE: pat362's Review

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:44:21 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

04-18-11 06:44pm

REVIEW REPLY by pat362 (233)

To Khan (Staff):

Thanks Khan. I just want to make sure that no one else gets burned if the streaming only is a permanent change.

View Thread (8)

RE: pat362's Review

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:51:05 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

04-18-11 02:51pm

REVIEW REPLY by Khan (Staff)

To pat362 (233):

Just a FYI ...

I've asked the TBP Editors to look into this one further so that we can get the info in both the listing and the former review updated. If possible, they'll find our exactly what the restrictions are and what Score sites they apply to ... and update our listings accordingly.

We appreciate you guys bringing this to our attention and will try to resolve this as quickly as possible.

View Thread (8)

RE: pat362's Review

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:57:40 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

04-18-11 10:57am

REVIEW REPLY by pat362 (233)

To Thomas20 (2):

It's a good suggestion Thomas20 but since their double speak isn't really lying. So asking for my money back isn't really an option. I agree that the double speak is borderline but it's more the way their preview pages are set-up and TBP's review that caused me to be fooled. Another member has told me that the changes are recent so that's why TBP's review is now obsolete.

I take comfort in the fact that my 20$ membership will cost the site and others from the same company some serious loss of income.

View Thread (8)

RE: pat362's Review

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:50:38 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

04-18-11 10:50am

REVIEW REPLY by pat362 (233)

To messmer (123):

I agree because the only thing we can do is warn other people of the changes. Then it's their choice if they don't mind joining a site that has mostly streaming videos. I've posted an error report a TBP so they can alter their review to match the changes.

View Thread (8)

RE: pat362's Review

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:07:12 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

04-18-11 10:07am

REVIEW REPLY by Thomas20 (2)

To pat362 (233):

This isn't the 80s anymore when fleecing adult content customers with double speak was standard practice. 'access to' means you can see them. I would email the billing merchant and request a charge back, (doubly so if they suggested you can download the vids when you can't - allows downloads means all the vids not a handful).

View Thread (8)

RE: pat362's Review

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:52:54 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

04-18-11 08:52am

REVIEW REPLY by messmer (123)

To pat362 (233):

Hi Pat, I wish other members of SCORE sites would look in or speak up because if the new model is being used right across the board we should warn everyone through the Forum. This way people who would never subscribe to streaming only, and I am one of them, would have advance warning. The ideal would be for the TBP staff to look into the matter and issue a warning in connection with SCORE.

View Thread (8)

RE: pat362's Review

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 05:53:00 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

04-18-11 05:53am

REVIEW REPLY by pat362 (233)

To messmer (123):

Thanks for the info messmer. I suspected that the changes were done after TBP's review. There is no way they wouldn't have noticed that the videos are now streaming only. I hope TBP makes a change to their review because a lot of people will get burned like me. I know that I would never have joined any of their sites if I'd know about the streaming only option.

Score is correct that it will stop piracy but the problem is that it will also stop paying members who only wanted to download to their computer the pics and videos from joining.

View Thread (8)

RE: pat362's Review

Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:42:53 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

04-17-11 07:42pm

REVIEW REPLY by messmer (123)

To pat362 (233):

Pat, your review confirms to me that all of SCORE must have switched to a new way of doing business recently. The way it works in 50plus MILFS is that the three most recent updates are available for download, after a certain short period they are being downgraded to streaming only. And then after another fairly short period they are being retired for good. This would explain why there are so few videos and picture sets listed. I am not very good at explaining but if you go to the latest comments at 50plus MILFS you'll get your answer. SCORE'S explanation is that it is done to combat Piracy!!! BTW, TBP wrote their review before this startling change.

View Thread (8)

RE: messmer's Review

Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:07:58 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

11-09-10 03:07pm

REVIEW REPLY by messmer (123)

To malikstarks (8):

LOL. I am always amazed when it comes to the diversity in tastes, malikstarks. I did not think anyone would dislike lingerie because in my eyes it enhances women so much.

You mention AllOver30 and Anilos. I subscribed to AO30 many, many times in the past. Just got finished with a three months subscription and was bitterly disappointed this time around because sets containing lingerie were so rare.

I just re-joined Anilos but will probably unsubscribe once I'm caught up on the updates since June when I was there last. Won't take me long, because once again .. sets with erotic lingerie are the only ones that stir my blood and there aren't all that many. I have seen too much plain nudity over a life time and it now pretty well leaves me cold.

Good luck with your foot fetish and may you find many sites that cater to your taste!

messmer still looking for his!

View Thread (6)

RE: messmer's Review

Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:55:15 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

11-09-10 02:55pm

REVIEW REPLY by malikstarks (8)

To messmer (123):

I understand Mesmer, I'm not too far away from you in that I actually prefer softcore (although I actually dislike lingerie sets and have a fairly strong foot fetish), especiall when it comes to mature sites. This is why Ive been known to frequent sites like Allover30 and southern charms.

I need to correct my original statement regarding 50plusmilfs as I meant to say it is mostly vids (not pics).

I must say that you must really be desperate for the type of niche you mentioned if subscribed to 50plusmilfs for the interviews,lol! You've expressed this before and I feel kind of bad you've not found that ideal site. (Neither have I in some ways) Although don't sites like Allover30 and Anilos fit the bill to an extent, they are constantly updating?

Anyhow, carry on.

View Thread (6)

RE: messmer's Review

Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:27:03 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

11-09-10 10:27am

REVIEW REPLY by messmer (123)

To malikstarks (8):

malikstarks wrote: "My only issue with your review is that your motivation for joining came from 50plusmilfs which is essentially hardcore only. Yet when judging this site, you didn't like the hardcore focus.

Really, one could argue that based off that you should have given 40somethingmag an even higher score than 50plusmilfs. Since 40somethingmag has both hardcore vids and pictures, while 50 plus milfs is primarily pics."

Hi malikstarks, there's a complicated and confusing explanation for that revealing my ambiguity when it comes to hardcore vs. softcore. :-)

First though, let me say again that I found the videos in 40somethingmag so bad that I couldn't give it a higher score (640x380 for a new update is pathetic). And videos were the only reason I subscribed to this site, hoping to get some more classy ladies in lingerie, the vintage type so many of the models in 50plus MILFS are wearing. So that was my biggest disappointment.

I had no intention of even looking at 40somethingmag's pictures,(except for a sample set for the review) as good as they may be technically, because the yellow watermark really does drive me nuts. If only they made it a bit smaller and placed it at the bottom right!

Now, as to complicated and confusing re. hardcore material. This may sound strange but I am not terribly keen on hardcore in my niche (older women in sexy lingerie) so I didn't embrace it in 50plus MILFS either, I put up with it. :-)

This is one of the reasons why I like the interviews where the models are stripping better than the follow-up action clips. Even though I subscribe to video sites quite frequently (go figure why I can tolerate, even like hardcore there) my ideal site would be a softcore, solo, picture site containing .. you know who wearing you know what. That's why I didn't download a single picture set from 50/60plus MILFS either, the men "coming between me and my girlfriends" bother me. (Someone had that as a signature in the forum) :-)

Leaving you hopelessly confused,

messmer

View Thread (6)

RE: messmer's Review

Mon, 08 Nov 2010 23:45:07 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

11-08-10 11:45pm

REVIEW REPLY by malikstarks (8)

To messmer (123):

First off sorry you were disappointed Messmer. I think the score is a bit low, but can understand your point of view on it.

IMO 40somethingmag has value, but only in the right context. As a standalone sight it is hard to justify the purchase even at $19.99, which is why I'm a member only as a result of the Score Rewards plan that is offered on most of the major Score sites.

Basically if you purchase one site for $19.99 you get to add on a new site each month for the same cost. I have memberships to most of the major Score Group sites using this. And I think they definetely have some pretty good sites on the whole. Sometimes you have to wait to add the site you really want but I won't bore you with the details.

I look at 40something mag kinda like this, they are a hybrid jack of all trades type of site. They do pictures better than a site like Naughty America, in which pics are just an add-on, however they get smoked in the vids department by a site like that.

On the other hand imo they do vids slightly better (primarily due to the lack of HD downloads) than a site like Allover30. At least from the standpoint of hardcore-if that's what your looking for. (While obviously getting smoked in the pics department)

My only issue with your review is that your motivation for joining came from 50plusmilfs which is essentially hardcore only. Yet when judging this site, you didn't like the hardcore focus.

Really, one could argue that based off that you should have given 40somethingmag an even higher score than 50plusmilfs. Since 40somethingmag has both hardcore vids and pictures, while 50 plus milfs is primarily pics.

The one area that the Score Group has made a miserly and imo short-sited decision is to house most of it's HD vids on ScoreHD. HD vids of 40somethingmag exist, but they are all available on ScoreHD along with the HD vids to most all of the ScoreGroup sites. (with exceptions for explicit standalone sites like 50plusmilfs, and ChristyMarks).

I cannot speak to the watermarks. I respect and understand your dislike of them, but I'm sure that for many (like myself) it is a non-issue and mostly a matter of preference/tolerance level.

Anyway sorry for the lengthy comment, and thanks for staying so active on the boards providing users with as much advice as you do!

View Thread (6)

RE: messmer's Review

Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:52:06 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

11-06-10 06:52pm

REVIEW REPLY by messmer (123)

To RagingBuddhist (47):

You're welcome,RB. Actually the watermarks don't exactly cover the fun parts, in reluctant defense of this site, but quite often intrude in the hair and foreheads of the models.

View Thread (6)

RE: messmer's Review

Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:12:00 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

11-06-10 06:12pm

REVIEW REPLY by RagingBuddhist (47)

To messmer (123):

Thanks for saving me some money. I'd thought about joining this site more than once, now I know better. I (reluctantly) understand the desire for a site to brand their product, but huge watermarks - especially those that block the "fun parts" - are annoying as hell. Not something I can see paying for.

View Thread (6)

RE: Thanks, Maggie!

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:37:54 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

01-08-10 05:37am

COMMENT REPLY by ace of aces (179)

To messmer (123):

without beeing a lover of big breasts, most of the milfs and mature sites are nothing for you ^^. anyway, that site is nothing for me, as a big breast lover, either.

View Thread (12)

RE: Thanks, Maggie!

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:07:14 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

12-30-09 08:07am

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (123)

To ace of aces (179):

Well, you won't miss anything. I won't go back even though I gave the site a relatively high score for the sake of fairness. I am not a great lover of big breasts and they appear to major in that! :-)

View Thread (12)

RE: Thanks, Maggie!

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:12:12 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

12-30-09 07:12am

COMMENT REPLY by ace of aces (179)

To messmer (123):

ah, ok. as a matter of fact i am not a score fan because of theire video policy (difficult to find, meixed quality e.g.). therfore i won`t give that site a try . thanks

View Thread (12)

RE: Thanks, Maggie!

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:23:51 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

12-16-09 02:23pm

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (123)

To ace of aces (179):

I gave it an 88, see my review of Score HD. But I think I was a bit enthralled by the HD factor, the other sites of the net were okay but not HD so if I were to judge the net as a whole I'd probably give it about 82.

View Thread (12)

RE: Thanks, Maggie!

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:57:36 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

12-16-09 08:57am

COMMENT REPLY by ace of aces (179)

To messmer (123):

and what is that site in youre opinion? a 50 or a 80?

View Thread (12)

RE: Thanks, Maggie!

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:32:24 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

12-14-09 09:32am

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (123)

To GCode (99):

Yes I was a member of Score HD and gave a review of that site. I concentrated mostly on the videos because the pics were all screen caps. The Watermark was there but if I recollect correctly it was on the bottom in a more metallic gray and didn't bother me because it was out of the way. :-)

View Thread (12)

RE: Thanks, Maggie!

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:19:26 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

12-13-09 08:19pm

COMMENT REPLY by GCode (99)

To messmer (123):

lol I totally re-read my reply and realized I totally messed up my question (I've had a few beam and cokes :)) I meant to say have you been a member of any of their sites and have maybe not reviewed them. Lol, I totally dropped the ball on writing that text, huh? :)

View Thread (12)

RE: Thanks, Maggie!

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:04:11 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

12-13-09 08:04pm

COMMENT REPLY by GCode (99)

To messmer (123):

Ah yeah I meant a review or comment on PU. I was assuming that maybe you knew the watermarks of the photos may be based on a previous membership that maybe you never reviewed/commented on. As far as the remark about any of the sites, I think (and think it is) that this company had a site that primarily was mature video content, while this particular site is mainly photography. I see now that the reply could have been taken the wrong way and I apologize, but it was a reply that was whole heartedly in good fun when I thought that maybe you were a previous/current member that may have not reviewed the site yet. Thanks for the reply :)

View Thread (12)

RE: Thanks, Maggie!

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:50:16 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

12-13-09 07:50pm

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (123)

To GCode (99):

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question, GCode. The only review site I frequent is PU/TBP. If you mean have I ever been a member of 40 Something Mag the answer is no, because the samples I saw on the Usenet stopped me from subscribing. I always skipped them any time someone posted a batch or two. The models seem great but I couldn't get past that watermark.

View Thread (12)

RE: Thanks, Maggie!

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:02:19 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

12-13-09 07:02pm

COMMENT REPLY by GCode (99)

To messmer (123):

messmer have you been a member of any of their review sites ever? If so, let's see a review or gimme some feedback! Seems like they may have the model selection right?

View Thread (12)

RE: Thanks, Maggie!

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:22:09 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

12-13-09 09:22am

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (123)

To mr smut (40):

If they don't want to change I think it would be more tolerable if they shifted the watermark to the bottom right, at least that way they wouldn't get into the model's face and hair. BTW, Andie is one of my favorites as well. I have quite a few sets of hers from various mature sites. :-)

View Thread (12)

RE: Thanks, Maggie!

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:01:54 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

12-13-09 12:01am

COMMENT REPLY by mr smut (40)

To messmer (123):

I just checked some of the content I downloadaed while being a member there and besides of the fact that the pictures I grabbed are mostly nice I agree with Maggie and you.
A pic of my favourite model Andie shot in 2006 and 809x1200 pixel large has a watermark of 297x66 pixel with the padding to the top and left area added it takes up 306x74 pixel which is annoying. That's more than 1/3 of the horizontal image area.

I'd really like to go back to this site but as they still use such intrusive watermarks :-(

View Thread (12)

40 Something Mag Comment

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:59:48 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

12-12-09 01:59pm

COMMENT by messmer (123)

Thanks, Maggie!

I noticed in your review that you mentioned the intrusive watermarks. See my remarks below, so thanks. Maybe one of these days the webmaster will take notice and people like me who hate their big yellow glaring logo will be able to subscribe.

Visit 40 Something Mag - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: spacenick's Review

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:34:54 PST

40 Something Mag (2)

11-24-08 08:34am

REVIEW REPLY by Cybertoad (77)

To spacenick (5):

short review any more info?

View Thread (1)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Thu, 08 May 2008 10:11:38 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-08-08 10:11am

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (103)

To messmer (123):

I am sure sure there are some that must be paid for. But if you google them yo can find them. Most of the time there is not any decent sites on these listing anyway, most of the higher grade sites have ways of preventing numerous IPs from signing in under the same user name

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Thu, 08 May 2008 09:21:12 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-08-08 09:21am

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (123)

To badandy400 (103):

Just curious: do people actually subscribe to sites like that or are their urls sort of passed around by word of mouth by hackers?

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Thu, 08 May 2008 09:11:41 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-08-08 09:11am

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (103)

To messmer (123):

Well yes certainly. That works a lot like the Thumbnail Galleries. But I have also seen a good bit of exclusive content their as well.

Yup, password sites exist! This is why there is many sites that have download limits and make you sigh in ever hour or so.

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Thu, 08 May 2008 07:47:39 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-08-08 07:47am

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (123)

To badandy400 (103):

Call me naive but I didn't realize that websites like that existed. I don't move in those circles. :-) As to your remarks re. the usenet, yes, I can see how that might be hurtful to the web owners but only in cases where people massively flood the material. In my case, and I'm sure in the case of many others, the odd set published on the usenet gave me a better idea on what a site's material was all about than their "tours" and helped me to make up my mind to subscribe ... or not in the case of 40something.

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Wed, 07 May 2008 21:38:28 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-07-08 09:38pm

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (103)

To messmer (123):

Well. That could be a little of both. many people put stuff on there just to share with others and other people put stuff on their that they download. There is a good amount of content that is okay to be there, but there is also a lot of content that was bought by someone then posted for others to download for free, thus screwing the site owners and the rest of us who are paying the premium price. Usenet offers a way to steal content from websites with out ever touching the site.

I was mostly referring to websites that post hacked user names and password for everyone to use. Unlike usenet, this method still required the owners to pay for the bandwidth with out being able to collect any membership fees.

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Tue, 06 May 2008 08:22:32 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-06-08 08:22am

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (123)

To badandy400 (103):

I feel naive because I never tied the binaries that are offered on the usenet to cracking passwords. It's so obvious yet I really believed it was subscribers wanting to share their favorite models with others. How dumb can you get!

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Mon, 05 May 2008 16:07:39 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-05-08 04:07pm

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (103)

To messmer (123):

Yes how true, many men do not. On the other hand, does a map company "own" directions? Of course not because you could also go to Burger King and ask someone that is eating and get the same directions. It really comes down to would you have bought the map if the clerk could not answer you, or would you have simply ask someone else. However, the store clerk could have simply said to buy a map, but he chose not to. Cup half full or empty I guess.

If you look at a picture that you NEVER had the intention to buy than the photographer really has lost nothing if you look at it at your friends house because you were not going to buy it regardless. It does not cost the photographer money for each time a friend looks at another friends collection. Of course, a person should not copy their friend's collection, unless of course they want to pay a membership fee at least.

On that, it can be seen that password cracking sites are counterproductive to the porn community because even though a person may never had intended to pay for the pictures he is looking at, the owner still had to pay the bandwidth usage it took to download them. This means that the owner would never had mad any money off of you but he still had to pay for you to be able to look at them.

Gee, now I feel bad myself for using that password crack site while back. Kicking my own ass!

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Mon, 05 May 2008 13:09:27 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-05-08 01:09pm

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (123)

To badandy400 (103):

Thanks, you made me feel better about the times I did look at a "friend's" pictures on the usenet. :-) And it is absolutely true that quite frequently the looking leads to a subscription. It has in my case, with three separate pay sites. I saw some sets and thought: I want 'em all! As to asking directions of a store owner who sells maps. That's despicable. The man loses a sale, the company who prints the maps loses. In the future I will never ask for directions again but buy a map instead. :-) It's only fair. But, come to think of it, the whole thing is theoretical: real men don't ask for directions!!!

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Mon, 05 May 2008 12:14:22 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-05-08 12:14pm

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (103)

To messmer (123):

I wouldn't accuse you either way, but we will not get into my views on the laws of piracy. Most of us have used something to see pictures without paying for them. No different than going to a friend's house and looking through their collection. Can be a good way to see who you want to subscribe to. No different than flipping through a magazine at the store before deciding to buy it.

Here is one for you. If a person goes into a store that sells road maps and get directions from the clerk, did the person steal from the store?

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Mon, 05 May 2008 09:05:42 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-05-08 09:05am

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (123)

To badandy400 (103):

I'm forewarned because I've seen whole sets of theirs posted on the Usenet on occasion but no one will ever be able to accuse me of piracy or theft because I wouldn't download their pictures if my life depended on it (small exaggeration). If they are samples seeded by them in order to draw attention to their site they are not going to attract anyone who is a fan of pictures. If they made their markings smaller I would subscribe. The models are fine.

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Sun, 04 May 2008 16:59:46 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-04-08 04:59pm

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (103)

To messmer (123):

InFocus Girls, Nubiles, Zexy Teens, Xisty, Twistys, and others seem to have pretty small markings too.

I just checked out 40 somethings homepage, they dont even let you see a sample photo anywhere! From the outside of the site a person would never know that the watermarks are an issue.

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Sun, 04 May 2008 15:19:32 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-04-08 03:19pm

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (123)

To badandy400 (103):

You quoted: "Too many time have we seen the best part covered by these markings!" Exactly!

If they just reduced the logo a bit, got rid of the yellow in the forty, and put it consistently near the bottom right ... or something ... I could live with that. But to put a huge watermark in a model's hair that's mutilation of the photographer's work. Sites like atk or Aunt Judy do it just about right.

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Sun, 04 May 2008 14:56:43 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-04-08 02:56pm

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (103)

To messmer (123):

I must agree with this. I have seen this in too many other places too. A small make can actually be nice so you can tell where the pictures, or videos even go. I like to keep things sorted by site and some have no markings and a year after downloading the video I usually do not have the slightest clue where it goes. But, they should be small.

Many of the nicer sites have a very small marking that must be looked for at times. I really do not like the large ones either, they really should blend into the picture. Every one will know who's it was since it is still there, but should not take away from the picture. Too many times have we seen the best part covered by these marking!

View Thread (13)

40 Something Mag Comment

Sun, 04 May 2008 12:29:27 PDT

40 Something Mag (2)

05-04-08 12:29pm

COMMENT by messmer (123)

Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

I wonder how many lovers of mature women do not subscribe to this site because the water mark is too big, too brash and too destructive to the pictures (placed in the wrong spot). This glaring self-promotion might be tolerable on the first picture of a set but on every single pic? Webmaster, if you are looking .. I would be a subscriber if you ever decided to reduce the logo to a more modest, more unobtrusive size.

Visit 40 Something Mag - View Replies - Add Reply