| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
226
|
Amanda Lexx
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Review
from SnowDude:
Hey roseman! I've been a big fan of your reviews, but your score is 20 points higher than TBP. I don't doubt that you think this is an awesome site for even a second, but what do you think accounts for such a large gap? Let us know!
|
02-22-07 08:21pm
|
Reply
227
|
Playboy's CyberClub
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Horny Ryan:
(roseman's Reply)
nope i dont think anything is downloadable except for individual photos.
|
02-20-07 09:09am
|
Reply
228
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Martin Krake:
(roseman's Reply)
Thank you for the flowers! :-)
I have some special agencies in Czech Republic and Hungary. These two countries provide the best nude models in the world!
|
02-20-07 12:07am
|
Reply
229
|
Dainews
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from SnowDude:
(roseman's Reply)
Thanks roseman! I should be more vocal in my assessment of your reviews which have been awesome. I'll try to do better in the future. Thanks!
|
02-19-07 01:29pm
|
Reply
230
|
Lisa Sparxxx
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from SnowDude:
(roseman's Reply)
Interesting! I just may have to give Lisa a try...well, her site anyway. ;)
|
02-12-07 06:17am
|
Reply
231
|
Lisa Sparxxx
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Comment
from SnowDude:
Thanks for the review and the follow up roseman! I'm definitely a Lisa fan, although TBP review made me hesitate because it said there was no interaction with Lisa. To me, that's the attraction of a site like this, so would you agree with TBP's review on that point? Also, how much content would you say there is overall?
|
02-11-07 10:20am
|
Reply
232
|
Carrie Land
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Comment
from volupfan:
I thought about these comments - zip files are good for the member but real bad for the model. like you say zips dont protect content so i dont think any site should have them if the content is exclusive to them.
video's for carrie are pretty good though - just remember hers start back in 2001 and girls used cams back then so her earlier ones arnt no worse than anyone elses. hers are much improved now though, big kbps and proper vid cam.
loads of girls are still using webcams and just update loads of clips from cam shows. im glad carrie doesnt do this cause downloading clips of a girl where shes just talking to a cam is a cheap way of bumping vid count.
i emailed her some too - she was quick to get back and real nice.
lovely girl
|
02-09-07 11:28pm
|
Reply
233
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#5
from SnowDude:
(roseman's Reply)
That's usually what I end up doing too, but I wish I could keep up with a site because I do like the interaction. Just getting photos and vids without real contact to the girl can be a turn off, although not in all cases. :) I imagine it's because people join, download everything, and then quit the site. I'm guilty of that myself, but it can suck the big one (no, not THAT one...the other one!) LOL
|
02-09-07 04:36pm
|
Reply
234
|
Naked News
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from SnowDude:
(roseman's Reply)
Hey roseman! I'm glad you found my review helpful and I appreciate the shout out. :)
|
02-09-07 04:28pm
|
Reply
235
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#1
from SnowDude:
(roseman's Reply)
I do tend to forget, so I was tempted to choose that option. However, the real issue is that most sites make it too expensive to stay a member for very long. Even on sites I like I have to cancel and then come back, usually having to pay the larger first month fee! You just can't win!
|
02-07-07 07:25am
|
Reply
236
|
Gods Girls
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from SnowDude:
(roseman's Reply)
Then you'll like that site A LOT my friend. :)
|
02-06-07 08:08pm
|
Reply
237
|
Xervious
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from Mina:
(roseman's Reply)
Ok I updated the review a bit and I put some con. Hope that squares off everything. Peace !
|
02-06-07 07:19pm
|
Reply
238
|
Ass Traffic
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from mudman:
(roseman's Reply)
Roseman:
Now I'm lost. Which cut in stone web site are you referencing. You've review 27 of them.
Every site needs to offer a basic basis of quality. Every member or potential member deserves this much. Videos need to accessible to all and photos need to be clear, seeable, large enough and somewhat appealing. This certainly places some constraints upon artistry, but not unreasonably so.
Are you suggesting that anything goes, if the particular site's subject matter agreed with your or whomever interest, is okay? Seems an insufficent standard to me. Everything out there need to live up to more, as the majority is falling way short. We user/members feed this beast with our subsciptions, our money, so we should get quality regardless of the site. So I find so problem on not addressing any one failing site over another. The problem is in the system. It wants us to accept too much mediocrity as some form of quality. "Here's a great site, now spend you money and be unhappy with it."
I don't think I'm opposing you, but we may not be being as clear with each other as would be desireable.
mudman
|
02-06-07 10:29am
|
Reply
239
|
Xervious
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Mina:
(roseman's Reply)
Increase the space of characters and I'll be glad to.
|
02-05-07 08:29pm
|
Reply
240
|
Ass Traffic
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Review
from mudman:
Roseman_
You've hit me, so here's my inquiry.
What do you find wothwhile when it comes to photography? What size of image and what quality? Do you have interests in lighting or not?
Are there photographers you are impressed with or are you being ignored here?
With regards to videos, regardless of subject matter what isues to you have? Every site should offer enough formats for all to enjoy, and every video should be clear enough for anyone to see and appreciate. Since I'm even mentioning this, it's not something we've been burderned with. Which sites, in your opinion, serve us viewers as we should be served?
|
02-05-07 10:59am
|
Reply
241
|
MILF Hunter
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from TheConnoisseur:
(roseman's Reply)
Yeah...it's a 1GB/24hrs download limit. I know it sucks. Pace yourself so you won't get locked out. There's sooo much content...try not to be greedy. Ha ha ha!!
|
02-03-07 09:03pm
|
Reply
242
|
Gods Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Comment
from godsgirls:
godsgirls features a group of girls ranging from world class fetish models to first-time "amateur" models.
|
02-03-07 01:29pm
|
Reply
243
|
Score Videos
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from steve:
(roseman's Reply)
Every fan of boobs has favorite websites and girls etc and it is subjective to everyone...
Those 3 aforementioned sites are my personal favorites and i would love to see more sites shoot like them.
Many other people may like acorem they havce the best girls, and the best photos no doubt, but my preference is hardcore with amateurs...
|
02-02-07 03:43pm
|
Reply
244
|
Celebrity Movie Archive
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Comment
from SnowDude:
That's true, but as I said in my review, I like it because I don't have to pay for a mega site that has every conceivable clip. Problem is, I'd never watch 90% of the stuff they offer because it's not my thing. For example, I love downloading clips of Alyssa Milano (sorry, had a thing for her since Who's the Boss), but don't want to pay for a site that has tons of Paris Hilton clips I wouldn't even poke with a stick, let alone watch. Both sides definitely have pluses and minuses, but I agree that a third option would be great.
|
02-02-07 01:08pm
|
Reply
245
|
MC Nudes
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Mayvary:
(roseman's Reply)
Hey there Roseman,
some of the MCN Babes are already known for their hardcore qualities but not on the site - nope.
MCN has some closer shots of pussy but never deep enough to crawl the tonsils of the babes ;)
There are some teaser galleries of MCN on many places online. There you see all to the max in the eyes of MCN.
I like it mainly non-explicite cause to be serious: knowing everything of a girl from the first second takes away any kind of miracle spirit - you know.
|
02-02-07 04:15am
|
Reply
246
|
Gods Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Comment
from jonnyfive:
A few of the models have paysites of their own allready, most these girls have done modeling before.
|
02-01-07 08:48pm
|
Reply
247
|
Hot Wives And Girlfriends
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from mudman:
(roseman's Reply)
I mean just that. There's nothing to write home about here. It nice, as far as company flash camera work goes, but why should I care. It's not personal, not ground breaking, certainly not good and vertainly not excellent in the context of photographic skill. In fact, I'm thinking less of it the more I think about it. It's a psuedo-amateur site that needs members to buy into its pitch in order to have any chance at all. The more reviewed, the worst the chances for this site.
As regards the models...I wish lots better.
|
02-01-07 01:20pm
|
Reply
248
|
Gods Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Comment
from ShellyWerewolf:
Compared to other sites, they don't look like amateurs at all.
|
01-31-07 06:34pm
|
Reply
249
|
Carrie Land
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from SnowDude:
(roseman's Reply)
That helps a lot roseman! I very much appreciate your time in providing more details. You rock! :)
|
01-31-07 03:47pm
|
Reply
250
|
Carrie Land
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from SnowDude:
(roseman's Reply)
Actually, I agree. I got the pervert quote from the home page. ;)
|
01-31-07 02:02pm
|
