| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
901
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#6
from PinkPanther:
(Drooler's Reply)
Savannah was definitely an 80's porn star - right at the point when video took over from film - that stuff looked like shit!
If you go to rame.net, they have a whole section on porn performers and directors that have passed away and how - a number have been suicides, most recently Jon Dough, who became huge (no pun intended - yeah right!) in the era when Vivid was king, with Raquel Darrian, Asia Carrera and an incredible number of other beauties on their roster.
|
10-08-07 06:50am
|
Reply
902
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from jd1961:
(Drooler's Reply)
She would have made a mint in the website industry.
|
10-07-07 05:13am
|
Reply
903
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from jd1961:
(Drooler's Reply)
The 70's were a great decade for porn too. There were tokens like this website too, but you were able to see a living girl!
|
10-06-07 09:04pm
|
Reply
904
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
from Denner:
Well, Drooler - can't help it - looks like you're also into Bowies old Honky Dory-album:.. Ch-ch-ch-Changes... (great song)
|
10-06-07 08:57am
|
Reply
905
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from Denner:
I've seen a few of the videos somewhere.
And after Droolers review I'm sure, I'll not be tempted as a video-junkie. Thanks for the warning!!!!
|
08-27-07 03:07pm
|
Reply
906
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Jay G:
(Drooler's Reply)
Great reply, I like your line "tokens are for subway rides."
|
08-27-07 02:08am
|
Reply
907
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from Jay G:
As always, I appreciate Drooler's comprehensive reviews.
A site that makes us pay extra for downloads? How stupid is that?
|
08-26-07 06:48am
|
Reply
908
|
Jack's Playground
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
from jd1961:
I don't understand these kind of porno companies. They're almost as bad as Vivid.
|
09-28-07 08:05pm
|
Reply
909
|
Jack's Teen America
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from jd1961:
(Drooler's Reply)
Streaming Quicktime is something you expect to see on someone's homemade website.
I wouldn't have a problem with these companies setting up sites to promote their DVDs, but it should be for a nominal fee, not the going rate for a premium site.
People should avoid this site.
|
02-02-09 07:02am
|
Reply
910
|
Jenni's Secrets
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from jd1961:
L is for Laughing
O is for Out
L is for Loud!
|
01-24-08 01:25am
|
Reply
911
|
Jenni's Secrets
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review from Drooler:
After this edifying exchange with Walter, I did correct the 50% in the first con to ~43%, which is more accurate, it being 3/7 (rounded up, now) although there are those 11 Sundays from May to December '07 with nothing.
Another thing: It might be silly to believe that 100% of a single-model site would be 100% exclusive, which Walter accused me of believing, but I never said that I believed that. I just stated what was so about the site, and I knew there would be non-Jenni content in it before I joined. The visitor's pages made that clear enough.
I put down my $25 and was sorely disappointed. I wouldn't have joined if I had known that the site claim of the high resolution galleries wasn't true. Had it been true, I would have rated it perhaps 10 points higher.
And I wrote the review as a CONSUMER, dammit, not as a seeker of followers. (Where the hell did THAT come from?)
Isn't it fun being an uncompensated reviewer for PornUsers?
|
12-28-07 01:30pm
|
Reply
912
|
Jenni's Secrets
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from walter:
(Drooler's Reply)
Ok rather than accept your dares like a head strong muscle head let me end this and avoid your attempt to create a following for your reviews.
I don't have a clue of what your responses clarify.
My comments correct your math and are not a selective attempt to prove my point. "Figures Lie and Liars Figure".
I accept your opinions at face value and leave my response to point out the missing point of view.
I am moving on.
|
12-28-07 09:01am
|
Reply
913
|
Jenni's Secrets
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from walter:
Some corrections to your CLUMSY review.
C is for Come ON! - You state ">20% of the Jenni content here is elsewhere". If math has not changed that means ~80% IS EXCLUSIVE!
L is for Lazy - You state "outrageous having subscribers pay for small galleries (of small pics, some even of Jenni herself!) that are just promotions of other sites." You failed to read at the top of the page that updates are scheduled 4 days per week "Sunday, Monday, Wednesday & Friday" The galleries you refer to are added to the calendar on the OTHER DAYS of the week.
U is for Unbelievably wrong - The Friends links are ALL in the public area and shared with the members on the calendar pages. Anyone who knew the business you would clearly know that Affiliate content galleries cannot be "re-sold" as member content under the affiliate agreements.
M is for Mind Boggling - "Promos, comprising 50% of the calendar updates" 3 of 7 days is NOT 50%
S is for Silly - Non exclusive would relate to a "multi-talent" site. If a site is for one model (Jenni) it is silly to believe 100% of the content would be exclusive.
Y is for You're Right on One Count - Zip files of high rez galleries need to be updated.
|
12-28-07 06:06am
|
Reply
914
|
Jesse Capelli
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from PinkPanther:
(Drooler's Reply)
I remember when Jesse Capelli used to do weekly cam shows at Misha's cam network when her site was new and active. I could tell it was going way downhill in the last days of her public forum, which I checked now and then. The poor members were complaining about the lack of updates, Jesse's posts in response were bitchy as hell - all "What do you expect? I'm busy!"
|
05-04-08 11:17pm
|
Reply
915
|
Jesse Capelli
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from atrapat:
(Drooler's Reply)
Thanks for the Planet Anita heads up. I believe it should have almost the same content and at the same resolutions that eventually appear at Club Anita. Someone at the Club Anita forums complained, though, that Planet Anita had much more BTS/personal material than Club Anita. It certainly has a real diary updated more often and with more meaningful entries although it is already available in the free section.
Planet Anita, at least, doesn't try to fool you in the website tour: I feel that what you get once you join is what you see in the free section.
Very few of the Glamour Models Gone Bad are alive and kicking and the website tours are specially misleading: they look super cool and promise great content and interaction with the model but, once inside, you get a very old looking design, questionable quality and the promised interaction with the model is a bad joke. Apart from the ones you say, Club Charlie (Charlie Laine) still seems to live up to the promises.
|
05-04-08 01:58pm
|
Reply
916
|
Jesse Capelli
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from atrapat:
(Drooler's Reply)
That could make things worse and the site might not have received more than a handful of updates in 4 years. That could explain also why most videos are MPEG. I am not familiar with the model and I had never seen any of the galleries so I couldn't really tell what year exactly they were taken.
I assumed most of the content had been uploaded together in 2006 because one of the latest galleries was from her "new movie"; I looked up the title and it had been released in 2006. All the preceding updates had almost the same day and month and that's why I thought they all might be part of the original content.
Anyway, whether they are from 2004 or 2006, anyone joining should not expect any recent content.
|
05-04-08 01:53pm
|
Reply
917
|
Judy Jade
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from RLane:
Thanks for the review on Veronika Fasterova. Glad to know the sizes of the pictures.
|
12-11-11 02:15pm
|
Reply
918
|
Judy Jade
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from Denner:
Verunka - yes, that's her stagename, for sure - is one of my favorites, too.
There GOT to be sites for photofans - sites like this, agree - there an overwhelming amounts of video-sites out there (still, got some great videos with Verunka)
(Thanks a lot, BTW - for - again - another support at 'that' thread - and I know you write an input like that, because you're serious - no da,da,da,da..)
Cheers, bro
|
02-25-10 06:20am
|
Reply
919
|
Just Cute Girls
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from slutty:
(Drooler's Reply)
Interesting, never heard it used in that fashion before. Thanks for the information.
|
06-28-11 04:18pm
|
Reply
920
|
Just Cute Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from slutty:
Nice, informative review Drooler. Looked like too many tats for me on the preview.
Just curious, what did you mean by fate? Never heard that used in reference to a model's attractiveness before...
|
06-27-11 09:26pm
|
Reply
921
|
Just Cute Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from Denner:
Yet another find by the Drooler
Thanks, buddy for keeping us updated with - and reviews of - NEW sites!
Just went through the preview, too - and at first view some very average looking models - but you can't always judge the book by it's cover.
And some models really gain when you watch different sets and vids.
|
06-27-11 03:17am
|
Reply
922
|
Just Nude
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from Khan:
(Drooler's Reply)
ok, I'll pass it on and see what is up.
Thx
|
04-08-10 11:47am
|
Reply
923
|
Just Nude
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from Khan:
(Drooler's Reply)
Drooler, may I ask what led you to that page? In other words, was there a link on their tour that directed you to it?
I'm guessing that's an older page they just forgot to update since the prices we list are the same as the prices on their join page.
Still, if you tell us where the link was we'll write the WM and suggest they update that page.
|
04-08-10 07:01am
|
Reply
924
|
Just Nude
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Khan:
(Drooler's Reply)
As long as it's sorted out now, that's the main thing.
|
04-05-10 06:23pm
|
Reply
925
|
Just Nude
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Khan:
(Drooler's Reply)
Drooler, I just checked going directly from our link and I'm seeing the same prices as we have listed. Is it possible you need to clear cache/cookies? Of course, it's possible someone caught the error and got things fixed before I took a look.
|
04-05-10 05:37am
|
