|
|
Welcome to the Discussion page. This forum is for discussing scenes from mainstream sources, primarily TV shows and movies, but we venture off into newspaper and magazine articles, stage plays, and other areas. Please do not post regarding commercial videos.
|
|
| Monday March 03 00:44:46 2008 Re: Stargate Atlantis |
| civil wrote: > Anything important happen on Friday. It should replay at > 9pm this friday. Must not have been, since Van has been > quiet. Michael has his minions clamp a very pregnant Teyla to an inclined lab table. Gloating and pleading insues. There... you heard from me. :-) |
 |
| Van |
| vvvan@earthlink.net |
| http://www.gateworld.net/atlantis/s4/419.shtml |
| Monday March 03 00:53:21 2008 Re: TM's banishment |
| JP wrote: This isn't really bondage-related or anything, so probably off-topic, but...so how does that work exactly...banishment? Does that mean someone banished like TM cannot post here anymore, but could still access the page, like a regular web site, and read discussions & see alerts & such, or now if he were to say type in the URL would he get an "access denied" messgae or something like that? I've often wondered how severe a banishment from the page actually is. I mean, not being able to post would suck but a person could still see upcoming alerts & catch up on scenes. But if you couldn't even access the page at all, just to read it...that might really suck. Just wondered about this, that's all. From the many times I've been banned in the past, I can tell you that you are denied access to this page completely. If you try to access it you see a 403 forbidden message. |
| Chris |
| Monday March 03 01:11:57 2008 Re: TM's banishment |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > I agree. An idiot, but a valuable one. Both > informational and comedic value. Comedic value is NOT a desired feature of the forums. This is especially true of comedy at the expense of another. These past events were not in the least bit fun for me, and in fact quite an tough time. |
| The Moderator |
| Monday March 03 01:13:07 2008 Re: TM's banishment |
| JP wrote: > or now if he were to say > type in the URL would he get an "access denied" Yes. |
| The Engineer |
| Monday March 03 01:23:06 2008 Re: TM's banishment |
| This seems sad. The moderator has every right to object to TM's constant needling. Meanwhile, TapeMaster is here because, while he clearly resents the fact that he can't seem to fit in, this is one of the better places he can make a reasonable effort. My unsolicited advice, Tapemaster: either work it out with the mod in private, take it to pofoz, start your own forum, or get a new IP address and start fresh. (And by that I mean really fresh.) You're trying the same thing repeatedly. It's not going to work. The fact that you wish so desperately to post here is a testament to the fact that the site functions as the moderator meant for it to do. |
| Raffish |
| Monday March 03 04:05:19 2008 Re: TM's banishment |
| Chris wrote: > I whole heartedly disagree with his banishment as I saw > him as a very valuable contributor in terms of thought > provovking threads and cool bondage info. Great. You're the first guy I understand where coming from and I respect that you admitted to an interest instead of trying to liken Tapemaster to say a Civil, or Van I personally don't care if these speculation, or thought provoking threads are On Topic, or Off Topic. They appear popular enough. But I ask again (these posts are mixed in with the notes, so this not scientific) Figure back during the strict vs leniency vote and appeared the majority wanted strict. No more jokes since. A Tapemaster post in there. He basically adamant about wanting a stricter Moderator and rules. There his vote? I brought this up, (but wasn't answered) as Brian was backed into a corner over something that was decided by more than just him, see Tyrant. Didn't do it on his own. Made the whole thing look like a shot at humour gone too far, which voted Off-Topic by demands from guys like Tapemaster What Brian to do? |
| Jay L |
| Monday March 03 05:05:56 2008 Re: Another Home and Away Scene |
| J wrote: > Hey All! > Home and Away, Australia, Channel 7 (in sydney anyway), > 7.00pm - 7.30pm, looks to deliver some more scenes from > this Monday (March 3rd) > In time honoured soap style, some actors want to leave > the show, so the nutter is back, and he's gonna take a > few characters with him! > According to the local TV magazine: > Johnny... attacks Mathilda (Indiana Evans). He ties her > up and waits for Ric. > and then along comes another character: > Unwittingly Jazz (Rachel Gordon) is also terorized by > Johnny. > "I very much enjoyed being tied up by Callan Mulvey > (Johnny)" Rachel jokes after filming the violent > scenes. > I'm not sure exactly which episode this coming week will > have all this, or if it will fold over more than one > episode, or if there is a gag involved with either DiD, > but Home and Away delivers again. J I missed Monday's episode but there is a preview of Tuesday's episode on the Home & Away website - which briefy shows Mathilda cloth tied hands in front and cleave gagged lying on the floor and Jazz cloth tied hands in front to a bed or sofa (ungagged) http://seven.com.au/homeandaway/videos-category Click on sneak peaks of 2008 and then after the ad, click on the clip titled "sneak peak" |
| Agoodjudge |
| Monday March 03 05:26:46 2008 Re: this week on GH |
| Raffish wrote: > Yeah, I'm betting it's just about over. That car's not > going anywhere, and the bad guy wouldn't get far on foot > with two hostages, I would like to call everyone's attention to another matter besides the purported looseness of Kelly Monaco's gag. The dastardly villain had two female hostages in his car, but only one of them was bound and gagged; the other one was secured by only one wrist with a handcuff to a handle on the ceiling of the car. Where is the logic behind this? Why go to the trouble of binding and gagging one female hostage, but not another one? Was he running short of time or rope and duct tape? The inadequate restraint of the second female captive proved to have dire repercussions for the villain, as she was able to claw at his face with her free hand and cause him to lose control of the car, which consequently wound up precariously balanced on the edge of a bridge, at a considerable height above a swiftly rushing river. Would it have killed him to take the time to bind and gag the second captive so she was adequately restrained, and either stash her in the trunk along with the first captive, or lay her supine on the back seat? What was the purpose of securing her with only a handcuff, which was very visible to people in passing cars? Had he bound and gagged her and stashed her on the floor of the back,she would've been both hidden from view and unable to impede his plans. |
| Hadji |
| Monday March 03 11:37:58 2008 Re: this week on GH |
| Hadji wrote: What was the > purpose of securing her with only a handcuff, which was > very visible to people in passing cars? >>> Obviously, so that she could cause him to crash his car, so there would be a cliffhanger. Realistic? No. It's a soap opera. The point of it is to keep the viewer watching, not necessarily to be realistic. |
| GH |
| Monday March 03 12:27:40 2008 Shining Water |
| Hello all, Awhile back someone posted a photo from a film in the works called "Shining Water" It piqued my interest because Krystee Clark and Rachel Binder were both barefoot (personal fave) while tied. I have been faithfully searching the IMDB for relase date. Well, while perusing myspace yesterday I found Krystee Clarks page and dropped her an email. Lo and behold, she replied with a sweet message, explaining "shining" was dead in the water, and what else she was up to. There are many photos from "shining" up on their myspace page (no gags). Don't know how to paste URL, but go to myspace and search for shining water |
| Oz |
| ozmcgee@yahoo.com |
| Monday March 03 12:33:20 2008 Re: TM's banishment |
| The Engineer wrote: > JP wrote: > > or now if he were to say > > type in the URL would he get an "access > denied" Yes. I don't think that this is really true - there are far too many anonymizer's out there. I would suggest that the best, and it is free, is TOR. It is extremely easy to download for Windows or Linux and you get a new ip address every few minutes and there are thousands of them in the pool. I would not suggest it for beating Brian's methods but do think that it is a useful resource for those of us that visit this board and other sites and want to remain anonymous. |
| Monday March 03 12:37:13 2008 TOR |
| TOR is indeed extremely powerful and I would suggest it to anyone that does not want to leave tracks. The problem is that it is so powerful that the bad guys can use it too. For example, the mirror of this site uses TOR to gain access here so that Brian can not stop it. I am not saying that I approve, just that on that site they explain that everyone should use TOR and that this is how they get round any blocking of access. The good news is that TM can access that copy but he can't post here. Who needs more than that. |
| Monday March 03 13:10:40 2008 German TV Series 'GSG9' |
| Interesting Episode |
 |
 |
| http://www.sat1.de/filme_serien/gsg9/bilder/content/28308/index_1.php |
| Monday March 03 13:18:16 2008 Re: German TV Series 'GSG9' |
| Ditto for 'Tatort' |
 |
| http://www.tvinfo.de/web3/tvinfo/system/_program_detail.php?step=5&pID=59135741&imgID=16 |
| Monday March 03 16:23:21 2008 Re: TM's banishment |
| The Moderator wrote: > These past events were not in the least bit > fun for me, and in fact quite an tough time. Bit of a rough go huh? Whilst I didn't agree with the "Tyrant" crack, due it not accurate and these two posts should explain why. (Votes, etc) === Saturday May 17 01:22:44 2003 Deleted post report Reason: Off-topic joke post. By vote of the community THESE ARE NOT ALLOWED. The Moderator ====== Sunday May 09 12:27:47 2004 Input Ok, here's a chance for you to express your opinion on the current moderation. 1. What things are currently off-topic that you would like to have allowed here? Don't bother mentioning commercial videos. The Moderator ======================= I've realise sort of two groups here. (1)Collectors, whom don't post on this page much as read it and mainly want to get hold of as many scenes as they can. We both know them and their addresses, correct? ;) and (2)Discussion Posters, whom post here frequently, but don't seem all that interested in collecting I sort of see Tapemaster and a few others as Group 2 guys trying to post in Group 1 confines and getting irritated by "The Moderator" showing up. But now that you have a guy (Chris I think?), stepping up honest and admitting an interest in the speculation threads. I suspect Jeff meant the same, not to mention the defence posts. Hadji seems interested as well. Perhaps go slow- 2nd go? and try and sort this out with those remaining- Brian R to Buddies style & ending it? Tapemaster didn't respond to my questions about how he voted and what then specific rules he wanted enforced? As obviously these speculation discussions not one of them. Oh well...But I bet these other guys will Possible solution, what do you think? |
| Jay L |
| Monday March 03 16:24:32 2008 Re: TM's banishment |
| > (unsigned poster) wrote: > > > I agree. An idiot, but a valuable one. Both > > informational and comedic value. This ain't a royal court with a fool. This is BRIAN's page. Brian set some standards for us to abide to. What is so hard to understand this? The bottom line is that Tapemaster repeatedly ignored Brian's rules and finally got banned. Why pity the asshole? Because he doesn't seem to 'belong' elsewhere? He's been on this board for 'years" and has been told time and again to change his ways. He's been given 'plenty' of chances to think things through. He refused...the moderator finally banned him. Move on. |
| Cohen |
| Monday March 03 16:35:29 2008 Re: TM's banishment |
| Jay L wrote: > The Moderator wrote: > > These past events were not in the least bit > > fun for me, and in fact quite an tough time. > Bit of a rough go huh? > Whilst I didn't agree with the "Tyrant" crack, I didn't care about that. What I didn't like was turmoil on the page, distracting everyone. Plus, the long slide into having to decide to pull the trigger. I just kept hoping that he'd come to his senses. |
| The Moderator |
| Monday March 03 16:49:18 2008 General Hospital |
| Since we lost the poster from last week, anyone see the episode today. Anything today? |
| civil |
| Monday March 03 16:54:23 2008 Political Music Video? |
| Are those on topic? Aimee Allen has a music video promoting Ron Paul where she is handcuffed and tape gagged (on screen), I put the link in the video section. |
| John |
| Monday March 03 16:55:34 2008 Re: TM's banishment |
| > I just kept hoping that he'd come to his senses. On that note, I will have no more say on the subject. |
| Cohen |
| Monday March 03 17:03:08 2008 GH update |
| Not much in today's episode, and the Kelly Monaco scene is over. She was shown a couple of times in the trunk trying to work free. Looked like her hands were taped, although when she was in the apartment, her hands were roped. In the finale, she works free and ungags herself. Roped boots also shown again. In light of all the controversy about the gag, ironic that Monaco said "ouch" as she ungagged herself. Fitting end to the scene. |
| Monday March 03 17:17:43 2008 Rules |
| As someone who's been here a relatively short while and who broke a rule without knowing about it, I have one suggestion. Maybe put in a note saying that this is a place to discuss FICTIONAL scenes of women in bondage as they appear in tv, movies, etc. If you stay here long enough you find that out, but it can take awhile. This could limit innocent mistakes and help warn newbies that they shouldn't be talking about whether actresses complain to directors, etc. Just a suggestion. |
| Cinch |
| Monday March 03 17:37:11 2008 Re: Are there scenes in these movies ? |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: ...Also on 3/8 Sci-Fi Channel is showing > "Snake King" with Jayne Heitmeyer, doesn't she > get her hands tied behind her back ? ...Indeed she does. IMHO, the scene is a keeper, despite lack of gaggage...I just got around to posting the promised entry in the DB. |
| Overlooker |
| Monday March 03 17:42:44 2008 Re: General Hospital |
| Another old friend wrote: > The bondage on General Hospital may not be over yet. The > spoiler boards have this item posted for this week: > "Diego binds Nadine up and keeps her in the shadows. Let's all wish that bad boy Diego and his tape and ropes a long, LONG storyline run on GH. That soap is just loaded with scene-worthy babes. |
| Jute |
| Monday March 03 18:13:41 2008 Re: Brittney Spear |
| JP wrote: > If that's a fake it's one of the most realistic ones I've > ever seen. ... If you look closely towards the upper right part of the bandanna just past the edge of her upper lip you will see the bandanna goes significantly out of focus yet her skin just past it is still in focus. Other parts of the bandanna are also mysteriously out of focus -- in general the bandanna is too soft (bit fuzzy) compared to the rest of her face. Definite indication it was a layer placed over the actual photo of Britney. I could blow this up in Photoshop and post it somewhere to indicate the pixels but won't bother. I'd normally give it a 7 out of 10 in terms of fakes but considering I HATE fakes/manips in general (for many reasons I won't list) I won't give the creator any praise. |
| Captureher |
| Monday March 03 18:14:48 2008 Re: GH update |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > Not much in today's episode, and the Kelly Monaco scene > is over. She was shown a couple of times in the trunk > trying to work free. Looked like her hands were taped, > although when she was in the apartment, her hands were > roped. The villain took the time to bind Ms. Monaco's wrists with a different material, but he couldn't take the time to properly restrain his other captive. Thank you for pointing this out; you've helped reinforce the points I was trying to make in a previous post. |
| Hadji |
| Monday March 03 18:24:39 2008 Re: this week on GH |
| GH wrote: > Hadji wrote: > What was the > > purpose of securing her with only a handcuff, which > was > > very visible to people in passing cars? >>> > Obviously, so that she could cause him to crash his car, > so there would be a cliffhanger. Realistic? No. It's > a soap opera. The point of it is to keep the viewer > watching, not necessarily to be realistic. You're absolutely correct; the plots of these inane daytime dramas aren't realistic at all. I was merely speculating about why the villain did things the way he did, and such speculations often become interesting and intellectually stimulating discussion topics on this message board. Had I been the villain, I would've taken the time to make sure that both women were bound and gagged properly, and that neither was visible or in a position to impede my driving. I did think your answer to my rhetorical question was funny, however. Thank you for that. |
| Hadji |
| Monday March 03 18:39:56 2008 Julianne Nicholson |
| Maybe the cutest ever to not have a scene? Sorry Van. It's just that I saw The Others is running on Chiller and that show was the perfect opportunity for her and it just didn't pan out. |
| http://celebritypregnancy.com/wp-content/images/julianne-nicholson-3.jpg |
| Monday March 03 18:46:14 2008 Re: Rules |
| > As someone who's been here a relatively short while and who broke a rule without knowing about it, I have one suggestion. Maybe put in a note saying that this is a place to discuss FICTIONAL scenes of women in bondage as they appear in tv, movies, etc. If you stay here long enough you find that out, but it can take awhile. This could limit innocent mistakes and help warn newbies that they shouldn't be talking about whether actresses complain to directors, etc. Just a suggestion. ~~~~ That's not a bad idea. As a "long-timer" I *thought* that another policy against posting on "real-life" incidents was on the FAQ page, but that seems to be implied rather than spelled out in black-and-white. |
| Kinky-napper |
| http://brianspage.com/faq.html |
| Monday March 03 19:09:41 2008 Re: Wednesday's GH |
| > MT wrote: SoapNet > doesn't appear to have provided for a special time slot > after the Wednesday rebroadcast -- Days of Our Lives > comes on right after GH. So what's going to happen > Wednesday? Will GH be cut to half an hour followed by a > half-hour special? That sounds odd. I suspect the behind the scenes will be a five minute thing at the very end of the episode. ABC has not allocated any extra time either. Will probably record the hour after just in case. |
| ID4J |
| id4j@aol.com |
| Monday March 03 19:17:38 2008 Re: TM's banishment |
| I think this whole situation was handled very well. As someone who very rarely posts, but has been on this site since the very beginning (even back into the old newsgroup days), I think I can give an impartial opinion. I think Tapemaster was given plenty of opportunities to follow the rules and chose to push the envelope. In his mind he may have felt he was talking about on topic stuff, and while I personally just skipped over his posts, I could see this set being destroyed if Brian had not intervened. I remember the horror show of going through alt.sex.bondage, trying to find VCR alerts. The nice posters put the title in caps to make it easier to find amongst the spam. This site could easily fall to that if Brian did not watch over carefully. Who is to say Tapemaster would stop where he was? I firmly believe examples need to be set, and others see what happens if you ignore the rules. This is why the site has been strong for so long. On another note, isn't the sites birthday coming up? March 13 or something like that? |
| ID4J |
| id4j@aol.com |
| Monday March 03 19:37:52 2008 Re: GH update |
| Hadji wrote: > > The villain took the time to bind Ms. Monaco's wrists > with a different material, but he couldn't take the time > to properly restrain his other captive. Even by soap standards, it is simply absurd. Handcuffing one hand to something in the backseat and leaving her second hand free to hit him? He should have handcuffed her hands behind her back, then they could at least try the old slip the hands under the ass trick, or have her use her feet to kick him and cause the crash. At least Miss Monaco was tightly bound and gagged in the trunk. |
| Monday March 03 19:55:38 2008 Re: GH update |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > At least Miss Monaco was tightly bound and gagged in the trunk. Well, maybe not *tightly* gagged. :) |
| Monday March 03 20:11:42 2008 Re: GH update |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > (unsigned poster) wrote: > > At least Miss Monaco was tightly bound and gagged in > the trunk. > Well, maybe not *tightly* gagged. :) C'mon, she said "ouch" when removing the tape!! |
| Monday March 03 20:22:16 2008 Re: Rules |
| It always seems to me that Mr Mod is pretty ~gentle~ when it comes to newbies and unintentional offtopicality (I invented a word) |
| Snowcat |
| Monday March 03 20:23:43 2008 Re: TM's banishment |
| Jay L wrote: > (1)Collectors, > whom don't post on this page much as read it and mainly > want to get hold of as many scenes as they can. We both > know them and their addresses, correct? ;) > and > (2)Discussion Posters, > whom post here frequently, but don't seem all that > interested in collecting > I sort of see Tapemaster and a few others as Group 2 guys > trying to post in Group 1 confines and getting irritated > by "The Moderator" showing up. But now that you > have a guy (Chris I think?), stepping up honest and > admitting an interest in the speculation threads. I > suspect Jeff meant the same, not to mention the defence > posts. Hadji seems interested as well. > Perhaps go slow- 2nd go? > and try and sort this out with those remaining- Brian R > to Buddies style & ending it? > Tapemaster didn't respond to my questions about how he > voted and what then specific rules he wanted enforced? As > obviously these speculation discussions not one of them. > Oh well...But I bet these other guys will > Possible solution, what do you think? Hmm...well, here's my take, in the "for what it's worth" department. I'd hate for this site to become just a "here's a scene coming up, on such & such day on such & such channel at such & such time", and then after the scene, talking about it until the next scene pops up. Interesting yes, but not as informative as a discussion board should be...especially one as unique as this (I don't even know of any other boards like Brian's here). I think discussions & speculations are neat & interesting topics to talk about, even about no scene in particular that just happened in, say, a current soap opera scene. For instance, I've often wondered things like, say during the filming of "Whispers in the Dark", if the director had said at some point "I want a more realistic gag than just a loose cloth over the mouth, so lets make it tight & add some mouth packing to it", even though, in the plot of the movie itself, a regular OTM gagged would have served the same purpose: showing a damsel tied up & unable to cry for help. Who makes THOSE decisions? Or, who decides to have the bad guy tie a knot in a cleave gag before pulling it thru the damsel's teeth rather than just using the cloth "as is"? These are interesting things for discussion & examples of what I believe a discussion board should be. Hearing other people's interpretations of what THEY think & why. Tapemaster's problem, though, I believe, was that he was just TOO passionate about it all...getting actually pissed if a tape gag wasn't tightly pressed enough, or if a cleave gag was too loose or if a damsel's hands were tied in front rather than behind, and rant about it well past the point of "okay, I've made my feelings known". And wanting to get petitions going to send to directors & studios telling them to make the gags more realistic & you'll attract more viewers. Just going a bit overboard. In every discussion board you have to have some rules...and like most rules, there will be some who abide by them & some who disagree with them & flaunt them. TM tended to ride that fine line between flaunting & outright disobeying them, which in an isolated incident might be overlooked but when it happens again & again & again....well, you see what can happen. I did agree with some of his points in his topics, but there is just so much you say say about it & then you move on to the next topic. Tapey had a hard time doing that. I'd like to see this part of the board be used to discuss scenes, and to speculate on why a director might have done this with that scene, or why an actress was tied this was instead of that way, etc. But you say what you have to say, get a few replies & banter going, & move on. You can't beat a topic or a subject to absolute death, which is what I think TM did, even with topics that WERE interesting & valid for discussion. And if you are getting strong "hints" that your posts aren't appreciated or your ideas aren't flying, you clam up & move on...he'd stay & fight for his "cause" and that in turn got more folks involved & before long...battles insue. And then once Brian would step in, well that's when a person needs to just back off & know when to end the thread. If you do not have some moderation, your board just goes off in any direction & ends up like the defunct "Anything Goes" board did a few years back. Sorry so long winded here. Basically, I hope htis part of the site remains a pleasant forum to exchange thoughts, ideas, & questions, and hopefully get some answers & meaningful discussions going, and not just basically an extension of the Alerts Page. And if something is off-topic...it's Off Topic. Period. There are plenty of other things I bet a person could find to discuss...like who exactly DOES decide to tie that knot in the cleave gag before applying it to the damsel's mouth? :-) I wonder if any of the actors playing the bad guys have done things like that ad-lib...the script merely says "You tie a gag in the girl's mouth" and the actor adds the knot on his own. I would! Jeff |
| JP |
| japfeif@aol.com |
| Monday March 03 20:27:52 2008 Re: General Hospital |
| civil wrote: > Since we lost the poster from last week, anyone see the > episode today. Anything today? Yeah, wouldn't it be cool if someone could watch the show and comment on it so we know if it's worth catching later? Oh, wait. |
| The House of Le Bastard |
| Monday March 03 21:42:27 2008 My last word on Tapemaster's banning |
| I can't feel sorry for the guy. Brian gave him more than enough rope ( pun intended ) to stop posting like a disrespectul twit and time after time, Tape' chose to ignore him. If I was the Mod', he'd been banned years ago. |
| C |
| Monday March 03 22:06:07 2008 Re: General Hospital |
| The House of Le Bastard wrote: > Yeah, wouldn't it be cool if someone could watch the show > and comment on it so we know if it's worth catching > later? Posted today's action at the blog site if you wanna preview it. It's short and sweet. But worth recording IMHO. Soapnet should be airing GH right NOW on East Coast. The first part is just a recap of Friday. |
| MT |
| http://www.bigmtdid.blogspot.com |
| Monday March 03 22:13:06 2008 Re: GH update |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > Looked like her hands were taped, > although when she was in the apartment, her hands were > roped. He taped her hands behind her back when she got recaptured after crawling out of the duct. Had a roll of duct tape in his hand. He put her into the trunk some time after that. Wasn't shown. Must have left the roll of tape at the warehouse. |
| Monday March 03 22:18:20 2008 Re: My last word on Tapemaster's banning |
| C wrote: > I can't feel sorry for the guy. > Brian gave him more than enough rope ( pun intended ) to > stop posting like a disrespectul twit and time after > time, Tape' chose to ignore him. > If I was the Mod', he'd been banned years ago. When arguing with the Boss you should always think about both sides. His side and the outside. |
| David Knight |
| http://http:www.DavidKnightBondage.com |
| Monday March 03 23:55:32 2008 LOL |
| Good one :) |
| C |
|
|
