|
|
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 June 16 00:51:48 2008 Site Update |
| In honor of Robert Rodriguez and HBO both getting involved in women in prison TV series, I thought I'd better revise and update my review of "Caged Heat 3000" which is one of the best women in prison movies ever. I mean, EVAH! Also, there's my article on How to Make the Perfect Women in Prison Movie. Because Caged Heat 3000 is still far from what it could be. Fully illustrated with pics from Caged Heat 3000, Woman on the run the Bambi Bambanek Story, some European TV commercial, and some commercial bondage women in prison images. |
 |
| Pat Powers |
| http://www.bondagerotica.com/mainstream.html |
| Monday June 16 01:44:31 2008 Re: The other site |
| The Moderator wrote: > It's done without permission and against the desires of > the content provider, just as in her other cases of > stealing content. She needs to her own damn content and > quit swiping from others. I think the posters themselves actually own much of the posting content that appears here, though it's obviously unlikely that any poster is going to court to enforce his copyright about his unsigned post concerning how Sarah Michelle Gellar looks in bondage. The look and feel of the site is Brian's, naturally, and that's what Jenni has no right to steal. Any claims that she is doing him some sort of favor are legal and practical nonsense. The bit or irony here is that many posters are naturally upset when someone rip offs Brian's site, but have no problem with ripping off copyrighted Hollywood content as often as they wish for their own purposes. The differences between that and what Jenni is doing are not all that great. |
| A friend of this site |
| Monday June 16 01:50:40 2008 Re: The other site |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > The way she won the last two times, at least as it was > epxlained to me, is that when she was challenged she > provided all her contavt information and records and the > others would not.<< Well, tell Jenni that if anyone she is ripping off wanted to sue her, they could win pretty easily. She doesn't have the proverbial leg to stand on. And not only that, they could sue her in pretty much any jurisdiction they wanted to, which could potentially be a huge hassle for her. I for one don't want to see the > secretive Brian forced to disclose his name, address, etc. I wouldn't if I was him<< ????? I wasn't aware it was that much of a secret. But even if it is/was, it would be hard to keep it that way if someone was even mildly determined to get it. |
| Friend of this site |
| Monday June 16 02:00:09 2008 Re: The other site |
> I think the posters themselves actually own much of the > posting content that appears here, though it's obviously > unlikely that any poster is going to court to enforce his > copyright about his unsigned post concerning how Sarah > Michelle Gellar looks in bondage. That's inherently wrong. One, because you choose to post something on a 'forum' doesn't mean that you 'own' that video. Two, there is no copyright to recording a 'scene' so that you can post it on another site. The copyright belongs to the creator of the movie/show in question. Three, posting a comment on a blog is the equivalent of writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper. In other words, once you submit your letter, you don't 'own' the contents. |
| Cohen |
| Monday June 16 02:50:05 2008 Re: The other site |
| >The differences between that and what Jenni is doing are not all that great. From what I've read, Brian is paying out of his own pocket to maintain the site. Not sure about 'Jenni'. Honestly. Here's a thought....did she ever ask for Brian's blessing? Just a thought is all... |
| Cohen |
| Monday June 16 02:55:02 2008 Re: The other site |
| Cohen wrote: > One, because you choose to post > something on a 'forum' doesn't mean that you 'own' that > video. Two, there is no copyright to recording a 'scene' > so that you can post it on another site. The copyright > belongs to the creator of the movie/show in question. > Three, posting a comment on a blog is the equivalent of > writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper. In other > words, once you submit your letter, you don't 'own' the > contents. And let's not forget that Google, archive.org, and others have been storing up and "re-hosting" what we've written here for many years now. Jenni's small-time, no? I can't say I think she's using her energies as well as she might -- and if she's in fact messing with Brian's claim to his domain name while he has kept it paid up, that's way over the line and needs to stop. |
| Raffish |
| Monday June 16 03:13:32 2008 Favour? Go Slow |
| A friend of this site wrote: > The look and feel of > the site is Brian's, naturally, and that's what Jenni has > no right to steal. Any claims that she is doing him > some sort of favor are legal and practical nonsense. Should go slow getting on other sites until confirm where the problem. **** The bit or irony here is that many posters are naturally upset when someone rip offs Brian's site, but have no problem with ripping off copyrighted Hollywood content as often as they wish for their own purposes. ***** Okay, Brian is paying out of his own pocket for this site. Fair but I read stuff like this but don't see it. I'm not getting any money for passing this stuff that all aired on TV, nor claiming it mine. Even say "Il était une fois dans le trouble" scenes air on my cable, probably only air in my country. Brian said (May 30th) he doesn't speak the language, I've had others admit same, so likely they'd never buy direct, if even could? unless aware a particular interest. How that butting in on sales? Can't see the cops visiting anytime soon Hey, most tapes have the shows sponsor's ads. We're paying out of our pockets to promote local businesses to other countries! That'll be my defence ;) |
| Jay L |
| Monday June 16 03:38:41 2008 Re: The other site |
| Cohen wrote: > From what I've read, Brian is paying out of his own > pocket to maintain the site. Correct. Figured contribute some cash to help with the cost, but to Brian's credit he's never accepted the offer. |
| Jay L |
| Monday June 16 03:46:53 2008 Re: The other site |
| > Remember two other sites that she mirrored got into > pissing matches with her, being Kristine's chat room and > the Bielsite. In both case Jenni is still here and they > aren't. I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Is there currently a backup to the BIEL site? If so, is it possible to get a link? Thanks |
| Monday June 16 04:05:59 2008 El Pantera clips |
| ...are up. Thanks to Viking and Civil for the advance scouting! |
 |
 |
 |
| Raffish |
| http://www.bondageparade.com/ |
| Monday June 16 05:12:49 2008 Re: Gene Simmon's Family Jewels |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > Pretty good scene in last week's episode where Sophie > Simmons gets handgagged by Shannon Tweed. Noone ever confirmed what the episode title of this is. Can anyone please list the title of this episode? Would love to DL. |
| tonay |
| Monday June 16 05:44:05 2008 Re: El Pantera clips |
| Raffish wrote: > ...are up. Thanks to Viking and Civil for the advance > scouting! Thanks to all involved for the nice catch. While no putz is a good putz, there was some nice shots in this one. Excellent effort!! |
| Wavy |
| verywavy@yahoo.com |
| Monday June 16 07:54:37 2008 Re: The other site |
| The Moderator wrote: > There is no need for some "backup" to this site. Creative use of .htaccess is your friend |
| Monday June 16 10:17:18 2008 Re: The other site |
| The Moderator wrote: > It's done without permission and against the desires of > the content provider, just as in her other cases of Almost everything that is posted on this site probably would be without the desire of those that own the copyright, would not be good to get into that war > stealing content. She needs to her own damn content and > quit swiping from others. There is a growing amount that is there and not here despite her comments that this is not her desire > There is no need for some "backup" to this site. I disagree with that too. A few times when this site has been inaccessible hers has been up. But most importantly, when content pointed at by this site is taken down elsewhere, it stays up at hers since she has local copies |
| Monday June 16 10:24:47 2008 The cottage |
| I get the movie i wonder if some guy of our commuity put yet the scenes in his youtube, daily or wathever account. If the answer if no let me know and i put it in a few hours in my tube account. Bye bye |
| The cottage |
| Monday June 16 10:29:32 2008 Re: The other site |
| Friend of this site wrote: > Well, tell Jenni that if anyone she is ripping off wanted > to sue her, they could win pretty easily. She doesn't > have the proverbial leg to stand on. And not only that, > they could sue her in pretty much any jurisdiction they > wanted to, which could potentially be a huge hassle for > her. As an attorney I do not agree with that. I do not believe that either side has a lot of string evidence that they have permission to any of the info that is contained or referenced and clearly neither site is governed by the "fair use doctrine". The real issue is that either site could make it such a pain for the other. Remember when someone threatened Jenni last time and she just filed a small claims action and then got a subpoena issued causing the ISP to provide all known information including contents logs. I do not want that again, I do not want to have Brian's provider forced to release all Brian's identifying information and MY IP address. Remember that in most states in the US the court will automatically issue ANY subpoena that the plaintiff requests at no charge. I have seen many cases, not just Jenni, where people file small suits in Small Claims just to get the subpoenas. Remember Jenni publishs her name and address and phone number. Brian does not. So, I suspect that she would be happy to file a suit and he would not want to need to respond. I would not share this here if I did not know that she has already done this. I would not want to provide ideas since I do find this method, while legal, repugnant. > address, etc. I wouldn't if I was him<< > ????? I wasn't aware it was that much of a secret. If it is not then I would urge him to fight her in court. But I do note that he has a "private registration" with godaddy and no real contact information on the site. And that's fine, that's his right. > even if it is/was, it would be hard to keep it that way > if someone was even mildly determined to get it. I would be interested in hearing of any way other than the subpoena method. Share please |
| Monday June 16 10:34:57 2008 Re: The other site |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Is there currently a backup > to the BIEL site? If so, is it possible to get a link? > Thanks She still has her mirror but I for one will not provide the url unless Brian provides that blessing |
| Monday June 16 11:07:12 2008 Re: The other site |
| Cohen wrote: > That's inherently wrong. One, because you choose to post > something on a 'forum' doesn't mean that you 'own' that > video. Two, there is no copyright to recording a 'scene' > so that you can post it on another site. <<< I didn't say anything about a video, I said posters have a copyright in their own words. Of course, no one disputes that you don't gain copyright in a video by posting it. > Three, posting a comment on a blog is the equivalent of > writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper. In other > words, once you submit your letter, you don't 'own' the contents. You don't lose all copyright protection because you have something published somewhere, obviously. Technically, you grant the newspaper (in your scenario) a license to publish your work...but you don't give it away permanently. Naturally, this is a difference without much significance, because blog/forum posts or letters to the editor very rarely have any value. |
| Friend |
| Monday June 16 11:10:46 2008 Re: Gene Simmon's Family Jewels |
| tonay wrote: > (unsigned poster) wrote: > > Pretty good scene in last week's episode where > Sophie > > Simmons gets handgagged by Shannon Tweed. > > Noone ever confirmed what the episode title of this is. > Can anyone please list the title of this episode? Would > love to DL. It's called "Mommy Make-Over." It aired during the marathon last night, took me forever to find the episode title. Anyway, I don't know if I'd call it a good scene because it only lasts a couple seconds but there was some nice mmpphing by Sophie. |
| Gags Galore |
| Monday June 16 11:24:47 2008 Re: The other site |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > As an attorney I do not agree with that. I do not > believe that either side has a lot of string evidence > that they have permission to any of the info that is > contained or referenced and clearly neither site is > governed by the "fair use doctrine".<<< I'm really an attorney, and I guarantee you that stealing someone's content/site look and feel verbatim is not fair use. Forget it. It's not very hard to show, after discovery, that Brian's users were purposely diverted to a copy of his site content. Janni was actually trying to fool users into thinking it wAS Brian's Page. If an IP attorney can't win that case, he should quit the Bar. I do not > want that again, I do not want to have Brian's provider > forced to release all Brian's identifying information and > MY IP address.<<< Who cares about what YOU want, if Brian has to protect HIS property? > Remember that in most states in the US the court will > automatically issue ANY subpoena that the plaintiff > requests at no charge.<<<< A non-sequitor, because usually attorneys issue supeoenas, not courts. I'm surprised that you, as an attorney, don't know that-- maybe in your state things are somewhat different, though the Federal Courts have recently adopted that system also. But if Jenni tries to do that, it's not exactly rocket science to have that subpoena quashed, especially if it's so obvious that she's just doing it to embarass someone. > Remember Jenni publishs her name and address and phone > number. Brian does not.<<<< Again, that's not a very big deal. Many people already know Brian's name. It's not so big a deal as you make it out to be. I wouldn't if I was him<< Sounds like a veiled threat, no? I have a better idea. Why doesn't Jenni just knock it off? If Jenni can make trouble for Brian, Brian can make trouble for her. But why should any of that be necessary in the first place? |
| Friend |
| Monday June 16 11:50:27 2008 Re: The other site |
| Friend wrote: > I'm really an attorney, and I guarantee you that stealing > someone's content/site look and feel verbatim is not fair > use. Forget it. It's not very hard to show, after I agree there - same thing applies to this site. I believe that neither this site nor Jenni's nor most of the ones referenced here are governed by the Fair Use Doctrine > discovery, that Brian's users were purposely diverted to > a copy of his site content. Janni was actually trying I think that this would be worth doing. That would seem to be a criminal act. > to fool users into thinking it wAS Brian's Page. If an > IP attorney can't win that case, he should quit the Bar. I do not believe that this needs an Intellectual Property attorney, it needs the DA. Theft is theft. > > Who cares about what YOU want, if Brian has to protect > HIS property? I doubt that he would win on the basis of "his property" > A non-sequitor, because usually attorneys issue > supeoenas, not courts. I'm surprised that you, as an Clearly then you are not an attorney. Attorney generated subpoenas are actually the exception and are basically a delegation by the court. > attorney, don't know that-- maybe in your state things > are somewhat different, though the Federal Courts have > recently adopted that system also. But if Jenni tries to > do that, it's not exactly rocket science to have that > subpoena quashed, especially if it's so obvious that > she's just doing it to embarass someone. My experience and I have done many to ISPs is that they will not even request that the subpoena is quashed. They are happy to provide the info as long as they can "hide behind" the fact that they did it because of a subpoena. I challenge any attorney to find any case where a medium to large ISP has filed to quwash a subpoena where the subpoena is limited to providing information on who accessed a specific site > Again, that's not a very big deal. Many people already > know Brian's name. It's not so big a deal as you make it > out to be. OK - that's good - then he probably will not mind going to court and disclosing all else > I wouldn't if I was him<< > Sounds like a veiled threat, no? I believe that she does exactly that if someone tries to tak her down. I don't speak for her but it seems to me that she has not attempted to interfere with sites until this recent DNS attack. If it is true that she hi-jacked brians DNS then brian should be calling the DA immediately. > I have a better idea. Why doesn't Jenni just knock it > off? If Jenni can make trouble for Brian, Brian can make I have see no evidence that either is trying to cause trouble for the other. I have seens some suggestions here that the DNS has been hi-jacked but I doubt that, it would seem too selective. >>trouble for her. But why should any of that be >>necessary in the first place? You got it. They should both be happy that the other is there and the community is growing. |
| Monday June 16 12:25:24 2008 Re: The other site |
| Friend wrote: > (unsigned poster) wrote: > I wouldn't if I was him ***** Sounds like a veiled threat, no? I have a better idea. Why doesn't Jenni just knock it off? If Jenni can make trouble for Brian, Brian can make trouble for her. ****** Still suggest go slow here. Even at this point appears only (an Unsigned Poster?) is having some trouble. All involved in the check reporting no problems and oblivious to what this about, or aware of another site, etc. The problem site hasn't been ID'd yet. Not even a URL at moment Before get on a site, figure should wait until that (Unsigned Poster) reports back the exact site he having the trouble with Thanks |
| Jay L |
| Monday June 16 13:11:33 2008 Re: El Pantera on Univison |
| civi wrote: > civil wrote: > Just replayed my DVD. The gal from the preview is placed > on the bed after she is knocked out. He leaves WITHOUT > tying her up. When the man goes back to the room, she is > NOW tied up and struggling madly. When I rewatched that, > it was like WTF. Selfbondage? Kewl!! I thought that was weird too. After he knocked her out he just walked out the room and left her on the bed. I noticed too that she was wearing a large bangle bracelet but when she was tied up it was gone and lying on the bed next to her. I wonder if it was uncomfortable for the actress to wear it while she was tied up? I don't speak Spanish but this seemed like a fun show. Quite a number of hotties in it too! |
| Viking |
| Monday June 16 13:48:22 2008 Re: The other site |
| Jay L wrote: ... I think that the proof that a lot of people were hi-jacked is that there were no posts here or actually very few on the day the issue was brought to our attention and that now that her sites does a post here too we are back to the old numbers of posts. Anyway, who cares, we all like Brian's site. We all appreciate the work he does and having someone archive the images and files so that when others take them down, they are safe, seems a great feature to me. If Jenni was charging then everyone would leave and come here. Realistically she advises people that this is the real site. I am posting this using her site with the "don't post to Brian's" unchecked, so we should all see this. |
| Monday June 16 14:08:06 2008 Re: The other site |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > Anyway, who cares, we all like Brian's site. We all > appreciate the work he does and having someone archive > the images and files so that when others take them down, > they are safe, seems a great feature to me. > If Jenni was charging then everyone would leave and come > here. Realistically she advises people that this is the > real site. <<< Anyone that redirects traffic and/or steals someone else's site is a crook and a fool. If the rip-off site is free or not just doesn't matter. The crook is taking web traffic that belongs here, and not there. Whether people know the difference is irrelevant. It is still taking something it is not entitled to. You don't get to steal from someone and say, "well, it's no big deal!". Well, if it's really not a big deal, don't do it in the first place. Who cares about this? The people that support Bfianspage and hate to see him get ripped off by a low-life. |
| Friend. |
| Monday June 16 14:14:12 2008 Re: The other site |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > She still has her mirror but I for one will not provide > the url unless Brian provides that blessing I don't want to cause any trouble or anything. I'd just like to check out the mirror site (The BIEL one). If it's a problem to post the url here, you could send it to my email address at: davidsdids@gmail.com |
| Monday June 16 14:21:29 2008 Re: The other site |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > > if someone was even mildly determined to get it. I would be interested in hearing of any way other than the subpoena method. Share please Actually, I could tell people how to find that info out in about five minutes using nothing more than a search engine, but Im not going to draw people a roadmap to invade Brian's privacy. Now a question to Brian. Can I request a policy ruling on the topicality of all this back and forth about copyright infringement, legal info, etc? Since you requested more info, nobody seems to have come forward with screenshots, urls, or any other info, all they've done is post assumptions, guesses, and opinions, of matters that had very little to do with the original technical issue that you had requested more info on. |
| Anubis |
| http://www.anuvids |
| Monday June 16 14:32:02 2008 Re: The other site |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > Jay L > I think that the proof that a lot of people were > hi-jacked You must be aware of something I not? I've gotten no report from anyone on being hi-jacked, nor to a specific site since asked to check. (Except Unsigned Poster) I never heard of this other site, nor appears others. I thought it was Robs Euro one. Only problem reported to me is about bringing up FBI Files entries. The solution is in an editor rework, not a hijack. I guess I'm asking not to get on a specific site until those you know report the specific problem. ====== Unsigned Poster: So I'm more specific, this an example of an error message where your posts may not show up that Brian requests relayed to him: {{{Warning: Empty delimiter in/web/home2/w220131/docs/submit.php on line 421}}} Or that annoying "File truncated" (sp?) If you're getting something like that? Feel free to contact myself or Brian, or post it so can assist you Thanks |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Monday June 16 14:40:04 2008 Re: El Pantera clips |
| Raffish wrote: > Thanks to Viking and Civil for the advance > scouting! Anybody who recorded the show got the name of the actress? |
| Southern Frank |
| Monday June 16 14:59:07 2008 Re: The other site |
| Anubis wrote: > Now a question to Brian. Can I request a policy ruling on > the topicality of all this back and forth about copyright > infringement, legal info, etc? > Since you requested more info, nobody seems to have come > forward with screenshots, urls, or any other info, all > they've done is post assumptions, guesses, and opinions, > of matters that had very little to do with the original > technical issue that you had requested more info on.<<< Brian did request info be emailed to him, so who knows what he has found out. If it is true, and obviously that's only an "if", people on this site and the other site should know that people support Brian and are not going to be bought off with these bogus rationalizations. There's really nothing else to say about it, though. |
| Monday June 16 15:00:17 2008 Re: The other site |
| Anubis wrote: > Since you requested more info, nobody seems to have come > forward with screenshots, etc I'll have YOU know that this page regularly features some of the finest unemployed attorneys on the web who have given their ALL (between scanning daytime soaps for scenes) for the betterment of their lessers |
| Rumpole Bailey |
| Monday June 16 15:08:48 2008 Re: El Pantera clips |
| Southern Frank wrote: > Raffish wrote: > > Thanks to Viking and Civil for the advance > > scouting! > Anybody who recorded the show got the name of the > actress? They ran alot of the credits at the beginning with pictures of each character. I know the female at the end as credited at the beginning. Recorded the entire show, but didn't write it down since I was going to look later. All the thanks should be to Viking. |
| civil |
| Monday June 16 15:23:03 2008 Re: swedish scene |
| doug wrote: > I don't know what this is from, but it is one of the best > scenes I have ever seen. It's beautiful. > http://www.megavideo.com/?v=10T7AXQN I agree! Almost looks like a Swedish(?) Brooke Shields! Nice scene where the bad guy lovingly cuffs, gags, ankle cuffs, and hogties it all together! Anybody know what it is? Searching the database proved fruitless. |
| Monday June 16 16:34:53 2008 Re: swedish scene |
> > I don't know what this is from, but it is one of the best scenes I have ever seen. It's beautiful. The movie is "Deathly Compulsion" (1999) The actress is Lina Englund |
| Beaver Cleaver |
| Monday June 16 16:59:04 2008 Re: The cottage |
| The cottage wrote: > I get the movie i wonder if some guy of our commuity put > yet the scenes in his youtube, daily or wathever account. > If the answer if no let me know and i put it in a few > hours in my tube account. Bye bye Since you were wondering, I posted this one on Friday, so there's one set out there at least. |
| Raffish |
| http://www.bondageparade.com/ |
| Monday June 16 18:12:39 2008 Re: El Pantera clips |
| Southern Frank wrote: > Anybody who recorded the show got the name of the > actress? Don't know the first actress, but the one who was knocked out and tied (but not gagged) is former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. |
| Dextor |
| Monday June 16 18:43:59 2008 http://abcfamily.go.com/abcfamily/path/section_Shows+Middleman/page_Detail |
| The Middleman, based on a graphic novel, premiers tonite on ABC family, 8 pm eastern; a long shot but looks like fun. |
| Monday June 16 18:45:23 2008 The Middleman possibility |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > The Middleman, based on a graphic novel, premiers tonite > on ABC family, 8 pm eastern; a long shot but looks like > fun. sorry, wrong place for link. |
| http://abcfamily.go.com/abcfamily/path/section_Shows+Middleman/page_Detail |
| Monday June 16 19:16:49 2008 Missing something here |
| Can anyone explain to me why it is not good to have archived copies of the the files that Brian does not want on his site but wants references to. It seems to me that it makes Brian's site better if we can all be certain that the images and files referenced will continue to be available. What am I missing here? BTW, right now I am on the site that appears to be Brians but is not. The ip address is: 216.75.35.141. I hope this helps you Brian |
| Monday June 16 19:40:48 2008 Re: Missing something here |
| > The ip address is: 216.75.35.141. Don't bother. Nothing there; this is just another douche-eater being a pain in the ass. |
| The House of Le Bastard |
| Monday June 16 20:09:09 2008 Recent Posts From Bizarroland |
| Things that make you go... WHAT THE FRAKK?? Brian will get arrested if he sets foot in the UK. There's some sort of DNS conspiracy to hijack Brian's Page. "Jill" wants to mirror &/or steal Brian's content as a public service... (?) An anonymous "lawyer" takes billing hours away from his busy day to post a long message about... something. Is there a weird planetary alignment happening or something? I know people have a right to *not* sign their posts... but you gotta wonder what's behind a "group" of people, all of whom seem to have the same writing style, who are all so very worried about these "problems". |
| Van |
| vvvan@earthlink.net |
| http://www.vansfiction.net |
| Monday June 16 20:11:46 2008 Re: Gene Simmon's Family Jewels |
| Gags Galore wrote: > It's called "Mommy Make-Over." It aired during > the marathon last night, took me forever to find the > episode title. No episode with this title is listed at the A&E site. |
| The House of Le Bastard |
| Monday June 16 20:22:00 2008 Re: Missing something here |
| The House of Le Bastard wrote: > > The ip address is: 216.75.35.141. > Don't bother. Nothing there; this is just another > douche-eater being a pain in the ass. Thanks HOLB. I'm posting this against my better judgment...I know Brian can defend himself. But as a reader I'm getting a little sick of the continuing passive-aggressive threats from a user who insists that he's an attorney and there's a mirror site stealing Brian's content, but can't be bothered to post a link to THAT site to prove to the audience that he's not just hallucinating. And he answers everybody that pokes holes in his story with an obnoxious line by line breakdown of essentially meaningless commentary and still more veiled threats - but still, no link. It's like we're IN the movie this time and we're supposed to act like we haven't seen the ending. I'm drowning in the snark here...would y'all put up or shut up, please. We've got far more important business here. For example, as a matter of fact Sarah Michelle Gellar *does* look damn good in bondage. |
| skezemuth |
| Monday June 16 21:00:27 2008 Re: Raffish DiDClips updated |
| Raffish wrote: > http://www.bondageparade.com/ Just wanted to thank you Raffish for posting the "Little Dragons" scene in your updates. Just to let you know, the movie actually came out in 1980. For me, I was in 6th grade when this film came out & this was the movie that started it all! This is my Holy Grail! Thanx again... |
| MagickRat |
| magickrat@live.com |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/didclips/ |
| Monday June 16 21:19:24 2008 (Mis)Understanding |
| Apparently there has been a lot of discussion about what my site does. Brian is welcome to contact me if he wishes, he has my address. The bottom line is that I have no desire to be a "primary" host. I have no desire to compete with Brian. This site is GREAT! I also know that MANY sites have gone away over the years through no fault of their owners and so want to ensure that if something happens that we do not lose all the GREAT stuff. This is and was and will continue to be my major goal. The one difference between what I do and what Brian does is that I actually grab copies of the things that are linked to rather than use links. The advantage is that the "linked to" site can not take the stuff away from us. The problem is that it does mean that I need to provide the disk space and the bandwidth. I have little interest in most people starting at my site, in fact I don't want that, because if they do it costs me more in bandwidth and anyway, let's give Brian the credit he deserves. As to the supposed hi-jack. It does seem to me that this may have happened on Saturday since my bandwidth and number of visits went through the roof. I had noting to do with it and am glad that it seems to be fixed now since I have no interest in having the visitors start at my site. I will not be rushing to publish my site address while Brian is doing such a good job. In case you are wondering, my site is paid for by a few geberous individuals that need it so that they can view Brian's and related information and avoid the filters that would otherwise stop them. As to those that want to "defend" or attack me. Thanks but my site stands on its own merit and exists soley for three reasons: a) insurance so that if something happens to Brian or his site we do not lose everything b) insurance so that when clips are removed from other sites we still have them c) a backdoor for those that are otherwise filtered in gaining access to the information I have no interest in damaging Brian's or any one else's sites, never have had and never will. For those that wonder about the values of a..c above. Comsider that when Clem lost his site the ONLY known record of all his great work is my mirror. In case I get flamed I set up a new address for this. Feel free to contact me if you want, unless this becomes abusive I will reply. If I start getting abuse I will just close the address down |
| Jenni |
| jenni4brian@gmail.com |
| Monday June 16 21:31:10 2008 Re: (Mis)Understanding |
| Jenni wrote: As to those that want to "defend" or attack me. Thanks but my site stands on its own merit and exists soley for three reasons:<<<<< Makes no difference. The fact that you are doing this without his permission is all anyone needs to know. |
| Hobart |
| Monday June 16 22:01:40 2008 btw |
| There will be a chat, in my chat room at 12:00 noon GMT on Tuesday for all that are interested in the controversy here. I invite Brian and any other interested parties to attend the only requirement is that everyone be respectful, I will 86 anyone that is not |
| Jenni |
| jenni4brian@gmail.com |
| Monday June 16 22:05:48 2008 Re: btw |
| Jenni wrote: > There will be a chat, in my chat room at 12:00 noon GMT > on Tuesday for all that are interested in the controversy > here. Are we supposed to know the URL? Guess? E-mail you? Come here and hope to be redirected? |
| The House of Le Bastard |
| Monday June 16 22:35:30 2008 Re: btw |
| The House of Le Bastard wrote: > Are we supposed to know the URL? Guess? E-mail you? Come > here and hope to be redirected? Just eMail me and I will send you the address where the chat will be and an ID and password. |
| Monday June 16 22:43:14 2008 Otis on DVD |
| Girl with metal shackle that is attached to a chain that is lock to the floor. Occurs in opening minutes and comes to and unfortunately end. No gag. Ashley Johnson is grabbed just before the 18' mark. Wakes up to find herself lying in bed. Removes covers and finds one ankle shackled to a chain. Has this chain and shackle until around the hour mark. She only receives a handgag around the 50' mark. Bonus features as a an Otis home movie suite 16 where there are clips of various gals with the same shackle and chain. That's it, nothing more. |
| civil |
| Monday June 16 22:51:14 2008 This business |
| Let's put an end to discussion at this point. I've made it clear that I don't approve of what Jenni does, but I'm not out to stop it either. People can do what they want in that regard. However, her site is not considered a "friend" and is not eligible for any sort of linking here. If people don't understand why already, I don't think I could adequately explain. |
| Brian R |
| Monday June 16 23:30:01 2008 Re: This business |
| Brian R wrote: > Let's put an end to discussion at this point. Word. |
| Cohen |
| Monday June 16 23:33:08 2008 Re: The other site |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > Brian did request info be emailed to him, so who knows > what he has found out. Nothing. |
| Brian R |
|
|