TampaYankee

Live and let live.

The majority of those other 3000 were in the first two years. I was out of control. But then there was a whole cast of antagonists that had to be kept at bay. Those were rich days of heavy give and take. lolol

How's that for stamina!!

Thanks, I hadn't noticed.

This won't last long.

I viewed most of the action in the early days of group chat before they developed the software to exclude nonregistered members. However, I usually catch a few freebies every week when models go off the reservation and let there hair down.. I mean briefs. Just last night I watch a beautiful hard-body Colombian shake his dick and balls in front of the camera for a good five minutes before he climbed back into his brief attire. Generally, newer guys are more prone to do it -- not many but occasionally. Also, more blacks and latins. Europeans and Americans are less likely and eurotwinks even less, but there is always the exception, according to my observations. Other times guys get really frustrated with no tips and lay out the bait to get things going -- what my hard-body Colombian was doing. Of course this is all luck.But if you don't check em out you'll never stumble across one of these events. Finally, there are some guys who never give a freebie and don't even woo the crowd shirtless. They suck!! Not worth checking out. You learn who these are rather fast.

It depends on the guy as usual. Some are duds, others are not. I have seen some really hot guys with great personality give hot and fun shows. One gorgeous Colombian loved to put on great dildo show that climaxed (so to speak) in him shoving two large dildos simultaneously up his ass, repeatedly and then cumming on cue. I had seen it several times. Another Colombian would stroke and play with his baseball bat showing every prespective so nothing was missed. Yet others are detached or going through the numbers. It just depends on personality, time into their shift and time in the business (sometimes). I think Colombians tend to be a better show on average. I suspect the money they make goes further in their local economy.

Sort of a 'Animal House meets Saturday Night Lights'. The story lines were inane. Maybe I could have watched it with the sound off. Some good eye candy with a painfully high price to watch. More tease than delivery, IMO.

Then maybe there is hope for me.

I'm not sure I'll find much agreement here but I attribute this decline in quality and value to the quarterly perspective that Wall St has for the manufacturers. When companies were owned by individuals and families there was a pride in ownership and craftsmanship in the products that many companies produced. Now, wit the owners (stock holders) distant from the prouct and often of temporary status, the perspective is: What are the profit statements or will the street guidance on stock targets be met for this quarter. Quarterly myopia drives a lot of decisions to maximize profit and stock value on a short term basis in this economic system. Long term reputations are of lesser concern than in days past. If you have any doubt just reflect on how these factors drove Wall St. actions that caused the 2008 Great Recession. FWIW

Can you imagine the Governor of Georgia or Alabama offering to put voting rights act up for referendum in their state as a 'fair minded' democratic resolution? Biggots and their enablers, Christie is just another example.

Not to worry... I hear that China will be exporting rickshaws to America. Look for them at your nearest Walmart. Also, I hear that a couple of refineries on the East Coast have been closed. The diminishes gasoline domestic production even if it clears the tar out of Jersey City air.

This is not an altruistic or health measure by any means, no matter what they tell you. It is a camouflaged price increase. It has become rampant in the food industry to downsized container and portion sizes. I recall it starting in yogurt when the standard was an 8 oz cup that shrank to 6 oz and now often 4oz. Pudding cups were 4 oz now 3.5 oz. Canned vegies when from 15-15 1/2 now to 14 often. Tuna can used to be six ounces net wt. The 'net' i.e. without liquid to now five ounces with liquid included. I open a can of chunk light in oil now and see less than half a can of actual tuna. Ice cream... especially egregious -- from half gallon (64 oz) to 56 oz to now 48 oz. Of course none of the prices decreased. In fact, all prices increased with these changes -- but presumably less than might have occurred with the original sizes. I find this happenstance insulting as if I were too stoooopid to notice. When I want to buy ice cream I want to purchase a half gallon, not a minature half-gallon. It pisses me off every time I go to the store. There... now I feel better... until the next trip.

I don't think it was a rude question. I think the question was simply making the point that our media is ALWAYS overdoing, some might say hyping, stories that might have some merit, but that they beat to death 24 hours a day, day after day, whether Linsanity, Lohan, Houston, Obama crushing the catholic church, or whatever. I'm not faulting the subjects of the stories or making light of possible importance, just the way the media hypes things over and over and over as if there must be millions of uninformed people returning from the deserts or jungles hourly, who have missed the news. FOr example, I'm not tired of Linsanity but I can do just fine hearing once a day any new developments in his game performance or relevant off court stories. I do not need to hear the same story or minor variations ten to twenty times a day, Nor do I need to hear stories by one media oulet about another medial outlet coverage of Linsanity. There is only so much news that shakes the world. News about the news ain't one of them... unless the mainstream media were to actually publish the truth about the bias of Faux News Channel. That ain't gonna happen either. If sports talk shows wish to chew the same fat over and over I have no objection. That is what those shows do. Anyone watching that mindless drivel in the first place probably won't care and maybe even flourishes on it. You find signs of life in the strangest places.

I definitely makes a difference. If you connect from here we get part of the fee. We are most appreciative if members and visitors access through our portal. Helps pay the bills. Either way, the charge is the same to the user.

Those stills come from a super camera that accentuates the positive. Many of the guys seem to have access to it.

Welcome back ZZ!! So good to see you doing better after your long ordeal. I feel like throwing a party. How much does virtual champagne cost?

Well, this is all becoming a little clearer to me as posts unfold. I have known Oz the better part of a decade. He is an honorable and honest guy, has always been with me and with everyone that I have seen him interact with. So I was puzzled when I first saw how this drama initially unfolded. Oz is respectful and usually goes out of his way to treat people the same so I was puzzled when it appeared this massive edit was undertaken without first contacting the author. I suspected that Oz had his reasons whatever they were. I know Oz to be a busy, busy guy with many responsibilities to attend to. This site is just one of them. Unlike him, my focus is directed only here. However, this site is one of his special interests if not the only one. So when I read that this edit was performed by a helper I understood how this episode got off track. Maybe some confused communication aggravated the problem. This whole episode has been very unfortunate. Lessons attempted to be taught, feelings hurt, charges hurled, out of what appears to be an unfortunate misstep by someone attempting to help Oz keep up with his sites. Lucky was due the courtesy of discussing his post before any action was taken. That did not happen. The reason is clear and Oz stated that action won't be repeated. I hope Lucky decides to return. I hope he understands that this was not a personal slight or attack but an unintended consequence of site oversight procedure aggravated by miscommunication. On another point, speaking of miscommunication, the term 'censor' has been thrown around inappropriately several times in this thread. The correct term is 'edit' unless there has been some content suppressed that I do not know about and has not been mentioned. This was just a simple edit job of concatenating messages, no more. If one needs an example of censorship just check the personal attack posted above. Personal attacks get censored. That should clarify the two terms.

Lucky, I thought I had expressed my feeling about your leaving elsewhere: The big goodbye. Maybe you didnt see it? I think you made your case pretty well. I do hope to see you around more rather than less.

FBI could take down Internet for millions on March 8 By Andrew Couts | Digital Trends The Federal Bureau of Investigation may soon be forced to shut down a number of key Domain Name System (DNS) servers, which would cut Internet access for millions of Web users around the world, reports BetaBeat. The DNS servers were installed by the FBI last year, in an effort to stop the spread of a piece of malware known as DNSCharger Trojan. But the court order that allowed the set up of the replacement servers expires on March 8. In November of last year, authorities arrested six men in Estonia for the creation and spread of DNSCharger, which reconfigures infected computers’ Internet settings, and re-routes users to websites that contain malware, or other illegal sites. DNSCharger also blocks access to websites that might offer solutions for how to rid the computer of its worm, and often comes bundled with other types of malicious software. By the time the FBI stepped in, DNSCharger had taken over computers in more than 100 countries, including half-a-million computers in the US alone. To help eradicate the widespread malware, the FBI replaced infected servers with new, clean servers, which gave companies and individuals with infected computers time to clean DNSCharger off their machines. Unfortunately, DNSCharger is still running on computers “at half of the Fortune 500 companies,” and at “27 out of 55 major government entities,” reports cybersecurity journalist Brian Krebs. These computers rely on the FBI-installed DNS servers to access the Web. But if the court order is not extended, the FBI will be legally required to remove the clean servers, which would cut off the Internet for users still infected with DNSCharger. Companies or other agencies that are unsure whether their systems are infected with DNSCharger can get free assistance here. And private users can find out if they are infected using instructions provided here. This article was originally posted on Digital Trends See originaql article at: http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-could-down-internet-millions-march-8-181807521.html

This looks like a Maalox Moment to me. Check this out and the accompanying article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/shark-eats-shark_n_1279570.html

This just highlights what to me has always been a ghastly observation since I encountered Fox News: that so-called professional journalists permit themselves be led around by the nose as to how to present the news and use talking points. Fox News personnel fall into three categories IMO. 1. Clowns hired off the street to read scripts and follow directions. The morning trio is an example. Any one of their female blonds is another example. 2) Conservative activists and radio hacks like O'Reilly and Hannity. 3) News reporters hired away from other networks. I find the first category to be an embarassment to Fox Management and Owners that demonstrates their desire to foist a charade and agenda on the 'news' profile for the channel. The second category I have no real issues with as long as it is not presented as news. They do an adequate job of keeping that in the opinion category. The third category is an embarassment on and casts shame, IMO, on individuals who I used to believe were principled, ethical, professional journalist-reporters. I'm talking about the likes of Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, Bill Hemmer, Bill Sammon and others who had established straight news reputations prior to joining Fox News Channel. Not only have they willingly practiced 'Talking-Points-News' but some have suborned 'agenda-driven' news, -- writing the scripts. Examples are: Hume and Salmon. In fairness, some professionals, damn few, have been able to navigate the agenda driven environment without tarnishing their reputation, other than by association. Shep Smith is an example. Major Garret may be another but I was disappointed at his past attempts to separate the news operation from the opinion operation regarding an agenda driven environment. what is clear is that such individuals are the exception at FNC.

Is Fox News shifting to the Left? By The Week's Editorial Staff | The Week Conservatives are grumbling that Fox isn't speaking their language anymore. Did Fox chief Roger Ailes take his "course correction" too far? Fox News chief Roger Ailes ordered a "course correction" at the network last year, parting ways with Glenn Beck and telling the rest of Fox's conservative talent to tamp down the rhetorical heat and extol the Tea Party movement less avidly. Conservatives aren't loving the change, says Keach Hagey in Politico, and some are tuning out. Fox's apparent shift toward the center was widely discussed and lamented at last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). "I've gone from all Fox to no Fox, and replaced it with CNN, which I think right now is giving me a much fairer analysis of what's going on," right-wing Virginia talk radio gabber John Fredericks tells Politico. Is Fox News really veering leftward? I guess "shift to the Left" is relative: What proof did Fredericks offer of this leftward lurch, asks Ed Kilgore in Washington Monthly. He's apparently upset — "seriously" — that Karl Rove (despite his supporting Romney) and Sean Hannity (allied to the Republican establishment) seem to be getting extra airtime. Other right-wing critics are griping over Beck's ouster. In other words, "any 'shift to the left' makes sense only as a relative term for any fixed object that is part of a Republican Party apparatus moving rapidly to the right." "Fox's 'Shift to the Left'" The shift is real, and politically savvy: The disgruntled conservatives are right about Fox's "subtle but real" move toward the center, says Paul Waldman in The American Prospect. But the "fevered conspiracy theories" they're employing to explain the shift are amusingly off base. Fox isn't caving to George Soros or going soft; it's moving "in the direction that Roger Ailes believes is the most advantageous for the GOP." In 2010, that was fueling the Tea Party. But to win a presidential race, you aim for the middle. "Fox News, now part of the liberal media" This is about business, and Fox isn't alone: Fox is, above all else, a very successful business, and good businesses adapt, says Evan McMurray in PoliticOlogy. Fox and its liberal counterpart, MSNBC, have both tapped "their respective extremes for all they're worth," and both are moving toward the center in an effort to grow their stagnating audience numbers. So Fox ditches Beck, and MSNBC loses Keith Olbermann, and "the effect overall can't help but be good" for each side — if, that is, the polarized audiences they helped create go along. "Fox News changes anger Tea Party audience" See the original article for many embedded links contained therein: http://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-shifting-left-101300885.html

Canada boosts police powers, alarms privacy watchdog By Louise Egan | Reuters OTTAWA (Reuters) - A new law gives police stronger powers to track what Canadians do online, but raises concern from the privacy watchdog about "warrantless access to personal information." The Conservative government says the draft law it unveiled on Tuesday aims at hunting down pedophiles or other criminals by giving police, the country's spy agency and the Competition Bureau increased access to customer data from Internet service providers. Law enforcers will no longer need a warrant to ask internet providers to hand over "identifying information" such as names, addresses, email addresses, unlisted phone numbers and IP addresses. Ottawa says it is simply modernizing its crime-fighting tools and notes that that similar laws are already in place in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. But Chantal Bernier, the assistant privacy commissioner of Canada, said the bill raised serious concerns. "There is an outstanding issue that to us remains of concern and that is that it still allows warrantless access to personal information ... and it's not framed either in terms of suspicions of criminal activity or in the context of a criminal investigation," Bernier told Reuters. "It's wide open and so it could impact on any law-abiding Canadian," she said. The government named the bill "protecting children from internet predators act", framing it as a new tool to end frustrating delays police face when they seek to track suspects' online activities. The opposition New Democrats and other critics say a warrant should be required, otherwise authorities can abuse their new powers and snoop on anyone without any oversight or justification. The opposition is vigorously fighting the bill, but the Conservatives have a majority in the House of Commons, so are likely to get the bill passed in one form or another. Public Safety Minister responded to critics in Parliament on Tuesday by saying that people "can either stand with us or with the child pornographers." Toews said criminals have adapted more quickly than police to rapidly changing technologies, and he cited a case of child abduction last year where it took police 13 days to obtain the electronic data that eventually allowed them to nab their suspect because the service provider would not provide customer data without a court order. In a 2010 child pornography investigation, it took 15 days, he said. "It is clear we need a better system," Toews said. In a nod to concerns from the privacy commissioner last year, the government included a requirement for audits conducted on the exercise of the new powers and reduced the list of personal data that police can access without warrant. Police will still need a warrant to actually read the online communications of suspects. "The new investigative powers are tailored to ensure a minimum of intrusion on the privacy of Canadians," said Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. Bernier is not convinced, and the privacy commissioner's office left the door open to a constitutional challenge of the law, pending further study. "That is precisely the analysis that we are embarking on now, whether this does indeed conform to the fundamental right to privacy (enshrined in the constitution) so I can see others taking this on in the same manner," she said. (Reporting By Louise Egan) See original article at: http://news.yahoo.com/canada-boosts-police-powers-alarms-privacy-watchdog-223111805.html

What's surprising? They repress everyone, no need to identify classes to pit against one another.