Lucky

Few things in life remain static. People who join message centers often stay for awhile and move on. Sometimes we know the reason, sometimes, and most often, we don't. It's a mystery how some guys just seem to disappear. they are gone before you know they are gone! I've known guys who stopped posting because of illness, lost interest in the site, or they have stopped hiring escorts. We see it here at MER where sometimes the conversation moves nicely only to be followed by some real dry spells. I can't tell you why that is, but one guess is that people have other things to do and they drop in when they can. Hooville is seeing many new posters, and management has never been as laid back as it is now, so, I guess for me it is a process of getting to know the new guys and I'll probably find out that they are much the same as the old guys.

I'm still having no trouble getting on to Daddy's site, and no one else has posted a problem, so let's hope that lurkerspeaks will find it an easy task when he tries again Someone sent me a message about my comment above, and I realized that it could be taken to infer that I didn't find cameraderie at the Hooville site. That isn't what I meant.These sites see a constantly changing flow of people, and sometimes I miss those who have moved on to other things, especially when I had developed a rapport with them.

I had no trouble getting on the site, so I hope that lurkerspeaks met just a temporary glitch. As it turns out, I like having the two sites, as each has its own personality. This site often has some pleasant conversations on topics that interest me, and you can count on things staying civil. Daddy's site has lost some of the cameraderie of previous years. I miss that.

At least I can contribute something to this thread: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/2...iew-god-society (Incidentally, the solution was to Google the author's name in quotes, then add the word Guardian.)

More proof that you can never predict the direction a thread will take, even when you are the OP!

Three of us, all with different viewpoints, saw this show last night and we all liked it. Hustler lovers will enjoy the performance of the actor playing the Latino hustler in Times Square, circa 1994. (I left my playbill in LA, so don't have the actors' names) The show involves a virgin lawyer who is very nervous about having sex with a guy, much to the frustration of the hustler, but they do eventually fall in bed together. We expected that it would be the lawyer who fell for the hustler, but it was the other way around. The poor hustler also suffered the attachments of a young teen runaway, who wanted to be called "baby" and only needed to take care of his hustler friend. The love was unrequited, as was the hustler's love for the lawyer. If all that seems a bit odd, well, it is. The show has many flaws, but it was never boring, and the actors all performed well, with great sincerity. Only 2 of the 3 showed their dicks, but that was okay as none of us wanted to see baby's. The show runs for one more week.

TJ is taken, at least if one considers the posts at Hooville by rentingdad.

In his signature line, Adam Smith say "timor mortis conturbat me." Even with 5 years of Latin, I had to look that one up, not that I didn't get the gist of it. What I learned is that it is a phrase part of a bigger prayer, one which explains to me, at least, what might lead one to utter the words. Here is the longer version: Peccantem me quotidie, et non poenitentem, timor mortis conturbat me. Quia in inferno nulla est redemptio, miserere mei, Deus, et salva me. These words could easily apply to many who post in these forums, but no one would doubt that Adam has a claim to them. After all, the translation is: "Sinning daily, and not repenting, the fear of death disturbs me. Because there is no redemption in hell, have mercy on me, O God, and save me." Well, by these terms, at least there will be plenty of companions in hell with him, probably not the least being his favorite escort. That is, of course, if one accepts that fucking daily is a sin, and not a gift from God!

As for xtube, I don't like it anymore. It seems that now it is all commercial clips. Where are all the guys next door showing off their junk? Also, the categories are still there for photos, but not for videos, so it is harder to find the kind of stuff that I want to watch.

The third of four tapes (DVD) arrived a week after the first shipment. No word on the final DVD. All three DVDs have hit the trashcan. This is not the fault of the company I ordered them from, as they did their part of the job by sending them, however tardy. I just need to buy better DVDs, and I guess to get them I have to spend more than $19.95. Two of the Discs are white guys fucking Asian guys, something you would never have known from the cover, which shows no white guys at all. They are kind of ugly as well. I didn't like the way the movie was done, with the white guys being rather brutal towards the Asian guys.

Luke Morcum or Marcum? Good luck with your new adventure.

Since it is so rare to see a new thread in the pornification forum, I thought I would mention that I contributed one today, and you can look at it or not, but I just wanted you to know it was there!

You might have noticed in the upper left hand corner of the home page that there is a link to a site which sells porn DVDs. The link usually shows a cute Asian guy with an erection, so yes, I tuned in. I rarely look at porn on the internet, especially since xtube went down the tubes. My favorite Asian porn films have been by the director called OGGI. Some of his films have had the cutest guys doing the sexiest things, but he insists on lengthy scenery shots to interrupt the action. I forgive him. Cream of Coconuts is my favorite OGGI film. So my first order I concentrated on buying OGGI films. The service from the company was excellent, the films were so-so. OGGI apparently is erratic in his work, or maybe I had just seen his best stuff. I should make clear that I am cheap when it comes to porno. I don't buy the 49.95 stuff, just the sale stuff at 19.95. Maybe you get what you pay for. Recently I tried again, buying a couple of non-OGGI films that looked good on the covers. Well, where are those cover boys? The guys in the DVD's I got were clearly third-tier, and the sex mechanical and boring. I only got two of the four that I ordered, and I am throwing both of them away. Hopefully the other two will be better, but I don't have my hopes up. No word came from the company as to when I will get them. One final thing. At the end of the purchasing process, I could swear there was a shipping special being offered to all- priority mail delivery. They came media mail, not priority mail I haven't gone back to see if I misread, because you need to go through the ordering process to get to that point. But I think I am done ordering $19.95 porn DVDs.

Hey, hey cynics! I'm going on a luxury Nigerian safari this summer which an admirer is buying for me after reading my posts. Sure, I had to put down a deposit, just to make sure I show up. Then he will refund it at the end of the trip. If I had been as cynical as you guys, I would have missed out on this opportunity of a lifetime.

How much did you save off of the $20 regular price? I like to support small theaters, so when the fare is so low, a discount doesn't appeal to me. But with general admission, they shouldn't offer discounts anyway. But I am glad that you are seeing the show, we can compare comments on it afterwards.

Los Angeles' Celebration theater is showing the above-named play now, about two hustlers and a midwestern lawyer in 1994's Times Square. Not wanting to usurp Townsend P. Locke's preeminent position as chronicler of what's happening in LA, I'll simply cite the link to the LA Times' mini-review of the show, which includes a pic of the actor playing the lawyer and a Latino actor playing the hustler. I'm seeing it next week. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemon...n-theatre-.html

I did find this info, excerpted from a blogger on the Daily Kos: "Events like this are not inexpensive to produce. It costs approximately $750 per participant to produce AIDS/LifeCycle. During the AIDS Ride era, there were frequent complaints that the event was not making good use of funds raised, and that an excessive amount of money was going to pay the producer of the event and cover overhead. Since AIDS/LifeCycle is produced by the two beneficiaries, they are very careful as to how money is spent. No expense is spared to make the ride safe and enjoyable for participants, but no dollar is spent if a cost can be covered by in-kind donations." I'm glad to know that, and I do support the riders, but it does not seem a cost effective way to raise money for AIDS, nor is it clear how much of that money actually ends up directly helping someone with AIDS. Ultimately it may be a fun event, calling attention to the issue, but serving a fairly limited purpose.

I'm confused. The event is billed as benefiting people with AIDS, yet the only two beneficiaries are the SF AIDS Foundation and the LA Gay & Lesbian Community Center. We know that the AIDS Foundation is for people with AIDS, but the LA Center serves a multitude of purposes, so there is no way set as to how that money is to be used for people with AIDS. Years ago the AIDS bike event was highly criticized for keeping most of the money raised in the promoter's hands. Yet I scoured the AIDS Life Cycle website, and cannot find anywhere that says how the money is to be divided. With fundraising down this year, does that mean the promoters cut their profits, or do they cut the money that goes to the two agencies and maintain their profit level?

And then?

I've already learned the first part...

I thought the new Chekhov was the highlight of the movie. Young Kirk was fun as well, but the rest of it was just filler.

The day I spend any time watching a movie on Mike Tyson is the day my life has run out of meaningful things to do.

Why the need for a separate thread on this when there is already a perfectly fine thread on Numbers? You even acknowledge that fact.

For some time now I have been complaining about the crappy food at Numbers, but it had tis defenders because of the availability of boys (to some). Now that that is gone, can we concede that Numbers wasn't really a restaurant at all?

All very easy for Adam Smith to say, having just won the $1500 from the previous contest. So now he is having his fun with Andre, on Oz's dime! So the real winner of all of these contests is Andre. And that's as it should be.