New Brent Everett porn...

[JamesK840]

Big surprise, guess who gets to fuck him again... ;(

 

 

Doesn't look all that enticing to me personally, but maybe that's just the poorly chosen sample images and clip...

 

Link removed at the request of the original poster

 

 

And yes, before somebody points it out, some of our obsessions' Brent probably barebacks in this video, as he has in others, all with that same lucky bastard (his boyfriend).

[Cruisemaster]

Now let me see if I understand this: you steal my copyright protected images from my site (cruisingforsex.com) and then you complain about the quality of those stolen images.

 

Hmmmmm... What is wrong with this picture?

[JamesK840]

They're not stolen, they're linked (a very big difference), and a direct link to buy your product is even provided. I'm sure by now several have, but if you'd like me to request that a moderator delete the free promotion that's no problem at all.

 

As for my critique, what I'm saying is that the sample images do very little to show off Brent, and what they show of the setting implies the whole scene doesn't do much more, for me anyway, though it does fit in well with the cruising scene. Now that I think about it, given the scene--cruising a bathroom, I could see how the bareback watchdogs could have a legitimate complaint about the implication for viewers, even if the actors in it are monogamous.

 

If you can't handle somebody giving their opinion of your work when it's negative, make better products! :*

 

While I'm at it, I went to your site in the first place to see if there were any new cruising locations, I take it the whole Cruising For Sex thing is now just a gimmick to sell porn? For the entire LA area there hadn't been any updates since January, and all of those were just another comment on an existing place. Further, the stupid 'read more' links at the end of many comments didn't show a single additional word for the comment about the cruising spot, just the same comment but with advertising.

 

I had the utmost respect for your site until recently, what you provided and the legal battles you probably had to fight were a great service, I'm just disappointed in what it's become. I'm sure your checkbook isn't disappointed; I just wish it could be both very profitable and high quality at the same time.

[Guest Les]

Cruisemaster, you are an <no unnecessary attacks on members of this board, please>! x(

 

Free publicity is hard to come by and if you don't want someone to hotlink your pictures I suggest you turn that function "off" on your site.

[Cruisemaster]

>They're not stolen, they're linked (a very big difference),

 

You're right. There is a difference: instead of stealing actual images, you're taking bandwidth and again without permission.

 

>If you can't handle somebody giving their opinion of your work

>when it's negative, make better products! :*

 

I was not addressing your right to not like our product, but rather the fact images were being posted that you didn't have permission to post here. You are welcome to like or dislike, and even hate my work. But I would challenge criticism of a product when you actually have never seen said product and I'm guessing you haven't seen the video in question.

 

Finally, you're right that my pocketbook is doing nicely thanks to hard work on a website that has been online since 1995. How the heck do you think I can afford all these nice escorts for companionship? I should hardly think this website would be frequented by people who don't appreciate success and the good that can come from captitalism, but I guess I'm wrong!

[jackhammer91406]

Hoo giveth and Hoo taketh away..

 

James (and Hoo)

I say give the whining entrepreneur his bandwidth back (and the free advertising for his pay site <which helps pay for his escort companionship>) and drop the offending pics. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much (perhaps to get just that much more free exposure?).

 

As far as stealing his copyrighted material, disable the function on your pitiful site. Yeah, I went there as a result of this thread. I would have never seen it otherwise, but after your hissy fit, I have no interest in returning. So There!}(

[+ deej]

Note to Cruisemaster: click ALERT on any message which you feel unfairly uses your published images. This site will respect your rights and wishes, but you gotta let someone know.

[Guest Utopia]

RE: Hoo giveth and Hoo taketh away..

 

While cruisemaster's words were off base and overzealous lets not dismiss his site. Come on guys I don't know a single person in this thread so far who hasn't mispoke or made a mistype in the message center (except Les). I think CM misunderstood what James ws saying and simply overeacted.

 

 

CFS and M4M have/had an affiliation at one point. To what extenst I am not certain. But I'm sure if CM wanted those pics removed all he would have to do is contact his pal HB and they would be gone.

 

CFS like al 'free sites" have to earn enough money to remain free. And selling porn is no different that HB's links here or Yahoo's constant ad banners and popups.

 

Plus CFS has a very lively Message Center and it can be informative as well if you venture into the Thailand board. So lets all take a dep breath and count backward from 12 .

===

"You realize that life goes fast

It's hard to make the good things last"

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Hoo giveth and Hoo taketh away..

 

Utopia,

My post didn't dismiss his site for lack of value, but because it's owner over reacted. did I over react? Perhaps, I did call it Pitiful after all. and I'll concede that everyone has a right to make money off their endeavors. But James didn't disparage the site so much as the shot selection. The response to James' post (which gave the guy's site many more hits in the first place) well, those remarks were over the top to me. That's me taking a deep breath.

[Cruisemaster]

RE: Hoo giveth and Hoo taketh away..

 

>While cruisemaster's words were off base and overzealous lets

>not dismiss his site. Come on guys I don't know a single

>person in this thread so far who hasn't mispoke or made a

>mistype in the message center (except Les). I think CM

>misunderstood what James ws saying and simply overeacted.

 

You're right, Utopia. I was too quick with my words, though I honestly can't say I'd take them back, nor do I believe I'm wrong. I should have, instead, asked the moderator to remove the images in a more private setting.

 

Ask just about anyone putting copyright protected material on the Internet what is an especially sensitive topic for them and it will usually include people taking their work from them without compensation and/or permission. I rarely go looking for examples of my work being lifted or linked to another site unlike some companies who have staff who spend their workday looking for their content in newsgroups, etc. These forums are something I've started to frequent and so it hit me across the head when I saw examples of this practice. Adding fuel to my flame was the criticism that came from the very person who had posted the images without permission. That was just too much for me to resist a quick response.

 

Henceforth, mums the word from me on this subject. I LOVE YOU LES (whomever you are)!

[HooBoy]

RE: Hoo giveth and Hoo taketh away..

 

The Cruisemaster and I have known each other since almost day one of this website. He has given me great advice and our sites, while different are complimentary in a sense. He is an honest purveyor of fun, a rare commodity in this business.

 

Just remember, when you buy porn, buy it off of THIS site and not his. <smile...uh, oh...there goes my freebies>

__

 

The above written as a regular guy, not the owner of a website and has no official meaning, just unofficial BS.)

__

 

--garbo the hoo