so i had this idea, sent it to al.
got back a phone number two weeks ago. haven't used it yet.
the idea: an online store selling digital downloads of anything al
goldstein cares to review. we at dyna-flix are selling some 100
titles and would list our catalog there with an extra dollar going
That was funny...
Oh please, call me Amber, Okay Amy
Mike Moon
http://vlog.mikemoon.net
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Been in lurker mode for a while. Someone else sent me a link to the
video.I looked at it because the guy was in Dr. Horrible and
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
many of us have always been amazed that there hasnt been more porn
creep into videoblogging.
I know Porn is the originator of web video for the most part...but
interesting more nudity hasnt crept into web shows.
it didnt but me as much
i thought it was ok but maybe because i watch so much CSI crime drama stuff
i was just glad there was no sex since i didnt really get what they meant
when they said
everything they love about porn but the sex
lol
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that's my favorite quip from a friend describing our work.
anybody remember Al Goldstein from Screw Magazine? i worked for
Midnight Blue way back in 1980 for a month or so, was hired to'co-
direct' after alex bennet left. seems the other 'co-director' was
not consulted on this, i didn't last
Been in lurker mode for a while. Someone else sent me a link to the
video.I looked at it because the guy was in Dr. Horrible and ok, let's
see what they have.
Er, no. Not giving the punchline away but it was creepy. Maybe it
gender based or gross out humor. Or my funny bone is rusted but ew.
anybody remember Al Goldstein from Screw Magazine? i worked for
Midnight Blue way back in 1980 for a month or so, was hired to'co-
direct' after alex bennet left. seems the other 'co-director' was
not consulted on this, i didn't last long.
anyway, al, to whom anyone who is showing anything
Hi Jay,
Been in lurker mode for a while. Someone else sent me a link to the
video.I looked at it because the guy was in Dr. Horrible and ok, let's
see what they have.
Er, no. Not giving the punchline away but it was creepy. Maybe it
gender based or gross out humor. Or my funny bone is rusted but
On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
excuse me but...None of us have absolute knowledge.
I think its clear that i indeed have absolute knowledge.
fyi.sullMichael,I'm really sorry to say this, truly, but you don't have absolute knowledge. I know that because, of course, I
On Jan 14, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Richard Show wrote: On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: excuse me but...None of us have absolute knowledge. I think its clear that i indeed have absolute knowledge. fyi.sullMichael,I'm really sorry to say this, truly, but you don't have absolute
what does this mean exactly?
Categories based on tags maybe?something i have going on vlogdir is ability for members to suggest a category. it goes into a queue and i get an email alert. mostly they are approved... I'm kind of lazy about it too.
sometimes i get very redundant or non-sensible
On 1/12/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what does this mean exactly?
Categories based on tags maybe?This means something like groups of tags in categories, like filtering on tags, or something...but I've thought about it since it that's just dumb, too cumbersome.
something i
there have been several threads in the past regarding who sends the most
email to this group, but I can't imagine that anyone sends more words
than Michael. And fine words they often are! (raises a glass of the
local brew)
markus
Enric wrote:
You're wordy, but good. ...
--- In
Thanks for posting the zappa link, Chris.
This FOIA request response will take only one minute to read and is
informative:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_11_15.html#008481
On Jan 10, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Christopher Weagel wrote:
...
Here's the Zappa clip:
There are several feeds that have been flagged as potential adult
content, not just the one, there are 25 of them. But I agree that
there should be some dialog with the producers of the feeds before
they get flagged, that's where Mefeedia did go wrong, agreed. The
process is being refined.
On 1/10/06, Ms. Kitka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish that there were more options when submitting a feed to a site
like Mefeedia. Many sites ask whether your vlog is explicit or
contains adult content but that's where I believe they're wrong.
What would be nice is if the sites would
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Philip Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My feed is one of the ones that has been flagged as adult content.
I'm OK with that.
Seems to me, as long as you're the one who's hosting the party, you
should be allowed to set the dress code.
I agree.
--
I would say that you should consult with the porn site owners and
get their input. I wouldn't think that they would want their stuff
accessed by kids any more than you do.
I think Richards biggest issue seemed to be that MeFeedia seemed to
arbitrarily pick his feed out for labeling without
On 1/10/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say that you should consult with the porn site owners and
get their input. I wouldn't think that they would want their stuff
accessed by kids any more than you do.
I think Richards biggest issue seemed to be that MeFeedia seemed
right.the last thread on this a month or 2 or 3 or 4 ago i suggested a proactive solution where the site had a clear path to Kid-friendly content, Adult content and some other filtered areas... where much else falls under the normalized flow of categories and tags. Yes, you can still 'see'
Sorry Sull, I did try to search for it this morning, but that's what I
get for reacting to things without sufficient caffeine in my system.
On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
right.
the last thread on this a month or 2 or 3 or 4 ago i suggested a
proactive solution
On 1/10/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Philip Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My feed is one of the ones that has been flagged as adult content.
I'm OK with that.
Seems to me, as long as you're the one who's hosting the party, you
should
categories... a full circle. back in the day most were like 'categories? that's out. Now it's all about tags!My response was... 'nope, its about categories AND tags'.
On 1/10/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/10/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say that you
Categories based on tags maybe?On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
categories... a full circle. back in the day most were like 'categories? that's out. Now it's all about tags!My response was... 'nope, its about categories AND tags'.
On 1/10/06, Devlon [EMAIL
Here's a suggestion...
You need contact info for the feed owner to notify them (allow owners
to claim their feed)... perhaps notify them that their feed will be
flagged as explicit and offer them a choice to provide a rating
category if they desire (PG, PG-13, R, X... whatever scale you want).
Yes, another good suggestion. We are working on feed claiming in a
future release.
I think the main failing in this issue is our lack of communication
iwth the owner of the feed.
On 1/10/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a suggestion...
You need contact info for the feed
Ratings could be something like: Kids/General/Mature/Adult
Sorry, but I don't think either of these tags fit all content very
well. I think we'd need something like PG-13 or PG-16. I just think
that David's description of Mature and Adult are too similar, which is
why I mentioned R and X (R is
Or how about this. Have a really general category structure by
default, and allow users to create their own personallized
categories based on tags. Okay maybe that's too obvious.
Bill Streeter
LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
www.lofistl.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ms. Kitka wrote:
Ratings could be something like: Kids/General/Mature/Adult
Sorry, but I don't think either of these tags fit all content very
well. I think we'd need something like PG-13 or PG-16. I just think
that David's description of Mature and Adult are too similar, which is
why I
I would be nice (if this is a favorable way to go) to use our own
ratings, and not be tied to choices big media made
On 1/10/06, Pete Prodoehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ms. Kitka wrote:
Ratings could be something like: Kids/General/Mature/Adult
Sorry, but I don't think either of
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:32:11 +0100, Ms. Kitka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would be nice is if the sites would provide markers indicating
the rating level of content similar to Hollywood films (G, PG-13,
PG-16, R, X). There's nothing I hate more than sitting in front of
the computer
Categories based on tags maybe?
That is the Microformat way. Just tag it with a relTag.
-Josh
On 1/10/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Categories based on tags maybe?
On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
categories... a full circle.
back in the day
You guys are suggesting ratings?
Jesus christ.
Pick up a camera and go make something, stop wasting time on children
who have assholes for parents.
Chris Weagel
www.human-dog.com
On Jan 10, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Ms. Kitka wrote:
Ratings could be something like: Kids/General/Mature/Adult
maybe just allow folks to tag it not safe for work
a check box when submitting a feed.
-Josh
On 1/10/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be nice (if this is a favorable way to go) to use our own
ratings, and not be tied to choices big media made
On 1/10/06, Pete Prodoehl [EMAIL
I think this will cover a lot of ground initially. I like it.
On 1/10/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
maybe just allow folks to tag it not safe for work
a check box when submitting a feed.
-Josh
On 1/10/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be nice (if this is a
We did toss this idea around, I don't remember what happened to it,
but it's a good idea.
On 1/10/06, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Categories based on tags maybe?
That is the Microformat way. Just tag it with a relTag.
-Josh
On 1/10/06, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or we could use the Entertainment Software Rating Board's ratings:
http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp
I heartfully agree with using the ESRB's ratings, they are well
written and I can flag myself as being alright for over 13s (Titles
rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable
minimal blood that's a great criteria!!!d
SPONSORED LINKS
Individual
Fireant
Use
Explains
yeah.. i this is good approach as a loose label...i suggested the same thing inside of a chat on tagging a feed 'plays on insert device name' so people can know if the channel will work on video iPods, PSPs etc...
same applies here... a loose guide to the channel. still, RSS usage is best in
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Pete Prodoehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ms. Kitka wrote:
Ratings could be something like: Kids/General/Mature/Adult
Sorry, but I don't think either of these tags fit all content
very
well. I think we'd need something like PG-13 or PG-16. I just
Pick up a camera and go make something, stop wasting time on children
who have assholes for parents.
Oh, come on... haven't you ever heard of the Child Protection and
Obscenity Enforcement Act?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_USC_Section_2257
Kitka
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit
Metadata is king.On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yeah.. i this is good approach as a loose label...i suggested
the same thing inside of a chat on tagging a feed 'plays on insert
device name' so people can know if the channel will work on video
iPods, PSPs etc... same
If you are smart enough to be on the net, and you want to get porn,
as a kid it isn't hard to do.
I agree, if a kid is smart enough and wants to get porn I think they
should be allowed to access it. However, the American Government
doesn't agree with me, which is why 18 U.S.C. § 2251 exists
I think Veoh got it right when they introduced the TV ratings scale in
their directory to be applied by podcasters and suggested by viewers.
With that said I always apply the explicit flag to all my posts even
when certain directories say they are more PG-13, because it is our
intention and
I just check out your show Mark.
http://appserver.veoh.com/mediaDetails.html?permalinkId=e22690
In light of that (oh! my virgin eyes!) I suggested a rating system
of TV and TV-Boobs in which TV-Boobs was the rating given to
anything with nudity (boobs and down). That would pretty much solve
The ol' forbidden fruit. Be honest now, weren't you the same kids who
snuck a peek at Playboy a few years back? Parental Advisory is for
parents to be aware and keep their kids out of trouble. The kids' job
is to get into trouble. :) The best we can do is to warn viewers
because its really up
exactly. putting a rating on something isn't about oh this will
prevent kids from getting at it its about the producer being able to
say I've given what information I can to help parents judge the
content
On 1/10/06, Joan Khoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ol' forbidden fruit. Be honest now,
Yes I have.
I wasn't clear enough. My apologies.
That law should be struck down and openly defied whenever possible.
Imposing some sort of bullshit ratings system on yourself is
admitting that the freaks who advocate such censorship are correct.
Why? Because you're buying into the bullshit
Enric
I'm telling people what to think?
What the hell does that even mean?
Or in reference to?
Here's the Zappa clip:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2658805?htv=12
Chris Weagel
On Jan 10, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Enric wrote:
Sorry, weagel but your telling people what to think
-- Enric
excuse me but...None of us have absolute knowledge.I think its clear that i indeed have absolute knowledge.
fyi.sullOn 1/10/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that may not be exactly accurate.What it looks like to me (andI'm open to be proven wrong on this or anything else I state) is
This discussion is probably annoying, off course and I'm getting
philosophical abstract again (sorry, it's what I like to do --
treading now into moral philosophy.) But my point is that declaring
something wrong in absolute terms and people who disagree as idiots
doesn't leave room for discussion
Hail the all-knowing Sull?
On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
excuse me but...None of us have absolute knowledge.
I think its clear that i indeed have absolute knowledge.
fyi.sullOn 1/10/06, Enric
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that may not be exactly accurate.What it
if you must. ;-)On 1/10/06, Joan Khoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hail the all-knowing Sull?
On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
excuse me but...None of us have absolute knowledge.
I think its clear that i indeed have absolute knowledge.
fyi.sullOn 1/10/06, Enric
Weagel taught me everything I know.On 1/10/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if you must. ;-)On 1/10/06, Joan Khoo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hail the all-knowing Sull?
On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
excuse me but...None of us have absolute knowledge.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Frank Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sunday, December 4, 2005, 2:47:21 PM, Nerissa (TheVideoQueen) wrote:
Why the LET PEOPLE PICK A CATEGORY argument will fail:
Not everyone will tag their videos correctly ...
And what about the ambiguous
The advantage of informative tagging is that it allows each viewer to construct his or her own filters appropriate to his or her own culture and views. This avoids the problem of global definitions and allows people to potentially reject anything they don't want to see, be it porn,
If you have a community of taggers then you can weight the tags such that things more commonly tagged X are pushed up in the list of items tagged X.Tags do not have to be a one to one relationship... in this way you can help minimize the effect of users simply trying to game the system. Of
Sunday, December 4, 2005, 6:58:38 PM, Enric wrote:
What worries me about both these approaches is that (despite your
mention of ambiguous videos above) they both assume that (a) the
only thing people are concerned with is porn,
I don't see that assumption. This is to deal with an issue that
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Frank Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sunday, December 4, 2005, 6:58:38 PM, Enric wrote:
What worries me about both these approaches is that (despite your
mention of ambiguous videos above) they both assume that (a) the
only thing people are concerned
Ah, of course. One might find one thing incredible valuable, and another would not.On 12/1/05, Digital Buddha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If financial worth is equal to audience interest and that interest is subjective, is financial worth then subjective?On 12/1/05,
Devlon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And both determination of value can be objective to the different make
up of those individuals.
-- Enric
http://www.cirne.com
Determine the Media
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, of course. One might find one thing incredible valuable, and
And those in control of the make up of an individual's make up
(nature, nurture take your pick) are in control of the determination
of value.
And those with money and power may play a big role in one's make up,
so they can feed thier own value.
On 12/2/05, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And
Ok, it's late...that first part didn't make sense, but you know what I mean.
On 12/2/05, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And those in control of the make up of an individual's make up
(nature, nurture take your pick) are in control of the determination
of value.
And those with money and
The number of factors, complexity and randomness of human
characteristics make it currently unlikely to precisely calculate
worth for a large population. Another factor is that human beings are
volitional and self-determined, therefore self-creating. So future
predictions are likely to fail.
Don't tell advertisers that ;)On 12/2/05, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The number of factors, complexity and randomness of human
characteristics make it currently unlikely to precisely calculate
worth for a large population. Another factor is that human beings are
volitional and
The smart ones know it and adjust to constant change ;)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Devlon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't tell advertisers that ;)
On 12/2/05, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The number of factors, complexity and randomness of human
characteristics make it
Friday, December 2, 2005, 6:42:08 AM, Deirdre Straughan wrote:
My suggestion on the porn:
Have a ratings system, so that everyone who submits a feed has to tag it
rated G rated X or whatever.
If a feed is rated X, replace any thumbnails with Adult Content or some
such in a graphic.
If
yes it is part of life... but much of this discussion is related to kids
encountering this stuff.
I like to use this illustration in that regard.
http://www.missionarypositionsmovie.com/kiddyspam.jpg
People find it irresponsible to create a picture like this, but then support
who the
On 12/2/05, Frank Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it would work leaving the categorizing to the submitter.I can imagine plenty of reasons why someone might (deliberately oraccidentally) mis-categorize something.
Yes, of course, but... I don't think that any of the sites which
Well I certainly agree that people should be allowed to put whatever content they so choose on their web site, filtered or not. My issue is with this spreading conventional wisdom that seems to state that we all have some inherent, deep, and fundamental responsiblity to sanitize what we can and
we should have an authority to rate a vlog. just like netiba
On 12/2/05, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/2/05, Frank Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it would work leaving the categorizing to the submitter.
I can imagine plenty of reasons why someone might
On 12/2/05, Wong Teck Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we should have an authority to rate a vlog. just like netiba
I've never heard of NetIBA before (just looked it up), which may or may
not prove anything. But, for a business with money behind it, there is
incentive to pay for something like
perhaps someone's willing to do sth like vlog-monitor?
On 12/2/05, Deirdre Straughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/2/05, Wong Teck Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we should have an authority to rate a vlog. just like netiba
I've never heard of NetIBA before (just looked it up), which may or
petertheman wrote:
Hey Jay,
yes, I noticed it as well. It was inevitable, I am actually surprised
it took this long..
Any comments?
Well, it's sad, but as a directory, I suppose it's something you have to
deal with. Some ideas...
I wouldn't go with G, PG, X type ratings... As mentioned,
I have to say I feel concerned about the free distribution of adult
and violent videos by individuals, versus the law-abiding, lawyer-
retaining mainstream producers who have to keep on file documents
regarding the actor's age, animal welfare, explosives permits, etc.
So my question is; How
Advisor: The Immortality
InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
- Original Message -
From:
Wong Teck
Jung
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 9:29
AM
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Porn on
mefeedia??
we
I wouldn't go with G, PG, X type ratings... As mentioned, 'adult'
doesn't always mean X, etc. Perhaps following the iTunes model of
marking things as 'mature' or 'explicit' or whatever might work.
For people not logged in, I would filter out all 'mature' content. For
people who are
thanks... and yeah I agree - censoring is prob the wrong way to go. be more innovative and yes, proactive, and prob have better success.if its easy to find the content geared for children, then the chances of them browsing the directory and seeing adult content is greatly reduced, generally
hmm.. and its sorta like a video rental store in that way ;)On 12/2/05, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:thanks... and yeah I agree - censoring is prob the wrong way to go. be more innovative and yes, proactive, and prob have better success.
if its easy to find the content geared for
petertheman wrote:
know that I'm sometimes not even sure if I should want videos in
FireANT
when my kids are in the room.
Yep. It's a complex issue. I just want to make sure we provide
solutions that scale and that work, but don't censor. There is enough
censorship out there.
Agreed. I'm
Jay dedman wrote:
Maybe the opposite approach would be logical?
Instead of filtering the not for kids stuff, filter the kid friendly
stuff.
And include a warning on site stating that there may be adult content
within, but check out our kid-friendly zone here
You can then have
: [videoblogging] Re: Porn on mefeedia??
i think i will setup a new section called vlogdirty... the porn room.
;-)
sull
On 12/1/05, petertheman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think you
Of course it will. In the same way that the kids section of Blockbuster interests parents. There seems to be this view in our culture lately that kids are like little grownups and they just go and do whatever they want and so society has to protect them. That perspective is...not even
Is there a correlation between a child going to a peep show and
turning into a thief later? Don't laws already prohibit adult
establishments from allowing minors in? Aren't they already zoned in
cities? Should those laws be eliminated because they restrict the
choices and/or availablity of
the kid can also google porn and BOOYA!!of course some kids may be a little too curious too soon...but we should discuss the issue broadly and generalize, knowing that their are always exceptions.no solution will ever be perfect.
On 12/2/05, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the kid can also google porn and BOOYA!!
of course some kids may be a little too curious too soon...
but we should discuss the issue broadly and generalize, knowing that
their
are always exceptions.
no solution
Not that this thread hasn't run it's course, but I do like one suggestion that was made, and I sincerely hope that Peter takes it into serious consideration. The suggestion was to "safe filter" by default, much the way Google does for image searches. Considering how "public" (both figuratively
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:10:10 +0100, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not all company (video)blogs are evil.
im not making a judgement on the products...i just dont want my time
hijacked by
For me it's the thin edge of the wedge, and I think folks are focusing
more on oh no! it's porn! -- where's the line drawn? How long until
there's spvlogs, etc. Having a system in place to filter down -- not out
-- things that negatively impact the community and tools aren't a bad
thing, imho.
I agree.
All I can do in this world is protect my own kids. I make the rules. So when I
populate
FireANT, I'm putting in the things like the kidsafe feed (which could be
abused--but that's
what parenting entails)
I also have a client that has TA in their video podcast. Mine is not to
Videographer, Writer, Activist
Advisor: The Immortality Institute
Hoboken, NJ
http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
201-656-3280
- Original Message -
From: Bill Day
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 4:48 AM
Subject: [videoblogging] Re
e Hoboken, NJ http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/ 201-656-3280- Original Message - From: Bill Day To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 4:48 AMSubject: [videoblogging] Re: Porn Shmorn. Grow up! There's real life going on.
he
Immortality InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
- Original Message -
From:
petertheman
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 10:50
AM
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Porn on
mefeedia??
I wo
It's a good idea, but requires more coding than I can muster right
now.. Will probably implement this in January..
Peter
Not that this thread hasn't run it's course, but I do like one
suggestion that was made, and I sincerely hope that Peter takes it
into serious consideration. The
sorry all this underneath rant was basically aimed at comments during the day, it bares nothing to the thread attached.On 2 Dec 2005, at 19:34, Paul Knight wrote: Hi randy and enric,Although I understand that both of you have probably non-issues with pornography, check out this please before you
In the podcast from the Blogher session Blogging for Business,
Christine Halvorson of Stonyfield Yogurt talks about how the president
of the company insisted on creating a company blog even though the
marketing department was in the beginning opposed to it:
Blogher related site
LOL, quite obviously...
-- Enric
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Paul Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
sorry all this underneath rant was basically aimed at comments during
the day, it bares nothing to the thread attached.
On 2 Dec 2005, at 19:34, Paul Knight wrote:
Hi randy
sor: The Immortality
InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
- Original Message -
From:
Michael
Ridley
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:02
PM
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Porn
Shmorn. Grow up! The
InstituteHoboken, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
- Original Message -
From:
Michael
Ridley
To:
videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:02
PM
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Porn
Shmorn. Grow up! There's real life
en, NJhttp://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/201-656-3280
- Original Message -
From:
Enric
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:24
PM
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Porn Shmorn.
Grow up! There's real life going on.
--- In vid
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
