Java with "Joe Bag of Doughnuts"

It's Official Now Yahoo "News" Has Lost Their Minds Over a Pair of Hooters

This entry was posted on August 22, 2007 11:11 PM and is filed under Girding My Loins.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Okay it is official now, Yahoo has finally gone out of it's ever loving mind, and whatever prepubescent news-dweeb is in charge of the "News" department has sold his soul for a free peek at some "lust pillows". It goes like this; yet again today I am over at Yahoo checking my email when I come across this article in their "People on the Web" section. Yahoo is literally promoting soft-core pornography, and internet prostitution under the guise of an alleged charitable concept. I am guessing you won't find anything like that on AOL.

Now the article makes it sound like this organization Myfreeimplants.com, was started out of the kindness of one man's heart as the result of being told the tear jerking tale of a bachelor party stripper's inability to afford bigger baby feeders. So touched was he by this tragedy that he raised $70 on the spot, and returned home to New York (and no doubt his Mother's basement) with the noble idea of ensuring that all hookers, strippers, dancers, and anyone else willing to whore themselves on the internet for his financial benefit, can get the bouncing boy toys that Mother Nature in her infinite wisdom deprived them of. What a bloody Saint this schmendrik is. To quote Jason Gunstra, the pimply faced punk who founded this sex site in charitable clothing:

"Its a Social Networking Website where we bring together guys and girls. The girls are there to raise money for free breast implants, and the guys are there to help them raise that money."

Did I miss the memo that mentioned that the new politically correct term for "Prostitution" is now "Social Networking"? Oh but it just keeps getting better. In order to raise the money for these "free implants" the women sell their cookies to the highest bidders, err donators, in the form of pictures, videos, phone calls, and before and after shots of the "goods". For the low, low cost of only an additional $9.95 (normally a $25 value according to the website), would be philanthropists can get access to "private pictures," one on one private "chats" with the girls, and ads free browsing. How incredibly thoughtful of Mr. Gunstra.

Now I am not a Prude, not by a long shot. I am also no big supporter of the Moral Majority, or Tipper Gore, V-chips, or any other sort of nonsense like that. I am also not ordinarily shocked by what I see or hear on or about the Internet, as I have come across some creepy stuff before, but at least that creepy stuff was honest about its intent. That not withstanding, when journalism starts to be used to sell soft-core pornography that is better suited to an after hour late night infomercials ala the Girls Gone Wild ads that seem to run non-stop from 12am-6am on every single stinking channel on TV, and then would be "journalists" try to pass that kind of BS off like it was some legitimate "news" story, well that about breaks this particular camel's back, and puts a major burr in my britches.

Even the 23 year old Bimbo (and I use that word because it fits) who this supposed "news" story makes out like she is some innocent girl next door looking to live the dream of possessing bigger hoho's so she can develop some semblance of self confidence, is as fake as the premise behind this story itself. I did a bit of digging that would be "reporters" Producer: Erin Green and Video Editor: Tommy Morquechoover at Yahoo apparently didn't bother with, and found out some interesting things about this supposed "ingenue" Ashley aka Minxie aka Minxie420.

Apparently one reason she can't afford her own boobage is because she is too busy puffing away her moolah on the ganga (yeah it's her, I checked what did you reckon the 420 stood for?). Girls gone Wild, Girls gone Weed, is it really all that different? Young girls, breasts, drugs, photography, and some young smacktard looking to make a buck off it all, has a familiar ring to it doesn't it? In the story it reports that Ms. Minxie420 needs $6k for her augmentation (her page lists her goal as $8.5k not $6K), but also fails to mention that this is not her first augmentation, she has had one already, but was unhappy with the initial results (she wants to go bigger), and is looking to finance an upgrade via the website. Guess that is what Web 2.O is all about, it's all about the Benjamins and the upgrades.

Likewise, apparently the editors at Yahoo feel that Ms. Minxie420 posing bottomless is "tame" (crotch-less panties help call attention to the need for a boob job how exactly?) as such can be seen in Ms. Minxies' non private profile picture (ed note: the picture in question has been changed since publishing this entry), in comparison to what other women on the website are offering, as reported in their article. Tame compared to what? Tame in comparison to a Mexican Donkey show? Yes I can see how degrees of prostitution become somehow relevant, um no I don't. Suggesting she isn't as sluttish as some doesn't make her come off any cleaner either. A picture says a thousand words, and in this case not too many "respectable" ones come to mind.

As I said earlier I am no prude, and as such I certainly enjoy seeing a beautiful woman with a nicely formed pair of "melons" just as much as the next guy (although in truth I am more a fan of good healthy "glutes" myself). I am likewise all for Capitalism in it's purest form, so long as no one is duped or harmed in the process. Thing is though, there is capitalism, and then there is exploitation, and this is certainly all about the latter. When it is all said and done, there is a line between right and wrong, and then there is crossing way the fuck over that line, and the Yahooligans in the "news" department went so far past that line I doubt they even remember where it is now. Mr. Gunstra is scum, and cares no more about these women and their situations than a pimp cares about a hooker who isn't bringing home the bacon to him anymore. In fact at least with a Pimp the Pimp knows what he is doing is wrong, and I doubt Gunstra ever gave it a second thought, and never will so long as he can collect is piece of the action, and laugh all the way to the bank in a car paid for by the misfortune of others.

In the end though, the question I suppose we should really be asking is which is worse? The Scum itself (Gunstra) or the Crap below the Scum that hoists the Scum up on its shoulder and celebrates it (the jacktards at Yahoo News), attempting to give it some sort of legitimacy. I mean what is next for these intrepid Yahoo "News" reporters? Will celebration of something like myfreeimplants.com lead to the creation and eventual celebration of something like myfreeasscheeks.com. Shall we expect articles on myfreesexchange.com in the near future? Or maybe myfreeherointrialdefensefund.com? Or will it have to go as far as an article on myfreetutuforJohnEdwards.com which causes Mrs. Edwards to get her panties all in a twist, and start a chiding letter campaign before somebody gets sacked for forgetting what journalism, integrity, and good taste is all about? I am all for freedom of the press, as well as freedom of expression, but there is an old adage that goes something like; "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should." For the record, another common slang word for breasts is "Yahoos", go figure huh?

Have fun ;)!

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Page: 1 of 1

September 19, 2007 1:59 PM Minxie wrote:
First of all I have to say this joe schmo is a total Stalker with no life! NO WONDER his wife divorced him, now he's "looking for love on the internet" weirdo! He uses his time stalking me on My websites to find information that is none of his business, and takes it out of context.
The reason Im on MyFreeImplants.com is not only to get my 1st procedure redone, which is very commmon.. I have a lump that needs to be removed..its a health related thing that Im taking care of..So before u call Me or any other girl on the site a "bimbo" stop and think that some girls could have cancer or have had kids and simply want to enhance themselves..Breast augmentations have been around since as early as 1890!!!..women have always wanted bigger breasts to feel better about themselves, Implants are not just for strippers and paid sluts..
You act like nude photos are unheard of! If u can't see the art in nude photography you Are a prude.
As far as I can tell this joe guy is a total SEXIST for calling me a bimbo, especially since he doesn't even know Me!
Reply to this
1. September 19, 2007 2:56 PM Brian_Thorn aka "Joe Bag of Doughnuts" wrote:
  Dear Boobless in California aka "Minxie",
  
  First off congrats on your ability to read, or did you have help? The name is "Joe Bag of Doughnuts". Joe Shmoe would be the guy forking over cash so you can grow the boobs nature never intended you to have. Stalking would imply that I made any effort in your regards beyond that required to accurately report the story, which was not the case. So seeing as how that was nearly a month ago, you and your mammary glands are clearly "old news" so far as I am concerned.
  
  Various "augmentations" have been around since stone age times, but then so has prostitution so I suppose that justifies what you and the site owner are doing. There is a rather big difference between nudity for the sake of art, and one spreading their twat as wide as possible so that they might cajole Men into doling out cash so that one might have bigger hooters. Were you a classically trained artist like myself you might well understand the difference, but seeing as you are nothing more than shaker-bar skank with low self esteem it is no surprise you find yourself confused on the subject.
  
  Mastectomy patients generally don't pose naked for cash, most have more class than that. And if you are suffering complications from the first augmentation you whored yourself out for, and are whoring yourself out again to make them bigger and correct a previous issue, so one can hardly accuse you of possessing any class.
  
  If I am a sexist for believing as I do so be it. At least I am not so vain and pathetic as to submit myself to even more self esteem reducing pandering to have the things I want out of life.
  
  I won't be the one who is constantly reminded every time I look at myself in the mirror of how I whored myself out for money so I could have the "chest of my dreams"
  
  Have fun toots ;)!
  
  PS: One doesn't have to bite into a shitburger to know it will taste like crap. Likewise, if it walks like a bimbo, talks like a bimbo, and poses naked like a bimbo, well then chance are it's not a rocket scientist huh?
  
  PSS: How deliciously appropriate that the email you chose to use to post your comment was "crushinglittlemen@yahoo.com" as it is clear your only interest in Men is in what lines their pockets
  Reply to this
September 19, 2007 4:03 PM Why wrote:
You rag on Yahoo, but you read the article, so I guess they did their job.
Reply to this
September 19, 2007 6:47 PM Wastoid Terriffied Feminazi wrote:
I am pedantic fool who is probably considered a nerdy ass geek that never gets laid because of my weight problem and acne and who has nothing better to do than rant on a website and talk shit on people doing their thang, whatever that may be. Hopefully I will feel damn good about myself for making a point. Wait, what was my point? Hell I don't know, I am too stoned in my Mom's basement. I could have came had this subject COMPLETEY different and made an effort to talk about naked lesbian chicks, but I enjoy diddling to that Minxie chicks pics. Oh wait, that might take too much effort because I have to find my genitals first ....thats not always easy due to the folds of fat that surround it. I don't agree with how the woman are going about getting their breast augmentations but I like masterbating to their pics and will keep paying to do so. I would MIND my own fucking business and go on with my life if I had either business or a life. I would go do something productive but I can't get out of my chair. The only reason I started reading this in the first place is because Minxie is a friend of mine on Myspace that I sell weed too and she was bitching about this article and I figured I would come here to say she is hot and thats coming from a lesbian. So I stopped off at her page to see what she was talking about; played with myself a bit then came here to blow of the sexual frustration I experience cuz she couldnt make me cum. Men like you that only gripe about shit like this need to seriously get off the coochie so I can have more instead of shit talking about topics that most normal non dope smoking people would find incredibly offensive and verging on prostitution. I like female prostitutes.. WAKE THE FUCK UP...nobody will EVER agree on anything that I like to talk about but I know there are a lot of people who would say the same thing as me cuz I know alot of dope smoking tit buying lesbians. GET THE FUCK UP, GET OFF THE COOCHIE SO I CAN HAVE MORE MAYBE, AND GO CREATE MORE WEBSITES FOR SHIT TALKING. OH, AND GO CALL A PLUMBER I TOOK A ROTTEN SHIT AND CLOGGED THE JOHN AGAIN.
Reply to this
September 19, 2007 7:58 PM Sapphire wrote:
Well well... There are always 3 sides to a story. For anyone who cares to know at least one other side, here it is. The Myfreeimplants.com website is not as bad as our convesation starter would like you to believe. I happen to be on that site, and I've raised almost $5,200 WITH OUT soliciting myself. I refuse to sell myself. I instead am having a blast meeting new people and forging friendships that I hope will last a lifetime. Minxi happens to be one of those friends.

In all honesty, I'm not the slightest bit mad at this post. People will perceive and think what they want to perceive and think. Nothing can change the way a person sees his or her own reality. But what you should be aware of is that you must play nicely with others, else your reality will become very very lonely and bitter.

So, does anyone care to tell me how bashing someone like Minxi or myself is a worthwhile endeavor?
Reply to this
1. September 19, 2007 8:11 PM Brian Thorn wrote:
  Sapphire,
  
  You can call it whatever you want, but when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, an lays eggs like a duck, chances are good it is not a walrus. Did you fail to note that "Minxie" has 80+ pics on the site and that her rating commentary suggests she is anything but angelic. Or did you mean to suggest that all the pictures and videos are "family portraits" rather than the crotch and tit shots that they are. Did you fail to note that the website you both belong to is partially paid for by advertisements for illicit extramarital affairs, or did you miss the "Meet Married Women for Sex" ads when you log in to check on your "donations".
  
  Not for nothing but if the reason for getting an augmentation was legitimate, most health insurance would cover it (as in the case of Mastectomy patients), even welfare and medicaid will pay for post surgical prothesis. So how about we stop pretending and call a spade a spade here? Or would you rather I make the effort and really start to dig further into this story?
  
  If you get bashed for what you are doing and how you are doing it, that is your baggage to deal with and nobody elses. So stop trying to pretend it's someone elses burden. Make yourself a target and you will become one. It is simply common sense, so deal with it. I have more respect for porn stars and prostitutes because at least they are up front with what they are all about, and not trying to pass themselves off as being part of some philanthropic inspired venture. Trust me I haven't looked into any of the other women on the site, but I strongly suspect you didn't raise $5200 from strangers for a boob job with just your "charming" personality alone.
  Reply to this
September 19, 2007 8:15 PM Rusty wrote:
Ok speaking as a guy that is one of the benefactors on the site. I will say that it is not prostitution in any way. These women are not like going out on some street corner and selling there bodies for a couple bucks so they can get their next meth fix.
You say that you are not a prude, but yet everything you say suggests that you are. I mean even now Disney is more accepting of nudity then you are. What does that say about you?
Reply to this
1. September 19, 2007 8:38 PM Brian Thorn wrote:
  Rusty for your benefit I am going to take the initiative and educate you with a few definitions so you don't look like an ass again in the future:
  
  Via Meriam-Webster's:
  
  Main Entry: pros·ti·tu·tion
  Pronunciation: "präs-t&-'tü-sh&n, -'tyü-
  Function: noun
  1 : the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money
  2 : the state of being prostituted : DEBASEMENT
  
  Main Entry: de·base
  Pronunciation: di-'bAs, dE-
  Function: transitive verb
  1 : to lower in status, esteem, quality, or character
  2 a : to reduce the intrinsic value of (a coin) by increasing the base-metal content b : to reduce the exchange value of (a monetary unit)
  - de·base·ment /-'bAs-m&nt/ noun
  - de·bas·er /-'bA-s&r/ noun
  synonyms DEBASE, VITIATE, DEPRAVE, CORRUPT, DEBAUCH, PERVERT mean to cause deterioration or lowering in quality or character. DEBASE implies a loss of position, worth, value, or dignity <commercialism has debased the holiday>. VITIATE implies a destruction of purity, validity, or effectiveness by allowing entrance of a fault or defect <a foreign policy vitiated by partisanship>. DEPRAVE implies moral deterioration by evil thoughts or influences <the claim that society is depraved by pornography>. CORRUPT implies loss of soundness, purity, or integrity <the belief that bureaucratese corrupts the language>. DEBAUCH implies a debasing through sensual indulgence <the long stay on a tropical isle had debauched the ship's crew>. PERVERT implies a twisting or distorting from what is natural or normal <perverted the original goals of the institute>.
  
  Main Entry: ¹pros·ti·tute
  Pronunciation: 'präs-t&-"tüt, -"tyüt
  Function: transitive verb
  Inflected Form(s): -tut·ed; -tut·ing
  Etymology: Latin prostitutus, past participle of prostituere, from pro- before + statuere to station -- more at PRO-, STATUTE
  1 : to offer indiscriminately for sexual intercourse especially for money
  2 : to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes : DEBASE <prostitute one's talents>
  - pros·ti·tu·tor /-"tü-t&r, -"tyü-/ noun
  
  See Rusty, contrary to what most Democrats would have you believe (ie: Bill Clinton et all), one need not have actual intercourse to prostitute oneself. One need not even give you and Lewinski. Prostitution simply refers to one providing their sexuality in exchange for some other commodity, in most cases money.
  
  As a "benefactor" I am rather curious how much "money" you have exchange with the Yahoo article's subject (namely Ms. Minxie) and what you got in return for it. Were you able to claim your "donation" on your income tax return? I ask this because if it was indeed a legitimate "charitable donation" the IRS would clearly recognize it as such wouldn't they? I mean by all means split snatch hairs if that is your deal and allows you to sleep at night, but don't try to impress others with that particular line of BS.
  
  Lastly, so that I am perfectly clear for the rest of you "Friends of Minxie"; this is an opinnion blog, and better still, it is MY opinnion blog so if you don't care for waht I have to say or how I choose to say it, I am sure you can find a website more suiting to your purposes tastes. In short, so long as I foot the bills around here and you don't, if what I have to say pisses you off, well then I guess it sucks to be you.
  
  Have fun !
  
  PS: I suppose I should thank Minxie for all the traffic and activity though, after all there is no such thing as "bad publicity". Anyone care to repost the entry from the MySpace blog or bulletin she wrote bitching about me an my lil OP-ed piece? I would be incredibly flattered to read it.
  
  Reply to this
  1. September 19, 2007 8:55 PM Rusty wrote:
    You say that prostitution does not need to have sexual intercourse, yet the definitions you have just posted clearly state sexual intercourse or relations. So where is this so called prostitution happening? If we go by your thinking then any site that pays a woman for modeling of say even a bikini is commiting prostitution.
    Reply to this
    1. September 19, 2007 9:25 PM Brian Thorn wrote:
      Rusty by all means continue splitting pubic hairs if that is what you need to do to justify what transpires between you and the woman who are the recipients of your "charitable donations" (ever consider donating to a sperm bank instead of your hankies?), but last time I checked I could flip open pretty much any magazine or newspaper and find a girl in bikini, but I don't seem to recall seeing any women spreading their legs and thrusting open their genitals, and being expected to pay extra via "donations" for the privilege of doing so, so that they can get bigger hooters. Have you?
      
      See what you and the rest of the "Friends of Minxie" or "Will Strip for Boobs" crowd don't seem to be getting into your collective noggins (perhaps because all the blood is busy elsewhere), is that I have no issue with sexuality, sex, or nudity in general. In fact I am quite the active supportor of all those things. That being said though, I don't much cotton to people or places that pretend to be something other than what they are. Are you finding your way to the logic wagon yet?
      
      Using a "Pay to Play" site is your own business and prerogative, but please don't try to insult the collective intelligence of the rest of the world by claiming it is some "charitable institution" intended purely to help poor down on their luck hookers and strippers to get cosmetic surgery like it was UNICEF or the "Make a Wish" foundation. I mean you can fool a lot of people a lot of the time, including yourself apparently (they call that self delusion in case you were wondering), but you aint gonna fool everyone, and not everyone is inclined to stay mum about it. Savy?
      
      PS: I note you didn't bother to address any of the issues I raised regarding your legitimacy of your "donations. Imagine that huh?
      
      Reply to this
      1. September 19, 2007 9:37 PM Rusty wrote:
        Yes they are donations or gifts. I never ask for anything return. I have even told Minxie not to send me pictures for donations i have given her. Sure there are gonna be guys that will use the site trying to pay just so they could see a woman nude. But thats something that will happen anywhere.
        Reply to this
September 19, 2007 10:04 PM LarrybutyoucancallmeLauren wrote:
Wow I really need to get a life. Who the fuck am I today anyways, I don't where my medication is. "Minxie" is an awesome prositute and a great fondler and and I am just jealous I you could never get anyone to pay for my hooters like her. Maybe I should grow lthe fuck up and stop acting like a 10 year old. oh and I SHOULD GO GET A LIFE I don't even know why I am waisting because it big enough already and I am talking like to a retarded child (who is wondering where their meds are)
Reply to this
September 20, 2007 1:48 AM SUSIE aka Fred wrote:
youd THINK youd get the point that you should get a life after this man people are NOT on your side and are telling you too. OH MAN. i can't believe i am lowering myself to your level...but you're ridiculous. hope you're having fun LOSER.
Reply to this
1. September 20, 2007 2:16 AM Brian Thorn wrote:
  
  Tell ya what toots, I am gonna do you a big favor here, and give you some free advice. Next time before you feel the overwhelming need to suck up a big lung full of air and waste it by talking about things you know nothing about whatsoever, why don't you and your boobie brigade go here and see just how wrong you are. I gonna go out on a limb here and presume you know how to work a hyper link found in a sentence, but just in case you don't try reading this, and then feel free to pass it along to all your little friends kk?
  
  http://joebagofdoughnuts.com/2007/09/19/boob-wars-ii-the-bimbos-strike-back.aspx
  
  Have fun toots !
  
  Reply to this
September 20, 2007 2:27 AM Roger wrote:
Well while we are quoting Webster, let's take a closer look at the term "exploitation" that was so carelessly misused in the original post.

Here, I'll even help you so you don't have to put down your bag of doughnuts...

exploit: "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage"

The women on MyFreeImplants.com are not treated meanly or unfairly by any means, unlike the pimp-n-hoe metaphor you seem to be oh so fascinated with. In fact on MyFreeImplants the ladies are protected from would be freaks-n-weirdos that out on the street wouldn't hesitate to do unthinkable things to other humans. The women on MFI can come and go as the please.

Regarding the main contention with the original article... while you may not agree with the news worthiness of the story, if you fail to see how it fits into Yahoo's POTW series than clearly you must be blind. POTW = PEOPLE OF THE WEB. MyFreeImplants has EVERYTHING to do with PEOPLE OF THE WEB. They are people. They are on the web. Do you still need help with that one?

Considering this is probably the most action this blog has ever seen I'd encourage everyone to return to your regularly schedule program. Move along people, the show is over. Let's let Joe get back to blogging for his 2 friends (his cat and pet gerbil).

If we've learned nothing else from this little blog it's why doughnuts have holes in them: Because clearly it's the closest thing to a vagina that Joe will ever have the pleasure of fornicating with.
Reply to this
1. September 20, 2007 2:50 AM Brian Thorn wrote:
  "Regarding the main contention with the original article... while you may not agree with the news worthiness of the story, if you fail to see how it fits into Yahoo's POTW series than clearly you must be blind. POTW = PEOPLE OF THE WEB. MyFreeImplants has EVERYTHING to do with PEOPLE OF THE WEB. They are people. They are on the web. Do you still need help with that one?"
  
  Yes Pedophiles, Social Deviants, and Mass Murders are likewise "People of the Web" so I am sure you don't take issue with legitmizing their causes either right?
  
  To your credit, you present your case somewhat more intelligently than most of the F.U.C.K.er's that Minxie has sent this way, but then the recent case of Senator Craig proved one shouldn't judge a person by their ability to communicate well, as clearly deviants and their supporters come from all levels of education, intelligence, and tax brackets don't they? So how much are you into Minxie for now?
  
  For the record, the "People of the Web" who responded to the article did so with an overwhelmingly large number of "thumbs down" to the concept and those who would make use of it, or did you fail to note that before you hopped up on your soapbox to preach to an allegedly empty room? Have a doughnut and some java first to get your blood sugar levels in order before you feel compelled to make an ass out of yourself again bub.
  
  Have fun !
  
  Reply to this
September 20, 2007 9:48 PM LarrybutyoucancallmeLauren wrote:
I am the only one making an ass out of myself. Why didnt I post my comment 10 more times by the way? Should I touch a my naughty spot? Why dont I give up alreay? No one agrees with me but I will keep defending my friend who needs the tits because I have nothing better to do but be childish.
Reply to this
September 29, 2007 9:08 PM bunsen burner wrote:
Joe, what are you complaining about here - MyFreeImplants.com, or Yahoo, or both? I can't tell from your commentary that you're not a prude or that you're okay with capitalism.

Who is exploited here? This site looks to me like a conjoining of willing sellers with willing buyers. Nobody on this site is doing anything involuntarily. If I ask a woman to show me her hooters for $5, she can tell me no and there's nothing I can do about it. If she does show me, and then complains about how exploited she was by showing her hooters for only $5, she's being hypocritical.

I think you're a judgemental prude using this blog to foist your Puritanical ideas on others. I see no way that you personally are harmed by anything going on with MyFreeImplants.com.

If you're upset about the widespread coarsening of American society, that started way before MyFreeImplants.

Take a few deep breaths, back off, and get a life.
Reply to this
1. October 5, 2007 4:39 PM Brian Thorn wrote:
  Bunsen Burner,
  
  Why is that people with no valid point always seem to admonish others with the advice "get a life" when it is clearly obvious that they themselves are incapable of adhereing to the very advice they give? You suggest that I should get a life yet which one of us felt compelled to leave commentary on a story that was published well over a month and a half ago, and has been archived almost as long? Get out much? Nothing better to do? You tell me? All I can say is "Physician heal thyself".
  
  Seeing as how you failed to grasp the gist of my oppinion as it was originally written (as well as placing your commentary in the update that I wrote on the story where it could actually be seen), let me spell it out for you and in doing so I will try to avoid any multisylabic words so that it is easier for you to comprehend. What I initially took umbrage with (and still do), and why I wrote my initial commentary is the notion that this service was being spun as though it was a beneficial social outreach for people in need rather than the thinnly veiled pay for porn site that it really is.
  
  In my piece I took to task all involved in the sham that was perpetrated as though it was worthy of legitmate new coverage. Perhaps in your fervor to play knight in shining armor for Ms. Minxie421 you failed to note that. Myfreeimplants, its owner, and its users are no more worthy of news coverage than are Freeblowjobs.com, Sugardaddy.com or Pediphilia.com. Starting to see the bigger picture yet or do you need further illustration? Maybe some pictures or diagrams?
  
  It was my opinion (and contrary to what you might think, seeing as how I pay for this blog I can pretty damn well post any oppinion I want) that Yahoo gave up any and all semblance of legitimacy as a new organization when they called attention to this particular website, its owner and users. Granted the portion of Yahoo that covered it was "People of the Web", but should we then likewise be expected to see serious coverage of things as Snuff sites, S&M sites and other Fringe.coms simply because they take up bandwidth on the internet?
  
  As to your oppinion of me, what you think is your perception and as such has no real validity to me whatsoever. The fact that you are a self admited user of the site only goes to show your oppinion is hardly objective, and as such really has no meaningful value to anyone but yourself. I mean if you have to pay for the privilege to see a partially clothed woman, and you get off on that kind of thing, well than that is your issue to contend with I suppose, and you are welcome to it. To suggest those who don't feel the need for such things, or the need to call further attention to such things with words such as puritanical and prudish because of how they feel about it only calls to question what your life is like, and who in fact is in need of a better one.
  
  Have fun !
  
  PS: I apologize for not posting your comment sooner, but I have been in the process of moving and didn't have the chance to authorize your commentary till now.
  Reply to this