Posts made by bi4smooth

To be perfectly clear: Kyle Rittenhouse absolutely DID kill 3 black men.

What he did NOT do, according to the jury, was murder them.

Facts and word choice matters!

@kristian1000 said in hello:

What to do when I am charged on the page for a file that is not downloaded

The tracker counts bits/bytes transferred, not complete files. If you download 99.99% of a torrent, but fail to get the last few bytes, that doesn't "nullify" the content you DID get... otherwise, all files would be collections with pics in them - and leechers would just mark the pics as unwanted... when you GOT the movie, but not the rest of the torrent, you'd just quit and get a "refund" for the incomplete torrent...

Nope - doesn't work that way... you get "charged" for every byte transferred - even if the torrent never completes.

Sorry!

@ezekiel22 said in NEW RESEEDING PROCEEDURE TUTORIAL!!! (link):

I tried everything... doesnt work... its so complicated now, is it me or it was easier few months ago ?

If you think about what using a torrent really is, then re-seeding shouldn't be all THAT complicated.

Remember, tho: a torrent file is a DESCRIPTOR of content (including a checksum to ensure validity). Whether you have created the .torrent or not, the fact is: if you add a torrent to your client, and the content is ALREADY THERE, you will immediately begin to SEED that torrent.

Now: already there has to be an exact match! All the folder and file names have to match, and all of the file-part-checksums have to match! But if the contents check out, re-downloading a torrent is a re-seed!

Mind you: because this is a private tracker, and therefore your ID has to be added to every seed/leech activity (for accountability), you actually re-seed your uploaded torrents!

• When you upload a new torrent, the tracker builds a NEW .torrent file (not the one you uploaded) that you have to use to re-seed your torrent! Otherwise, it's never seeded to begin with.
• Because you're downloading a new .torrent file for content you already have, you're techincally re-seeding your upload!

If you're still having issues, contact the HELP DESK. Staffers there are usually helpful!

@raphjd said in Is FOX even "news" anymore?:

@eobox91103

Hillary had more Russian collusion than Trump did.

It was the FBI that repeatedly lied to the FISA court. One FBI agent even illegally altered an official email to further the anti-Trump agenda.

Hillary Clinton was an awful candidate for President - I voted against her, and would again (gleefully!). That said, she didn't have any ties to Russians - or any other Foreign Governments - in the 2016 election cycle. And neither did her campaign.

Why? Because they were "old school" politicians who knew and understood the rules-of-engagement.

Trump and the Trump campaign did not - so when the Russians came a knockin' they didn't report it to the FBI (the way they were supposed to), they jumped at the chance! It was wrong of them, and it nearly got Trump impeached! (That is not what the first impeachment trial was about - the Dems never did get any evidence that Trump himself colluded - or even met with or talked to - actual Russians himself - so there were never any actual charges raised... and the "Special Prosecutor" admitted that he didn't file any charges against Trump - not because he was guilt-free, but because as the sitting President, he was untouchable.

But why let FACTS get in the way of your argument - you never have before! Hell, you've made them up before! I'm sure you'll make up some more now!

Even Derek Jeter admitted after he cheated and successfully claimed that a foul ball actually hit him on the hands... the real fault was, after all, the umpires, no? (that's an open question for Sports Fans to argue about for decades to come!)... the point is, mistakes happen... the real question (in my mind) isn't so much whether the amateurish Jared Kushner actually MET with the Russians (he did)... the real questions are:

• Did he know it was illegal when he did it?
• When did he learn/discover that it was illegal?
• Did he do it again after this discovery?
• How much and when was Trump himself involved.

Some of that may have been uncovered in the special prosecutor's investigations, but it hasn't been made public.

But this "our hands are clean" act - after SO MANY have been charged and convicted - is not fooling anyone!

@mabbo said in Why is everything new being deleted from the "Fan Sites" category?:

@dilemmax I haven't noticed the same but, at a guess: it's Thanksgiving. Perhaps whoever is working to submit DMCA notices has a couple of days off.

I have mentioned before (though it is far too early to tell if this is the case yet), but these things tend to ebb and flow...

Not too long ago, Corbin Fisher's parent company was actively pursuing both seeders and leechers of their content - in court! These days, they don't even DMCA their content much... they accept the torrent "losses" as part of the business model, and I suspect OF will come to the same conclusion eventually as well...

@kalayaan said in Greetings!:

@sisowith

Enjoy this site

Ha! Nice graphic! I love it!
Welcome to both @tanducho234 and @sisowith to the Forums... while certainly not as active as the torrent-side of the house, there is much to entertain and titillate here! Enjoy!

@paulflying said in PREP problem with STD:

PREP problem with STD

If you are on PREP and do bareback, then STD has chance.

How do you think of that?

PrEP is a defense against only 1 STD: HIV. That said, of the FOUR STD's that are not otherwise curable (the other being: HPV, Herpes, and Hep-B), only this one (HIV) is generally ALSO fatal if not detected and treated quickly.

Let me say at the onset of this reply: whether to take PrEP or NOT to, along with the separate decision whether to wear condoms during sex, or not to do so, is an intensely personal decision. A decision that should be made with the input and consultation of your own personal physician, and based on your own morals, beliefs, and risk acceptance.

What I write below is my own set of beliefs, and is shared as an example: one man's path... and not as an attempt to persuade or dissuade any one from coming to a different set of conclusions in their own path!

IMHO: A great deal of DAMAGE to the male sexual psyche was perpetrated in the 1980's and 1990's in the name of promoting "safe sex" - when, truth be told, sex has never - in the history of mankind - been truly SAFE.

The correct term, and the only one used by medical professionals, is (and always was) safer sex - as in: less risky vs. riskless.

As a result, a generation of men (and some women can be included as collateral damage) have been "raised" to believe that sex is unnaturally risky and downright dangerous! I can't count the number of younger men I've met who are essentially AFRAID (even TERRIFIED!) to have sex! (with or without condoms!)

I'm sorry, but if humanity had ALWAYS been this afraid of sex, then - as a species - we'd have died out a long, LONG TIME AGO!

Do the math: Nearly every one of the 7.7 BILLION people on this planet were put here because some pair of humans had sex - not just any sex, but they fucked! Assuming straight sex produces a pregnancy that goes full term only 1 in 20 times, that's 154 BILLION straight fucks alone in the past 75 years or so... add in the gay sex, and the sex with birth control, and there have likely been about half-a-TRILLION acts of fucking on this planet in the past 75 years! And that doesn't count the non-fucking kinds of sex!

Again: If sex was THAT dangerous, we (as a species) simply would not exist!

That doesn't mean we should go back to the 1970's "free love" era when we (especially we gay men) were fucking almost anyone who would let us! That kind of promiscuity really CAN be dangerous! But surely we - as sensible people - can understand that sex is a natural, instinctive act - even if we're gay! There is nothing "wrong or dirty" about it! It's as basically human as eating food and drinking liquids!

As you can imagine from my writing above, I take PrEP - to prevent HIV infection - because I prefer not to die of HIV (though it is a largely treatable disease today - thankfully!). I have had sex (recently) with an HIV+ person, who was on medication and was undetectable... and we didn't use condoms.

In my opinion, the safest people to have unprotected (condomless) sex with are the people on meds: HIV- on PrEP and HIV+ on HIV meds and are undetectable. These people are actively working to protect themselves and others from HIV, and because of their medication regimens, they routinely get tested for HIV - as well as other STDs.

Men who proclaim themselves HIV- but haven't been recently tested - and who are not using condoms - are playing Russian Roulette with their HIV status... they put themselves and others potentially at risk by not using condoms. Further, they play this "risk-game" essentially "trusting" that their partner is telling them (or even knows) the truth about their HIV (much less other STD) status.

Men who know that they are HIV+, and either are not on HIV medication, or haven't yet achieved "undetectable" status are putting others at real risk by not using condoms. There are some men out there who are perfectly willing to do this, and to LIE to their partners while doing so. I personally think lying about your HIV status is criminal... your mileage may vary.

As for the other (non-HIV) STD's, I take my chances... tho, I do take some precautions - like not hooking up with every Tom, Dick, and Harry who hits me up on Grindr or Tinder - but, when there is a genuine attraction, I have sex... without condoms usually, though I honor and respect the wishes of my partner should they prefer the use of condoms.

I want to re-iterate: the decision to NOT use condoms is my personal choice, and it is a decision made with the input of my doctor of choice.

If you'd have made a different decision, I respect that... but I no more want to convince you that my choice is right for you than I want to hear you try to convince me that your decision is right for me.

FINALLY: Before anyone goes there - this is totally NOT analogous to COVID-19; HIV is an STD, where COVID-19 is a highly communicable, aerosol spread disease. The only similarity is that they're both caused by viruses. That said, the common cold has more in common with COVID-19 than the HIV virus!

In closing:
I want to say again that I appreciate the differing beliefs and experiences of others - so long as they are shared, as I have shared here, as an example of what decision you made (and, perhaps why). But in any case, not as an attempt to persuade or dissuade others from making their own, informed decisions and choices.

@dandylion said in Stalled:

@bi4smooth said in Stalled:

@dandylion said in Stalled:

Hello,

The tracker issues aside, QBittorrent does not behave with our tracker very well because we do not have "Scrape" enabled. I'm going to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what that means, but it was explicitly mentioned in a training document about QBittorrent acting strangely because of it.

Thankfully the fix is easy, if a download is "Stalled", right click it and click "Force Resume". This should resolve the issue

Thank you,
DandyLion

The qBitTorrent "scrape" issue only comes into play when you complete a download.

"Scraping" is essentially a re-announce to the tracker that you have the complete torrent and are now a seeder, not a leecher.

In qBitTorrent, there is a simple fix: set your client to force re-check upon completion. It will seed properly AFTER the re-check.

I learned something new, Thank you very much, I will update my training materials and pass that information along

To be completely clear - the part in qBitTorrent about the scrape isn't all there is to a scrape...

Read a full description of a scrape here

But where it comes into play with qBitTorrent is that it "scrapes" at the conclusion of the download - and our tracker doesn't support scrapes - so the qBitTorrent client sits there saying to itself "I'm a seeder" while the GTru tracker says "he's a leecher still"

When you set the force-recheck, and it completes, the qBitTorrent sends a fill ANNOUNCE to the tracker, which is accepted and voila! You're a seeder!

@dandylion said in Stalled:

Hello,

The tracker issues aside, QBittorrent does not behave with our tracker very well because we do not have "Scrape" enabled. I'm going to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what that means, but it was explicitly mentioned in a training document about QBittorrent acting strangely because of it.

Thankfully the fix is easy, if a download is "Stalled", right click it and click "Force Resume". This should resolve the issue

Thank you,
DandyLion

The qBitTorrent "scrape" issue only comes into play when you complete a download.

"Scraping" is essentially a re-announce to the tracker that you have the complete torrent and are now a seeder, not a leecher.

In qBitTorrent, there is a simple fix: set your client to force re-check upon completion. It will seed properly AFTER the re-check.

@jkshrs3 said in Stalled:

Same here

As I noted in another, similar thread - I'm currently connected via Canada (thru a VPN), and I'm getting over 7MB/s from 6 different seeders on this tracker.

Restart your client and maybe even consider changing the ports used....

@bi4smooth said in copyright infringement:

@lololulu19 said in copyright infringement:

It's a load of manure.

I have posted many videos which were taken down for copyright infringement because someone complained.. yet the same titles posted by other people in different sizes remain on the site.

I think one reason is because the poster of the other sized videos doesn't want there to be other versions posted - taking download points from theirs.

They don't verify if the complainer is a valid complainer before removing the torrents. They should delay removing torrents until at least 24 hours after the fake complaint is made to verify it.

Actually, this does not happen much anymore. It used to be that I could not upload ANYTHING without it being taken down almost immediately.

I have explained this before: It doesn't work the way you think it does... a DMCA notice doesn't come in and say "take down all your OF content please!"

They have to provide the actual links to the actual infringing material - AND they have to be legal representatives of the copyright holder.

I've mentioned before, I have a friend who works for a non-porn related site, and they've had re-posts of pics and short videos DMCA'd, but the original - from which they were copied, are not mentioned... and so can stay!

So, let's say you post "OF ABC Part 1 of 3" in 720p, and someone else posts "OF ABC Part 1 of 3" in 4k... when the DMCA notice comes in, it has to mention BOTH VERSIONS, or else ONLY the version mentioned is taken down.

Believe me - this works in our favor - even if you are the one (of multiples) whose upload was removed!

I can't speak for this site, but at my friend's, they literally click on the URL to make sure it's exactly what they claim is in violation... then they remove ONLY that material. Sometimes, it's a picture in an array of pics, and they only show 1 or 2 in the DMCA notice.. so there are holes in the array - often of the same person - and the other pics are all left alone!

If you are the person processing the DMCA request, this is how its' done - you don't go LOOKING for material to remove, you remove only what is specifically and legally required to be! NOTHING MORE!

@lololulu19 said in copyright infringement:

It's a load of manure.

I have posted many videos which were taken down for copyright infringement because someone complained.. yet the same titles posted by other people in different sizes remain on the site.

I think one reason is because the poster of the other sized videos doesn't want there to be other versions posted - taking download points from theirs.

They don't verify if the complainer is a valid complainer before removing the torrents. They should delay removing torrents until at least 24 hours after the fake complaint is made to verify it.

Actually, this does not happen much anymore. It used to be that I could not upload ANYTHING without it being taken down almost immediately.

I have explained this before: It doesn't work the way you think it does... a DMCA notice doesn't come in and say "take down all your OF content please!"

They have to provide the actual links to the actual infringing material - AND they have to be legal representatives of the copyright holder.

I've mentioned before, I have a friend who works for a non-porn related site, and they've had re-posts of pics and short videos DMCA'd, but the original - from which they were copied, are not mentioned... and so can stay!

So, let's say you post "OF ABC Part 1 of 3" in 720p, and someone else posts "OF ABC Part 1 of 3" in 4k... when the DMCA notice comes in, it has to mention BOTH VERSIONS, or else ONLY the version mentioned is taken down.

Believe me - this works in our favor - even if you are the one (of multiples) whose upload was removed!

@johnearl3 said in all gaytorrent.ru trackers not working:

I am unable to download torrents from only this website and its winding me up. every torrent is sating timed out

Hmmmm - restart your client and switch ports?
I'm currently connected thru canada (all of my connections go thru VPNs around the world!), and am connected to 7 different seeders @ 5+Mbps (combined).

@djsoapbubble said in Screencap Inquiry:

@bi4smooth Well, I still hear you on that front and it doesn't bear repeating, but my work is my work. I should know my work as it's my signature stamp. Granted, copyright and blah, blah, blah. No. These screenshots looked like they came from someone who lives in a trailer parker in Biloxi, Mississippi. It's one thing taking over an hour (well, for me anyway) to upload things for this site as it takes a considerable amount of time, but it's another thing to have someone else butcher my layout and presentation and all in the name for a couple of seed points. Seriously? No. Someone needs to have a psychiatric evaluation and it's not me.

Believe me, I'm trying to look at things from both perspectives and I'm really trying. However, I have this instant mentality of "house respect". I don't own this site of course, but when people upload and share their content, that immediately becomes THEIR house. That's THEIR house. What they do with THEIR house is none of my business. Sure, compliments by others are very nice and always welcomed. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's very intrusive when people post additional screencaps when it's not needed. How would they like it if I physically went to their home and immediately frowned upon their living room curtains?

No. Whoever uses a screenshot maker or generator and posts them in someone else's house for a couple of seed points needs to have a psychiatric evaluation.

As aforementioned, I'm trying to look at things from both perspectives. Okay, so 3 or 5 seed points get you where? What does it do?

LOL - I'm with you brother! If I were king, I would try to do this:

• IF the uploader provides 5 or more images with the upload, THEN they have an option to LOCK their torrent - so that no other users can modify it.

Mind you, I'm equally baffled when I upload a collection of content, obfuscating the name of the source to avoid DMCA spider detection... only to have some schmuck fully identify everything - in plain English - in the comments... and sure 'nuf, 2 days later it gets DMCA'd! GRRRRR!!!! If I had access to that users' name and a drone.... GRRRR!!!!

@djsoapbubble said in copyright infringement:

So, who are these people who report? Are you saying people like Tim Kruger or Cutler X monitor gay torrent sites and click the report button? If not, then do they hire someone? I thought GayTorrent.ru was private now and only open to an invitation. I am so confused right now, lol!

Honestly, if I had a job position from what I just described above, then I would be bored to heavenly tears.

There are likely programs in place (called spiders [or spyders]) that do it for you... my guess is that it's the OF site itself running the spider, not any single or group of models. (Though it may also be an opt-in for the creators - after all, it protects THEIR cash-flow!)

@djsoapbubble said in Screencap Inquiry:

I do have a question in regards to screencaps. Are Moderators allowed to post additional screencaps to someone else's post?

Personally, I feel that 8 screenshots are good for full-length films. For 30 minutes or less, I consider 4 as fair. Selfishly, I'd consider two.

Someone or something posted additional screenshots to my post, and I was completely mortified when I saw it because the screencaps were trailer trash. I'm very meticulous. I ask in the name of God or Lucifer or gravel of cat litter to NOT do that again.

I hear ya - I don't like it when people litter my uploads with crappy screenshots either - what's worse is the "new ones" get displayed first!

Sadly, not only is there the ability to do this, it is NOT limited to mods/staff - On most torrents there is a link:

Add Screenshots and Covers
to make some extra SeedPoints

So, not only is it allowed, it is encouraged and rewarded (with SBP)!

On the flip side, there are still many posts with no "real" pic in the listing - a rule violation - so there's gotta be a way to alleviate that too...

Not Guilty on all counts

I would never second-guess the decision made by the jury - the ones who actually sat thru the trial and listened to ALL of the evidence... but, this kind of verdict is going to cause trouble:

• Right-wing nutjobs are going to see it as precedent-setting and we're going to see a LOT more "self-defense" blood-flow (ask Florida how well that worked here!)
• Left-wing nutjobs are going to riot, burn, and loot in the name of "social justice" (which is an idiotic claim)

IMHO, a complete "victory" for either side was problematic... finding him guilty of all of the "worst" counts didn't seem right - not from the evidence I saw... but finding him not guilty on all counts (and responsible for none of it) is equally problematic.

Time will tell, but this is not good news for the US justice system...

One more thing - those who make claims that this "ends the discussion" are delusional. There will now be civil trials from the victims.

As we've covered in these forums MANY (too many) times: there is a difference between what is legal and what is morally right. Criminal court handles what is legal, civil court handles what is morally right.

And no, there is no "double jeopardy" here - that only applies to the criminal counts...

This is far from over - but it was never going to be over, no matter what the verdicts! That's not where our country is right now... no side can take victory with aplomb, and no side can take defeat "sitting down"...

@eobox91103 said in Karen in FL files criminal charges because school library didn't censor a LGBTQ book.:

@bi4smooth said in Karen in FL files criminal charges because school library didn't censor a LGBTQ book.:

I don't think it's legal to drive naked in this state, much less attack people with your car while naked...

The Florida statues don't address specifically address driving while naked (would that be a DWN?), but it is a first degree misdemeanor to be "naked in public in a vulgar or indecent manner." This gives rise (!) to three questions:

1. Is being in one's car on a public road considered being "in public?"
2. Does being naked in itself inherently imply a "vulgar or indecent manner?"
3. What is the definition of "being naked?" Florida law is silent on this.

I'm not going to research the case law here, although there are probably some amusing precedents. I wouldn't, myself, want to drive while naked: I always wear the seat belt, and the lower portion of such would be in position to saw off my gentleman's bits. This would be uncomfortable was well as unsafe.

(As an aside, the definition of "naked" is not as straightforward as one might think. Some time back I was visiting a friend of mine in Washington, DC, and he took me to a gay bar that had male "dancers." They appeared to be completely naked, but on closer inspection (!), I noticed that they were wearing socks--and I was told that this was to quash any accusation that they were naked.)

ROFL - like 20 years ago (eek, maybe closer to 30?) I was visiting Indianapolis and was taken to a "private club" (I had to pay $5 at the door to get a membership!) and the dancers there all had something on - a sock, a headband, a glove.... something! But their "man parts" were all FULLY exposed, AND they would actually get ERECT during their act! (Probably the MOST explicit on-stage sex I'd seen to that point!) They never touched each other, but "members" certainly felt free to touch (caress? no poking, but caressing was allowed - but not directly on their dicks... but buttocks, nipples, etc were fair game!)... and this definitely contributed to the erections!

I just want to say again - this is a Florida case...

Here's a fun-fact about Florida... we're up-to-our-nose-hairs in crazy people!

Case in point: Naked Clearwater man attacks woman on the other side of the state

And that's in TODAY'S NEWS... just google "naked man drives" and the top entries all talk about dudes in Florida! (I don't think it's legal to drive naked in this state, much less attack people with your car while naked...

@lololulu19 said in Required military service... or?:

In many countries, including Russia, all males are supposed to spend a year in military service.

I think they should have alternatives to military service.. such as spending a year making gay porn!
This would have an added benefit. Many gay guys don't decide they are gay until they are in their late 20's, and have already had children!
If those guys had experience gay sex BEFORE having children, a lot of them would never have had children... thus reducing population growth!
Less population = less fuel needs = saving the world!

(I should be president instead of #senilejoe)

ROFL! I love it! A great way to reduce the cost of porn content (legit costs, not dark-web costs like our subscription fees here!) Mandatory porn! Mandatory gay porn!

However, I do think there is a fly in your ointment... by way of an example, many people fantasize about going to a nude beach - all those sexy naked bodies, just walking around! ooohhhh!

BUT, if you ever get to a real nude beach, you'll see that most people do NOT have "beautiful bodies" - at least not "porn beautiful" bodies... there would be a LOT of porn with downright ugly, slightly mis-formed dudes going at each other... not exactly MY fantasy!

And that's what porn is supposed to be, no? Fantasy!

Still, I like the idea of mandatory military service, or else prove that you've at least tried gay sex... say, a minimum of a dozen different times with at least 4-6 different guys! (Can I volunteer to be a tester - someone who confirms their gay sex eligibility??????)

NOTE: Because this is the "Politics and Debate" forum, I should make it clear that this is a "fun" posting, and not a serious suggestion for actual national policy...