Don,

My response is "consider the source." I don't think I lend him any credibility by reminding everyone to consider the source. Why add fuel to the fire and waste a lot of time an energy on something that just isn't all that important.

As for his "interesting points" in this recent post, there are some potential discussion issues there, but how does one have these discussions with someone who is bent on personal insults, lies and some feud that is years old. (And was "buried" according to Skeeter himself long ago.)

What set him off? I believe it was a MySpace photo this time. I have been digging up all of the really old "Rog Rule" rules T-Shirt and sign pictures and adding them to the MySpace Gallery. I regularly rotate the profile picture and happened to have a old one of the Kerkoves posing with the "Rog Rules" sign. They posed and sent it to me, but from what I hear that made him really angry. I was trying to keep things light.

Now, these interesting points are out there if anyone wants to have an actual conversation or even a debate about subject vs objective critiques and how they apply to porn.I actually enjoy these topics and opened a thread on my site dedicated to them.

Sorry, I am laughing too hard to continue. Anyone who thinks that I offer my likes/dislikes because I'm "so important" is so comically off course that they are lost forever. Try reading any review of anything without a baseline. It's brutal and pointless.

Rog