I know I will regret this..................

RJMasters said:
Not Free but sort of what your looking for

http://www.fileburst.com/pricing.html

You can setup an account an upload files to it, then make links to the files you upload.

Looks like 11.00 setup and then 5 dollars a month. Depending on how much bandwidth you use monthly...it looks like 1.00 per 1 gig of bandwidth. You get 100 MB with the account and 2.00 for each additional 10 meg of storage space.

Storage space refers tot eh amount of space or memory your account has allotted, bandwidth is figured by use. Each time someone listens to a sound file or looks at a pic...their server is actually sending the amount of bytes of the file being heard or listened to. So if you had a 1 meg sound file it can be listened to by 1000 people and that would use up 1 gig of bandwidth.

http://www.webmasterknowhow.com/html/bytecompare.html

Here is a link to help you understand file size and better understand how bandwidth is figured and charged for.

:rose:
ohhh pressies thank You RJ. I will have something to work on later . If it works I am not certain the World will thank You however :D

PS was it that obvious that what I know about technology could dance on the head of a pin......smiles
 
alice_underneath said:
My humble apologies, Rebecca.... not everyone is an LOTR fan, that's clear! :eek:

On a different thread, Raven posted that his favorite chapters are The Ride of the Rohirrim and The Battle of Pelennor Fields. So these were not randomly selected images... although perhaps I took your 'no such thing as a hijack' offer to an extreme! :eek:

As for that third photo.... ahem... please excuse me, I hate to be technical (or sound obsessive or anything.... :rolleyes: ).... but....

Eomer is not really just "cheesecake" (though "Domly" clearly fits :cool: ). He is the nephew of King Theoden in the tale, and later becomes the eighteenth King of Rohan himself.

Karl Urban did a very impressive job in the role, don't you think? :D

I really am sorry about the mini-hijack. Next time I'll send LOTR photos via PM! :rose:

Alice

Yes I agree but I would have liked to see more of him (as I am sure you would :devil: ) His role was reduced too much.
Sorry about the mini hijacking. Just having a big PIA day. :(
 
alice_underneath said:
My humble apologies, Rebecca.... not everyone is an LOTR fan, that's clear! :eek:

On a different thread, Raven posted that his favorite chapters are The Ride of the Rohirrim and The Battle of Pelennor Fields. So these were not randomly selected images... although perhaps I took your 'no such thing as a hijack' offer to an extreme! :eek:

As for that third photo.... ahem... please excuse me, I hate to be technical (or sound obsessive or anything.... :rolleyes: ).... but....

Eomer is not really just "cheesecake" (though "Domly" clearly fits :cool: ). He is the nephew of King Theoden in the tale, and later becomes the eighteenth King of Rohan himself.

Karl Urban did a very impressive job in the role, don't you think? :D

I really am sorry about the mini-hijack. Next time I'll send LOTR photos via PM! :rose:

Alice


Yes Alice I lost interest in seeing Lord Of the Rings when I saw the merchandise.......... having had a mother in the jewelry trade . I sort of am lying I did rent it on DVD because of all the interest and tried to watch it a few times , just didn't 'click' with me.

Sooooooooooooo yep I was clueless as to what those pictures were from ummn does that make me bad ?

King Rohan huh sounds kind of addictive......smiles. Ahhh hmmn re hijack. Really doesn't bother me at all, least I learnt something had I not wanted to I am really good with scroll these days.
 
raven2 said:
Yes I agree but I would have liked to see more of him (as I am sure you would :devil: ) His role was reduced too much.
Sorry about the mini hijacking. Just having a big PIA day. :(
Sorry about your day, Raven. :rose:

As with all of your other LOTR comments..... I absolutely agree with this observation about Eomer in the films.

@}-}rebecca---- said:
Yes Alice I lost interest in seeing Lord Of the Rings when I saw the merchandise.......... having had a mother in the jewelry trade .
:confused:

Jewelry? I didn't even know they make LOTR jewelry, and I really don't think I'd be interested in it. (The one female character whom I like in the films doesn't wear jewelry.)

We have posters at our house, and action figures (left from when my son was younger). But that's all the LOTR "merchandise" of which I'm aware.

@}-}rebecca---- said:
Sooooooooooooo yep I was clueless as to what those pictures were from ummn does that make me bad ?
Nope. I'd say it makes you pretty normal!

I'm just grateful to have Raven around to keep me from feeling like a freak! :rolleyes:

Btw....

Changing subjects slightly, but speaking of Domly images.....

Have you noticed that nearly all of the photos/art/images posted here at Lit are shots of female nudes, female pyls or Dommes?

It occurred to me, when I read your post calling Eomer "Domly" (which he absolutely is :cool: ), that there is a real paucity of commanding/impressive/dominant/masculine images around here.

Why do you think that is? :confused:
 
alice_underneath said:
Sorry about your day, Raven. :rose:

As with all of your other LOTR comments..... I absolutely agree with this observation about Eomer in the films.

:confused:

Jewelry? I didn't even know they make LOTR jewelry, and I really don't think I'd be interested in it. (The one female character whom I like in the films doesn't wear jewelry.)

We have posters at our house, and action figures (left from when my son was younger). But that's all the LOTR "merchandise" of which I'm aware.

Nope. I'd say it makes you pretty normal!

I'm just grateful to have Raven around to keep me from feeling like a freak! :rolleyes:

Btw....

Changing subjects slightly, but speaking of Domly images.....

Have you noticed that nearly all of the photos/art/images posted here at Lit are shots of female nudes, female pyls or Dommes?

It occurred to me, when I read your post calling Eomer "Domly" (which he absolutely is :cool: ), that there is a real paucity of commanding/impressive/dominant/masculine images around here.

Why do you think that is? :confused:

Wait a minute, I am freaky :p LOL. Probably because there are more female subs and they don't like to post with tne male dominents around. :D
 
alice_underneath said:
Jewelry? I didn't even know they make LOTR jewelry, and I really don't think I'd be interested in it. (The one female character whom I like in the films doesn't wear jewelry.)

Wasn't there a RING somewhere in that series ?

Now this YUM http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/yum.jpg
alice_underneath said:
Changing subjects slightly, but speaking of Domly images.....

Have you noticed that nearly all of the photos/art/images posted here at Lit are shots of female nudes, female pyls or Dommes?

It occurred to me, when I read your post calling Eomer "Domly" (which he absolutely is :cool: ), that there is a real paucity of commanding/impressive/dominant/masculine images around here.

Why do you think that is? :confused:

SHEER ABJECT NEGLECT and APATHY
(actually I saw a thread somewhere around but we could certainly put some Domly eye candy around this Thread I am sure............watches Alice spin out in google images)
 
@}-}rebecca---- said:
Wasn't there a RING somewhere in that series ?

Now this YUM http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/yum.jpg


SHEER ABJECT NEGLECT and APATHY
(actually I saw a thread somewhere around but we could certainly put some Domly eye candy around this Thread I am sure............watches Alice spin out in google images)

Yes, unfortunately it is true, They merchandized the hell out of the movies. You can get jewelry (including the one ring), swords, armor, clothes etc.

BTW, here is one you might like.
 
I talked with mine lil darlings tonight about this issue too. Happily they knew the legalities already. We must have covered them at some time with them already. Yay.

We often find articles to talk about in the newspaper at lunch time. Today it was an un-schooling article, an article about how college message boards encourage kids to "burn churches, do other extreme and deviant things and can be used against them in a background check," and the what salaries people make are feature in Sunday's Parade magazine insert. All of these stories had vast inaccuracies that were pretty easy to spot or reason your way past. It really makes me worry about the state of the "news" these days.
Fortunately my kids are able to see through most of these things too.

Yes, many sex acts that are considered common these days are in fact, illegal in many Southern states. I might say in other states as well because it stands to reason but I don't really know that for sure and I don't feel like looking it up right now. My time tonight is growing short. Most of these laws are known, by those who care to have that sort of knowledge, and ignored. Few are actually enforced. Usually if they are, it means somebody has targeted you and will attempt to take you down by whatever legal means they can.

Fury :rose:
 
raven2 said:
Wait a minute, I am freaky :p
LOL.... OK, how about this. I am grateful to have you around so I don't feel alone in my particularly flavor of freakdom. :D

raven2 said:
Probably because there are more female subs and they don't like to post with tne male dominents around. :D
The heterosexual female pyls almost always post images of other females! That's really what I find most confusing. Rarely, if ever, is there even a guy in the picture.

Come to think of it..... perhaps they are just trying to please you male dominants! Such good little submissives...... :p
 
@}-}rebecca---- said:
Wasn't there a RING somewhere in that series ?

Now this YUM http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/yum.jpg
LOL!!

Yes, there was a RING....... but it didn't look much like that one!

Unless you toss it into the fire, the LOTR RING bears a remarkable resemblance to the one on the 4th finger of my Husband's left hand. :rolleyes:

@}-}rebecca---- said:
SHEER ABJECT NEGLECT and APATHY
(actually I saw a thread somewhere around but we could certainly put some Domly eye candy around this Thread I am sure............watches Alice spin out in google images)
LOL again! Don't worry, I won't spin out. :) Occasionally, in the interest of equal time (and to please Miss Fury), I post some male nude photographic art on the B&W thread. Other than that, Eomer really is my only 'fantasy' Dom image.

Of course.... I could always look for more shots of him! :D
 
alice_underneath said:
LOL!!

Yes, there was a RING....... but it didn't look much like that one!

Unless you toss it into the fire, the LOTR RING bears a remarkable resemblance to the one on the 4th finger of my Husband's left hand. :rolleyes:
I have that pearl , it hasn't a setting .......one day .........its still lovely to hold though on the occasion I do.
 
alice_underneath said:
Come to think of it..... perhaps they are just trying to please you male dominants! Such good little submissives...... :p

Some truth in that point Miss Alice kind of goes with the territory I guess . Also I think the Board offers a very limited spectrum of ways to express yourself at times. I love art . I love fishing for Art and if that in any way enhances the well being of anyone Dom/me or otherwise viewing then so be it, I am cool with that its no task at all . I also self censor by the way there is quite alot I like I would not dream of posting . Really just for sharing in more intimate relationships .Posting it in public for me it would be inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
FurryFury said:
Yes, many sex acts that are considered common these days are in fact, illegal in many Southern states. I might say in other states as well because it stands to reason but I don't really know that for sure and I don't feel like looking it up right now.
As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law. By 2003, these statutes had been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts in 37 states.

Of the 13 states with sodomy laws in place in 2003, four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibited oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine banned consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

These laws were all invalidated in a November, 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex.

"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

Just a little over two years ago.

Unbelievable.
 
alice_underneath said:
As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law. By 2003, these statutes had been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts in 37 states.

Of the 13 states with sodomy laws in place in 2003, four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibited oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine banned consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

These laws were all invalidated in a November, 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex.

"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

Just a little over two years ago.

Unbelievable.

Evil Geoff Sir knows a huge amount on this topic.
 
Back
Top