This thread is to discuss the recent scandal of Sineplex studio not paying some of their performers. All talk of that scandal should happen here. Topic Moved by - Flash on Sep 27 2016 and changed title and added the below. This thread, formerly Sineplex not paying some performers, is to be used for all of the Legal Porno and Sineplex issues all together. Edited by - flash on Sep 27 2016
ah so let me see... you won't viciously attack Mindgeek's tubesites because you are not aware of a performer not getting paid. So again you are not on a crusade against any moral issue... just trying to knock down one specific company. PS - with all the businesses, scenes, and distribution Mindgeek does...pretty sure somewhere someone connected to their flag didn't get paid once and there are plety of STI transmissions (as there is throughout porn). But of course, you don't put much effort because they are not Legal Porno. So Pierre, everything points to wards this........ you are not against DAP, on-set injuries, Drugs, STI's, or an advocate for performer pay; because you are silent on all these issues with the exception of one company. You are using these issues to fuel one attack on one specific company. Which is a complete dis-service to these real issues that affect all of the porn industry.
You are not really aware of all my post on my forum since few years about all you mention. Of course I am against all these problem and the main company who drain "all in one" is Legal Porno !!! Anyway I don't see the interest to discuss more about it, probabily money has talk and all my posts in the Legal Porno tread have been moved here !!! Someone don't like the shaddow ??? SINEPLEX DOES NOT EXIST SINCE MORE THAN 5 YEARS AND SINCE THE DAY IN 2012 JAVIER STARTED WORK FOR STEPHANE ALL IS ON BEHALF OF LEGAL PORNO !!! IT'S ONLY TO DISSOCIATED THE VIDEO MADE BY JAVIER AND GIORGIO THAT THE SINEPLEX LOGO IS STILL ON THE VIDEO BUT THE COMPANY IS A GHOST ... There is no model release with Sineplex wrote on it signed by any performers working in Mexico or Prague but GTFLIX aka LEGAL PORNO ( see the picture I posted ) but clearly someone now try to push the debat in another corner ... PW
The more you talk, the more deluded and uninformed you sound. Sineplex hasn't existed for more than 5 years ? They've been producing content for 14 years.On the model release that you uploaded to this forum, it quite clearly states "for a video identified as Sineplex SOS". Edited by - paddy82 on 9/4/2016 5:22:04 PM
Yes identified as but it's just a name, not a company !!! when Javier went in troubles in Russia he escaped and the Sineplex company was dead, it's Stephane the LP boss who pick him up to Prague and make is "resurection" or he will have dispeared since long time !!! Show me an ACTUAL company registration with book keeping about Sineplex ... As you can see in the photo, Javier has been included inside the board with Stephane sister ... IT'S ALL A PACKAGE OF COMPANIES ON BEHALF OF THE HYDRA Xvideos + Legal Porno But OK i have no more time to pass with this tread who has been created only in order to not make shaddow to Legal Porno. PW
It's common knowledge that the LP boss helped resurrect Sineplex, you're talking to somebody who's been a fan of them since the early 2000's. I spoke about this the other day in a conversation with Killbill, where I said the problem that company always had was poor management and if it wasn't for LP they would have been finished years ago. So what's your point ? if it's that Legalporno is the main company and Sineplex is just a name, then I'm sure you realise the company GTFLIX TV existed 6 years before any involvement from Stephane and LP, where Pedro Javier Vazquez Hernandez, the owner and current boss of the Sineplex studio in Mexico, was a company director [url=https://companycheck.co.uk/company/06291569/GTFLIX-TV-LIMITED/companies-house-data[/url] What you're presenting here changes nothing, the operation and setup in Mexico still runs independently, and what they produce and how they pay their performers has nothing to do with the studios in Prague. Nobody is attempting to defend the recent actions of Sineplex, but what you're trying to do is tell everyone that this is how Legalporno as a whole operates, which is complete nonsense. I challenge you to present me with one example of Stephane or Giorgio's studios not paying their performers. The actions of Javier and the Sineplex studio are not representative of the other two, and that's why it's important to differentiate. I've already made my thoughts quite clear on this: I would personally like LP to stop distributing Sineplex content, and I would advise models in light of these recent revelations to not work for that cowboy studio in Mexico.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - Sep 4 2016 : 7:45PM
^ I get that you don't like that a company that you really like is having its name dragged through the mud but you have to be realistic in your expectations of how people are going to handle it. For starters you went on a rant about how Megan Rain was complaining about LP but never mentioned Siniplex. Which is utterly and completely false with regards to the tweets you quoted in that post. She didn't mention either company by name but she did "twitter mention" both of them (@legal_porno & @FUNDSEX) and at no point did she say anything about LP without mentioning Siniplex. So from where I'm standing, it looks like her complaints were directed at exactly the right people. Also, you and a few other people on here are acting like people here are getting pitch forks and torches to go chasing after LP. I honestly can't find where anyone had anything particularly negative to say about LP other than stating they should make sure their models get paid and might want to stop doing business with Siniplex (the horror!) Granted Pierre had a few things to say but clearly people here haven't figured out he's like Beetlejuice and if you say his name 3 times he's absolutely going to appear. (you know... to defend himself from accusations from other forum members who have a history of 3rd person provocations and talking about people as if they can't see the messages) And finally, how do you really expect the general public to react to the Megan Rain situation? More to the point what name is in giant all caps letter in the bottom right hand corner of the Megan Rain clip that Siniplex didn't pay her for? If it's the video I think it is, it isn't Siniplex's name. So why respond with such righteous indignation when the average joe blames Legal Porno when the clip in question says "LEGAL PORNO" in big black and red letters on it? Okay I lied... one last thing, where exactly did you make it clear that you wanted LP to drop Siniplex and for models to stop shooting in Mexico? The above post was the first indication I recall seeing.
I don't think I've been anything but realistic in my acknowledgement of people's anger over this, I'm just trying to show those who don't know or aren't aware, that by pointing the finger of blame towards the distribution site, you're unfairly directing a lot of negativity and false advertisement towards the other studios that sell through them. I don't want the two studios that I'm a fan of dragged in to the bullshit and unprofessional practices of Sineplex/Fundsex.Are you really going to argue semantics and suggest there's a difference between saying a name or using a twitter mention ? I wouldn't call my response to Megan's tweets a rant, perhaps you should reread it, I was highlighting that some of the information she was putting out there was completely false and damaging to those who weren't involved. The Legalporno boss and the studios in Prague had no knowledge of what had happened, but all of the anger was being retweeted and directed at their handle. She said and I quote: 1. @legal_porno @FUNDSEX is a shit company out in Mexico who has not paid me or @SamanthaRone1 for our work!! Legalporno do not operate in Mexico, and they did pay Sineplex/Fundsex for their work, but they chose to use that money producing new scenes and not paying their performers. She then said: 2. I've been to Europe twice to shoot and not one company has fucked me over. But you.. @legal_porno @FUNDSEX I'm extremely furious!! Which is completely unrelated, and directly implicates the two studios that are based in Europe and operate from there, that is where I took exception.This a little dramatic, I only respond to misinformation and the spreading of malicious rumors. If you don't like the company and the content they produce, I couldn't care less, but if you're going to post false information as fact, I'm going to comment. I fully expected Pierre to show up here, he has a proven track record of attempting to discredit this company, and he couldn't wait to jump on this bandwagon and start telling everyone that this is how they operate. I really don't mind him making an appearance because we all get an insight in to his deluded obsession with them.I expect them to be angry and pissed off, just as I am, but I would also want them to understand from those who are trying to explain it, that this is not indicative of the LP brand, that the company Legalporno did what they were supposed to do and payed Sineplex for producing this content, they chose to withhold and not pay their performers on their end.I was talking about my thoughts regarding this whole mess, what I said after that is what I'd personally like to see happen next, browsing the LP forums would indicate I'm not alone in that.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - Sep 4 2016 : 10:34PM
You're the one splitting hairs over the Siniplex mention, not me. She did in fact call out Siniplex in her tweets. That's what @FUNDSEXis. It's Siniplex's twitter handle. (that's why when you go to the @FUNDSEX twitter page it says: "SINEPLEX Studio producing EPIC scenes check them out on Legalporno.com" and shows their location as Mexico. You continue to act like she flat out ignored Siniplex in her accusations and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Siniplex was named several times as the culprits. Furthermore, she was very clear to state that she's never had problems with Legal Porno and when she did identify the culprit by name it was Javier Vazquez, who last time I checked was the guy running Siniplex, not the guy running Legal Porno, but you continue to ignore that too. And why exactly is it unfair to direct negativity to Legal Porno for this? You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that Legal Porno literally put their name on the clip. As a consumer why would I not be mad a the company that sold me the clip and branded it as their own? If I buy a Lowe's brand lawn mower and have a problem with it, do I as a consumer give a rat's ass that the mower was actually made by MTD? Of course not, if I have a beef, that beef is with Lowe's as they branded it as their own, and they sold it to me. Why should this situation be any different? (other than you really, really, really really, like Legal Porno) If I'm looking at the preview for the wrong clip then so be it, but if I'm looking at the right one it says "Legal Porno" right on the clip. You can't have it both ways. You can't get in bed with a company like Siniplex (and they are very much in bed together no matter how much desperate rationalization you want to continue to write) and get the perks of selling their ill-gotten content without getting caught up in the crossfire. "We're just the distributor" isn't a valid excuse. I find it funny that you're accusing Pierre of being obsessed with LP, yet every single post you've made on this forum reads like it's written by the LP PR department, either obsessively defending them or talking about how great they are. Hypocrite much? I also find it funny that several here see fit to name-calling Pierre and trying to discredit him any way they can except for actually saying that he's wrong. It seems like every rebuttal I've read on here starts off "Yeah, that's true, but...." which makes me think that regardless of what his motivations are he's probably making some legitimate points.
I'll admit that it was pedantic of me to focus on her lack of the exact word "Sineplex" being used, she does use their handle in conjunction with LP's in her tweets. I stand by my points that she was wrong to state LP are a shit company who operate in Mexico, and also that she implicated the European based studios with her irrelevant comparison to having previously worked for other companies in Europe.From their side they conducted themselves appropriately and payed for the rights to distribute the content on their platform, that is why their name is on the clip. They didn't purchase the content in the knowledge that the maker wasn't paying their performers, they also didn't sell it on the consumer with that knowledge; You seem to be an advocate of guilty by association, whatever the circumstances. And your analogy literally has nothing to do with this situation. If you bought a Lowe's brand lawnmower, and unbeknownst to them it turned out the makers of those, MTD, weren't paying the people manufacturing them but were profiting from selling them to Lowe's for distribution, are you saying it's okay to boycott and attack Lowe's for that ? Because if you are I disagree.Of course you can, and as far as I'm concerned that is a valid excuse. You're presenting an assumption that they had knowledge of anything "ill-gotten", when that isn't the case. LP's defense isn't "we're just the distributor," their defense is that they have absolutely nothing to do with how that studio operates, they purchase the end product and weren't aware that they were buying content that contained performers who hadn't been payed. I'm fairly certain that when they agreed upon a working relationship to get Sineplex's content to market, they didn't agree to take the fall or blame for a potential lack of professionalism on their part.Most of my posts have been exactly what I previously said, correcting misinformation. I was critical of what i feel is "a mechanical and formulaic approach to a lot of their scenes". I was critical of the possibility that anesthetics may be getting used to perform ridiculous acts like TAP, even though the choice and decision ultimately falls on the model, and I've been quite clear that I don't condone the owner's links to piracy. Would you like to quote me on where I've spoken about how great they are ? Pierre has been attempting to damage the companies image for years, both in Europe and the US, from false accusations about their testing methods, to talk of girls almost dying on set When you ask him for proof of any of his claims, you're told to buy my next scene to see what this model has only ever said to me. I know of no other company where so many models have returned to work as many times as LP, and yet if you listen to anything he says you're lead to believe that's it's an awful company that has no respect for the welfare of it's performers. Even old friends like Ian Scott have little to do with him anymore because of his agenda. Edited by - paddy82 on 9/5/2016 1:00:56 AM
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Sep 5 2016 : 1:25AM
^ Everything but an unambiguous denial that he is in fact some kind of employee or operative for LP. Whether he is or is not on their payroll, it appears that his account at ADT is being used for no other purposes than to run interference for LP and attack Woodman, and I think the site owners and mods should take notice of this and act accordingly.
Ahh yes, the go to response from someone who has nothing legitimate to say or contribute. If you spout nothing but conjecture and unsubstantiated rumor around here, it's fine, but if somebody who's been a fan of Sineplex since the early 2000's and subsequently LP dares to correct you on some of it, you must be an operative. I'm sure my bosses will be over the moon with me advising models not work for Sineplex and to avoid going to Mexico.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - Sep 5 2016 : 1:51AM
^^^ I've never stated, nor implied (and I don't believe anyone else here has either) that LP was aware of what Siniplex was doing beforehand. You seem to think that ignorance is a perfectly acceptable excuse, and with that I disagree. and yes, I am a believer in guilt by association but in this case it isn't just some casual association. It is guilt by affiliation. It's not like these two groups of people just happen to know one another. They are in a business relationship with one another, and like it or not, that has consequences. Legal Porno might not have any control over what Siniplex is doing but Legal Porno does have control over whom they themselves do business with, and they have chosen to do business with a company that not only has done some pretty stupid things recently but also has a pretty well known history of shady business practices. You can talk circles until you're blue in the face but it won't change the fact that Legal Porno does have some culpability in the matter, even if they weren't directly responsible for it. Your line of logic is the same bullshit that Trump keeps throwing out with regards to all of his shady business dealings... He basically gets his name stuck on various properties, and then when things go south he denies any involvement. Guess what? When you put your name on shady business deals, it comes back to bite you in the ass sometimes. Like I said in the other thread, if you lie down with dogs, you're going to get fleas. And your shilling for LP predates the Siniplex fiasco. The Siniplex fiasco just helped to magnify your "interest" in the company. Edited by - murdock on 9/5/2016 1:53:08 AM
So you don't want to quote me on all the great things I've said about them ? And a comparison to Trump, I'm honored I think, that was a compliment, right ? [:P)]Pure gold. All the Sineplex fiasco has done is lost a customer in me, and I'll be continuing to advise the models that I'm interested in to avoid them like the plague.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - Sep 5 2016 : 2:45AM
^ I've found two posts (in one thread) since you've started posting here Best Studio for Hardcore Anal? where you weren't either recommending LP, complimenting LP or defending LP. Can you find another? I bet you can't. Outside of that thread, the entirety of your posting in this community has been a blatant pro LP / anti Woodman agenda. Let's not forget your inauspicious arrival here where you blamed Woodman for a bunch of stuff (that negatively impacted LP, OH THE HORROR!) based on nothing more than a hunch. Or your flat refusal to admit the connection between tubesite money and LP. (I'm starting to notice a trend here of you "correcting" people about things they were already correct about in the first place) But go ahead, and prove me wrong. Find the other post where you weren't either complimenting LP, recommending LP or defending LP. I'll be waiting. As for your "criticism" of LP in one of your posts...Yeah, that was brutal. I'm surprised LP hasn't filed a defamation/libel suit against you for that.
1. My first post here was looking for feedback from American directors and agents, of which Pierre Woodman had openly stated he was at a dinner with recently and where the discussion of restricting models who had worked for LP from working in the US had been spoken about and agreed upon. I was seeking any feedback from those who I don't associate with complete bs, as to whether there was any legitimacy to his claims. Perhaps you didn't read it properly, but my motivations and interests were purely selfish, I was angry that a block had been put on some of my favourite European models potentially working for some of my favourite American companies. I wanted to know why a man who has absolutely nothing to do with that market, was involved in talks to potentially restrict work for models working stateside. I had a particular interest in seeing girls like Arwen Gold and Lita Phoenix appearing for some of my favourite American production companies, including Greg Lansky's who was supposedly at said dinner. What followed was several people responding with exactly the same rumors I'd seen Pierre post on his forum over the years, "If some producers or agents don't want to deal with certain performers because LP is too shady when it comes to testing that's their right." and so began a back and forth as to how certain members here had come to such conclusions, because I knew how I had been made aware of them. My first posts were not pro LP, but they were pro models who'd appeared at LP. 2. My so called flat refusal to acknowledge the connection between tubesite money and LP. I've said quite clearly from the start that the owner of LP, the man who owns and runs the Gonzo studio, is also the owner of the tubesite in question. I've said more than once that how he's amassed his fortune is unethical, and I also agreed with Killbill that the wealth generated from his tubesite more than likely allowed him to fund and establish LP, and I completely agreed with him that LP as a brand took off with the help and investment of money derived from a tubesite.... so what more do you want from me ? The only defending I did on the subject was stating that Sineplex and Giorgio have nothing to do with his tubesite, which is a FACT! 3. I'm starting to think you lack reading comprehension. You said to me "every single post you've made on this forum reads like it's written by the LP PR department, either obsessively defending them or talking about how great they are. So I replied with three examples of me being critical of them (I do apologise that they weren't as brutal as you'd hoped) I then asked you to provide examples of me talking about how great they are, and you've come up with one post I wrote about Giorgio Grandi, in which you conveniently edited this sentence out of "I also agree with a few of those points. I don't like the mechanical and formulaic approach to a lot of their scenes, but this is specifically the Gonzo studio, of which I also hate the white room they use." I've been a fan of Giorgio's since his NRFTA network, long before any involvement with LP. Is this your example of me singing their praises ? Where are all my posts that compliment and recommend them ?
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - Sep 5 2016 : 12:54PM
Your first post here was a post accusing Pierre of conspiring against LP which provided nothing in the way of proof, and was so inflammatory you had to rename the thread. But the whole point of the thread (as with everything you post) was to defend LP. Quick question for you... what's the best way to predict if a thread is going to turn into a shit show? I'll give you a hint...Well done.You kinda remind me of Tom from Office Space where you keep trying to rationalize something, with more and more urgency without the slightest bit of awareness as to how ridiculous it seems. But more to the point, its more of your pedantic hair splitting anytime anyone mentions LP and tubesites. I doubt the back and forth with KillBill or BlackSix will be the last. Someone else will mention it and you'll tell them how wrong they are about everything they said (maybe next time it will be because they misspelled Giorgio's name) but you'll try and frame the issue as if LP or any of it's subsidiaries have anything to do with tubesites, and just like previous times, you'll concede a point or two here and there, until we're back to basically admitting that's where the initial funding came from and probably still comes from, but no one should dare say that without having asked you permission first I guess?Yes, you did make a post where you were critical of LP. Good for you. I never said otherwise. What I did say was outside of the two posts you've made in the Hard Anal thread, every single post you've made has been either recommending LP, complimenting LP or defending LP. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. I didn't come up with one post, I only quoted one post. I've come up with DOZENS. If you're having trouble finding more examples then by all means, click on your name next to any post you've made and then click on literally any post there and it will lead you to a post where you are either recommending, complimenting or defending LP.
So why respond with such righteous indignation when the average joe blames Legal Porno when the clip in question says "LEGAL PORNO" in big black and red letters on it? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Seems obvious !! thanks ... PW
[Link]
Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User
1102 Posts 2/15
Posted - Sep 5 2016 : 1:16PM
Legal Porno solved the pay issue within a day or two of the performer making it public that Sineplex didn't pay them. Isn't that exactly what they should do? Take responsibility for things under their banner and SOLVE THE PROBLEM. So why is this issue still some horrifying outrage a week later? No company can micromanage all aspects of their affiliates and subordinates. If they find out something is wrong, they step in and fix it (which is what happened). LP solved the issue, which, like I said, was the correct thing to do. WHich sounds like a commendable act to me. However , now that this happened, Pierre is using it to try to harm them as if they are the most evil company in the history of porn! Pierre had a lot of pay issues in his past; I don't think people are still wasting energy talking about it today. The other person has been called an employee for LP now? AM I one to ?
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - Sep 5 2016 : 2:09PM
They pay issue with Megan Rain was eventually solved. Unless someone here is privy to information I'm not aware of, we don't know who actually solved that issue. It could have been LP that paid the Megan, or it could have been Siniplex that did it. Has the issue with Samantha Rone been resolved yet?
^No, the Samantha Rone issue hasn't been resolved yet. She tweets frequently about them owing her another $3500. In fact, its is a pinned tweet. You can read her various tweets at https://twitter.com/samantharone1
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Sep 5 2016 : 5:20PM
This is why Rain has been paid and Rone hasn't been, and probably won't be: She has no leverage and no recourse. Sineplex/LP have nothing to lose by stiffing her. Rone may get a bunch of Twitter sympathy, but when push comes to shove, the rest of the industry girls will continue to work for Sineplex/LP, rationalizing it by telling themselves that Samantha was just a dumb bitch who didn't handle her money right or something to that effect.
There are two sides to issues. You think porn performers are beacons of truth and virtue? I think there is more to this story than what she is claiming in a tweet.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - Sep 5 2016 : 7:36PM
There may very well be more to the story than we know. but there isn't a single solitary thing I can think of that would justify not paying a model for a scene that was released. If the scene was good enough to sell to their distributor then there is no reason to hold payment for Rone, and conversely, if there is just reasoning for not paying Rone then the scene shouldn't be released. So was anyone able to figure out who actually paid Megan Rain or are we just going to give all of the glory and atta'boys and praise to LP since they can evidently do no wrong?
To Sineplex/LP Stop discussing and just pay the girls is that simple. And for the future we`ll see if the girls trust you to work whit you again, I wouldn`t.
I like you, murdock, you amuse me.I will if it's conjecture spoken as fact, especially if I know it to be untrue or completely inaccurate.Is this a proposal, because I'd appreciate that, especially from you. [:P)]Thank you.Actually you did, several times. You understand what the word "every" means, right ?I've made a single post about my girlfriends positive experience with their customer service, OVER 3 MONTHS AGO. And I made a single post recommending them to someone who was looking for hard anal scenes, again 4 MONTHS AGO.As for my posts you've termed "defending them," I call them debating conjecture and correcting misinformation. If you would like to continue wasting each others time, here or in private message, I'm more than happy. If you would like to get this thread back on topic:So far only one of her scenes has been released, and she was payed $3500 back in early/mid August. The second $3500, which I'm assuming is for a second as of yet unreleased scene, has still not been payed to her. This photo she posted on her twitter shows them telling her that payment has been sent in two parts. I'm reading that as her receiving the full $7000 by the Monday, I'm sure that's how Samantha read it as well, so there is no excuse on their end. The LP boss posted this yesterday: "This story was blown out of proportion. It's ridiculous. I blame Sineplex for being silent and not recognizing their mistake and try to extinguish a small fire early. They had a simple cash flow problem because they shot too many scenes and are not very well organized. We are in the process of buying a batch of scenes from them in advance so that they can pay everyone but it takes time to copy, check, make contracts, send money, etc. I personally feel this is an oversimplification of what appears to be gross incompetence by Sineplex, but at least the process of her receiving what's owed to her is in motion. I still stand by what I said, my advice would be for models to avoid working in Mexico if this is the level of professionalism on show. Edited by - Paddy82 on 9/5/2016 11:20:40 PM Edited by - Paddy82 on 9/5/2016 11:21:14 PM
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - Sep 6 2016 : 1:29AM
^Wow, your pedantism is second to none. I've never seen anyone split hairs with the enthusiasm that you do. But I agree that we should absolutely get back on topic, and by that I mean that Siniplex and Legal Porno should be held accountable for their actions. And since the M.O. of most of the LP fanboys and fangirls here seems to be to take a fairly straightforward action and interpret the ever loving shit out of it, I think I'll give it a try too... It seems pretty clear to me that the revenue generated from Siniplex's shitty dealings is far more important to LP than how Siniplex treats their models. If they were interested in getting the models paid, they'd just pay the models, instead of buying a bunch of yet-to-be-shot content on spec, which isn't a longterm fix for Siniplex's woes, if their cashflow situation is already this dire. It looks to me like LP just wants to keep Siniplex treading water long enough to get more content that they can rebrand as their own. They're simply helping out their business partner, not looking out for the models that have been fucked over. That was fun. I see why you folks are so keen on doing it so much. Let me give it one more try... Since you and other's here want to hold Pierre to the "all or nothing" standard with regards to his criticisms, let me ask you since you seem to be on these boards robinhooding for the truth and correcting people when they make even the slightest of errors, how come you can't muster the courage to correct people who say flattering things about LP that aren't correct? You seem pretty content to let that stuff slide, so what gives? Are you trying to get accurate information out there, or are you just shilling for LP? because I gotta say, that only correcting the (not always incorrect) negative things is pretty shill-like from where I stand.Would you consider that statement to be factually accurate? It's been more than one or two days and the issue does not appear to be solved entirely. Why did your fact-checking suddenly disappear for that post?
But let's go ahead throw a fuckin parade for LP and shout from the rooftops how great LP is because they're dumping money into a company with a storied tradition of shady dealings. Shit. I forgot to ask your permission to say all of that. My bad. Maybe later I'll have a buddy of mine ask after the fact and we can all celebrate how awesome my buddy is, for eventually getting around to doing the right thing.
I'll let it go this one time. If you're asking me why I didn't comment on Cindy's post, it's because what she said was the same impression I was under. I read about Megan being payed immediately, I didn't realise the same hadn't been done for Samantha until last night, and fanofman had already posted that here. This might surprise you but I think you're right about LP not looking for a longterm fix to this whole mess, and I'd be very surprised if this working relationship continues for much longer. Coming from someone who's spent a fair amount of time on the LP forum, the situation has been strained for a very long time between them.
After Megan and me have published about LP having not paid the models in Mexico, LEGAL PORNO OFFICE IN PRAGUE ( you know the people who said they have nothing to do with Sineplex ) called LAdirect model and promise the agency fee and Megan fee will be paid the same day. And they did it at the minute ... But Samantha has no agent and she is still waiting her money since August 11 th ... PW Edited by - PIERRE WOODMAN on 9/6/2016 9:16:25 AM
^I wonder why they won't do that for Samantha Rone. There's no need to continue with the negative publicity and $3500 is such a paltry sum of money for multi-million dollar company.
Can you please explain to me, Flash, what I said that warranted having my post deleted and cbeing alled an asshole ? Edited by - Paddy82 on 9/6/2016 11:06:28 AM
Does the post above not clearly state, in his own words, that because of his and Megan's actions, Legalporno took action ? So what did I say that needed moderating ?
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - Sep 6 2016 : 12:39PM
Actually, no he did not clearly state that. A timeline was presented ie X and Y happened, then Z happened. I see no reason to infer any causality from that, especially if taken literally as you seem to insist (at least when it's convenient for your PR campaign) Your pedant game is slipping.
Paddy82: First off, you clearly haven't read the forum etiquette since it clearly states:If you had read it you would know about how to address your grievance. For as to why your post was moderated? It was moderated because the entire reason for that post was to insult Pierre Woodman. It didn't contribute to the conversation at all. Also from the forum etiquette you have still chosen not to read:
^Fair enough I'll take that on board, but I still feel there's a self promoting aspect to that post that suggests personal involvement helped facilitate resolution.
[Link]
Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User
1102 Posts 2/15
Posted - Sep 6 2016 : 4:41PM
I think under those guidelines Pierre has made some comments that should have been moderated. As for the point of gifts to mods.. I guess I should have caught onto that, might have saved the half dozen times I have been PM'd by mods threatening to ban me :)
Introducing Kalani Luana
Posted - Sep 4 2016 : 3:30PM
They've been producing content for 14 years.On the model release that you uploaded to this forum, it quite clearly states "for a video identified as Sineplex SOS".
When you ask him for proof of any of his claims, you're told to buy my next scene to see what this model has only ever said to me. I know of no other company where so many models have returned to work as many times as LP, and yet if you listen to anything he says you're lead to believe that's it's an awful company that has no respect for the welfare of it's performers. Even old friends like Ian Scott have little to do with him anymore because of his agenda.
