Maturin

8 minutes ago, VoyeurVillaNews said:

Due to the closing of Volga apartment we have made free 3 cameras in each apartment. 

tula/cam4 
tula/cam6  
tula/cam2 

tver/cam1 
tver/cam9 
tver/cam7 

dubna/cam7
dubna/cam9 
dubna/cam4 

greenwood/cam7 
greenwood/cam2 
greenwood/cam13 

Nice to see. I'll cross my fingers and hope I'm right that you should get more subscribers now - just make sure your tenants are active and putting their best foot forward. Good luck!

It's literally just a case of swapping to a decent front camera so that people can see what they are potentially going to subscribe for. Does it take a week to do this, @VoyeurVillaNews are you serious about this project because it is dying on its ass.  Who the heck is going to click subscribe because the back of a person's head convinced them?!

12 hours ago, VoyeurVillaNews said:

We will work on it ASAP. ☺️

Glad to hear it. It's worth trying for at least a couple of months to see if you get an increased rate of subscribers.  More subscribers means more tenants and possibly more apartments meaning more subscribers meaning more apartm.... :)

11 hours ago, sat11 said:

they have been doing it for a while now after a few min the cam switches to subscribe page,  if i see some thing interesting and wanted to subscribe i am sure i will find the page with one click . very annoying  like a pop up ad.

I think there should still be a pause to a subscribe page or it times out after a while - people shouldn't want to get something for nothing but visitors need to see something to make them want to subscribe when that payment page pops up.

My theory is that if people can see the tenants doing their thing everyday, on a good quality cam with good angles, then they develop a connection with those tenants and will want to follow them elsewhere around the apartment, so will be happy to pay.  In the case of Greenwood and Tula especially, just seeing a headless leg, whose owner may or may not be doing some sexy stuff, is not going to get anyone interested.

Unfortunately with VV we've got some tenants that aren't interested in doing any genuine "sexy stuff" but the management says they are working on that and I'm pleased to see that they perhaps agree with me about using the free cams to their best ability.  Look at the forum for RLC Barca One, nothing happens there for months like most of RLC but Barca is the most popular forum apart from Leora - the camera angles on the free cams in Barca and Leora apts are excellent, people get drawn in by them and end up paying for more - just last week I read that the twins had convinced someone to resubscribe to RLC (they never do anything but they are captured on the free cams very well).

20 minutes ago, miscvoyeur said:

Something interesting in Greenwood? Nothing interesting has happened at this place since it opened up. Nothing interesting will ever happen with these 4 living together.

Yeah true.

@VoyeurVillaNews

Looks like something interesting going on over at Greenwood but a new subscriber willnot be interested enough because they can't see anything.  You gotta make all your free cams offer one of the best viewing angles.  You can do what RLC used to do and close the stream after 10 minutes or so but a new user seeing this would be interested for only a short while but move on because they can't see the tenants and make a strong enough connection with them that will make them signup.

Have RLC agreed to abide by the result of your Condom Free Apartment Referendum?

Make Bareback Great Again.

8 minutes ago, jabbath1987 said:

I guess thats the end of the site. People leaving. You cant find good replacements. The replacements you find do not want to stay. 

I think the replacements don't want to stay because the current people put them off.  They all need to go and get some new people in that won't catch the current tenants' lethargy and bullshit attitudes.

Just now, mic351 said:

I gave you one.  Here's another,  "Science without religion is lame.  Religion without science is blind".  Einstien, a Jew, never considered science and religion to be exclusive of one another.  

I did edit my post as you'll see above as I can see where you're going with this.  He also said, that although he doesn't regard himself as an atheist, he does regard himself as a religious non believer.  I take that to signify that he was an agnostic and someone that didn't support or condone the horrible things that organised religion has brought to the world.

He also stated something along the lines of not believing in any kind of afterlife.

Just now, mic351 said:

LOL, I thought I ws still in Henry' and Mira's Forum.  Never mind!!!

Haha, thanks for the heads up tho!

11 minutes ago, Amy3 said:

I'm plenty open minded, but your comment had absolutely nothing to add to the question at hand. It was designed to steer the conversation in the usefullness and purpose of religion. That's not what this topic is about. I have no interest in defending my personal religious beliefs or defending the purpose of religion. My sole interest is the finding an answer to the question, Does God exisit? Really that simple.

You told us, despite repeatedly stating that you didn't want to talk about your personal circumstances, that you believe God exists.  OK, great for you, there's no decent discussion to be had on that because you cannot prove that he does and there is no burden of proof on anyone else to prove that he doesn't. The interesting part of this discussion has been about the consequences, through religion, of people believing in the myth of God and its effects on society.

Hoping we can get back to that.

2 minutes ago, mic351 said:

Yes Mate!  I wrote a thesis on Einstein at Ohio U.  However, I was not responding to what you had earlier posted.  I was responding, I thought, to maxfactor's post. And I was not trying to insult anyone.  I was trying to promote a discussion on be agnostic to being  an outright or  hard core atheist.   But if you really want to get into a discussion of Einstein and his life I'll be happy to oblige you..

I was going to but I think I can see where you're coming from so no worries.

3 minutes ago, mic351 said:

Smarter?  If you study Einstein you'll note he believed in a God and an afterlife.  He proposed that all matter is energy and energy never dies, it simply changes form.   Taking it a step further he also believed that the formation of life on earth was simply to much to be entirely coincidence.  That a higher form must have started things off..   Einstein wrote:  "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-A spirit vastly superior to that of man. "Einstein and God"  Robert Barron.. 

You statement to Amy3 you thought she was smarter than that leads me to believe that you feel you are smarter than Einstein.  So please expound and explain to a simple man like myself, what did Einstein's Theory of Relativity really state?

Have you really, like really studied Einstein mate?

17 minutes ago, Amy3 said:

And yet another non-argument to answer the question at hand. Only this time its starts to get personal. Classic!  Well, I think we'll just have to let others decide now won't we!

Seriously? I try to entertain what's going on in your mind and you respond by trying to insult me and then accuse me of starting to get personal.  What is it that you want? For me to prove that God doesn't exist?  That's really the conversation you're after?  The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, sorry but that's the way it works.  You can't prove that God exists so I'm not pressing you on that.

A far more interesting conversation is why is it that religionists resort to personal insults when faced with the resaonable replies of atheists. Or indeed what I was getting at with my replies, Why Do Religionists Feel That Everyone Must Share The Same Beliefs As Them?

10 minutes ago, Amy3 said:

Your response is diatribe, not an aruguement dealing with the existence of God. Have a nice day!

Your response is exactly the sort of nonsense that a religionist would come out with. Cheerio.

45 minutes ago, Amy3 said:

What you’re missing is that Kung forces the atheist ideology to deal with the inevitable progression of atheism which ultimately leads to nihilism.  I believe that it does. I understand that you remain unconvinced. That’s fine, but if you actually read the book, you can see that the argument is quite compelling, but you’d have to read the full breath of it to grasp it. The idea that someone can nutshell what Kung argues is naive. You can always deny it, but to say that his argument is a waste of time, is really just a cop out. The argument he makes is that it makes more sense to believe in the existence of God as a natural progression toward reality and purpose then to deny God and end up in a place of meaningless nothingness. 

No, I’m sorry I can’t show you a picture of God. I don’t pretend to be able to unequivocally prove the existence of God. I fully respect the notion that to believe takes a certain amount of faith. I can understand that you want to deny faith as a reason to commit to a God belief, but if my reality is my choice and my choice is to believe in God then who is anyone to tell me that I’m wrong to live that life that I have chosen. And don’t give me that bs that I was forced into this somehow through upbringing, My family was non-religous and I was non-religious practically my whole life. I didn’t come to my belief system until I was 29 years old. I made the choice to believe. 

I didn't offer any bullshit about your personal circumstances, perhaps that was a different conversation.  You made the choice to believe, that's fine with me and you'll find that it is fine with most atheists.  Where people who have faith run into problems with atheists is when they use their beliefs to try to dictate government policy or social morals using the bible/Qu-ran/Torah as their unquestionable authority. That is absolutely the wrong way to make policy or force people to conform to standards drawn up well over 1,000 years ago.

You choose whatever reality you like, only a total dick would be against your freedom to do that but if you were trying to force your reality onto someone else who believes a different thing, then that's when the problems would start.  I'd only ask you for a picture of God, or something like his definitive instructions regarding how to deal with a specific problem that society faces, if you were to start saying that everyone should do things the way you tell them because God told you so.  I hope you understand that people who don't believe in your God would have no intention of taking your demands seriously unless you were to provide an argument containing testable data and logic with which the majority could discuss.

tl:dr The problem lies with religionists dictating to non-religionists or people of different religions that the world should be ordered according to some guy that no one can see hear or question.  There is no problem with people being religious, just don't try to foist it onto others - essentially, do unto others as as you would have them do unto you (a maxim that existed for many years before it was credited to Jesus).

13 minutes ago, SPYING 1 said:

How can these CC members doubt Amy's knowledge & faith, The atheist will never find happiness, true family love or fulfillment of life without The LORD GOD

I don't doubt anyone's faith and they are welcome to it so long as they don't try to turn their faith or belief into policy and politics that affect people of different faiths and beliefs. Most rational people would argue that theological belief and knowledge are two mutually exclusive terms but there'd be no point making the effort to show the difference in this case.

6 hours ago, Amy3 said:

When you read “Does God Exist” by Hans Kung, I’ll read yours. 

From Amazon, the blurb from Does God Exist, Hans Kung:
Does God exist? Who is God? And can we ultimately trust in any reality? These questions have been among the greatest subjects of human speculation since history began, but not until modern times has the reality of God been so strongly called into doubt. In this monumental study, written for men and women of all faiths (and of none), Hans Kung, the most renowned and controversial theologian in the world today, first traces the rise of modern atheism in the works of such great thinkers as Descartes, Pascal, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, and then demonstrates--brilliantly and in terms that make sense to us today--why a ""yes"" to God remains a more reasonable and responsible belief than its alternative, nihilism.

Straight away, without even buying the book, from only reading the back cover, it is obvious that he is lying to his audience.  Atheism is not nihilism. The difference between these two concepts is very easy to describe and understand:

Atheism is the rejection of religious belief. It is the unwillingness to surrender to an authority that is unproven, untested and immutable.

Nihilism is the rejection of meaning in existence; nothing matters anyway because we're all gonna die in the end.

It is absolutely irresponsible to defer matters that affect our existence to the "teachings" of the Bible or the word of God, a book that is wholly unreasonable in the correct sense of that word.  Existence is full of emergent meaning for all of us; family, friends, career, sport, arts, the self, the community etc etc.  These meanings are shared by all of us no matter our religious or lack of religious belief.

There is no motivation to read this book based on that blurb because I can 99.9% guarantee that it will be filled with the same rehashed pseudoscience and cod-philosophy that people who feel threatened about atheism come out with all the time.  I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong about that assumption however, so if you don't mind could you please write a short summary of how he demonstrates that "Yes to God," is the best choice to make?

On 01/11/2017 at 1:10 AM, eagleb1 said:

We are ignorant?  Read a freaking book if you want to know the answer to your naive questions.

As I said before, I recommend books by Richard Dawkins. You should start with "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The God Delusion."  If you have questions after that, we'll try to help you.

You have warned me multiple times about trying to rationalise with this individual We know he won't read those books even though you've given him the best advice he's probably ever recevied.  I'm just waiting for one of them to say, "Hang on, I have read it and in my opinion Professor Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL, emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, is talking a load of horse shit."

The only way to sensibly discuss the difference between science and religion is if both parties have an understanding about both subjects. Religionists prove time and time again that they are unable and unwilling to grasp the rudiments of the scientific method or basic logic, and regularly come out with things such as, "OK then, so explain why if there are humans then we still have monkeys, you can't, hah, God and I win again! Fuck your "evolution!"

There is literally nothing you can do to argue with someone who serenely states that the evidence and data in front of them is not real and that they believe the narrative of a 2,000 year old tribal myth put together by vicious barbarians in order to justify the genocide they were carrying out in that region at the time.

Religionists can believe whatever they want, so long as their beliefs do not cause harm, hardship or suffering to others. When this happens then the belief systems underlying their negative actions must be treated as an illness and these people should be removed of any influence and power invested in them.

I don't believe in God, not just because there is no evidence to justify a belief in God but for two other main reasons;

1) The people that most vociferously claim that they are doing God's will are generally downright nasty bastards that will definitely be waiting behind until that camel passes through the eye of a needle before they get into heaven - see Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens, Jihadists, Evangelical Snake Oil preachers, The pedophiles in the Catholic Church, the Crusaders etc etc.

2) There is literally no point in giving God any credit for the good things we see about us unless blame is also apportioned to the all seeing, all powerful being for the bad shit too.  In which case, fuck God in all his incarnations. What a capricious, jealous and immature little prick that guy must be.

The universe, reality, is an awesome place full of majesty, wonder and mystery that we are only just starting to understand clearly. And it might well be that our current understanding is a dead end and in 40 years some new scientific or mathematical apparatus will give us a much clearer picture of how we came to be here and what makes everything tick.  That's how science works - it uses the best tools available at the time to improve our understanding of reality and also improve our existence within it - it is entirely down to science that we are having this conversation now, if it was left up to God then we would still be living in caves or wandering the savannah totally at risk to the elements, disease and predators.

I see that the kitchen camera has been moved down to a much better position. This camera is now the best place to view Leora's sexy times!

16 hours ago, Voyeur House TV said:

VHTV turns 1 year old today. 

Expect news and newsletters later :)

It's obvious that you have put a lot of hard work in behind the scenes whilst making sure to always listen to your subscribers.  An excellent achievement within a year, warm congratulations on your success, well done!

34 minutes ago, robur said:

How are we supposed to know that at all? 
Even if someone here claims to be her (or anyone else from RLC), how are we supposed to know that it's really that person? Have you ever met any one of them?

Anyone that's been around for a while knows that she reads the forums. Indeed it must of been only 5/6 weeks ago that she was here and participating.  That account is now deleted but I'm sure the messages still remain.  And the question is, why did she delete her account after such a short while?  The answer is pretty obvious really.

We're aware that plenty of tenants know about and read the forums, some even participate from time to time.  I'm sure that plenty more tenants would participate (which would be to the benefit of we subscribers, as well as CC and RLC's relationship), IF the mods didn't allow the RLC forums to be such a toxic wasteland of shitposts, irrelevance and specifically spiteful opinions.  Say what you want about or to me I can take it, but a line should be drawn and enforced when comments that are designed to upset the tenants and actually discourage them from participating are not moderated.

Pff, this has all been said before. I remember quite a while back one or two mods were actually posting about how shit it's become.  This is all I've got to say about this particular episode as nothing's gonna change.

9 hours ago, tripod2 said:

His comment was spot on.  Don't be so sensitive.  BTW...she's not a young girl, she's a woman; that makes you sound creepy.

She's early 20s. Young women is more correct yes.  Thanks for weighing in though, really valuable contribution from you coming out on the side of the body shamers.  Good for you bud.

2 minutes ago, HarleyFatboy said:

Maturin,  I'm done and thanks for the compliment!!

Excellent. Here's hoping you hold yourself to higher standards in future.  Have a good day.