MM on the news ?

MM on the news ?

18 posts
7 Dec 2013
Iconic
Photographer
Iconic
Posted 7 Dec 2013
Edited by WebModerator 7 Dec 2013
theperfectgentleman
Photographer
theperfectge..
I do wish that you would read the article properly, and the comments.
In my opinion it was proved that it was written by a idiot reporter on a slow day and included so many inaccuracies to make it more leaky than a colander.
By highlighting this you demine the industry, have you never heard of the rule.
Never knock the industry you are in as you are knocking your living and it will come back to bite you.
So knocking a different web site brings discredit to the site you are on.

Posted 7 Dec 2013
EdT
Photographer
EdT
theperfectgentleman
I do wish that you would read the article properly, and the comments. In my opinion it was proved that it was written by a idiot reporter on a slow day and included so many inaccuracies to make it more leaky than a colander. By highlighting this you demine the industry, have you never heard of the rule. Never knock the industry you are in as you are knocking your living and it will come back to bite you. So knocking a different web site brings discredit to the site you are on.
Can you provide us the proof that it was "written by a idiot reporter on a slow day and included so many inaccuracies to make it more leaky than a colander" please. You are suggesting that even if it is true that girls have been kidnapped/raped/molested whatever, the rule says we should just accept it and say nothing because it might bring discredit to this site. What a gentleman!!!!!!!
Posted 7 Dec 2013
theperfectgentleman
Photographer
theperfectge..
First I don't get personal to make a point, it dilutes your argument.
If you had read and understood the article you would have realised that it was a load of rubbish, it was full of contradictions, and it even stated that it had been before the state legislature and been thrown out, as unreliable and not justified.
Is the state legislature sufficient a large enough organisation to justify my colander comment?.
I also understand that the employers have taken action against the small minded twerp that put the article together.
Just for your information this all broke over six months ago and MM have been vindicated and the courts have judged there was no case to answer, but the so called reliable sources and organisations were of extremely dubious reliability.
I do believe that models should be given every protection, some times from their selves as they are human and in the majority of the cases young women.
But shouldn’t have their judgement clouded by scaremongers and idiots.
By attacking MM they were indirectly attacking all model web sites, you should be defending them against those who advocate closing all of them down.
But For ch***t sake stop knocking your industry, for your own ego.
If you don't like it and feel that you must knock model websites, then why are you on the site?


Posted 7 Dec 2013
SandyCamel
Photographer
SandyCamel
theperfectgentleman

First I don't get personal to make a point, it dilutes your argument. If you had read and understood the article you would have realised that it was a load of rubbish, it was full of contradictions, and it even stated that it had been before the state legislature and been thrown out, as unreliable and not justified. Is the state legislature sufficient a large enough organisation to justify my colander comment?. I also understand that the employers have taken action against the small minded twerp that put the article together. Just for your information this all broke over six months ago and MM have been vindicated and the courts have judged there was no case to answer, but the so called reliable sources and organisations were of extremely dubious reliability. I do believe that models should be given every protection, some times from their selves as they are human and in the majority of the cases young women. But shouldn’t have their judgement clouded by scaremongers and idiots. By attacking MM they were indirectly attacking all model web sites, you should be defending them against those who advocate closing all of them down. But For ch***t sake stop knocking your industry, for your own ego. If you don't like it and feel that you must knock model websites, then why are you on the site?




Just as a matter of interest, I wonder, how / why did you choose your Pure-storm profile name ?


Sorry if this is too off topic / thread ...


Posted 7 Dec 2013
Edited by SandyCamel 7 Dec 2013
frankpht
Photographer
frankpht
theperfectgentleman

First I don't get personal to make a point, it dilutes your argument. If you had read and understood the article you would have realised that it was a load of rubbish, it was full of contradictions, and it even stated that it had been before the state legislature and been thrown out, as unreliable and not justified. Is the state legislature sufficient a large enough organisation to justify my colander comment?. I also understand that the employers have taken action against the small minded twerp that put the article together. Just for your information this all broke over six months ago and MM have been vindicated and the courts have judged there was no case to answer, but the so called reliable sources and organisations were of extremely dubious reliability. I do believe that models should be given every protection, some times from their selves as they are human and in the majority of the cases young women. But shouldn’t have their judgement clouded by scaremongers and idiots. By attacking MM they were indirectly attacking all model web sites, you should be defending them against those who advocate closing all of them down. But For ch***t sake stop knocking your industry, for your own ego. If you don't like it and feel that you must knock model websites, then why are you on the site?



Hear hear and well said. 
Posted 7 Dec 2013
EdT
Photographer
EdT
theperfectgentleman
First I don't get personal to make a point, it dilutes your argument. If you had read and understood the article you would have realised that it was a load of rubbish, it was full of contradictions, and it even stated that it had been before the state legislature and been thrown out, as unreliable and not justified. Is the state legislature sufficient a large enough organisation to justify my colander comment?. I also understand that the employers have taken action against the small minded twerp that put the article together. Just for your information this all broke over six months ago and MM have been vindicated and the courts have judged there was no case to answer, but the so called reliable sources and organisations were of extremely dubious reliability. I do believe that models should be given every protection, some times from their selves as they are human and in the majority of the cases young women. But shouldn’t have their judgement clouded by scaremongers and idiots. By attacking MM they were indirectly attacking all model web sites, you should be defending them against those who advocate closing all of them down. But For ch***t sake stop knocking your industry, for your own ego. If you don't like it and feel that you must knock model websites, then why are you on the site?
Whilst the culpability of Model Mayhem may be in question, the events described have not been disputed. My point is that all modelling sites must do the utmost to protect their members. Removing undesirable members is a necessity. I certainly don't subscribe to the "rule" that you don't knock one site because it might have a bad effect on the industry.
Posted 7 Dec 2013
Amber6
Model
Amber6
It is sensationalism to to sell a story. How many people use Facebook/ebay/gumtree and get in trouble?  MM just happens to be a modelling site.

Posted 7 Dec 2013
Edited by Amber6 7 Dec 2013
theperfectgentleman
Photographer
theperfectge..
SandyCamel

Just as a matter of interest, I wonder, how / why did you choose your Pure-storm profile name ?


Sorry if this is too off topic / thread ...




I had shoot with a number of models who were in contact with each other, and it was sugested that I joined Purestorm.
I didn't know what username to use so I used what they sugested.
Posted 7 Dec 2013
Edited by theperfectgentleman 7 Dec 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
SandyCamel

Just as a matter of interest, I wonder, how / why did you choose your Pure-storm profile name ?


Sorry if this is too off topic / thread ...




Judging by past posts I'd have suggested there's more than just a little irony to his username laugh
Posted 8 Dec 2013
Iconic
Photographer
Iconic
i posted to add a bit of conversation to the forum as it seems so quiet lately - calm down :/

Posted 9 Dec 2013
Rawandthecooked
Photographer
Rawandthecoo..
Er, there is a solution to quiet forums ( some would say it's me!) and I would say it's this. All you have to do is question the validity/value of things like, Vogue Italia, FPI, SWPP, BIPP membership (insert body of your choice)

Also, the use of out of date polaroid, badly shot, scratchy analogue, holga's, lensbabys, and any other medium beloved by the cool crowd/ creatives. That creates vitriol and forum activity like you wouldn't believe. You watch this thread take off as soon as i post this…….






RATC Pissing off pure storm since dec 2013.Longer on other sites.
Posted 9 Dec 2013
Edited by WebModerator 9 Dec 2013
magpie1
Photographer
magpie1
Rawandthecooked

[Er, there is a solution to quiet forums ( some would say it's me!) and I would say it's this. All you have to do is question the validity/value of things like, Vogue Italia, FPI, SWPP, BIPP membership (insert body of your choice)

Also, the use of out of date polaroid, badly shot, scratchy analogue, holga's, lensbabys, and any other medium beloved by the cool crowd/ creatives. That creates vitriol and forum activity like you wouldn't believe. You watch this thread take off as soon as i post this…….

RATC Pissing off pure storm since dec 2013.Longer on other sites.]

Or people might just yawn.

Posted 9 Dec 2013
Edited by WebModerator 9 Dec 2013
Rawandthecooked
Photographer
Rawandthecoo..
Ah well, good to see pure storm is populated by the jaded! Much easier to be controversial elsewhere!

Posted 9 Dec 2013
mph
Photographer
mph
What do you reckon to chaperones - and should inexperienced models charge or work TF?

Posted 9 Dec 2013
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join