• 0 Comments

Motley Crue Baltimore 2009 “Home sweet Home”

• 0 Comments

Just like Anna Nicole Smith, With Michael Jackson this will be an on going investigation of what and how he actually died.

There are reports that Debbie Rowe frequently injected Michael Jackson with drugs while she worked for Jackson’s dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein.

The law enforcement documents from the 2005 molestation trial. Included in the records is an affidavit from a Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s deputy who served a search warrant on Dr. Klein in 1993 to obtain Jackson’s medical records during the first molestation investigation.
In the affidavit, the deputy writes, in August 1993, “…Ms. Rowe observed the back of Jackson’s body while she gave him massages to help him sleep. Ms. Rowe also observed Jackson’s buttocks on numerous occasions when she gave him injections prior to acne treatments.”
The affidavit does not specify the type of drug Rowe administered. As we reported, Jackson sought out anesthesia and other sedatives for even minor procedures, including acne treatment.

So was Debbie Rowe still injecting Michael Jackson or not?

• 0 Comments

Only in United States can you sue someone for just about anything and everything!

Maxim hottie Monica Hansen can actually put a price on how much her breasts are worth — a little over half a mil.

Hansen sued a plastic surgeon earlier this year because, she claimed, he used her picture on his website — without her permission — to promote his work.

This week she was awarded a $564,555 default judgment. It is unclear if she got a boob job from the plastic surgeon, but take one look and that will answer your awaitign questions answers.

Well for one thing, it has created soem media play for her and surely her website will benefit from the free advertising. Way to go Monica!!! Whoo Hoo!

visit www.monicahansen.com and tell her we sent you!

• 0 Comments

Recently, I received an offer for Pay Per Play advertising. If you haven’t heard of it, in a nutshell it is a 5 second audio commercial that will play each time a visitor hits your site. You will get paid for every visitor to your website, 100% conversion with nothing to do and nothing to click. To me, this concept is huge. TV and Radio have been doing this to us for years, whether or not we want to hear an advertisement, it is presented to us. The big corporate giants have been branding themselves this way on TV and radio for a millennium. Sure you can change the channel to avoid an advertisement, but; you have already heard the sponsors message. I get up and leave the room when the commercial stretch comes on during a program I’m watching. I have commented to my wife on numerous occasions that there are way too commercials during my favorite shows.

Pay Per Play is different though; it’s a one shot, 5 second clip. It’s here and then it’s gone. It doesn’t play over and over and there is never more than one. If a major advertiser wants to throw me a few pennies to say their name on my website, more power to them. To me, it’s all upside for the website owner; or so I thought.

I went to the site and read everything I could find and my conclusion at the end of my research was favorable. Then I did a search on Pay Per Play on the search engines. What was a solid decision in the beginning became a bit unsteady; but for me, I believe the scale still tips toward Pay Per Play being a good addition to a website.

I found that across the web, Pay Per Play is being met with mixed emotions. Pay Per Play is not scheduled to go live until February 1st, 2008 so everything is speculation about it’s debut and further it’s efficacy to publishers and advertisers alike. Some believe Pay Per Play will rival Google AdSense for revenue to it’s publishers. Others are not so sure, in fact many netizens have come right out against such an unwanted intrusion and vowed to immediately leave a website if such an audio message is played over their speakers.

I also found that there is some dirt being thrown about the company that has brought the concept to market. To mention them here is not appropriate; but due diligence is warranted if you think Pay Per Play is a good opportunity for your sites. As with any new opportunity, the people that come to the table have histories of successful and not so successful ventures and there seems to be some bad blood regarding a previous affiliate program. If I were being asked to lay down a large amount of cash here, I might have some reservations and be inclined to do more research before moving forward. With Pay Per Play as it is, there is no upfront cost, so to me the company and the players will start with a clean slate; but I will keep a keen eye to make sure everything stays on the up and up.

This opportunity seems to be profound. I have often compared the internet to the California Gold Rush in the 1800’s. Many, many affiliate marketers that were lucky enough to get in before the Dot Com crash had the opportunity to mine the easy gold and make huge piles of cash with not a lot of effort. Fast forward to today and the rest of us show up and find there is real money still left to be made; but it will require rolling up our sleeves and working harder and smarter to find the gold. Ahh and be ever cautious of the fools gold! In the gold rush days, many a fortune were lost on Fools Gold.

So that begs the question, is Pay Per Play a new found gold mine or is it fools gold? Will it rival Google AdSense? The jury is still out on the answer; but somebody, somewhere will stumble onto the next big internet wave.

• 0 Comments

Some of us reading this may not realize that before email, there was just the United State Post Office delivering our precious mail through rain, sleet, snow and dogs with bad attitudes. And even if it took them 50 years (yep, it really happened) they would deliver you’re mail to whomever was still alive by then. Well, the post office still delivers mail, but now we have options … yes, I’m talking about email, which has revolutionized the way we send and receive mail.

Lets look at the differences between old and new …

1. Stamps
No need for those with email of course. If you’ve ever tried to mail several letters, you probably remember the awful taste of the stamps (does anybody remember those special flavor stamps like “Beef Stew”?) and the envelopes. Nor do you any longer suffer through those nasty little tongue paper cuts from the envelopes. Plus, if you needed more than a couple of stamps, you got them in rolls. Take the first stamp off and *Boing* … a string of stamps! Much worse than map folding.

2. Spam
Well, there isn’t much improvement there. Even during snail mail’s heyday there was spam. In fact, my parents used to send me to the mailbox and sort out the Sears, Magazine offers, JC Penny’s and other spam from the regular mail. I was kinda like a homemade “Spam” filter and all the ads were thrown in the garbage … Mostly .. there may have been a few that found their way into my room.

3. Composing a Letter
Before email we had to write out our letters with a pen or pencil and several pieces of paper. Ever had a pen leak all over you’re fingers and the letter? And it always seemed to happen when you were just about finished. That was about the worse thing that could happen, except for the deep grooves in you’re fingers from clenching the pencil for a few hours. Now we can type our letter out and correct them with out the steaked eraser marks and correction fluid (unless you use it on you’re monitor screen), and the worse thing is getting carpel tunnel or frustrated trying to find the right keys.

4. Speed of Delivery
As a kid, I had to write a letter, lick the stamp and envelope, apply a return address label, run out to the mailbox, and the letter would sit there until the mailman (later “Femailman”) picked it up in the afternoon. Then I got to anticipate a return letter for days,
weeks or even months! This may have been a good thing to teach patience, but it sucked later when I needed my Income Tax Return. Now I compose my letter, and send it to the recipient who can read it at his/her leisure almost instantly.

It is obvious to me that email is far superior to snailmail in many different ways .. but one thing still hasn’t changed … you can send your email really fast, but you can STILL wait day, weeks or even months for a reply!

• 0 Comments