<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: TerrysPlace.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://awfulporn.com/2005/01/30/terrysplacecom/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://awfulporn.com/2005/01/30/terrysplacecom/</link>
	<description>A public service to keep good people from spending money on bad porn.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 13:09:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan</title>
		<link>http://awfulporn.com/2005/01/30/terrysplacecom/comment-page-1/#comment-916</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2010 02:53:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://awfulporn.com/site/?p=24#comment-916</guid>
		<description>Ok keep in mind Terrysplace.com was a 1990s site. Terry&#039;s late husband started the site and it was actually pretty cool for a 1990&#039;s era site. What happened was:
1. Her husband passed away.
2. She stopped doing new content with new graphics and higher quality digital images as became available in the 2000&#039;s.

For a 1990&#039;s &quot;amateur&quot; site it wasn&#039;t bad. You are right that it wasn&#039;t really updated much and in fairness should not have been accepting new members or made such claims like the &quot;90%&quot; claim.  

But it was a nice site for its day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok keep in mind Terrysplace.com was a 1990s site. Terry&#8217;s late husband started the site and it was actually pretty cool for a 1990&#8242;s era site. What happened was:<br />
1. Her husband passed away.<br />
2. She stopped doing new content with new graphics and higher quality digital images as became available in the 2000&#8242;s.</p>
<p>For a 1990&#8242;s &#8220;amateur&#8221; site it wasn&#8217;t bad. You are right that it wasn&#8217;t really updated much and in fairness should not have been accepting new members or made such claims like the &#8220;90%&#8221; claim.  </p>
<p>But it was a nice site for its day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

