GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

mikesouth · 07-25-2006, 08:51 PM

Q

while I appreciate your response, you are still missing the point, at least to some degree...

While a broad interpretation of the FSC arguments MIGHT include the shifting of the burden of proof that is not specifically mentioned ANYWHERE, nor have they asked for an injunction based on that premise (which in my mind would be very sound argument for suspending the 2257 persecutions...and yes I meant persecutions)

Secondly nowhere does the FSC warn that primary producers are not exempted, fact is the press releases have ALL been written to at least suggest that ALL FSC members would be exempted, this is misleading to say the least.

I simply do not believe that the FSC is doing the best job it can in dealing with this legal issue. Matter of fact I thihnk that the job it is doing is piss poor.

07-25-2006, 08:51 PM
mikesouth Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: My High Horse Posts: 6,334	Q while I appreciate your response, you are still missing the point, at least to some degree... While a broad interpretation of the FSC arguments MIGHT include the shifting of the burden of proof that is not specifically mentioned ANYWHERE, nor have they asked for an injunction based on that premise (which in my mind would be very sound argument for suspending the 2257 persecutions...and yes I meant persecutions) Secondly nowhere does the FSC warn that primary producers are not exempted, fact is the press releases have ALL been written to at least suggest that ALL FSC members would be exempted, this is misleading to say the least. I simply do not believe that the FSC is doing the best job it can in dealing with this legal issue. Matter of fact I thihnk that the job it is doing is piss poor. __________________ Mike South It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.