She is just part of the problem not part of any reasonable solution ...

What part was spin?

What "problem" is she part of?

My opinion: you won't get anywhere with her talking like that either :2 cents:

"how the public associates adult entertainment with child porn and noted that studies show about 90 percent of the material originates from sources such as organized crime" - Most average people do not associate porn with cp, just religious or right wing types.

"The industry has every reason to want to self-regulate, support child protection and reinforce its distance from illegal activity" - The industry including the ASACP where Joan last worked already does that.

Selective statements used to support her agenda of .xxx promotion.

Already does it or tries to do it? I suggest the latter. The one thing ICM has that ASACP does not is money. Lots and lots of money. To suggest that people do not think the adult industry is responsible for CP is being naive. To think that we can not use all the help we can get in that field is inane. The industry may have every reason to want to self-regulate does not mean that we do. I can not think of any self-regulation in this biz. Can you?

That bitch is nothing more than a leech in this industry.

Lloyd, remember our conversation in the lobby that night? i think that article is proof enough that this topic wasn't dropped

“A lot of it is so people can feel more comfortable. A lot of people were getting scared to go to adult sites, afraid there’d be child pornography and viruses.”

That is why pornhub is the 70th largest site in the world according to Alexa and no mention of any virus or cp in the reviews:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pornhub.com

Site ranked #50 in the world by Alexa is LiveJasmin, people complain about lots of details like their use of popunder promotion, customer service etc. Not one mention of viruses or cp:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/livejasmin.com

I am not sure which "topic" you are referring to, however, I am not basing my ideas on what some reporter from the Irish Times wrote.

i am referring to child protection as selling point

This is what buying .xxx domain names is like...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6cJAVhcBMk...own-toilet.jpg

And that is why the "smackdown" between Dumas and Hymes; and the "debate" between Lawley and Duke were a complete and total waste of time. More bullshit from both sides with no information provided. That was a couple hours [between the two shows] that would have been better spent in a coffeeshop or pub. :2 cents:

With all due respect, you really expect the cp to be shown on a tour or something? And I am not implying anything with regards to LiveJasmine. To expect that the leading sites in the world are where cp in located is silly. Apparently you are unfamiliar with how criminals get their stuff out there, which is okay. You probably have no reason to know that.

Does Baddog support .xxx and ICM?

It's important to read between the lines.

It's really simple... the industry needs to distance itself from Joan at every opportunity. She's exactly the kind of person we do NOT need claiming to represent us. My opinion of Joan is that she likes manipulating people and situations, is not a genuine person, and is in love with the idea of wielding power -- political or otherwise -- from behind the scenes. A perfect fit for ICM Registry and the whole .XXX debacle.

In all my time watching her with ASACP, I never saw anything whatsoever that lead me to believe she had any respect for our industry or for most of the people who work in this industry. In fact, seemed to me often to be just the opposite.

Problem is... it's hard for good people to accept that the friendly, smiling face they see in Joan at shows is something to scorn. I understand that, I really do. But at SOME point, we have to stop letting the leeches and manipulators sit at our tables and pretend to be our friends. If for no other reason than the self respect that comes from not allowing oneself to be a patsy.

Mark, nobody wants to "talk" with Joan and "explain" things because she isn't some person who's trying to make up her mind on something, or someone who can be influenced, convinced or swayed. All that would accomplish is a helping of spin and bullshit. Joan knows what she's doing. She understands the .XXX issue, but has decided to be on THAT team anyway, knowing that it puts her at odds with something like 95% of the industry.

Excellent post :thumbsup

That's not at all what I said, and what does being Canadian have to do with it?

You said in your post that you would tell her to "Shut the fuck up to her face".

In my post, I said that the whole .xxx thing is still confusing to me. I don't really know if its a good thing, a bad thing, or a nothing.

In talking to a few people about it including those in and around asacp, I've learned that there are many many different opinions. Some of them, good and bad, seem totally valid. Others do not.

My point is that no matter what, .XXX is a pretty serious subject. You can agree or disagree with it all you want but if you want real answers from people like Joan you would be much better off approaching her politely and discussing it instead of telling anyone to Shut the Fuck up.

I've heard this argument a lot : ".XXX will be Mandatory", but I've never found the source. Can someone point me to a URL that says this?

Well said, Connor.

I'm writing off Mark, I wouldn't be surprised if he bought .XXX domains himself.

Hi Connor,

I know a couple of people who is exactly like the person you are describing, including a couple of moronic politicians (Michelle Bachman comes to mind).

I've only met Joan a couple of times and she seems to be just the opposite of what you are describing. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I don't see it. Do you have any examples of what she said or did to manipulate people or the adult industry towards .xxx?

Again I'm not trying to challenge you or anything like that. I'm only saying that my opinion of her as a person has been a good one so far.

She was always very nice to me and to the people at my company. She congratulated us when we won an Xbiz award and always had time to chat at each trade show I saw her at. Trust me I know people who have zero respect for adult - even from members of my own family - and I can see them a mile away.

Again, I really don't see it. She was good to us, and her good nature appeared 100% genuine, never asked for anything in return, and never hounded us to sponsor.

Is it possible that your opinion of Joan is wrong?

Mandatory .XXX Legislation Happened in 2006 in the US Senate
 

I was bitching about it before she even took the Job with ICM. There was so many connections (and bullshit) between her, ASACP, and ICM I think a blind man could see what was going on. The Johnny V bullshit was the worst.

Joan is a greedy fucking cunt that is only concerned with how much money she can stuff in her pockets, while hiding behind "protecting the children". She has been in bed with ICM for at least a couple years, like a whore playing both sides of the fence waiting to see which one she could make the most money from.

At ASACP she was paying herself around 200K a year, when they weren't taking in much more than 600K. Then she spent tons of money going to shows, traveling and advertising for the sole purpose of collecting more "donations". What have they ever been able to show that they did to protect kids. As ASACP's revenue started to decline she had to cut her salary, ICM got approval for .XXX so she made her move and jumped ships to the gig that would make her the most money.

Fuck that bitch she has never put the intentions of this industry nor kids first, just what she could do to make herself the most money. Fucking cunt. I can guarantee you from the second she got hired she has been lobbying to make .XXX mandatory.... you know to help protect the kids.

You don't need to be on the "council" to know where the money went. They are a "non profit" their tax returns are public record and I looked at them. Most of the money Joan paid herself or was spent on traveling, shows, and advertising. What she didn't pay herself she used to collect more "donations" so she could pay her self.

That bill that was introduced was in 2006. It's a dead issue. Premature ejaculation on ICM's part there.

This is all that needs to be read on mandating extensions as filtering mechanisms.

http://www.w3.org/2004/03/28-tld

Mark don't be stupid. I know you seem to have a secret hard on for Joan, not sure why. When you act like a whore, you deserve to be called a Cunt. What do you think sitting down and talking to her nicely will accomplish, some break through and she will see the light and stop this charade about protecting the kids? She is only in this for the money and whether you talk to her nicely or call her a cunt, it wont matter either way.


another one with a secret hardon for Joan and closet .xxx supporter.

bingo..... Connor just says it a lot nicer than I do. :thumbsup

LOL here is a good example of someone who met her only a couple times and got manipulated by her... you. :1orglaugh

Well if someone like Bachmann were to get elected I wouldn't be surprised to see them try to make .xxx mandatory one way or the other. I wonder how much ICM will be donating to her campaign and if Joan has meet with her yet.

So Will76, just because I describe a person as being nice, that makes me "stupid", "manipulated" and an automatic supporter of her cause? Sounds a little like prejudice to me.

As I already said, I'm only describing Joan as a nice person. I'm not stepping on anything you are saying (yet you are doing so to me). I'm only asking if anyone here has any proof of what a bad person people here are making her out to be.

And what action has been taken with the countries already willing to block?? Oh yeah sales ad's they put out sales ads..

Looks like some folks from those districts should be voting this scum out of office :2 cents:

My opinion: you won't get anywhere with talking to Joan Irvine, full stop.

She's in it to make money, she's a lawyer. Most will represent any scum who will pay their fees.

In fact there's little we can do except ignore .xxx, don't buy it.

The extension is legal. If Governments decide to block it, the very very very last people they will ask if it's OK, is us.

Sorry for the reality check, but it's still true.

I do have examples... PLENTY of examples... but I'd have to write a book to get through them all. I'd be happy to discuss these with you next time we're in the same place together though. I worked with Joan for a couple years on the FSC board, and have known her for close to a decade now.

I'm sure you can understand though that just because someone smiles and says nice things doesn't mean they're genuine in sentiment. You mentioned politicians, so I think you understand how that goes. I am a HUGE believer that actions speak a lot louder than words.

let me rephrase that: i would kindly ask her to stop spreading bullshit :2 cents:

and she surely is not the face that i want to represent me

I will take you at your word Conner. It certainly seems to me that you and Jay really have a calm handle on this situation. I consider you guys the experts on it. While plenty of people have lots to say about ICM/IFFOR and they are knowledgeable I think you guys have been professional about this throughout :thumbsup

Your post saying that he should sit down and talk to her nicely and she might consider what he has to say is what I thought was stupid, it had nothing to do with you meeting her. Talking to someone nicely isn't stupid, but that you think she would listen with an open mind as if she doesn't already know that what they doing. She knows she is running a con, hiding behind protecting the children, selling out the industry, and just trying to make as much money as she can. It's stupid for you to think that someone can call her out for this and she would see the light and change her ways.... if they talked to her nicely.

My comment that she manipulated you is accurate. You have the "he bought me drinks" syndrome that many people have on here. Just because you met the person a couple times and they seemed, nice, charming, said all the right things then those idiots online must have it all wrong because they don't know the person like you do. You have to defend her because the 10 minutes you talked to her she seemed like a nice genuine person. Problem is, she manipulated you and made you believe that she is a good person, to the point you can't look at the facts that all of us see which is sooo obvious that she is full of shit.

Democrats sponsored it? That has to be bullshit.

ummm, first I ever heard that. Where did you pick up that tidbit?

So give us two. One?

You and I had 10 days in the same place ... all you had to do was ask. ;) But we'll be in Las Vegas too for Internext, so if you or anyone else is genuinely interested, ask me there and I'll not only tell you, but show you how to independently verify what I say. I have no interest in trying to type a novel on GFY.

And... although you won't admit it, I think you know very well plenty of examples yourself. ;) This stuff isn't so hard to see, Baddog ... you just have to be WILLING to accept what you see.