Because you inferred that I frequented groups in which child porn was regularly posted, but unlike you, I didn't.

Please learn to read. I said that the majority of adult webmasters here make money from hardcore pornography involving girls aged 18 and above, as I suspect, you do as well.

It would not surprise me at all if 90% of my fellow pornographers here are like you and scream and shout at the thought that a few years ago it was legal for British, French, German, Russian photographers to take naked photos of 17 year old girls.

There are a lot of people here like that, and it absolutely nauseates me. Hypocrisy fucking nauseates me. And when someone like you does it so obviously, I'm going to point it out.

You're asking me to repeat myself again? It would save time if you learned to read. Your idea that people who make money from videos of dumb 18 year old coke addicts being taken up the ass should have a problem with Russian photographers taking tasteful pics of smiling nude 17 year old girls when IT WAS FUCKING LEGAL NEARLY EVERYWHERE OUTSIDE OF THE USA BACK WHEN THEY DID IT.


Do you think people can't just scroll back a few posts in this thread to where you ranted that a lot of the people on this board thought taking pics of 17 year old girls was o.k. ten years ago 'just because it was legal'. Do you expect people to have a time machine and to be able to see what the laws will be like in 2011? Or should everybody just follow American law?

I'm not making any false accusations. You claimed to know that the child porn (by your God like definition, whether or not it was legal at the time) of one or two companies was being regularly posted on Usenet, and you then stated that you know this because you were a subscriber to usenet. In other words, you stated that you saw these images regularly being posted to whatever groups you were subscribed to. That's the only way to make sense of what you yourself said.

WTF? You stated that the predecessor of met-art (and another company) were spamming usenet with 'kiddie porn' back in the 90's. You stated that before I posted in this thread.
Again, how did your experience of using Usenet enable you to know that child porn (of a particular company) was being posted there?

No, you're the one who started throwing dirt at people, 'accusing' LOTS of members of this board of doing things which were quite legal back then (for Europeans at least), when it's clear that you were participating in something that was a hotbed of illegal activity (then and now).

I'm not condoning taking pics, or even looking at pics, of 16 year old girls NOW THAT IT'S ILLEGAL. But it was legal back then - you can't judge people a decade ago by the standards of today.

It's witchfinder assholes like you who allow governments to pass legislation that makes our lives impossible. Makes people scared to speak out against, for example, attempts to ban 'virtual cp' under absurdly broad definitions (i.e. 20 year old women with below average size breasts), lest they be seen as 'defending child porn'. And when it's people like you who make a living from porn, and who then admit to frequenting the infamous usenet and being 'spammed' with child porn, then yea, I'm going to fucking speak out.

I honestly couldn't give a fuck if I'm banned. There are probably about 5 good and intelligent people on this board whose advice is worth listening to. I've probably wasted far too much time and given too much free advice to dumb losers like you here already.

Maybe a better example, wasn't he taking nude photos of families?

.

In short: Met-Art converts.

Expanded Summary: As long as they comply with 2257 regs, fuck what anyone else thinks, projects or otherwise has a complaint about.

The End.

Met-Art is 100% legit

yeah....

No, I said: "you don't have a clue how Usenet works". The only thing you can infer from that is that I think you don't know how Usenet works. The fact that you made such a big deal of denying something I hadn't even said is telling. Particularly when your correct use of Usenet terminology like "subscribe" and "groups" makes it totally obvious you have used Usenet.

Selling pics of naked underage girls = fine; objecting to that = nauseating. Okay. Good to know where you stand.

Ahh. So it's CP when it's spammed to Usenet, but it's "tasteful pics of smiling nude 17 year olds" when you fap to it? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Who said the pics were illegal under US law? Not me.

Stop basing your opinion of Usenet on whatever it is you got up to that is so bad you have to actually deny ever having used it.

Simply due to Chans alone, there is undoubtedly far more "illegal activity" occurring on the Web than Usenet. Are you now going to claim you've never used the Web too? :1orglaugh You fucking dipshit.

Laws preventing minors appearing in pornography make your life impossible do they? Exactly what kind of fucked-up sordid life do you lead then?

It's actually scumbags like you, who will try and justify anything to make a buck, who give the porn industry a bad name and give ammunition to people who want to shut it down.

You remind me of people who show up complaining about their site being punished in some way by Google/billing system/host. Sounds like a raw deal, till you dig deeper and see their site was riddled with "lolita" keywords and/or pics. They also try and justify it by saying they live in some shithole backwater of Europe with no laws, where the age of consent is about 12, and complain about how unfair life is, and how it's all America's fault. Aww.

Repeating a lie won't make it true you know. As you're obviously a total crackpot, here's a quick education:

Millions of people worldwide have used Usenet and still do, including many people here. The fact that you know the terminology of Usenet makes it transparently obvious you've used it too. Almost everyone who was online in the 90s was on Usenet. It was the internet before the web existed and until the mid/late 90s it was more popular than the Web. It was in fact where Tim Berners-Lee announced the Web, as well as where Linus Torvalds announced Linux. Even Weird Al was there. Some "hotbed of illegal activity". :1orglaugh

I have never met anyone before who thinks Usenet is "infamous" for CP. It's a totally bizarre idea to anyone who knows anything about it, and if I Google 'Usenet' I see no indication of this 'infamy'. So I have to wonder, particularly given your defense of underage pics here, what exactly you did on Usenet that makes you think that it's a "hotbed of illegal activity", and why you feel you have to deny using something so widely used by the greats of the computer industry.

As to spam, do you seriously think spammers spend hours trawling though 100,000 newsgroups, picking out the handful that are most relevant to their spam, and carefully send messages to each group individually, one at a time? Rather than, say, writing one message and spewing it out to thousands of groups alphabetically, about 50 newsgroups at a time?

:1orglaugh

Seriously. You are so clueless, or pretending to be, this has to be a joke.