:)

Agreed. By comparing the links, I felt as confused as he did, at first. Until Fletch pointed out the last 2 pics RAM used had the guy simulating strangling. That was the major differnce in the galleries.
Anyway, I'm glad that RAM got the answer he needed, and also that it gave us all some pointers to be aware of. So everybody wins :thumbsup

Thanks

Gawd.... just fix the damn thing and resubmit it. dont bitch. holy shit, rotflmfao

Nice...that could be a new niche

He just was wondering what he had to fix. You saw no reason for his confusion?

Like I said all the BS that goes with posting on a Board.

There's BS on this board? Hmmm...that's probably where I keep going wrong then. :)

This he told you? What about the animalsex banner on his page?

It's always so much easier to post in a thread if you have half an idea of the stuff posted before.

I'm curious if there's any HUN bookmarkers that see that dog gallery and close the browser in disgust and never go back?
Yep, she's obviously willing (with one very happy dog!) but man oh man... yuk. Takes all kinds... but all species, too?

Cause I'm just telling you how US Attorney's work Rambo. Take advice or ignore it, it doesn't matter a bit to me and I could care less if you get your ass nailed. I'm just telling you straight up cause for example we ran full page ads in Hustler and were highly visible, and one day we got a knock on our door from a State Attorney General on obscenity bs and our content was mild compared to what's out now. We worked out a deal and settled with them and had to shut down that operation as part of the agreement and the prosecution they were threatening us with was thrown out, but we we're looking at $75,000 per day fines for every day we we're operating and other serious obscene distribution crap. The legal bill alone to handle it was more than most people here make in a year.

So have a good day and just think about what you're peddling.

are you paying? if not i think you should know the answer to your question.

The key words in your reply are:
We worked out a deal and settled with them and had to shut down that operation as part of the agreement and the prosecution they were threatening us with was thrown out,


THROWN out...I like that part.

Anyway thanks for pointing all this out. I'm not the owner just work here.

Read the Post.....or better yet let me put it like this.

No Ass Monkey I'm not paying I just thought I would come here to see if you would ask me a question like that.

Well luckily it was the Pennsylvania AG's office and we had a politically connected law firm that handled it for us. I know the pricks picked us cause we were buying the "you can't miss it" inside cover spots and I knew in my gut that was sticking our necks too high up in the water and we'd be targeted. And sure enough we got the knock knock. But luckily it pays to have good attorneys that make all the right political contributions to the right people to get bullshit like this handled and I was just a partner / investor in that operation, so it wasn't all on my shoulders. When I saw the $75,000 fines per day part I said you got to be kidding me, who made up that obscene amount.

But how many movies have scenes of strangling, or murder, or extreme violence. No one seems to bother to raise even an eyebrow at it, but if you post digital stills of a fantasy scene acted-out like that, then everyone starts talking like it's so horrible.


Something is wrong when we do that.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh
:thumbsup

Let me explain something.

Main Entry: <b>1act·ing </b>
Pronunciation: 'ak-ti[ng]
Function: noun
Date: 1664
: <i>the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras </i>


How it works is, models and actors are paid, they sign release forms, and they VOLUNTARILY pose and act out scenes of nudity, fantasy, sexuality, and sometimes horror and horrific violence.

It is make-believe. Acted-out. Play-acted....... NOT REAL. Hello?

If it is advertised as fantasy, there should be nothing wrong with it at all. If everyone held your standards, then there would be no action movies, no "Terminator" movies where Sara Connor is brutalized and her female roomates killed, there would be no "Friday the 13th part 217", there would be no movie or TV violence allowed. If someone appears as though they're about to sneeze on somone the screen would go black.


Why is this type of acting okay for TV and movies but NOT okay for a website?


Just think about it a bit more. Your standard is admirable, but it is slightly out of whack. Why not filter out the REAL violence and allow anything that is clearly promoted as fantasy-only?