Visa Bans Public Nudidty Transaction - GoFuckYourself.com

Stud Money · 09-20-2003, 02:30 PM

So what now?

Seems like Visa are slowly starting to dictate the types of sites we can / cant run.

Any alternative solutions or ways to navigate around this new ban?

ADL Colin · 09-20-2003, 02:31 PM

Link?

JamesK · 09-20-2003, 02:32 PM

that's seriously fucked up

TheSenator · 09-20-2003, 02:32 PM

link?

cali_22 · 09-20-2003, 02:32 PM

Stud Money · 09-20-2003, 02:33 PM

Quote:

As required by Visa USA, sites containing content depicting public nudity, nude beaches, nudist or nude camps may be in violation of minor protection laws, where proper 2257 compliance cannot be applied. In addition, no membership sites may contain user/member submitted pictures either via a picture post or message board that contains nudity or sexually explicit depictions.

Was actually posted on another forum by one of the PSW Billing sales people.

Stud Money · 09-20-2003, 02:37 PM

http://www.pswbilling.com/apply/aup.shtml?

Item '20' in that long list.

Veterans Day · 09-20-2003, 02:37 PM

I sale tranny Im all GOOD right ?

Matt 26z · 09-20-2003, 02:39 PM

Well there goes all the spring break websites.

I wonder if GirlsGoneWild.com is going to have THEIR processing pulled?

Stud Money · 09-20-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matt 26z
Well there goes all the spring break websites.

I wonder if GirlsGoneWild.com is going to have THEIR processing pulled?

If i were GGW i would be more worried about getting sent to visit bubba in jail than my transaction processor atm LMAO

KRL · 09-20-2003, 02:40 PM

Well if that is the case, about no user submitted sexual pics in a members area, AdultFriendFinder is going to have some major problems with their 10 Million members who mostly all use sex pics.

Veterans Day · 09-20-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
Well if that is the case, about no user submitted sexual pics in a members area, AdultFriendFinder is going to have some major problems with their 10 Million members who mostly all use sex pics.

In the prelim I think its geared towards the "shot on the beach at spring break type" but true AFF would be in a world of hurt. Not to mention all the other sites alike.

SGS · 09-20-2003, 02:43 PM

Interesting. Is it only PSW making a point of this so far?

Calvinguy · 09-20-2003, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SGS
Interesting. Is it only PSW making a point of this so far?

Ibill required 18 U.S.C. 2257 info on all clients sites some time ago. Maybe it was their way of dealing with it.

KaLi · 09-20-2003, 02:49 PM

"As required by Visa USA, sites containing content depicting public nudity, nude beaches, nudist or nude camps may be in violation of minor protection laws, where proper 2257 compliance cannot be applied. In addition, no membership sites may contain user/member submitted pictures either via a picture post or message board that contains nudity or sexually explicit depictions. Any and all content found on PSW Clients sites must be in compliance with Title 18, Chapter 10, Sec. 2257 which is federal law."

Mutt · 09-20-2003, 02:52 PM

wow when did that decree come down?

VoyeurWeb is huge and has 1000's of gigs of user submitted movies and pix.

Greg B · 09-20-2003, 02:54 PM

Hey Visa is only covering it's ass.

This country has turned into 'Lawsuit Land' where people too lazy to get a job spend all day hunting for ways to file a lawsuit.

Do you know how much trouble they can get into if some parent finds their kid in the background of a pic of some nude chick posted on an adult site?

Of course we say " So what? They saw the nude chick on the beach in the first place and didn't mind. "

But that ain't the case. VISA is just minimalizing it's liability window.

Sucks, but I'ld do the same.

Greg B · 09-20-2003, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mutt
wow when did that decree come down?

VoyeurWeb is huge and has 1000's of gigs of user submitted movies and pix.

Well I guess Igor and the gang there are gonna have to come up with something quick.

Knowing Igor, he's already got a way to work around it.

Stud Money · 09-20-2003, 03:12 PM

Yeah i can also understand the reasoning behind why they did it but how comes only one IPSP has this info on their site to date?

I looked at ccbill, ibill and epoch and couldnt see this inf on their AUP or TOS links anywhere.

~Ray · 09-20-2003, 03:26 PM

Visa is saying that "public nudity" MAY be in offense of the CHILD Protection Act... if you don't have any kids in your videos... it will be approved. If you have kids in your videos.... you are just sick.

~Ray

P.S. If you show girls on the beach that look too young... you will need to prove to Visa that they are of legal age.

digifan · 09-20-2003, 03:28 PM

And it is understandable from their POV I think.. not that this will cheer us up.

Probono · 09-20-2003, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KaLi
"As required by Visa USA, sites containing content depicting public nudity, nude beaches, nudist or nude camps may be in violation of minor protection laws, where proper 2257 compliance cannot be applied. In addition, no membership sites may contain user/member submitted pictures either via a picture post or message board that contains nudity or sexually explicit depictions. Any and all content found on PSW Clients sites must be in compliance with Title 18, Chapter 10, Sec. 2257 which is federal law."

18 uSC 2257 does not cover nudity, only sexual acts. I would want to see a primary source on this info before I made any changes.

Stud Money · 09-20-2003, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Probono
18 uSC 2257 does not cover nudity, only sexual acts. I would want to see a primary source on this info before I made any changes.

This is true however, given the new wave of reality based pornography do you not think there may be more wide scale plans to somewhat reform the definitions of this act?

Would at least seem like a viable option by the government to somehow pave the way for the ever evolving internet model.

Also, by reforming some of these definitions, sites like those sick fake cp (understand that term is being used very loosly) could also be incorporated intot he public nudity reform if any such thing did happen.

it just looks like the more we do to ocmply with rules and regulations that we get given as a whole, the more things are thrown at us to hinder out business model.

TheJimmy · 09-20-2003, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Probono

18 uSC 2257 does not cover nudity, only sexual acts. I would want to see a primary source on this info before I made any changes.

what Probono said...

also, I think as long as the content is done in a ''documentary/newsworthy' type of layout it would be safer

now if you had the content mixed in with 200 feeds of cock-gobllins, anal-gape, etc....maybe not so much...

but who knows, this shit is changing all the time and the people with the most flexibility will survive...as is the case in any biz...

lexr · 09-20-2003, 11:50 PM

I love conservative moralists.

Mr.Fiction · 09-20-2003, 11:54 PM

I won't believe it unless Kimmy posts on this thread.

Niki · 09-21-2003, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
I won't believe it unless Kimmy posts on this thread.

StacyCat · 09-21-2003, 12:46 AM

So, what if you show 2257 information (though its not required) for everyone in the videos? Im sure we can get enough people together for a "public" shoot that still complies.

But, 2257 doesnt apply to a lot of non sexual porn.

TheJimmy · 09-21-2003, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by StacyCat
... non sexual porn.

exactly

if prosecuting non-sexual topics/nudity... I guess National Geographic, and Victoria Secret catelogs would be targets...

hell I think even the Bible had some stories of incest and some rather perverse topics....we going to prosecute that next?

Giddeons be warned?

hello...

John3 · 09-21-2003, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
I won't believe it unless Kimmy posts on this thread.

She's busy celebrating her birthday

bux_bunny_2003 · 09-21-2003, 12:57 AM

Sorry but the USA sucks..... well ur law system does

As long as people can make an income from a lawsuit this will go on and on.

Whats next ?

No mature sites cous a 65 old ho feels discriminated ?

No ebony penatration becouse Africa has an aids problem and you should not show "unsafe" sex ?

Phuck it

Guess I have to find a regular job ?

UnseenWorld · 09-21-2003, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
Well if that is the case, about no user submitted sexual pics in a members area, AdultFriendFinder is going to have some major problems with their 10 Million members who mostly all use sex pics.

Good!

G-Fresh · 09-21-2003, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lexr
I love conservative moralists.

I love morative conservatists--neegaaaaa please

speak a engrish

goBigtime · 09-21-2003, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
Well if that is the case, about no user submitted sexual pics in a members area, AdultFriendFinder is going to have some major problems with their 10 Million members who mostly all use sex pics.

And/or ifriends.

Tipsy · 09-21-2003, 01:47 AM

Some billers love to shove up BS like 'as required by' when what they really mean is 'we heard a rumour and have no idea what we are required to do so are covering our own asses'. Could be that it is yet another new VISA reg that they have first jump on. However, it's more likely that they are as scared as everyone else and are getting carried away with that they think VISA wants them to do rather than what's actually required.

Greg B · 09-21-2003, 02:13 AM

Fuck all this bullshit.

I didn't see VISA or the Republicans or who the fuck else complain about nudity and shit when them National Geographic and other science tv documentaries used to run shows of nude asian and african and S. american women!

Shit, I remember one NBC show where they showed some people in Africa sniffin' snatch during family hour.

It's bullshit, they can go fuck a dead chupacabra with this bullshit.

See, it's okay as long as the people ain't white. Then it's obscene. This horseshit about public nudity/CP is fulla more shit than a buttplugged hippopatomus.

( sputters, gawks, rolls off desk like John Belushi used to do on Sat Night Live....)

slavdogg · 09-21-2003, 03:27 AM

WTF is a chupacabra ?

Dugmor · 09-21-2003, 03:30 AM

ohhhh well !

Dravyk · 09-21-2003, 03:43 AM

After rereading this several times, here's my conclusions ...

Stud Money have to disagree with your thread header. I admit that it does at first glance seem that way, but reading more deeply (and over and over a few times), my opinion it that it doesn't mean that afterall

Here are the keywords: "As required by Visa USA, sites containing content depicting public nudity, nude beaches, nudist or nude camps may be in violation of minor protection laws, where proper 2257 compliance cannot be applied."

They're closing the loopholes for pedo sites, basically. If someone LOOKS underage and is nude, then you better have proof they aren't. That's my reading.

And what Probono said is true, 2257 is for sexual acts, but again, somewhere between 2257 and legal-aged model public nudity, pedos have been slipping through the crevice in between the two and this is being used to close that up.

I doubt any of the Drunk Girls and GGW sites will be disappearing.

As to the members uploads part, one should be getting model releases and 2257 info there anyhow. I'm sure those who submit to webmasters and include those and sign contracts before the pics are posted will be allowed to continue as well.

Anyhow, just my layman's opinions.

Dravyk · 09-21-2003, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by slavdogg
WTF is a chupacabra ?

Sorta the hispanic Sasquatch, Yeti, Jersey Devil, Witch of the Black Forest, Jackalope sorta thing.

DeadFidel · 09-21-2003, 04:04 AM

It's all Joe Frances's FAULT!!!! (lol)
I saw this coming weeks ago, but was flamed as being a dumb ass.
I was just about to buy a set of beach shots.
One thing for sure, there will be a lot less people with telephoto dig cams rounding around here in South Beach!

SobeGirl, where are you when I need you? South America?

sid · 09-21-2003, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Veterans Day
I sale tranny Im all GOOD right ?

Well, VISA might start saying that a trannies life actually first started when s-he had the operation, so some of the trannies you are pushing might only be 5 years old.....

EscortBiz · 09-21-2003, 05:24 AM

ytou are right, like i said they are talking about requiring every paysite to have 50% of the members area exclusive stuff or they wont allow billing, makes no sense but thats whats in the works

gothweb · 09-21-2003, 07:23 AM

I am not sure this is a problem. If you want to be in an especially risky segment of a risky business, you can't really complain when major mainstream companies don't want that risk too.

steffie · 09-21-2003, 08:56 AM

My newest Newsworthy Documentary is on

Mardi Gras
Bike Week
Spring Break

chupacabra · 09-21-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

It's bullshit, they can go fuck a dead chupacabra with this bullshit.

Donny · 09-21-2003, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg B

Well I guess Igor and the gang there are gonna have to come up with something quick.

Knowing Igor, he's already got a way to work around it.

You know Igor?

KCat · 09-21-2003, 10:22 AM

I don't think Igor & the folks at Pro Adult are going to change their entire business model based on what a third party processor who can't pay their clients is saying.

PA isn't even US based.

gornyhuy · 09-21-2003, 10:22 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if Igor just pixelates or blacks out the genitals on his free voyeurweb pages and forces everyone to go to RedClouds to get any actual nudity. I would be willing to bet his sales would skyrocket.

brand0n · 09-21-2003, 10:34 AM

where proper 2257 compliance cannot be applied

^

09-20-2003, 02:30 PM	#1
Stud Money So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Somewhere between my monitor and my chair Posts: 3,214	Visa Bans Public Nudidty Transaction So what now? Seems like Visa are slowly starting to dictate the types of sites we can / cant run. Any alternative solutions or ways to navigate around this new ban?

09-20-2003, 02:31 PM	#2
ADL Colin Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tube Titans, USA Posts: 11,929	Link? __________________ Adult Date Link - $50 PPS starting NOW! -- good and JUICY! skype = "adultdatelink"

09-20-2003, 02:32 PM	#3
JamesK hi Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 16,731	that's seriously fucked up __________________ M3Server - NATS Hosting

09-20-2003, 02:32 PM	#5
cali_22 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Whistler BC Posts: 2,330	hhmm

09-20-2003, 02:40 PM	#11
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	Well if that is the case, about no user submitted sexual pics in a members area, AdultFriendFinder is going to have some major problems with their 10 Million members who mostly all use sex pics. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

09-20-2003, 02:32 PM	#4
TheSenator Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 13,336	link?

09-20-2003, 02:37 PM	#7
Stud Money So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Somewhere between my monitor and my chair Posts: 3,214	http://www.pswbilling.com/apply/aup.shtml? Item '20' in that long list.

09-20-2003, 02:37 PM	#8
Veterans Day Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Windy City Posts: 8,403	I sale tranny Im all GOOD right ?

09-20-2003, 02:39 PM	#9
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	Well there goes all the spring break websites. I wonder if GirlsGoneWild.com is going to have THEIR processing pulled?

09-20-2003, 02:43 PM	#13
SGS Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mallorca - Nottingham Posts: 5,176	Interesting. Is it only PSW making a point of this so far? __________________ See sig...

09-20-2003, 02:49 PM	#15
KaLi Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Lomita, CA Posts: 4,371	"As required by Visa USA, sites containing content depicting public nudity, nude beaches, nudist or nude camps may be in violation of minor protection laws, where proper 2257 compliance cannot be applied. In addition, no membership sites may contain user/member submitted pictures either via a picture post or message board that contains nudity or sexually explicit depictions. Any and all content found on PSW Clients sites must be in compliance with Title 18, Chapter 10, Sec. 2257 which is federal law." __________________ icq:160-417-630

09-20-2003, 02:52 PM	#16
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	wow when did that decree come down? VoyeurWeb is huge and has 1000's of gigs of user submitted movies and pix. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

09-20-2003, 02:54 PM	#17
Greg B So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: EARTH (for the time being) Posts: 7,014	Hey Visa is only covering it's ass. This country has turned into 'Lawsuit Land' where people too lazy to get a job spend all day hunting for ways to file a lawsuit. Do you know how much trouble they can get into if some parent finds their kid in the background of a pic of some nude chick posted on an adult site? Of course we say " So what? They saw the nude chick on the beach in the first place and didn't mind. " But that ain't the case. VISA is just minimalizing it's liability window. Sucks, but I'ld do the same.

09-20-2003, 03:12 PM	#19
Stud Money So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Somewhere between my monitor and my chair Posts: 3,214	Yeah i can also understand the reasoning behind why they did it but how comes only one IPSP has this info on their site to date? I looked at ccbill, ibill and epoch and couldnt see this inf on their AUP or TOS links anywhere.

09-20-2003, 03:26 PM	#20
~Ray visit hardlinks.org Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Las Vegas , Nv >>> [email protected] or icq 94994627 anytime Posts: 18,362	Visa is saying that "public nudity" MAY be in offense of the CHILD Protection Act... if you don't have any kids in your videos... it will be approved. If you have kids in your videos.... you are just sick. ~Ray P.S. If you show girls on the beach that look too young... you will need to prove to Visa that they are of legal age. __________________ Adult Backlinks for Adult Websites - Testimonials Available

09-20-2003, 03:28 PM	#21
digifan The Profiler Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: ICQ 76281726 and I'm female Posts: 14,618	And it is understandable from their POV I think.. not that this will cheer us up. __________________ [email protected] Webair Rocks

09-20-2003, 11:50 PM	#25
lexr Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Tempe, AZ Posts: 428	I love conservative moralists.

09-20-2003, 11:54 PM	#26
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	I won't believe it unless Kimmy posts on this thread.

09-21-2003, 12:46 AM	#28
StacyCat Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,167	So, what if you show 2257 information (though its not required) for everyone in the videos? Im sure we can get enough people together for a "public" shoot that still complies. But, 2257 doesnt apply to a lot of non sexual porn.

09-21-2003, 12:57 AM	#31
bux_bunny_2003 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Rotterdam Posts: 48	Sorry but the USA sucks..... well ur law system does As long as people can make an income from a lawsuit this will go on and on. Whats next ? No mature sites cous a 65 old ho feels discriminated ? No ebony penatration becouse Africa has an aids problem and you should not show "unsafe" sex ? Phuck it Guess I have to find a regular job ?

09-21-2003, 01:47 AM	#35
Tipsy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig Posts: 6,989	Some billers love to shove up BS like 'as required by' when what they really mean is 'we heard a rumour and have no idea what we are required to do so are covering our own asses'. Could be that it is yet another new VISA reg that they have first jump on. However, it's more likely that they are as scared as everyone else and are getting carried away with that they think VISA wants them to do rather than what's actually required. __________________ Ignorance is never bliss.

09-21-2003, 02:13 AM	#36
Greg B So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: EARTH (for the time being) Posts: 7,014	Fuck all this bullshit. I didn't see VISA or the Republicans or who the fuck else complain about nudity and shit when them National Geographic and other science tv documentaries used to run shows of nude asian and african and S. american women! Shit, I remember one NBC show where they showed some people in Africa sniffin' snatch during family hour. It's bullshit, they can go fuck a dead chupacabra with this bullshit. See, it's okay as long as the people ain't white. Then it's obscene. This horseshit about public nudity/CP is fulla more shit than a buttplugged hippopatomus. ( sputters, gawks, rolls off desk like John Belushi used to do on Sat Night Live....)

09-21-2003, 03:27 AM	#37
slavdogg Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 3,570	WTF is a chupacabra ?

09-21-2003, 03:30 AM	#38
Dugmor The Traffic Cowboy Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: BP4L - Vice Prez Posts: 7,592	ohhhh well ! __________________ JesusEmpire - The Most Trusted Mobile Marketing Service SMS Verification codes for 345 websites including: Tinder - Bumble - Twitter - TikTok - Instagram - Facebook

09-21-2003, 03:43 AM	#39
Dravyk Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Yo, Philly! Posts: 1,202	After rereading this several times, here's my conclusions ... Stud Money have to disagree with your thread header. I admit that it does at first glance seem that way, but reading more deeply (and over and over a few times), my opinion it that it doesn't mean that afterall Here are the keywords: "As required by Visa USA, sites containing content depicting public nudity, nude beaches, nudist or nude camps may be in violation of minor protection laws, where proper 2257 compliance cannot be applied." They're closing the loopholes for pedo sites, basically. If someone LOOKS underage and is nude, then you better have proof they aren't. That's my reading. And what Probono said is true, 2257 is for sexual acts, but again, somewhere between 2257 and legal-aged model public nudity, pedos have been slipping through the crevice in between the two and this is being used to close that up. I doubt any of the Drunk Girls and GGW sites will be disappearing. As to the members uploads part, one should be getting model releases and 2257 info there anyhow. I'm sure those who submit to webmasters and include those and sign contracts before the pics are posted will be allowed to continue as well. Anyhow, just my layman's opinions. __________________ All Of 'Em

09-21-2003, 04:04 AM	#41
DeadFidel Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: This was my wife circa 2002 Posts: 6,760	It's all Joe Frances's FAULT!!!! (lol) I saw this coming weeks ago, but was flamed as being a dumb ass. I was just about to buy a set of beach shots. One thing for sure, there will be a lot less people with telephoto dig cams rounding around here in South Beach! SobeGirl, where are you when I need you? South America?

09-21-2003, 05:24 AM	#43
EscortBiz Fuck Checks, CASH only! Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 19,422	ytou are right, like i said they are talking about requiring every paysite to have 50% of the members area exclusive stuff or they wont allow billing, makes no sense but thats whats in the works __________________ Spanking, Medical Fetish, Sleeping, Strap-on Anal Lesbians, Girls Fucking Guys, Handjob site REAL HOT, Shemales, Anal and Ass Licking sites 100% Real EXCLUSIVE with amazing retention, ccbill payouts, lots of content FREE FTP HOSTING Promote the largest and oldest member paid escort site, Converts 10 times better then any dating site, CCBill payouts ICQ# 158802076

09-21-2003, 07:23 AM	#44
gothweb Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Back in the USSA Posts: 8,849	I am not sure this is a problem. If you want to be in an especially risky segment of a risky business, you can't really complain when major mainstream companies don't want that risk too. __________________ Photos by Ian X.: Distinctive photos of goth babes. Blood Money:Your traffic, my sites, our money. MojoHost: Still the best.

09-21-2003, 08:56 AM	#45
steffie Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Somewhere in the Mountains, far far away Posts: 2,422	My newest Newsworthy Documentary is on Mardi Gras Bike Week Spring Break __________________ Partying since '96 and not going anywhere Anna's Dorm

09-21-2003, 10:22 AM	#48
KCat Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: PNW Posts: 2,204	I don't think Igor & the folks at Pro Adult are going to change their entire business model based on what a third party processor who can't pay their clients is saying. PA isn't even US based.

09-21-2003, 10:22 AM	#49
gornyhuy Chafed. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Face Down in Pussy Posts: 18,041	I wouldn't be surprised if Igor just pixelates or blacks out the genitals on his free voyeurweb pages and forces everyone to go to RedClouds to get any actual nudity. I would be willing to bet his sales would skyrocket. __________________ icq:159548293

09-21-2003, 10:34 AM	#50
brand0n been very busy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: the queen city Posts: 26,983	where proper 2257 compliance cannot be applied ^ __________________ want to buy this spot for cheap? it is of course for sale. long term deals are always the best bet. brand0n/ at/ a o l dot commies.