2257 update - something happened today that will make us happy - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

woj · 08-24-2004, 08:24 PM

50 2257 updates

MissMina · 08-24-2004, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ProjectNaked
2257 IS NOT GOING AWAY. If you would like to continue to work in the "adult" industry you should be preparing, not fantasizing.

Very true.

John_Doe · 08-24-2004, 08:27 PM

Quote:

I think he meant to say postcount++;

haha, I wonder how many non-prgramers got that one!

AaronM · 08-24-2004, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ProjectNaked
2257 IS NOT GOING AWAY. If you would like to continue to work in the "adult" industry you should be preparing, not fantasizing.

Amen.

The Other Steve · 08-24-2004, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
Because the impact of hitting some 50k a year guy versus a 50 million dollar a year guy is a tangible difference... and if you look back at the prosecutions in the past, during the Meese Commission days, they didn't mess with people they couldn't gain the most from prosecuting.

The AG needs to look good because he failed miserably to enforce the old 2257 regulations.

What makes him look better - to be able to stand up and say "Hey guys I've arrested one evil pornographer" - or to say - "Hey guys I've just arrested 50 evil pornographers"?

Forget the dollar amounts - he needs to look good - he applies the spin - 1 pornographer or 50? There's little doubt which option he will choose.

And he isn't stupid he knows that if he takes out some of the small guys then the favourite image on galleries and free sites across the net is going to be a red X.

That gives him even more kudos in the eyes of those who see porn as evil.

The Other Steve · 08-24-2004, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM
Amen.

And yet I see some of you're would-be competitors telling newbies that nothing is going to happen.

Nate-MM2 · 08-24-2004, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdld
moving your stuff offshore wont help you, unless you move offshore as well.

Yes and no.... if the only paper trail you have are hosting bills from out of the country along with cheques from sponsors that process transactions outside of the country you should be fine as your ownership of any actual websites would be difficult to prove.

If you process in the US you are basically SOL...

AaronM · 08-24-2004, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Other Steve
And yet I see some of you're would-be competitors telling newbies that nothing is going to happen.

Most of my would-be competitors are broke morons.

fr8 · 08-24-2004, 08:43 PM

Nice. Hopefully it was them listening to us but who listens to anyone in the adult industry besides us.

AaronM · 08-24-2004, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fr8
Nice. Hopefully it was them listening to us but who listens to anyone in the adult industry besides us.

Are you kidding?

Do you have any idea what agencies visit this place on a regular basis?

Kimmykim · 08-24-2004, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
I think it depends on what their focus is. If its to put on a show a big guy is better for press and pr . If their focus is to cut down porn online . They bust 20 small webmasters , take kids away where people have kids living in the house they work out of. At least 1000 sites will close the next day.

Let's say we each put up 10k and were to bet. I think you can guess where my money would be.

One of the biggest things I've re-learned lately, is that history does tend to repeat itself. If you look at processing and what has happened with it, it's very near a mirror to the changes that occurred in audiotext just before the internet became popular. If you look at prosecutions in this industry they didn't occur in audiotext, they occurred in the video side of things.

I spend a good portion of my days with the video producers now and I'm much more inclined to feel the way I do after hearing and seeing how and who was prosecuted during the last round.

I've known small webmasters that have been in trouble for obscenity since I've been in this business. Most of them on a state or local level. Those things might make an AVN headline but no one ever asks "Where is so and so?" or "Whatever happened with Joe Webmaster's case?" EVEN when people publicly hear about the cases or they make AVN.

However, when big boys get called out by the FTC or the woman campaigning for Michigan governor, everyone pays attention and gets ready to change if necessary.

If you were among the chosen on this one Tony, let's say it was Day 1 (and I'm only using you because you posted, I know you and Mandy are compliant, but I'm hypothesizing as if you weren't) I don't see that a single major site would be looking to make a change based on your being selected.

If someone doing 2000 signups a day were among the chosen on Day 1, so to speak, you better believe the entire industry would sit up and take notice.

I'm not knocking the little guys, I'm illustrating the point that a federal prosecution is NOT an inexpensive undertaking and that the federal government doesn't as a rule pick on people that can't afford to pay the fines or defend themselves and their companies to the end, especially if there's a chance that you're dealing with a precedent setting case.

The Other Steve · 08-24-2004, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM
Most of my would-be competitors are broke morons.

You won't hear me disagree with you there

hy777 · 08-24-2004, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
However, when big boys get called out by the FTC or the woman campaigning for Michigan governor, everyone pays attention and gets ready to change if necessary.

For all your brilliance you are dead wrong on this one. THEY ARE AFTER DISTRIBUTION AND FACILITATION. Knocking down a few small fries will immediately knock down -at least- half of the apparatus that distributes porn online. Or why in hell do some programs have 35,000 webmasters? Because they are the ones doing the distribution? Hell no! This is not about high impact PR.

Big guys will just be fine. In fact, if it comes to pass this is going to be a field day for paysite owners.

Kristy · 08-24-2004, 10:07 PM

2257 mainly applies to TGP, right?

What is being done to stop it?

railz · 08-24-2004, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kristy
2257 mainly applies to TGP, right?

What is being done to stop it?

Methodcash Rick · 08-24-2004, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kristy
2257 mainly applies to TGP, right?

What is being done to stop it?

Yes, and nothing..

Now go back to burying your head in the sand..

puffyz · 08-24-2004, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ProjectNaked
The worst part is that by pushing people out or away, (overseas), the gov. loses the power to control them. They thought it was bad now, wait until there are NO restrictions-

ive been thinking this the whole time......EVERYONE goes to the internet from your neighbor to your dad.....this wont go away, it just means everyone in different countries will have conrtrol and alot more $.....I still think in the end everyone is over reacting and we will find a way to survive and find a way around...cheers!

John3 · 08-24-2004, 11:18 PM

My ears were burning.

Shap · 08-24-2004, 11:29 PM

Kim I understand your point. However seeing that it is an election year wouldn't it make more sense for them to go after big numbers. For example if they shut down 2000 small sites and then tell the public look we went ahead with this law and shut down 2000 porn sites. The war on porn is on and we are winning it. I think that is what they are looking for. By going after 1 big boy they would definitely get us all to stand up and take notice. But is that what they want? I don?t think they want a fight. I don?t think they want us to stand up and take notice. I think they want sure bets. They need to tell the voters that they?ve been busy working on this. They want sites that won?t fight back. I think they would rather take out 2000 meaningless sites that account for 0.0001% of our industry rather than one nasty fight with one site that represents 1% of the industry.

dready · 08-24-2004, 11:32 PM

If they delay a little, and Kerry gets voted in, and they listen to our comments just a little... maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel and we can chalk this round up to fear mongering and harrasment.

Kimmykim · 08-24-2004, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hy777
For all your brilliance you are dead wrong on this one. THEY ARE AFTER DISTRIBUTION AND FACILITATION. Knocking down a few small fries will immediately knock down -at least- half of the apparatus that distributes porn online. Or why in hell do some programs have 35,000 webmasters? Because they are the ones doing the distribution? Hell no! This is not about high impact PR.

Big guys will just be fine. In fact, if it comes to pass this is going to be a field day for paysite owners.

Dude, I never said I was brilliant. But when two of the best attorneys in this business have the same conclusions and two more in-house ones agree, I'm going with what they say. If you really think that small tgps are the issue here, more power to you. Do what you feel is best for you, I'm not your attorney and I don't play one on tv.

If you want to get your 10k out and bet, I'm ready ;-}}}}

seeric · 08-24-2004, 11:41 PM

yup. kimmys right. frying big fish is their game. they love ricoh. thats ultimately what they'll push for. anyways, i shouldn't even be talkin about this. ;)

besides it costs about 2000 times more to shut down 2000 sites. manpower and judicial system costs. ouch.

Shap · 08-24-2004, 11:45 PM

Wouldn't the rich be a better target in a year from now? First get the quick results to parade in front of voters to get re-elected. Then go after the big boys once you are re-elected.

xxxjay · 08-24-2004, 11:56 PM

Barring that there is no official word on what happened, I would say that this smells like an injunction. Unlike a lot of people speculating on this board, I HAVE plopped down $275 / hr, driven to Santa Monica through hellish LA traffic, have sat down with Jeffery Douglas and talked to him about this at length. There are numerous flaws in new 2257 that can be enjoined.

The public comment period has ended. There could be an injunction, the rules could be published in the federal register tomorrow as is, or 60-90 days might just be enough time to get the ?powers that be? out of office and they can stop persecuting us for making a perfectly decent legal living.

God bless America.

Kimmykim · 08-24-2004, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shap
Wouldn't the rich be a better target in a year from now? First get the quick results to parade in front of voters to get re-elected. Then go after the big boys once you are re-elected.

If the Democrats take office, they will most likely not choose to prosecute, just like they didn't during the Clinton administration. Which is fine. It's almost like de-criminalization.

Logically speaking, is it easier to find an elephant and catch him to put on display or is it easier to catch 100 mice and put them on display? Especially if you only have a limited and equal amount of time to do the catching?

seeric · 08-25-2004, 12:04 AM

two ivy league law degrees says it will never fly. a little inside scoop says that, and i feel pretty happy as a person(not speaking for the biz), that everything is gona work out for us. theres just something about this thing called the "constitution" and "small business law" and way more than that. if you don't know what this post really means, i won't even get into it. those who know this wil know it. lets see. this could easily be your next supreme court case right behind COPA.

JMHO and worth about as many k as this post occupies on this board. that should be at least 2.

seeric · 08-25-2004, 12:06 AM

Kimmy has the best way with words. No, seriously. This is not a joke. This is not a drill!

John3 · 08-25-2004, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
Logically speaking, is it easier to find an elephant and catch him to put on display or is it easier to catch 100 mice and put them on display? Especially if you only have a limited and equal amount of time to do the catching?

Is this a trick question?

xxxjay · 08-25-2004, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
If the Democrats take office, they will most likely not choose to prosecute, just like they didn't during the Clinton administration. Which is fine. It's almost like de-criminalization.

Logically speaking, is it easier to find an elephant and catch him to put on display or is it easier to catch 100 mice and put them on display? Especially if you only have a limited and equal amount of time to do the catching?

KimmyKim ? From what I?ve been told is that the DOJ would likely go after ?low hanging fruit? that is involved in some of the more taboo stuff that does not have the money to fight a case to try and scare people further up the line, seeing as the people higher up will have the money to put on a defense and a 2257 case is defendable.

Opinions vary though.

Kimmykim · 08-25-2004, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John3
Is this a trick question?

Interesting that you'd turn up, you could give a lesson or two on the topic ;)

How ya been?

Kimmykim · 08-25-2004, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xxxjay
KimmyKim ? From what I?ve been told is that the DOJ would likely go after ?low hanging fruit? that is involved in some of the more taboo stuff that does not have the money to fight a case to try and scare people further up the line, seeing as the people higher up will have the money to put on a defense and a 2257 case is defendable.

Opinions vary though.

The taboo stuff would be more akin to the problems a certain video company is having in Pittsburgh Pa right now among other places. But that is obscenity.

Record keeping is a stupid way to nitpick people into submission, since they can just as easily pull you into court for not having the id of a grandmother as they can a teen. Does that mean they can get a conviction? Hell if I know, since someone's going to have to go to court to set the precedent.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be the one spending 7 figures on legal fees to defend myself.

However, if the DOJ were to deliberately pick on those unable to defend themselves in order to get a precedent, they'd most likely not do it until after the election since you'd have the ACLU and other organizations jumping in to defend someone without means in a heartbeat. Which would not be the ideal strategy for a Republican administration not yet guaranteed of a win, from a political standpoint.

Once again, arguments can go either way. I can only relay what I hear and what I know, and mention that at least two of the folks I deal with have been prosecuted by the federal government before, one successfully and one less so. Neither of them were small frys when it happened and it cost them both a fortune, even for the 1980s...

John3 · 08-25-2004, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
Interesting that you'd turn up, you could give a lesson or two on the topic ;)

How ya been?

No complaints here . . . I've spent the summer fishing and playing. How about you? Looks like you are staying busy, as usual.

If you've got the time you should come visit for a UT game.

seeric · 08-25-2004, 12:20 AM

well, not that you need it K, but...... YUP. Again.

gnite.

Kimmykim · 08-25-2004, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John3
No complaints here . . . I've spent the summer fishing and playing. How about you? Looks like you are staying busy, as usual.

If you've got the time you should come visit for a UT game.

You should come out here for a game, you know how I feel about every place in Texas but Austin ;)

Gotta run, I've got an early flight but I'll be back tomorrow evening, drop me an icq and let's catch up on things in more detail.

boobmaster · 08-25-2004, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaceXXX
but let me also point out, even though i trust this person that is getting this info...not everything you hear or read is true, so he could be mistaken....cause I can find nothing in the federal register or on any government page about this

If you are wrong, I think you should have to forfeit 3,000 posts from your postcount.

xxxjay · 08-25-2004, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim

Personally, I wouldn't want to be the one spending 7 figures on legal fees to defend myself.

That is what it all boils down to. From there, all's you can you can is make yourself a less attractive target.

John3 · 08-25-2004, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
You should come out here for a game, you know how I feel about every place in Texas but Austin ;)

Gotta run, I've got an early flight but I'll be back tomorrow evening, drop me an icq and let's catch up on things in more detail.

Will do, have a safe trip.

johnvod · 08-25-2004, 12:47 AM

Sorry but i've started to move all my shit OFFSHORE !!!

What will be next !

__________________
Mangez d'la marde stie

i think it would be better to wait till we hear more concrete news therefore when shit does hit the fan,the producers of the content will give up the 2257 info to us more easily.At this point,they are sort of reluctant.

nekrom · 08-25-2004, 01:03 AM

So any news on what the big thing to deter the new regs is?

graphicsbytia · 08-25-2004, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by johnvod
i think it would be better to wait till we hear more concrete news therefore when shit does hit the fan,the producers of the content will give up the 2257 info to us more easily.At this point,they are sort of reluctant.

I think they're reluctant because a lot of them just don't have it. Or maybe they have some type of docs but not the right ones. We're lucky, we had what we needed.

I don't know what JaceXXX's friend's info is, but I'm not too surprised. There's no way the proposed changes could go through as is.. there were just too many problems with it. I'm not saying we won't have changes, just not as fast as everyone seems to think.

I expected to see several changes to the proposal before it went into law, or at the very least one.

seeric · 08-25-2004, 01:18 AM

thank you.

pornguy · 08-25-2004, 01:26 AM

I will not use names here because I do not want to imply anything about their money, because I dont kn ow how much they have.

But lets take a step into reality. Why in hell would they go after a big guy, who can put up a 5 or 6 million dollar battle in court.??? Someone who could drag out the whole thing for years??

They WILL NOT! They will grab 20 or 30 or 200 small guys and make the headlines, and sharpen their teeth on them. That way, they can get more donations from the christian groups, to go after a big guy.

jjust my

pornguy · 08-25-2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by graphicsbytia
I think they're reluctant because a lot of them just don't have it. Or maybe they have some type of docs but not the right ones. We're lucky, we had what we needed.

I don't know what JaceXXX's friend's info is, but I'm not too surprised. There's no way the proposed changes could go through as is.. there were just too many problems with it. I'm not saying we won't have changes, just not as fast as everyone seems to think.

I expected to see several changes to the proposal before it went into law, or at the very least one.

Tia. Before you use the expression NO WAY, keep in mind that we are talking about the US Govenrment, and the WORST administration that this country has ever seen.

They used 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. Based on that, they will do any damn thing that they please.

Did you know that they have detained thousands of immigrants that are leagl in the US, and held them with out charges.

They can and will do what ever they want.

graphicsbytia · 08-25-2004, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pornguy
Tia. Before you use the expression NO WAY, keep in mind that we are talking about the US Govenrment, and the WORST administration that this country has ever seen.

They used 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. Based on that, they will do any damn thing that they please.

Did you know that they have detained thousands of immigrants that are leagl in the US, and held them with out charges.

They can and will do what ever they want.

Care to make a friendly wager?

pornguy · 08-25-2004, 01:47 AM

I dont bet, but thanks for the offer. If you look back at some of the trials that the government has pulled off, you may find a funny little pattern, of them going after a few little guys before the big guy.

The did not just jump at Capone, they went after a few guys that worked for him first.

graphicsbytia · 08-25-2004, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pornguy
I dont bet, but thanks for the offer. If you look back at some of the trials that the government has pulled off, you may find a funny little pattern, of them going after a few little guys before the big guy.

The did not just jump at Capone, they went after a few guys that worked for him first.

hehe..

well the only point I was making is that the proposal as it stands now has a lot of flaws, and I expect to see at least one change before it comes into law.. and actually, I agree with you about them going after a bunch of small webmasters first. It makes sense

pornguy · 08-25-2004, 01:54 AM

And You have no idea how much I agree with you about the flaws.

In fact I would go as far to say, that it is just fucked!

I hope that I did not offend your eyes.

graphicsbytia · 08-25-2004, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pornguy
And You have no idea how much I agree with you about the flaws.

In fact I would go as far to say, that it is just fucked!

I hope that I did not offend your eyes.

oh.. now that last line is just sweet to the bone! It's been a while since I heard something like that

xxxjay · 08-25-2004, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pornguy
Tia. Before you use the expression NO WAY, keep in mind that we are talking about the US Govenrment, and the WORST administration that this country has ever seen.

Damn right. If you are reading this and would actually still seriously consider voting for Bush...you are an idiot, my fiend.

The Other Steve · 08-25-2004, 02:29 AM

Well by now the chances of there really being anything to delay the regulation changes must be remote.

Otherwise the guy who started the thread would be back here with the news and we would also be seeing it in other places.

08-24-2004, 08:24 PM	#51
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	50 2257 updates __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

08-24-2004, 08:43 PM	#59
fr8 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,074	Nice. Hopefully it was them listening to us but who listens to anyone in the adult industry besides us. __________________ █ joesmut (a) gmail Dot com █ Full Stack Developer

08-24-2004, 11:18 PM	#68
John3 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Austin Posts: 1,214	My ears were burning. __________________ Hook 'em.

08-24-2004, 11:32 PM	#70
dready Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 5,247	If they delay a little, and Kerry gets voted in, and they listen to our comments just a little... maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel and we can chalk this round up to fear mongering and harrasment. __________________ ICQ: 91139591 Last edited by dready; 08-24-2004 at 11:34 PM..

08-24-2004, 11:41 PM	#72
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	yup. kimmys right. frying big fish is their game. they love ricoh. thats ultimately what they'll push for. anyways, i shouldn't even be talkin about this. ;) besides it costs about 2000 times more to shut down 2000 sites. manpower and judicial system costs. ouch. Last edited by seeric; 08-24-2004 at 11:45 PM..

08-24-2004, 10:07 PM	#64
Kristy Registered User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 45	2257 mainly applies to TGP, right? What is being done to stop it?

08-24-2004, 11:29 PM	#69
Shap Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 8,313	Kim I understand your point. However seeing that it is an election year wouldn't it make more sense for them to go after big numbers. For example if they shut down 2000 small sites and then tell the public look we went ahead with this law and shut down 2000 porn sites. The war on porn is on and we are winning it. I think that is what they are looking for. By going after 1 big boy they would definitely get us all to stand up and take notice. But is that what they want? I don?t think they want a fight. I don?t think they want us to stand up and take notice. I think they want sure bets. They need to tell the voters that they?ve been busy working on this. They want sites that won?t fight back. I think they would rather take out 2000 meaningless sites that account for 0.0001% of our industry rather than one nasty fight with one site that represents 1% of the industry.

08-24-2004, 11:45 PM	#73
Shap Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 8,313	Wouldn't the rich be a better target in a year from now? First get the quick results to parade in front of voters to get re-elected. Then go after the big boys once you are re-elected.

08-24-2004, 11:56 PM	#74
xxxjay Tube groupie. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: LoScandalous, CA Posts: 13,482	Barring that there is no official word on what happened, I would say that this smells like an injunction. Unlike a lot of people speculating on this board, I HAVE plopped down $275 / hr, driven to Santa Monica through hellish LA traffic, have sat down with Jeffery Douglas and talked to him about this at length. There are numerous flaws in new 2257 that can be enjoined. The public comment period has ended. There could be an injunction, the rules could be published in the federal register tomorrow as is, or 60-90 days might just be enough time to get the ?powers that be? out of office and they can stop persecuting us for making a perfectly decent legal living. God bless America. __________________ http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/

08-25-2004, 12:04 AM	#76
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	two ivy league law degrees says it will never fly. a little inside scoop says that, and i feel pretty happy as a person(not speaking for the biz), that everything is gona work out for us. theres just something about this thing called the "constitution" and "small business law" and way more than that. if you don't know what this post really means, i won't even get into it. those who know this wil know it. lets see. this could easily be your next supreme court case right behind COPA. JMHO and worth about as many k as this post occupies on this board. that should be at least 2.

08-25-2004, 12:06 AM	#77
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	Kimmy has the best way with words. No, seriously. This is not a joke. This is not a drill!

08-25-2004, 12:20 AM	#83
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	well, not that you need it K, but...... YUP. Again. gnite.

08-25-2004, 12:47 AM	#88
johnvod Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 268	Sorry but i've started to move all my shit OFFSHORE !!! What will be next ! __________________ Mangez d'la marde stie i think it would be better to wait till we hear more concrete news therefore when shit does hit the fan,the producers of the content will give up the 2257 info to us more easily.At this point,they are sort of reluctant. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

08-25-2004, 01:03 AM	#89
nekrom Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Australia/Asia Posts: 921	So any news on what the big thing to deter the new regs is? __________________ Free Traffic

08-25-2004, 01:18 AM	#91
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	thank you.

08-25-2004, 01:26 AM	#92
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	I will not use names here because I do not want to imply anything about their money, because I dont kn ow how much they have. But lets take a step into reality. Why in hell would they go after a big guy, who can put up a 5 or 6 million dollar battle in court.??? Someone who could drag out the whole thing for years?? They WILL NOT! They will grab 20 or 30 or 200 small guys and make the headlines, and sharpen their teeth on them. That way, they can get more donations from the christian groups, to go after a big guy. jjust my __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

08-25-2004, 01:47 AM	#95
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	I dont bet, but thanks for the offer. If you look back at some of the trials that the government has pulled off, you may find a funny little pattern, of them going after a few little guys before the big guy. The did not just jump at Capone, they went after a few guys that worked for him first. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

08-25-2004, 01:54 AM	#97
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	And You have no idea how much I agree with you about the flaws. In fact I would go as far to say, that it is just fucked! I hope that I did not offend your eyes. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

08-25-2004, 02:29 AM	#100
The Other Steve Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Sunny Queensland - perfect one day and better the next. Posts: 2,106	Well by now the chances of there really being anything to delay the regulation changes must be remote. Otherwise the guy who started the thread would be back here with the news and we would also be seeing it in other places. __________________ Left intentionally blank ... just like my brain