2257 update - something happened today that will make us happy - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

woj · 08-25-2004, 02:29 AM

100 2257 updates

johnvod · 08-25-2004, 02:52 AM

Hey,

just like Eve bit the apple and ruinned this before paradise,Traci Lords brought on 2257.

Trax · 08-25-2004, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by johnvod
Hey,

just like Eve bit the apple and ruinned this before paradise,Traci Lords brought on 2257.

=> its all the womens fault?

is that your conclusion hehe

AaronM · 08-25-2004, 03:07 AM

There are some seriously ignorant mother fuckers posting to this thread.

Oh wait......

It's GFY.

Mishi · 08-25-2004, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by johnvod
Hey,

just like Eve bit the apple and ruinned this before paradise,Traci Lords brought on 2257.

The intentions behind the statute are valid and just. It's the proposed means of carrying them out that are absurd. (I am referring to the proposed updates, not the existing statute.)

The Other Steve · 08-25-2004, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mishi
The intentions behind the statute are valid and just. It's the proposed means of carrying them out that are absurd. (I am referring to the proposed updates, not the existing statute.)

If the intentions really were to keep kids out of porn then I would agree - but they are not.

Valid and just??????????????????

Holy crap!!

johnvod · 08-25-2004, 03:28 AM

I am all for checking the age of talent,its just that i wish there was an easier way of being compliant such as getting an indemnification from the producer that would state that they have the 2257 for everything that they provide to the online secondary producer (considering if we were secondary)but,unfortunetely if they do and lie,we can't be indimnified from something possibly criminal.Indemnification only works for civil matter.

Mishi · 08-25-2004, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Other Steve
If the intentions really were to keep kids out of porn then I would agree - but they are not.

Valid and just??????????????????

Holy crap!!

Settle down, cowboy. Yes, I'm naive enough to believe that the original intentions of the law were indeed (at least, initially) to prevent underage performers from appearing in porn. Granted, I wasn't there. But I don't think that requiring primary producers to maintain accurate records is a burdensome statute.

The "revised" statute is, I believe, a whole different story. It does nothing to fight CP. It creates an undue burden on those who were previously classified as secondary producers, and makes the DOJ's job that much more difficult. The proposed changes make the statute into a joke, IMO.

We're on the same side. Chill out.

xxxjay · 08-25-2004, 03:35 AM

If this was really about a crackdown on child porn then as part of the documentation they would require from you is "Date of Production" - which the new 2257 DOES NOT.

So this girl is 19 now. When was it filmed in 2004 or in 2001? One makes her a minor, one does not - but they don't even care about when it was produced.

This is a major, huge, massive failing in the new 2257 if you ask me and shows what the real intention of the regs are.

johnvod · 08-25-2004, 03:38 AM

so is there a company who is looking into making a businuss out of this yet or not?

i would rather buy my 2257 records from a third party than go get them myself.

goBigtime · 08-25-2004, 03:41 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?

Did you miss the articles late last year and early this year about the DOJ hiring up tons of attorneys for the 2257 task force?

Elephants or mice... I think they plan to do a lot of hunting.

IIRC, one of the big adult attorneys attendted one of their conventions or something where they were recruiting the attorneys to be on this task force.

Mishi · 08-25-2004, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xxxjay
If this was really about a crackdown on child porn then as part of the documentation they would require from you is "Date of Production" - which the new 2257 DOES NOT.

So this girl is 19 now. When was it filmed in 2004 or in 2001? One makes her a minor, one does not - but they don't even care about when it was produced.

This is a major, huge, massive failing in the new 2257 if you ask me and shows what the real intention of the regs are.

In a word...WORD. The revisions are worthless, IMO. The only intention behind them is to make things more difficult for those of us who actually run our businesses in a legal manner.

Nathan · 08-25-2004, 04:19 AM

I am not for the new regulations, but this discussion got me thinking, did anyone ever think about how one COULD do what 2257 asks for in a good manner?

Meaning, the point of 2257, we all agree I'm sure, is to make sure minors do not appear in porn, and if they do, to easily find the people breaking the law. Now, to do this, how else do you expect this to work than to be able to point out the produce of every single picture or video you use?

Isn't this really the only way to actually achive this anyway or does anyone have another bright idea?

Of course, the new regulation makes us all keep records, which is, in my oppinion, total crap and the gov is just trying to make it easier for them to find illegal pictures since they do nolonger have to ask you and then the produce you tell them, but can just go to you. The other stupid thing is that they expect you to be able to list all other URLs a specific pic is on, thats just stupid.

But those things set aside, isn't it a valid thing for the government to expect us to help them find CP? So at least being able to pinpoint the producer of every picture anywhere on our sites needs to be possible, no?

The Other Steve · 08-25-2004, 04:26 AM

And to face 5 years in jail if you can't?

5 years for a clerical error?

Cassie · 08-25-2004, 04:46 AM

so what is this oh so great news?

this thread is 3 pages and the thread starter has yet to reveal this revelation.

NoCarrier · 08-25-2004, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cassie
so what is this oh so great news?

this thread is 3 pages and the thread starter has yet to reveal this revelation.

What revelation? You're still expecting something?

Sarah_Jayne · 08-25-2004, 06:06 AM

yeah and now this is near 'fact' on another board

SCORE Ralph · 08-25-2004, 06:42 AM

It would be interesting to see the feds take on large affiliate programs. Taking down one affiliate program would affect more people than taking down one secondary producer. They could do this now, but the new regs would make this a hell of a lot easier.

Basic_man · 08-25-2004, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ
Are you telling me I shouldn't have sold all my sites? Fuck!

rolf

Jace · 08-25-2004, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cassie
so what is this oh so great news?

this thread is 3 pages and the thread starter has yet to reveal this revelation.

oh my god, i know...it has been a WHOLE 13 HOURS...rofl...considering I posted this at 9pm last night and it is now 10am, ain't much going on in the night time with our government....

about to give a call to that person who started on this though

Cassie · 08-25-2004, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NoCarrier
What revelation? You're still expecting something?

glad i can make someone laugh

neewwman · 08-25-2004, 10:02 AM

What I can't believe is how brazenly transparent it is that the DOJ just wants to make life difficult for pornographers.

They absolutely don't care about protecting talent, which is the original purpose of the law.

Here's a very likely scenario. Crazed serial killer falls in love with a model's picture. So he sets himself up as a webmaster and finds out where he can buy content of her. Content producer gives him her real name and address. Next thing you know her head is cut off and she has a broom shoved two feet up her pussy.

KCat · 08-25-2004, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by neewwman
What I can't believe is how brazenly transparent it is that the DOJ just wants to make life difficult for pornographers.

They absolutely don't care about protecting talent, which is the original purpose of the law.

Here's a very likely scenario. Crazed serial killer falls in love with a model's picture. So he sets himself up as a webmaster and finds out where he can buy content of her. Content producer gives him her real name and address. Next thing you know her head is cut off and she has a broom shoved two feet up her pussy.

You don't think girls considering getting into porn might head back to that waitressing job if they find out their IDs are going to be available to anyone with $50?

This industry would crumble without the talent.

NichePay_Manny · 08-25-2004, 12:38 PM

I think at the end it will all work out with 2257 issues

zzgundamnzz · 08-25-2004, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cassie
so what is this oh so great news?

this thread is 3 pages and the thread starter has yet to reveal this revelation.

Revelation is we all chipped in and got him a PDA, Gamecube, XBOX, or PS2...

gdog · 08-25-2004, 12:48 PM

You would think with all the taxes that are actually paid somewhat from the adult industry in the US they would have a little leverage with this and actually think this through.

If its gets out of control I will consider moving off shore for sure, whats the negative on that.

Processors do not care where they wire the money to, the got their cut out of it already.

Look forward to the news. I remember back in 2000 it was rumored that you could not show adult hardcore images on your tours. Some people took them down, I was running BA back then and we were one of them. We lost a lot of sales for that.

Is it possible for our industry to get more people in office to fight for us, nobody wants kids to see our sites, but the Internet is a big place and this happens.

Kids lose parents every day to smoking yet the goverment has not problem taxing the cigarettes and taking the money. Losing a parent is way worse then a kid seeing our sites I think.

What you gonna do, unfortunately this is out of our hands.

Sarah_Jayne · 08-25-2004, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by neewwman
What I can't believe is how brazenly transparent it is that the DOJ just wants to make life difficult for pornographers.

They absolutely don't care about protecting talent, which is the original purpose of the law.

Here's a very likely scenario. Crazed serial killer falls in love with a model's picture. So he sets himself up as a webmaster and finds out where he can buy content of her. Content producer gives him her real name and address. Next thing you know her head is cut off and she has a broom shoved two feet up her pussy.

did you reword that and put it into an email to the DOJ before the deadline? If one model dies because of this it is blitz the media time. Not to mention that I wonder how long it takes for webmasters to be the target of the same type of people that bomb abortion clinics.

The Other Steve · 08-25-2004, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarah_webinc
did you reword that and put it into an email to the DOJ before the deadline?

Sarah - they don't care - there was a thread here a couple of days ago where someone related what J D Odenberger said at the seminar at Internext.

When he challenged a senior DOJ guy with that scenario the reply was that they didn't care.

Just talk to any dancer or sex worker and they will tell you the same thing. The very people who are supposed to protect the citizens of the US think of the talent as being worthless so why should they care?

hy777 · 08-25-2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
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 ;-}}}}

I know you never said you were brilliant. I did. I am afraid if I win that bet, all my 300 sites will be the ones that get shut down.

hy777 · 08-25-2004, 02:33 PM

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?

Using your own logic, if you are armed with a shotgun you don't even have to catch the mice, you can kill all 100 (and more) at once. Whereas you won't catch/kill one elephant. What weapons do you think the DOJ has? Flyfishing rods?

tony286 · 08-25-2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KCat
You don't think girls considering getting into porn might head back to that waitressing job if they find out their IDs are going to be available to anyone with $50?

This industry would crumble without the talent.

They will still model greed is a blinding thing. Also these people talking about now people will know your address. You were supposed to have a physcial address on your site all along thats not a new thing. Also a porn girl gets killed by a stalker , they wont present it as the Government fucked up . They will present how scummy and irresponsible the adult business is and how they are willing to give someones personal records away to anyone with $50 .

RicardoB · 08-25-2004, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nate-MM2
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...

Finally I thought I was beginning to think I was the only one that realised this.

And there even are ways to keep the Bills out of US

tony286 · 08-25-2004, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RicardoB
Finally I thought I was beginning to think I was the only one that realised this.

And there even are ways to keep the Bills out of US

Now this if you have money coming into this country you can be traced. Then they can also get you on Tax evasion which can make record keeping violations look like a parking ticket.
The last big porn crackdown thats how they got alot of porn people on Tax evasion.

Sarah_Jayne · 08-25-2004, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Other Steve
Sarah - they don't care - there was a thread here a couple of days ago where someone related what J D Odenberger said at the seminar at Internext.

When he challenged a senior DOJ guy with that scenario the reply was that they didn't care.

Just talk to any dancer or sex worker and they will tell you the same thing. The very people who are supposed to protect the citizens of the US think of the talent as being worthless so why should they care?

yeah, I have no doubt that they don't care but that doesn't mean I didn't write them. It is the same reason I vote even though most of the time the person I vote for doesn't win.

RicardoB · 08-25-2004, 02:51 PM

True if they don't report the money but that's not what I am hinting at.

I'll try to explain(Hope my English is good enough)

Here lies the difference:

When the money comes in from unchecked country you can put it in your administration as all kinds of things it does not have to be adult related and you will pay the same taxes.

Hope that makes sense I could explain it better in Dutch but think that wouldn't help much here

The Other Steve · 08-25-2004, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarah_webinc
yeah, I have no doubt that they don't care but that doesn't mean I didn't write them. It is the same reason I vote even though most of the time the person I vote for doesn't win.

Ah - another member of Don Quixote.com - I thought I saw you at the last chapter meeting

GatorB · 08-25-2004, 03:06 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.

The orgianl 2257 passed in 1988 but didn't take effect until the mid 1990's because of lawsuits. Look at COPA. passd in 1998 still not law( hopefully NEVER ) you think SOMEONE doesn't already have a lawsuit ready to go as soon as these rule become law? Someone files a case, gets an injunction and 5 years until MAYBE the SC hears the case.

J.R. · 08-25-2004, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ
Are you telling me I shouldn't have sold all my sites? Fuck!

Those sites are illegal in this country anyway..

Imageauction · 08-25-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xxxjay
If this was really about a crackdown on child porn then as part of the documentation they would require from you is "Date of Production" - which the new 2257 DOES NOT.

So this girl is 19 now. When was it filmed in 2004 or in 2001? One makes her a minor, one does not - but they don't even care about when it was produced.

This is a major, huge, massive failing in the new 2257 if you ask me and shows what the real intention of the regs are.

This isn't just in the new 2257 but the date of production is not codified into law. I posed this question to the legal panel at Internext and Larry Walters agreed it was a huge oversight but obenberger and picconelli just argued that they recommend clients keep that information and didn't address my core question of why it wasn't included in the law and regs.

I am tempted to NOT keep the date of filming and piss the government off but screw them its not in the law or the regs. If they are making it so anal to keep I might as well be anal about doing it exactly by the book.

TAKE THE 2257 survey

http://www.2257.com/survey/

graphicsbytia · 08-25-2004, 10:59 PM

JaceXXX

So.. did you hear from your friend?

clickhappy · 08-25-2004, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by graphicsbytia
JaceXXX

So.. did you hear from your friend?

i want to know too.
is there a follow up to this?

Dravyk · 08-26-2004, 01:30 AM

If this thread were on TV it would be called a non-news event.

Jeppe · 08-26-2004, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by graphicsbytia
JaceXXX

So.. did you hear from your friend?

BrainClaude · 08-26-2004, 05:59 AM

I think itS, better get ready anyway and have everything in order

Cheers

Claude

Khun · 08-26-2004, 06:16 AM

With each 2257 thread, the bahamas look nicer and nicer.

Cassie · 08-26-2004, 07:32 AM

still waiting for that announcement........

crockett · 08-26-2004, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imageauction
This isn't just in the new 2257 but the date of production is not codified into law. I posed this question to the legal panel at Internext and Larry Walters agreed it was a huge oversight but obenberger and picconelli just argued that they recommend clients keep that information and didn't address my core question of why it wasn't included in the law and regs.

I am tempted to NOT keep the date of filming and piss the government off but screw them its not in the law or the regs. If they are making it so anal to keep I might as well be anal about doing it exactly by the book.

TAKE THE 2257 survey

http://www.2257.com/survey/

yea that is a major fuck up by the DOJ.. in theory you could film a under aged girl wait till she turns 18 and use the content, that's pretty fucked up.

Doctor Dre · 08-26-2004, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarah_webinc
Good CYA because you just know suddenly this is going to be 'fact' on all the boards even if it turns out he was wrong.

Let's just hope ...

clickhappy · 08-26-2004, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by graphicsbytia
JaceXXX

So.. did you hear from your friend?

madthumbs · 08-26-2004, 10:31 PM

08-25-2004, 02:29 AM	#101
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	100 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

08-25-2004, 02:52 AM	#102
johnvod Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 268	Hey, just like Eve bit the apple and ruinned this before paradise,Traci Lords brought on 2257. __________________ 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, 03:28 AM	#107
johnvod Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 268	I am all for checking the age of talent,its just that i wish there was an easier way of being compliant such as getting an indemnification from the producer that would state that they have the 2257 for everything that they provide to the online secondary producer (considering if we were secondary)but,unfortunetely if they do and lie,we can't be indimnified from something possibly criminal.Indemnification only works for civil matter. __________________ 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, 03:35 AM	#109
xxxjay Tube groupie. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: LoScandalous, CA Posts: 13,482	If this was really about a crackdown on child porn then as part of the documentation they would require from you is "Date of Production" - which the new 2257 DOES NOT. So this girl is 19 now. When was it filmed in 2004 or in 2001? One makes her a minor, one does not - but they don't even care about when it was produced. This is a major, huge, massive failing in the new 2257 if you ask me and shows what the real intention of the regs are. __________________ http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/ Last edited by xxxjay; 08-25-2004 at 03:36 AM..

08-25-2004, 03:38 AM	#110
johnvod Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 268	so is there a company who is looking into making a businuss out of this yet or not? i would rather buy my 2257 records from a third party than go get them myself. __________________ 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, 03:07 AM	#104
AaronM Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐ Posts: 46,909	There are some seriously ignorant mother fuckers posting to this thread. Oh wait...... It's GFY.

08-25-2004, 04:19 AM	#113
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	I am not for the new regulations, but this discussion got me thinking, did anyone ever think about how one COULD do what 2257 asks for in a good manner? Meaning, the point of 2257, we all agree I'm sure, is to make sure minors do not appear in porn, and if they do, to easily find the people breaking the law. Now, to do this, how else do you expect this to work than to be able to point out the produce of every single picture or video you use? Isn't this really the only way to actually achive this anyway or does anyone have another bright idea? Of course, the new regulation makes us all keep records, which is, in my oppinion, total crap and the gov is just trying to make it easier for them to find illegal pictures since they do nolonger have to ask you and then the produce you tell them, but can just go to you. The other stupid thing is that they expect you to be able to list all other URLs a specific pic is on, thats just stupid. But those things set aside, isn't it a valid thing for the government to expect us to help them find CP? So at least being able to pinpoint the producer of every picture anywhere on our sites needs to be possible, no? __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

08-25-2004, 04:26 AM	#114
The Other Steve Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Sunny Queensland - perfect one day and better the next. Posts: 2,106	And to face 5 years in jail if you can't? 5 years for a clerical error? __________________ Left intentionally blank ... just like my brain

08-25-2004, 04:46 AM	#115
Cassie Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 3,139	so what is this oh so great news? this thread is 3 pages and the thread starter has yet to reveal this revelation. __________________ ICQ: 309756847 ]

08-25-2004, 06:06 AM	#117
Sarah_Jayne Now with more Jayne Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 40,077	yeah and now this is near 'fact' on another board

08-25-2004, 06:42 AM	#118
SCORE Ralph Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 2,090	It would be interesting to see the feds take on large affiliate programs. Taking down one affiliate program would affect more people than taking down one secondary producer. They could do this now, but the new regs would make this a hell of a lot easier. __________________ GetSCORECash.com \| In the Biz Since 1991 Big Tits \| Granny & MILFs \| Amateurs \| Big Booty \| Foot Fetish \| BBW \| Teens Hosted Embeds \| MP4s \| RSS Feeds \| FHGs \| Model Directory

08-25-2004, 10:02 AM	#122
neewwman Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA Posts: 1,737	What I can't believe is how brazenly transparent it is that the DOJ just wants to make life difficult for pornographers. They absolutely don't care about protecting talent, which is the original purpose of the law. Here's a very likely scenario. Crazed serial killer falls in love with a model's picture. So he sets himself up as a webmaster and finds out where he can buy content of her. Content producer gives him her real name and address. Next thing you know her head is cut off and she has a broom shoved two feet up her pussy. __________________ Porn Wealth Everything the newbie adult webmaster needs to know. Buy it, or sell it through our 50% affiliate program!

08-25-2004, 12:38 PM	#124
NichePay_Manny Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Los Angeles, Ca Posts: 1,833	I think at the end it will all work out with 2257 issues

08-25-2004, 12:48 PM	#126
gdog Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 1,550	You would think with all the taxes that are actually paid somewhat from the adult industry in the US they would have a little leverage with this and actually think this through. If its gets out of control I will consider moving off shore for sure, whats the negative on that. Processors do not care where they wire the money to, the got their cut out of it already. Look forward to the news. I remember back in 2000 it was rumored that you could not show adult hardcore images on your tours. Some people took them down, I was running BA back then and we were one of them. We lost a lot of sales for that. Is it possible for our industry to get more people in office to fight for us, nobody wants kids to see our sites, but the Internet is a big place and this happens. Kids lose parents every day to smoking yet the goverment has not problem taxing the cigarettes and taking the money. Losing a parent is way worse then a kid seeing our sites I think. What you gonna do, unfortunately this is out of our hands. __________________ Busty Amateurs is Back - Meet the Girls \| Read the BLOG \| See the UPDATES High conversions and high retention, almost 1000 hosted galleries 995 PAYS Samples Big Boobs \| Busty Babes \| Strap Ons \| Hardcore \| Amateurs \| Videos

08-25-2004, 02:51 PM	#135
RicardoB Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,576	True if they don't report the money but that's not what I am hinting at. I'll try to explain(Hope my English is good enough) Here lies the difference: When the money comes in from unchecked country you can put it in your administration as all kinds of things it does not have to be adult related and you will pay the same taxes. Hope that makes sense I could explain it better in Dutch but think that wouldn't help much here __________________ Let Me Show Ya How I Really Feel Ricardo's Rants

08-25-2004, 10:59 PM	#140
graphicsbytia Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,618	JaceXXX So.. did you hear from your friend?

08-26-2004, 01:30 AM	#142
Dravyk Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Yo, Philly! Posts: 1,202	If this thread were on TV it would be called a non-news event. __________________ All Of 'Em

08-26-2004, 05:59 AM	#144
BrainClaude Registered User Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 37	I think itS, better get ready anyway and have everything in order Cheers Claude __________________ 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.

08-26-2004, 06:16 AM	#145
Khun Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: TN Posts: 1,239	With each 2257 thread, the bahamas look nicer and nicer. __________________ Sig is on vacation... (I wish I could vacation as long as my sig has...)

08-26-2004, 07:32 AM	#146
Cassie Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 3,139	still waiting for that announcement........ __________________ ICQ: 309756847 ]

08-26-2004, 10:31 PM	#150
madthumbs Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Lexington, KY Posts: 339	bump