Perfection Jeff and his 13/14/15 year old non nude sites. - GoFuckYourself.com

fünkmaster · 01-28-2005, 03:25 PM

... we shall never forget where he is coming from.

http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread...threadid=87169

Quote:

Originally Posted by PerfectionGirls

Anyone have info on this? Just got a letter from ccbill saying that as of Nov. 15th they will no longer process "teen" under eighteen year old sites. While I agree that the child porn and other garbage needs to be controled and or eliminated, there is a huge market for legitimate teen model websites. I happen to run a couple that are totally non-nude and are tasteful teen sites.
I also understand that these processors are getting a ton of heat from Visa i.e. the $750.00 we all had to pay and what not.
What really pisses me off is that I got this letter from ccbill at 9pm est on Friday and I got a whole 6 days to shut down my site and find another processor. It is my understanding that they have known these changes were coming for over a month without one word to their webmasters. To make it worse.. they collected the $750.00 and sold me a new, dedicated server in the last few days $2400.00 without one word of these changes that will effect 30% of my sales.
With the new Visa restrictions I can not just go find another processor without having Visa's stamp of approval and since my paperwork is still being process through ccbill I am totally fucked. I might not be able to be up and running again for over thirty days.. Why the hell did they not give us warning? I mean I do 200K a year in sales at ccbill and no warning? Bull Shit. I guess I am just fucked.

davethetruth · 01-28-2005, 03:28 PM

That's fucked up.

Jace · 01-28-2005, 03:39 PM

no, we shall NEVER forget

unless money is involved to make us forget

that is the way it works, right?

Tuga · 01-28-2005, 03:41 PM

Yes it is fucked up.

Paco, of Large Cash. · 01-28-2005, 03:42 PM

uh, teen model site? Yah, RYGHT!

sick fuck

Doctor Dre · 01-28-2005, 03:44 PM

I can't beleive that guy is still arround

pushpills · 01-28-2005, 03:47 PM

and he owes Ipods all over town.

MetaMan · 01-28-2005, 03:53 PM

why the fuck did pornkings take on this guy is my question?

RRACY · 01-28-2005, 03:54 PM

CCbill stopped processing for under eighteen NN sites and he came here to protest.

This was the defining moment for this creep.

MetaMan · 01-28-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRACY

CCbill stopped processing for under eighteen NN sites and he came here to protest.

This was the defining moment for this creep.

i guess shaving countless affiliates isnt.

flashfire · 01-28-2005, 03:55 PM

I guess some people will do anything for money

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 03:56 PM

So he had sites with clothed underage girls. Big fucking deal.

fünkmaster · 01-28-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

So he had sites with clothed underage girls. Big fucking deal.

... and another pedo just came out of the closet. added to mylist.

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fünkmaster

... and another pedo just came out of the closet. added to mylist.

You put me on "your list"? Well boo fucking hoo.

Fucking pussy

PerfectionGirls · 01-28-2005, 04:05 PM

Read the whole fucking 3 year old thread. hahaha!

Never once had a site that featured an underage girl... period.

Read the thread you drama whore.

Jesus Christ.

fünkmaster · 01-28-2005, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PerfectionGirls

Read the whole fucking 3 year old thread. hahaha!

Never once had a site that featured an underage girl... period.

Read the thread you drama whore.

Jesus Christ.

Paco, of Large Cash. · 01-28-2005, 04:14 PM

I still do not understand how it is a person can try and justify something by using money as a defense ... it makes no sense to me.

I wish he had a daughter, then he may understand ... actually, scratch that ... maybe for the non-exsisting child it is better that he not cause he would most likely .. you know.

Originally Posted by punkworld
So he had sites with clothed underage girls. Big fucking deal.

What is the purpose of a clothed 'teen model' [?] and please do not try and tell me it is no different from the magazine Seventeen, cause it is.
I bet if you looked at the member database you would see 95-99% of the first names are mens, and the other few % are for dumbasses that need to use their spouses CC.

I do not have children so I am not being a protective parent.
I do not believe in the arguement 'that is how things were done in the old days' and for many good reasons, but the main one ... yah, that is because at fourteen half their life was already over (average age of death was 28-30).

andrej_NDC · 01-28-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

why the fuck did pornkings take on this guy is my question?

$$$...but they can lose more in the long run by working with scammers...

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paco, of Large Cash.

I still do not understand how it is a person can try and justify something by using money as a defense ... it makes no sense to me.

I wish he had a daughter, then he may understand ... actually, scratch that ... maybe for the non-exsisting child it is better that he not cause he would most likely .. you know.

Originally Posted by punkworld
So he had sites with clothed underage girls. Big fucking deal.

What is the purpose of a clothed 'teen model' [?] and please do not try and tell me it is no different from the magazine Seventeen, cause it is.
I bet if you looked at the member database you would see 95-99% of the first names are mens, and the other few % are for dumbasses that need to use their spouses CC.

I do not have children so I am not being a protective parent.
I do not believe in the arguement 'that is how things were done in the old days' and for many good reasons, but the main one ... yah, that is because at fourteen half their life was already over (average age of death was 28-30).

Why is a fully clothed pic of a 15 year old wrong and a pic of an 18 year old getting double anal right?

The average teen has sex at 15, and I see no way that *fully clothed* pics of teens of that age are extremely damaging to them. Sure, it may turn out to be a stupid choice, but one they are fully capable of making. It's not like *fully clothed* pics will turn up later in their life and ruin their careers or whatever.

Hell, most 15 year old girls go to clubs and pretend to be 18. Thinking they're innocent little girls with no idea of what they're doing is being naive.

andrej_NDC · 01-28-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

Why is a fully clothed pic of a 15 year old wrong and a pic of an 18 year old getting double anal right?

The average teen has sex at 15, and I see no way that *fully clothed* pics of teens of that age are extremely damaging to them. Sure, it may turn out to be a stupid choice, but one they are fully capable of making. It's not like *fully clothed* pics will turn up later in their life and ruin their careers or whatever.

Hell, most 15 year old girls go to clubs and pretend to be 18. Thinking they're innocent little girls with no idea of what they're doing is being naive.

this thinking is wrong! You cannot say why is 15 bad, if 18 is ok. Then you could also say, why is 14 bad, when 15 is ok, why is 13 bad, when 14 is ok...We all know what is the targetted audience of such site, no matter if its non nude, its the pedo traffic.

Loryn · 01-28-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

Why is a fully clothed pic of a 15 year old wrong and a pic of an 18 year old getting double anal right?

The average teen has sex at 15, and I see no way that *fully clothed* pics of teens of that age are extremely damaging to them. Sure, it may turn out to be a stupid choice, but one they are fully capable of making. It's not like *fully clothed* pics will turn up later in their life and ruin their careers or whatever.

Hell, most 15 year old girls go to clubs and pretend to be 18. Thinking they're innocent little girls with no idea of what they're doing is being naive.

I don't think it's about the girls in the pictures, I think it's about the 50 year old men jerking off to a 13 year old girl in her panties and bra on her knees!!!

Loryn · 01-28-2005, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

this thinking is wrong! You cannot say why is 15 bad, if 18 is ok. Then you could also say, why is 14 bad, when 15 is ok, why is 13 bad, when 14 is ok...We all know what is the targetted audience of such site, no matter if its non nude, its the pedo traffic.

I don't think he is talking about moving the line back!!!

andrej_NDC · 01-28-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loryn-Adult.com

I don't think he is talking about moving the line back!!!

I was not talking about him, he was talking about 15+, but I think its easy to get what I meant.

Paco, of Large Cash. · 01-28-2005, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

Why is a fully clothed pic of a 15 year old wrong and a pic of an 18 year old getting double anal right?

The average teen has sex at 15, and I see no way that *fully clothed* pics of teens of that age are extremely damaging to them. Sure, it may turn out to be a stupid choice, but one they are fully capable of making. It's not like *fully clothed* pics will turn up later in their life and ruin their careers or whatever.

Hell, most 15 year old girls go to clubs and pretend to be 18. Thinking they're innocent little girls with no idea of what they're doing is being naive.

- no matter how many dicks one has in her ass, she is 18 (age of majority/consent)

- PRETENDING to be 18 is still pretending and that is what CHILDREN do.

We all know teens try and want to be cool, so they will do whatever trend tells them. So, we all know porn is more popular and mainstream than ever before, so the pressure on pre-majority is more than before.

I am not religious by any means (somewhat spiritual), so that is not my damage.
I am not going to argue (debate) morals and ethics with you cause my mind is made up on this.

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paco, of Large Cash.

- no matter how many dicks one has in her ass, she is 18 (age of majority/consent)

- PRETENDING to be 18 is still pretending and that is what CHILDREN do.

We all know teens try and want to be cool, so they will do whatever trend tells them. So, we all know porn is more popular and mainstream than ever before, so the pressure on pre-majority is more than before.

I am not religious by any means (somewhat spiritual), so that is not my damage.
I am not going to argue (debate) morals and ethics with you cause my mind is made up on this.

First of all, the legal limit for those cocks in her ass is indeed 18, and the legal limit for posing fully clothed is 0. Your point is?

Secondly, not only teens try to be cool, so do adults. Women in their fourties pretend to be in their thirties, slacker men pretend to be well-off, ugly women pretend to be beautiful (make up), etc. The truth is that most people try to be something they are not, and the majority do that because of what society says. You didn't seriously believe women enjoy being on diets, did you?

Basically, you have no valid points at all, and like you already said "your mind is made up" (obviously a result of the culture in which you grew up), so you're pretty much blindly following dogmas.

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loryn-Adult.com

I don't think it's about the girls in the pictures, I think it's about the 50 year old men jerking off to a 13 year old girl in her panties and bra on her knees!!!

And if those men don't jerk off to these sites, they'll jerk off to clothing catalogues, pictures they take themselves on the beach or whatever, or just their own fantasies about young girls. It may be disgusting, but other than that it's pretty meaningless. If those girls aren't harmed by the pictures, who cares?
I find 60 year old dirty men who watch 18 year olds getting assfucked pretty nauseating, but it's just not my business.

andrej_NDC · 01-28-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

so you're pretty much blindly following dogmas.

when you have a 15 years old daughter and she tells you some guy want to shoot her with clothes for a paysite for horny older men, what will you say?

BradShaw · 01-28-2005, 05:12 PM

Anyone who does biz with this guy is an idiot.

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

this thinking is wrong! You cannot say why is 15 bad, if 18 is ok. Then you could also say, why is 14 bad, when 15 is ok, why is 13 bad, when 14 is ok...We all know what is the targetted audience of such site, no matter if its non nude, its the pedo traffic.

I didn't say "why is 15 bad, if 18 is ok". I said "why is 15 fully clothed bad, if 18 getting double anal is ok". I'm not pointing out the relativity of age-limits, I'm pointing out the awkwardness of a single hard line.

In my opinion, something like this would make a lot more sense:
14+ - non nude
16+ - topless
18+ - softcore
21+ - hardcore

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

when you have a 15 years old daughter and she tells you some guy want to shoot her with clothes for a paysite for horny older men, what will you say?

Thanks for giving another argument for my point: nobody is forcing them and their parents to do it. Saying "no" is a perfectly valid possibility.

pornstar2pac · 01-28-2005, 05:17 PM

sig placement page one goes into effect, right now

andrej_NDC · 01-28-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

Thanks for giving another argument for my point: nobody is forcing them and their parents to do it. Saying "no" is a perfectly valid possibility.

I doubt their parents know...

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

I doubt their parents know...

In which case, the sites should be illegal because underage people are unable to sign legally binding contracts (e.g. release forms) without the express consent of their guardians.

andrej_NDC · 01-28-2005, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

In which case, the sites should be illegal because underage people are unable to sign legally binding contracts (e.g. release forms) without the express consent of their guardians.

I cant imagine a parent who signs this, either the paysite guy dont explain them the real facts or the kid just fakes the sign.

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

I cant imagine a parent who signs this, either the paysite guy dont explain them the real facts or the kid just fakes the sign.

You can't imagine greedy parents?

Mack · 01-28-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

why the fuck did pornkings take on this guy is my question?

To answer your question. Pornkings made a business decision to aquire the perfection cash sites and eventually the program. Part of that arrangement involved Jeff being contracted to Handle various items in the content and marketing area for PC for a specified length of time. This part arrangement is no longer in place, therefore Jeff no longer works with Pornkings or for Perfection Cash.

andrej_NDC · 01-28-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

You can't imagine greedy parents?

hmm, probably I dont want to imagine them, thats the problem

Holly · 01-28-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

I doubt their parents know...

Are you serious?

The problem with those sites is that the vast majority of that shit is nothing but sorry ass, no good for nothing parents who whore their kids out for a buck. They're specifically sticking their little girls on the net and dressing them in provocative outfits, poses, etc., to get money from older men who are into that shit.

Who would a "teen model" site that charges a fucken monthly subscription fee, be for? Other 13 year olds??? They don't have a credit card. It's the pedos that are lining the parents' pockets, and they damn well know it. I doubt the kids every see a damn penny of it.

It think not only should they have their kids taken away from them, but someone should put a bullet in their skulls.

RRACY · 01-28-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly

Are you serious?

The problem with those sites is that the vast majority of that shit is nothing but sorry ass, no good for nothing parents who whore their kids out for a buck. They're specifically sticking their little girls on the net and dressing them in provocative outfits, poses, etc., to get money from older men who are into that shit.

Who would a "teen model" site that charges a fucken monthly subscription fee, be for? Other 13 year olds??? They don't have a credit card. It's the pedos that are lining the parents' pockets, and they damn well know it. I doubt the kids every see a damn penny of it.

It think not only should they have their kids taken away from them, but someone should put a bullet in their skulls.

Jonbenet Ramsey? One of the reasons for me getting on the net was to read more about her case. Still unsolved.

pornstar2pac · 01-28-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mack

To answer your question. Pornkings made a business decision to aquire the perfection cash sites and eventually the program. Part of that arrangement involved Jeff being contracted to Handle various items in the content and marketing area for PC for a specified length of time. This part arrangement is no longer in place, therefore Jeff no longer works with Pornkings or for Perfection Cash.

that's good to hear Mack. hope everything is going well over at pornkings

Young · 01-28-2005, 05:42 PM

Providing Pedo's with content to get off too is not cool. There is no argument here.

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly

Are you serious?

The problem with those sites is that the vast majority of that shit is nothing but sorry ass, no good for nothing parents who whore their kids out for a buck. They're specifically sticking their little girls on the net and dressing them in provocative outfits, poses, etc., to get money from older men who are into that shit.

Who would a "teen model" site that charges a fucken monthly subscription fee, be for? Other 13 year olds??? They don't have a credit card. It's the pedos that are lining the parents' pockets, and they damn well know it. I doubt the kids every see a damn penny of it.

It think not only should they have their kids taken away from them, but someone should put a bullet in their skulls.

My guess is that in quite a few cases (e.g. eastern european and russian sites) the money actually benefits the entire family, including the girls on the sites.

Does it matter who the sites are for? So long as the girls on them aren't harmed in any way, and aren't forced to do anything they don't want to do, I don't think it's all that bad. Disgusting, maybe, but not necessarily wrong.

jimmyf · 01-28-2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

Hell, most 15 year old girls go to clubs and pretend to be 18. Thinking they're innocent little girls with no idea of what they're doing is being naive.

NO most 15 year old girls do not go to clubs and pretend to be 18. It would be a tiny fraction of them that do.

Maybe the one's you know do, but that dam sure is not most.

SmokeyTheBear · 01-28-2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

My guess is that in quite a few cases (e.g. eastern european and russian sites) the money actually benefits the entire family, including the girls on the sites.

Does it matter who the sites are for? So long as the girls on them aren't harmed in any way, and aren't forced to do anything they don't want to do, I don't think it's all that bad. Disgusting, maybe, but not necessarily wrong.

I think the general feeling is that even if it doesn't harm the children directly the pervert might get so pumped on the content that he feels the need to molest children that dont have anything to do with the internet..

Its def not a clearly defined MORAL or LEGAL stand..

But the point is DOES JEFF STILL PROMOTE this material , and if so post proof , like the sites , and if he doesnt then let sleeping dogs lie..

IF jeff did promote this material and ccbill actively processed the charges , then why wouldnt you be on ccbill's case ??

MANY many people whether they want to admit it or not have profited from this sort of material right or wrong.. ccbill made money from the processing , but they chose to DISCONTINUE this source of revenue due to moral reasons.. Well it seems to me jeff took the exact same stance.. he realise the material may be harmfull and switched venues EXACTLY the same way ccbill did ..

So if you want to say JEFF HAD NON-NUDE underage girls sites , then you should also point out CCBILL processed NON-NUDE underage girls..

Holly · 01-28-2005, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkworld

Does it matter who the sites are for? So long as the girls on them aren't harmed in any way, and aren't forced to do anything they don't want to do, I don't think it's all that bad. Disgusting, maybe, but not necessarily wrong.

Yes, it's wrong. You don't do that to your children. Period.

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyf

NO most 15 year old girls do not go to clubs and pretend to be 18. It would be a tiny fraction of them that do.

Maybe the one's you know do, but that dam sure is not most.

Well, I don't actually know any 15 year olds (I tend to hang out with people my own age), but when I was 15, the ones I knew did that. Also, when I go out, I generally see tons of underage girls.

PerfectionGirls · 01-28-2005, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

I think the general feeling is that even if it doesn't harm the children directly the pervert might get so pumped on the content that he feels the need to molest children that dont have anything to do with the internet..

Its def not a clearly defined MORAL or LEGAL stand..

But the point is DOES JEFF STILL PROMOTE this material , and if so post proof , like the sites , and if he doesnt then let sleeping dogs lie..

IF jeff did promote this material and ccbill actively processed the charges , then why wouldnt you be on ccbill's case ??

MANY many people whether they want to admit it or not have profited from this sort of material right or wrong.. ccbill made money from the processing , but they chose to DISCONTINUE this source of revenue due to moral reasons.. Well it seems to me jeff took the exact same stance.. he realise the material may be harmfull and switched venues EXACTLY the same way ccbill did ..

So if you want to say JEFF HAD NON-NUDE underage girls sites , then you should also point out CCBILL processed NON-NUDE underage girls..

Thank you again. Never had a site that featured an girl under the age of 18 and I never will. I have always proceed with ccbill and the guidlines there are very clear as we as the 2257 document attached to the websites I ran.

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

I think the general feeling is that even if it doesn't harm the children directly the pervert might get so pumped on the content that he feels the need to molest children that dont have anything to do with the internet..

Its def not a clearly defined MORAL or LEGAL stand..

But the point is DOES JEFF STILL PROMOTE this material , and if so post proof , like the sites , and if he doesnt then let sleeping dogs lie..

IF jeff did promote this material and ccbill actively processed the charges , then why wouldnt you be on ccbill's case ??

MANY many people whether they want to admit it or not have profited from this sort of material right or wrong.. ccbill made money from the processing , but they chose to DISCONTINUE this source of revenue due to moral reasons.. Well it seems to me jeff took the exact same stance.. he realise the material may be harmfull and switched venues EXACTLY the same way ccbill did ..

So if you want to say JEFF HAD NON-NUDE underage girls sites , then you should also point out CCBILL processed NON-NUDE underage girls..

I don't think fully clothed 15 year olds on the internet lead to men raping 15 year olds any more than I believe that 18 year olds on the internet lead to men raping 18 year olds.

As for PerfectionJeff... I don't think he ever actually had any underage nude sites. Otherwise, they would have been posted a long, long time ago.

just a punk · 01-28-2005, 06:01 PM

Hey guys, seems I have missed something very important here. Are you talking about perfectioncash.com? Do they have illegal content there? I'm asking this question because PerfectionCash is listed at my FHGStore service: http://www.fhgstore.com/perfectioncash.html

I always thought they are legal. At least the mentioned program was billed by CCBill and I didn't see any underage FHG's in the list (at least the ones listed at fhgstore.com). Thus please tell me exactly the status of PerfectionCash. Should I remove it from FHGStore.com?

Libertine · 01-28-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly

Yes, it's wrong. You don't do that to your children. Period.

Why? Why is it worse to have girls pose fully clothed than to have them grow up in poverty, without the possibility to get a decent education and thus probably without a future?

Also, since men also jack off to clothing catalogues, would it be just as wrong for parents to let their daughters pose for those?

01-28-2005, 03:28 PM	#2
davethetruth Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,806	That's fucked up. __________________ Rainbow Revenue- The BEST Gay Conversions New Sex Toy Affiliate Program! Get $10.00 Just For Joining! Choose from two Sex Toy Stores to promote: BedroomSports- Since 1998 - Now New & Improved! VibratorWarehouse- New Site with Excellent Conversions!

01-28-2005, 03:41 PM	#4
Tuga Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Portugal Posts: 7,678	Yes it is fucked up. __________________ Go Fuck Yourself! ICQ 101411627

01-28-2005, 03:56 PM	#12
Libertine sex dwarf Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 17,860	So he had sites with clothed underage girls. Big fucking deal. __________________ /(bb\|[^b]{2})/

01-28-2005, 04:05 PM	#15
PerfectionGirls Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: MI Posts: 4,484	Read the whole fucking 3 year old thread. hahaha! Never once had a site that featured an underage girl... period. Read the thread you drama whore. Jesus Christ. __________________ 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.

01-28-2005, 05:12 PM	#28
BradShaw Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: KB's trailer Posts: 7,840	Anyone who does biz with this guy is an idiot. __________________ Sig too big http://www.gofuckyourself.com/gfy_faqs.html Want to use a large banner in your sig??? Contact Eric about getting on as an advertiser - eric AT adult.com

01-28-2005, 03:39 PM	#3
Jace FBOP Class Of 2013 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: bumfuck, ky Posts: 35,562	no, we shall NEVER forget unless money is involved to make us forget that is the way it works, right?

01-28-2005, 03:42 PM	#5
Paco, of Large Cash. Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: --> . <-- Posts: 2,267	uh, teen model site? Yah, RYGHT! sick fuck

01-28-2005, 03:47 PM	#7
pushpills Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: CHICAGO Posts: 3,700	and he owes Ipods all over town.

01-28-2005, 03:53 PM	#8
MetaMan I AM WEB 2.0 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,682	why the fuck did pornkings take on this guy is my question?

01-28-2005, 03:54 PM	#9
RRACY Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,393	CCbill stopped processing for under eighteen NN sites and he came here to protest. This was the defining moment for this creep.

01-28-2005, 03:55 PM	#11
flashfire ICQ 1 6 7 8 5 3 4 9 2 Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 13,098	I guess some people will do anything for money

01-28-2005, 04:14 PM	#17
Paco, of Large Cash. Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: --> . <-- Posts: 2,267	I still do not understand how it is a person can try and justify something by using money as a defense ... it makes no sense to me. I wish he had a daughter, then he may understand ... actually, scratch that ... maybe for the non-exsisting child it is better that he not cause he would most likely .. you know. Originally Posted by punkworld So he had sites with clothed underage girls. Big fucking deal. What is the purpose of a clothed 'teen model' [?] and please do not try and tell me it is no different from the magazine Seventeen, cause it is. I bet if you looked at the member database you would see 95-99% of the first names are mens, and the other few % are for dumbasses that need to use their spouses CC. I do not have children so I am not being a protective parent. I do not believe in the arguement 'that is how things were done in the old days' and for many good reasons, but the main one ... yah, that is because at fourteen half their life was already over (average age of death was 28-30).

01-28-2005, 05:17 PM	#31
pornstar2pac Omaha Hi/Lo Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 17,380	sig placement page one goes into effect, right now __________________ Trump haters gonna hate. that's all they can do

01-28-2005, 05:42 PM	#41
Young Bland for life Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 10,468	Providing Pedo's with content to get off too is not cool. There is no argument here.

01-28-2005, 06:01 PM	#49
just a punk So fuckin' bored Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 32,386	Hey guys, seems I have missed something very important here. Are you talking about perfectioncash.com? Do they have illegal content there? I'm asking this question because PerfectionCash is listed at my FHGStore service: http://www.fhgstore.com/perfectioncash.html I always thought they are legal. At least the mentioned program was billed by CCBill and I didn't see any underage FHG's in the list (at least the ones listed at fhgstore.com). Thus please tell me exactly the status of PerfectionCash. Should I remove it from FHGStore.com? __________________ Obey the Cowgod