MY CALL TO GEORGE BUSH about .XXX WORKED....DETAILS!

[MikeHawk]

Bush administration objects to .xxx domains

By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: August 15, 2005, 4:15 PM PT

The Bush administration is objecting to the creation of a .xxx domain, saying it has concerns about a virtual red-light district reserved exclusively for Internet pornography.

Michael Gallagher, assistant secretary at the Commerce Department, has asked for a hold to be placed on the contract to run the new top-level domain until the .xxx suffix can receive further scrutiny. The domain was scheduled to receive final approval Tuesday.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5...=zdfd.newsfeed

[JuiceMonkey]

heh yeah we found this out the other day, no?

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by JuiceMonkey

heh yeah we found this out the other day, no?

It's better when Mike posts it




Fight the better the second time around!

[reed_4]

well that would be a good news to the porn industry. we just hope that things would really turn out right this time.

[$pikes]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

It's better when Mike posts it

[Harley Girl]

lol, mikehawk has pull at the white house...

[NaughtyRob]

Haha. Good stuff.

[2HousePlague]

it's the year 2017. i am taking my turn behind the wheel of our brand new hover-bago. the wife is in the back shooting a new "full-feel" holo-smuttie with international porn starlet, zentrina when we get pulled over -- somewhere in the middle of texas:

30-something tex-trooper: "can i see your license, registration and roadplan, please."

me: [holding in my bonghit] "errrr -- sure officer, i have all that right here..." [waving my identa under his nasal scanner]

trooper: "okay, that checks out... looked like you swerved a bit back there, coming around that curve... what are you all doin' back there?"

me: "doin'? doin'? -- we're not DOin' anything -- we're shooting holo-smutties -- wanna watch"? [chuckle with depravity]

trooper: [recoils in horror, runs to patrol car, tires screech, car disappears down the road]

me: "fuck, man..." [turns to wife]

wife: "poor bastard."

me: "poor texan. they were never the same, since bush vetoed the .XXX TLD back in 2006."

wife: "yeah."

me: "who could have known that dot-TRIPLE-MEXXX was forming just across the border in tijuana..."

wife: "no one, that's who."

me: "the irony is staggering... MEXICO becomes the porn capital of the world and the wealthiest nation in less than a decade, while all these poor slobs in law enforcement have to stay awake listening to the party across the border.. all night long."

wife: serves 'em right! they were right there with their billie clubs and buttporods in 2009, during the LA porn riots. i didn't see any of 'em lend a hand when they tarred and feathered jenna jameson. fuck 'em."

me: [nods] yeah, you're right hun -- c'mon -- the meter's runnin' on zentrina's vag-cam... we should be across the border in 10 minutes..."


END


2HP

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

me: "poor texan. they were never the same, since bush vetoed the .XXX TLD back in 2006."

your future shock story was quite amusing

but coming to the reality of things, i am confused at the above qouted line and about how porn moved to Mexico.

It would seem the premise would be true, IF, .XXX was fully approved and adopted by the US as a mandatory thing, that companies could then go to mexico to setup shop.

The story that Mike was posting was expressing some objections by Bush on .XXX for its fear of creating a red light district.

Mexico has some strict laws about porn (despite the hanky-panky that goes on in TJ).. i believe it is illegal to shoot porn in mexico.

maybe i am looking at this too analytical, but for satire to have its full effectiveness, it does need to convey the message at the end that drives things home once the laughter has subsided, and after reading your post and laffing, and the laughter subsiding, i'm confused.


Fight the Huh?

[phonesex]

sex.com thinks .xxx is cool. Just check out the bottom of their homepage

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by phonesex

sex.com thinks .xxx is cool. Just check out the bottom of their homepage

actually, Gary is opposed to .XXX and put sex.xxx on his site and filed trademarks in order to keep .XXX registry folks from selling his domain to others, and doesn't require him to pay money into the scheme.


Fight the .YYY!

[2HousePlague]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

your future shock story was quite amusing

but coming to the reality of things, i am confused at the above qouted line and about how porn moved to Mexico.

It would seem the premise would be true, IF, .XXX was fully approved and adopted by the US as a mandatory thing, that companies could then go to mexico to setup shop.

The story that Mike was posting was expressing some objections by Bush on .XXX for its fear of creating a red light district.

Mexico has some strict laws about porn (despite the hanky-panky that goes on in TJ).. i believe it is illegal to shoot porn in mexico.

maybe i am looking at this too analytical, but for satire to have its full effectiveness, it does need to convey the message at the end that drives things home once the laughter has subsided, and after reading your post and laffing, and the laughter subsiding, i'm confused.


Fight the Huh?

sorry, brandon -- i guess you were lookin' for the message to resolve clearly to either "yay" or "nay" -- it doesn't and i don't.

at this hour of night, i'm afraid all i hear in this dialogue is absurdity, hence my absurdist echo -- the moral of my story (if there is one) is nature abhors a vaccum -- if somebody moves out, somebody else is gonna move in. mexico is as likely a place for porn to find a happy home as .XXX is.

2HP

[Cains]

From what I've heard they just want to see what kind of protection can be added to .XXX to protect against it becoming an international haven for certain types of illegal porn. Under .com rules the US can enforce certain content restrictions over some of the countries that objected to .XXX (those that can host stronger types of content) and so the US can restrict them via ICANN and those who control the .com/.net/etc nameservers. What the US can't do is enforce their rules on country specific TLDs, they can't even block access from US citizens without special permission as it violates the WTO rules.

To the tinfoil-hat wearers amongst us who think the government can ban access to .xxx in the future, I'd like to point towards the gambling industry. The Bush administration has been very vocal in their criticism of online gambling sites accepting US traffic, the casinos and such are located in Aruba and the UK (amongst others) using mostly .com and .net extensions. Why is the Bush administration going to all the trouble of complaining to the WTO when they could simply block access from US ISPs like you think they could do with .XXX?

[polish_aristocrat]

seems like great news

and not only Bush opposes it

https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/503114-icann-website-xxx-domain-name-news.html

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Cains

Why is the Bush administration going to all the trouble of complaining to the WTO when they could simply block access from US ISPs like you think they could do with .XXX?

um.. why would the US block .XXX domains? Pornography is still legal in this country, .XXX domain or not.

It's PRIVATE sector that has more power to block .XXX domains.

Once you can label something, then you can tax it.

One of the objections against .XXX is that is possess a very easy way to apply a tax, making ICM the gatekeeper for such tax... much like the "porn tax" is proposing that the credit card processors be the gateway (as they are with VAT in europe).

It is quite an interesting turn that Bush administration would oppose such .XXX


Stuart Lawley is correct in that .XXX will open up alot of "name space".

MORE porn sites will be created.. there could be yellow.xxx that could be for pee/urine fetishes as opposed to yellow.com which is a yellow pages site.

Groups like FRC and even the Bush administration are probably seeing that .XXX will bring on even MORE porn, which ironically, means MORE exposure that kids will have, thus defeating the original intent of .XXX

So for folks like AlienQ who feel .XXX is good for the industry growth, he is right to some extent for the fact that more paysite niches can popup with more of the "name space" opened up.

And somehow, i don't think the religious and conservative forces want MORE porn.. when their fight is to REMOVE the porn.


Fight the More is More!

[Cains]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

um.. why would the US block .XXX domains? Pornography is still legal in this country, .XXX domain or not.

It's PRIVATE sector that has more power to block .XXX domains.

Once you can label something, then you can tax it.

One of the objections against .XXX is that is possess a very easy way to apply a tax, making ICM the gatekeeper for such tax... much like the "porn tax" is proposing that the credit card processors be the gateway (as they are with VAT in europe).

It is quite an interesting turn that Bush administration would oppose such .XXX


Stuart Lawley is correct in that .XXX will open up alot of "name space".

MORE porn sites will be created.. there could be yellow.xxx that could be for pee/urine fetishes as opposed to yellow.com which is a yellow pages site.

Groups like FRC and even the Bush administration are probably seeing that .XXX will bring on even MORE porn, which ironically, means MORE exposure that kids will have, thus defeating the original intent of .XXX

So for folks like AlienQ who feel .XXX is good for the industry growth, he is right to some extent for the fact that more paysite niches can popup with more of the "name space" opened up.

And somehow, i don't think the religious and conservative forces want MORE porn.. when their fight is to REMOVE the porn.


Fight the More is More!

I agree with some points but disagree with others.

I agree the US government isn't going to block .XXX, however alot of people seem to be basing their arguments on this. It isn't going to happen.

Secondly, the 'porn tax' won't happen. If by some bizarre feat it manages to get through (high unlikely) payment processors will simply move to the EU. If porn isn't forced onto .XXX (it can't be) then nobody would move to .XXX if they are automatically hit with a 25% burden compared to their competition. Also how does jurisdiction apply? if I buy a .XXX domain yet am incorporated in let's say Holland, how does the US government collect taxes on my income? I can't even be asked to declare my income to the US government when they ask as I'm neither a citizen nor a business owner of America. The porn tax won't happen, it's like the fast food tax; any kind of public issue is raised in the media, a senator will propose a tax or ban, it'll never pass but the media buzz it generates is enough to show that whoever is against that public issue.

Again, from what I have been told, the Bush administration has no stance for or against .XXX, they simply wish to check safety procedures.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

at this hour of night, i'm afraid all i hear in this dialogue is absurdity, hence my absurdist echo --

are you calling the previous 6 messages prior to your "absurdist echo", absurd dialogue?

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

the moral of my story (if there is one) is nature abhors a vaccum --

and a thread without a jack post

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

if somebody moves out, somebody else is gonna move in. mexico is as likely a place for porn to find a happy home as .XXX is.

what basis do you have to suggest that mexico be a haven for porn?
you don't think things like NAFTA/CAFTA/WHATEVERAFTA serve US interests into Mexico?

and i do believe it is against Mexican law to film or distribute pornography.


Fight the Spanish Inquisition!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Cains

I agree the US government isn't going to block .XXX, however alot of people seem to be basing their arguments on this. It isn't going to happen.

i don't recall reading anywhere the suggestion of fear by "tin foil wearers" that with .XXX means the US can block porn sites.

the argument has always been made that ISP and blocking software/hardware could block via IP and domain. Private sector can do alot more controlling and filtering than the US government.

Originally Posted by Cains

it'll never pass but the media buzz it generates is enough to show that whoever is against that public issue.

not necessarily.. the 25% number is way out of line, but we do have sin taxes in the US. Look at what used to be the online-tobacco industry doing about 4B a year... got wiped out by visa... pressures from states that were losing revenue due to no ability to tax on an internet order, caused very large and measureable losses of state income.

states like NY and CA (large populations) could see that taxing porn is an easy well to dip into, since they already tax strip clubs, adult video/books, etc. If more people are enjoying online porn over the brick-and-morter porn, then loss of revenue can also be felt by the states.

making the credit card companies collect at point of purchase is an easy way to do it, since companies like ccbill and paycom handle "high risk" accounts (ie. porn), that it would be fairly safe to assume that anyone that processes through these "adult" processors were of adult content.

So the irony here is that government and groups may feel porn is deviant, but yet, they derive revenue from its existance.

Originally Posted by Cains

Again, from what I have been told, the Bush administration has no stance for or against .XXX, they simply wish to check safety procedures.

who have you been talking to?




Fight the taxation on pornification!

[Cains]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

i don't recall reading anywhere the suggestion of fear by "tin foil wearers" that with .XXX means the US can block porn sites.

the argument has always been made that ISP and blocking software/hardware could block via IP and domain. Private sector can do alot more controlling and filtering than the US government.

I've read on GFY people believing both the public and private sector will block .XXX, truth is it won't happen. Filtering software is far more effective based on domain, I really don't know many who base on IP, and I'd expect most to simply block .XXX as a whole rather than individual sites.

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

not necessarily.. the 25% number is way out of line, but we do have sin taxes in the US. Look at what used to be the online-tobacco industry doing about 4B a year... got wiped out by visa... pressures from states that were losing revenue due to no ability to tax on an internet order, caused very large and measureable losses of state income.

states like NY and CA (large populations) could see that taxing porn is an easy well to dip into, since they already tax strip clubs, adult video/books, etc. If more people are enjoying online porn over the brick-and-morter porn, then loss of revenue can also be felt by the states.

making the credit card companies collect at point of purchase is an easy way to do it, since companies like ccbill and paycom handle "high risk" accounts (ie. porn), that it would be fairly safe to assume that anyone that processes through these "adult" processors were of adult content.

So the irony here is that government and groups may feel porn is deviant, but yet, they derive revenue from its existance.

I agree they could but the payment processors (the point of purchase) will simply move abroad, CCBill already has a very good EU unit and I'd expect Ron Cadwell to be more than capable of finding the best solution for the adult industry.

[Basic_man]

Ho yeah ! That's one good news !!

[polish_aristocrat]

bump for this thread

[MikeHawk]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

are you calling the previous 6 messages prior to your "absurdist echo", absurd dialogue?






and a thread without a jack post





what basis do you have to suggest that mexico be a haven for porn?
you don't think things like NAFTA/CAFTA/WHATEVERAFTA serve US interests into Mexico?

and i do believe it is against Mexican law to film or distribute pornography.


Fight the Spanish Inquisition!

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Umm...


I predicted it would take the White House to Stop .XXX.

Never mind the rantings of a 'GFY Idiot" however huh?
Ya people never believe me...


.XXX will still go through.
But not Tuesday.
Mark the words.

[RogerV]

Mike the sky is still falling and there is no money to be made in Porn.

[MikeHawk]

Originally Posted by Cains

I've read on GFY people believing both the public and private sector will block .XXX, truth is it won't happen. Filtering software is far more effective based on domain, I really don't know many who base on IP, and I'd expect most to simply block .XXX as a whole rather than individual sites.





I agree they could but the payment processors (the point of purchase) will simply move abroad, CCBill already has a very good EU unit and I'd expect Ron Cadwell to be more than capable of finding the best solution for the adult industry.

Here ya Cains....explain this:

Richard Henderson wrote:

> HelpHere is a good example of the symbiotic relationship that
> exists between ICANN and the DNS Supply industry (Registries and
> Registrars). In a post this week to the Registrars Mailing List, Jason
> Hendeles wrote as follows:
>
> "I for one see no reason at this time to approve any increase in
> fees... It's time we send ICANN a clear message that we need new
> revenue opportunities in order to justify any increase in fees. The
> last time ICANN did anything positive for our constituency was when
> they authorized the creation of new domains for the registrars to
> market. That was almost 3 years ago... I think the registrars should
> take this opportunity to apply pressure to ICANN to open up the
> process for releasing new domain names... I think that we should
> reject any increase until something tangible is given back to our
> constituency.
>
> Jason Hendeles
> A Technology Company, Inc."
>
> In other words, the belief that an objective way forward on extending
> the namespace for the public good can be compromised by applying
> financial pressure on ICANN, which is heavily dependent on the
> Registrar community for revenue.
>
> The allocation of the previous NewTLDs greatly favoured people like
> Ken Stubbs who were closely involved with ICANN, in favouring what
> could be called the 'insider' bid of the Registrars' Cartel who were
> granted .info ... in addition to this, when the public protested at
> the abuse of process and the profit-making that occurred during the
> moneyfest that was the launch of .info and .biz, ICANN refused to
> intervene and some registrars got away with daylight robbery.
>
> Jason Hendeles' own company was involved in the very short lists
> submitted by a few registrars to exploit registrar privilege by
> gaining advantage over the general public in the round-robin exercises
> through which desirable domains were released. Now he seems to be
> calling for ICANN to be pressurised into decisions on the basis of a
> financial hold he seems to think the Registrars have over ICANN.
>
> ICANN's selection of NewTLDs has attracted real concerns; ICANN's
> evaluation of the NewTLDs has appeared amateurish and unaccountable;
> ICANN's policy on further NewTLDs has seemed arbitrary; its
> restrictions on who can apply in the next round of gTLDs seems
> arbitrary and unreasonable.
>
> How can we rely on ICANN to make decisions in the interests of the
> broader public if it is dependent for money on registrars like Mr
> Hendeles who see that dependency as a negotiating weapon for putting
> private profit first. ICANN is supposed to be Not-For-Profit and its
> decisions must reflect that.
>
> Mr Hendeles : go and sell hot-dogs! Leave internet governance alone!
>
> And ICANN: no-one will trust you as long as you have this dependent
> symbiotic relationship with Registries and Registrars.
>
> * * *
>
> Yrs,
>
> Richard H
>
>
>

[MikeHawk]

Originally Posted by RogerV

Mike the sky is still falling and there is no money to be made in Porn.

[Jman]

You know I have much love and support for you Mike

www.fuckdotxxx.com

[Cains]

Simple Mike, that's someone's opinion and not a fact.

The ssTLD process is open and fair and has been openly reviewed, it favours nobody. ICANN has no dependance on review money, it contributes less than 1% of ICANN's $15.8m budget.

ICANN receives no other private money beyond the proposal fee from any potential ssTLD applicant.

[MikeHawk]

Originally Posted by JMan

You know I have much love and support for you Mike

www.fuckdotxxx.com

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Commerce always wins in the end...

Its a way of life, people make money.

Since when is that a bad thing?

[xclusive]

amazing what a little phone bone with the prez can do

[dynastoned]

bush finally did something thats worth the fuck. can't fuckin believe it..

[rebel23]

Cains, your poker analogy doesnt hold up, they have made it illegal to allow VISA/MC to fund these accounts, or are trying to, so when will they make it illegal for VISA/MC to be accepted on .com adult sites and only on .xxx ?? Please answer...

[FightThisPatent]

Keep up those phone calls mike!

Augst 16th CNN article: Decision delayed for .XXX domain

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/interne....ap/index.html


cliff notes: .xxx delayed for another month for more review


Fight the Link Challenged!

[slavdogg]

ELITE FAMILY LCC

must me pissed off at the news
they filed 100s of trademark aplications for .xxx domains

[VeriSexy]

I like the .xxx idea Keep all the porn leaching teens from seeing porn....

[je_rome]

bush finally did something thats worth the fuck. can't fuckin believe it..

exactly what i had in mind.

[MikeHawk]

Originally Posted by VeriSexy

I like the .xxx idea Keep all the porn leaching teens from seeing porn....

Please tell me you are joking?


Just explain to me how they will do that? For some reason when I sat in the panel and listened and have read not a single thing that will ever ever make that a reality.

I have children, by being a smart and responsible parent and using the software that is available now, the very same thing can happen with out our company and everyone else worrying about paying 60 to 75 dollars for your domain ....every year. Damn

[Cains]

Originally Posted by rebel23

Cains, your poker analogy doesnt hold up, they have made it illegal to allow VISA/MC to fund these accounts, or are trying to, so when will they make it illegal for VISA/MC to be accepted on .com adult sites and only on .xxx ?? Please answer...

Sorry, you've lost me, I can only assume you're talking about online gambling. VISA/MC still accept online gambling charges from US citizens, they simply process them offshore where the US government would have to fight the WTO, which they have already done unsuccessfully. If the government (in a highly unlikely move) wants to ban .com adult sites from being accepted merchants for VISA/MC then first they have to go through the relevant channels (which i'm sure the FSC will oppose) then the processing will move offshore, just like gambling.

If they wanted to make it illegal to process VISA/MC for online adult, they would have done it by now. .XXX does nothing negative to the adult industry, it's voluntary.

[FightThisPatent]

Connor had started a new thread with this post:

---------------------------------------------
This from the L.A. Times:

Bret Fausett, an intellectual property lawyer in Los Angeles who sits on some ICANN committees, said the .xxx domain could allow Congress to create laws for the Internet, such as those that prohibit adult stores near schools.

"People who didn't understand the proposal thought it was horrible because it would actually promote the acceptability and spread of pornography," he said. "In fact, it was intended to do just the opposite."

http://www.latimes.com/business/cust...ck=1&cset=true

---------------------------------------------


Stuart ( "Cains" )... so has this attorney now joined the group of "tin foil" wears since he is talking about what could happen with .XXX?

and yes, i already know its "voluntary" so you can pick the needle up over your over spun record.


Fight the DJ!

[Connor]

Originally Posted by Cains

Sorry, you've lost me, I can only assume you're talking about online gambling. VISA/MC still accept online gambling charges from US citizens, they simply process them offshore where the US government would have to fight the WTO, which they have already done unsuccessfully. If the government (in a highly unlikely move) wants to ban .com adult sites from being accepted merchants for VISA/MC then first they have to go through the relevant channels (which i'm sure the FSC will oppose) then the processing will move offshore, just like gambling.

If they wanted to make it illegal to process VISA/MC for online adult, they would have done it by now. .XXX does nothing negative to the adult industry, it's voluntary.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought I detected a British accent when you said it's voluntary. Hmmm....

[Cains]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

"People who didn't understand the proposal thought it was horrible because it would actually promote the acceptability and spread of pornography," he said. "In fact, it was intended to do just the opposite."

http://www.latimes.com/business/cust...ck=1&cset=true

---------------------------------------------


Stuart ( "Cains" )... so has this attorney now joined the group of "tin foil" wears since he is talking about what could happen with .XXX?

For a start, I'm not affiliated with the ICM registry in any way, shape or form.

The Lawyer is saying it could happen, not it would happen. What he's hypothesising would involve .XXX being mandatory throughout the world, which is not be proposed. What the ICM registry is proposing is a voluntary .XXX TLD, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Connor

Maybe it's just me, but I thought I detected a British accent when you said it's voluntary. Hmmm....

Correct, perhaps the "Location: over the pond in London" gives it away

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Cains

For a start, I'm not affiliated with the ICM registry in any way, shape or form.

so you are saying you don't know anyone connected to IFFOR or ICM?

you can dodge behind words like "not affiliated" as we have learned from Bill Clinton when he didn't have "sexual relations with that woman"..

so, who do you know that can vouch for you as being an "adult webmaster" that runs a TGP and other stuff as you have claimed?

Lawley wanted people to "trust" them at the Internext panel, and it is particularly odd that an "adult webmaster" as you claim, is so adament about supporting .XXX in defending it at every chance in every thread.

There are certainly some webmasters who do support .XXX, but many of those reasons are financially tied and those that aren't, haven't been able to contruct any solid argument as to how it protects children.

no "adult webmaster" that i have come across would make comments as you have, especially ones about reading the bios and being "impressed". You are clearly from the mainstream.. and whether you truly are dabbling in adult or not, your motives and agendas for your consistent support does raise an eyebrow.

so until someone can vouch for you, you are stuart lawley for all intents and purposes.

i am by no means trying to discourage rational discussion, but you have not brought anything to the discussion other than trying to spin points away from .XXX, painting those that think of things that could happen as being "tin hat" wearers, and consistantly saying that .XXX is voluntary. Both jason and stewart say that phrase all the time, we already get it...

Fight the labelling!

[MikeHawk]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

so you are saying you don't know anyone connected to IFFOR or ICM?

you can dodge behind words like "not affiliated" as we have learned from Bill Clinton when he didn't have "sexual relations with that woman"..

so, who do you know that can vouch for you as being an "adult webmaster" that runs a TGP and other stuff as you have claimed?

Lawley wanted people to "trust" them at the Internext panel, and it is particularly odd that an "adult webmaster" as you claim, is so adament about supporting .XXX in defending it at every chance in every thread.

There are certainly some webmasters who do support .XXX, but many of those reasons are financially tied and those that aren't, haven't been able to contruct any solid argument as to how it protects children.

no "adult webmaster" that i have come across would make comments as you have, especially ones about reading the bios and being "impressed". You are clearly from the mainstream.. and whether you truly are dabbling in adult or not, your motives and agendas for your consistent support does raise an eyebrow.

so until someone can vouch for you, you are stuart lawley for all intents and purposes.

i am by no means trying to discourage rational discussion, but you have not brought anything to the discussion other than trying to spin points away from .XXX, painting those that think of things that could happen as being "tin hat" wearers, and consistantly saying that .XXX is voluntary. Both jason and stewart say that phrase all the time, we already get it...

Fight the labelling!

Well said

[Connor]

Originally Posted by Cains

The Lawyer is saying it could happen, not it would happen. What he's hypothesising would involve .XXX being mandatory throughout the world, which is not be proposed. What the ICM registry is proposing is a voluntary .XXX TLD, nothing more.

Au contraire, Monsieur Lawley. The attorney is saying nothing about COULD... he is saying what is INTENDED, what the DESIGN is all about. And the issue of INTENT is not a little one. Nor are adult webmasters stupid enough to look the other way from a comment like that attorney's comment.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

so, who do you know that can vouch for you as being an "adult webmaster" that runs a TGP and other stuff as you have claimed?

If you can't find anyone to vouch for you, and something that i could understand if you are new to the industry, then just post up your TGP site(s).
Maybe Ron Cadwelll since you seem to name drop him alot?

Being a TGP webmaster, i am sure you might enjoy some exposure for link trades from other sources of traffic, or from those that might want to tap into your TGP traffic.

I know you read through this thread, and probably itching to jump into: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=504779 and support post #10... but have resisted since you hadn't answered my query yet.


Fight the Responseless!

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Cains

For a start, I'm not affiliated with the ICM registry in any way, shape or form.

Cains you and I both know (along with connner and mike and others) that I drew you out on this a month ago.

if you are so ashamed of who you are pimping that you deny any affiliation it says a lot about who you are pimping doesn't it

Callin it like I see it.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

Callin it like I see it.

and you do!


could you recap what you exposed?

i have gleamed so far:

- claims to be a TGP webmaster
- is in UK
- comes from mainstream
- claims he is not "affiliated" with ICM
- name drops Ron Cadwell like he knows him
- posts in EVERY .XXX thread to support .XXX by saying its voluntary



Fight the Profiling!

[mikesouth]

FTP...see this thread its all there....

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...7&page=2&pp=50

[FightThisPatent]

hmm.. no reply from cains.


Fight the MIA!