Why I Publically Support .xxx - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

StuartD · 05-09-2006, 08:15 AM

Scotty Shhhh... that was a pre-emptive shhh....

shhh..

GatorB · 05-09-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

There is no point arguing that .xxx will stop kids getting to porn, because to method in practise would ever stop kids getting porn, none at all. However what it will do is stop the vast majority and bulk of young internet users aged ...-12. Those are the children that need to be protected from pornography and that is what the .xxx will stop.

Yeah because a 10 year old doesn't how to type .XXX on his computer.

Filtering you say? Well let just say kids are FAR more advanced than their parents in this regard under 12 can hack it. Trust me. Kids are MUCH ore tech savy today.

http://news.com.com/Kids+outsmart+We...html?tag=vidrl

chris01282 · 05-09-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Trust me. Kids are MUCH ore tech savy today.

yep, my 8 year old son does computer lessons in his school on a laptop with wireless access adsl link for email and internet

RogerV3 · 05-09-2006, 11:17 AM

lol how can you publically support something while using a fake nick? that makes no sense to me..

scottybuzz · 05-09-2006, 10:52 PM

ok i made a mistake that way, by not being public

but not everykid is a techno genius just yet

I have argued my point. My point would probably be favourable to those outside the industry, the majority, as they have no money to lose.

thankyou to those who raised sensible points.

ronaldo · 05-09-2006, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

I have argued my point. My point would probably be favourable to those outside the industry, the majority, as they have no money to lose.

Those same people outside the industry are the ones trying to shut us down entirely, or are unable to properly keep their children from accessing porn so naturally they'll agree with you. They simply don't understand the big picture (or don't care) and/or the technology already available. That, or our industry is simply considered evil and shouldn't exist anyways.

Imagine the uproar from church groups if legislation was proposed to end tax free status for the church. It wouldn't be acceptable. Why? Because they'd have a vested interest, and "Money to lose".

Why should we be any different when it comes to protecting OUR interests... and remember, we ALREADY pay taxes.

Continuing to raise the "Sin" taxes, or finding new and creative ways to create new tax revenues will continue to be acceptable to those on the outside of our industry, much the same as it would be for most of us if they started taxing the church.

P.S. As I've said before, if they want to pass .xxx for profit, then just admit to it. They can't, because the support you say they have from outsiders would vanish from all but the hardliners. Lying about what .xxx will achieve gains more public sympathy and the politicians try to further their own careers by catering TO that sympathy. The REAL facts are, noone (including us here) want children subjected to porn, but those with ANY knowledge on the subject, know .xxx will never work as advertised.

Degenerate · 05-09-2006, 11:42 PM

Hey bud. You can't "publicly" support them under a fake nick.

The Sultan Of Smut · 05-09-2006, 11:51 PM

Why are all the pro .xxx arguments the same load of crap? Hey scotty how about you list all the .com domains you plan to drop so I can reserve them? You are dropping them right? Isn't that what you're supposed to do?

The Sultan Of Smut · 05-09-2006, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Degenerate

Hey bud. You can't "publicly" support them under a fake nick.

Degenerate · 05-09-2006, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerV3

lol how can you publically support something while using a fake nick? that makes no sense to me..

Sorry Roger, I didn't see that you posted this already.

ilbb · 05-10-2006, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

1. Ghettos are bad, mmkay.
2. Not enforceable world wide thus giving the US a trade disadvantage.
3. To easy for special interest groups to lobby against assorted ISPs to make .XXX access available by request only.
4. Unfair to those that registered .coms .nets and such early on in the business.
5. Who gets the .xxx the .com owner, the .net owner, the .org owner, or whomever grabs it first?
6. Engines could and may be forced to cap listing results so that .xxx only appears in pornographic keywords only. Possibly no listings at all if the default filters are left in place.
7. Possible premium yearly rate on domain registrations and renewals.
8. Possible US taxes on .xxx registrations and renewals. Think a sin tax.
9. It accomplishes nothing that a kids safe tld could or would. A kids safe tld could be made safe from day one with no back peddling or downsides, and just as easily be set for safe browsing.
10. There is no real definition on what pornography really is and therefore without a definition who is to say what belongs there and what other types of content would be slowly pushed in that direction.

I agree with You...

Degenerate · 05-10-2006, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilbb

I agree with You...

You'd be retarded not to.

The Sultan Of Smut · 05-10-2006, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

1. Ghettos are bad, mmkay.
2. Not enforceable world wide thus giving the US a trade disadvantage.
3. To easy for special interest groups to lobby against assorted ISPs to make .XXX access available by request only.
4. Unfair to those that registered .coms .nets and such early on in the business.
5. Who gets the .xxx the .com owner, the .net owner, the .org owner, or whomever grabs it first?
6. Engines could and may be forced to cap listing results so that .xxx only appears in pornographic keywords only. Possibly no listings at all if the default filters are left in place.
7. Possible premium yearly rate on domain registrations and renewals.
8. Possible US taxes on .xxx registrations and renewals. Think a sin tax.
9. It accomplishes nothing that a kids safe tld could or would. A kids safe tld could be made safe from day one with no back peddling or downsides, and just as easily be set for safe browsing.
10. There is no real definition on what pornography really is and therefore without a definition who is to say what belongs there and what other types of content would be slowly pushed in that direction.

Bravo

scottybuzz · 05-11-2006, 12:53 PM

ronaldo your points have been very good

polish_aristocrat · 05-11-2006, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

ronaldo your points have been very good

.xxx = defeated

now you can reveal us your real nick, since the disucssion is pointless from this point anyway

Devils_Child · 05-11-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

1. Ghettos are bad, mmkay.
2. Not enforceable world wide thus giving the US a trade disadvantage.
3. To easy for special interest groups to lobby against assorted ISPs to make .XXX access available by request only.
4. Unfair to those that registered .coms .nets and such early on in the business.
5. Who gets the .xxx the .com owner, the .net owner, the .org owner, or whomever grabs it first?
6. Engines could and may be forced to cap listing results so that .xxx only appears in pornographic keywords only. Possibly no listings at all if the default filters are left in place.
7. Possible premium yearly rate on domain registrations and renewals.
8. Possible US taxes on .xxx registrations and renewals. Think a sin tax.
9. It accomplishes nothing that a kids safe tld could or would. A kids safe tld could be made safe from day one with no back peddling or downsides, and just as easily be set for safe browsing.
10. There is no real definition on what pornography really is and therefore without a definition who is to say what belongs there and what other types of content would be slowly pushed in that direction.

These are strong stand points. I agree with them all. My biggest would be the domain names. Who gets them. I know people that have been in the industry 10+ years like for example thehun. Why should he move to a .xxx domain? After building his site on a .com domain, no problems for 10+ years. Everyone knows the .com name and then one day out of the blue, .xxx is in play and now the hun is asdlkfjadsldkfj.xxx cause 2540329843029 people pre ordered thehun.xxx. Its worth millions cause its thehun.com.

Or worldsex, thumbzilla, paysites, adult.com sex.com all these are big cash investments that are worth millions and with the .xxx it could be a waist of time and effort? For what a filter that wont work anyways. Cause every parrent would have to filter the .xxx domain. If they are not filtering shit now. Whats going to make them filter .xxx domains? Nothing.

Man I could go on and on and on. I know that I would be pissed to have the .xxx go into play or any other that would mean I would lose my .com domains. After 6 years working with the sites. Building them up. Getting SEO shit. Traffic and established all for nothing? My main income and everything wipped? Fuck that.

I understand the net is growing, but the .xxx would screw allot of people. I am sure if you lost your biz. cause of this, many law suites would be into play over it. I know I wouldn't just sit on my hands thinking what do i do now. Cause all my domains are registered in .xxx by some one other then myself.

I think if they wanted to make a .xxx, they should of done it at the start. Not wait 10+ years and then talk about it. Filters and kids. No matter what a site changes to, no matter what .com or .xxx, no matter if there are 100's of free software to filter just a .xxx, there will allways be kids looking at the .xxx domains. You cant stop it or change it. But this is my opinion. Parrents need to be involved. If they wont watch what they kids are doing nor filter them, then they shouldnt bitch about it when there kid is caught or get mad at it.

I also agree with After Shock Media on fees for .xxx and domains being more. Also US could tax it and I am sure thats a big part of why they want to do it.

Just my

asdfqwer · 05-11-2006, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

1. Ghettos are bad, mmkay.
2. Not enforceable world wide thus giving the US a trade disadvantage.
3. To easy for special interest groups to lobby against assorted ISPs to make .XXX access available by request only.
4. Unfair to those that registered .coms .nets and such early on in the business.
5. Who gets the .xxx the .com owner, the .net owner, the .org owner, or whomever grabs it first?
6. Engines could and may be forced to cap listing results so that .xxx only appears in pornographic keywords only. Possibly no listings at all if the default filters are left in place.
7. Possible premium yearly rate on domain registrations and renewals.
8. Possible US taxes on .xxx registrations and renewals. Think a sin tax.
9. It accomplishes nothing that a kids safe tld could or would. A kids safe tld could be made safe from day one with no back peddling or downsides, and just as easily be set for safe browsing.
10. There is no real definition on what pornography really is and therefore without a definition who is to say what belongs there and what other types of content would be slowly pushed in that direction.

Good points

scottybuzz · 05-16-2006, 05:50 PM

really? wont it be cropping round again?

polish_aristocrat · 10-15-2006, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

I have changed my name, because some people I do not want to fall out with because of this.

what was your previous name?

dissipate · 10-15-2006, 12:20 PM

You're an idiot fucking surfer, your opinion means nothing

polish_aristocrat · 10-15-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissipate

You're an idiot fucking surfer, your opinion means nothing

this is an old thread, it was his first post here, looked pretty serious ( although completely wrong on the .xxx issue )

and he admitted he had a previous nickname here before....

and now he's a sig whore, but here he was jus 4 months ago complaining about people who "live on this board and can't waste 5 minutes to read his post"

something smells fishy here heh

he-fox · 10-15-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

this is an old thread, it was his first post here, looked pretty serious ( although completely wrong on the .xxx issue )

and he admitted he had a previous nickname here before....

and now he's a sig whore, but here he was jus 4 months ago complaining about people who "live on this board and can't waste 5 minutes to read his post"

something smells fishy here heh

ditto

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE · 10-15-2006, 12:37 PM

no comment!

scottybuzz · 10-15-2006, 12:50 PM

Thanks for bringing this backup, in a way I do and I dont believe in this motion. But its been scrapped now so my opinion on it is worthless.

I will now stop being a dickhead and posting and start working on my sites.

VexXxed · 10-15-2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

Thanks for bringing this backup, in a way I do and I dont believe in this motion. But its been scrapped now so my opinion on it is worthless.

I will now stop being a dickhead and posting and start working on my sites.

Howcome you never countered After Shock Media's points? You've had around 5 months to ponder a response...

05-09-2006, 08:15 AM	#51
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	Scotty Shhhh... that was a pre-emptive shhh.... shhh.. __________________ This is me on facebook This is me on twitter

05-09-2006, 10:52 PM	#55
scottybuzz Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Location: NY Posts: 14,800	ok i made a mistake that way, by not being public but not everykid is a techno genius just yet I have argued my point. My point would probably be favourable to those outside the industry, the majority, as they have no money to lose. thankyou to those who raised sensible points. __________________ $$$$$ MAKE HUGE MONEY IN CAMS - CLICK HERE $$$$$

05-09-2006, 11:42 PM	#57
Degenerate Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,294	Hey bud. You can't "publicly" support them under a fake nick. __________________ .

05-11-2006, 12:53 PM	#64
scottybuzz Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Location: NY Posts: 14,800	ronaldo your points have been very good __________________ $$$$$ MAKE HUGE MONEY IN CAMS - CLICK HERE $$$$$

05-16-2006, 05:50 PM	#68
scottybuzz Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Location: NY Posts: 14,800	really? wont it be cropping round again? __________________ $$$$$ MAKE HUGE MONEY IN CAMS - CLICK HERE $$$$$

05-09-2006, 11:17 AM	#54
RogerV3 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 161	lol how can you publically support something while using a fake nick? that makes no sense to me..

05-09-2006, 11:51 PM	#58
The Sultan Of Smut Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver Posts: 4,325	Why are all the pro .xxx arguments the same load of crap? Hey scotty how about you list all the .com domains you plan to drop so I can reserve them? You are dropping them right? Isn't that what you're supposed to do?

10-15-2006, 12:20 PM	#70
dissipate The Dirty Frenchman Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lost Angeles Posts: 8,904	You're an idiot fucking surfer, your opinion means nothing

10-15-2006, 12:37 PM	#73
Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE North Coast Pimp Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: 304-534-757 Posts: 9,395	no comment!

10-15-2006, 12:50 PM	#74
scottybuzz Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Location: NY Posts: 14,800	Thanks for bringing this backup, in a way I do and I dont believe in this motion. But its been scrapped now so my opinion on it is worthless. I will now stop being a dickhead and posting and start working on my sites. __________________ $$$$$ MAKE HUGE MONEY IN CAMS - CLICK HERE $$$$$