Originally Posted by Zarathustra

That scat is just wrong :mad:

Originally Posted by KrisKross

Out of the dozens (if not hundreds) of pages of stolen content, you conveniently pick one that has a banner for the program it is promoting.

You also conveniently skipped the first gallery listed on the left menu which is chock-full of stolen content (most of it watermarked) and no affiliate links. Or how about the Katie's World gallery that links Melissa Midwest.

Oh, and let's not forget the loads of stolen video content that requires visitors to sign up at AFF to see the videos.

http://www.bulletinboardforum.com/36...hirt_hose.html
That's WWE Diva Trish Stratus. WWE doesn't take kindly to content theft. And I'm sure they won't appreciate AFF ads next to the stolen content.

http://www.bulletinboardforum.com/32...th_dinner.html
Do you guys really take scat traffic?

Oh, and should we mention the lack of 2257 statements for all the content? Straight from your terms... "You agree to fully comply with 18 USC 2257 et seq, ("2257") including but not limited to its notice and recordkeeping requirements, as a condition precedent to your participation in this affiliate program or providing any traffic or links from your web pages to our Sites, graphics, web pages, and content or making use of the Program Materials."

"You hereby represent and warrant to us that materials posted on your site do not violate or infringe upon the rights of any third party (including, for example, copyrights, trademarks, privacy, or other personal or proprietary rights), and that materials posted on your site are not libelous or otherwise illegal. You must have express permission to use another party's copyrighted or other proprietary material."

Why state they MUST have express permission when you don't even bother to verify if they do?

Seems you guys really aren't keen on enforcing your terms and conditions when the guy breaking them is sending you volume.

Originally Posted by edgeprod (Post 10407276)

No, that's not true.

Xbiz used a thread they weren't authorized to. I alerted him to this fact, and like a COCK, he said he had a right to it. Not true.

My beef with YOU is that you bumped it, acting all stupid (and, after speaking to you on the phone, I know you're NOT stupid) about it.

P.S. -- Gail and I are *not* gay. If we were, I'd tell you.

Originally Posted by XBizStephen

Cyberxxx / FHGstore did nothing wrong by reprinting the article in question, as he was complying with XBIZ policies.

A problem in our Syndication script incorrectly identified me as the author of the article and that script error has been fixed.

Edgeprod's problem is really with XBIZ and the terms of his writer's agreement with us; and we can deal with that in a private setting, making a public

discussion unnecessary.

As for his claims of Cyberxxx being a 'scammer' I have no information on the 'why' or any other details, but as with any other poster making such a claim, to

be fair, it should be backed by facts as to 'why' such a claim is being made.

So, I'll apologize to Domenic for any misunderstanding on this issue (heck, I had no idea about any of these concerns until this issue came up), and say that

our programmer, Dave, is working on removing his articles from Syndication to prevent a similar reoccurance.

I'll also apologize to Cyberxxx. Despite anything personal between him and Edge, FHGStore didn't do anything out of line by publishing our Syndicated

articles and I hope that he continues to use our feeds and other services.

You can all blame me if you wantarticle