I Will Organize A Boycott Of DirectNic If They Don't... - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE · 12-13-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Strange how the free speech warrior calls to have every single surfer complaint forwarded to the feds. That will help free speech! Lets give em some nice figures I can see it right in front of me on cnn "fbi received 9223495 reports of child abuse on internet porn sites in the first quarter of 2007". That will make the free speech cause so much easier to defend.

Nicely put... That was prolly the most valid point made in this thread...

Pleasurepays · 12-13-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

I think BoyAlley has it right... You have it wrong...

The company in question is threatening to go beyond their legal abilities and shut down Slick. So is it not right for someone else to call for a legal boycott of someones business because they employ questionable tactics? I think it is completely founded and the right thing to do.

Read the TOS. end of story. they can lock the domain. If you are a lawyer... then please expand with your legal analysis and post the relevant laws and cases as they might relate to this issue. otherwise, you are making arguments relying on the fact that no one else is going to take the time to look everything up and to show they they are acting within the law. Personally, i would be willing to assume that a group of attorneys on staff are probably thinking the issue through a little better than a bunch of fucking retards on gfy.com

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE · 12-13-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I believe the majority of people agree with me on this particular issue actually.

Make a poll and find out....

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl4h

but its not beyond their legal abilities

I have never anywhere on this board said it is beyond their legal abilities to request model ids. What I have said is:

It's a WRONG policy for them to have. Legal rights or not, it's NOT the RIGHT thing to do in my opinion.

and

It "MAY", and I've stressed that word, violate privacy laws of certain countries and/or states to turn over identification documents of models.

As I keep saying, I'm not an attorney. I'll let those that are talk about legalities.

I honestly don't even think this needs to be an issue of what's legal for them to ask for or not. It's a simple matter of what's good policy vs. what's bad policy. I think this is bad policy, and I think if they keep it, we as an industry should not support them.

Simple as that.

dig420 · 12-13-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

That would require the people holding the 2257 info to give out that information to all affiliates. In my opinion that should not be allowed. Privacy for the models should be respected first and foremost.

As far as I can see, about 99% of the 'take his domain' crowd are asshat conservatives. The live and let live crowd, right? lol... I congratulate for showing TRUE Goldwater type conservatism on this issue rather than the Jerry Falwell type conservatism Pleasurepays and most of the others display.

dig420 · 12-13-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

Read the TOS. end of story. they can lock the domain. If you are a lawyer... then please expand with your legal analysis and post the relevant laws and cases as they might relate to this issue. otherwise, you are making arguments relying on the fact that no one else is going to take the time to look everything up and to show they they are acting within the law. Personally, i would be willing to assume that a group of attorneys on staff are probably thinking the issue through a little better than a bunch of fucking retards on gfy.com

What are your domains pleasurepays? Just curious...

teenfunsfan · 12-13-2006, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Listen do you understand what an affiliate is? Slick is an affiliate using content from programs that hold the 2257 information for the content they provide. If affiliates have the rights to get 2257 information for any picture, then privacy for any model is out the window.

What you are suggesting would totally eliminate any promotion and money making done by the little guy. The whole industry would fall into the control of only large companies, and alot of people would be out of work.

yes and that is what will happen anyway, only it will happen much more sooner if more crap like this happens

teenfunsfan · 12-13-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

What you are suggesting would totally eliminate any promotion and money making done by the little guy. The whole industry would fall into the control of only large companies, and alot of people would be out of work.

So it's better to have work and ignore these issues than to have a clean house? Very nice....really

dig420 · 12-13-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teenfunsfan

yes and that is what will happen anyway, only it will happen much more sooner if more crap like this happens

What are your sites, Jimmy Swaggart? We're all curious.

Pleasurepays · 12-13-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

What are your domains pleasurepays? Just curious...

It just occured to me that you are like BoyAlley. You hate... but you rationalize your hate as being ok and "good hate" while the percieved hate of others is "wrong hate". Its soo weird in its obvious contradiction that its oddly fun to watch.

dig420 · 12-13-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

It just occured to me that you are like BoyAlley. You hate... but you rationalize your hate as being ok and "good hate" while the percieved hate of others is "wrong hate". Its soo weird in its obvious contradiction that its oddly fun to watch.

What are your domains, Pat Robertson? Mr. Moral Majority? Huh?

teenfunsfan · 12-13-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

It just occured to me that you are like BoyAlley. You hate... but you rationalize your hate as being ok and "good hate" while the percieved hate of others is "wrong hate". Its soo weird in its obvious contradiction that its oddly fun to watch.

bl4h · 12-13-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I have never anywhere on this board said it is beyond their legal abilities to request model ids. What I have said is:

It's a WRONG policy for them to have. Legal rights or not, it's NOT the RIGHT thing to do in my opinion.

and

It "MAY", and I've stressed that word, violate privacy laws of certain countries and/or states to turn over identification documents of models.

As I keep saying, I'm not an attorney. I'll let those that are talk about legalities.

I honestly don't even think this needs to be an issue of what's legal for them to ask for or not. It's a simple matter of what's good policy vs. what's bad policy. I think this is bad policy, and I think if they keep it, we as an industry should not support them.

Simple as that.

oh ok, i disagree

There nothing wrong with those terms from a business standpoint.

This is about some guy who has underage looking chicks on his network. Probably generating thousands of complaints and internet porn protesters that will vote against us given the chance.

Wether its legal or not, its no good for directnic or this industry imho. Never will undocumented underage looking nude chicks do any good for this business as a whole.

its very black and white. Is this hard for you to grasp?

jscott · 12-13-2006, 01:41 PM

BoyAlley, great thread man

:

i support 110%

dig420 · 12-13-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl4h

oh ok, i disagree

There nothing wrong with those terms from a business standpoint.

This is about some guy who has underage looking chicks on his network. Probably generating thousands of complaints and internet porn protesters that will vote against us given the chance.

Wether its legal or not, its no good for directnic or this industry imho. Never will undocumented underage looking nude chicks do any good for this business as a whole.

its very black and white. Is this hard for you to grasp?

Neither will copyright violations. Neither will spam. Neither will circle jerk exit consoles. Neither will free trials that turn into 40 dollar memberships. Neither will a million other things that go on in this business.

The question is: Does your registrar have the right to take your domain from you?

It's that black and white.

Pleasurepays · 12-13-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

What are your domains, Pat Robertson? Mr. Moral Majority? Huh?

now its about morality? ... you have to politicize things and retreat to political "us against them" arguments that you are comfortable with because otherwise, the arguments relevant to the issues at hand are losing arguments.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl4h

oh ok, i disagree

There nothing wrong with those terms from a business standpoint.

This is about some guy who has underage looking chicks on his network. Probably generating thousands of complaints and internet porn protesters that will vote against us given the chance.

Wether its legal or not, its no good for directnic or this industry imho. Never will undocumented underage looking nude chicks do any good for this business as a whole.

its very black and white. Is this hard for you to grasp?

You're certainly entitled to not take issue with their policy, and register domains with them if you're comfortable.

My position is this:

If DirectNic doesn't want to be his registrar of record anymore because they're not comfortable with his content, they should tell him to move his domains someplace else, not put a lock on them so he can't do that, and then threaten to shut him down if he doesn't comply by sending them model IDs.

If they think the content is CP, they should report it to the authorities and let them make a determination and take action, or not, from there.

I personally would not be comfortable being with a registrar that has the types of policies that they've apparently put in place, that are manifesting themselves in what appear to be pseudo 2257 like inspections.

teenfunsfan · 12-13-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

Neither will copyright violations. Neither will spam. Neither will circle jerk exit consoles. Neither will free trials that turn into 40 dollar memberships. Neither will a million other things that go on in this business.

The question is: Does your registrar have the right to take your domain from you?

It's that black and white.

It's nice to see that you just ignore the issue of Slick linking from this sites to illegal content. Seems you just don't care. By ignoring the problem you solved it, congratulations. Dig420 for president....(you can't do a worse job than GWB with this strategy)

bizzking · 12-13-2006, 01:46 PM

Boyalley, two thumbs up from here.

It is nice to see an educated person on this forum whom stands up for what they believe in.

A response from direcnic is in order. They seem like a good company, and MikeAI is a great guy.

The only thing i feel that should have been done is better communication on both parties.

Also, people, keep in mind. This isn't an arguement about a domain, or a person, it is an arguement towards the policy of direcnic.

teenfunsfan · 12-13-2006, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

As I've said before, if DirectNic doesn't want to be his registrar of record anymore because they're not comfortable with his content, they should tell him to move his domains someplace else, not put a lock on them so he can't do that, and then threaten to shut him down if he doesn't comply by sending them model IDs.

If they think the content is CP, they should report it to the authorities and let them make a determination and take action, or not, from there.

for Directnic to have the balls to actually kick some ass

sarettah · 12-13-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Who is doing the blacking out? The company providing the content to the affiliate, or the affiliate?

Does not matter as far as I'm concerned.

Like I said earlier, I took down all sponsor images from anything I had because I did not have the docs for them. The only images I use now are ones that I have docs for. Made a bunch of my images unusable because I could not get the content providers to give me the docs or could not locate the original provider to get them from. But I don't lose sleep worrying that someone will check and I won't be compliant.

bl4h · 12-13-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

Neither will copyright violations. Neither will spam. Neither will circle jerk exit consoles. Neither will free trials that turn into 40 dollar memberships. Neither will a million other things that go on in this business.

The question is: Does your registrar have the right to take your domain from you?

It's that black and white.

ah but youre thinking too broad. This is about underage looking chicks and questionable content. When they take away a domain that doesnt cause problems i will be there to defend it

teenfunsfan · 12-13-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizzking

Boyalley, two thumbs up from here.

It is nice to see an educated person on this forum whom stands up for what they believe in.

A response from direcnic is in order. They seem like a good company, and MikeAI is a great guy.

The only thing i feel that should have been done is better communication on both parties.

I think they did the right thing and they communicated properly, there are lot of other registrars that would have just pulled the plug.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizzking

Also, people, keep in mind. This isn't an arguement about a domain, or a person, it is an arguement towards the policy of direcnic.

Exactly, I've said very early on that this isn't about Slick or his sites. I'm making no judgment about them one way or another. I've also said that I don't know Mike, and he could very well be a great guy.

But sometimes good people come up with bad policy, that in 1 particular instance may seem appropriate, but on a larger scale, raise serious first amendment and privacy concerns.

sarettah · 12-13-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

If DirectNic doesn't want to be his registrar of record anymore because they're not comfortable with his content, they should tell him to move his domains someplace else, not put a lock on them so he can't do that, and then threaten to shut him down if he doesn't comply by sending them model

In case you missed it in either this thread or other threads (can't keep track of this shit today) If you check the various registrars, they all have policies that allow them to grab your domains for pretty much any reason they want.

At least DN is giving someone a chance to prove they are legal before pulling the plug.

/.

dig420 · 12-13-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl4h

ah but youre thinking too broad. This is about underage looking chicks and questionable content. When they take away a domain that doesnt cause problems i will be there to defend it

Domains that don't cause problems don't need defense. It's not Curious George that needs defending from the bookburners, it's Fahrenheit 451 and Lolita. It hasn't been shown that he's committed ANY offense. It HAS been shown that he needs to produce paperwork for his registrar or his registrar will keep his domain.

Too difficult for you?

dig420 · 12-13-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teenfunsfan

I think they did the right thing and they communicated properly, there are lot of other registrars that would have just pulled the plug.

Maybe you should name one. At the same time, you could name a couple of your sites.

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

But sometimes good people come up with bad policy, that in 1 particular instance may seem appropriate, but on a larger scale, raise serious first amendment and privacy concerns.

ok tell me where the first amendment and/or privacy is/are involved.
reminder: they asked for a governement issued id where the picture and date of birth were clearly visible.

dig420 · 12-13-2006, 01:59 PM

The issue isn't that they asked for them. The issue is that they will take his domains for themselves if he doesn't produce them. Does that clarify things somewhat?

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

The issue isn't that they asked for them. The issue is that they will take his domains for themselves if he doesn't produce them. Does that clarify things somewhat?

I understand that part. And that's their policy. Policy every custumor volontury accepted.
But get lost with first amendment and privacy BS.

wig · 12-13-2006, 02:09 PM

There are so many ironies in so many of the posts in these threads that i had to come out to laugh publicly.

teenfunsfan · 12-13-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wig

There are so many ironies in so many of the posts in these threads that i had to come out to laugh publicly.

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 02:18 PM

FSC Says: DirectNic Violating Privacy Laws, Requests Are Illegal

stickyfingerz · 12-13-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

As far as I can see, about 99% of the 'take his domain' crowd are asshat conservatives. The live and let live crowd, right? lol... I congratulate for showing TRUE Goldwater type conservatism on this issue rather than the Jerry Falwell type conservatism Pleasurepays and most of the others display.

Hey if the porn industry crumbles the economy will take a big ass hit worldwide lol. I dont see it happening that way though. Money is the common denominator here.

GonZo · 12-13-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

FSC Says: DirectNic Violating Privacy Laws, Requests Are Illegal

Guess the boycott line wasnt getting you very far?

stickyfingerz · 12-13-2006, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Does not matter as far as I'm concerned.

Like I said earlier, I took down all sponsor images from anything I had because I did not have the docs for them. The only images I use now are ones that I have docs for. Made a bunch of my images unusable because I could not get the content providers to give me the docs or could not locate the original provider to get them from. But I don't lose sleep worrying that someone will check and I won't be compliant.

I do the same, and none of my stuff is all that questionable. I own enough content of my own that I can use my own for promotion. And to be honest alot of stuff on Slicks site does make me cringe a bit, but thats not the registars right to police in my opinion. Certainly its not their right to hold his domains hostage.

Tom_PM · 12-13-2006, 02:25 PM

If a TOS said a company can take your first-born son if you dont dance naked on midsummers eve, it does not supercede the law.

Kimmykim · 12-13-2006, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I Will Organize A Boycott Of DirectNic.
This post is long and serious, $postcount++; need not bother with this thread.

I like to consider myself a fair minded individual, and tend not to take things too seriously that don't deserve the attention. But the more I think about this particular incident, the more upset I'm getting.

As a strong proponent for first amendment rights, recent actions by DirectNic raise serious concern with me about maintaining the free and open exchange of information on the internet. THAT is serious enough of a cause for me to pay some time and attention to.

For those of you that haven't read the thread, DirectNic recently DEMANDED to see confidential 2257 documentation for ALL models appearing on the websites of an individual that was running TGPs on them. These personal identification documents, which are required to be kept by federal law, are by statute only to be inspected by the Attorney General of the United States of America, or his designee. The Attorney General has publicly chosen the Federal Bureau of Investigations as said designee.

For a third party company such as DirectNic to demand to see those personally identifying documents, including drivers licenses, is wrong. Period!

The significance of this particular incident are of little concern to me compared to the broader scope and consequences of such a policy being in place.

DirectNic is holding this individual's domains hostage, putting a lock on them so that he can't even transfer them to a different registrar. If DirectNic were no longer comfortable being the registrar of record for these domains, they should allow this individual to transfer them. If DirectNic believes that illegal material is contained on these domains, they should notify his host, the proper authorities, and appropriate third party advocacy groups.

Registrars are not legal authorities, and they are not the internet police.

If there is a concern about the nature of specific content, the legal governmental authorities have the ability to institute an investigation to determine if any laws are being broken, or if anyone is being victimized.

Registrars should NOT under ANY circumstances put an individual in the position of choosing to either 1 lose their domains and significant business, or 2 release personal information about scores of individuals, potentially breaking numerous privacy laws in the process.

Our rights to freedom of expression, and the right to privacy of tens of thousands of individuals, are at odds with this policy. It needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW.

If it doesn't, I am personally willing to put forth considerable time and resources to make sure that the entire adult entertainment industry, and other industries and organizations that take a stand for freedom of speech and exchange of information on the internet, are notified about this policy.

I will also call for a full and complete boycott of DirectNic and will work with other registrars to find appropriate alternatives for individuals to transfer their domains to, and register new domains with.

I ask others that are advocates of freedom of speech, and personal privacy, to take a stand with me.

This certainly qualifies for dumbest post of the year.

Anthony · 12-13-2006, 02:30 PM

Am I the only one who sees the fallout of this whole thing?

teenfunsfan · 12-13-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

This certainly qualifies for dumbest post of the year.

Finally someone that has some brains

V_RocKs · 12-13-2006, 02:35 PM

OK... So they are within their legal means...

Let's look at slavery... It was legal in 1820 but not everyone agreed with it and many in the North boycotted Southern companies that used slave labor.

GonZo · 12-13-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wig

There are so many ironies in so many of the posts in these threads that i had to come out to laugh publicly.

Weve been laughing all day. Im not sure which is funnier.
The thread itself or some peoples newly found ethics?

PMdave · 12-13-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

OK... So they are within their legal means...

Let's look at slavery... It was legal in 1820 but not everyone agreed with it and many in the North boycotted Southern companies that used slave labor.

yup... and I even believe childporn was acceptable in those days

DirtyJs · 12-13-2006, 02:39 PM

I must say this.. I do agree that the way they went about this all, being wrong.. BUT, I must say.. Everyone should do themselves a favor and put this fucking idiot on ignore..

BoyAlley · 12-13-2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

Am I the only one who sees the fallout of this whole thing?

No, just most people that are intelligent and insightful enough to understand the ramifications of things like this aren't being as vocal as certain others are in this thread.

dig420 · 12-13-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

This certainly qualifies for dumbest post of the year.

Turns out he was 100% legally, morally and ethically correct. What's so dumb about it?

Doctor Dre · 12-13-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Well I can't speak to that, as I wasn't around for that boycott, and I wasn't the one that led it.

It's very clear that you have some sort of personal and/or business relationship with Mike and he can do no harm in your eyes. That's fine.

I, on the other hand, do not, and am taking an objective third party view of the situation, and basing my comments on that.

How are the people dealing with Mike not objective ? They have inside view of who the guy is...

In years in this business i've heard Mikes names hundreads of times and it was never about anything bad.

I'm in NO way saying what is beeing done is right, but judging before knowing all the facts is harsh for the person beeing judged.

teenfunsfan · 12-13-2006, 02:51 PM

BoyAlley should open his own registrar

Webby · 12-13-2006, 03:04 PM

Damn... this is easy shit to resolve - and, as far as I'm concerned - tho lot is fucking finished.

Means:

All servers, domains, payment processors are removed from US jurisdiction

That wasted almost an hour - but worth every dime. Suggest any non-US webmaster do exactly the same. The arrogance from the US (both at govt level and on domain registration) is a fucking joke and not worth wasting time reading any more spewage about laws or "rules".

Have a nice day

BusterBunny · 12-13-2006, 03:19 PM

200...........

12-13-2006, 01:41 PM	#164
jscott jscizzle Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Taipei Posts: 25,198	BoyAlley, great thread man : i support 110% __________________ “If you think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of.” —Jordan B. Peterson Listen to Pomp tell why is Bitcoin important

12-13-2006, 01:46 PM	#169
bizzking Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 143	Boyalley, two thumbs up from here. It is nice to see an educated person on this forum whom stands up for what they believe in. A response from direcnic is in order. They seem like a good company, and MikeAI is a great guy. The only thing i feel that should have been done is better communication on both parties. Also, people, keep in mind. This isn't an arguement about a domain, or a person, it is an arguement towards the policy of direcnic. __________________ ICQ 355-603-147 E-mail [email protected] Last edited by bizzking; 12-13-2006 at 01:48 PM..

12-13-2006, 02:25 PM	#187
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	If a TOS said a company can take your first-born son if you dont dance naked on midsummers eve, it does not supercede the law. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

12-13-2006, 02:30 PM	#189
Anthony Keyboard Warrior Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: One of the outer rings of Hell Posts: 9,653	Am I the only one who sees the fallout of this whole thing? __________________

12-13-2006, 03:04 PM	#199
Webby Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Far far away - as possible Posts: 14,956	Damn... this is easy shit to resolve - and, as far as I'm concerned - tho lot is fucking finished. Means: All servers, domains, payment processors are removed from US jurisdiction That wasted almost an hour - but worth every dime. Suggest any non-US webmaster do exactly the same. The arrogance from the US (both at govt level and on domain registration) is a fucking joke and not worth wasting time reading any more spewage about laws or "rules". Have a nice day __________________ XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat. Last edited by Webby; 12-13-2006 at 03:05 PM..

12-13-2006, 01:59 PM	#179
dig420 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 9,240	The issue isn't that they asked for them. The issue is that they will take his domains for themselves if he doesn't produce them. Does that clarify things somewhat?

12-13-2006, 02:09 PM	#181
wig Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Panama Posts: 708	There are so many ironies in so many of the posts in these threads that i had to come out to laugh publicly.

12-13-2006, 02:18 PM	#183
BoyAlley So Fucking Gay Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 19,714	FSC Says: DirectNic Violating Privacy Laws, Requests Are Illegal

12-13-2006, 02:35 PM	#191
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,421	OK... So they are within their legal means... Let's look at slavery... It was legal in 1820 but not everyone agreed with it and many in the North boycotted Southern companies that used slave labor.

12-13-2006, 02:39 PM	#194
DirtyJs So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Illinois Posts: 307	I must say this.. I do agree that the way they went about this all, being wrong.. BUT, I must say.. Everyone should do themselves a favor and put this fucking idiot on ignore..

12-13-2006, 02:51 PM	#198
teenfunsfan Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 74	BoyAlley should open his own registrar

12-13-2006, 03:19 PM	#200
BusterBunny perverted justice decoy Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: unborn still in the womb connected via blackberry Posts: 19,291	200........... __________________ my sig caught gonoherpasyphilaids and died