Slick, truth is that you didn't do a very good job on this, because site(s) directly first click from you were shut down. This isn't sites two clicks away or three clicks away... but the sites immediately attached to your site.

I understand the desire for more and more traffic, better and better trades, after all, you were skimming, what, 95%? You would need huge traffic numbers to generate almost any traffic to sponsor galleries at all. I checked the history of your site on Alexa and the wayback machine, and every time you made the models look younger, every time they looking skinnier, every time you accepted a trade for "gall 17" and "young virgins", your traffic went up.

I can see what happened.

Good luck to you, I hope that your next round of sites is MILF or something else like that.

And you seem to make judgments from what you read on GFY without doing your own research. Have you contacted YOUR lawyer regarding this issue yet? I know I've requested 3 opinions from council.

Actually, I am in business, and i had a meeting with accountants this morning to plan year end. Yeah, actual corporate year end. Sorry to disappoint you and not be able to sit here this morning and play games with you.

Serge already has you on ignore. Proof that he is more intelligent than the rest of us, I guess.

I don't have any pictures on my sites. And I know 100% that I'm linking only to legitmate sites. My lawyer verified this for me back when I first redid them all - when he advised me as a possible secondary producer to remove pictures from my sites - just in case. He didn't want me to be a test case. :thumbsup

I have zero reason to contact him now about this. Hell, I have him working on something much more important financially :)

you nailed it!
good post!

I meant the words "Russian child porn rings".

I didn't say something opposed to yours. Furthermore, I always was saing it's very dangerous precedent in Slick's case. I.e. I totally agree with you and don't see a reason to argue about.

... and yet, you continue like you've done any research.

Awesome... More sponsors should publically support slick like this... it's YOUR content people are attacking. However, even if sponsors are just doing their part by helping the guy out privately, that's awesome too. Good to see.

It was a generalization, there are child porn rings everywhere, but people tend to think "Russia" when they think child porn ring. Don't take it personally, there's bad apples everywhere.

I thought this was about the thumbs on SLICK'S sites... now suddenly it's about who he was linking to? Why are people backpeddalling if they are so damn convinced they are right? First he's the one doing it, then it's the sites he's linking to? Seriously, think logically about all this.

jact, what exactly did you ask your legal advisers?

"There is this guy with a site full of girls that look young linking to real CP sites, and his registrar might or mght not have had something a contact or a complaint or a court order or we don't know what and then well, then they ask for proof the models were legal and the guy didn't get a lawyer but he got on a chat board and then he got a lawyer and they something happened I don't know what and then the next day the domains didn't work anymore... is this legal?"

wow.

Sheesh.. do the "opinionated" ever shut the fuck up?? :1orglaugh

Good morning to you Slick and hope you make some progress today in getting the background cleared up :thumbsup

As for DirectNic fans, there's "CP" on the moon, fly up quick along with DN and purport to protect the public morals there.

I bet you'll be here all day :1orglaugh

Also to create credibility you have to invoke the name of a person that has some authority.

I was responding to SLICK'S post. HE'S the one that talked about linking and ergo, those are the points I responded to.

*cough*

Collect call for kettle, from pot... do you accept the charges?

*cough*

Yup. So I most certainly wouldn't use your name, unless I was looking for an authority on flipping burgers.

edit: 499 child pornographers

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh *splutter*

Tut tut... how pathetic - seriously Alex.

What exactly is your rant about this isssue???? What point are you trying to make??

it doesn't really matter, DN are not allowed by law to act as vigilantes.

If you owned a bar and some guy was selling drugs out of the bathroom do you think the real estate agent that sold you the property would have the right to close you down?

Continue what? Go back and read my posts in this thread. I've said that if DirectNic was in error, they deserve to be sued. Period.

Everything else I've commented on has been directly in response to what YOU guys are saying, lol. My lawyer told me years ago that a TOS can be enforced even if it contains items that aren't covered by state/federal law.

And over and over again I hear "They should have just turned this over to the authorities" which says to me, instead of wanting DirectNic to give Slick the head's up, you'd rather the FBI knock on his door. The guy didn't even HAVE AN ATTORNEY. He came HERE looking for one. Might be a little more difficult to ask GFY for attorney recommendations from a cell.

hehe,
don't you have a better comeback :1orglaugh this is so overused
you just get a bit more creative.

Someone should check your meds, seriously. Go back and read what I was replying to.

Apparently not.

Good question though. :D

I don't have a rant about the issue... actually, I am the anti-rant. There is a whole bunch of ranting a raving and spewing going on around this issue..

"freedom of speech"

"they aren't the police"

"They ain't the FBI"

"they have no right to steal his domains!".

Tons and tons of ranting, and very few facts. My whole deal on this from the start has been very simply: Until you and I know more and have a better understanding of the situation, there is nothing that is going to be said here that is useful for anyone. People are pissing all over Directnic without having a clue.

The only things we have seen so far are slick's sites, the sites he approved links to, and what he has had to say on the issue.

Until that changes, I think all of the ranting and raving about "has no right" and "not the police" isn't doing much at this point.

Wow, I hope I never have to face a jury of my peers full of people like you. You've expanded the scope of the discussion to include your own judgments instead of the facts. I'd be hanged over jaywalking if you were representative of the jury.

That's one of the more interesting parallel comparisons I've read so far.

Nope, but let's say you are RENTING an apparently, and the landlord comes just as some guy selling drugs comes out of your kitchen. Guess what? He would certainly have a good case for kicking your ass out.

Everyone makes the mistake of thinking that domains are bought property... they are not. They are leaseholds.

Jact, inadvertantly, you just learned very important lesson in life.

Juries, despite some beliefs and fantasies are made of people like Alex, me and much much worse than that, and this will be YOUR reality in court, if you ever get there.

Live your life accordingly, your asshole will thank you for it.

No, I am just asking you... very seriously, what did you ask your legal advisors about? What facts did you give them? What information did you have? What did you give them to base their opinion on?

I really want to know. My words were just what I figured you could tell them because it was all you know.

Sadly I do believe you're right Serge. I've been on the sidelines or involved in enough litigation in my lifetime to know that people can't help but interject their own skew on things.

Someone hearing you say the sky is blue could mean an unlimited number of things to an unlimited number of people, because "blue" is not a statically defined representation.

Alex, I think the question here is, would the landlord have the right to say "Not only am I kicking you out, but I'm also making sure you can't rent another apartment anywhere else, ever again, until you prove to me you weren't buying drugs."

I stuck to what DirectNIC requested, I provided all threads on GFY for reference, including DirectNIC's statement. This has little to do as far as DirectNIC has said to what sites he is linking to, unless I missed something.

I requested from multiple sources to get a broader response, one lawyer from the FSC saying it's wrong does not truly make it wrong.

I may have a ton of my own opinions on what's right or wrong in the matter, but I'd like to know where the legalities stand, as they directly or indirectly will impact my business.

Is that all?? You care what people say on GFY that much that you ended up with every 2nd - 5th post in every thread about the subject. Odd.

Remember, a jury of his peers said OJ was innocent. As they say, juries are usually made of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

Ownership is subject to your regional law I do believe. That's another point I have requested clarification from council on, as it has bearing on everything we do.

Edit: If my bank doesn't like my curtains, they aren't going to foreclose. So ownership is a big issue in this I'd think.

I got called for Jury duty, they asked what I did for a living.. I told them I produced porn.. Suddenly I wasn't qualified. :upsidedow

Webby, I care very much about what people say because it is a feeding frenzy. Maybe you have never seen these things before, but people all pile onto one side of a discussion, and are about ready to hang the other side by their balls... and in the end, turns out things aren't exactly like the "offended" person said, and things are much different in the end.

I don't expect there to be 3 or 4 10 page threads if it turns out Directnic was in the right.

My feeling is that there is way more to this story than Slick is telling us, and until we know that, much is speculation based on only the information he is providing. The silence from Directnic is deafening and also very likely with reason or purpose. Very few people have taken a moment to consider what that silence means. Most just brush it off as an admission of guilt.

There are three sides to every story... and so far we haven't even heard all of 1 side. Rushing to get the lynching ropes out is putting the cart far before the horse.

No, but if I paint my house pink, according to my HOA TOS, they can legally fine me and put a lien on my house. Even though having a pink house isn't illegal in my state.

A fine and a lien is a far cry from removal of property though. However; that is a valid point.

Absolutely, tough the smart thing would be to leave and call the cops ...

On the other hand, if the landlord wants to be a vigilante, he can ask ( I repeat ASK, not kick out ) that the renter vacate the premises. In case of refusal, back to the cops.


But there is one hing I know that the landlord cannot do is to put a new lock on his door, preventing him from accessing his dewling and property... unless the landlord has a court order ( and in certain states with a sheriff )...

But you know better...


PS: did you get your wire ?