what can I say!?
I am a fucking failure!

Anybody has CP content for sale? Time to get back into business!

I'm calling Webfather now and offer him $100 for
http://childpornography.com

Time to take up a collection for Serge. I'll start with $5.

Thank you, Peaches!

Who is in charge of "Webmasters auctions" nowadays?
;)

How dumb can some of you be saying things like this to Winetalk
Originally Posted by Shakula
I must ask you. Ive read some posts about you here on GFY.
You did well during the goldage for porn. But winetalk.com,
2000-20006 and you have about 1000 posts?
Most likely are they yours....

Seems that it was easy back in the day with porn!

And you dont even understand it no wonder he amuses himself at your expense.

fucking unbelievable !! :mad: :mad:

There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result.
~Winston Churchill

If my domains were truly down or on hold, and my lawyer was telling me to wait, this is definitely what I'd be doing.
Of course I'd be triple-checking all of those trades so another one like that Danish CP trade wouldn't be in there, and I'd be not using sponsor galleries that promoted sites where the girls look underage. If I had to, I'd get my freaking Dad to come over and give his opinion on whether the girls looked okay or not, since obviously "public perception" is a big part of the issue here.

If it's hundreds of trades and will take some time, well, what else are you going to do while waiting for your lawyer to call you back?

At this point it looks like getting another lawyer is in order as well. Jeffrey Douglas evidently has an opinion in the matter, since he's spoken up about it I'd call him first.

Sorry to hear that bro...:(

now i see why direct nic closed the domain name

have a look at some of these girls, they look 13

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...jorpervert.com

Do you play Call Of Duty II lately or something? ;-)

Yep, it was, because there wasn't much free porn around, you were able to pay for it with amex, the GBU told you which sponsors to stay away from and a freesite on tripod (with 15 xpics or babylon-x banners, two galleries with "public domain" content, a 3 fullpage ads cascade to click through before you saw the first pic) made you more than a 200k tgp today...and once you got your own domain and hosting, it went down in a day because the server was unable to handle the traffic.

I fully agree with you!

asking for personal identifiable information and disclosing it are not the same thing. not sure why DirectNIC being a registrar changes that fact.

can't believe the judas goats around here - i'm sure everyone has it noted ..

Shut the fuck up Jesus Christ :321GFY

Everybody has a different opinion and point of view. That has nothing to do with being illoyal.

So let's make the webmaster using the FHG the target of our judgment and leave the sponsors who provide them out of it? :2 cents:

DNS Cache.

:321GFY
:321GFY :321GFY
:321GFY :321GFY :321GFY
:321GFY :321GFY
:321GFY

Harsh. In my opinion, a registrar has no business shutting down sites. The content is with the webhost, so it should be up to the webhost to decide if the content is illegal. The registrar has the right to refuse Slick's business, but in that case they should simply state to Slick, that they no longer wish to be his registrar and that if he does not transfer his domains elsewhere in 30 days, they will change his DNS and effectively shut down his sites.

No doubt Slick would've transferred his domains to another registrar and all this drama would've been avoided.

Would you like the host to do the same thing? "we have a complaint here that your sites contain illegal images. So rather than making you fix it or shut down, can we help you move to another host that has no clue so you can keep going?"

Perhaps the processors... can you just picture CCBilll "Well, we can't process for your stuff because it appears some of the models are under 18 and you don't want to produce the documents... but hey, we will help you transfer over to paycom, no problems!"

Yup. let's all just pass the buck.

Hmmmm??? didn't see any sponsors whining that directnic canned their domain. Their turn will come. As an afilliate you choose who you do business with and what you promote. And when you use pics of girls that look underaged and place them on your site that's your responsibility not any sponsors'.
When you become a drugdealer you can't blame your wholesaler when you get busted. You can take him down with you ,but it will not take away your responsibilty.

YARGH!
I am sure what he meant by saying the support guy said "they didn't have one" meant they didn't have the number for the legal department, which is what slick asked for.

While the above is true, if the wholesaler is exposed, they don't generally lie blameless either. In this case however, Slick's taking all the heat for displaying these questionable images with no mention of sponsors who do this day in and day out.

In the end it really doesn't matter, it'll sort itself out and it'll probably take the heavy hand of a gov't hell bent on seeing us destroyed vs self regulation. Old argument.

Webhosts and processors could be held liable legally for the content which they host or process for. A registrar would not be held liable for the content of the website for which it merely maintains the registration of domain.

I believe that MikeAI's argument was that there was a proposed law on the 8th that would fine certain classes of companies $300,000 for failing to report it, so they were being proactive to a law that was proposed vs enforcing something that'd passed and was enacted.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...t=%24300%2C000

First post for reference.

Sorry but that analogy is terrible. A domain name is property. That is the larger issue here. They are stealing from him period. If there is a problem of legality that is an issue for the law to handle, not a registrar. If they dont want to allow him to do business with him then they should tell him to transfer his domains out. If they feel there is something illegal they should report what they find questionable to the authorities and at that point they are free of any possible liability.

Fuck em man

so you firmly believe that EVERY registrar has TOS that are granting themselves illegal powers?

have you sent them the notice yet? won't they be shocked to learn that some kid on GFY is 5 steps ahead of about 200 attorneys?

First off you being 3 years older than me doesnt give you the right to call me "kid" Secondly are you saying a domain name is not property? Think there was some case recently where some guy who lost a domain for years and years got it returned to him. Hmm now what domain was that. lol Someone go tell that judge to reverse the ruling cause PleasurePays doubts it.

A company can write that if you break their tos you have to lick a kangaroos pussy. Does that make it law? lmfao. :1orglaugh


Oh and TREE FIDDY!

translation:

"ok, you have stripped me of my standby, default argument - "you are a asshole republican and religious nut" and i have nothing else to say because i can't participate in any conversation in a rational, calm and intelligent manner discussing important points and looking at all sides of the issue... without retreating to partisan politics and babbling on about how Clinton should have became the first Supreme Emporer of Planet Earth"

You most likely are the victim of domain hijacking. Its not your fault. You better have a good lawyer who can get to the bottom of this.

Think everyone knows where my political pendulum swings, and I agree with dig on this one. This company does not have the right to hold his domains hostage. I disagree with alot of his site content, but that isnt the issue here.

:uhoh :uhoh :uhoh :uhoh

no... i am saying its a simple issue of law. either you are right or you are wrong and that answer is found in the law... not in your opinion of what constitutes truth and justice.

so... either you are correct and the domain owner owns the domain as his own personal property and the registrar has no legal authority to interfere with the domain/business etc (which is done all the time) ... or every registrar is correct and their TOS is within the law.

do you know which one it is? or like almost everyone else, are you just taking a shot in the dark because you have a lucky feeling and heart felt belief and haven't bothered to actually consider what the law says?

The bottom line is someone has to take out the trash.

1-2-3

your out.

again... thier "rights" are defined by law. like almost everyone else, you are confusing what rights they actually have, with what rights or limitations of rights you think or feel there should be.

two different things completely.

This is one big conspiracy to badmouth directnic and make everyone paranoid about the feds. All because some faggo in Slovakia jacked your shit.

Please quote me the law that says the registrar has the right to police and hold domains hostage. Now if the Government requests the registrar to put a hold on the domain name that is a entirely differnt beast.

the host should have shut him down is the correct move, that must have failed in some way trying, so they went after the register.

Again what specific law are you referring to?