.XXX YES or NO? - GoFuckYourself.com

VicD · 02-05-2007, 05:03 PM

I say NO

Aussie Rebel · 02-05-2007, 05:06 PM

NO! I dont want it

Kapitan Ivanov II · 02-05-2007, 05:08 PM

YES. You sick people do not wish to protect innocent children from porn? Shame on all of you.

Harry Red · 02-05-2007, 05:10 PM

Ivanoff, are you totally mad, dude? What innocent children are talking about?
Looks like some pathetic BS

mx8829 · 02-05-2007, 05:17 PM

No - .XXX will not protect kids, will show exactly where to find porn

Fap · 02-05-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mx8829

No - .XXX will not protect kids, will show exactly where to find porn

yeah but it will be 10x easier for parents to block porn..

Kapitan Ivanov II · 02-05-2007, 05:26 PM

It is very American thing to simplify everything.

.xxx tells these dullards that here is porn.

Next will be .gay, .anal, and .tits, Just so these sad, mindless people can be quite clear when visiting a site such as www,gayanaltitfuckingbitchesporn.tld

cones · 02-05-2007, 05:46 PM

No...............................

seeric · 02-05-2007, 05:47 PM

no to .xxx

yes to .kids

clicker · 02-05-2007, 06:02 PM

NO. Yes to educating parents and filtering.

StarkReality · 02-05-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

no to .xxx

yes to .kids

Exactly, .kids would allow parents to let their children view content that is for kids only.

.xxx would NOT help to keep kids away from porn, filtering or not, there are much worse things around than just porn, e.g. violence, death, racism, and so on.

Positive filtering works much better than blacklists, partner submissions accounts for TGPs are a good example from our industry: Almost everybody uses them, because blacklisting is useless.

toddy1999 · 02-05-2007, 06:07 PM

We don't need it

GregE · 02-05-2007, 07:34 PM

Under any and all circumstances... NO

Evil E · 02-05-2007, 08:27 PM

ICANN's Board previously found the proposed .XXX agreement to be so deficient
in merit that is was rejected by a nearly 2-1 vote. In our view the proposed
"cure" of the RPA under consideration is substantially worse than the original
proposal and deserves unanimous rejection. It would implicate ICANN in areas
far outside its technical mandate and would set s series of terrible precedents
that would disfigure the fundamental purpose of the DNS.

For all of the reasons stated in this letter, the ICA strongly opposes adoption
of the Revised Proposed Agreement for .XXX and urges the Board to promptly
reject it and to do so with finality.

The ICA appreciates your consideration of our comments in this matter.

Sincerely,

Philip S. Corwin
Partner, Butera & Andrews; Washington, DC
Counsel, Internet Commerce Association

MandyBlake · 02-05-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

no to .xxx

yes to .kids

my feelings exactly

ayne468 · 02-05-2007, 08:29 PM

of course I don't want kids getting hold of porn...but I don't think .xxx will be the best way to do that!

Himuro · 02-05-2007, 08:30 PM

NO to .xxx

Barefootsies · 02-06-2007, 09:22 AM

DaddyHalbucks · 02-06-2007, 09:29 AM

.XXX?

I say FUCK NO.

u-Bob · 02-06-2007, 09:31 AM

hell NO!

fetishblog · 02-06-2007, 09:50 AM

Nope. I won't be buying any .xxx domains.

FetishWeb · 02-06-2007, 09:58 AM

What day is ICANN going to make the decision (again) ?

greasedonkey · 02-06-2007, 10:01 AM

NO at 99.9%

polish_aristocrat · 02-06-2007, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishWeb

What day is ICANN going to make the decision (again) ?

somewhere in the next few weeks most likely

D · 02-06-2007, 10:13 AM

No.

Segregation has proven, time and time again, to be the wrong way to go about things.

D · 02-06-2007, 10:15 AM

No.

Segregation has proven, time and time again, to be the wrong way to go about things.

FetishWeb · 02-06-2007, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

somewhere in the next few weeks most likely

Thanks... I could have sworn I saw a date somewhere but that could have been from last year.

TheDoc · 02-06-2007, 10:50 AM

I say ISP's should be forced to do Cable Television has done.. Provide the filters for the parents since the parents can't filter the kids.

A simple login screen to the Internet (or inactive time) would do the trick. Each parent/kid has a unique login, the parent can set the controls at the ISP level of how strong they want the filters - just like cable companies provide for us now.

Methodcash Rick · 02-06-2007, 10:51 AM

Not NO, but hell no.

edgeprod · 02-06-2007, 10:52 AM

no 8char

02-05-2007, 05:03 PM	#1
VicD ICQ: 304-611-162 Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Masterdam Posts: 13,245	.XXX YES or NO? I say NO

02-05-2007, 05:08 PM	#3
Kapitan Ivanov II Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 763	YES. You sick people do not wish to protect innocent children from porn? Shame on all of you. __________________ Ivanov - The Original Russian Board Guy

02-05-2007, 05:10 PM	#4
Harry Red Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Location: la Bulgarie Posts: 172	Ivanoff, are you totally mad, dude? What innocent children are talking about? Looks like some pathetic BS __________________ I produce porn since 1999. Amateur hot teens.Teen gays, niches, etc... Meet Harry. RED HARRY Adult Content Provider since 1999

02-05-2007, 05:26 PM	#7
Kapitan Ivanov II Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 763	It is very American thing to simplify everything. .xxx tells these dullards that here is porn. Next will be .gay, .anal, and .tits, Just so these sad, mindless people can be quite clear when visiting a site such as www,gayanaltitfuckingbitchesporn.tld __________________ Ivanov - The Original Russian Board Guy

02-05-2007, 07:34 PM	#13
GregE Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 2,704	Under any and all circumstances... NO __________________ 50/50 lifetime payout - EXCLUSIVE CONTENT - CCBill CLiCK here for your Bun Beating Dollars.

02-05-2007, 05:06 PM	#2
Aussie Rebel Blow Me U Geeks Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Maximum Security Posts: 5,108	NO! I dont want it

02-05-2007, 05:17 PM	#5
mx8829 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 891	No - .XXX will not protect kids, will show exactly where to find porn

02-05-2007, 05:46 PM	#8
cones So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 571	No...............................

02-05-2007, 05:47 PM	#9
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	no to .xxx yes to .kids

02-05-2007, 06:02 PM	#10
clicker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Virtual Posts: 1,113	NO. Yes to educating parents and filtering.

02-05-2007, 06:07 PM	#12
toddy1999 Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,122	We don't need it

02-05-2007, 08:27 PM	#14
Evil E Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Lazyness is a lifestyle Posts: 3,201	ICANN's Board previously found the proposed .XXX agreement to be so deficient in merit that is was rejected by a nearly 2-1 vote. In our view the proposed "cure" of the RPA under consideration is substantially worse than the original proposal and deserves unanimous rejection. It would implicate ICANN in areas far outside its technical mandate and would set s series of terrible precedents that would disfigure the fundamental purpose of the DNS. For all of the reasons stated in this letter, the ICA strongly opposes adoption of the Revised Proposed Agreement for .XXX and urges the Board to promptly reject it and to do so with finality. The ICA appreciates your consideration of our comments in this matter. Sincerely, Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews; Washington, DC Counsel, Internet Commerce Association

02-05-2007, 08:29 PM	#16
ayne468 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,738	of course I don't want kids getting hold of porn...but I don't think .xxx will be the best way to do that! __________________

02-05-2007, 08:30 PM	#17
Himuro Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: GO HABS GO!!! Posts: 934	NO to .xxx

02-06-2007, 09:22 AM	#18
Barefootsies Choice is an Illusion Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Land of Obama Posts: 42,635	__________________ Should You Email Your Members? Link1 \| Link2 \| Link3 Enough Said. "Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

02-06-2007, 09:29 AM	#19
DaddyHalbucks A freakin' legend! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA Posts: 18,975	.XXX? I say FUCK NO. __________________ Boner Money

02-06-2007, 09:31 AM	#20
u-Bob there's no $$$ in porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs) Posts: 33,063	hell NO!

02-06-2007, 09:50 AM	#21
fetishblog Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Your mom is my favorite pornstar!#% Posts: 5,995	Nope. I won't be buying any .xxx domains. __________________ Fling.com doesn't steal your traffic and sales unlike some other dating companies. I promote them, and so should you!

02-06-2007, 09:58 AM	#22
FetishWeb Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 390	What day is ICANN going to make the decision (again) ?

02-06-2007, 10:01 AM	#23
greasedonkey Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Quebec Posts: 279	NO at 99.9% __________________ Help me Help you

02-06-2007, 10:13 AM	#25
D Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The Valley Posts: 7,412	No. Segregation has proven, time and time again, to be the wrong way to go about things. __________________ -D. ICQ: 202-96-31

02-06-2007, 10:15 AM	#26
D Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The Valley Posts: 7,412	No. Segregation has proven, time and time again, to be the wrong way to go about things. __________________ -D. ICQ: 202-96-31

02-06-2007, 10:50 AM	#28
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	I say ISP's should be forced to do Cable Television has done.. Provide the filters for the parents since the parents can't filter the kids. A simple login screen to the Internet (or inactive time) would do the trick. Each parent/kid has a unique login, the parent can set the controls at the ISP level of how strong they want the filters - just like cable companies provide for us now. __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

02-06-2007, 10:51 AM	#29
Methodcash Rick Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,720	Not NO, but hell no.

02-06-2007, 10:52 AM	#30
edgeprod Permanently Gone Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,019	no 8char