Question for Aaron M, Donny, Mutt, Content Producer ect.... - GoFuckYourself.com

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-05-2005, 11:12 AM

There are a few good photographers here, one thing they have in common is they are outspoken.

Shooting Maniac
Donny
Mutt
Aaron M
charly
Content Producer
AmaContent

Will you guys be selling content to programs and companies that you know will be passing out model ID's to their webmasters??

What is your thoughts on this??? are you willing to loose a large regular account over this issue? Are you willing to boycott companies that give out id's.

I'm not here to tell anyone what they should or should not do, I just want to opinions and thoughts of the guys shooting.

bigdog · 06-05-2005, 11:26 AM

good question

Harmon · 06-05-2005, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

There are a few good photographers here, one thing they have in common is they are outspoken.

Shooting Maniac
Donny
Mutt
Aaron M
charly
Content Producer
AmaContent

Will you guys be selling content to programs and companies that you know will be passing out model ID's to their webmasters??

What is your thoughts on this??? are you willing to loose a large regular account over this issue? Are you willing to boycott companies that give out id's.

I'm not here to tell anyone what they should or should not do, I just want to opinions and thoughts of the guys shooting.

Stoned

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-05-2005, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

Stoned

how so?? Stoned If I think they will provide it?
Stoned If I think they won't??

what is your take?

Donny · 06-05-2005, 12:30 PM

I'm willing to do one thing: protect my models. I actually care about them (well, most of them). If someone starts handing out IDs.... I'll do everything I can to tell the world what shitheads they are.

Now, see sig. This is a great fucking video:

VVVVVV

stevo · 06-05-2005, 12:33 PM

What about IDs that censor out the models address / license #?

Will this still satisfy 2257? Can someone please answer this?

I want to be able to offer my affiliates free content, but dont want to give away complete personal information...

NaughtyRob · 06-05-2005, 01:19 PM

I can't speak for my employer, but I know that he and I both care very much about our models and really do not want to give out unmarked IDs.

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-05-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanPhillips

I'm willing to do one thing: protect my models. I actually care about them (well, most of them). If someone starts handing out IDs.... I'll do everything I can to tell the world what shitheads they are.

Now, see sig. This is a great fucking video:

VVVVVV

I watched the video in your sig. funny video.

Ok, so you will continue to sell content to people and programs that handout ID's. However you will tell the world that they are assholes for doing so?????

I don't mean to put you guys on the spot, I'm just curious what the stance of the root level content producers will be.

Mutt · 06-05-2005, 02:35 PM

i'm not a shooter - i work with a bunch of them.

i sell hardcore content shot in LA, with LA porn girls - it's all exclusive content so the model ID's go to only the one customer. I'm not sure what all my hardcore customers are going to do regarding giving out ID's to affiliates. I know David from Pimproll is doing the responsible thing and is setting up free hosting for Pimproll affiliates so affiliates have no reason to have ID's.

With the single girl site content - i'm more concerned about those girls because i am directly responsible for some of them getting into this so those girls will be protected as best as I can.

As for Ashley Brookes - nobody will be getting her ID's. Affiliates can use
the FHG's and hosted POTD and explicit downloadable free content will be replaced with softcore sets that aren't subject to 2257.

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-05-2005, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

i'm not a shooter - i work with a bunch of them.
.................................................. .................

With the single girl site content - i'm more concerned about those girls because i am directly responsible for some of them getting into this so those girls will be protected as best as I can.

As for Ashley Brookes - nobody will be getting her ID's. Affiliates can use
the FHG's and hosted POTD and explicit downloadable free content will be replaced with softcore sets that aren't subject to 2257.

Somehow I knew you would do the responsible thing for the girls you feel responsible for.

sometimes I think affiliates forget it's their role to get people to the tour. Not provide free whack off material to surfers

Paul Markham · 06-05-2005, 03:17 PM

I will never allow clients to give out models IDs. It is and always has been in the license and we intend to stick by that license.

The sponsors who do give out IDs are asking for trouble and will be gone in a very short time. There are privacy laws that will see them sued into bankruptcy. Which to be honest is what they deserve.

All these sponsors are looking to do is make a few dollars at the expense of the rest of us. How long do you think it will be before agents and models get to know we as an industry are handing out models documents to affiliates?

Then expect them to ask for clauses in the model release saying no Internet Distribution of their content. Do you think they will allput their privacy and safety on the line for a few dollars?

Then where are we left as an industry? Scraping around with the models to desperate to care. I say we because if the US intends to shoot itself in the foot, we will carry on with Czech girls for our own sites and not give out any content, the slump in the standard of US sites will mean more surfers.

The dangers are many.

1) Sponsors cannot screen out cheats, until it's too late, so what chance have we they will screen who should have IDs?

2) How many times do we see a thread from a sponsor or affiliate accusing each other of breaking the rules? Usually leaving the affiliate powerless to do anything about getting his money. Now this affiliate has 10 or 50 monels IDs in his possesion. a very powerful negotiation tool.

3) Straight blackmail, give me money or I will put all these IDs on the Internet and tell people where they came from.

4) How long before a surfer puts up a models ID on the Internet?

5) How long before surfer catch on they can get a models IDs by registering as an affilaite?

And if you think the local DA will not come down on you like a ton of bricks for breaking privacy laws and you will be able to put up the excuse, the DOJ gave you no option then you really should not be in the position of having models IDs.

This 2257 law was not thought out by a bunch of buffoons, ti was thought out by people trying to close you down. Don't give them the excuse.

Paul Markham · 06-05-2005, 03:21 PM

The alternatives to giving out IDs are there for all.

Free Hosted Galleries.

Softcore Content.

Cutting out Free Content.

Cutting loose US Affilaites.

None as severe as being charged with invasion of privacy, being named as the person who gave the rapists the documents to find the model and/or being sued in court by lawyers after making themselves rich and you poor.

Don't blame me, the people to blame are those who voted for Bush or did not vote at all.

MaDalton · 06-05-2005, 03:30 PM

we are in the process of redoing our license and we will not allow to give model ids to affiliates. the privacy of our models is way more important than selling a set for some bucks. luckily czech ids don't have the actual address of the girl on them and on the model releases we keep on blackening the address. And our new release doesn't have the address of the girl on the part that will be given with the content. all that was advised by our lawyer that is of course american and working hard to stay on top of the topic.

Paul Markham · 06-05-2005, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

we are in the process of redoing our license and we will not allow to give model ids to affiliates. the privacy of our models is way more important than selling a set for some bucks. luckily czech ids don't have the actual address of the girl on them and on the model releases we keep on blackening the address. And our new release doesn't have the address of the girl on the part that will be given with the content. all that was advised by our lawyer that is of course american and working hard to stay on top of the topic.

Good response.

If the good content shooters stick together, the sponsors who want to give out IDs can fill their sites with crap and let their affiliates go down the tubes with the content from whoever is to broke to stand up and be counted.

chase · 06-05-2005, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

What about IDs that censor out the models address / license #?

Will this still satisfy 2257? Can someone please answer this?

I want to be able to offer my affiliates free content, but dont want to give away complete personal information...

No the DOJ specifically declined "sanitized" copies.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm
[[Page 29615]] (it's about half-way down the page says:
"Another commenter proposed that secondary producers be required to
store sanitized (i.e., without personal information such as home
address) hard or digital copies of performers' identification documents
along with a notarized affidavit from the primary producer stating the
location of the complete records. The Department declines to adopt this
comment. Although the Department understands the commenter's desire to
protect private information about performers from being too widely
disseminated, it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process. Primary producers would be
required first to sanitize the identification documents and then to
draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less
burdensome simply to have primary producers transfer a copy of the
records to secondary producers."

NaughtyRob · 06-05-2005, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chase

No the DOJ specifically declined "sanitized" copies.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm
[[Page 29615]] (it's about half-way down the page says:
"Another commenter proposed that secondary producers be required to
store sanitized (i.e., without personal information such as home
address) hard or digital copies of performers' identification documents
along with a notarized affidavit from the primary producer stating the
location of the complete records. The Department declines to adopt this
comment. Although the Department understands the commenter's desire to
protect private information about performers from being too widely
disseminated, it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process. Primary producers would be
required first to sanitize the identification documents and then to
draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less
burdensome simply to have primary producers transfer a copy of the
records to secondary producers."

This is the exact part that I find ridiculous. What if we dont think it is burdensome. What do they think we are fucking lazy?

Peace · 06-05-2005, 03:45 PM

I do not get it..How can it hurt content provider if models IDs are shown..Will it be easier for other photografers to find the same models? Or what?

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-05-2005, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chase

No the DOJ specifically declined "sanitized" copies.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm
[[Page 29615]] (it's about half-way down the page says:
"Another commenter proposed that secondary producers be required to
store sanitized (i.e., without personal information such as home
address) hard or digital copies of performers' identification documents
along with a notarized affidavit from the primary producer stating the
location of the complete records. The Department declines to adopt this
comment. Although the Department understands the commenter's desire to
protect private information about performers from being too widely
disseminated, it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process. Primary producers would be
required first to sanitize the identification documents and then to
draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less
burdensome simply to have primary producers transfer a copy of the
records to secondary producers."

I do believe you are correct. Sanitized isn't going to fly for a US program. However if the license states that id's can not be passed out, that should do what needs to be done.

guess some of the shooters that cater to the smaller purchase might have to be picky about who they sell to?

MaDalton · 06-05-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chase

No the DOJ specifically declined "sanitized" copies.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm
[[Page 29615]] (it's about half-way down the page says:
"Another commenter proposed that secondary producers be required to
store sanitized (i.e., without personal information such as home
address) hard or digital copies of performers' identification documents
along with a notarized affidavit from the primary producer stating the
location of the complete records. The Department declines to adopt this
comment. Although the Department understands the commenter's desire to
protect private information about performers from being too widely
disseminated, it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process. Primary producers would be
required first to sanitize the identification documents and then to
draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less
burdensome simply to have primary producers transfer a copy of the
records to secondary producers."

that is still a comment and not the actual law.

it says:
"it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process"

"believing" is not knowing and it is still not a law.

the law says:
"that bears the photograph and the name of the individual identified, and provides sufficient specific information that it can be accessed from the issuing authority,"

this can be for example the number of the passport which would be sufficient for the authorities to identify a person - but not necessarily the home address of the performer

MaDalton · 06-05-2005, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace

I do not get it..How can it hurt content provider if models IDs are shown..Will it be easier for other photografers to find the same models? Or what?

you are not the brightest stone on the beach, eh?

NaughtyRob · 06-05-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace

I do not get it..How can it hurt content provider if models IDs are shown..Will it be easier for other photografers to find the same models? Or what?

I don't want my models getting raped and/or killed.

Also, I don't want to be sued when someone steals the girl's identity.

chase · 06-05-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ContentProducer

This is the exact part that I find ridiculous. What if we dont think it is burdensome. What do they think we are fucking lazy?

Exactly-tell me how much more difficult would if be for sponsors to have a standard form and a notary on staff-affiliates would just have to get reveiwed maybe, but even if not, the info would still be censored.....
It would be a PITA, but not a bit more then what they have to do anyway....and the privacy would be more guarded.

Paul Markham · 06-05-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ContentProducer

This is the exact part that I find ridiculous. What if we dont think it is burdensome. What do they think we are fucking lazy?

Don't you think the DOJ wants you to fall into the trap and give out IDs that will get a girl stalked, raped and murdered?

Then think of the publicity they will have to use against us, they will make it even harder for us. Or am I just being paranoid?

Also look at the part of getting it notarised, if we know the original document is legal and the secondary producer accepts it, why do we need it notarised?

It's a legal original, the model is over age and everything is correct. They are looking to screw us. Giving out models IDs allows them to do that. IMO.

chase · 06-05-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

that is still a comment and not the actual law.

it says:
"it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process"

"believing" is not knowing and it is still not a law.

the law says:
"that bears the photograph and the name of the individual identified, and provides sufficient specific information that it can be accessed from the issuing authority,"

this can be for example the number of the passport which would be sufficient for the authorities to identify a person - but not necessarily the home address of the performer

Quite true...BUT most (US) models in the past used their state ids, and the regs pertain to that content as well as content produced from here on out.

philipr_33 · 06-05-2005, 03:53 PM

Big Fight tomorrow at 2pm

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=476945

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-05-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chase

Exactly-tell me how much more difficult would if be for sponsors to have a standard form and a notary on staff-affiliates would just have to get reveiwed maybe, but even if not, the info would still be censored.....
It would be a PITA, but not a bit more then what they have to do anyway....and the privacy would be more guarded.

Or how about sponsors not offering explict downloadable promo content?? that would solve everything and take the burden off the webmaster, this way webmasters will not have to keep records for 7years after they give up and leave the biz. </sarcasm>

Seriously non explicit content could be the best thing that ever happened to the glam/solo girl girl niche. Webmasters need to loose the surfer mentality and push traffic to a tour where they can make money.

If your site is better to your surfer than the sites you promote. your doing something REALLY REALLY wrong.

Oh and MaDalton thx for responding, I knew I'd forget someone. Great answer

AaronM · 06-05-2005, 03:57 PM

Peanut butter and jellyfish sandwich.

chase · 06-05-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philipr_33

Big Fight tomorrow at 2pm

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=476945

You are beginning to remind me of a gnat.

chase · 06-05-2005, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

Or how about sponsors not offering explict downloadable promo content?? that would solve everything and take the burden off the webmaster, this way webmasters will not have to keep records for 7years after they give up and leave the biz. </sarcasm>

Seriously non explicit content could be the best thing that ever happened to the glam/solo girl girl niche. Webmasters need to loose the surfer mentality and push traffic to a tour where they can make money.

If your site is better to your surfer than the sites you promote. your doing something REALLY REALLY wrong.

Oh and MaDalton thx for responding, I knew I'd forget someone. Great answer

Well that's what it appears is happening, at least two sponsors have announced that they will be swapping out the explicit stuff. I have no doubt most, if not all others will follow suit, to some degreee. No one wants the "kick me" sign on THEIR backs.

I think whatever regs we do wind up going by, be they these or some modified version if some legal dance is successful, after a settling in period, we will find that it had some good economic effects. But we'll pay for it in blood, sweat, and tears to get in compliance, lol.

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-05-2005, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Peanut butter and jellyfish sandwich.

thx for the appearance.

MaDalton · 06-05-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

Oh and MaDalton thx for responding, I knew I'd forget someone. Great answer

i didn't know that i was already in line with the above mentioned

but thanks, i feel honored

chase · 06-05-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Peanut butter and jellyfish sandwich.

AaronM · 06-05-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

thx for the appearance.

I think you have a valid question but I am not prepared to definitively answer it until I hear back from proper attorneys.

My content business is based on exclusive shoots. By not allowing ID's to be given to affiliates, I run the risk of losing a lot of business.

On the flip side....I obviously don't want to be passing my model's personal info to everybody who can sign up as an affiliate for my clients.

There are other options that I am looking into but it is too soon for me to say anything about them.

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-05-2005, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

I think you have a valid question but I am not prepared to definitively answer it until I hear back from proper attorneys.

My content business is based on exclusive shoots. By not allowing ID's to be given to affiliates, I run the risk of losing a lot of business.

On the flip side....I obviously don't want to be passing my model's personal info to everybody who can sign up as an affiliate for my clients.

There are other options that I am looking into but it is too soon for me to say anything about them.

You are a true professional. and I appreciate this answer.

06-05-2005, 11:12 AM	#1
3piece chicken Dinner Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: On your plate Posts: 1,065	Question for Aaron M, Donny, Mutt, Content Producer ect.... There are a few good photographers here, one thing they have in common is they are outspoken. Shooting Maniac Donny Mutt Aaron M charly Content Producer AmaContent Will you guys be selling content to programs and companies that you know will be passing out model ID's to their webmasters?? What is your thoughts on this??? are you willing to loose a large regular account over this issue? Are you willing to boycott companies that give out id's. I'm not here to tell anyone what they should or should not do, I just want to opinions and thoughts of the guys shooting.

06-05-2005, 01:19 PM	#7
NaughtyRob Two fresh affiliate progs Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Inside teen pussy Posts: 29,602	I can't speak for my employer, but I know that he and I both care very much about our models and really do not want to give out unmarked IDs. __________________ [email protected] Skype: 17026955414 Vacares Web Hosting - Protect Your Ass with Included Daily Backups

06-05-2005, 02:35 PM	#9
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	i'm not a shooter - i work with a bunch of them. i sell hardcore content shot in LA, with LA porn girls - it's all exclusive content so the model ID's go to only the one customer. I'm not sure what all my hardcore customers are going to do regarding giving out ID's to affiliates. I know David from Pimproll is doing the responsible thing and is setting up free hosting for Pimproll affiliates so affiliates have no reason to have ID's. With the single girl site content - i'm more concerned about those girls because i am directly responsible for some of them getting into this so those girls will be protected as best as I can. As for Ashley Brookes - nobody will be getting her ID's. Affiliates can use the FHG's and hosted POTD and explicit downloadable free content will be replaced with softcore sets that aren't subject to 2257. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

06-05-2005, 03:17 PM	#11
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	I will never allow clients to give out models IDs. It is and always has been in the license and we intend to stick by that license. The sponsors who do give out IDs are asking for trouble and will be gone in a very short time. There are privacy laws that will see them sued into bankruptcy. Which to be honest is what they deserve. All these sponsors are looking to do is make a few dollars at the expense of the rest of us. How long do you think it will be before agents and models get to know we as an industry are handing out models documents to affiliates? Then expect them to ask for clauses in the model release saying no Internet Distribution of their content. Do you think they will allput their privacy and safety on the line for a few dollars? Then where are we left as an industry? Scraping around with the models to desperate to care. I say we because if the US intends to shoot itself in the foot, we will carry on with Czech girls for our own sites and not give out any content, the slump in the standard of US sites will mean more surfers. The dangers are many. 1) Sponsors cannot screen out cheats, until it's too late, so what chance have we they will screen who should have IDs? 2) How many times do we see a thread from a sponsor or affiliate accusing each other of breaking the rules? Usually leaving the affiliate powerless to do anything about getting his money. Now this affiliate has 10 or 50 monels IDs in his possesion. a very powerful negotiation tool. 3) Straight blackmail, give me money or I will put all these IDs on the Internet and tell people where they came from. 4) How long before a surfer puts up a models ID on the Internet? 5) How long before surfer catch on they can get a models IDs by registering as an affilaite? And if you think the local DA will not come down on you like a ton of bricks for breaking privacy laws and you will be able to put up the excuse, the DOJ gave you no option then you really should not be in the position of having models IDs. This 2257 law was not thought out by a bunch of buffoons, ti was thought out by people trying to close you down. Don't give them the excuse. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-05-2005, 03:21 PM	#12
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	The alternatives to giving out IDs are there for all. Free Hosted Galleries. Softcore Content. Cutting out Free Content. Cutting loose US Affilaites. None as severe as being charged with invasion of privacy, being named as the person who gave the rapists the documents to find the model and/or being sued in court by lawyers after making themselves rich and you poor. Don't blame me, the people to blame are those who voted for Bush or did not vote at all. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-05-2005, 11:26 AM	#2
bigdog Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 6,964	good question

06-05-2005, 12:30 PM	#5
Donny As you wish... Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 13,754	I'm willing to do one thing: protect my models. I actually care about them (well, most of them). If someone starts handing out IDs.... I'll do everything I can to tell the world what shitheads they are. Now, see sig. This is a great fucking video: VVVVVV

06-05-2005, 12:33 PM	#6
stevo Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Orlando, Florida Posts: 2,051	What about IDs that censor out the models address / license #? Will this still satisfy 2257? Can someone please answer this? I want to be able to offer my affiliates free content, but dont want to give away complete personal information...

06-05-2005, 03:30 PM	#13
MaDalton I am Amazing Content! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 39,829	we are in the process of redoing our license and we will not allow to give model ids to affiliates. the privacy of our models is way more important than selling a set for some bucks. luckily czech ids don't have the actual address of the girl on them and on the model releases we keep on blackening the address. And our new release doesn't have the address of the girl on the part that will be given with the content. all that was advised by our lawyer that is of course american and working hard to stay on top of the topic. __________________ AmazingContent.com - providing only the best content and service since 2003 Monetize your content on Veegaz.com - one of Germanies largest VOD sites Got German traffic? We convert it into money for you! Skype: madalton02826 - Email: oltecconsult [at] gmail [dot] com

06-05-2005, 03:45 PM	#17
Peace Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: NY and Moscow Posts: 5,519	I do not get it..How can it hurt content provider if models IDs are shown..Will it be easier for other photografers to find the same models? Or what? __________________ Need Custom or Licensed Content? Visit PhotoVideoContent.com Email: [email protected] / Telegram: @romatibet / Skype: Peace888

06-05-2005, 03:53 PM	#25
philipr_33 So Fucking Banned Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 215	Big Fight tomorrow at 2pm http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=476945

06-05-2005, 03:57 PM	#27
AaronM Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐ Posts: 46,909	Peanut butter and jellyfish sandwich.