DirectNic - SlicksNetwork Update !!!! - Page 5 - GoFuckYourself.com

Anthony · 12-14-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornonada

can you point me to another registrar that requires Model Infos and ID's, one that is checking content in combination with threads that the sites get shut down? I didn't hear about such cases so far but maybe you will enlighten me.
Can't see anything adult friendly in it, honestly. Even not something generally friendly, lol.

This point has been posted ad naseum. Moniker, Godaddy, DirectNic all have the same terms in their contract.

BoyAlley · 12-14-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

Since there hasn't actually been a ruling as far as secondary producers go then really any discussion about criminal prosecution is moot. And I know for a fact that being a member or not being a member of FSC makes no difference because in the US we all share equal protection under the law. They can't choose to convict a non-member when they have chosen not to prosecute a member (based on membership) no matter what.

I have confidence that COPA will be amended to exclude the secondary producer from 2257 responsibility because it places un unreasonable burden on the secondary producer and violates the models right to privacy.

I think that COPA will say that no matter how old the model is... that if you present the model as preteen or underage that you will be responsible... much like the dope dealer that sells soap or coffee creamer can still be charged with selling dope because there is intent to commit a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

I like Slick and respect him as a webmaster... but I do have to agree that some of the thumbs on his sites are just not acceptable as good taste in my opinion.

Well despite your best attempts to make yourself sound intelligent, you failed miserably.

"I have confidence that COPA will be amended to exclude the secondary producer from 2257 responsibility"

COPA has absolutely nothing to do with 2257, so this statement makes absolutely zero sense.

"I think that COPA will say that no matter how old the model is... that if you present the model as preteen or underage that you will be responsible."

COPA, when originally passed, it DID contain that provision. It was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. End of that story.

As for being "confident that secondary producers will be excluded from 2257". It's sure as hell not looking that way. The judge in the current FSC case virtually rejected ALL of the first amendment and privacy arguments that were made. The ONLY reason an injunction is in place right now is because the judge was bound by a higher court ruling, which basically said the regs overstepped authority granted to them by statute. Now that 4472 has passed, which specifically grants the authority, things aren't looking good right now.

Perhaps you should be minding your own business until you learn what the fuck you're talking about?

RawAlex · 12-14-2006, 11:36 AM

...and again, 2257 has NOTHING to do with this thread at all.

Slick · 12-14-2006, 11:38 AM

Going back to the comments of girls looking young in their pictures, with the philosophy that even if a girl is 18 years old, but looks young, it shouldn't be posted, does that mean that if a 15 year old has big tits and looks over 18, it's ok to post pictures of her ?????

As far as my trades go, when I inspect the trades, I see no popups. I'm sure that there's a few of them that go by country, and since I'm in the US, I probably never see them, that has happend before. I myself am TOTALLY against trading with people like that.

Like I say, someone send over a list of those sites and I'll have a look.

nation-x · 12-14-2006, 11:48 AM

I didn't claim to be an expert on the subject... ;) Anyway around... it's not over yet... no matter how it looks... but thx for clearing up my misconceptions. My apologies for offending you with my misguided ideas.

However...

You can take your attitude and go fuck yourself sideways with a double sided dildo. I love how gfy is full of self-righteous jerks like you that attack people that they don't even know to make themselves look better. It would have been just as easy to post... "You are wrong for these reasons..." but I don't think you should sit there in your little bubble and post rude shit whenever someone posts something you don't agree with or know is wrong. It's much easier and profitable to be courteous and understanding.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slick

Going back to the comments of girls looking young in their pictures, with the philosophy that even if a girl is 18 years old, but looks young, it shouldn't be posted, does that mean that if a 15 year old has big tits and looks over 18, it's ok to post pictures of her ?????

no.

it means that you are intentionally showing girls which often look much younger than 18 and in doing so, are intentionally walking a very fine line between "legal" and "multiple felonies" and public enemy number 1... and not only that, the content is something that most people anywhere find questionable at best, regardless of the law. looking further, you link to people with even more questionable pics than your own, which doesn't help you.

i personally don't have a problem with it. but pretending that the powers that be does not is just stupid. like it or not YOU and YOU PICS are the target of the federal government right now. meaningless arguments, poor analogies and silly semantics, won't stop federal agents from arresting you and forcing you to defend yourself in a criminal trial.

you are already breaking the law being that you are not 2257 compliant anyway.

and how fucking dumb is this??? not only not legal, but you state yourself that you dont have any info at all for some content - http://majorpervert.com/2257.html

i dont agree with what DirectNIC did if they have no legal liability for your content/domain. However, you just can't make any sensible arguments that you are operating fully within the law or that there isn't any reason for anyones concern either.

Corona · 12-14-2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl4h

Theres more to it. A lot of it has to do with the explotation of females who are too naive to make their own wise decisions. To have your young self posted across thy internet where 50 year old men jerk off to you. Many of them dont understand the demons behind it all. and by the time they do theyre already in the hands of creeps

So you want to have a minimum age for adult models where they are old enough to understand what they are doing?

I still don't understand why having a naive girl of 18 having 50 year old men jerking off to her is any worse than having a naive girl of 18 doing an interracial DP gangbang and having 30 year old guys jerking off.

Eliminating sites like Slicks will do nothing to lower the heat. He just needs to police his trades better and then everything will be fine.

evulvmedia · 12-14-2006, 11:57 AM

Something has bothered me about Slick's sites since I first looked at them. I've finally figured out what it is:

Because of the way his sites are set-up- as a high-skim TGP- there's no difference from a surfer's point-of-view between the sponsors and the trade partners. They're promoted in the same way- i.e. click the big image to go there. There's nothing in the structure of the site that indicates trade partners to be out of his control.

The only distinction is that Slick gets paid for sponsor promotion and gets traffic for traffic trades- but this is intentionally obscured from the point of view of the surfer. His sites promote the trade partners as much as the sponsors.

This makes him more responsible for the content that's on those trade partner sites.

Let's say that instead of his current set-up he had a box on the site with text links to his trade partners. And at the top of the box he had text stating that he had no control over what was in those sites. Then his sites would probably be viewed quite differently, even if they did link to bad stuff. He wouldn't be viewed as promoting that material.

I'm not suggesting that's a solution, or that it would be appropriate here. I'm just using it to illustrate that vigorously promoting your trading partners is different than just linking to them.

LadyMischief · 12-14-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyldblyss

Ok, read over the 3 pages of this thread, and maybe I missed it so I am going to bring this up.

*Someone* unknown to anyone but directnic makes a complaint of CP on slicks site(s). Directnic feels it necessary to lock up his domains until he provided 2257 docs to the company so they can examine them. Slicks lawyer then contacts them and they reply saying they only need the docs on the first 14 images.

Did I get that right? Ok, follow me here.

If you are *really* investigating a website/company/person for CP do you stop at 14 images? What if the 15th image is CP?

Since they are taking on the responsibility of determining there is no CP, why stop at 14 images? I assume that this person has a TGP script in place, with rotating galleries...so he has maybe 50,000 plus galleries? Why not insist that documentation is required to be sent to them for all 50,000 galleries? After all, the images that were on the page when the complaint was made are not the images on the page now because they rotate.

Why stop there though? Why not just make every sponsor hand over the ID's to every single model they have hosted galleries for?

Now I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if they have directnic has really thought about what they are getting themselves into. What if they do this to another guy, request the "first 14" and it ends up the site is full of CP except for those 14 thumbs. What happens when the guy is caught by the feds and find out that "directnic" had a complaint about CP, did not give the complaint to the authorities, but instead took it upon themselves to demand the documentation on a micro-fraction of the models to verify they were legal.

-OR-

directnic is given documentation on a model, accepts it as proof of age, and it turns out the model was NOT legal...that the id was fake. The FBI's have a means of looking up to see if docs are real, directnic doesn't

Honestly, if directnic wants to be a hero, heavily donation to organizations actively involved in the prevention of CP and the aprehension and conviction of those sicko's and report any sites they feel may contain CP.

There is a fine I believe for not reporting it, if they "investigate" a site, deem it "ok" and it ends up there WAS CP on it, then I believe directnic would be liable.

However, if they recieved a complaint, notified authorities and let those trained to handle such matters deal with it, then they are in the clear.

SHHHHHHHH You're making WAY too much sense for anyone here to listen to you! ;)

RawAlex · 12-14-2006, 12:01 PM

Corona, sometimes it isn't just about "just about legal" and "not quite legal", but in presentation and standards. Most of Slick's sites (and those that he link to) purposely use images that portray petite or undeveloped models, and use very questionable domains and site names to suggest and imply that some or all of the models are underage. Site names like "gall 17" and "just young teens" sort of leave an impression, no?

Pandering to pedos is an issue that we could go on about for a long time...

Webby · 12-14-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Pandering to pedos is an issue that we could go on about for a long time...

Dunno about a long time Alex

I'd argue that pandering to pedos is the core problem - the images may be technically legal or otherwise, but the overall intent is to pander to perversity and by it's nature will attract the interest of law enforcement.

just a punk · 12-14-2006, 03:05 PM

The links from http://slicksnetwork.com/ don't open anymore...

RawAlex · 12-14-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Dunno about a long time Alex

I'd argue that pandering to pedos is the core problem - the images may be technically legal or otherwise, but the overall intent is to pander to perversity and by it's nature will attract the interest of law enforcement.

Really, it's a double deal, because the pandering did in fact lead to some pretty questionable content, along with a laundry list of tool bar, virus, trojan, codec, and similar things... CJ sites are terrible because the click to content ratio is so low, it is hard to tell where one site stops and the next one starts. I have a feeling that Slick's stuff was a gateway or sorts, playing both sides of the fence.

Anyone remember Adult Origin? ;)

rollinthunder · 12-14-2006, 03:39 PM

Wow, can't believe everybody defending a child porn peddler.

Slick belongs in prison.

BoyAlley · 12-14-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rollinthunder

Wow, can't believe everybody defending a child porn peddler.

Slick belongs in prison.

And you deserve to be banned for accusing someone of distributing CP without proof.

BoyAlley · 12-14-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rollinthunder

Wow, can't believe everybody defending a child porn peddler.

Slick belongs in prison.

And you deserve to be banned for accusing someone of distributing CP without proof.

rollinthunder · 12-14-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

And you deserve to be banned for accusing someone of distributing CP without proof.

Look at the site fag boy, the girls are clearly underage.

RawAlex · 12-14-2006, 04:03 PM

Boyalley, the sudden disappearance of the websites would make one wonder about the legalities of the sites involved, no?

Theo · 12-14-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Boyalley, the sudden disappearance of the websites would make one wonder about the legalities of the sites involved, no?

considering the idiots that work there and my past experience with them no.

Ayla_SquareTurtle · 12-14-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rollinthunder

Look at the site fag boy, the girls are clearly underage.

every one of those thumbs, if clicked enough times to get past the skim, clicked through to a gallery, with a pic matching the thumb, which was hosted by a legit sponsor such as lightspeed, etc.

BoyAlley · 12-14-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Boyalley, the sudden disappearance of the websites would make one wonder about the legalities of the sites involved, no?

Considering the way DirectNic has handled this, and what their policies appear to be? No.

John69 · 12-14-2006, 04:26 PM

the "host" should have shut down the sites first.

beerptrol · 12-14-2006, 04:36 PM

What's next! Will Directnic visit the anime domains registered through its service, seems to be some young looking anime girls not to mention the galleries featuring The Simpsons!
How abouit bdsm sites, are they going to start asking the webmasters for proof that participates actualy signed consent forms and are willing participants. Where'sit going to stop at?

RawAlex · 12-14-2006, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerptrol

What's next! Will Directnic visit the anime domains registered through its service, seems to be some young looking anime girls not to mention the galleries featuring The Simpsons!
How abouit bdsm sites, are they going to start asking the webmasters for proof that participates actualy signed consent forms and are willing participants. Where'sit going to stop at?

I didn't know anything had started. Directnic visited (from what I gather) because of a complaint from an outside source. I don't think they have the manpower or desire to "patrol" all of the domains that are registered to them. You are really overblowing this to about a million times more than it really is.

Slick · 12-14-2006, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rollinthunder

Wow, can't believe everybody defending a child porn peddler.

Slick belongs in prison.

WOW, I can't believe the stupidity of some people around here. I think that if you honestly believe that, you should pick a new line of work. Open you're fucking eyes.

If people would just check out the sponsors that I use, Braincash, Swank Dollars, Fuck You Cash, Jason & Alex, NS Cash, Lightspeed Cash, Paper Street Cash, Bang Bros, plus there's a pile of repitable CCBill sponsors, there's no questionable sponsors (in my eyes) that I see as being illegal.

I know, I know, someone s gonna say "How do you know if they have the proper documents, like somene said before" Well, if you're gonna dig that fucking deep to find something to complain about, then you can go ahead and fuck yourself because that's like saying that every single site and gallery out there could have their records messed up, so NO sponsor should be trusted.

Slick · 12-14-2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Boyalley, the sudden disappearance of the websites would make one wonder about the legalities of the sites involved, no?

Actually it's DirectNic thinking there's something wrong and shutting me down. Like I just stated above, if places like DirectNic would take the time to see where the galleries are at, they'd know they're from repitable sponsors and not some shady porn places.

I think that someone needs to teach a class in how to determine what's child porn and not because apparently some people have no idea.

CDSmith · 12-14-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rollinthunder

Wow, can't believe everybody defending a child porn peddler.

Slick belongs in prison.

Who are you and why are you allowed to continue breathing the same air as humans?

crockett · 12-14-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I didn't know anything had started. Directnic visited (from what I gather) because of a complaint from an outside source. I don't think they have the manpower or desire to "patrol" all of the domains that are registered to them. You are really overblowing this to about a million times more than it really is.

Oh so in other words if I see a competitor whom is registered with DirectNic all I have to do is report them for illegal content. Of course they likely won't be able to prove it's not illegal and I can get their sites pulled.

We aren't just talking about questionable teen content. Shit like this could lead anywhere.

RogerV · 12-14-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slick

WOW, I can't believe the stupidity of some people around here. I think that if you honestly believe that, you should pick a new line of work. Open you're fucking eyes.

If people would just check out the sponsors that I use, Braincash, Swank Dollars, Fuck You Cash, Jason & Alex, NS Cash, Lightspeed Cash, Paper Street Cash, Bang Bros, plus there's a pile of repitable CCBill sponsors, there's no questionable sponsors (in my eyes) that I see as being illegal.

I know, I know, someone s gonna say "How do you know if they have the proper documents, like somene said before" Well, if you're gonna dig that fucking deep to find something to complain about, then you can go ahead and fuck yourself because that's like saying that every single site and gallery out there could have their records messed up, so NO sponsor should be trusted.

Not sure of the programs above but we have no problem handing over Age verification docs with legal representation for this sort of matter to protect our affiliates. I stand behind PornoPushers affiliates 100%.

Infact soon as I get a chance I will add it to our TOS

RawAlex · 12-14-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Oh so in other words if I see a competitor whom is registered with DirectNic all I have to do is report them for illegal content. Of course they likely won't be able to prove it's not illegal and I can get their sites pulled.

We aren't just talking about questionable teen content. Shit like this could lead anywhere.

crocket, I honestly doubt it. Not much more to add to that.

just a punk · 12-14-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerV

Not sure of the programs above but we have no problem handing over Age verification docs with legal representation for this sort of matter to protect our affiliates. I stand behind PornoPushers affiliates 100%.

Infact soon as I get a chance I will add it to our TOS

Just a question. Would you provide your models' id's to your affiliates?

LadyMischief · 12-14-2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auscguy

Slick

I've just had a look at your site too, some of the girls do look under legal age, and whether they are or arent, maybe thats the main issues....
As webmaster, do we really want to promote sites with girls who are legal but look illegal?
Maybe just my opinion but a girl who is say 14 and a girl who looks 14 but is 18, is there really a difference? Surely the same time of sicko will be wanting to see both girls because they look 18.
Maybe we need to steer clear of promoting sites that are borderline looking and this issue would go away?

What do you all think?

Just my 2 cents.........

If this is the kind of logic that is going to dictate the entire debacle, I would strongly suggest that everyone who has any kind of teen site should lawyer up and fast if you aren't already. I don't say I agree with making girls look younger than they actually are in thumbs, but at the same time, this is going to reflect on the entire industry as a whole. You really think it's going to stop with "teen" content? I'd say there's a lot bigger fish to fry, this is just an easy out, but it's a stepping stone to more I'd think.

LadyMischief · 12-14-2006, 05:13 PM

People should also remember that Terms of Service are a contract, however a contract CANNOT enforce someone breaking the law. You can't have a legally binding contract to force someone to murder someone else. The "legality" of the contract does not make the actual act legal.

People who are in countries affected by privacy laws should also remember this, in almost all instances of breaking those privacy laws, the jailtime involved is longer than a 2257 infraction would be. There are state privacy laws too, it's worth knowing what the laws are locally, and for more than just these issues (content producers who sell their content should be read up on these laws as well).

Peaches · 12-14-2006, 05:17 PM

Honestly, I thought it went without saying that if you have a business, adult or not, you have an attorney. And you have that attorney go over your contracts. And you have that attorney look at your websites. This Slick fellow has apparently been around for a while yet didn't even have an attorney?

People REALLY need to start viewing this as a business instead of a hobby.

just a punk · 12-14-2006, 05:38 PM

Perhaps there is a solution for this problem. I mean HOSTED THUMBS. Isn't it safer if TGP/CJ owners won't host the thumbs on their servers but will just link to the ones hosted by their sponsors?

Gambit · 12-14-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Perhaps there is a solution for this problem. I mean HOSTED THUMBS. Isn't it safer if TGP/CJ owners won't host the thumbs on their servers but will just link to the ones hosted by their sponsors?

TGP's would all end up with the same thumbs over night. Not good.

pornonada · 12-16-2006, 09:55 AM

seems most of his sites are online agan

from what i see only 3 or 4 are still offline at the moment.

ffmihai · 12-16-2006, 11:16 AM

yo. good to here that Slick. you are a stand up guy! hope we will be trading again ;)

12-14-2006, 03:05 PM	#212
just a punk So fuckin' bored Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 32,386	The links from http://slicksnetwork.com/ don't open anymore... __________________ Obey the Cowgod

12-14-2006, 04:26 PM	#222
John69 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 942	the "host" should have shut down the sites first. __________________ DARKSOUL: thanks but no thanks, your over priced.

12-14-2006, 04:36 PM	#223
beerptrol Confirmed Asshole Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Half way between sobriety and fubar. Posts: 12,722	What's next! Will Directnic visit the anime domains registered through its service, seems to be some young looking anime girls not to mention the galleries featuring The Simpsons! How abouit bdsm sites, are they going to start asking the webmasters for proof that participates actualy signed consent forms and are willing participants. Where'sit going to stop at? __________________ “If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.” -- Ulysses S. Grant

12-14-2006, 05:13 PM	#233
LadyMischief Orgasms N Such! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Ontario Posts: 18,135	People should also remember that Terms of Service are a contract, however a contract CANNOT enforce someone breaking the law. You can't have a legally binding contract to force someone to murder someone else. The "legality" of the contract does not make the actual act legal. People who are in countries affected by privacy laws should also remember this, in almost all instances of breaking those privacy laws, the jailtime involved is longer than a 2257 infraction would be. There are state privacy laws too, it's worth knowing what the laws are locally, and for more than just these issues (content producers who sell their content should be read up on these laws as well). __________________ ICQ 3522039 Content Manager - orgasm.com [email protected]

12-14-2006, 05:38 PM	#235
just a punk So fuckin' bored Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 32,386	Perhaps there is a solution for this problem. I mean HOSTED THUMBS. Isn't it safer if TGP/CJ owners won't host the thumbs on their servers but will just link to the ones hosted by their sponsors? __________________ Obey the Cowgod

12-14-2006, 11:36 AM	#203
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	...and again, 2257 has NOTHING to do with this thread at all.

12-14-2006, 11:38 AM	#204
Slick Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Houghton, MI Posts: 7,338	Going back to the comments of girls looking young in their pictures, with the philosophy that even if a girl is 18 years old, but looks young, it shouldn't be posted, does that mean that if a 15 year old has big tits and looks over 18, it's ok to post pictures of her ????? As far as my trades go, when I inspect the trades, I see no popups. I'm sure that there's a few of them that go by country, and since I'm in the US, I probably never see them, that has happend before. I myself am TOTALLY against trading with people like that. Like I say, someone send over a list of those sites and I'll have a look.

12-14-2006, 11:48 AM	#205
nation-x Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rock Hill, SC Posts: 5,370	I didn't claim to be an expert on the subject... ;) Anyway around... it's not over yet... no matter how it looks... but thx for clearing up my misconceptions. My apologies for offending you with my misguided ideas. However... You can take your attitude and go fuck yourself sideways with a double sided dildo. I love how gfy is full of self-righteous jerks like you that attack people that they don't even know to make themselves look better. It would have been just as easy to post... "You are wrong for these reasons..." but I don't think you should sit there in your little bubble and post rude shit whenever someone posts something you don't agree with or know is wrong. It's much easier and profitable to be courteous and understanding.

12-14-2006, 11:57 AM	#208
evulvmedia Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 441	Something has bothered me about Slick's sites since I first looked at them. I've finally figured out what it is: Because of the way his sites are set-up- as a high-skim TGP- there's no difference from a surfer's point-of-view between the sponsors and the trade partners. They're promoted in the same way- i.e. click the big image to go there. There's nothing in the structure of the site that indicates trade partners to be out of his control. The only distinction is that Slick gets paid for sponsor promotion and gets traffic for traffic trades- but this is intentionally obscured from the point of view of the surfer. His sites promote the trade partners as much as the sponsors. This makes him more responsible for the content that's on those trade partner sites. Let's say that instead of his current set-up he had a box on the site with text links to his trade partners. And at the top of the box he had text stating that he had no control over what was in those sites. Then his sites would probably be viewed quite differently, even if they did link to bad stuff. He wouldn't be viewed as promoting that material. I'm not suggesting that's a solution, or that it would be appropriate here. I'm just using it to illustrate that vigorously promoting your trading partners is different than just linking to them.

12-14-2006, 12:01 PM	#210
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Corona, sometimes it isn't just about "just about legal" and "not quite legal", but in presentation and standards. Most of Slick's sites (and those that he link to) purposely use images that portray petite or undeveloped models, and use very questionable domains and site names to suggest and imply that some or all of the models are underage. Site names like "gall 17" and "just young teens" sort of leave an impression, no? Pandering to pedos is an issue that we could go on about for a long time...

12-14-2006, 03:39 PM	#214
rollinthunder So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 359	Wow, can't believe everybody defending a child porn peddler. Slick belongs in prison.

12-14-2006, 04:03 PM	#218
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Boyalley, the sudden disappearance of the websites would make one wonder about the legalities of the sites involved, no?

12-14-2006, 05:17 PM	#234
Peaches Old broad Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Away Posts: 13,933	Honestly, I thought it went without saying that if you have a business, adult or not, you have an attorney. And you have that attorney go over your contracts. And you have that attorney look at your websites. This Slick fellow has apparently been around for a while yet didn't even have an attorney? People REALLY need to start viewing this as a business instead of a hobby.

12-16-2006, 09:55 AM	#237
pornonada Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 440	seems most of his sites are online agan from what i see only 3 or 4 are still offline at the moment. __________________ Biggest NOskim Network open for Trades/Linkexchanges 500+ Text, TGP, MGP and Link Sites for Trade! All Linkexchanges are autoapproved! Linkexchanges here - Traffic Trades Soon!

12-16-2006, 11:16 AM	#238
ffmihai keep walking... Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 7,177	yo. good to here that Slick. you are a stand up guy! hope we will be trading again ;) __________________