Well DirectNic Shut Me Down - Page 11 - GoFuckYourself.com

darksoul · 12-15-2006, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

hehe,
don't you have a better comeback

this is so overused
you just get a bit more creative.

jact · 12-15-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

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.

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

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Sheesh.. do the "opinionated" ever shut the fuck up??

Apparently not.

Good question though. :D

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

*splutter*

Tut tut... how pathetic - seriously Alex.

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

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.

jact · 12-15-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

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.

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunni

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?

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

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

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.

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact

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.

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.

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact

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.

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.

jact · 12-15-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk

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.

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.

xdcdave · 12-15-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

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."

jact · 12-15-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

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.

Webby · 12-15-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

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.

Peaches · 12-15-2006, 10:30 AM

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.

jact · 12-15-2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

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.

jact · 12-15-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

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.

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.

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

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.

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.

Peaches · 12-15-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact

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.

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.

jact · 12-15-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

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.

directfiesta · 12-15-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

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 ?

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact

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.

exactly my point.
There are two things one can do:
1) avoid trials at all costs
2) prepare for martyrdom or poverty, or both when one is getting sued by the government which has an unlimited resources and defendant has to spend millions sometimes and the win in court has a sizable price tag.

Thanks to the cheap lesson by Steve Cohen (sex.com) I always stuck to the 1st option.

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact

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.

Yes, but again, you are making a major mistake here. You are assuming that YOUR region has anything to do with it - it does not. The registration agreement that Slick entered into is executed in the state of Louisianna,

Quote:

GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by the federal laws of the United States and the laws of the State of Louisiana, without regard to any conflict of laws provisions.

You only have to go as far as the sex.com saga to realize that domains are not property in and of themselves, just something you are granted the rights to use in return for a yearly fee (a leasehold).

The registrar is much more like a landlord than a real estate agent, they don't sell and walk away, they lease, collect the rent, and make the sure everything works (and that things point to the domain servers we provide, etc). Both sides have some rights, both sides have obligations, and as a result both sides have the obligation to meet those rights.

jact · 12-15-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk

exactly my point.
There are two things one can do:
1) avoid trials at all costs
2) prepare for martyrdom or poverty, or both when one is getting sued by the government which has an unlimited resources and defendant has to spend millions sometimes and the win in court has a sizable price tag.

Thanks to the cheap lesson by Steve Cohen (sex.com) I always stuck to the 1st option.

I would personally prefer option 1, even if you win in court, your life could be permanently altered as you've said. It costs money to win, sometimes more money then you're entitled to in the end. I guess it boils down to, freedom ain't cheap.

jact · 12-15-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Yes, but again, you are making a major mistake here. You are assuming that YOUR region has anything to do with it - it does not. The registration agreement that Slick entered into is executed in the state of Louisianna,

You only have to go as far as the sex.com saga to realize that domains are not property in and of themselves, just something you are granted the rights to use in return for a yearly fee (a leasehold).

The registrar is much more like a landlord than a real estate agent, they don't sell and walk away, they lease, collect the rent, and make the sure everything works (and that things point to the domain servers we provide, etc). Both sides have some rights, both sides have obligations, and as a result both sides have the obligation to meet those rights.

Actually, you're assuming that I was assuming that it was MY region that mattered.

If they are like a landlord however, there are certain limitations placed on both parties, some say parties have overstepped, some say they have not. I'm merely trying to find out how it impacts my business with my registrar so I can continue or modify how I do business.

Gunni · 12-15-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

Renting is completely different and not compatible at all, for example you can not sell a rental contract but you can sell a domain name, you can't sell something that is not your property.

I know DN are not based in California, and I can't really bother lokking into laws regarding how things work in Atlanta or where ever they're based.
But the following sounds about right:

Quote:

There are several important lessons to be drawn from the sex.com case.

What must domain registrars now do?

Domain name registrars can no longer sit back and do nothing when there is a dispute over a domain registration, and certainly never simply transfer the domain to another without investigation of that person's legal right. A registrar faces liability for conversion of a property right in the domain name, under CA common law.

What is considered conversion under CA common law?

To establish conversion, a plaintiff must show "ownership or right to possession of property, wrongful disposition of the property right and damages." "Disposition" may involve the taking of the property, but also covers any actual interference with the ownership/property right, including destruction, alteration or transfer (as well as unauthorized use and refusal to return after demand).

Klen · 12-15-2006, 10:45 AM

Intresting,i was just read one old tutorial on gfy how directnic is better of other registars like godaddy and other cheap registers,and now this happen.

sarettah · 12-15-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact

.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.

But the neighborhood association, which has no ownership rights, can kick you out for that.

You gave them the right when you purchased the house and signed the neighborhood association agreement (which if you didn't do you would not have been able to buy the house - whch is why a big buying point on my house was no neighborhood association)

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

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 )...

PS: did you get your wire ?

Here's the thing. In order to remove someone from an apartment, there is a process, spelled out in law and in the rental agreement. In domains, there is a process... spelled out mostly in the rental agreement, because outside of sex.com and a few others, there is little beyond straight contract law supporting this stuff.

The landlord needs to do what the landlord needs to do. He doesn't say "well, maybe the electric company guy will say something" or "maybe the guy next door will do something", he takes action. He doesn't pass the buck. Passing the buck is one of the ways you end up with drug infested slums... but that is for another discussion.

Which wire?

sarettah · 12-15-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunni

Renting is completely different and not compatible at all, for example you can not sell a rental contract but you can sell a domain name, you can't sell something that is not your property.

But many rental contracts you can sublet

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact

I would personally prefer option 1, even if you win in court, your life could be permanently altered as you've said. It costs money to win, sometimes more money then you're entitled to in the end. I guess it boils down to, freedom ain't cheap.

yes, and to extend the same logic,
winning popularity contest on GFY, as I believe Slick has done, doesn't prevent one from the legal actions in real life and the outcome of those actions might be 180 degrees different than the populace of GFY has predicted.

I'm sure the smart ones will learn the lesson for the future and cheap,
while those who won't become the martyrs we'll be remembering in our yearly prayers.

Can anybody post the link on GFY where everybody praise all "fallen heros"?
I'd like to read it.

Peaches · 12-15-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact

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

There have been people who've lost their homes due to the liens being more than the house is worth. That's pretty much "removal of property" to me.

directfiesta · 12-15-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

But the neighborhood association, which has no ownership rights, can kick you out for that.

No, they can't... But they can sue to enforce regulations. Meanwhile, unless an injunction is obtained, the curtains stays up.

jact · 12-15-2006, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

But the neighborhood association, which has no ownership rights, can kick you out for that.

You gave them the right when you purchased the house and signed the neighborhood association agreement (which if you didn't do you would not have been able to buy the house - whch is why a big buying point on my house was no neighborhood association)

I'll have to take your word for it, I've never lived in a house with a neighborhood association agreement, I've only heard of that for townhouses and condos in Canada.

jact · 12-15-2006, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk

yes, and to extend the same logic,
winning popularity contest on GFY, as I believe Slick has done, doesn't prevent one from the legal actions in real life and the outcome of those actions might be 180 degrees different than the populace of GFY has predicted.

I'm sure the smart ones will learn the lesson for the future and cheap,
while those who won't become the martyrs we'll be remembering in our yearly prayers.

Can anybody post the link on GFY where everybody praise all "fallen heros"?
I'd like to read it.

Slicks real world practical experience will indeed be much different then his GFY fame.

directfiesta · 12-15-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

There have been people who've lost their homes due to the liens being more than the house is worth. That's pretty much "removal of property" to me.

Again, liens are obtained by court orders ( unless you are the actual government for what is about my province ) and can be fought and overturn.
Meanwhile, the person can still live in the premises ....

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

You do have a hardon for arguing down to the split hairs, I'll give you that.

Peaches · 12-15-2006, 10:56 AM

There have also been cases where the HOA has gone and mowed unslightly grass, repainted a house, etc. and charged the homeowner for doing so. Homeowner won't pay - lien on property.

Right now there's a $50K lien on a guy in my subdivision because he decided to clear cut his back yard.

And BTW, many have rules for what you put on your windows too. I lived in one neighborhood where every window seen from the street had to have a white backing. And yes, they could fine you until you removed it and if you wanted to play hardball, the fine could be more than your house was worth.

A TOS can and has been held up in courts - it's been that way for decades, here in GA.

Peaches · 12-15-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Again, liens are obtained by court orders ( unless you are the actual government for what is about my province ) and can be fought and overturn.
Meanwhile, the person can still live in the premises ....

Sure, they can live there. But what do you do when you go to sell your house that's worth $100K and has $150K worth of liens on it??

So far, HOA liens in GA have been VERY strong. I've seen very few, if any cases, where they've been overturned.

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jact

Slicks real world practical experience will indeed be much different then his GFY fame.

let's look at the positve side:

Hey, this builds charecter.

Brad Shaw lost $25,000 to Dave Purehardcore, brought his apologies to him on all adult boards and...
look at him now
;)

scottybuzz · 12-15-2006, 11:01 AM

fuck me - i have 6 pages of bitching to read since I last read this thread, can someone summarise if for me please?

aico · 12-15-2006, 11:03 AM

wow, you guys are still arguing over the same bullshit opinions.

John69 · 12-15-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Sure, they can live there. But what do you do when you go to sell your house that's worth $100K and has $150K worth of liens on it??

So far, HOA liens in GA have been VERY strong. I've seen very few, if any cases, where they've been overturned.

Peaches your beating a dead horse, look at these replies here.

Jace · 12-15-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

wow, you guys are still arguing over the same bullshit opinions.

it is funny to watch though, isn't it

I gave up on the arguing part a while ago, I am just reading now....and boy is it a fun read, a little monotonous, but fun

directfiesta · 12-15-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Sure, they can live there. But what do you do when you go to sell your house that's worth $100K and has $150K worth of liens on it??

So far, HOA liens in GA have been VERY strong. I've seen very few, if any cases, where they've been overturned.

I have np problem with that . As a past Condo association president, I did put liens on condos ( thru the courts ) ang got it sold by sheriff ( starting price is 25% of evaluation- no reserve ). THe bank contested the liens, because they became suddemly in second position on their loan...

To summarize, all that was done legally in court.

DN should have done that, and supply court papers to Slick

NoComments · 12-15-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

fuck me - i have 6 pages of bitching to read since I last read this thread, can someone summarise if for me please?

ok, I;'ll try..

you an idiot!

no, it';s you who is an idiot!

this would cover at least 4 pages you mised.

RawAlex · 12-15-2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

You do have a hardon for arguing down to the split hairs, I'll give you that.

No, I have a hardon against misinformation and mistaken assumptions. Everyone in this has assumed that Directnic was trying to do a 2257 inspection (they were not, from everything I have seen... only trying to enforce the terms agreed to into their registration agreement), and just about everyone thinks they OWN a domain. They own the rights to use a domain, an ongoing agreement, with the contractual rights to reassignment (ie, selling the rights) but they don't actually own the domain.

It might seem like splitting hairs, but it is the difference between a girl talking about getting pregnant and actually having twins.

tranza · 12-15-2006, 11:13 AM

Well, one thing is for sure: you WERE trading with sites that had CP. You had no 2257 links what so ever and a lot of your thumbs looked like CP.

If you play with fire you've got to be able to handle the heat.

Dennis69 · 12-15-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Here's the thing. In order to remove someone from an apartment, there is a process, spelled out in law and in the rental agreement. In domains, there is a process... spelled out mostly in the rental agreement, because outside of sex.com and a few others, there is little beyond straight contract law supporting this stuff.

The landlord needs to do what the landlord needs to do. He doesn't say "well, maybe the electric company guy will say something" or "maybe the guy next door will do something", he takes action. He doesn't pass the buck. Passing the buck is one of the ways you end up with drug infested slums... but that is for another discussion.

Which wire?

Man I have to give you credit... you would argue your way out of a paper bag, no matter if you are wrong or right!

scottybuzz · 12-15-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk

ok, I;'ll try..

you an idiot!

no, it';s you who is an idiot!

this would cover at least 4 pages you mised.

lol - right great ok

i think we all just better wait till slick comes back and tells us what his lawyer has said etc.

This is a huge grey area. and one that will unravel in time.

CDSmith · 12-15-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranza

Well, one thing is for sure: you WERE trading with sites that had CP. You had no 2257 links what so ever and a lot of your thumbs looked like CP.

If you play with fire you've got to be able to handle the heat.

Wrong, there were links to 2257 statements on every single gallery linked from Slick's sites.

But thanks for your page 11 two cents. :D

12-15-2006, 11:01 AM	#540
scottybuzz Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Location: NY Posts: 14,800	fuck me - i have 6 pages of bitching to read since I last read this thread, can someone summarise if for me please? __________________ $$$$$ MAKE HUGE MONEY IN CAMS - CLICK HERE $$$$$

12-15-2006, 11:13 AM	#547
tranza ICQ: 197-556-237 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: BRASIL !!! Posts: 57,559	Well, one thing is for sure: you WERE trading with sites that had CP. You had no 2257 links what so ever and a lot of your thumbs looked like CP. If you play with fire you've got to be able to handle the heat. __________________ I'm just a newbie.

12-15-2006, 10:30 AM	#514
Peaches Old broad Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Away Posts: 13,933	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.

12-15-2006, 10:45 AM	#526
Klen Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Little Vienna Posts: 32,235	Intresting,i was just read one old tutorial on gfy how directnic is better of other registars like godaddy and other cheap registers,and now this happen.

12-15-2006, 10:56 AM	#537
Peaches Old broad Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Away Posts: 13,933	There have also been cases where the HOA has gone and mowed unslightly grass, repainted a house, etc. and charged the homeowner for doing so. Homeowner won't pay - lien on property. Right now there's a $50K lien on a guy in my subdivision because he decided to clear cut his back yard. And BTW, many have rules for what you put on your windows too. I lived in one neighborhood where every window seen from the street had to have a white backing. And yes, they could fine you until you removed it and if you wanted to play hardball, the fine could be more than your house was worth. A TOS can and has been held up in courts - it's been that way for decades, here in GA.

12-15-2006, 11:03 AM	#541
aico Moo Moo Cow Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Washington State Posts: 14,748	wow, you guys are still arguing over the same bullshit opinions.