BREAKING NEWS: Constitutionality of 2257 upheld - GoFuckYourself.com

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 10:52 AM

The decision has now been issued from the en banc court in the Connections case regarding the constitutionality of Section 2257. The facial constitutionality of the law has been upheld

Barefootsies · 02-20-2009, 10:54 AM

Bravo. Buh bye U.S. based tubes.

Submitting my 'annoymous tips' to the F.B.I. now.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 10:55 AM

I'm feeling generous so I uploaded a copy of the decision, you can download it HERE.

DutchTeenCash · 02-20-2009, 10:55 AM

link?

...

DutchTeenCash · 02-20-2009, 10:58 AM

thanks lemme read

WarChild · 02-20-2009, 10:59 AM

Proud not to be American.

DutchTeenCash · 02-20-2009, 11:02 AM

right 72 pages

anyone care to tell me what it says in 2 words? Also this is Ohio court, does this apply to the whole of the US then or just Ohio state?

FYI we have all models releases and twin IDs on file so this is just for me being updated on the 2257 issue

SteveHardeman · 02-20-2009, 11:04 AM

Someone smarter than me care to break that down as to what it says and what it will potentially mean to the industry?

D Ghost · 02-20-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Proud not to be American.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchTeenCash

right 72 pages

anyone care to tell me what it says in 2 words?

It's Law

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 11:14 AM

I'll probably catch hell for this, but here goes.

I know 2257 sucks for us, and I know most of you can point out all the things that are wrong with it....but if you were the government, and wanted to stop child p*rn and make sure minors weren't being used in commercial p*rn productions....how would you do it?

What way do you have that's better than what the gov't has?

I'm not saying I like their way, I don't, I'm just saying if I were them and were trying to protect children, I don't know of a better way to do it.

crockett · 02-20-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

The decision has now been issued from the en banc court in the Connections case regarding the constitutionality of Section 2257. The facial constitutionality of the law has been upheld

So the original judgment was over turned?

DutchTeenCash · 02-20-2009, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

It's Law

right

so you have no clue either np Ill take it to our lawyer

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchTeenCash

right

so you have no clue either np Ill take it to our lawyer

You asked for two words asshole, that's what I gave you.

The judgment was released like 5 minutes ago...I doubt anyone, including the lawyers involved in the case, have read all 72 pages yet.

tony286 · 02-20-2009, 11:28 AM

all it means is 2257 stands as it is. I have no problem keeping records but they have made it more and more complicated.Also I have problem with if the model is of age but for a clerical error I could go to jail.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

So the original judgment was over turned?

Depends on what you mean by original. This case has been around since 1995.

The recent decision by the 3 judge panel was overturned by this one.

WarChild · 02-20-2009, 11:29 AM

Best to protect yourself. Anyone who wants to sell US based tubes go ahead and contact me.

tony286 · 02-20-2009, 11:30 AM

Lenny thank you for giving us the info.

marketsmart · 02-20-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Bravo. Buh bye U.S. based tubes.

Submitting my 'annoymous tips' to the F.B.I. now.

NOPE.... all the tubes have to do is buy content...

anyway, I know for a fact that 2 of the tubes are spending $500k a month for bandwidth so, that should tell you what a few of the tubes are making per month...

and of course the tubes could just roll their hosting o/s...

MaDalton · 02-20-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

I'll probably catch hell for this, but here goes.

I know 2257 sucks for us, and I know most of you can point out all the things that are wrong with it....but if you were the government, and wanted to stop child p*rn and make sure minors weren't being used in commercial p*rn productions....how would you do it?

What way do you have that's better than what the gov't has?

I'm not saying I like their way, I don't, I'm just saying if I were them and were trying to protect children, I don't know of a better way to do it.

harrassing legit producers is not the way to success, no one of us shoots underage porn (at least i hope so). and girls like Tracy Lords are not the problem, it's babies and kids between 0 and 12 years.

you need to attack CP on the billing level - why do russian (or wherever) based billing companies show up that process CP sites with Visa or Mastercard?

and ISPs would need to do more - although this is a dangerous topic since they can easily be used to block legit porn as well once they start censoring. but why is it possible for example that still newsgroups exist where CP is uploaded every day and you can access everything for $9,95 a month?

but whatever you do - it will never go away, you can just make it as hard as possible to access

marketsmart · 02-20-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

all it means is 2257 stands as it is. I have no problem keeping records but they have made it more and more complicated.Also I have problem with if the model is of age but for a clerical error I could go to jail.

the last time they did inspections there were a lot of clerical errors and no one went to jail...

Barefootsies · 02-20-2009, 11:44 AM

Yeah. If all they had to do was, 'buy content', then there would not be so many tubes out there with full length stolen content. Which is mainly whom I am referring to.

I do not think anyone in this business has much beef with legal tubes BRO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

and of course the tubes could just roll their hosting o/s...

Hosting has nothing to do with where the person/business owner resides, is based out of, and pays taxes.

You may wanna bone up on the law of 'residency'.

collegeboobies · 02-20-2009, 11:44 AM

wow thats big news

Barefootsies · 02-20-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

you need to attack CP on the billing level - why do russian (or wherever) based billing companies show up that process CP sites with Visa or Mastercard?

and ISPs would need to do more - although this is a dangerous topic since they can easily be used to block legit porn as well once they start censoring. but why is it possible for example that still newsgroups exist where CP is uploaded every day and you can access everything for $9,95 a month?

but whatever you do - it will never go away, you can just make it as hard as possible to access

Agreed. No one in this legitimate industry wants to see child porn and is more than happy to keep paperwork, copy I.D.'s, and so forth. On the same note, it becomes a slippery slope when you get into porn at ISP, billing, and regulation level especially when the government is involved. They are far from a scalpel.

marketsmart · 02-20-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Yeah. If all they had to do was, 'buy content', then there would not be so many tubes out there with full length stolen content. Which is mainly whom I am referring to.

I do not think anyone in this business has much beef with legal tubes BRO.

Hosting has nothing to do with where the person/business owner resides, is based out of, and pays taxes.

You may wanna bone up on the law of 'residency'.

i know you're new in this adult business, so i'll help you...

do you have any idea what the corporate structure looks like for some of these companies?

you would be amazed at how many companies shield the primary...

let me know how your call goes with the FBI...

Barefootsies · 02-20-2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

i know you're new in this adult business, so i'll help you...

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

do you have any idea what the corporate structure looks like for some of these companies?

you would be amazed at how many companies shield the primary...

I think I'll go with what my lawyer told me on the 2257, and residency issue when I had asked a number of years back versus marketsmart from GFY's 'hot tips' on the law.

No offense toots.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

harrassing legit producers is not the way to success, no one of us shoots underage porn (at least i hope so). and girls like Tracy Lords are not the problem, it's babies and kids between 0 and 12 years.

you need to attack CP on the billing level - why do russian (or wherever) based billing companies show up that process CP sites with Visa or Mastercard?

and ISPs would need to do more - although this is a dangerous topic since they can easily be used to block legit porn as well once they start censoring. but why is it possible for example that still newsgroups exist where CP is uploaded every day and you can access everything for $9,95 a month?

but whatever you do - it will never go away, you can just make it as hard as possible to access

Again let me be clear I'm not defending the government or this statute....just a bit of devil's advocate because I can't think of a better way to do it than their way...even though I agree totally there are alot of problems with their way.

Attacking CP on the billing level. How do you decide what is and what isn't CP without age verification?
Sure the obvious stuff can get weeded out, but there is alot on the fringes...there are 16 years olds who look 25 and 25 year olds who look 16.
How do you know whose billing to cut off and whose not to?

Also, alot of this stuff isn't done for profit. It's traded freely....but how can you arrest those guys when you can't prove the model was underage?
At least with 2257, if you can't prove she was underage, you can jail the offender for not gathering the required records before producing the porn.

marketsmart · 02-20-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

I think I'll go with what my lawyer told me on the 2257, and residency issue when I had asked a number of years back versus marketsmart from GFY's 'hot tips' on the law.

No offense toots.

seriously, i know what the laws are regarding residency, i lived offshore for many years..

my point was that being able to prove that a person owns an interest in an offshore company doing business in the US isnt as easy as a lot of people think..

based on what i know certain people do in this biz, i am amazed that quite a few arent in jail yet..

Barefootsies · 02-20-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

based on what i know certain people do in this biz, i am amazed that quite a few arent in jail yet..

True dat fucking shit nig.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

seriously, i know what the laws are regarding residency, i lived offshore for many years..

my point was that being able to prove that a person owns an interest in an offshore company doing business in the US isnt as easy as a lot of people think..

based on what i know certain people do in this biz, i am amazed that quite a few arent in jail yet..

Sure but that's a much more complicated (and expensive) thing to set up.

You said earlier "the tubes could just roll their hosting offshore", as if that was all that was needed to avoid 2257......a U.S. based webmaster is subject to U.S. laws regardless of where the webserver is. Hosting your site in Amsterdam doesn't exempt you from the law.

That's the point barefootsies was making and now you're arguing something totally different. Just admit you were wrong and oversimplified it and move on.

marketsmart · 02-20-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Sure but that's a much more complicated (and expensive) thing to set up.

You said earlier "the tubes could just roll their hosting offshore", as if that was all that was needed to avoid 2257......a U.S. based webmaster is subject to U.S. laws regardless of where the webserver is. Hosting your site in Amsterdam doesn't exempt you from the law.

That's the point barefootsies was making and now you're arguing something totally different. Just admit you were wrong and oversimplified it and move on.

i was talking about the big tubes.. who gives a shit about the little tubes..

trust me, i know a lot more about offshore structure and banking than you do..

and for the last time, i know the laws regarding being a US citizen regardless of where your servers our business are located..

when i want your opinion, i will summon you... UNDERSTAND

SteveHardeman · 02-20-2009, 01:09 PM

What a conicidence. I was up till 2 AM last night getting all of my paperwork in order.

Someone tell me this ruling will make tube sites, stolen content, cross-sales, shaving and doridori go away. It will, right?

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

i was talking about the big tubes.. who gives a shit about the little tubes..

trust me, i know a lot more about offshore structure and banking than you do..

and for the last time, i know the laws regarding being a US citizen regardless of where your servers our business are located..

when i want your opinion, i will summon you... UNDERSTAND

Nobody cares what size tube you were talking about...and if you know so much about offshore structure and banking then why did you say all the tubes have to do is roll their hosting offshore?

Admit that you were wrong and move on.

If you're not man enough to do that....then keep changing the subject and throwing veiled insults around like you have been, but don't expect the rest of us to take anything you say seriously when you're not willing to admit you were wrong OR you're not willing to stand behind what you say.

kthxbai

gideongallery · 02-20-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

I'll probably catch hell for this, but here goes.

I know 2257 sucks for us, and I know most of you can point out all the things that are wrong with it....but if you were the government, and wanted to stop child p*rn and make sure minors weren't being used in commercial p*rn productions....how would you do it?

What way do you have that's better than what the gov't has?

I'm not saying I like their way, I don't, I'm just saying if I were them and were trying to protect children, I don't know of a better way to do it.

well having every content owner having to have documentation is wasteful, it means that if a scene is licienced to 1000 sites there is 1000 records that need to be checked.
primary producers having the ids, and refering id document would be more effective, because agents who are now wasting their time re checking the same docs could be put on things that actually catch kiddie porn producers (sting operations)

Peace · 02-20-2009, 01:36 PM

So what does it mean for us?

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

well having every content owner having to have documentation is wasteful, it means that if a scene is licienced to 1000 sites there is 1000 records that need to be checked.
primary producers having the ids, and refering id document would be more effective, because agents who are now wasting their time re checking the same docs could be put on things that actually catch kiddie porn producers (sting operations)

So what you're saying is that the part of the law you don't like is the secondary producer provision?

What if the primary producer is outside of the U.S., but the secondary producer is in the U.S.?

Wouldn't showing a primary producer custodian of records address outside the U.S. be all that anyone needed to publish child p*rn without any consequences?

Again, remember I'm speaking from the point of view of a government official who wants to protect children and eliminate child p*rnography. (not the point of view of a pissed off webmaster who is being inconvenienced)
How can I do that if there are no age verification records to prove the models are/were of age?

Carmine Raguso · 02-20-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Nobody cares what size tube you were talking about...and if you know so much about offshore structure and banking then why did you say all the tubes have to do is roll their hosting offshore?

Admit that you were wrong and move on.

If you're not man enough to do that....then keep changing the subject and throwing veiled insults around like you have been, but don't expect the rest of us to take anything you say seriously when you're not willing to admit you were wrong OR you're not willing to stand behind what you say.

kthxbai

NERD FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!

stickyfingerz · 02-20-2009, 01:46 PM

Ok so they overturned the 6th court decision? Need more info please. Unless the 6th court was overturned (live in 6th court area) I don't think anything will happen. Also it would till be open to appeals yet. We keep all proper records anyways, it just influences the stupid 2257 page, or links, and how much info we have to give out to the public that pisses me off. Ill leave ours up as an email link to request information for the time being.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ok so they overturned the 6th court decision? Need more info please. Unless the 6th court was overturned (live in 6th court area) I don't think anything will happen. Also it would till be open to appeals yet. We keep all proper records anyways, it just influences the stupid 2257 page, or links, and how much info we have to give out to the public that pisses me off. Ill leave ours up as an email link to request information for the time being.

It was the 6th circuit overturning itself. (The full court overruling the 3 judge panel that had ruled earlier)

tony286 · 02-20-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

the last time they did inspections there were a lot of clerical errors and no one went to jail...

The way it works is the fbi reports back to the DOJ and the DOJ decides what to do. Just because they havent did anything yet doesnt mean nothing will happen. Even if they do nothing the law gives them the right to do it.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

The way it works is the fbi reports back to the DOJ and the DOJ decides what to do. Just because they havent did anything yet doesnt mean nothing will happen. Even if they do nothing the law gives them the right to do it.

Hey, just because the government has certain powers doesn't mean we can't trust them to not abuse those powers. I mean hell, that whole PATRIOT act thing has worked out pretty well right?

The Duck · 02-20-2009, 02:55 PM

Well that sucks.

TheAmericanCannibal · 02-20-2009, 02:59 PM

It's coming.....

A Third Party Record Keeping service that will eliminate all affiliates major concerns regarding compliancy...

News at 11.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAmericanCannibal

It's coming.....

A Third Party Record Keeping service that will eliminate all affiliates major concerns regarding compliancy...

News at 11.

Well let's not forget that you created affiliates, and third parties.

tony286 · 02-20-2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAmericanCannibal

It's coming.....

A Third Party Record Keeping service that will eliminate all affiliates major concerns regarding compliancy...

News at 11.

tell them to move it and make it affordable.

Snake Doctor · 02-20-2009, 03:08 PM

Countdown to KB namedrop in

TheAmericanCannibal · 02-20-2009, 03:12 PM

2257safe.com will be live by the Phoenix Forum
We are beta testing for the next few weeks.

We will have a formal press release out next week.

MrPinks · 02-20-2009, 04:07 PM

Sweet idea. How will this help secondary producers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAmericanCannibal

2257safe.com will be live by the Phoenix Forum
We are beta testing for the next few weeks.

We will have a formal press release out next week.

gideongallery · 02-20-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

So what you're saying is that the part of the law you don't like is the secondary producer provision?

What if the primary producer is outside of the U.S., but the secondary producer is in the U.S.?

Wouldn't showing a primary producer custodian of records address outside the U.S. be all that anyone needed to publish child p*rn without any consequences?

Again, remember I'm speaking from the point of view of a government official who wants to protect children and eliminate child p*rnography. (not the point of view of a pissed off webmaster who is being inconvenienced)
How can I do that if there are no age verification records to prove the models are/were of age?

well that was one of my problems
however that can be solved with a requirement that to be complient there must be a primary producers designated within country. IF you buy from a foreign country producers either they setup ONE designated authoritiy for thier stuff, or release the docs openly and publically.

Since EVERYONE will not do that (ie canadians who have to worry about privacy rights would have to take the designate position) it would significantly reduce the administrative load of such a change.

IT much better than FORCING it to every secondary producer, and creating the wasted duplicate checks.

Doctor Feelgood · 02-20-2009, 04:43 PM

i dont even own a printer. can someone explain what this means for blogs, tgps and gallery submitters?

02-20-2009, 10:52 AM	#1
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	BREAKING NEWS: Constitutionality of 2257 upheld The decision has now been issued from the en banc court in the Connections case regarding the constitutionality of Section 2257. The facial constitutionality of the law has been upheld __________________ sig too big

02-20-2009, 10:54 AM	#2
Barefootsies Choice is an Illusion Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Land of Obama Posts: 42,635	Bravo. Buh bye U.S. based tubes. Submitting my 'annoymous tips' to the F.B.I. now. __________________ Should You Email Your Members? Link1 \| Link2 \| Link3 Enough Said. "Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

02-20-2009, 10:55 AM	#3
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	I'm feeling generous so I uploaded a copy of the decision, you can download it HERE. __________________ sig too big

02-20-2009, 10:55 AM	#4
DutchTeenCash I like Dutch Girls Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: dutchteencash.com Posts: 21,684	link? ... __________________ ICQ 16 91 547 - SKYPE dutchteencash bob AT dutchteencash DOT com ... did you see our newest Sweet Natural Girl Priscilla (18)?

02-20-2009, 10:58 AM	#5
DutchTeenCash I like Dutch Girls Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: dutchteencash.com Posts: 21,684	thanks lemme read __________________ ICQ 16 91 547 - SKYPE dutchteencash bob AT dutchteencash DOT com ... did you see our newest Sweet Natural Girl Priscilla (18)?

02-20-2009, 10:59 AM	#6
WarChild Let slip the dogs of war. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bermuda Posts: 17,263	Proud not to be American. __________________ .

02-20-2009, 11:02 AM	#7
DutchTeenCash I like Dutch Girls Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: dutchteencash.com Posts: 21,684	right 72 pages anyone care to tell me what it says in 2 words? Also this is Ohio court, does this apply to the whole of the US then or just Ohio state? FYI we have all models releases and twin IDs on file so this is just for me being updated on the 2257 issue __________________ ICQ 16 91 547 - SKYPE dutchteencash bob AT dutchteencash DOT com ... did you see our newest Sweet Natural Girl Priscilla (18)? Last edited by DutchTeenCash; 02-20-2009 at 11:04 AM..

02-20-2009, 11:04 AM	#8
SteveHardeman Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,728	Someone smarter than me care to break that down as to what it says and what it will potentially mean to the industry? __________________ BrokeAmateurs And ErosPOV And GirlsGoingSolo And PureAshley Sign Up At AmateursConvert.com Questions? I-C-Q: 3Five1FiveFive3476

02-20-2009, 11:14 AM	#11
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	I'll probably catch hell for this, but here goes. I know 2257 sucks for us, and I know most of you can point out all the things that are wrong with it....but if you were the government, and wanted to stop child prn and make sure minors weren't being used in commercial prn productions....how would you do it? What way do you have that's better than what the gov't has? I'm not saying I like their way, I don't, I'm just saying if I were them and were trying to protect children, I don't know of a better way to do it. __________________ sig too big

02-20-2009, 11:28 AM	#15
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	all it means is 2257 stands as it is. I have no problem keeping records but they have made it more and more complicated.Also I have problem with if the model is of age but for a clerical error I could go to jail.

02-20-2009, 11:29 AM	#17
WarChild Let slip the dogs of war. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bermuda Posts: 17,263	Best to protect yourself. Anyone who wants to sell US based tubes go ahead and contact me. __________________ .

02-20-2009, 11:30 AM	#18
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Lenny thank you for giving us the info.

02-20-2009, 11:44 AM	#23
collegeboobies So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,644	wow thats big news

02-20-2009, 01:09 PM	#32
SteveHardeman Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,728	What a conicidence. I was up till 2 AM last night getting all of my paperwork in order. Someone tell me this ruling will make tube sites, stolen content, cross-sales, shaving and doridori go away. It will, right? __________________ BrokeAmateurs And ErosPOV And GirlsGoingSolo And PureAshley Sign Up At AmateursConvert.com Questions? I-C-Q: 3Five1FiveFive3476

02-20-2009, 01:36 PM	#35
Peace Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: NY and Moscow Posts: 5,519	So what does it mean for us? __________________ Need Custom or Licensed Content? Visit PhotoVideoContent.com Email: [email protected] / Telegram: @romatibet / Skype: Peace888

02-20-2009, 01:46 PM	#38
stickyfingerz Doin fine Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 24,983	Ok so they overturned the 6th court decision? Need more info please. Unless the 6th court was overturned (live in 6th court area) I don't think anything will happen. Also it would till be open to appeals yet. We keep all proper records anyways, it just influences the stupid 2257 page, or links, and how much info we have to give out to the public that pisses me off. Ill leave ours up as an email link to request information for the time being.

02-20-2009, 02:55 PM	#42
The Duck Adult Content Provider Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Location: Europe Posts: 18,243	Well that sucks. __________________ Skype Horusmaia ICQ 41555245 Email [email protected]

02-20-2009, 02:59 PM	#43
TheAmericanCannibal Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,085	It's coming..... A Third Party Record Keeping service that will eliminate all affiliates major concerns regarding compliancy... News at 11.

02-20-2009, 03:08 PM	#46
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Countdown to KB namedrop in __________________ sig too big

02-20-2009, 03:12 PM	#47
TheAmericanCannibal Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,085	2257safe.com will be live by the Phoenix Forum We are beta testing for the next few weeks. We will have a formal press release out next week.

02-20-2009, 04:43 PM	#50
Doctor Feelgood Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: RI Posts: 2,112	i dont even own a printer. can someone explain what this means for blogs, tgps and gallery submitters? __________________ SUBMIT PORN BLOGS HERE SUBMIT PORN STAR GALLERIES Partner accounts for sale ICQ 467879053 Trade Traffic Trade Hardlinks Dot Com Auction Myspace Blog Now Hiring My network is in need of clean, honest, good traders for different niches. Contact