If this is a dig at my intelligence then I have lost respect for you Baddog.

Hiding behind semantics is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Only those who wish to dance around a subject debate word meanings instead of saying a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

But to answer your question, "Support" means any or all of the below:

1. You would think .xxx is a good thing for the Adult Industry
2. You would help implement .xxx by buying .xxx domains
3. You would "support" .xxx by making positive public comments about it and anyone associated with it
4. You would do nothing to stop .xxx from becoming mandatory, even if you could.
5. You would accept money from organizations that are associated with .xxx
6. You would write editorials on all the good points of .xxx and the people associated with it

That's just off the top of my head. You know what the word "support" means Baddog, especially in this context.

(I am not saying Baddog has done any of these things, just defining the term for him.)

That is exactly what people were referring to when they asked him directly multiple times if he supported .xxx. :2 cents:

You would also get no where talking to her nicely, she has already had the benefit of the doubt and the over whelming evidence and her actions prove what her intentions are.

If she is not running a con then tell me how the children are being protected.

Perhaps you should read again, I never called you stupid. I said it was stupid to think someone could sit down and talk to Joan and have that accomplish something. That would be like sitting down with Bernie Madoff and questioning some accounting irregularities your find while looking over his books.


WTF are you talking about. The people involved with .XXX have an agenda. There is no debate. There is no reasoning with them. Their agenda is to make as much money as possible, period. They will lie, cheat, steal to accomplish that. Which is why I said yelling at her and calling her cunt would be no different then sitting down and talking to her nicely, neither will get you anywhere.

You are ignorant, you basing your opinion on someone from a couple short meetings and not their actions over the last several years. Obviously you haven't been paying attention to how ASACP and Joan were involved with ICM over the last couple years.

some of the worst people come across as being nice, hence why they are good at manipulating people.

Will: You just said you didn't call me stupid, but in this post above you called me ignorant. You also claim I've been manipulated after a grand total of 18 minutes of talk with Joan spread out over 8 years when I already said I didn't buy, support or contribute to her cause. I don't know if kids are being protected by .xxx but I did not even mention this anywhere.

Here's the last thing I'll say on the subject: Joan seems like a nice person and the amount of incredible and ugly hatred towards her by some people in this thread seems to me to be unwarranted in my opinion.

That's it, that's all, bye-bye.

Makes one wonder, eh?

And I would not put anything past this irvin broad.

Why hasn't anyone pointed out that McAfee sucks ass - and who would want a third party filtering your website?

Yes, you are correct. I will be friends with someone until they give me a reason not to.

We have several clients which are extremely concerned that their McAfee certs are validated. They notice a definite decrease in sales when something needs to be updated due to a change in their requirements. :2 cents:

Peabody, it wasn't a dig at your intelligence, I was saying you did not know what question I answered. I was right. As far as your definition of support, why not put them in the form of individual questions. Have or or will I do any? I already have do. I need to get to bed, early flight. This is blog material.

In a nutshell:

no
no
probably by your and Connor's definition
bullshit
get used to it, others do. I have been turning it down so far
again, probably by your and Connor's definition

Night.

Next stop, Chicago I hope

Safe travels, Mr. Baddog. Thank you for your answers. :thumbsup :)

Mark, why do you keep harping on what I called you? Who cares. Besides I never called you stupid, and if you don't know the difference between ignorant and stupid then then maybe you are stupid. Being ignorant just means that you are uninformed and don't know better.

Being ignorant is not a insult, it's just saying that you don't have all of the information about the situation.

ig·no·rant Adjective/ˈignərənt/ - Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.


Joan has owned every bit of ugliness she has gotten. The problem with you is that you see a pretty face and nice soft spoken person, and you automatically think they can do no wrong when you have no idea what has been going on. You are the perfect type of person who will get manipulated by nice looking, easy talking types.

This is the problem with message boards... it's sometimes hard to communicate meaning, and then some of us who should be on the same team end up in back and forth sessions.

Which of course is just fine with the people who leech off this industry. The more it just looks like two sides screaming at each other, the more "muddied" the whole thing starts to seem to casual observers who then will tune out.

Everyone in this thread has certain shared interests that I don't think are being served by ICM Registry or .XXX ... and anyone who works for ICM, IFFOR, etc, has, I believe, motivations that unfortunately run counter to our best interests. As long as this is understood, we should be fine. But if that's NOT widely understood, it's a problem for all of us.

- .xxx does not protect the children
- .xxx was never supported by the "sponsoring" industry
- ASACP and Joan were tied into ICM over the last several years
- ASACP collects donations to "try to protect the children" when they don't. Most of the money collected went into Joan's pocket or used to collect more money.
- Joan jumped ship with ASACP because donations were dropping fast and she had to pay herself less. So she "officially" started working with ICM via IFFOR, which I bet she is getting paid a lot of money. I bet she is lobbying right now to try to make .xxx mandatory.

Joan is a back stabbing, money hungry cunt who has always used the kids as a means to make money off of the adult industry, but everything she is involved with does nothing to protect kids, just makes her lots of money. Her and ICM teamed up, watch how much damage they try to do to this industry, then we will see how many people who met her a couple times over drinks thinks that she is so nice and sweet when they find out she is trying to ruin their business.

If you read the transcripts for the "independent review" process that ICM underwent to ultimately get .XXX approved with ICANN, I'm told that Lawley testifies under oath that his efforts had the support of ASACP ... of course at a time when it was headed by Joan Irvine, and probably at the same time that she was lobbying for a job with IFFOR, if I had to speculate.

heh
bought me drinks syndrome is a terrible disease

I am told, I heard, I suspect, this might happen. . . . Great stuff.

Let me fix that for you