hola! :pimp

Buenas NOches Senior!

Que pasa Hombre

So he removed content and issued a warning to others about potential problems with a specific model that apparently shoot a lot of content since there was the need to issue a warning ? If that make him guilty I see a potential instant kill of a lot of companies around. I heard a lot of funky stories about various models during my last at leats 12 years in this business.
Just because it's on the internet doesnt make it a fact, this forum have some pretty strict rules about this that appears to be set aside to increase sigviews (or mods is not paying attention, pick whatever is beneficial for you)
A models age is a very sour subject in this business, it IS the actual business. After I spoke up, I was put into the same "boat"
It just makes me wonder how far this will go.
Just for the records, I got nothing against ADG nor his posts, it's not him posting that stuff, also had the pleasure of meeting him and seing him at work which he is very good at!

Because it's fucking annoying...

I posted not specifically to defend D but more based on the potential damage this could have on our industry when someone without any apparent proof can go on a rampage for days accusing someone of being an underage content shooter, when I posted about this I was put in the same boat. Is that the level this board is coming to ?

Due sure seems to be doing damage control.

Dirty D is taking a lot of heat, people are pulling links.

Due admits to being his processor.

1 + 1 = 2

I would think as a processor you should be as impartial and as far away from drama threads as possible. You never see Corvette, or RonC, or Mitch get involved.

Just makes me wonder why Due cares soo much and is fighting it soo much, minus that it could hurt his income....


As far as the story and situation in question. An accusation was made. The girl in question made statements, was interviewed, people picked up on the story and that was that.

It's up to D to clean up that mess, which it appears he tried to.

It's all posted for the public to read, and there is nothing wrong with linking off to an independent news source...

So since someones opinion on Gene Ross and ******** is he's a suck up and not trustworthy we should take their opinion 100%, but if Gene says something we should not.

Kind of a pot kettle type situation. If you want to take one persons opinion, but not another.

It's the level this board has always worked at. Admit that you are just just trying to play clean up because D is not because this could effect your pockets. It's pretty clear.

The entire "for the good of the industry" deal... no one is going to buy it. Because if so you better put your cape and tights on and start patrolling all the boards because there are things said daily that can hurt our industry, not to mention what people say about us on non porn related boards. You better get a ton of super friends together if this is the battle you want to fight.

Unless you are just selecting this battle because it makes you money....

no you didnt... you posted a self serving thread to try to support your future wife...

while i can relate and understand your desire to support your girl, trying to disguise (poorly) your intent by masking it by your so called compassion toward this industry is both lame and foolish..

"when a man wishes to stay clean, he does not try to debate the different flavors of mud, he is smart enough to stay clear of the mud".. :2 cents:

i just made that up, so any further unauthorized use of that saying will violate my copyright... :thumbsup

GODDAMN!!!! I wish you had written that a week ago! Woulda saved me from crucifixion on here! :1orglaugh

I'm gonna have to make that my new motto. No matter how pissed I get or passionate about a subject...I will refer to those words of wisdom and save myself from being trolled down to the ground. :pimp

or another reason

haha

either way it's obvious

I admit I approved his sites for processing through our phone, sms and debit, I confirm he is not an active client hence I do not know if this affects his volumes or not.

Why ? If one is acceptable so is the other, they where both found on the internet.
Read my last post and tell me you don't agree. As a content provider I would have guessed this would be a high concern of yours.

So we have "fmltube" Melisa, who everyone knows is a guy pretending to be a girl, and a hundred other spineless douche bag fake nicks jumping on Dirty D in that long ass thread, but when people that actually have a face speak out against the angry masses they are the one's to get shit on?

For the record I think Dirty D is 100% in the wrong and should pay Shoehorn his money. I also think that if what he did to whore monger (Cracker Jack) is true, then he really is a fucking scum bag. But holy shit, why do fake nicks like fmltube and all the other shit stirring, no traffic losers always seem to pop up in threads like that and post 100 times, when they have no dog in the fight and have never sent a sale to anyone? Seriously that shit is fucking weak, but I guess when you aren't busy building sites or traffic or sending anyone sales you have tons of time to post...

That sucks, I would drop and distance yourself from him..:2 cents::2 cents: A lot of people came out in that thread about the way that piece of shit does business and how he treats people. As for the illegal accusations; an article was posted, who knows the legitimacy of it, but it sounds terrible anyway you slice it.

It may have originally been between him and shoehorn, but he brought all this upon himself. If he had such horrible relationships and a questionable past one really has to question his judgment to let a public thread like that spiral out of control. He could have paid the money his affiliate earned and it would have never gotten to this point, and I don't think this is the end of it, in my opinion it will get a lot worse in that thread.

well, I don't know if she's a woman or a man, couldn't care less. Couldn't care less about her/him having traffic or not. There's many people that doesn't have a lot of traffic (or even no traffic at all) and have legit businesses in this board. However, I've noticed that she's very opinionated and smart-ass on each and every subject you'd think of, and always with opinions like made to troll threads.

As I said, I didn't even waste any time to read more than 2-3 pages of that long ass thread so I didn't read what she posted either. And frankly, I couldn't care less.

The above being said, she just posted something that was posted before on at least 2 boards, probably more. So I'd choose to keep quiet on the subject, same as I told in this thread to Due and Jenni. And believe me, there were a lot of big webmasters backing up Shoehorn, not only trolls and bandwagoners. See, Marketsmart's quote is perfect, so I'll quote it again:

I think you missed the point, my post is not against shoehorn, he did not post those accusations. I seriously doubt he thought things would go to this level when he first started the thread.

It's about people with no face, fake nicks posting serious accusations without evidence and nobody cares and no moderation is done.
Profits of Doom hit the nail spot on

Have you ever said anything about this in the past? This ain't the first time its happened and prolly won't be the last. Kind of a conflict when you work for the guy.

Just to clarify, I do not nor have I ever worked for him.

Have you ever been paid by him?

Nope....
Edit: That may be untrue, I was an affiliate of multiple programs back in the 90s, HIGR was one of them.
I cannot remember if I ever cashed in any checks from him...
In recent years, the answer is no

Fair enough. If you have never received money from Dirty, then your opinion is more credible.

Really? Because I've been trying to "handle things" with him for 2 weeks before I started that thread. If he really wanted to make things right he would have paid me when I was first owed money over the summer. Or after I emailed him the first time. Or after I started that thread.

He and Jenni are engaged to be married. He is very biased on the issue.

I was talking to Profits of Doom, hence why I quoted him :winkwink:

The only boat you were put in was defending someone with such accusations out there against them. Your character is judged by the company you keep. At no point did ANYONE imply you shoot underaged models. You inferred that to strengthen your point of the OP. It's no different than someone who continually hangs around someone who constantly finds trouble. It gives an appearance that can be misunderstood by others. Again, your diligent defense of him makes one question your real motives. Would you have started this thread if this was about someone who was not your bro?

Apparently you missed the part in the long thread where I stated I would probably have paid you.
Your current dispute with D is not what this thread is about and my relationship with Jenni have no impact on that neither

You wonder of my motives in requesting evidence ?
You turn around my request for evidence around to be a defense.
Yes I would have started this thread if it was not my "bro" and have done similar things in the past, I used to spend substantial time moderating another board back in the days.

I haven't followed the DD drama, and don't know of the underage model in question, but you'd think with all the great minds in this thread that SOMEONE other than myself would have heard the name Traci Lords...and the story of how SHE was able to get a GOVERNMENT ID because of how determined she was to do porn. To the best of MY knowledge, all the producer's of Traci Lords' films did was remove the films from public distribution...the same as DD apparently did.

What evidence do you need? Kelsie's birthday is April 6, 1990. The production was filmed end of summer 2007 and placed into rotation December 2007. It remained on his site until last December 2008 when the story broke which Dirty D removed immediately and then claimed to be the victim in all of this. You claim that you cannot trust industry sources such as Gene Ross yet we are supposed to believe Dirty D's story on the very site the story was broke on. You can check the Internet archives and see exactly when her content appeared on Dirty D's site. He thought by deleting her from the site that all traces were gone but he forgot about the "Way Back Machine."

This isn't a matter of trying to bring an industry down, just a scumbag to justice. There are a ton of people in adult who do the right thing everyday and follow the law. The law states you cannot under any circumstances use a model under the age of 18, married or not. Dirty D has been accused of this and instead of coming out in the beginning and coming clean, he deflected it and transferred blame on the girl.

Now, IF and that's a BIG IF, what Dirty D claims is actually true and she purposely and knowingly used a fake ID and Dirty D has NO KNOWLEDGE of such ID, it is still his responsibility being in an adult business where one fuck up can not only cost you your business but also your freedom and the freedom of those marketing for you to make sure everything meets the requirements.

But looking at the way he response was worded, he was trying to absolve himself from any wrong doing while shifting the burden of proof on that girl. Furthermore, IF Kelsie was actually lying about this entire ordeal, where is the defamation lawsuit against her from Dirty D? Surely if she is the predator in this situation and has caused such harm to his character and business, he would want justice for himself would he not? He knows that any such action would open a jury to all of his shady practices that have since came out as well as the events leading up and including the production of Kelsey when she was 17 years old. If they can convict Max on distributing content that he did not send himself in Tampa, what chance do you think Dirty D stands in the same Tampa court room?

Dirty D can always post a copy of the ID that Kelsie used with redacted information and let those who question whether he acted in good faith to make the determination if the picture ID looks anything similar to the girl he shot. I bet there is a reason why this has not occurred.

Great point.....however, if what Kelsie claims is true, Dirty D and his buddy "Eric from 350" were allegedly in on the ID thing because Kelsie claims D told her to write down the same information on the ID she was told to bring with her. Now she could be lying but so could D. The problem is look at the amount of shit that has come up about him and it adds to quite a lot less than a young mother trying to feed her kid. But do not forget, the reason we have USC 2257 is because of Traci's behavior.

I wasn't aware of that. Shot all through the 1990's and never heard of 2257. I believe Traci Lords was a lot further back than that. Content producers have always kept model releases and id's on file. Don't know where you're getting "2257" from. That's a bullshit law that was enacted a few years ago to save the "children" (small children) from pedophiles...or at least that's the bullshit excuse the govt. gave. In reality no pedophiles have ever kept any records anyway and are unaffected by 2257 laws. Only honest people are put through the govt. torture rack. Anyway, Traci Lords did not cause the 2257 laws. There were already laws in place that prevented people from shooting porn with girls under the age of 18. Also keep in mind that just has to do with using a camera. You can legally have sex with girls from 15 to 18 years old depending upon the state you are in and their age of consent laws.

Yeah, I was right. Traci Lords films were in the early 1980s. Shit hit the fan with the govt. in 1986. All her films were pulled. Had nothing to do with 2257

Amazing how much mis-information is spewed on this board.

Looks like the new 2257 laws were cranked up in 2004. Though I'm not an attorney. If they existed prior to that it wasn't in any form that has caused so much consternation for everyone.

Not true.

Fuckin retards goin back and forth about 17-18. any of u would bang a 14 year old for a g if it was legal...

Robbie, you do realize that USC 2257 has been around since the 80s right? The reason for this was Traci Lords.

The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100?690, title VII, subtitle N (§7501 et seq.), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4485, 18 U.S.C. § 2251 et seq.) is a United States Act of Congress, and part of the United States Code, which places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials. The guidelines for enforcing these laws (colloquially known as 2257 Regulations (C.F.R. Part 75), part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records. Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction.

While the statute seemingly excluded from these record-keeping requirements anyone who is involved in activity that "does not involve hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for, the participation of the performers depicted," the Department of Justice (DOJ) defined an entirely new class of producers known as "secondary producers." According to the DOJ, a secondary producer is anyone who "publishes, reproduces, or reissues" explicit material.

On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech.[1] However the US DoJ, under control by US Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, has asked for, and was granted, an en banc review of the initial decision of the 6th Circuit Court in order to see if the initial decision should be overturned.[2] The Sixth Circuit subsequently reheard the case en banc and issued an opinion on February 20, 2009, upholding the constitutionality of the record-keeping requirements, albeit with some dissents.[3]

The United States Supreme Court upheld the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the legality of 2257 and its enforcement by refusing to hear the April 2009 challenge to "Connection Distributing Co. et al. v. Holder", upholding the Sixth Circuit's decision (as listed in its "Orders" decision from Monday, October 5, 2009)

Its not the issue of "banging" a 17 year old. Its the issue of filming a 17 year old having sex which is AGAINST THE LAW.

Actually, 2257 IS a direct result of Traci Lords. The origins of 2257 go back as far as 1988.

My point in the matter however is that a model that is determined enough, can attain the appropriate documents, and there is NOTHING that any producer can do OTHER than check those very ID's...especially when it's a GOVERNMENT ID.

And a model most certainly isn't above lying that she IS over the age of 18, OR, if the purpose suits her, saying she WAS underage when she in fact WASN'T (anyone know the name Risi Simms?).

Yes, it IS amazing.

Enjoy the foot. :thumbsup