I would say yes, no wait...no :)
I know you weren't talking to me opti and to tell you the truth, I have never had anything against the word ******. I have nothing against any words as a matter of fact.

And, if Jimbo (Change your name please Jimbo) only had that domain, I would have had no problem with him. But, as you can see, he is much more than the owner of a "Bad Word" domain.

Could I get myself out from under the bus if I said that I posted "sites like..." and not "domains like..."?? :D

In the past, I've owned a couple domains that I wish I never bought, but I never put up questionable material.

whois shows ownership change in April 2003 & wayback shows a change to the FPA after that, so it might have been just bought because it had traffic?

I'm just guessing - I'll let him post if he so chooses.

I actually dont care about that site myself either Jim. I prefer to judge my own work and let others choose what they think is ok too :)

It would take a webmaster doing a lot worse than what that site has been used for (most of the time) for me to write them off as a bad human being.

I don't like Jimbo's work at all... in fact I hate it a lot... but I give him kudos for publicly defending what he believes.. and standing behind what he does!

Sorry about the bus GG.. was never my intention and the driver has been asked to pull over quietly for a week or two and here he is in a thread scolding someone about the same shit he does as per normal. I figured you mentioned that domain as you really wanted someone to bring this up anyway ;-)) Couldn't have just been co-incidence!!

We all know he won't post about this as he has no balls.. no balls at all... But it's for the best anyway as he can't explain that site I'm afraid... too many people have seen it over too many years. :( And quite frankly, I doubt you would want him to open that can of worms in public, I sure don't. It would be sweeeet to see him explain why he is too spineless to stand behind what he does like this Jimbo "Scumbag" does though! :D

They both make me sick but I know without hesitation which person I would prefer to share my dinner table with..

I am quite revolted by Jimbos sites... and surprised that he is surprised that he can't get listed at link lists... It is sites like these that give legitimate adult webmasters who are targetting legitimate porn surfers, a bad name.

As far as the term l.olita, I agree with Jim, it is a legitimate word when used in the correct context, just as young, girl and boy are legitimate words. But when they are used in domain names and associated with porn, regardless what is on the domain, the owner of the domain must be using it to target a certain type of surfer. Why else would the owner of a domain go to the trouble of registering and renewing it.

Jimbo needs to crawl back into the hole that he came from, and anyone else associated with similar domains need to take a good hard look themselves and/or their associates.

Try being sued more than once because some teenager decided to go to school with a gun and murder several people and some attorney decides to get his name in the news by using the fact that the kid(s) viewed internet porn and you happen to have a site found in the cache on the computer he(they) had access to....

Have the FBI show up at your door because your name is on a list of candidates for home invasions and murder because they feel you link inappropriate material and then have the FBI look in detail at exactly what you link to and how questionable any of it might be.....

then see what you will and will not list.

Also.. unwritten in the rules, but while I'm on my soapbox.. ..

I don't like the word C*nt.... use it in a submission (not saying anyone here has) and I won't list the site... my perogative...

I also don't like anything that plays at the idea of female (or male for that matter) rape or torture, etc. I don't like it.. I won't list it... my perogative...

So someone visits my site and they're looking for things I don't list... they'll go elsewhere and find it. It's likely that person won't click on banners for sites I'm promoting, let alone purchase a membership to something.

on and GG...hehe..who says I don't post here?

Nice to se you posting PK. :)

Hi kitty,

been there, done that, still here, the same. The short version.

I am no stranger to controversy, I had one of the most controversial topsites in the world for about 4 years, Lucifer's Toplist, where nothing was censored accept REAL illegal stuff, not perceived illegal stuff. We had skin heads, neo-nazi's, punks, goths, you name it they came. Marlyn Manson signed our guest book 2 years in a row, was mentioned on the Howard Stern Show, investigated several times, got numourous threats, the whole nine yards kitty. But as offensive as that topsite was, and it was more then a topsite, visitors could post their own pics, message board, etc., it broke no laws. I had several volunteer to maintain the site because we constantly had to remove sites that were illegal, basically as long as it was legal we didn't care, but we had a sh*t load of stuff we had to remove regularly. The only things that got removed was animal sh*t and REAL CP.

Around the time of the Colombine Shooting my assistant put the shooters pictures on our splash page, as we do feature regular guests on our splash page. Man we got a lot of heat over that. My host who had the most balls I seen any one have was getting nervous too. Every one got phone calls, and emails, and I asked my assistant why she put the shooters pics up "in loving memory", she said that what they did was wrong, but they were victims too. Cool, the pics stayed and the only thing that happened was a lot of people got pissed. They got over it.

I happen to be a firm believer of free speech and strongley oppose censorship of any kind. I totally agree we should all stay with in the laws, I just frown at self censorship and policing ourselves. I understand we need some rules and guidelines, but feel too many of us go too far! Eventually I had to give up my topsites because they were no longer paying for themselves.

As you can see I still have controversial sites such as passed-out.om, which btw, I've had REAL police officers do the male model for us on several sets like on our legal page,
http-//passed-out.com/legal.html

Hey, I know that you folks can do what ever you want on your pages. Thats exactly what I am doing too. What I don't get is why we all being in the same business, some are so easily offended and "suprised" and even more, not fimilar with what the Laws really are. Call me a scumbag, fine, thats an opinion, but accusing me of breaking laws is unfair. Sh*t, llike I said I've used real cops as models several times for my stuff!

Happy Holidays!

Well, anyone else want to throw me under a bus for my posts in this thread? :D

Nice to see you PK |waves|

Interesting thread thank you for the newsletter.
Jimbo you scare me. Not only what you pander to but you don't seem to see the harm in it :(
I spent a good many years in a federal prison (holding the keys) talking to people who could justify whatever they did. Saying it was perfectly legal if you looked at it "this" way. That x was borderline legal if you ignored the intent.
That society was too straightlaced hide bound or just prudish...
Saying that child was willing or that money just laying there or crack never really hurt anyone... or whatever.
They scared me because they lacked the ability to see the damage or the potential damage of their actions or they were too horny greedy or angry to look.
Most were perfectly nice people a few were perfect gentlemen,which did not change one whit the damage their actions caused.

You scare me for that same reason. Maybe you are not behind bars but your words have the same ring of..."no body loves me but i do what I want to anyway look at me", ignoring the damage to others.
I feel for you but feel for those who might be influenced by you and your images as you pander to the unhealthy in your search for personal comfort and wealth.

Hello Pk, Nice to see you

Always good to see you PK |waves|

Cheerful1
that was a good post

but the same agument could be made against all pornographers

Personally I think this Jimbo guy is full of shit,
been there done that...... Sure you have

Not really anything to do with this thread and only a TV show, I saw a Law and Order SVU episode a couple of nights ago that was really interesting. Although it is only a TV show, it is "Ripped from the Headlines" :)

So, this convicted child molester gets out of jail. He gets spammed by a "legal" site that had legal girls made to look illegal. 40 times this guy tried to opt-out of the spam list but was ignored. He ended up grabbing a little girl, rapped her and then killed her. The owner of the site was charged and convicted of facilitating the rape and murder of this child because they ignored the guys opt-out.

Actually Jim your post probably does have a lot to do with this thread. With the current political climate we as webmasters will be held more and more accountable for what we post and what we promote.
Tommy was correct in saying are the same words from my earlier post could be said of any pornographer. What we also, at least most of us can say is...
If someone sees my images of shemales and decides to experiment with one. I will not feel badly I will not lose sleep over it, perhaps he/she found their true self.
Or a bored housewife decides to feel up her girlfriend because she saw one of my lesbian sites I wont feel badly. Good on them. If a couple gets horny and makes it in the pool because of one of my sites or someone decides to experiment with anal sex I still will not feel badly. If a couple gets out the handcuffs and decides to be a bit kinky cause i posted a site on bondage it wont make me lose sleep.
If a guy is prompted to try on his wife's panties or jerks off on a pair of pantyhose because of some image and text that I posted , well good for him kinky is good too.
What most of us promote is sex. pure and simple healthy sex or kinky sex or fun sex or messy sex or even sneaky sex, and every bit of it consensual, what none of us promote or at least I hope not is forced or drugged or immature varieties of that same subject.
I can live and sleep well, with the consequences, I don't fear the legality of it or even borderline legalities of what I post, the domains I own and the people who are probably looking for what I am trying to sell, as can most of the reputable people I know in this business :)
I think we can most of us ask ourselves if someone took what we are promoting, the fantasy literally and carried it out...would a crime be committed?
If the answer is no, then you are not posting what Jimbo is.

Jimbo, what you don't understand (or have chosen not to understand) is that it isn't just about what you see as legal (and what you have been able to fast talk others into thinking is legal) but about taking the right steps to make sure you are well within the law.

Your supposed toplist story is a perfect example. If you are taking a shitload of illegal stuff off the list every day, a sane person would say "okay, no more automatic listings, submit and I will approve you to be on the toplist". Instead, you take the easy way out, which is to kill off what you see as illegal after the public has been exposed to it for any length of time before you decide to edit.

Yes, in that situation, what you are doing is "legal", but it isn't very smart and shows that you have little intent to really stop the stuff.

Basically, you show poor moral judgement, and appear to have little or no clear understanding of the relationship between the material you "choose" to publish and it's effect on certain segments of the population.

The "rape" deal is a perfect example of what you don't understand. The images on your sites, in your videos and pictures, push the buttons of people who are predirected towards this sort of thing. You are publishing a site that basically says "hey, rape's okay, and here's the movies to prove it AND SHOW YOU HOW". If any single person goes out as a result and rapes someone, you are an accomplice in the crime. MAYBE NOT LEGALLY, but morally.

"child art" sites are just as sick. They teach potential pedos that looking at naked kids is "good" and "artistic". It is a major step up from drooling on the sears catalog. Again, you are showing them the "HOW". You are encouraging their fantasies and showing them how to put them into place in the real world. If any single person goes out and molests a child as a result of seeing these sites, then you are an accomplice in the crime. MAYBE NOT LEGALLY, but morally.

That lack of morals means that you are pushing stuff to the very edge (and based on court cases sited, pretty far past the edge) because you don't see WHY it should be against the law, and you choose a viewpoint that makes it impossible for you to see why you shouldn't do it.

Porn, XXX, whatever, should be oriented towards PLEASURE. It's about everyone getting off. It's about sexual pleasure, alone or shared. Rape, child molesting, and sex with passed out girls isn't about pleasure for any of them.

I suggest you go get your moral compass checked out before you stay in business.

Rochester has a nice newspaper. They are going to LOVE you.

Alex

I've not posted in this thread until now but wanted to chime in and point something out.

Smartest thing said in this thread was:

This is in and of itself part of the reasons link sites have rules. :)

PK brings up excelent points above, all of them valid, but the most important aspect is this.

We're not here to make YOU money, we're here to make BOTH of us money. Me, and the submitter.

I dont have rape sponsors, I dont want to list rape sites. Along with all of the other reasons I wont list rape sites, this one should be the most obvious to anyone producing that kind of content.

If the people who want this come to my site and see only mainstream banners, how am I going to profit here? I wont. Pure and simple.

Bet your sweet ass that if every "anal sex" sponsor pulled their shit and dissapeared tomorrow, every linklist in the world would stop promoting it.

Cut and dried, game set and match. :p



-----edit----

And sure. I think the kind of content you're producing is way off of my moral compass and I dont want to view it, distribute it, link to it, share it, etc. Its just .... wow.

But I didnt think that needed to be said :) I think its pretty obvious that you're prodding the wrong crowd trying to win them over onto the side of the crazy shit you're doing.

Good points, Boogie.

Something along the lines of my post that I failed to mention last night.

Just as there are visitors seeking odd/niche/outrageous/borderline sites, there are also visitors that are apalled by it. If this type of visitor happened across such a listing anywhere, they would be less likely to come back. I know I have had visitors email me questioning an image or gallery they found linked from my list. A large part of my business is all about keeping the surfer coming back and perhaps purchasing something from time to time.

Heck.. it wasn't until 2 or 3 years ago that I would even post a listing with the word 'teen' in the title. Guess it's just the mother in me.

I've been sued twice along with the likes of Time Warner and Sony because of school shootings in Paducah, Ky and Colombine. I didn't particularly enjoy living several years waiting for the outcome of the Paducah case which was ruled on, went to appeal, then even to the Supreme Court for possible review. I sure didn't want to be part of paying out on a $120million settlement because of what some teenager decided to do. Nor did I enjoy the publicity or the scrutinity it brought.

You rejected my first free site on this basis. :) good times.

PK its a pleasure seeing you post on the only board I even read any more. I sure would love to see you hanging out here more often :)

I got nothing to add to the general concensus of ol Jimbo...think that's been made pretty damn clear. Geez, what a Tool...guys like him make us all look bad :(

That said, it's very refreshing to see that the vast majority of us here are of a similar mindset :)

The key to what we do...what makes it okay...or even BETTER than okay...makes it a GOOD thing...is that it's always CONSENSUAL. And it's always about PLEASURE.

Admittedly, the pleasure of some is vastly different than the pleasure of others...which is where consent comes into play.

If consenting ADULTS want to do it...it's all good :)

Thanks folks...given the way this thread started...it's very cool that...at least speaking for myself...I get a very positive outlook from the responses :)

|shake| to one and all...except Jimbo of course!

I have a poll running asking sufers hopw hardcore they like it... and 70% of people that have responded prefer something less than all out hardcore.

In fact 50% of voters like the hardcore level to be lower than what is "legally" allowed.

http://www.**************.com/polls/...ispid=17&vo=17

Glamor and bikini models 6%
Softcore for the photography 4%
Softcore for the babes 7%
Explicit sex acts 12%
Hardcore but with nothing degrading 21%
Any hardcore that is legal 19%
Extreme anything goes hardcore 32%

votes: 1012

I have not looked at Jimbo's sites nor do I plan to look at any of them. I wish he had not used examples from sites with such questionable content because he does make some valid points.

I understand that there have to be rules for the link lists and TGP's because common sense is not so common and there will always be someone more than willing to demonstrate that. It is the right of the link list and TGP owners to decide what they want to list. But, most of the rules are designed to keep surfers happy and coming back to the link list or TGP so there is a greater chance that they will buy something from one of the link list or TGP ads. Anyone who says the owners are interested in the submitters making money is just blowing smoke up everyone's ass. If that's the case, why not split the money made each day with all the sites that were listed? It is not such a symbiotic relationship. The owners know that they will always have a supply of submissions that they can feed the surfers.

I have to agree with Jimbo that the rules stifle creativity and you do end up with a lot of sites that look the same. There are only so many combinations and permutations that a free site with an entrance page, a main page and two pages of galleries can have.
Surfers are desensitized to most of the layouts because they have seen them so many times before.

I prefer to build for SE traffic but occasionally submit free sites and galleries when I want a traffic spike to kick start an internal link list, TGP or toplist. I still see a few hits a day from link-o-rama and cleoslinks for sites submitted over a year ago. But, I prefer to do things my way without following someone else's rules. I'll pop a console on ya in a heartbeat, sucka. Consoles make money and if the link list owners were concerned about my welfare they would allow consoles in their rules. But, if they did I know there would be people popping consoles with all kinds of nasty shit in them. That is one reason I don't use counters. The other being that they usually slow down a page load and I want a surfer to see my stuff. I do not want them to close my page because it is too slow.

When I surf I like to have multiple windows open so I can jump back and forth without waiting for the next or previous page to load. I've already got it open and I just go click the window I want to see. gg, if you just want to use one window that's cool. I don't.

As for the lawsuits and legal action taken against webmasters, that just goes back to the fact that no one wants to take responsibility for their actions. They want to blame someone else for their failures. There are a number of reasons that I would place more blame on the parents of those involved in PK's case - lack of supervision, failure to teach their children right from wrong when they were younger, passing on their dumbass gene to start with, etc.

I report kp sites every time I see one or receive spam in email. Even those that are "artistic". I just close my browser when I get into any of the other stuff involving consenting adults. I'm sure that crap sells but I don't want to see it much less promote it.

This has been an excellent thread with a lot of good points made by all. I just wish Jimbo had used better examples so as not to get bogged down in his content.

Hey, gg. Honk! Honk!

I want my submitters to make money off their links on my list. If they don't, why should they keep submitting? And if they don't keep submitting, why should my surfers keep coming back? It's a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" situation, IMO.

As for "...why not split the money made each day with all the sites that were listed" - just, no. I am working to get the traffic. I am working to target it to the right sites. Submitters: write a good description, get a lot of clicks, have a good site, make sales.

I am relatively new to link list ownership (at least, on a serious level) and it is a difficult dance - it is not at all easy to keep submitters happy and also keep the link list profitable.

I am also a free site builder and submitter. It takes me an hour a day to submit to a couple dozen link lists. Maintaining my own list takes much more than that. It's much more than just auditing submissions.

Aside from what Mishi said, which I agree with....

I have 2 windows open right now. Why? Because the thread I was on before I read this one had something that I wanted to look as, so I right clicked the link & choose to have it open in a new window. I like choice rather then force :D

And the "new window" thing did really start back in 98 or so when people would pop the new window & meta refresh the page that had the link to a sponsor or something like that - you don't see it too much these days - maybe because of the rules myself & other put into place 6 years ago - but that's what started it off for me.

One other thing - and I do aks everyone this one - have you ever run a Link List?

The other day I had to decline an extreme bondage site because it had one pic of a Domme pointing a gun at a bound submissive. I didn't decline it because of this thread or because of the possible legal ramifications. I really declined it because I don't want to link to that kind of content. Most of the set was actually some decent shots.

I'm willing to link to some things that others don't, but every bit of it falls into the category of "consenting adults not injuring, terrifying or taking advantage of each other." Sure, it's a subjective standard, but that's why there's a reviewer. Much of the BDSM out there pushes this standard, but I'm a member of the "real world" BDSM community so I'm in a better position to understand the surfers and the frame of mind that comes with the lifestyle than the average person. Still, the law has tried to burn me because of porn. It was many years ago and had little to do with the internet, but as PK said if you've never been under that microscope you can't possibly understand how your views will change afterwards, regardless of the outcome.

In the end we have to CHOOSE to take responsibility, because as PK pointed out if you have any measure of success there is someone out there who will try to foist responsibility on you. I feel it's better to be a pro-active member of a community, to be able to lean on others when we need a hand or a lesson on something, and to have others know that you've got some character in the event that bad shit goes down.

I like choice rather than force, too. But, sometimes you need to nudge the surfer along to where you want them to go.

No, I have not run a link list or TGP that accepts submissions. I don't want to deal with the fucktards like you have to do. There are too many schemers, scammers and cheaters out there to waste my time with them. I don't like the traffic trading scripts because of that, too. The cheating and dishonesty is the worst part of this business. I only trade hard links with people I know.

I know all the LL & TGP owners work hard to develop their brand and some have become very successful. They can make their rules and do whatever they want with their business.

But there is a conflict between owners and submitters because of the cheaters. Consoles and FPA's are tools that make money but are not allowed. Another one is putting pics on html pages. Link-o-rama does allow that. Some don't. I do like the link-o-rama rule that the content should be in order. That makes sense.

One of the rules at some places that I don't understand is only allowing the sponsor's domain name on mouseovers. Why not allow a few keywords to be thrown in there? It would help with some of the SE's which would get more traffic for the owner and submitter.

I stand by my statement that owners are not interested in submitters making money because they will always have someone else ready with a submission. Unless you know someone why would you care?