Question For All

[MrMaryLou]

Originally posted by Jim
Why is it people try to tell other people what to do with their traffic? If someone doesn't list your sites, just move on to someone that will.

Well said Jim some just dont get it

[Bill]

What specifically do you mean by "going too far"? What rules concern you the most?

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Greenguy
Well, the give examples of who's gone to far & what they've gone too far with.

Throwing PK's name out there knowing that she doens't post here is not a good way to prove a point.

And you probably don't know that many Link Lists ban people on a daily basis for submitting what we call "template sites" which seem to be what you are bitching about seeing.

So let's here some examples. Post some sites that you've submitted that were declined & we can go from there.

Yes, template sites fits it very well! Many like that on PK, if you don't belive me check it out for yourself.

I don't know of any real problems with your LL, and I was not bitching because I did't get accepted, I'm use to it. I thought your message board was one of the better ones I've seen and thougt this would be a great place to discuss what I see as a common problem with most LL. As for this one I do recall reading a post here some where about some guy getting rejected because the pics of some girl did not follow in order, She started out with clothes then strips and half way threw the series she is pictured witha skirt again. That seemed like a odd reason to reject.

I don't know if you remember linking my site a few years ago when it was under the domain name xxxsleeper.com? I recently changed the name to passed-out.com, same site. If it gets accepted great, if not, no biggie.

I can totally understand the need for rules, where we probably differ, and may be we don't, is in personal opinion of legal content. I never meant to address you personally, and if I gave that impression, forgive me, I was addressing, "most" LL.

As for PK, I know her. There is nothing I said that I wouldn't say to her, and we already had simular discussions even on the phone. She knows exactly how I feel about her LL. Great lady, terrible LL.

Regards

[Greenguy]

PK doesn't post here - I don't think she posts anyplace on a regular basis - so bringing up her site & her rules on this board is useless as no one here can answer those questions.

As far as the pics out of order problem, you really think that a free site that has 20 pics total & the girl is naked, then back in her clothes, then naked, then in her panties is good?

How about the ones where she's got a load of cum on her face in pic 14 & then in pics 15-20 have her riding his cock with no goo on her face?

That's just stupid - it's like watching a movie out of order (Pulp Fiction & Memento being the 2 exceptions)

I also looked in my admin:

1 - I don't see xxxsleepers.com in there at all - it may have been listed in the past but is not anymore.

2 - I do see that http-//passed-out.com/ was submitted & I can tell by looking at the 1st page that the recip is under the entrance, there's only one recip on there, there's 2 counters & one of them is loading as a broken image. So you broke 4 rules before I even clicked on the enter link.

Looking further, I see that you have things opening in new windows, which I don't allow either.

Now, even if you fixed all 5 of those things, there is NOTHING that you could say to me to convince me that this page:
http-//passed-out.com/drugged.html
is not RAPE.

PS - I really like the pic of the girl with the gun to her head.

[Cleo]

After seeing what kind of crap you are promoting I just hope someone catches your ass and puts you were you belong. Maybe then you can really appreciate being raped.


|skull|

[MadMax]

So really you're bitching that nobody will list your sites. You're pandering to a market that I have no interest in, and would just as soon not have as surfers. I don't need traffic that wants to jerk off to someone being raped, or looking like they're being raped. That shit isn't even "rape fantasy," which is a niche in itself and an entirely separate conversation. If you were trying to hit that market you'd have sales text to that effect.

This is marketing to people who fantasize about raping women. I'm sure there's some good money in it. There's also probably great money in CP, but I don't want any of it and I don't want any of it listed on my LL.


EDITED TO ADD: By the way, you've got a couple banners that look like you're also promoting incest and underage girls. Nice job on the scumbag hat trick.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Greenguy
PK doesn't post here - I don't think she posts anyplace on a regular basis - so bringing up her site & her rules on this board is useless as no one here can answer those questions.

Fair enough.

As far as the pics out of order problem, you really think that a free site that has 20 pics total & the girl is naked, then back in her clothes, then naked, then in her panties is good?

How about the ones where she's got a load of cum on her face in pic 14 & then in pics 15-20 have her riding his cock with no goo on her face?

is it good design? No. Would I reject for that? No.

That's just stupid - it's like watching a movie out of order (Pulp Fiction & Memento being the 2 exceptions)

So we are film critics after all : )

I also looked in my admin:

1 - I don't see xxxsleepers.com in there at all - it may have been listed in the past but is not anymore.

Yup, use to be listed.

2 - I do see that http-//passed-out.com/ was submitted & I can tell by looking at the 1st page that the recip is under the entrance, there's only one recip on there, there's 2 counters & one of them is loading as a broken image. So you broke 4 rules before I even clicked on the enter link.

Here we would differ as well. I should be able to decide where I put the recip, ccan I tell you where to put my link? and the counter's broken image is their problem.

Looking further, I see that you have things opening in new windows, which I don't allow either.

Oh well, I like it becuase they can view different pages, images at the same time and not loose their place.

Now, even if you fixed all 5 of those things,

I wouldn't. It's my site, I like the way it's designed. And here is why I made the post. Who are you to tell me how to design my page? (no offense, but true)

there is NOTHING that you could say to me to convince me that this page:
http-//passed-out.com/drugged.html
is not RAPE.

like I said earlier, I added rape because nobody (except you a few years ago) ever linked me any way. I'm not about to change my design just to get a few extra hundred hits a day from LL pages. My site is 100% LEGAL. Just like Pulp Fiction!

PS - I really like the pic of the girl with the gun to her head.

one of my favorites too.

May be this illustrates my point and all was not a waste of time. I believe most LL nit pick too much and try to dictate how we should design our pages. From where to put recips, to how many counters, to opening new windows to view the next page or image. The whole concept is flawed. What ends up happening is people who learn how to play the game simply throw together a bogus site just to get linked and throw up banners and links to their real page. or you see bogus advertisements for affiliate programs with pictures they got for free! Mean while rebels and true artists like myself who spend a lot of time and money and YEARS producing ORIGINAL material CAN'T get linked, it's almost laughable. I suppose I should play the game too. After all it would only take me about an hour to make a site that could get accepted, and throw some links up to my real sites. Surely you can see some of my points. As for the rape, do you object to it on the Big Screen or just on web sites?

As far as most LL go, at least you are accessable, and for that I thank you!

Happy Holidays!

[Greenguy]

Wonderful! This fucking scumbag lives about 100 miles away from me. He's also got a couple of other very questionable & probably illegal domains (just look on the whois)

Hey Jim - you know any New York State Troopers that'd be interested in hearing about a guy that runs rape, incest & CP sites?

[DangerDave]

Jimbo...

Nasty Dollars/RK Netmedia might also want to know about your use of stolen content

http://www.sexteengirls.com/main.html

http://www.nastydollars.com/pictures...c/ines-077.jpg

DD

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by MadMax
So really you're bitching that nobody will list your sites. You're pandering to a market that I have no interest in, and would just as soon not have as surfers. I don't need traffic that wants to jerk off to someone being raped, or looking like they're being raped. That shit isn't even "rape fantasy," which is a niche in itself and an entirely separate conversation. If you were trying to hit that market you'd have sales text to that effect.

This is marketing to people who fantasize about raping women. I'm sure there's some good money in it. There's also probably great money in CP, but I don't want any of it and I don't want any of it listed on my LL.


EDITED TO ADD: By the way, you've got a couple banners that look like you're also promoting incest and underage girls. Nice job on the scumbag hat trick.

PLZ, I would expect a webmaster to know better. All my material is legal and 2257 compliance. I stay well with in all laws. Been in business for 10 years (without relying on LL), will be here in 10 more years. Will you?

Like your banner, Extreme Porn... extreme???

[Greenguy]

Even though you are a piece of shit scumbag, I will clarify a few of the rules for those that might be confused as to why they are in place.

recips - no one looks under the enter link, so the recip has to be above it.

counters - they have become very malicious over the last few years with spyware embedded in them & whatnot, so they are not allowed by a lot of people. Learn how to read your server stats.

opening new windows - I have never liked things opening in new windows & if I want them to do so, I can right click & choose for it to do so on my own

Now go get all that 2257 info in order

[Cleo]

OMG fucking unbelievable the other crap on his server. |raygun|

[Greenguy]

This thread really needs to be moved out to the General Business forum so that everyone can see what a wonderful piece of shit Jimbo is.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Jimbo
PLZ, I would expect a webmaster to know better. All my material is legal and 2257 compliance. I stay well with in all laws. Been in business for 10 years (without relying on LL), will be here in 10 more years. Will you?

Like your banner, Extreme Porn... extreme???

No, I will not be baited. Yes, there is a lot of extreme porn out there that's well worth listing and looking at. Most of it has nothing to do with pandering to the lowest common denominator.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Greenguy
This thread really needs to be moved out to the General Business forum so that everyone can see what a wonderful piece of shit Jimbo is.

Nice greenguy, I post in a polite respectful manor, bring out some valid points, and you resort to name calling.

tell you what, your entitled to your opinion, just like me, and we may differ in opinions, but at least I conducted myself in a professional manor.

I really thought my post would be constructive here. Had I known it would turn ugly I would never have bothered.

But You have a Nice Holiday just the same!

[Greenguy]

I apologize.

You're a professional webmaster that runs rape, incest & CP sites.

You're parents must be proud. Make sure you bring that up at the Christmas dinner.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Greenguy
I apologize.

You're a professional webmaster that runs rape, incest & CP sites.

You're parents must be proud. Make sure you bring that up at the Christmas dinner.

I can not despute the rape, but no incest or cp.
Legal teens and mother & daughters doing the glory hole, but not each other. I think some one must have assumed it was incest because it reads real mother & daughter. GG if I was doing any cp I would not have survived for 10 years. These are unfair accusations I do not appreciate. You must know what cp is here is the definition,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...6----000-.html

so please, don't accuse me of some thing I am not guilty of.

As for what i do, it pays the bills. I do so much more in my life that is worthwhile that is not associated with porn.

Regards

[Jim]

Jimbo
You are truly the type of person that gives this business a bad name. Weather what you have is real or simulated, it is garbage.

[Greenguy]

My mistake. I thought that people that have sites like ****** Land - http://www.******land.net/ - are pretty much CP scumbags.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=******
Lo·li·ta ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-lt)
n.
A seductive adolescent girl.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adolescent
ad·o·les·cent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dl-snt)
adj.
Of, relating to, or undergoing adolescence. See Synonyms at young.
Characteristic of adolescence; immature: an adolescent sense of humor.

n.
A young person who has undergone puberty but who has not reached full maturity; a teenager.

(and yes, I know that word is banned here)

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Greenguy
My mistake. I thought that people that have sites like ****** Land - http://www.******land.net/ - are pretty much CP scumbags.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=******
Lo·li·ta ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-lt)
n.
A seductive adolescent girl.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adolescent
ad·o·les·cent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dl-snt)
adj.
Of, relating to, or undergoing adolescence. See Synonyms at young.
Characteristic of adolescence; immature: an adolescent sense of humor.

n.
A young person who has undergone puberty but who has not reached full maturity; a teenager.

(and yes, I know that word is banned here)

common mistake. a lot of people associate age with cp.
Actually it's legal to show nude models under 18 as long as it is in compliance with 2256. I will admit when it comes to nudity it is a fine line because one person can interpret it as erotic and another artistic. Non-nudes are generally no prob unless it is considered erotic in nature (see 2256). The banned L word you refer to is only banned on LL, some billers, and some search engines. Where the law really gets tricky or debatable is on simulated cp, that is models over 18 dressed up or posed to look like minors engaged in porn. Here even the web's biggest sites and distributors could one day get in trouble should congress ever decide what to do about that.

All my teen material is purchased from web legal and licensed to me. Any one who doubts that is welcomed to a free pass to any site. personally i actually agree with most opinion surrounding the teen market. I just recently had twins and it has really made me rethink everything. Unfortunately I have to pay our bills. We had 1 boy and 1 girl, and it kills me to think about any one thinking about my daughter in the ways my teen sites are portrayed! If I could fill the $ gap with another market I would do it in a heart beat!!! The teen stuff is actually the only thing i am not happy with.

So don't make the mistake of judging some one you do not know.

[RawAlex]

Jimbo, in my mind, you have proven yourself to be a total lowlife scumbag above and beyond.

I wrote parts of my rules for my link site just for dipshits like you:

No illegal or unwanted content, including: warez, hacks, non-nude, models under 18, club seventeen models, escorts, prostitution, nudists, celebs, bestiality, scat, bondage with penetration, degradation, non-consensual sex acts (rape etc), terms such as young teens, young boys, young girls. I reserve the right to decline ANY site that I feel panders to pedophiles, even if the content is "legal". This applies to the content of the site, as well as keywords, meta tags, and any other part of the site at all. NO KP OR PEDOPHILE KEYWORDS, including ******!

Come to canada. Your material is 100% illegal. if I was you, I wouldn't be planning to cross the border any time soon...

Please, go away. Link sites can list whatever they want, and except for a few serious scumbags, you won't get your crap listed.

I love the page you listed before... "hot yung girls - skoolgirl "... so scared that someone will be on to you that you can't even bring yourself to use the real words on your site. Come on, admit it. Your a scumbag, wanna be rapist and pedo.

Please. GO AWAY.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Jimbo, you are correct. There is a NARROW situation where you can have models in compliance with 2256. HOWEVER... you cannot mix and match, You cannot have a 2256 compliant image next to an image of someone fucking. The images themselves are not important as much as presentation is. Your intent, under the law, is as important as any single image.

You cannot have a nude 15 year old on a website called "schoolgirls fucking". The intent is against 2256.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > Sec. 2256. Prev | Next

Sec. 2256. - Definitions for chapter

For the purposes of this chapter, the term -

(1)

''minor'' means any person under the age of eighteen years;

(2)

''sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated -

(A)

sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(B)

bestiality;

(C)

masturbation;

(D)

sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(3)

''producing'' means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;

(4)

''organization'' means a person other than an individual;

(5)

''visual depiction'' includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;

(6)

''computer'' has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;

(7)

''custody or control'' includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;

(8)

''child pornography'' means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -

(A)

the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(B)

such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(C)

such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

(D)

such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

(9)

''identifiable minor'' -

(A)

means a person -

(i)

(I)

who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or

(II)

whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and

(ii)

who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and

(B)

shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor

If I was you, I would be getting lawyer really quick - you have revealed yourself in public, and the phone calls and emails have already started. Your done.

You might also want to check this out:

The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, Jane Boyle, announced the unsealing of a three-count federal indictment against a former Dallas Police Officer Garry Layne Ragsdale, 34, and his wife, Tamara Michelle Ragsdale, 32, residents of Fort Worth, Texas.

The indictment, returned in late March, charges each defendant with one count of conspiracy to mail obscene material, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, two counts of mailing obscene material and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461 and 2.

The indictment charges that from April 1998 to July 1998, the Ragsdales conspired together, and with others, to sell and distribute obscene videotapes depicting rape scenes through the Internet and the United States mail. The indictment alleges that the Ragsdales owned, managed and maintained a Web site called "geschlecht.com." The web page was named "The Rape Video Store," where the Ragsdales offered obscene videotapes depicting rape scenes, which they categorized on the Web site as the "Real Rape Video Series" and the "Brutally Raped Video Series."

The Ragsdales posted graphically obscene descriptions of the videotapes on their Web site. They duplicated and mailed the tapes from their home after customers paid for the videos with a credit card. Visa, MasterCard, DiscoverCard, are you listening? Corporations Respond to CWA and AT&T Getting the Porn Ring Out of Its Collar (with Visa update).

If convicted on all counts, however, the Ragsdales each face up to 20 years imprisonment and a $750,000 fine. A trial is set for July 14, 2003, before Sidney A. Fitzwater, U.S. District Court Judge.

You better start deleting your hard drive and pulling your sites down now. The phone calls will be made.

Alex

[Cleo]

So Jimbo where do you get most of your traffic from. Who do you trade with?

[RawAlex]

Jimbo, how come if you have 2257 documents for everything, and it is all legal, then why are the "rapists" all have their faces pixelated or black barred?

http-//www.passed-out.com/drunk.html

scum.

Alex

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by RawAlex
Jimbo, you are correct. There is a NARROW situation where you can have models in compliance with 2256. HOWEVER... you cannot mix and match, You cannot have a 2256 compliant image next to an image of someone fucking. The images themselves are not important as much as presentation is. Your intent, under the law, is as important as any single image.

You cannot have a nude 15 year old on a website called "schoolgirls fucking". The intent is against 2256.

Intersting point, intent. I brought it up with the simulated stuff, legal models portrayed as minors. But last I heard, this subject is still unsettled in the US Congress, but certainly a intersting point!


If I was you, I would be getting lawyer really quick - you have revealed yourself in public, and the phone calls and emails have already started. Your done.

for what? guilty of bad taste? all my material is legal.

You might also want to check this out:

The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, Jane Boyle, announced the unsealing of a three-count federal indictment against a former Dallas Police Officer Garry Layne Ragsdale, 34, and his wife, Tamara Michelle Ragsdale, 32, residents of Fort Worth, Texas.

The indictment, returned in late March, charges each defendant with one count of conspiracy to mail obscene material, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, two counts of mailing obscene material and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461 and 2.

The indictment charges that from April 1998 to July 1998, the Ragsdales conspired together, and with others, to sell and distribute obscene videotapes depicting rape scenes through the Internet and the United States mail. The indictment alleges that the Ragsdales owned, managed and maintained a Web site called "geschlecht.com." The web page was named "The Rape Video Store," where the Ragsdales offered obscene videotapes depicting rape scenes, which they categorized on the Web site as the "Real Rape Video Series" and the "Brutally Raped Video Series."

The Ragsdales posted graphically obscene descriptions of the videotapes on their Web site. They duplicated and mailed the tapes from their home after customers paid for the videos with a credit card. Visa, MasterCard, DiscoverCard, are you listening? Corporations Respond to CWA and AT&T Getting the Porn Ring Out of Its Collar (with Visa update).

If convicted on all counts, however, the Ragsdales each face up to 20 years imprisonment and a $750,000 fine. A trial is set for July 14, 2003, before Sidney A. Fitzwater, U.S. District Court Judge.

You better start deleting your hard drive and pulling your sites down now. The phone calls will be made.

Intersting story, but I wonder if there is more to it like it's a federal thing because of mail. I can't imagine going to jail for simulated rape pics, unless they werent simulated and were real?

Very interesting post!
Alex