Aaron Lawrence is Back

[+ deej]

RE: Alexi #3 Is Not Back!

 

>I think I am advocating good judgment.

 

You've got an extra word in that sentence. You're simply advocating judgement, based on an arbitrary standard that is convenient for you this time.

 

Read Doug's post in this thread. (Skip over the goading and insulting rhetoric ... read his POINT.) He's right.

 

Remember there's a large segment of the population that stands all too ready to judge you and discard you only because you're gay. They call it good judgement too.

[Boston Guy]

I don't particularly care who or what other people are into, so long as we're talking about adults. But I maintain that pedophilia is ugly, unethical, unhealthy and much more about power than sex. It's also illegal and I hope it stays that way. It does great damage to children, who, as adults, we should all be protecting.

 

I do not like it at all when sites that I visit suddenly force me to view what appear to my eye to be underage children in sexual poses. It's one of the reasons I don't visit porn sites -- at all.

 

When Aaron Lawrence's models were being displayed here, there were more than a few that I felt were underage and I would have been astonished to find out otherwise. If, in fact, the models were undersage, then HooBoy and every single one of us who viewed their pictures was technically in violation of the law. Not only that, those pictures will remain on each person's PC until deleted in some deliberate manner.

 

I can hear people saying "but this is a site that deals with escorts and that's not legal, either." Perhaps. But I think there's quite a large difference between hiring an adult escort and pedophilia.

 

I don't expect to have anyone come seeking child porn on my PC any time soon. However, we're led to believe that thousands of people visit this site every day. Pictures of people who even appear to be underage children place every one of those visitors in at least some legal jeopardy. More to the point, they place HB in even greater jeopardy. Child porn and everything related to it is nothing to fool around with.

 

Proof that a person was not underage at the time a picture was taken would be a defense. That might be easy with an escort who can be contacted. How about one of AL's various models from who knows where?

 

I believe that Aaron Lawrence probably did exploit young guys, probably underage guys. He certainly wouldn't be the first to have done that. But this site has always taken a reasonably high road and I cannot see any advantage that would accrue to M4M or the people who come here by re-instituting Aaron Lawrence's "pick of the day."

 

BG

[VaHawk]

"I have frequently commented, and not in a complimentary way, about the borderline-pedophlic tendencies of the "twink lover" crowd here, but I am usually in a tiny minority when doing so."

 

I agree 100% with you Doug69, so I guess that makes me part of the minority!

 

"That's why it never ceases to amaze me that the minute someone says "Aaron Lawrence," the crowds come out to condemn videos with underage-LOOKING guys in them. Does anyone look around at this Board before doing that?"

 

Not to mention the FAWNING advocation on this site of visiting third world countries where the age of consent is less than 18, the boys are literally a "dime a dozen" in terms of U.S. dollars, and where bringing the "boys" a pair of track shoes wrapped in colored Bozo balloons, makes you a "good Uncle", who is a benefit to that country's economy!

 

But YET, AL is a scumbag for going to such countries and paying such boys more than the so-called sexual tourists pay, to make films is SCANDALOUS!

[Boston Guy]

RE: Alexi #3 Is Not Back!

 

>>I think I am advocating good judgment.

>

>You've got an extra word in that sentence. You're simply

>advocating judgement, based on an arbitrary standard that is

>convenient for you this time.

>

>Read Doug's post in this thread. (Skip over the goading and

>insulting rhetoric ... read his POINT.) He's right.

>

>Remember there's a large segment of the population that stands

>all too ready to judge you and discard you only because you're

>gay. They call it good judgement too.

 

I don't agree at all. I hate censorship. But advocating a policy that refuses to display sexual photos of models who appear to be underage is GOOD judgment. Claiming that it's not is crazy. There are way too many problems associated with child porn these days.

 

Exceptions to such a policy could easily be made, on a case by case basis, when reasonable proof is available that the photo is legal. (For example, HB has mentioned from time to time that young-looking escorts have sent him copies of their driver's licenses.)

 

And, regarding Aaron Lawrence's business decisions: it's my understanding that his filming was done in other countries. Are you willing to risk this site on the assumption that Aaron Lawrence had "all his ducks in a row?" I think you're underestimating the trouble that HB/M4M could get into by crossing the line and exhibiting sexual photos of underage guys. Every responsible Website should err way on the side of caution on this issue or be totally prepared to face the consequences at any time.

 

BG

[+ deej]

>I believe that Aaron Lawrence probably did exploit young guys,

>probably underage guys. He certainly wouldn't be the first to

>have done that. But this site has always taken a reasonably

>high road and I cannot see any advantage that would accrue to

>M4M or the people who come here by re-instituting Aaron

>Lawrence's "pick of the day."

 

I didn't know anyone was discussing reinstating a feed that Aaron himself is no longer providing. Why do you bring it up?

[Boston Guy]

>But YET, AL is a scumbag for doing JUST what all his CRITICS are doing!

 

I beg your pardon?

 

I don't advocate pedophilia. I have no interest in pedophilia. I have no interest whatsoever in having sex with underage boys or girls. And I don't like being forced by websites to view photos of what look to me like underage children.

 

Your generalization, like most generalizations, may have a nugget of truth when it comes to some people who visit M4M. But I'd wager that most of the visitors to this site want nothing whatsoever to do with underage kids.

 

And when was the last time you ventured to another country and made pornographic films with extremely young models and then sold that film here in the US?

 

BG

[VaHawk]

>I don't advocate pedophilia. I have no interest in

>pedophilia. I have no interest whatsoever in having sex with

>underage boys or girls. And I don't like being forced by

>websites to view photos of what look to me like underage

>children.

 

WTF?????? Who the hell said you did, as I know I didn't!! BTW: no web site is "FORCING" you to look at anything you don't wish to view, as ALL you have to do, if you find the site offensive, is TO NO LONGER visit the site.

 

>Your generalization, like most generalizations, may have a

>nugget of truth when it comes to some people who visit M4M.

>But I'd wager that most of the visitors to this site want

>nothing whatsoever to do with underage kids.

 

WHAT???? According to all the verifications, none of the pics that AL posted were of underaged boys. It is not ILLEGAL to post images of adults that look underaged!

 

>And when was the last time you ventured to another country and

>made pornographic films with extremely young models and then

>sold that film here in the US?

 

Never, but then again that is not my profession.

[VaHawk]

"He's a creep and in my experience, creeps usually have no trouble sleeping. He has to be the ultimate example of how far one can get selling sex without an oz.of scrupples or morals."

 

Does that mean you'll be starring in the movie sequel "Sleepless in Vancouver"? :o

[FourAces]

RE:

 

>I think I am advocating good judgment.

 

You might feel you're *using* good judgment but you're *advocating* censorship. There is absolutely nothing wrong with guys who enjoy viewing or having sex with young looking legal age boys.

 

Lucky you and the others have a right to feel however you like but you have no right to decide what I can legally enjoy.

 

As for Aaron he has the right to earn a living whether that be escorting, selling books or videos. If you or anybody else don't want to be a consumer simply move on.

 

RT

[Guest zipperzone]

>Does that mean you'll be starring in the movie sequel

>"Sleepless in Vancouver"? :o

 

Now I lay me down to sleep

I pray the Lord, my soul to keep

If I should die before I wake

I pray the Lord my soul to take

 

God bless mommy and daddy and Ben Affleck and John Kerry and VaHawk

[TotallyOz]

If Aaron can get $350 an hour, more power to him. I just hate it when many lawyers are getting that fee per hour and more and yet when a high class guy like Aaron asks for it, people joke about it and get nasty with personal attacks. Aaron is a true pro and deserves every penny he can get! I am happy he is back and working again. Welcome back Aaron! I wish you all the best in all your endeavors!

 

Oz

[+ deej]

>And when was the last time you ventured to another country and

>made pornographic films with extremely young models and then

>sold that film here in the US?

 

As I said elsewhere, if the video is sold in the US there is proof of age on file or the producer is brazenly breaking the law. Period. The adult industry bends over backwards to comply because penalties are stiff and in most cases unrecoverable. (As they should be!)

 

In fact, the industry takes "proof of age" so far as to turn it into a huge invasion of privacy for the models. I routinely receive publicity CD's from various studios and they'll usually include a folder with scans of the models' driving licenses or birth certificates.

 

No porn producer with half a brain will risk the penalties for breaking this law. The line in the sand is drawn.

 

Your other issues are emotional and you are projecting them onto a situation to suit your personal tastes.

[Doug69]

RE: Ban all videos except vanilla ones

 

>I don't agree at all. I hate censorship. But advocating a

>policy that refuses to display sexual photos of models who

>appear to be underage is GOOD judgment. Claiming that it's

>not is crazy. There are way too many problems associated with

>child porn these days.

 

How could it even ARGUABLY be wrong to produce videos that promote a certain fantasy AS LONG AS all of the models in the video are ACTUALLY of legal age?

 

Are we now to the point where even sexual fantasies have to be purified and politically correct and good? Now, it's not enough to make sure that nothing illegal or wrong ACTUALLY occurs in REALITY when it comes to making videos, but now we have to stomp out all videos that promote and feed FANTASIES that are "bad" and "wrong" as well?

 

I assume that you and most other people think that involuntary slavery is wrong. Well, guess what? There are LOTS and LOTS of videos that PROMOTE the fantasy of involuntary slavery. They depict acts where one person or many people are physically overpowering another person and forcing them against their will to do things. Why, those videos even show whippings and chains and humiliating "slaves" and all sorts of other things that are considered - WHEN DONE IN REALITY - to be quite wrong.

 

Do you object to videos that depict, as a matter of FICTION, these sorts of acts, which would be criminal and hated if done in reality? If not, why would you object to AL's videos as long as they use models who are OF AGE, even if they are pretending to be something that they are not?

 

I recently saw a Yahoo group devoted to guys who want to act like babies and wear diapers and suck on pacifiers while they get fucked. Are you against those videos, too? Do they promote baby-fucking?

 

If there's any place where your (and others') moralizing and ethical sermons don't belong, it's in the realm of sexual fantasies. As long as the models in AL's videos are of legal age, this shrill condemnation of his videos seeks to judge the morality of other people's sexual FANTASIES. That's infinitely more destructive and immoral than any video that's being discussed here.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Alexi #3 Is Not Back!

 

Is this the same deej that locks threads and deletes posts that he finds, as official Hooville moderator, offensive or inflammatory?

 

For the record, I am not talking about what Lawrence does outside of town. I simply think that the people who contribute here do not have to be forced to rub elbows with pedophiles. We keep child molesters out of playgrounds. Why is it so offensive to keep them out of this particular message center? There are plenty of kiddieporn sites where they can ruminate to their hearts content.

 

As far as reading Doug 69, why bother? His hole purpose here is to denigrate what people say. I don't think he ever sees anything favorable. He just likes to remind us how superior his view is. There are plenty of people that like that sort of thing. Let them read Doug!

[Boston Guy]

RE: Ban all videos except vanilla ones

 

Doug:

 

Either I'm not being clear or you are purposefully talking past the point I've been trying to make.

 

I don't like pedophilia, on a number of grounds, and have no interest in participating in it myself. I also think that society should condemn it, for it falls under our moral obligation to protect children. But I don't really care -- or care to know -- what others are thinking about in the middle of their sexual fantasies. They can think about sex with giraffes for all I care.

 

Further, I see no objection to producing videos with young-looking adults. The legality of that was upheld in 2002 by no less of an authority than the US Supreme Court. When it comes to adults choosing what to do, so long as others aren't being hurt, I think we should always try to err on the side of freedom. If Aaron Lawrence finds young-looking adult models in other countries who want to work in his videos, more power to him.

 

So, just to be clear: I'm not talking about the content of other people's fantasies. I'm not talking about adult videos produced with adult actors. Instead, I'm talking about the use of questionable photographs on this site.

 

In other posts in this thread, Deej has expressed confidence that Aaron Lawrence has taken all good and necessary steps to comply with the law regarding underage actors in vides. Well, perhaps he has. But perhaps he hasn't either. He certainly wouldn't be the first adult film producer to try to skirt the law. That's his business and if he has decided to take risks in that area, so be it.

 

But what I have been trying to address in each of these posts is something quite different: the publication on this Website -- and this site alone -- of photographs of boys who appear to be underage. I am not talking about the production of videos, purchase of videos or anyone's fantasies. I'm talking about a very simple policy: should HB allow questionable photos of guys who appear to be underage to be published here.

 

If I were the setting the policy here, it would be: (1) if the photo is of an escort and they send HB reasonable documentation that they are of age, then the photo stands; (2) if the photo is not of an escort and a reasonable person might reasonably think that the person depicted was underage, it goes, with possible exceptions for photographs that are important or timely for some reason.

 

Publishing even one photograph of a boy who turned out to be underage could theoretically have grave consequences for HB and for M4M. As the publisher of the site, HB would be the target for any authorities interested in cracking down on M4M, much more so than any of its viewers. I enjoy this site very much and would be unhappy to see it be put at risk. Further, I see no reason whatsoever to publish questionable photos since there are so many other photos available that are not questionable at all. In fact, I can see no reason why any sane webmaster would want to embark on a course that could put all of his efforts at risk.

 

When Aaron Lawrence's "Boy of the Day" (or whatever it was called) was being published, there were photos that I would look at and think a reasonable person could reasonably judge the young man to be underage. Was he? Who knows? How in the world can HB verify that? Ask for documentation for Aaron Lawrence? Right, like that's going to happen.

 

So if HB decides to put AL's daily feature back on this site, I'd recommend that he simply tell AL to provide photos that clearly depict guys of a legal age. That's all.

 

BG

[+ deej]

RE: Ban all videos except vanilla ones

 

>So if HB decides to put AL's daily feature back on this site,

>I'd recommend that he simply tell AL to provide photos that

>clearly depict guys of a legal age. That's all.

 

Again I ask why you even bring this up. The feed is no longer available. You're beating a dead horse.

[Boston Guy]

RE: Ban all videos except vanilla ones

 

>Again I ask why you even bring this up. The feed is no longer available. You're beating a dead horse.

 

Not really. If Aaron Lawrence is back, can his feed be far behind? And since when is it questionable to discuss things that have happened in the past here at M4M?

 

AL's feed here was the only thing about him that ever concerned or interested me. I've never seen or been interested in seeing his videos, never read his book or advice column and never wanted to hire him. But, as I've described above, some of the photos he provided seemed to me to be questionable enough that they shouldn't be published on a site that consistently tries to take the high road on questions of ethics -- something I give HB great credit for.

 

Simple as that. And, in my mind, certainly a topic worth discussing on a thread about Aaron Lawrence. Sorry you disagree.

 

BG

[Doug69]

RE: Ban all videos except vanilla ones

 

>Doug:

>

>Either I'm not being clear or you are purposefully talking

>past the point I've been trying to make.

 

If all you are saying is that pedophilia is wrong and that it's wrong to use underage kids for pornography, I agree with you 100%. I don't think that anyone participating in this thread disagrees with you. I know I don't (although I do believe that, based on their actions, many of those who participate on this Board but who are not participating in this particular thread would disagree).

 

But there is no proof of any kind that AL did any such thing. Sure, some of the models he used looked under 18. But there are lots of young adults who look under 18. Don't you agree that that escort whose picture I posted looks WAY under 18? To me, he looks 15, and is the object of lots and lots of people's lust here. Have you seen his ID? How come that doesn't bother you? There are lots of other escorts whom I've seen discussed here who have a similar look. That doesn't seem to bother anyone.

 

Accusing someone of pedophilia or using underage kids in pornography is a very serious accusation. It not only can send someone to prison for a long time, but it will also (rightfully) subject that person to intense contempt.

 

I don't think those accusations should be made on the basis of innuendo and guessing. HB isn't dumb. He's aware that child pornography can get you into a lot of trouble - look at the disclaimer on the Fetish section where he prohibits mere DISCUSSION of it. That's beyond what the law even reuqires, but he's obviously being quite careful there, and I don't blame him.

 

So I'm not going to assume - based on nothing - that he was displaying pictures of young kids. Nor am I going to assume, without proof, that AL committed the despicable crime of using young kids in porno vidoes. Instead, I'll refrain from making such accusations unless I see proof that it's true.

 

Isn't that what any decent person would do?

[Boston Guy]

RE: Ban all videos except vanilla ones

 

>If all you are saying is that pedophilia is wrong and that

>it's wrong to use underage kids for pornography, I agree with

>you 100%. I don't think that anyone participating in this

>thread disagrees with you. I know I don't (although I do

>believe that, based on their actions, many of those who

>participate on this Board but who are not participating in

>this particular thread would disagree).

>

Agreed.

 

>But there is no proof of any kind that AL did any such thing.

>Sure, some of the models he used looked under 18. But there

>are lots of young adults who look under 18.

>

Agreed.

 

>Don't you agree

>that that escort whose picture I posted looks WAY under 18?

>To me, he looks 15, and is the object of lots and lots of

>people's lust here. Have you seen his ID?

>

No, I haven't. But -- and I may be remembering this incorrectly -- I thought he was the one that HB actually did get a driver's license from. If I were attracted to that look and decided to hire him, trust me, I'd ask for a driver's license up front and wouldn't take one more step before satisfying myself he was of legal age. Any other course would be sort of foolish.

 

>How come that

>doesn't bother you? There are lots of other escorts whom I've

>seen discussed here who have a similar look. That doesn't

>seem to bother anyone.

>

You raise a good question. I guess I assume that most escorts are 18 or older (and, yes, I do know that's naive). Pictures posted here of escorts are pretty easy for HB to verify and I would guess and hope -- but do not know -- that he does verify photos that seem questionable to him. On the other hand, verifying the true of age of a model or actor from another country, whose picture has been provided by a third party, could be almost impossible.

 

>Accusing someone of pedophilia or using underage kids in

>pornography is a very serious accusation. It not only can

>send someone to prison for a long time, but it will also

>(rightfully) subject that person to intense contempt.

>

Agreed.

 

>I don't think those accusations should be made on the basis of

>innuendo and guessing. HB isn't dumb. He's aware that child

>pornography can get you into a lot of trouble - look at the

>disclaimer on the Fetish section where he prohibits mere

>DISCUSSION of it. That's beyond what the law even reuqires,

>but he's obviously being quite careful there, and I don't

>blame him.

>

Agreed.

 

>So I'm not going to assume - based on nothing - that he was

>displaying pictures of young kids. Nor am I going to assume,

>without proof, that AL committed the despicable crime of using

>young kids in porno vidoes. Instead, I'll refrain from making

>such accusations unless I see proof that it's true.

>

>Isn't that what any decent person would do?

>

Nope.

 

I'm with you a long ways on the above. But if society took that approach, which was to basically say nothing in the absence of conclusive proof, it might become difficult to even discuss the subject. When faced with pictures of guys (or girls) who look underage, I think it's reasonable for others to discuss the subject -- short of actually accusing the producer of child pornography, as you state above.

 

You know that we're straying into an area that I was not referring to in my previous posts -- namely, the question of whether or not AL actually did use young models. I haven't said that he did and I know of no proof that he did. And, believing as I do in "innocent until proven guilty", I must assume he did not commit the crime we're speaking of.

 

But, ultimately, judging him innocent still has little to do with what I have been advocating: not using photos of young-looking guys whose age HB cannot reasonably (and reasonably easily) determine. The potential harm outweighs any prurient interests, especially given the vast supply of pictures that don't fall into this category. I felt that some of the photos AL provided to this site fell into the questionable category and thought this a worthy subject of discussion for this thread.

 

BG

 

ps: As an aside, I'd like to state for the record that I appreciate the thoughtful and considerate approach you bring to these various discussions. Even when I don't agree with you, I respect the logical, consistent manner in which you state your opinion without resorting to undue histrionics or ad hominem attacks. Even when I'm the one being skewered, it's a pleasure to read what you write.

[TotallyOz]

RE: Ban all videos except vanilla ones

 

>ps: As an aside, I'd like to state for the record that I

>appreciate the thoughtful and considerate approach you bring

>to these various discussions. Even when I don't agree with

>you, I respect the logical, consistent manner in which you

>state your opinion without resorting to undue histrionics or

>ad hominem attacks. Even when I'm the one being skewered,

>it's a pleasure to read what you write.

 

Nice! I agree! There are many posters on here that I just ignore what they write because they attack the person not the issue. I so enjoy each day reading various opinions different than my own. My may be a bit skewed at times but when someone points to logic in addressing something I say (or an opinion different than my own), I am open to listen and discuss. Thanks for pointing this ps in the post BG.

[guptasa1]

RE: Ban all videos except vanilla ones

 

I hope nobody minds a double post since I don't do it too often. I posted this in the other Aaron Lawrence topic (actually, I wasn't reading carefully and didn't realize there were two at the time - I intended to post to this thread anyways). Anyways, here goes:

 

I'm really surprised to see so much discussion of this topic. Now, I certainly haven't seen all of Aaron's stuff, but I haven't seen any I personally find objectionable.

 

Now, my perspective may be a bit different, but I don't see a problem with content IF a model is of legal age and consenting. To me, the issue is a strictly legal one.

 

If we're talking about objecting to models who LOOK like they might be under 18, that's awfully subjective. I have a couple friends, both in their 20's, who could EASILY pass for 16 or 17. In contrast, I know some guys who are 16 or 17 and look like they're in their 20's. There are even a lot of escorts who advertise as 18 or older, but look like they COULD be younger, etc. You simply can't judge someone's age by how they look.

 

I'd also argue that I don't personally think it's fair to judge someone who's attracted to younger looking guys. I happen to be attracted to twinks and younger (legal) guys myself, but that doesn't mean I'd ever harm someone underage, etc.

 

People object to all kinds of things, from gay sex period to fetishes, etc. Right now, there's an ad for a video of a bunch of guys pissing on a younger twinky model being advertised (which I personally find the idea of hot since he's legal and consenting). I think objecting to guys who simply *LOOK* like they could be younger than 18, assuming the person is indeed over 18, is beside the point. It's not hurting the model if he's over 18, and the whole point is to protect people UNDER 18 who might not know what they're getting into, might be emotionally harmed, etc.

 

As to the argument that it attracts child molesters, ehhh - I doubt it - I would imagine they'd be seeking out victims, not hanging around on legal sites. I think there's a big difference between someone who likes being with younger guys and someone who wants to intentionally harm a child by molesting them.

 

Now, as to the barebacking videos, that's another sticky issue. I'm a firm proponent of safer sex. I'd be lying if I said I didn't find the idea of barebacking sexy - I do. But it's very dangerous, I wouldn't do it myself (without time, testing, and an exclusive partner), and I certainly don't think anyone should be pressured or bribed to do it. I have seen some bareback videos before, mostly online, and I hope they are done safely, but have no way to know that and doubt it (and yes, there are ways to ensure barebacking is done with minimum risk where I would say it's acceptable from my point of view, but they involve a period of abstinence, a great deal of time, and comprehensive testing, which PROBABLY is something most studios or models would NOT do - I think they should or even should HAVE to personally to make this type of video).

 

Just my two cents on these subjects. I hope I haven't offended too many people, but I think there's definitely another side to this.

[woodlawn]

>>I suppose it depends on what country we are talking about

>when

>>we use the word "underage"

 

>Not really. Aaron Lawrence sold pornographic videos through

>the mail in the United States. 18 U.S.C. 2257 applies.

 

>ALL models must be 18 years of age when the shooting happened,

>and the pornographer must have proof of age on file with their

>custodian of records. Further, those records must be available

>for inspection should the feds pay an impromptu visit.

 

Pay a visit to what? A photographer's studio somewhere in Russia? It seems to me that the issue of extraterritoriality is not quite as easily surmounted as your answer assumes.

 

 

>Assuming he had his legal ducks in a row, any other criticism

>is content-based and is therefore subjective. Declaring

>content "right" or "wrong" is a slippery slope.

 

Isn't the ban on child pornography also "content-based"? Does that somehow make it impossible to defend?

[woodlawn]

RE: Alexi #3 Is Not Back!

 

>Is this the same deej that locks threads and deletes posts

>that he finds, as official Hooville moderator, offensive or

>inflammatory?

 

No, Lucky, it must be a different deej. The deej we know would never, ever, be such a hypocrite as to uphold censorship on the basis of a "subjective" standard on one occasion and denounce it on another.

 

>For the record, I am not talking about what Lawrence does

>outside of town. I simply think that the people who contribute

>here do not have to be forced to rub elbows with pedophiles.

 

None of us is being forced to do anything in relation to this site. But I acknowledge your point that if the regular display of models who appear to be underage resumes, some people may become uncomfortable at having their computer record a connection with a site that may be attracting pedophiles. If one of those pedophiles is busted for some other reason and the authorities become interested in this site after reviewing his hard drive, that could be a problem for all concerned.

[HooBoy]

RE: Ban all videos except vanilla ones

 

Like many of you, I did not like some of the pictures Aaron used during his advertising campaign. Even though he had proof of age on the models, when I asked him to not run borderline photos to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he took them out of the rotation.

 

Ultimately I was happy when the ad campaign concluded.

 

Aaron is a professional I have always liked and I wish him well in his new endeavor, but I will not accept that sort of advertising again.

 

I hope this helps clear up this issue.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Ban all videos except spumoni ones

 

Since you had already responded to my concerns about it, I am not surprised at your post here today. But I am happy to see you put the question to rest so we can all move on!