Asking for trouble?

[Guest CZ]

This isn't meant as a slam to twinks, or to Hooboy (whose predilection for them is well known), but I wonder if it was wise to put up that particular shot of Jake in today's Cover Boy slot. (I'm talking about the b&w one.) Given the recent busts involving internet entrepreneurs & customers, it strikes me as needlessly provocative.

[Guest CZ]

This isn't meant as a slam to twinks, or to Hooboy (whose predilection for them is well known), but I wonder if it was wise to put up that particular shot of Jake in today's Cover Boy slot. (I'm talking about the b&w one.) Given the recent busts involving internet entrepreneurs & customers, it strikes me as needlessly provocative.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Provoke Me!

 

Hey, I like the picture! What's provacative? Beauty, that's what!

Thanks, Hooboy, for your good taste in cover models!

[+ Lucky]

RE: Provoke Me!

 

Hey, I like the picture! What's provacative? Beauty, that's what!

Thanks, Hooboy, for your good taste in cover models!

[+ deej]

I was more curious what he meant by "recent busts involving internet entrepreneurs & customers".

 

The only recently discussed busts involved a Gaiety dancer supposedly busted through his print ad in HX.

 

What recent busts?

[+ deej]

I was more curious what he meant by "recent busts involving internet entrepreneurs & customers".

 

The only recently discussed busts involved a Gaiety dancer supposedly busted through his print ad in HX.

 

What recent busts?

[Guest Zoom]

I think he was refering to the under age internet porn scandal where the FBI closed down illegal porn on the NET. The model you posted as "coverboy" looks very young and you could be accused of promoting kiddie porn.

[Guest Zoom]

I think he was refering to the under age internet porn scandal where the FBI closed down illegal porn on the NET. The model you posted as "coverboy" looks very young and you could be accused of promoting kiddie porn.

[+ Lucky]

Accusations are easy to make. The picture was tasteful, and not obviously underage. I thought he looked above age, why all the fuss? Does Hooboy need all that protectiveness or is he a bighooboy?

[+ Lucky]

Accusations are easy to make. The picture was tasteful, and not obviously underage. I thought he looked above age, why all the fuss? Does Hooboy need all that protectiveness or is he a bighooboy?

[+ deej]

The picture *I* posted? Don't confuse me with HooBoy. :-)

 

Posting a publicly available (and very charming) photo of a working escort is now equated with promoting kiddie porn? That's a pretty big stretch.

[+ deej]

The picture *I* posted? Don't confuse me with HooBoy. :-)

 

Posting a publicly available (and very charming) photo of a working escort is now equated with promoting kiddie porn? That's a pretty big stretch.

[Guest Zoom]

Don't be so defensive if you have nothing to hide. If the model is under 18 and your'e posting pictures of him and a link you could be promoting kiddie porn. Was the model 18 or above? Do you have proof? Is Avery on your site 18? These questions I believe you have to ask and have proof that they are of age or you could be asking for trouble. I'm sorry if this post offends you but I'm more concerned for you and your web page.

[Guest Zoom]

Don't be so defensive if you have nothing to hide. If the model is under 18 and your'e posting pictures of him and a link you could be promoting kiddie porn. Was the model 18 or above? Do you have proof? Is Avery on your site 18? These questions I believe you have to ask and have proof that they are of age or you could be asking for trouble. I'm sorry if this post offends you but I'm more concerned for you and your web page.

[+ deej]

>Don't be so defensive if you

>have nothing to hide.

 

Who's being defensive? I certainly have nothing to hide -- this isn't my site.

 

I find your whole line of reasoning flawed because you keep referring to porn. This is not a porn site, although many of the lovely gentlemen discussed are indeed involved in the porn industry.

 

If the gentleman being discussed is advertising his services, he is subject to review. This is very straight-forward.

 

If he is subject to review, and he uses photos in his advertising, those photos are subject for inclusion here. This, too, is fairly straight-forward.

 

What part of this operation do you not "get"?

[+ deej]

>Don't be so defensive if you

>have nothing to hide.

 

Who's being defensive? I certainly have nothing to hide -- this isn't my site.

 

I find your whole line of reasoning flawed because you keep referring to porn. This is not a porn site, although many of the lovely gentlemen discussed are indeed involved in the porn industry.

 

If the gentleman being discussed is advertising his services, he is subject to review. This is very straight-forward.

 

If he is subject to review, and he uses photos in his advertising, those photos are subject for inclusion here. This, too, is fairly straight-forward.

 

What part of this operation do you not "get"?

[Guest Zoom]

I don't get your part as the bitter queen. The queen that reviews the posting then answers it.

[Guest Zoom]

I don't get your part as the bitter queen. The queen that reviews the posting then answers it.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Attacking the issues?

 

Thank you for zooming in on this issue. No problem has been detected, so it is now safe to zoom out. Your concern and kindness are certainly appreciated.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Attacking the issues?

 

Thank you for zooming in on this issue. No problem has been detected, so it is now safe to zoom out. Your concern and kindness are certainly appreciated.

[CT Dick]

Zoom, I believe your posting showed genuine concern for this site.

 

The replies have been along the lines that showing a boy on this site is not likely to get it shut down: 1. the picture is not pornographic, 2. it does not include frontal nudity, 3. the pic is one he posted himself, and 4. there is no promise of sex-for-pay connected with the photo.

 

As so often happens on this site, the conversations get more heated that is warranted. I don't believe that anyone intended to criticize you sufficiently to deserve the last posting.

 

We've got to try to keep our cool here.

 

Dick

[CT Dick]

Zoom, I believe your posting showed genuine concern for this site.

 

The replies have been along the lines that showing a boy on this site is not likely to get it shut down: 1. the picture is not pornographic, 2. it does not include frontal nudity, 3. the pic is one he posted himself, and 4. there is no promise of sex-for-pay connected with the photo.

 

As so often happens on this site, the conversations get more heated that is warranted. I don't believe that anyone intended to criticize you sufficiently to deserve the last posting.

 

We've got to try to keep our cool here.

 

Dick

[+ deej]

>I don't get your part as

>the bitter queen. The

>queen that reviews the posting

>then answers it.

 

This bitter queen reviewed your post in the queue and released it, and because I was already logged in and it was addressed to me I responded. Don't think you're getting special attention or anything. It was all timing.

 

If you have a problem with me responding to messages addressed to me, then don't address them to me. <shrug>

[+ deej]

>I don't get your part as

>the bitter queen. The

>queen that reviews the posting

>then answers it.

 

This bitter queen reviewed your post in the queue and released it, and because I was already logged in and it was addressed to me I responded. Don't think you're getting special attention or anything. It was all timing.

 

If you have a problem with me responding to messages addressed to me, then don't address them to me. <shrug>

[+ Lucky]

Deej,

When Dick referred to the previous post , did he mean my post to Zoom, or Zoom's post to you re: bitter queen?

I have never noticed you being bitter.

(There. I addressed a question to deej, although I coulda just asked for Dicks help.)