ban youtube vids on this board!

[Maria]

While it may be true that Ranger expressed himself with too much vehemence, and thus introduced himself to the board in a rather unpleasant way, there is a point behind his rant which ought not to be ignored.

Posting underage material puts Paul and other owners of the site (if any) at a certain amount of legal risk.

I know that some of you will rage that a fully clothed woman, even if very young, cannot be interpreted as a sexual object, since "fully clothed" does not correspond to most legal definitions of pornography.

I agree that a lawyer arguing for the website's case would probably say exactly the same thing.

Meanwhile, a lawyer representing the prosecution would argue that the website's homepage specifically denotes wetting as a sexual act, and that therefore it is the context which renders the underage material pornographic whether she is clothed or not.

Who would win? Well, you see, that's the problem. We don't really know what a judge and jury would decide. This is the nature of law. Sometimes it just comes down to which lawyer speaks with the most eloquence.

So while I agree that Ranger mis-spoke himself by making his first post an angry rant directed at many others, it is my hope that under-age material will not be posted. Paul has stated many times that these bulletin boards are a favor to the rest of us; he doesn't really make any money from them but only from the sale of the magazines, videos, photo shoots etc. Should we discourteously put him at risk when he is being generous to us?

[Apemantus]

While it may be true that Ranger expressed himself with too much vehemence, and thus introduced himself to the board in a rather unpleasant way, there is a point behind his rant which ought not to be ignored.

Posting underage material puts Paul and other owners of the site (if any) at a certain amount of legal risk.

I know that some of you will rage that a fully clothed woman, even if very young, cannot be interpreted as a sexual object, since "fully clothed" does not correspond to most legal definitions of pornography.

I agree that a lawyer arguing for the website's case would probably say exactly the same thing.

Meanwhile, a lawyer representing the prosecution would argue that the website's homepage specifically denotes wetting as a sexual act, and that therefore it is the context which renders the underage material pornographic whether she is clothed or not.

Who would win? Well, you see, that's the problem. We don't really know what a judge and jury would decide. This is the nature of law. Sometimes it just comes down to which lawyer speaks with the most eloquence.

So while I agree that Ranger mis-spoke himself by making his first post an angry rant directed at many others, it is my hope that under-age material will not be posted. Paul has stated many times that these bulletin boards are a favor to the rest of us; he doesn't really make any money from them but only from the sale of the magazines, videos, photo shoots etc. Should we discourteously put him at risk when he is being generous to us?

Best post on this board. Period.

[ranger]

thanks Maria

Thank you Maria for the support, yes i most definitly ran off at the mouth, i wish i spoke with you beforhand. You brought up a very good point. In the future i will speak more from the heart instead of from anger. thank you again.