Joan Irvine "face of the porn industry" - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

baddog · 09-25-2011, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

Lloyd, remember our conversation in the lobby that night? i think that article is proof enough that this topic wasn't dropped

I am not sure which "topic" you are referring to, however, I am not basing my ideas on what some reporter from the Irish Times wrote.

MaDalton · 09-25-2011, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I am not sure which "topic" you are referring to, however, I am not basing my ideas on what some reporter from the Irish Times wrote.

i am referring to child protection as selling point

BFT3K · 09-25-2011, 08:59 AM

This is what buying .xxx domain names is like...

baddog · 09-25-2011, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i am referring to child protection as selling point

And that is why the "smackdown" between Dumas and Hymes; and the "debate" between Lawley and Duke were a complete and total waste of time. More bullshit from both sides with no information provided. That was a couple hours [between the two shows] that would have been better spent in a coffeeshop or pub.

baddog · 09-25-2011, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Site ranked #50 in the world by Alexa is LiveJasmin, people complain about lots of details like their use of popunder promotion, customer service etc. Not one mention of viruses or cp:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/livejasmin.com

With all due respect, you really expect the cp to be shown on a tour or something? And I am not implying anything with regards to LiveJasmine. To expect that the leading sites in the world are where cp in located is silly. Apparently you are unfamiliar with how criminals get their stuff out there, which is okay. You probably have no reason to know that.

The Porn Nerd · 09-25-2011, 01:08 PM

Does Baddog support .xxx and ICM?

InfoGuy · 09-25-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

“There are [no] benefits to adult entertainment companies to buy a .XXX and there will be [negative] returns on investment,” Irvine said.

It's important to read between the lines.

Connor · 09-25-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JFK

I dont recall who appointed her to be the "Face "of the adult industry ?

"Her new challenge is to provide self-regulation in a usable format for everybody and to help mold an organization and industry, Irvine noted"

It's really simple... the industry needs to distance itself from Joan at every opportunity. She's exactly the kind of person we do NOT need claiming to represent us. My opinion of Joan is that she likes manipulating people and situations, is not a genuine person, and is in love with the idea of wielding power -- political or otherwise -- from behind the scenes. A perfect fit for ICM Registry and the whole .XXX debacle.

In all my time watching her with ASACP, I never saw anything whatsoever that lead me to believe she had any respect for our industry or for most of the people who work in this industry. In fact, seemed to me often to be just the opposite.

Problem is... it's hard for good people to accept that the friendly, smiling face they see in Joan at shows is something to scorn. I understand that, I really do. But at SOME point, we have to stop letting the leeches and manipulators sit at our tables and pretend to be our friends. If for no other reason than the self respect that comes from not allowing oneself to be a patsy.

Connor · 09-25-2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Yeah, um, I bet you won't.

You know that if you try to talk to her the way you claim, she wouldn't hesitate to put you in your place and do it in front of everyone.

Here's a better idea. If you disagree with what she says on anything I'm sure if you approach her and ask her to sit down with you for a while so you can explain her side and permit her the same curtsy, she would be more than happy to do so and I'm pretty sure she would listen to you.

The whole .XXX thing is pretty confusing but you won't get anywhere talking to Joan like that.

Mark, nobody wants to "talk" with Joan and "explain" things because she isn't some person who's trying to make up her mind on something, or someone who can be influenced, convinced or swayed. All that would accomplish is a helping of spin and bullshit. Joan knows what she's doing. She understands the .XXX issue, but has decided to be on THAT team anyway, knowing that it puts her at odds with something like 95% of the industry.

Nikki_Licks · 09-25-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

It's really simple... the industry needs to distance itself from Joan at every opportunity. She's exactly the kind of person we do NOT need claiming to represent us. My opinion of Joan is that she likes manipulating people and situations, is not a genuine person, and is in love with the idea of wielding power -- political or otherwise -- from behind the scenes. A perfect fit for ICM Registry and the whole .XXX debacle.

In all my time watching her with ASACP, I never saw anything whatsoever that lead me to believe she had any respect for our industry or for most of the people who work in this industry. In fact, seemed to me often to be just the opposite.

Problem is... it's hard for good people to accept that the friendly, smiling face they see in Joan at shows is something to scorn. I understand that, I really do. But at SOME point, we have to stop letting the leeches and manipulators sit at our tables and pretend to be our friends. If for no other reason than the self respect that comes from not allowing oneself to be a patsy.

Excellent post

2MuchMark · 09-25-2011, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterPeabody

Holy fuck, shut the fuck up you fucking CANADIAN. LOL Jesus-fucking-Christ. "Don't talk to Joan like that, be polite, it won't get you anywhere, I'm Canadian and an appeaser and please like me and don't hit me, eh?"

Holy fuck Canuck, grow some balls.
I refer you to every South Park episode on this subject.

Best Part: "You know that if you try to talk to her the way you claim, she wouldn't hesitate to put you in your place and do it in front of everyone. "

OMFG "Please Joan, don't talk back to me, I'm a Canadian and let's just get along and sit down over a lager, eh?" Hahahahaha!

Thanks man, I enjoyed that.

That's not at all what I said, and what does being Canadian have to do with it?

2MuchMark · 09-25-2011, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i've been arguing with Greg Dumas and Vaughn Liley on their presentations and in person. i have told both of them exactly what i wrote above (the child protection bullshit part) - yet i have been always polite and aside our disagreement about their business i have no personal problems with them at all.

and i don't think i need lessons in how i tell people what i think

You said in your post that you would tell her to "Shut the fuck up to her face".

In my post, I said that the whole .xxx thing is still confusing to me. I don't really know if its a good thing, a bad thing, or a nothing.

In talking to a few people about it including those in and around asacp, I've learned that there are many many different opinions. Some of them, good and bad, seem totally valid. Others do not.

My point is that no matter what, .XXX is a pretty serious subject. You can agree or disagree with it all you want but if you want real answers from people like Joan you would be much better off approaching her politely and discussing it instead of telling anyone to Shut the Fuck up.

2MuchMark · 09-25-2011, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halfpint

Wonder which country will make it mandatory first ?

I've heard this argument a lot : ".XXX will be Mandatory", but I've never found the source. Can someone point me to a URL that says this?

Anthony · 09-25-2011, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

It's really simple... the industry needs to distance itself from Joan at every opportunity. She's exactly the kind of person we do NOT need claiming to represent us. My opinion of Joan is that she likes manipulating people and situations, is not a genuine person, and is in love with the idea of wielding power -- political or otherwise -- from behind the scenes. A perfect fit for ICM Registry and the whole .XXX debacle.

In all my time watching her with ASACP, I never saw anything whatsoever that lead me to believe she had any respect for our industry or for most of the people who work in this industry. In fact, seemed to me often to be just the opposite.

Problem is... it's hard for good people to accept that the friendly, smiling face they see in Joan at shows is something to scorn. I understand that, I really do. But at SOME point, we have to stop letting the leeches and manipulators sit at our tables and pretend to be our friends. If for no other reason than the self respect that comes from not allowing oneself to be a patsy.

Well said, Connor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Mark, nobody wants to "talk" with Joan and "explain" things because she isn't some person who's trying to make up her mind on something, or someone who can be influenced, convinced or swayed. All that would accomplish is a helping of spin and bullshit. Joan knows what she's doing. She understands the .XXX issue, but has decided to be on THAT team anyway, knowing that it puts her at odds with something like 95% of the industry.

I'm writing off Mark, I wouldn't be surprised if he bought .XXX domains himself.

2MuchMark · 09-25-2011, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

My opinion of Joan is that she likes manipulating people and situations, is not a genuine person, and is in love with the idea of wielding power -- political or otherwise -- from behind the scenes. A perfect fit for ICM Registry and the whole .XXX debacle.

Hi Connor,

I know a couple of people who is exactly like the person you are describing, including a couple of moronic politicians (Michelle Bachman comes to mind).

I've only met Joan a couple of times and she seems to be just the opposite of what you are describing. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I don't see it. Do you have any examples of what she said or did to manipulate people or the adult industry towards .xxx?

Again I'm not trying to challenge you or anything like that. I'm only saying that my opinion of her as a person has been a good one so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

In all my time watching her with ASACP, I never saw anything whatsoever that lead me to believe she had any respect for our industry or for most of the people who work in this industry. In fact, seemed to me often to be just the opposite.

She was always very nice to me and to the people at my company. She congratulated us when we won an Xbiz award and always had time to chat at each trade show I saw her at. Trust me I know people who have zero respect for adult - even from members of my own family - and I can see them a mile away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

... But at SOME point, we have to stop letting the leeches and manipulators sit at our tables and pretend to be our friends.

Again, I really don't see it. She was good to us, and her good nature appeared 100% genuine, never asked for anything in return, and never hounded us to sponsor.

Is it possible that your opinion of Joan is wrong?

Redrob · 09-25-2011, 08:54 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON, DC ? Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Mark Pryor (D-AR) introduced new legislation today that would serve to require websites that contain ?material that is harmful to minors? to operate from a new Top-Level Domain.

Link to Article

will76 · 09-25-2011, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

I called this shit out early. Welcome to another round of "Fuck The Industry", courtesy of .XXX and Joan Irvine.

I was bitching about it before she even took the Job with ICM. There was so many connections (and bullshit) between her, ASACP, and ICM I think a blind man could see what was going on. The Johnny V bullshit was the worst.

Joan is a greedy fucking cunt that is only concerned with how much money she can stuff in her pockets, while hiding behind "protecting the children". She has been in bed with ICM for at least a couple years, like a whore playing both sides of the fence waiting to see which one she could make the most money from.

At ASACP she was paying herself around 200K a year, when they weren't taking in much more than 600K. Then she spent tons of money going to shows, traveling and advertising for the sole purpose of collecting more "donations". What have they ever been able to show that they did to protect kids. As ASACP's revenue started to decline she had to cut her salary, ICM got approval for .XXX so she made her move and jumped ships to the gig that would make her the most money.

Fuck that bitch she has never put the intentions of this industry nor kids first, just what she could do to make herself the most money. Fucking cunt. I can guarantee you from the second she got hired she has been lobbying to make .XXX mandatory.... you know to help protect the kids.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein

I am on the advisory council of ASACP and I know very well where all the money donated to ASACP is used. I am not affiliated with .xxx.

You don't need to be on the "council" to know where the money went. They are a "non profit" their tax returns are public record and I looked at them. Most of the money Joan paid herself or was spent on traveling, shows, and advertising. What she didn't pay herself she used to collect more "donations" so she could pay her self.

seeric · 09-25-2011, 09:40 PM

That bill that was introduced was in 2006. It's a dead issue. Premature ejaculation on ICM's part there.

This is all that needs to be read on mandating extensions as filtering mechanisms.

http://www.w3.org/2004/03/28-tld

will76 · 09-25-2011, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Yeah, um, I bet you won't.

You know that if you try to talk to her the way you claim, she wouldn't hesitate to put you in your place and do it in front of everyone.

Here's a better idea. If you disagree with what she says on anything I'm sure if you approach her and ask her to sit down with you for a while so you can explain her side and permit her the same curtsy, she would be more than happy to do so and I'm pretty sure she would listen to you.

The whole .XXX thing is pretty confusing but you won't get anywhere talking to Joan like that.

Mark don't be stupid. I know you seem to have a secret hard on for Joan, not sure why. When you act like a whore, you deserve to be called a Cunt. What do you think sitting down and talking to her nicely will accomplish, some break through and she will see the light and stop this charade about protecting the kids? She is only in this for the money and whether you talk to her nicely or call her a cunt, it wont matter either way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

What "problem" is she part of?

another one with a secret hardon for Joan and closet .xxx supporter.

bingo..... Connor just says it a lot nicer than I do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

It's really simple... the industry needs to distance itself from Joan at every opportunity. She's exactly the kind of person we do NOT need claiming to represent us. My opinion of Joan is that she likes manipulating people and situations, is not a genuine person, and is in love with the idea of wielding power -- political or otherwise -- from behind the scenes. A perfect fit for ICM Registry and the whole .XXX debacle.

In all my time watching her with ASACP, I never saw anything whatsoever that lead me to believe she had any respect for our industry or for most of the people who work in this industry. In fact, seemed to me often to be just the opposite.

Problem is... it's hard for good people to accept that the friendly, smiling face they see in Joan at shows is something to scorn. I understand that, I really do. But at SOME point, we have to stop letting the leeches and manipulators sit at our tables and pretend to be our friends. If for no other reason than the self respect that comes from not allowing oneself to be a patsy.

will76 · 09-25-2011, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

I've only met Joan a couple of times and she seems to be just the opposite of what you are describing. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I don't see it. Do you have any examples of what she said or did to manipulate people or the adult industry towards .xxx?

LOL here is a good example of someone who met her only a couple times and got manipulated by her... you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seeric

That bill that was introduced was in 2006. It's a dead issue. Premature ejaculation on ICM's part there.

This is all that needs to be read on mandating extensions as filtering mechanisms.

http://www.w3.org/2004/03/28-tld

Well if someone like Bachmann were to get elected I wouldn't be surprised to see them try to make .xxx mandatory one way or the other. I wonder how much ICM will be donating to her campaign and if Joan has meet with her yet.

2MuchMark · 09-26-2011, 03:53 AM

So Will76, just because I describe a person as being nice, that makes me "stupid", "manipulated" and an automatic supporter of her cause? Sounds a little like prejudice to me.

As I already said, I'm only describing Joan as a nice person. I'm not stepping on anything you are saying (yet you are doing so to me). I'm only asking if anyone here has any proof of what a bad person people here are making her out to be.

pornguy · 09-26-2011, 04:38 AM

And what action has been taken with the countries already willing to block?? Oh yeah sales ad's they put out sales ads..

Nikki_Licks · 09-26-2011, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Link to Article

Looks like some folks from those districts should be voting this scum out of office

Paul Markham · 09-26-2011, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spazlabz

My opinion: you won't get anywhere with her talking like that either

My opinion: you won't get anywhere with talking to Joan Irvine, full stop.

She's in it to make money, she's a lawyer. Most will represent any scum who will pay their fees.

In fact there's little we can do except ignore .xxx, don't buy it.

The extension is legal. If Governments decide to block it, the very very very last people they will ask if it's OK, is us.

Sorry for the reality check, but it's still true.

Connor · 09-26-2011, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Do you have any examples of what she said or did to manipulate people or the adult industry towards .xxx?

I do have examples... PLENTY of examples... but I'd have to write a book to get through them all. I'd be happy to discuss these with you next time we're in the same place together though. I worked with Joan for a couple years on the FSC board, and have known her for close to a decade now.

I'm sure you can understand though that just because someone smiles and says nice things doesn't mean they're genuine in sentiment. You mentioned politicians, so I think you understand how that goes. I am a HUGE believer that actions speak a lot louder than words.

MaDalton · 09-26-2011, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

You said in your post that you would tell her to "Shut the fuck up to her face".

let me rephrase that: i would kindly ask her to stop spreading bullshit

and she surely is not the face that i want to represent me

spazlabz · 09-26-2011, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

I do have examples... PLENTY of examples... but I'd have to write a book to get through them all. I'd be happy to discuss these with you next time we're in the same place together though. I worked with Joan for a couple years on the FSC board, and have known her for close to a decade now.

I'm sure you can understand though that just because someone smiles and says nice things doesn't mean they're genuine in sentiment. You mentioned politicians, so I think you understand how that goes. I am a HUGE believer that actions speak a lot louder than words.

I will take you at your word Conner. It certainly seems to me that you and Jay really have a calm handle on this situation. I consider you guys the experts on it. While plenty of people have lots to say about ICM/IFFOR and they are knowledgeable I think you guys have been professional about this throughout

will76 · 09-26-2011, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

So Will76, just because I describe a person as being nice, that makes me "stupid", "manipulated" and an automatic supporter of her cause? Sounds a little like prejudice to me.

As I already said, I'm only describing Joan as a nice person. I'm not stepping on anything you are saying (yet you are doing so to me). I'm only asking if anyone here has any proof of what a bad person people here are making her out to be.

Your post saying that he should sit down and talk to her nicely and she might consider what he has to say is what I thought was stupid, it had nothing to do with you meeting her. Talking to someone nicely isn't stupid, but that you think she would listen with an open mind as if she doesn't already know that what they doing. She knows she is running a con, hiding behind protecting the children, selling out the industry, and just trying to make as much money as she can. It's stupid for you to think that someone can call her out for this and she would see the light and change her ways.... if they talked to her nicely.

My comment that she manipulated you is accurate. You have the "he bought me drinks" syndrome that many people have on here. Just because you met the person a couple times and they seemed, nice, charming, said all the right things then those idiots online must have it all wrong because they don't know the person like you do. You have to defend her because the 10 minutes you talked to her she seemed like a nice genuine person. Problem is, she manipulated you and made you believe that she is a good person, to the point you can't look at the facts that all of us see which is sooo obvious that she is full of shit.

baddog · 09-26-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Link to Article

Democrats sponsored it? That has to be bullshit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

She's in it to make money, she's a lawyer.

ummm, first I ever heard that. Where did you pick up that tidbit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

I do have examples... PLENTY of examples... but I'd have to write a book to get through them all.

So give us two. One?

Connor · 09-26-2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

So give us two. One?

You and I had 10 days in the same place ... all you had to do was ask. ;) But we'll be in Las Vegas too for Internext, so if you or anyone else is genuinely interested, ask me there and I'll not only tell you, but show you how to independently verify what I say. I have no interest in trying to type a novel on GFY.

And... although you won't admit it, I think you know very well plenty of examples yourself. ;) This stuff isn't so hard to see, Baddog ... you just have to be WILLING to accept what you see.

The Porn Nerd · 09-26-2011, 08:34 AM

Interesting how Baddog answers others in this thread but does not answer the only important question posed to him, by me.

So I will ask it again:

Baddog, do you support .xxx and Joan Irvine?

Connor · 09-26-2011, 08:38 AM

All hell... OK, you want one example... here's one for you...

http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece....mi=all&q=asacp

Quote from Joan in 2007:

"Mr. Balkam and FOSI are serious about protecting children, and we respect that," Irvine wrote. "However, ASACP does not agree that ICANN’s rejection of .XXX represents a failure to protect children online, because we do not believe that a .XXX sTLD would have further enhanced the online adult entertainment industry’s ongoing voluntary efforts to protect children."

So.... Joan around 2005 wrote a letter to ICANN "applauding" ICM Registry for its efforts (do the research if you haven't seen this widely circulated letter), and justified that "applause" by, as I understand it, claiming ASACP basically had to support child protection efforts. Which would mean .XXX had some kind of child protection element to it, right? Then in 2007 after .XXX was defeated in the first round, she wrote the above (gee, I never liked .XXX anyway!), then today well... we all know where she stands today.

Now Baddog, the question is... when YOU are presented with evidence like this, what will YOU do? Will you acknowledge it, or try to find some excuse for Joan that somehow explains why she has more positions on one issue than a presidential candidate?

You know I like you, but I don't understand why you do this on GFY on a regular and consistent basis... it's mind boggling, to say the least.

baddog · 09-26-2011, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

You and I had 10 days in the same place ... all you had to do was ask. ;) But we'll be in Las Vegas too for Internext, so if you or anyone else is genuinely interested, ask me there and I'll not only tell you, but show you how to independently verify what I say. I have no interest in trying to type a novel on GFY.

And... although you won't admit it, I think you know very well plenty of examples yourself. ;) This stuff isn't so hard to see, Baddog ... you just have to be WILLING to accept what you see.

You did not make the comment there or I would have. Not sure why you would not want to point them out in a public forum so no one could twist it around later and say you said something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterPeabody

Interesting how Baddog answers others in this thread but does not answer the only important question posed to him, by me.

So I will ask it again:

Baddog, do you support .xxx and Joan Irvine?

WTF makes you think YOUR question is more important than anyone elses? The question has been asked and answered numerous times. If you cared, you would find it yourself.

baddog · 09-26-2011, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

All hell... OK, you want one example... here's one for you...

http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece....mi=all&q=asacp

Quote from Joan in 2007:

"Mr. Balkam and FOSI are serious about protecting children, and we respect that," Irvine wrote. "However, ASACP does not agree that ICANN?s rejection of .XXX represents a failure to protect children online, because we do not believe that a .XXX sTLD would have further enhanced the online adult entertainment industry?s ongoing voluntary efforts to protect children."

So.... Joan around 2005 wrote a letter to ICANN "applauding" ICM Registry for its efforts (do the research if you haven't seen this widely circulated letter), and justified that "applause" by, as I understand it, claiming ASACP basically had to support child protection efforts. Which would mean .XXX had some kind of child protection element to it, right? Then in 2007 after .XXX was defeated in the first round, she wrote the above (gee, I never liked .XXX anyway!), then today well... we all know where she stands today.

Now Baddog, the question is... when YOU are presented with evidence like this, what will YOU do? Will you acknowledge it, or try to find some excuse for Joan that somehow explains why she has more positions on one issue than a presidential candidate?

You know I like you, but I don't understand why you do this on GFY on a regular and consistent basis... it's mind boggling, to say the least.

Oh, she said something in 2005 and changed her opinion in 2007 (neither of which seems to indicate a pro-XXX stance IMHO). How is that manipulating the adult industry towards .xxx?

BAKO · 09-26-2011, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterPeabody

Holy fuck, shut the fuck up you fucking CANADIAN. LOL Jesus-fucking-Christ. "Don't talk to Joan like that, be polite, it won't get you anywhere, I'm Canadian and an appeaser and please like me and don't hit me, eh?"

Holy fuck Canuck, grow some balls.
I refer you to every South Park episode on this subject.

Best Part: "You know that if you try to talk to her the way you claim, she wouldn't hesitate to put you in your place and do it in front of everyone. "

OMFG "Please Joan, don't talk back to me, I'm a Canadian and let's just get along and sit down over a lager, eh?" Hahahahaha!

Thanks man, I enjoyed that.

Connor · 09-26-2011, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Oh, she said something in 2005 and changed her opinion in 2007 (neither of which seems to indicate a pro-XXX stance IMHO). How is that manipulating the adult industry towards .xxx?

First, the question was, as I understood it, the examples I had to back up my assessment of Joan as a person ... what kind of person she is, how she operates, etc. You ask how this is manipulating towards .XXX.... but that wasn't what was asked of me. You are changing the question after the fact. Intentional?

If you don't see the point here Baddog, I can only assume that it is also intentional that you're not seeing it... and I really don't want to waste my time on a back and forth for show, especially when you're not having an honest discussion. Got a pretty full schedule today.

The Porn Nerd · 09-26-2011, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

WTF makes you think YOUR question is more important than anyone elses? The question has been asked and answered numerous times. If you cared, you would find it yourself.

I never said my question was more important than others.

Why can't you just say 'Yes' or 'No' in a thread on the subject, instead of copping an attitude?

baddog · 09-26-2011, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

First, the question was, as I understood it, the examples I had to back up my assessment of Joan as a person

Actually, the question you responded to at https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=18452273&postcount=75 was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********
Do you have any examples of what she said or did to manipulate people or the adult industry towards .xxx?

You said you had plenty. I asked for one. I know your thoughts on her as a person, I am not an idiot. I pay attention. I just wanted to know how you felt she had manipulated the industry towards .xxx. I think if that was the reason she was hired she would be in the same position as Lebraun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterPeabody

I never said my question was more important than others.

Why can't you just say 'Yes' or 'No' in a thread on the subject, instead of copping an attitude?

I told you why.

Paul Markham · 09-26-2011, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

ummm, first I ever heard that. Where did you pick up that tidbit?

This thread or was that you being funny?

The Porn Nerd · 09-26-2011, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I told you why.

Your response in THIS thread is the only response I care about.
I have my answer Baddog.

Connor · 09-26-2011, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I just wanted to know how you felt she had manipulated the industry towards .xxx.

Baddog, c'mon man... I can see wanting examples of why someone thinks she's a duplicitous person, because she certainly does not appear to be that at a casual glance, but if you were actually looking for examples of her pushing .XXX ... that's a little like wanting examples that show Obama is pushing the Democratic party. Isn't that discussion LONG since over now? Haven't you had the smoking gun proof you need at this point?

Considering the editorial you wrote supporting her... I'm thinking you already made up your mind on this topic. You seem to think the person who once argued to me against "true believers" is doing all this just to protect the rest of us, and to "have our back," as you put it.

I was on the FSC board for several years, same time as Joan. Perhaps I just simply have some insight that you do not. But if you think you're defending a friend, chances are there is nothing I or anyone else can say to make it past your wall. You'll just have to get burned yourself someday... and if it happens, I won't say "I told you so" but I will welcome your voice on this side of the aisle.

baddog · 09-26-2011, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

This thread or was that you being funny?

I said Joan was an atty? You sure about that? You looking at names or avatars?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterPeabody

Your response in THIS thread is the only response I care about.
I have my answer Baddog.

I highly suspect you don't even know the question. So let me ask you one. Define support.

Connor: Pushing .xxx is not the same as manipulating people (much less the industry) towards .xxx Come on. I am honestly interested in hearing examples of manipulation.

will76 · 09-26-2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I said Joan was an atty? You sure about that? You looking at names or avatars?

I highly suspect you don't even know the question. So let me ask you one. Define support.

Connor: Pushing .xxx is not the same as manipulating people (much less the industry) towards .xxx Come on. I am honestly interested in hearing examples of manipulation.

You seem like a whore like Jane, someone who tries to play both sides of the fence. I wouldn't be surprised if you have or had deals lined up where you could do some business with .xxx You never talk out against them and always come across as if you support them. WHY if you are really against them??

baddog · 09-26-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

... and if it happens, I won't say "I told you so" but I will welcome your voice on this side of the aisle.

Sorry, I noticed an edit and caught this. I find that comment kind of funny. The idea that I am on either side of the aisle, much less "that side" just tells me you are not paying attention. I understand, you do not really know me. I assure you, I am not on that side of the aisle. You would know if I was. Ask someone that was at the XBIZ .XXX "debate" who the first person from the audience was and if they think Lawley thought I was on that side of the aisle. It was pretty funny really. He was all smiles when we met prior to the debate, but left a smart-ass comment to me under his breath as he passed by on the way out.

I guess I have a different perspective because I talk to people that matter on both sides of the aisle. I tell both sides what I think. This for and against bullshit is just that. Bullshit. .XXX is here. The market will decide if it lasts or not and what the prices will be if it survives.

2MuchMark · 09-26-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

Well said, Connor.

I'm writing off Mark, I wouldn't be surprised if he bought .XXX domains himself.

It's too bad that you're writing me off on an assumption. I haven't purchased any .xxx domains.

Again to clarify, I'm not trying to pick on anyone and I'm not standing up for the .xxx movement. I'm just asking anyone if they have any links or evidence that Joan as evil as some people here claim her to be. Links? Quotes? Just trying to make sense of it.

2MuchMark · 09-26-2011, 01:21 PM

Hi Connor,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

I do have examples... PLENTY of examples... but I'd have to write a book to get through them all. I'd be happy to discuss these with you next time we're in the same place together though. I worked with Joan for a couple years on the FSC board, and have known her for close to a decade now.

That would be cool. Not sure which shows I'll be attending yet but I'm sure I'll run into you soon. I would still like to see links to anything though. And again I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I just consider myself to be a good judge of character and I'm scratching my head wondering how (or if) I've gone off track.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

I'm sure you can understand though that just because someone smiles and says nice things doesn't mean they're genuine in sentiment. You mentioned politicians, so I think you understand how that goes. I am a HUGE believer that actions speak a lot louder than words.

I know exactly what you mean. I've met sharks, snakes, and whatever the female equivalents of sharks and snakes are. Sometimes it takes me a while to see people for who they really are, but that's mostly because I give everyone a chance and try to look beyond the delicious frosting.

All the best,

Connor · 09-26-2011, 01:24 PM

By that "side of the aisle" I don't mean .XXX .... the comment was meant with respect to Joan Irvine herself. I'm only going off of your very own comments in the article you wrote about her. It seems you consider her a friend and an advocate for the industry. That's all I meant.

And I think perhaps you and I have to agree to disagree about the definition of the phrase manipulating people... cause it sounds like you're ready to excuse anything she does now on behalf of ICM.

Hey.... hypothetical for you.... if Joan had directed ASACP into a position of apparent support and cooperation with ICM without allowing the Advisory Council to vote on it, and had even ignored and/or pushed aside the written concerns of an AC member while going forward with plans to work with ICM, would that count? Or.... would there be another reason why that behavior TOO is okay? ;) Would I need to come up with yet another example to satisfy you? And then another, and another, and another after that? I've seen these GFY games before.

2MuchMark · 09-26-2011, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Your post saying that he should sit down and talk to her nicely and she might consider what he has to say is what I thought was stupid, it had nothing to do with you meeting her. Talking to someone nicely isn't stupid, but that you think she would listen with an open mind as if she doesn't already know that what they doing. She knows she is running a con, hiding behind protecting the children, selling out the industry, and just trying to make as much money as she can. It's stupid for you to think that someone can call her out for this and she would see the light and change her ways.... if they talked to her nicely.

All I was saying Will76, is that he would get no where telling her to STFU to her face, and that a much better idea would be to sit down and talk to her. There's nothing wrong with giving anyone the benefit of the doubt long enough to hear the story.

You're saying that she knows she's running a con. You can certainly think this, but you can't really know it.

Insulting me and calling me stupid isn't fair especially since I didn't call you stupid. I also never said that she would change her ways as I am sure she is committed to her cause. ALL I am saying that much can be learned, from BOTH SIDES, with a little bit of open dialog.

If the .XXX debate is ever going to be truly settled one way or the other, it has to be through noise-free conversation, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

My comment that she manipulated you is accurate. You have the "he bought me drinks" syndrome that many people have on here.

Not at all. All I said was "She seems nice" and was "Nice to us". I am not defending Joan in any way. I'm doing is asking questions. You are full of hate towards Joan for reasons which seem only opinion based.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Just because you met the person a couple times and they seemed, nice, charming, said all the right things then those idiots online must have it all wrong because they don't know the person like you do.

No, not at all. I've met "nice" people who are real bastards in business, or "nice" people who turned out to be real bastards in everything.

I also never said I "know" Joan. I've met her maybe 5 times in the past 7 years and talked to her for 2-3 minutes at a time. Again all I'm saying is that she "Seems nice", and "where are the URL's and links to anything rotten she may have said or done"?

I'm not defending her, I'm asking a question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

You have to defend her because the 10 minutes you talked to her she seemed like a nice genuine person.

I'm not defending Joan, I'm asking a question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Problem is, she manipulated you and made you believe that she is a good person, to the point you can't look at the facts that all of us see which is sooo obvious that she is full of shit.

No Will76, not at all. She was nice to me, period. She seems like a nice person, period. She didn't talk to me at all about .XXX, or ASACP, or RTA. She didn't sell me anything, or take any time manipulating me towards anything, about anything, at any time.

Connor · 09-26-2011, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

That would be cool. Not sure which shows I'll be attending yet but I'm sure I'll run into you soon. I would still like to see links to anything though. And again I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I just consider myself to be a good judge of character and I'm scratching my head wondering how (or if) I've gone off track.

Eh, not hard to do with her... she does come across very nice and warm and friendly. She's been practicing that from a very young age. Ask her about her débutante training someday. ;)

Connor · 09-26-2011, 01:36 PM

Mark, in your post above you are attributing a number of things to me that were said by others... just for the record.

09-25-2011, 01:08 PM	#56
The Porn Nerd Living The Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Inside a Monitor Posts: 19,557	Does Baddog support .xxx and ICM? __________________ My Affiliate Programs: Porn Nerd Cash \| Porn Showcase \| Aggressive Gold Over 90 paysites to promote! Now on Teams: peabodymedia

09-26-2011, 03:53 AM	#71
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 49,008	So Will76, just because I describe a person as being nice, that makes me "stupid", "manipulated" and an automatic supporter of her cause? Sounds a little like prejudice to me. As I already said, I'm only describing Joan as a nice person. I'm not stepping on anything you are saying (yet you are doing so to me). I'm only asking if anyone here has any proof of what a bad person people here are making her out to be. __________________ Custom Coding \| Videochat Solutions \| Age Verification \| IT Help & Support www.2Much.net

09-26-2011, 04:38 AM	#72
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	And what action has been taken with the countries already willing to block?? Oh yeah sales ad's they put out sales ads.. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

09-26-2011, 08:34 AM	#81
The Porn Nerd Living The Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Inside a Monitor Posts: 19,557	Interesting how Baddog answers others in this thread but does not answer the only important question posed to him, by me. So I will ask it again: Baddog, do you support .xxx and Joan Irvine? __________________ My Affiliate Programs: Porn Nerd Cash \| Porn Showcase \| Aggressive Gold Over 90 paysites to promote! Now on Teams: peabodymedia

09-26-2011, 08:38 AM	#82
Connor Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,294	All hell... OK, you want one example... here's one for you... http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece....mi=all&q=asacp Quote from Joan in 2007: "Mr. Balkam and FOSI are serious about protecting children, and we respect that," Irvine wrote. "However, ASACP does not agree that ICANN’s rejection of .XXX represents a failure to protect children online, because we do not believe that a .XXX sTLD would have further enhanced the online adult entertainment industry’s ongoing voluntary efforts to protect children." So.... Joan around 2005 wrote a letter to ICANN "applauding" ICM Registry for its efforts (do the research if you haven't seen this widely circulated letter), and justified that "applause" by, as I understand it, claiming ASACP basically had to support child protection efforts. Which would mean .XXX had some kind of child protection element to it, right? Then in 2007 after .XXX was defeated in the first round, she wrote the above (gee, I never liked .XXX anyway!), then today well... we all know where she stands today. Now Baddog, the question is... when YOU are presented with evidence like this, what will YOU do? Will you acknowledge it, or try to find some excuse for Joan that somehow explains why she has more positions on one issue than a presidential candidate? You know I like you, but I don't understand why you do this on GFY on a regular and consistent basis... it's mind boggling, to say the least. __________________ YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! \| SEEN YNOT MAIL YET? Last edited by Connor; 09-26-2011 at 08:39 AM..

09-25-2011, 08:59 AM	#53
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	This is what buying .xxx domain names is like...

09-25-2011, 09:40 PM	#68
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	That bill that was introduced was in 2006. It's a dead issue. Premature ejaculation on ICM's part there. This is all that needs to be read on mandating extensions as filtering mechanisms. http://www.w3.org/2004/03/28-tld

09-26-2011, 01:24 PM	#97
Connor Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,294	By that "side of the aisle" I don't mean .XXX .... the comment was meant with respect to Joan Irvine herself. I'm only going off of your very own comments in the article you wrote about her. It seems you consider her a friend and an advocate for the industry. That's all I meant. And I think perhaps you and I have to agree to disagree about the definition of the phrase manipulating people... cause it sounds like you're ready to excuse anything she does now on behalf of ICM. Hey.... hypothetical for you.... if Joan had directed ASACP into a position of apparent support and cooperation with ICM without allowing the Advisory Council to vote on it, and had even ignored and/or pushed aside the written concerns of an AC member while going forward with plans to work with ICM, would that count? Or.... would there be another reason why that behavior TOO is okay? ;) Would I need to come up with yet another example to satisfy you? And then another, and another, and another after that? I've seen these GFY games before. __________________ YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! \| SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

09-26-2011, 01:36 PM	#100
Connor Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,294	Mark, in your post above you are attributing a number of things to me that were said by others... just for the record. __________________ YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! \| SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?