Thanks a lot. I suspected the same.
"Skippy" <notreal@notreal.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns9861244B6EA04notrealnotrealcom@140.99.99.130...
> Beware of this site. Whilst it claims to adhere to US law, and it states
> that it is against Child Pornography, it then posts image TechnoB079B to
> this site, which depicts a minor performing oral sex on an older teen
> male or adult.
>
> The site claims that that images portrayed are artistic and in many
> cases that may be true providing genital shots are portrayed non-erect.
>
> The images all have the techno-boys watermark on them indicating that
> they are from that site, when all images have come from the public
> domain and are often available at no cost, whereas membership of that
> site is $49.99 for a month up to $99.99.
>
> A trifle steep I believe.
>
> The cost would be acceptable if there were NEW material available from
> exclusive tie-ins with known photographers or the site owner undertaking
> photography himself.
>
> This is an attempt to make money off the backs of others or a Police
> Entrapment Sting.
>
> Those are my thoughts.
>
> Skippy.
|
|