And now .xxx

There will now be a new domain name just for pornography:  .xxx.  However, pornography will still continue to populate the .coms and every other domain also.  The big opponents:  The porn industry, which knows that the creation of an internet red light district will mean their product be easier to block:

On Friday in San Francisco, the California nonprofit that oversees Internet addresses gave the green light to the virtual red-light district. The vote comes after several years of clashes and deliberations by the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers.

Adult-entertainment sites will still populate the .com space and every other corner of the Internet. But now, many pornographic sites can also join a specialized domain that instantly telegraphs its content with the infamous suffix. ICM Registry, a Florida-based company that will run .xxx, said the domain’s Web sites will be the Internet’s most trusted place for adult entertainment: ICM will monitor the sites to ensure that they prohibit spam, viruses and any other illegal behavior. And it says it will use some of the registration fees for an affiliated foundation to promote free speech and combat child pornography.

“At the moment, the consumer has no way of knowing who is operating to good standards or has viruses,” Stuart Lawley, ICM Registry’s chairman and chief executive, said in an interview. “This new domain allows webmasters to associate with best business practices.”

But the dirty domain has a slew of critics. The Obama administration and some foreign nations say the domain’s offensive material will only encourage oppressive regimes to block .xxx entirely. A Commerce Department spokeswoman said the administration neither supports nor objects to the domain’s actual content or merit.

“We are disappointed that ICANN ignored the clear advice of governments worldwide, including the U.S.,” said Lawrence Strickling, assistant Commerce secretary. “This decision goes against the global public interest, and it will open the door to more Internet blocking by governments and undermine the stability and security of the Internet.”

Another set of foes, oddly enough: major pornography industry players, who fear that .xxx will be easily vulnerable to governments’ censorship. They also are concerned about aggressive policing by ICM and worry that porn Web sites will be forced to pay thousands of dollars in registration fees to buy multiple .xxx addresses simply to protect their brands from cybersquatters.

“This is putting a red target on us,” said Diane Duke, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association representing multiple adult-entertainment organizations including Hustler. “People who are pedophiles and child pornographers are not part of the adult-entertainment system. We have a code of ethics.

via Coming soon online: Dot-XXX – The Washington Post.

Right.  Anyway, pro-family groups also tend to oppose this, I suppose because it seems to legitimize pornography.  It seems that if porn will continue to operate from it current .com sites, this will do little one way or the other.  And if pornographers oppose it, they have no reason to put their material on .xxx sites.  If porn could be all moved to the .xxx sites, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • WebMonk

    It’ll be a great advertising space for pr0n. All the triple x domains are built-in advertising. However, their concern about easier blocking is very real, and so they’ll add on the triple x domain to their existing domains, not move everything over.

    I suspect the large-scale pr0n businesses will adopt the triple x domain more quickly as they are already most likely blocked by typical blocking software – Playboy and Penthouse are guaranteed to be blocked by virtually every filtering service out there, so they don’t risk much by adding the triple x domain.

  • WebMonk

    It’ll be a great advertising space for pr0n. All the triple x domains are built-in advertising. However, their concern about easier blocking is very real, and so they’ll add on the triple x domain to their existing domains, not move everything over.

    I suspect the large-scale pr0n businesses will adopt the triple x domain more quickly as they are already most likely blocked by typical blocking software – Playboy and Penthouse are guaranteed to be blocked by virtually every filtering service out there, so they don’t risk much by adding the triple x domain.

  • WebMonk

    I’m a little bit puzzled that I appear to have the first post on this. Might all the posts be going into spam because of the prevalence of certain keywords? I tried to avoid them on my post, but I’m not 100% sure I made it.

    Oh, wait. I know. It’s tODD and his uber-3viL powers on this blog!

  • WebMonk

    I’m a little bit puzzled that I appear to have the first post on this. Might all the posts be going into spam because of the prevalence of certain keywords? I tried to avoid them on my post, but I’m not 100% sure I made it.

    Oh, wait. I know. It’s tODD and his uber-3viL powers on this blog!

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The decision is a paper tiger. Without mandating all adult sites to use the new domain and with no effective way to police and enforce the move it is rather pointless. All they did was give the adult industry greater control and presence on the internet.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The decision is a paper tiger. Without mandating all adult sites to use the new domain and with no effective way to police and enforce the move it is rather pointless. All they did was give the adult industry greater control and presence on the internet.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Won’t have any effect on the Internet one way or the other I’d bet,
    other than ICANN has opened up new cyber real estate in order to extract more money from those who would buy it.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Won’t have any effect on the Internet one way or the other I’d bet,
    other than ICANN has opened up new cyber real estate in order to extract more money from those who would buy it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    WebMonk (@2), I can tell when you’re joking, but there are, um, others on this blog who can’t. Please don’t feed the trolls. Please don’t even leave troll food lying around on the ground, even if you don’t any see trolls in the immediate vicinity. They are in the bushes.

    Oh, and I looked in the spam queue. Nothing. At least on this thread. If I may say so, we might be getting the dust out of a horse-skin rug at this point.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    WebMonk (@2), I can tell when you’re joking, but there are, um, others on this blog who can’t. Please don’t feed the trolls. Please don’t even leave troll food lying around on the ground, even if you don’t any see trolls in the immediate vicinity. They are in the bushes.

    Oh, and I looked in the spam queue. Nothing. At least on this thread. If I may say so, we might be getting the dust out of a horse-skin rug at this point.

  • helen

    Oh, and I looked in the spam queue. Nothing.

    (This morning’s news was that we might have a respite from spam because a major controller of bot networks was shut down.)

  • helen

    Oh, and I looked in the spam queue. Nothing.

    (This morning’s news was that we might have a respite from spam because a major controller of bot networks was shut down.)

  • WebMonk

    If I may say so, we might be getting the dust out of a horse-skin rug at this point.

    Very true. I think it would be interesting to see the exact reasons some topics get dead-horsed after three or four posts and others seem to live on forever, always generating scores if not hundreds of comments.

    Pretty much anything with homosexuality will likely generate a 100+ comments. Pr0nography? Yawn.

    Both involve sexuality, but I guess the cultural battle over Playboy and its descendants is pretty much over while the battles surrounding homosexuality are still raging hot. Give them another 30-40 years and they might cool down too.

    What will be next? Brains living in a computer-generated world and their actions? :-D

  • WebMonk

    If I may say so, we might be getting the dust out of a horse-skin rug at this point.

    Very true. I think it would be interesting to see the exact reasons some topics get dead-horsed after three or four posts and others seem to live on forever, always generating scores if not hundreds of comments.

    Pretty much anything with homosexuality will likely generate a 100+ comments. Pr0nography? Yawn.

    Both involve sexuality, but I guess the cultural battle over Playboy and its descendants is pretty much over while the battles surrounding homosexuality are still raging hot. Give them another 30-40 years and they might cool down too.

    What will be next? Brains living in a computer-generated world and their actions? :-D

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Helen (@6), may I recommend quote marks? Thanks. :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Helen (@6), may I recommend quote marks? Thanks. :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    WebMonk (@7), it’s not just porn, though. We’ve discussed the whole “.xxx” domain not a little bit on this site already. There’s not much more to say. It’s a pretty technical discussion with not that much to consider. I don’t think we’ve ever really had a discussion about pornography as such.

    Like it or not, homosexuality is one of our culture’s Big Issues right now, and is very much not a settled matter.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    WebMonk (@7), it’s not just porn, though. We’ve discussed the whole “.xxx” domain not a little bit on this site already. There’s not much more to say. It’s a pretty technical discussion with not that much to consider. I don’t think we’ve ever really had a discussion about pornography as such.

    Like it or not, homosexuality is one of our culture’s Big Issues right now, and is very much not a settled matter.

  • Grace

    I think poop. might be a good idea – those who visit the poop. will be easily identified – IP addresses, names, city, state, etc. -

  • Grace

    I think poop. might be a good idea – those who visit the poop. will be easily identified – IP addresses, names, city, state, etc. -

  • Grace

    Same sex marriage is a different issue then poop. I posted on this subject just in the past day or so. IF and when same sex marriage becomes legal across the nation, schools will no longer be able to stop teachers from preaching ‘gender identification’ and all the other evils of their homosexual lifestyle.

  • Grace

    Same sex marriage is a different issue then poop. I posted on this subject just in the past day or so. IF and when same sex marriage becomes legal across the nation, schools will no longer be able to stop teachers from preaching ‘gender identification’ and all the other evils of their homosexual lifestyle.

  • WebMonk

    Hmm, you might be right tODD. I don’t know how much of a conversation we would have on the subject, though. I wonder if there have been any good studies along the lines of the Real Christians Ain’t Meanies study done.

    I don’t know for sure, but I would assume that the general use of pornography among generic “born again” categories that show undifferentiated divorce rates would show identical pr0n usage. However, maybe Christians could feel better about themselves if it could be shown that proper Christians – those who attend church frequently – have lower pr0n usage than average.

    I did a quick bit of Googling and didn’t come across anything really carefully done. But, all the casual poll results that came up showed Christian usage about the same as non-Christian usage – roughly 70% of males and 50% of women – which is only barely lower than reported uses by non-Christians. Given the non-rigorous methods being used and the probable lower reporting because of embarrassment, I would guess that Christian use is identical to non-Christian use.

    Still, I really doubt there will be much outcry on the topic.

  • WebMonk

    Hmm, you might be right tODD. I don’t know how much of a conversation we would have on the subject, though. I wonder if there have been any good studies along the lines of the Real Christians Ain’t Meanies study done.

    I don’t know for sure, but I would assume that the general use of pornography among generic “born again” categories that show undifferentiated divorce rates would show identical pr0n usage. However, maybe Christians could feel better about themselves if it could be shown that proper Christians – those who attend church frequently – have lower pr0n usage than average.

    I did a quick bit of Googling and didn’t come across anything really carefully done. But, all the casual poll results that came up showed Christian usage about the same as non-Christian usage – roughly 70% of males and 50% of women – which is only barely lower than reported uses by non-Christians. Given the non-rigorous methods being used and the probable lower reporting because of embarrassment, I would guess that Christian use is identical to non-Christian use.

    Still, I really doubt there will be much outcry on the topic.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    It only works if sites are required to host pornography on a .xxx domain. Without that, there really is no point.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    It only works if sites are required to host pornography on a .xxx domain. Without that, there really is no point.

  • steve

    I very much agree with Dr. Luther. The change in domain won’t change anything for the better. There’s a tremendous amount of this material out there and most of it isn’t where people would expect. In fact, Google is probably one of the biggest providers of this type of content but they’re not likely to change their domain to google.xxx.

  • steve

    I very much agree with Dr. Luther. The change in domain won’t change anything for the better. There’s a tremendous amount of this material out there and most of it isn’t where people would expect. In fact, Google is probably one of the biggest providers of this type of content but they’re not likely to change their domain to google.xxx.

  • WebMonk

    steve, I’m not sure how you could think that Google is one of the largest providers. They don’t provide anything like porn at all. I think you’re mixing up a search engine with the results it finds.

    A person can use Google or any other search engine to find pr0n, but that is totally different than Google (or Yahoo or AOL or Bing) being a pr0n provider. Completely different things.

  • WebMonk

    steve, I’m not sure how you could think that Google is one of the largest providers. They don’t provide anything like porn at all. I think you’re mixing up a search engine with the results it finds.

    A person can use Google or any other search engine to find pr0n, but that is totally different than Google (or Yahoo or AOL or Bing) being a pr0n provider. Completely different things.

  • WebMonk

    John, I think you mean that it would only work if sites are banned from hosting p0rn0graphy on .com sites. Porn providers could be required to host porn on the .xxx domain, but unless they are also banned from hosting it on .com sites it wouldn’t make any difference as far as blocking goes.

  • WebMonk

    John, I think you mean that it would only work if sites are banned from hosting p0rn0graphy on .com sites. Porn providers could be required to host porn on the .xxx domain, but unless they are also banned from hosting it on .com sites it wouldn’t make any difference as far as blocking goes.

  • steve

    WebMonk,

    Google, Yahoo and Bing provides cached views of most websites so one can easily view a website without leaving google’s domain. One can argue that Google isn’t “providing” the content but, rather, providing storage for and access to the content. On a practical level, the difference is rather small.

  • steve

    WebMonk,

    Google, Yahoo and Bing provides cached views of most websites so one can easily view a website without leaving google’s domain. One can argue that Google isn’t “providing” the content but, rather, providing storage for and access to the content. On a practical level, the difference is rather small.

  • WebMonk

    steve, I know this sounds harsh, but you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Yes, the search engines provide cached views of some of their results, but have you ever tried to use them to do any serious browsing? Obviously not if you think it in any way is comparable to “providing content”.

    Google and others cache the front pages of sites (even that phrase is misleading because many times it’s not caching as much as it is “passing along”). You can check it out by doing a search of “washington times” – sure Google has a “cache” of some of its main pages, but good luck trying to browse the WT site using the cache – as soon as you want to get actual content you have to go to the main site.

    I’m sure the same is true of any other porn site. Search engines don’t come anywhere close to any reasonable concept of “providing porn” as you’re talking about. Even Google doesn’t have a tiny fraction of the storage or power needed to actually provide the content from all the pr0n sites on the Internet.

    What they do is take “caches” of the front pages of the most frequently visited sites, not of the actual content of the site.

  • WebMonk

    steve, I know this sounds harsh, but you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Yes, the search engines provide cached views of some of their results, but have you ever tried to use them to do any serious browsing? Obviously not if you think it in any way is comparable to “providing content”.

    Google and others cache the front pages of sites (even that phrase is misleading because many times it’s not caching as much as it is “passing along”). You can check it out by doing a search of “washington times” – sure Google has a “cache” of some of its main pages, but good luck trying to browse the WT site using the cache – as soon as you want to get actual content you have to go to the main site.

    I’m sure the same is true of any other porn site. Search engines don’t come anywhere close to any reasonable concept of “providing porn” as you’re talking about. Even Google doesn’t have a tiny fraction of the storage or power needed to actually provide the content from all the pr0n sites on the Internet.

    What they do is take “caches” of the front pages of the most frequently visited sites, not of the actual content of the site.

  • WebMonk

    Hmmm, “any other porn site” immediately following the WT reference. I assure that was an innocent mis-type! I wasn’t trying to make any suggestions about the WT!! :-D

  • WebMonk

    Hmmm, “any other porn site” immediately following the WT reference. I assure that was an innocent mis-type! I wasn’t trying to make any suggestions about the WT!! :-D

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Steve, might as well blame the Yellow Pages for having listings for adult video stores and call the Yellow Pages a porn provider, too.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Steve, might as well blame the Yellow Pages for having listings for adult video stores and call the Yellow Pages a porn provider, too.

  • WebMonk

    Actually, now that I think about it, if I lump Google, GMail, and Google’s business solutions, along with YouTube, I’ll bet they probably could manage to hold and host a sizable portion of the Internet’s pr0n. They would need to heavily expand their capacity, but not by an order of magnitude, I wouldn’t think. #randommusings

  • WebMonk

    Actually, now that I think about it, if I lump Google, GMail, and Google’s business solutions, along with YouTube, I’ll bet they probably could manage to hold and host a sizable portion of the Internet’s pr0n. They would need to heavily expand their capacity, but not by an order of magnitude, I wouldn’t think. #randommusings

  • steve

    I would like to tell you guys I don’t know what I’m talking about. I would love to, actually. On the other hand, I don’t feel comfortable using Dr. Veith’s blog as a forum to explain how to use search engines to get around content blockers so I concede the point.

  • steve

    I would like to tell you guys I don’t know what I’m talking about. I would love to, actually. On the other hand, I don’t feel comfortable using Dr. Veith’s blog as a forum to explain how to use search engines to get around content blockers so I concede the point.

  • WebMonk

    steve, it’s easy enough that anyone can figure it out. I use it regularly.

    Get your mind out of the gutter; I use it for work constantly as a temporary quickie workaround and wouldn’t be in the least embarrassed to have my wife watching over my shoulder at the sites I test that way.

    However, it’s not possible to use it to access anything dynamic. Sure, you can access lots of pages that are static, and I imagine there are lots of pages on pr0n sites that offer up static images on the free side of their paywall, but that’s about all you’ll get, and that is a tiny fraction of what the pr0n industry is about.

    Maybe a high school kid just discovering it would get excited at what he can access, but there’s no way that it can be used as any sort of significant “content provider”. We’re talking about “caching” (and remember, it’s not caching nearly so much as it’s passing along) tiny fractions of 1% of the total out there, and it will be the “tame” part too – it’s providing the cover of a pr0n magazine, not all the content.

  • WebMonk

    steve, it’s easy enough that anyone can figure it out. I use it regularly.

    Get your mind out of the gutter; I use it for work constantly as a temporary quickie workaround and wouldn’t be in the least embarrassed to have my wife watching over my shoulder at the sites I test that way.

    However, it’s not possible to use it to access anything dynamic. Sure, you can access lots of pages that are static, and I imagine there are lots of pages on pr0n sites that offer up static images on the free side of their paywall, but that’s about all you’ll get, and that is a tiny fraction of what the pr0n industry is about.

    Maybe a high school kid just discovering it would get excited at what he can access, but there’s no way that it can be used as any sort of significant “content provider”. We’re talking about “caching” (and remember, it’s not caching nearly so much as it’s passing along) tiny fractions of 1% of the total out there, and it will be the “tame” part too – it’s providing the cover of a pr0n magazine, not all the content.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I believe it would be an easy fix to lock google into strict safesearch and thus keep out a great deal of unwanted imagery. I maybe wrong but it strikes me that scanning the cookie set for google settings would be easy for software to examine.

    But blaming google for doing what a search engine is supposed to do – collate data in a usable format – as tODD said is kinda like blaming the yellow pages for listing phone numbers to so called gentleman’s clubs.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I believe it would be an easy fix to lock google into strict safesearch and thus keep out a great deal of unwanted imagery. I maybe wrong but it strikes me that scanning the cookie set for google settings would be easy for software to examine.

    But blaming google for doing what a search engine is supposed to do – collate data in a usable format – as tODD said is kinda like blaming the yellow pages for listing phone numbers to so called gentleman’s clubs.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Yeah, that’s what I meant, WebMonk.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Yeah, that’s what I meant, WebMonk.

  • steve

    When the Yellow Pages starts providing uncensored images and snippets of what you would find in those establishments, the comparison will be valid. We’re talking about an activity that is essentially viewing images. The distinction being made here is that search engines aren’t originating the images, they’re just providing the user the ability to view the images, often times without actually going to the site that originated the images. Even if it were just a few pages of each site offering adult content, the massive number of sites Google caches would make it a very large repository of such content. So, okay, Google doesn’t provide adult images, they just provide copies of adult images.

  • steve

    When the Yellow Pages starts providing uncensored images and snippets of what you would find in those establishments, the comparison will be valid. We’re talking about an activity that is essentially viewing images. The distinction being made here is that search engines aren’t originating the images, they’re just providing the user the ability to view the images, often times without actually going to the site that originated the images. Even if it were just a few pages of each site offering adult content, the massive number of sites Google caches would make it a very large repository of such content. So, okay, Google doesn’t provide adult images, they just provide copies of adult images.

  • WebMonk

    steve, to a certain extent you’re right, Google “provides” those images. However, it doesn’t really cache them; like I’ve mentioned, it passes them along.

    Google doesn’t actually store all those images – it passes those images along using its own URL, sort of. Their “caching” isn’t really a real cache – it stores the page’s rendered code and passes that along as the “cache”, and then goes out and grabs the images from the site and then passes them along through the code they’ve rendered.

    I don’t have an example, but if you ever used Google’s cache on a site that truly doesn’t exist any more, you would be able to have a visual of what I’m talking about. The “page” is cached, but the images won’t show up, and frequently the formatting will be skewed because the external style sheets and JS files are not cached.

    Besides, it’s not like filtering software systems haven’t heard of using Google’s “cache” to “hide” the site being accessed. Any halfway decent filtering system that blocks Playboy will also block Google’s “cache” of Playboy as well. If you look at the behind-the-scenes calls when looking at a “cached” page from Google, you’ll be able to see the calls that Google is making to go out and grab the images before putting their own URL on them to finally display. Any blocking software can see that happening as well and will block the “cache”.

    Maybe the filters of a decade ago were fooled by that, and maybe the horribly cheap “filters” that get advertised in a lot of Christian magazines don’t stop the Google redirecting of images, but any halfway effective filter has blocked the Google “cache” loophole for years and years.

  • WebMonk

    steve, to a certain extent you’re right, Google “provides” those images. However, it doesn’t really cache them; like I’ve mentioned, it passes them along.

    Google doesn’t actually store all those images – it passes those images along using its own URL, sort of. Their “caching” isn’t really a real cache – it stores the page’s rendered code and passes that along as the “cache”, and then goes out and grabs the images from the site and then passes them along through the code they’ve rendered.

    I don’t have an example, but if you ever used Google’s cache on a site that truly doesn’t exist any more, you would be able to have a visual of what I’m talking about. The “page” is cached, but the images won’t show up, and frequently the formatting will be skewed because the external style sheets and JS files are not cached.

    Besides, it’s not like filtering software systems haven’t heard of using Google’s “cache” to “hide” the site being accessed. Any halfway decent filtering system that blocks Playboy will also block Google’s “cache” of Playboy as well. If you look at the behind-the-scenes calls when looking at a “cached” page from Google, you’ll be able to see the calls that Google is making to go out and grab the images before putting their own URL on them to finally display. Any blocking software can see that happening as well and will block the “cache”.

    Maybe the filters of a decade ago were fooled by that, and maybe the horribly cheap “filters” that get advertised in a lot of Christian magazines don’t stop the Google redirecting of images, but any halfway effective filter has blocked the Google “cache” loophole for years and years.

  • WebMonk

    If you want to find a bit more on how Google Cache actually works, here are two quick sites:

    grownupgeek.com/how-does-google-cache-work
    “bottlebob” affirms what I said: “Google stores the html but not the files on a page so if you visit the cached law and order website any images etc. will be loaded from the nbc.com server so they can see you looked at the page.”

    and

    boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=588174
    “tellyworth” also states: “Google caches the HTML only – not the images, flash and so on. They cache that because it’s valuable for search, and because it’s relatively small.”

    Google doesn’t actually provide any pr0nographic pictures through their cached pages. Google doesn’t do any sort of “content providing” for images through their cache.

    I realize those two sites aren’t true authoritative sources to back up what I’ve said, but I couldn’t find an authoritative source, such as from Google itself. If you absolutely want to double check what I’ve said, I could give you directions for how to set up a sniffer on your computer and look at every message passed back and forth when you view a webpage, so you could see that when you are accessing a “cached” page from Google, Google itself isn’t giving you any of the images, but is rather just passing along images from the original site.

    Google != porn provider.

  • WebMonk

    If you want to find a bit more on how Google Cache actually works, here are two quick sites:

    grownupgeek.com/how-does-google-cache-work
    “bottlebob” affirms what I said: “Google stores the html but not the files on a page so if you visit the cached law and order website any images etc. will be loaded from the nbc.com server so they can see you looked at the page.”

    and

    boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=588174
    “tellyworth” also states: “Google caches the HTML only – not the images, flash and so on. They cache that because it’s valuable for search, and because it’s relatively small.”

    Google doesn’t actually provide any pr0nographic pictures through their cached pages. Google doesn’t do any sort of “content providing” for images through their cache.

    I realize those two sites aren’t true authoritative sources to back up what I’ve said, but I couldn’t find an authoritative source, such as from Google itself. If you absolutely want to double check what I’ve said, I could give you directions for how to set up a sniffer on your computer and look at every message passed back and forth when you view a webpage, so you could see that when you are accessing a “cached” page from Google, Google itself isn’t giving you any of the images, but is rather just passing along images from the original site.

    Google != porn provider.

  • Leif

    Webmonk:
    Just a quick and dirty function on how this might progress:

    if ((Google!=porn provider)&&(parties == “resolution”))
    {
    argument.end();
    }
    else
    argument.continueRant();

  • Leif

    Webmonk:
    Just a quick and dirty function on how this might progress:

    if ((Google!=porn provider)&&(parties == “resolution”))
    {
    argument.end();
    }
    else
    argument.continueRant();

  • WebMonk

    LOL!!

    How very true! I wonder what the function might be that describes arguments on other threads?

    if ((tODD==conservative_position) && (DonS!=antagonizing_FWS) || (Bror>jerk) && (Porcell…….

    I don’t dare finish it! :-D

  • WebMonk

    LOL!!

    How very true! I wonder what the function might be that describes arguments on other threads?

    if ((tODD==conservative_position) && (DonS!=antagonizing_FWS) || (Bror>jerk) && (Porcell…….

    I don’t dare finish it! :-D

  • Leif

    pretty sure we’d have to switch over to lisp.

  • Leif

    pretty sure we’d have to switch over to lisp.

  • steve

    No need to continue rant. I’m certainly open to notion that I may be wrong on this point. I’ll read up on the subject for my own knowledge but I don’t think it’s any longer relevant to the post. Thanks!

  • steve

    No need to continue rant. I’m certainly open to notion that I may be wrong on this point. I’ll read up on the subject for my own knowledge but I don’t think it’s any longer relevant to the post. Thanks!

  • WebMonk

    Leif, you’re horrible!!!! Switch over to lisp! LOL!

  • WebMonk

    Leif, you’re horrible!!!! Switch over to lisp! LOL!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X