Your Ugliest Paysite Creation Find: Round Two.

[Paden]

Moune, when someone focuses solely on one demographic and makes some of the more/most degrading outfits for that target group, people begin to speculate. The person in question has shown time and again that they create inappropriate content. Airing speculation also is not illegal, or do you forget how people chattered and gossiped about Michael Jackson? Also, take it from someone who found out they used to be married to a pedo, Evi gives off some definite weirdness when it comes to the prepubescent-aged humans.

[redraw]

Also, the camera angles on her sig banner that I've seen on Coconut's blog does seem a bit...off in a pedo way.  Check out Evi's posts in the TSR shares your Paypal info posts on the blog.

[Tanyuu]

..... LOL anime proportions being wonky already and that aside, since when was Light an alien? Why are his cheeks green? Why are his eyes way up his head? Did they actually try to match the picture they posted at all?

[Miikan]

Oh... my... gosh!  *runs away screaming*

It doesn't look like him at all.
I don't want to see L made by the same person...

[redraw]

And it looks like the dress shirt underneath the tie is merging with the tie as well.

As for the likeness...Not even close.

[Treasonous Republic]

Evie, T$R's resident Pedo. Nasty, nasty pedo.

Care to substantiate that claim?

And do I need to point out that calling somebody a pedophile without anything but rumour and speculation to back it up is libel and therefore a criminal offence?

Libel is a tort, or civil wrong, not a criminal offense. 

[Moune]

Paden, my deepest sympathy with you for that experience (being married to a pedophile). It must have been harrowing and I wouldn't wish that on anybody.

However, it does not qualify you as somebody with special abilities to recognize pedophiles – let alone on the internet. And it IS illegal to air speculation when that speculation is damaging and wrongful. If Michael Jackson chose not to take action against those who speculated against him it was his own choice – not because the law didn’t give him the opportunity.

Calling somebody a pedophile is not like calling them an idiot. Proven pedophiles get put in jail – often with quite long sentences. Suspected pedophiles get ostracized, physically harassed and thrown out of their jobs and communities. It is not for free to call somebody a pedophile. It has consequences. Which is exactly why you can be punished for making baseless accusations of pedophelia.

Simsrocks and redraw, I really, really hope you yourself can see how utterly dumb and way out of line your remarks are. To claim that you can judge a pedophile by the clothes they make for a computer game or the camera angles on their signature banner is ludicrous, preposterous and so stupid I have a hard time finding words for it.

Treasonous, point taken. I readily admit that I’m not 100 percent familiar with all the English legal terms or the differences between English and US terms. I was looking for a way to say that you can be punished by law for libel – in Danish we say it’s a ‘strafbar handling’. My dictionary translated that to ‘criminal offence’.

[ScooterBabe]

Moune, when someone focuses solely on one demographic and makes some of the more/most degrading outfits for that target group, people begin to speculate. The person in question has shown time and again that they create inappropriate content.

This is exactly what I was considering when I posted my comment, Mourne. Paden literally took the words out of my mouth when she stated this yesterday. After viewing her mini-site and seeing time after time her horrendous portrayal of children's clothing-albeit even for a computer game-it does tend to bring out cautious and creepy feelings towards her. Whether she is or not, I cannot say. But pictures do tend to speak louder than words.

As for calling her a pedo-I have seen others called worse on this site. Nor would I be the 1st to allude to her as this. So, unless she is willing to go after the multitudes of those who have either alluded or called her that in the past, she will have her work cut out for her. Considering that her online work could be taken into consideration by the courts as evidence, she might have a tough battle to win.

[Paden]

Pedos wind up in jail/prison world over? Is that so? Then someone PLEASE explain how in the fuck Roman Polanski is still free thirty-odd years after fleeing the punishment for what HE did. Explain all the motherfuckers wanting the bastard to STAY free. Tell me how that living piece of shit is still walking around and how he has suffered while hiding out on the Riviera and other exotic and luxurious places.

And Moune, after being in prison with proven female pedos and obeserving how they think and react to kids, I'd say I'm much more qualified than you to comment that the woman in question shows the same signs and obsessions that those women did. Tell me how speculating in public on someone's habits is illegal. It falls under free speech. Since when is it illegal to share the idea that you think someone is a sick fuck that needs desperate help or has nasty desires concerning the youngest set of humanity? If I state that I believe she has issues about it, that is my belief. It is my opinion. If others share it, that is their belief. Since when do we have to censor sharing our thoughts and beliefs on this site, no matter how others disagree?

I refuse to be a goddamn Care Bear. I refuse to tread on eggshells because it might cause someone butthurt that I think something about them. And I categorically refuse to be brought to heel like some obedient Labrador Retriever when I've a mind of my own and the means to express myself clearly and succinctly. If she was proven in a court of law to indeed be a pedo, I'd want the same thing to happen to her that I do to all pedos. Death. In the most gruesome, terrifying and painful way that could be arranged. There you have it. Don't like it? Oh well, I never claimed to be cuddly and sweet all the damn time. Anyone that hurts/defiles children deserves the worst that the rest of mankind has to offer. For me, that is the end of this argument.

[Indi]

Paden, thought you may like to know this little news tidbit:
Roman Polanski is currently being held in a Swiss jail. He was arrested on Sept 26 as he attended the Zurich film festival.
edited to add more info : The Swiss court has rejected his latest appeal to be released. The US is trying to have him
extradited. At least at his moment he is behind bars  , though there is no telling how any of this will play out.

[tjstreak]

Libel is a tort, or civil wrong, not a criminal offense. 

Wrong!  If you check the criminal codes in most states, you will find that there is a crime of Criminal Libel, and it, typically is a Felony.

And, yes, I am a lawyer.

[tjstreak]

Evie, T$R's resident Pedo. Nasty, nasty pedo.

And do I need to point out that calling somebody a pedophile without anything but rumour and speculation to back it up is libel and therefore a criminal offence?

Of course, by the same token, it would be really hard to prove up a claim of Libel.  After all, almost everyone on the internet goes by a handle/pen name.  Almost no one uses their real name on these sites.  So comments effectively are made anonymously against anonymous/fictitious individuals.  This makes it rather difficult for anyone to actually claim that they have been harmed by a defamatory statement.  After all, the whole idea of using a fictitious name is to protect oneself against retaliation for the things one posts or says online.

[tjstreak]

Oh... my... gosh!  *runs away screaming*

Have you really thought about what you are doing here?

TSR and MTS are bascially in the same business:  both sites basically make money off of free content provided by other people.  TSR does it by charging for advertising and by charging a fee for access to some, but not all, of its content.  MTS makes money by selling advertising on its site.  (Have you noticed that just about every page on MTS has an ad?  Do you think those ads are free?)

It's like the difference between "free" television and "pay" television.  You don't pay to see a television show on CBS, you are just subjected to a barage of advertising.  In contrast, you pay to watch a show on the Sci Fi channel, but you are not subjected to as much advertising -- they primarily advertise their own programs.  Does this mean that CBS is a charitable or non-profit company?

In some ways, the "free" model is more profitable.  Google and Yahoo have grown from little to big companies off of the money they make from advertising -- in large part by using the free content provided by others.  They provide little or none of their own content.

Most of the people contributing to both TSR and MTS do not see a dime for their contributions.  So why mock any of them?  Just because you don't think you should have to pay for content really does not justify trashing people who contibute to any of these sites.

[Anyerfillag]

Have you really thought about what you are doing here?

TSR and MTS are bascially in the same business:  both sites basically make money off of free content provided by other people.  TSR does it by charging for advertising and by charging a fee for access to some, but not all, of its content.  MTS makes money by selling advertising on its site.  (Have you noticed that just about every page on MTS has an ad?  Do you think those ads are free?)

It's like the difference between "free" television and "pay" television.  You don't pay to see a television show on CBS, you are just subjected to a barage of advertising.  In contrast, you pay to watch a show on the Sci Fi channel, but you are not subjected to as much advertising -- they primarily advertise their own programs.  Does this mean that CBS is a charitable or non-profit company?

In some ways, the "free" model is more profitable.  Google and Yahoo have grown from little to big companies off of the money they make from advertising -- in large part by using the free content provided by others.  They provide little or none of their own content.

Most of the people contributing to both TSR and MTS do not see a dime for their contributions.  So why mock any of them?  Just because you don't think you should have to pay for content really does not justify trashing people who contibute to any of these sites.

Wow, you so posted that on the wrong board. Prepare for a verbal bashing and onslaught of cat macros. This site is about getting rid of paysites, and all the shitty (as seen) creations on them. If we can't bash paysite creations on here, where the bloody hell can we?

[Miikan]

Oh... my... gosh!  *runs away screaming*

Have you really thought about what you are doing here?

TSR and MTS are bascially in the same business:  both sites basically make money off of free content provided by other people.  TSR does it by charging for advertising and by charging a fee for access to some, but not all, of its content.  MTS makes money by selling advertising on its site.  (Have you noticed that just about every page on MTS has an ad?  Do you think those ads are free?)

It's like the difference between "free" television and "pay" television.  You don't pay to see a television show on CBS, you are just subjected to a barage of advertising.  In contrast, you pay to watch a show on the Sci Fi channel, but you are not subjected to as much advertising -- they primarily advertise their own programs.  Does this mean that CBS is a charitable or non-profit company?

In some ways, the "free" model is more profitable.  Google and Yahoo have grown from little to big companies off of the money they make from advertising -- in large part by using the free content provided by others.  They provide little or none of their own content.

Most of the people contributing to both TSR and MTS do not see a dime for their contributions.  So why mock any of them?  Just because you don't think you should have to pay for content really does not justify trashing people who contibute to any of these sites.

Exuse me, but where exatly I was "trashing" people?? I made a comment on a sim created by someone and it happens that I like Death Note anime and its characters very much. It is my right to say what I think about things made by someone else -we are in free world, aren't we? When you to the museum - do you always like the art there?

And please, do not compare those two sites. As for me, the greatest difference is that I can but not have to contribute. I don't care about ads - I just ignore them. And yes, I have cable TV in my home but do you know, what I do with ads? - I record programs and just skip the part I hate - means advertisement
.
And whether I do or don't contribute sites - nobody ever told me I didn't have right to download. Wheter I pay or not - I can download all I want or need to. And TSR  - I can't download all if I don't pay.
I am not mean or something but if I have to choose - spend money for living and my child's needs - or to pay someone for creating stuff for virtual life - no, thank you.

What am I doing here? Well, as for now nobody told me I wasn't welcome here or that I was a persona non grata. I think that means I don't do anything unproperate.

Sorry if  messed up something with grammar or words meaning, I'm not native speaker.

Edit: ok, both sites have ads - but I prefer ads on MTS than TSR - there are more family friendly, as I noticed.