Actually, I was specifically thinking of:

Underage refers to doing sex scenes

Just being naked is not underage

Vidman, you're wrong. Most laws specify the types of content disallowed, not the venue in which they appear. A few exceptions exist, like those pesky Australian laws about "sexual context", but CNDb is hosted in the United States and doesn't have to follow Australian law or your Dutch law. In the U.S. there's a famous civil case from 1977 where Hustler magazine prevailed in a lawsuit because even though they had reprinted images of nude children in their magazine, the judge ruled placing those pictures in a magazine didn't automatically make those images child pornography. That's pretty much the way it still works in the U.S. The images themselves have to be lascivious to be illegal.

But let's say you were right and it was illegal in Europe to post any type of nude minor to a celebrity nudity forum or a porn forum or any site like that. Who would be breaking the law? Why, none other than you, Vidman! Because the CNDb users that you're harrassing are only LINKING to external content, not hosting it themselves, whereas you are HOSTING UNDERAGE CONTENT ON YOUR SITES NudeActresses.org and thevideolibrary.graphicsnxs.org. Those sites are basically mirrors of each other. You're even doing it for a profit!

Don't deny these are your sites. One of those sites states in no uncertain terms, "Welcome to The Video Library, hosted by Vidman." And you've linked to your sites from some of your profiles in different forums.

So let's take a peek inside your sites.

http://www.nudeactresses.org/boisson.html
This page says Christine Boisson is 17 in "Emmanuelle". What you said is:
"She was 17 when she got the part of Marie-Ange in the first and most famous Emmanuelle movie."
You have the long scene showing her topless and masturbating.

http://www.nudeactresses.org/zentout.html
This page twice claims Delphine Zentout is 14 in "36 Fillette". Here are your words:
"Delphine Zentout was born in 1974. In 1988, when she was 14, Delphine starred in her first movie: '36 fillette'. The film is about a young girl who wants to loose her virginity as soon as possible. It's a very open movie and a daring part for a 14 year old girl."
Actually she was 16 but that's still under 18. Her nude scenes are about sex, and show sexual foreplay and simulated intercourse.

So that's two actresses you admit were underage, that you placed on your site, to sell to people to whack off to.

Oh and what's the deal with Eva Cobo in "Femmes"? You had four scenes of her on your site in 2006, later removed them, then on 01-21-2009 you re-added the scene where Eva is topless and a man is kissing her body.
"Eva Cobo in 'Femmes' (1983) A bonusclip for today! (1:25)"
She was just 15 at the time, did you know that? Does she look like an adult to you?

You have an account at vintage-erotica-forum.com under the same nickname "vidman".

At http://www.vintage-erotica-forum.com/t2 ... busch.html you posted the nude scene of Desiree Nosbusch (16) in "Der Fan". You may recall it shows the rock star kissing down to Desiree's pubic hair, and then they have sex (not explicitly shown). She's completely nude.

At http://www.vintage-erotica-forum.com/t2 ... delpy.html you posted the nude scenes of Julie Delpy (16) in "La passion Beatrice". Again, fully nude, with the theme of incest.

Over at Forumophilia.com your user name is "scanman01" and you chose the flag for the Netherlands. You posted some clips there too. Are there any minors among them? Don't forget, Dutch law today has an age limit of 18, not 16 like before.

I didn't post all I know about you and your clips. Just enough to make my points.

You seem to enjoy watching, capping, posting, and earning money from underage nude and sex scenes. So I call you out as a liar and a hypocrite.

Don't try to hide your "crimes" by deleting these clips just because I pointed them out to you. Months ago you deleted from your site "Sieben Sommersprossen" and "Return to the Blue Lagoon" and other films with nude minors. Don't think I won't notice if you delete more.

I'll continue watching you carefully and if you don't want trouble with your site you will: stop bothering CNDb users for having a taste for underage flesh just as you do, apologize to them, and retract your false words.

Also, don't forget you're potentially violating copyright because you have hardly any review content to merit a fair use claim to reproduce film clips. On many pages you don't write any original words at all, you just give the actress's name, the film's title, its rating, and the size of your clips.

Well if you don't understand that I don't know how I can help you since that is one of the most straightforward sentences I wrote .

Jesus Christ this is the hardest ownage I have ever seen

Best first post ever.

Did you really create a completely new username for this? I wonder why
You must have had quite a bit of work to figure all this out and post it on this board.

Anyway, thanks for the help. I've removed the questionable clips. let me know if there are any more, so I can remove them as well. Again, thanks for your help. It's appreciated.

You misunderstood my message. I'm not against the nature of the content on your site, and I didn't ask you to delete anything. What I did ask is that you be consistent and truthful, and I did say I think it's wrong to sell other people's content without permission or enough commentary of your own.

You didn't apologize to the two users you criticized for wanting to freely watch or distribute the type of content you sell for a profit. You also didn't admit you were wrong in claiming that the venue matters when the film itself is legal.

Fact is, I liked your sites and liked you, until you got two-faced. I don't like people who say one thing and do another.

What I find amusing is that all this politically correct pseudo-protection of children is part of the same Marxist agenda that will march to the barricades with bayonets to defend abortion.

No, I'm annoyed that people freely mix up the terms .

It's just sloppy language

SEE!! not Ortonot has standards unlike a lot of the members in this forum who continually post under18 content

It is a matter of having personal standards and ensuring that the forum which it has stated it will follow those standards to which I agree. If you do not abide those standards then you should be brought to bear the consequences. Unfortunately the standards ONLY apply if they are enforced otherwise they are not standards at all. I do not think anyone has stated that the content is illegal. I suspect that you may be inflecting that judgement yourself as an admission of guilty on condoning such content

Spanker stated

"As your whole paragraph indicates you are freely mixing up what the term term mean .

Underage refers to doing sex scenes

Just being naked is not underage "

OK.. Where did you derive those definitions?

The closest definition of "Underage" in a majority of forums which allow nude content limit the age to no younger than 18. And this forum has set such a standard (but unfortunately it is not enforced)

The actual law in most countries

And I notice you seem to be purposefully ignoring what I said about private forums

Very good point

Really. I'd have to see evidence of that to believe that "definition to be true" I suspect that you have incorrectly paraphrased the law