S04.E18: The Couples Tell More

[OnceSane]

Quote

The couples tell even more in this bonus hour of the Tell All.

Airs June 14, 2020.

[Callaphera]

You guys, I think Darcey got some therapy over Zoom during the quarantine. She's setting boundaries with Tom and enforcing them without falling into dramatics, she's holding strong, she's supporting the other women - I really think she might be working on herself and I am thrilled for her. No shade. Darcey has a lot of faults, and she certainly has some self-esteem and self-image issues, but she never means harm even if she lives in her cotton-candy, roses, and unicorn bubble. I'm really proud of her. She's a trainwreck but she's our trainwreck. I really just want her to live her best life, whatever that is. 

And fuck you, Stephanie's loud friend that I never bothered to learn the name of but who thinks that "Italian" and "wine" is a personality. Maybe Darcey can slip you the name of her Zoom therapist because you need to work on yourself. 

[itsadryheat]

Anyone have a clue what this "Imber Law" (sp?) David was yapping about?

[deirdra]

It would be funny if Darcey's Zoom Therapist was Dr. Kirk Honda (from Psychology in Seattle on Youtube). Part of her therapy would have been free.

[Frozendiva]

Babygirl Lisa was noticeably absent and edited out of tonight's leftover footage.

I hardly doubt that Tom composed his love letter to Darcey on his phone. He's not exactly Jane Austen and he didn't write Persuasion. The letter most likely alluded to her drinking and her need to work on herself, just like he is doing! He may be lonely at 55 too, given how he is behaving.

Ash's seminar was full of quackery and a mish mash of new age and pop spirituality and faux energy garbage thrown in. Ash, being evolved so he can offer such wisdom, should have gone through the very painful ego death. But nope, anything to make a buck and maybe find himself a rich, lovelorn lady.

David is still clueless and believing in that dating site crap. If Lana was interested, she could quit the site at the end of her contract and contact him privately, on her own time. She likes the idea of stringing many men along and getting the cash.

The celebrity questions were a waste of time.

In the future, no more friends allowed, no more folks who aren't involved in the story. And maybe some hard-hitting questions.

[Takitaki]

3 hours ago, itsadryheat said:

Anyone have a clue what this "Imber Law" (sp?) David was yapping about?

It's actually "Imbe(cile) law" and it states: "all American citizens in contact with Ukrainian women on pay-to-play websites are prohibited from interacting with said women outside of the website. The breach of this law may result in a prison sentence of up to 10 years and an unlimited fine. Moreover, no such woman is eligible to enter the United States of America on a K1 or spousal visa".

Ask Lana if you don't believe me! 

[Emkat]

Is David a flat-earther? Cause he really is a special kind of stupid. 

[Kayz Opinion]

4 hours ago, itsadryheat said:

Anyone have a clue what this "Imber Law" (sp?) David was yapping about?

It's IMBRA.  How did that pathetic loser become a MILLIONAIRE?  And has he lost all his money yet...along with his marbles?  He has no idea what he's "yapping about."  Here's a small explanation  from Miss Google--which took 13-14 seconds to find:  "The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) requires that the U.S. Government provide foreign fiancé(e)s and spouses immigrating to the United States information about their legal rights as well as criminal or domestic violence histories of their U.S. citizen fiancé(e)s and spouses."

So,  we can all chat with as many Ukranian women on a paid website and help them to earn a living (although Lana is the only woman in Ukraine to NOT get paid in this lucrative profession).  Then, if we want to and they want to, we can have private contact over the Internet.  FREE!  No one is a fiance(e).  No one is a spouse.

[Kayz Opinion]

4 hours ago, Frozendiva said:

The celebrity questions were a waste of time.

Yes, TLC.  If we cared about steenkin' celebrities, we'd be watching THEIR channels.  Get a clue; care about your audience.  OH!  And stop producing "NEW" programs that are rehash-rehash-rehash of exactly what we've watched before.  You have enough material that you don't have to treat us like we're the people who signed up to BE on the show!

[AZChristian]

6 hours ago, Kayz Opinion said:

It's IMBRA.  How did that pathetic loser become a MILLIONAIRE?  And has he lost all his money yet...along with his marbles?  He has no idea what he's "yapping about."  Here's a small explanation  from Miss Google--which took 13-14 seconds to find:  "The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) requires that the U.S. Government provide foreign fiancé(e)s and spouses immigrating to the United States information about their legal rights as well as criminal or domestic violence histories of their U.S. citizen fiancé(e)s and spouses."

I think I heard David say (when describing the IMBRA law) that "It's on the website."  I assumed - incorrectly - that he meant that the info on IMBRA is on the website where he hooks up with Lana.

But then I did another 30 seconds with Google and learned that IMBRA only has jurisdiction when the sucker is going through a paid marriage broker . . . which is what David is doing.

It is absolutely in the vested interest of the website owners to keep these fish on the hook for as long as possible.  My question is, at what point CAN they stop paying the website?  After marriage?  They're already "engaged," so does the marriage broker still have jurisdiction?

Bottom line (IMO) is the reason Lana insists they have to stay in communication through the website is financial.  No money to the website, no money to the women.  Lana doesn't want to marry David; she may already BE married for all we know, and being an internet girlfriend is how she makes money to support her family.  Apple is not going to pay Lana for using her iPhone to keep David dangling.

He seems to get really flustered to the point of angry that the rest of the world can't understand this ridiculous "law."  That's just one more indication (to me) that he's a taco short of a combination platter.

It's like this.  If you go to a movie theater, they have a RULE that you're not supposed to bring in candy and snacks from the outside.  But there's no LAW against it.  You can't be arrested for it.  If a big bag of pretzels falls out of your purse on the way in, they may not allow you to bring it in, and you have to choose to put the pretzels in your car or skip the movie.  But they don't throw you up against a wall, strip search you, cuff you, and throw you in jail.

The US government has a lot more important stuff to keep track of than whether an American is communicating with someone off a foreign website.  The only thing IMBRA cares about is whether that American has tried to juggle multiple "fiancees" at the same time, and whether he has a criminal history of violence.

Edited June 16, 2020 by AZChristian
More googling, more knowledge.

[Vandy10]

So does the IMBRA law mean that Americans with violent criminal records cannot bring over foreign fiancés, or does it just mean that the criminal activity has to be disclosed to the foreign applicant?

Just wondering about a certain 90 Dayer we haven’t seen lately.

[AZChristian]

Just now, Vandy10 said:

So does the IMBRA law mean that Americans with violent criminal records cannot bring over foreign fiancés, or does it just mean that the criminal activity has to be disclosed to the foreign applicant?

Just wondering about a certain 90 Dayer we haven’t seen lately.

The IMBRA law only has effect when the American is going through a marriage broker website (like the one David is using).  It does not have jurisdiction between two people who meet via Facebook or other social media platform.

[jackjill89]

David is married to this lifestyle. He's all in. He will never marry an actual person. Then he couldn't be on the website chasing down these fantasy girls. He is so smug about this -- he has convinced himself that this is real and that anyone who dares say something contradictory is jealous, being conned themselves, etc. He's the expert and we're all idiots.

I don't understand what he was saying about Lana not showing up just once when for the last two months we've been hearing that this was his fourth (or fifth?) time trying to meet her. Also, this idea that she is this poor, desolate soul... he is truly hooked. 

So glad they got rid of Stephanie's friend. She never should have been included. 

Ed is really trying to make himself look like the victim. It's not a good look on him. I honestly don't care about this disability. It doesn't factor into who he is as a person at all. IMO, we saw the real BigEd in the Philippines. Now we're seeing a guy trying to fix a broken social media image as the happy go lucky, aw shucks I'm so much fun to be around, aren't I cute? little man. He's playing the victim that was taken in by that vicious, lying, gold digger. Sorry, Mayoman, I'm not buying it. (I was glad to hear that he rinses the mayo out!)

Enough of Tom. I can't stand him. 

[AZChristian]

17 minutes ago, jackjill89 said:

I don't understand what he was saying about Lana not showing up just once when for the last two months we've been hearing that this was his fourth (or fifth?) time trying to meet her. Also, this idea that she is this poor, desolate soul... he is truly hooked. 

He specified that she only "stood him up" once - the first time he got there.  She was nervous.

After that, she had "legitimate reasons" for not meeting up with him.  She was in the hospital, her brother died, and her nephew had a hockey game.

If you watch Dr. Phil, the "in the hospital" and "relative died" are near the top of the list for why scammers need you to send them money.  Maybe the online scammers who AREN'T on a dating website lend their lists to the dating website scammers.

[For Cereals]

With the exception of the P90X clap back show, are the tell alls done?  I feel done and yet the ending yesterday seemed awkward without some overall wrap up NOT THAT I WANT ONE. I’m ready to move on to new dumbassery.

[StatisticalOutlier]

12 hours ago, itsadryheat said:

Anyone have a clue what this "Imber Law" (sp?) David was yapping about?

This was a highlight for me.  I knew he said "imbra" and I was trying to figure out what it stood for.  Let's see...I-M-B-R-A, MB marriage broker, I for international, so International Marriage Broker, uh, regulatory act.

Turns out it's Regulation, not Regulatory.  But I made pretty quick work of it (even though I don't believe the term "marriage broker" has ever even been mentioned).

Here it is [Section (d) Regulation of International Marriage Brokers]:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1375a

I didn't do deep dive, but I read it and it appears to require only that marriage brokers compile certain background information on the American client and give it to the foreign woman before the marriage broker can give the American man contact information for the foreign woman.  That's all.

The marriage broker has to do a search of the American client on the national sex offender website (not terribly onerous), and it has to receive specified background information from the American client.  Once it has all that, it has to give it to the foreign woman in her primary language, along with a pamphlet about domestic abuse among immigrants.  Then once the foreign woman gives her written consent, the marriage broker can give the American client her contact information.

IMBRA doesn't say anything about actually contacting anyone, or talking outside the website.  Now, I don't know what the website's rules are, and its conceivable that it drags its feet so as to force the American clients to communicate only via the website, but he's been on that site for how long?  And in contact with Lana for how long?  Surely there's been time for the marriage broker to do one website search and for David to compile his background information.  Lord knows the marriage broker has ample experience translating documents from English into Ukranian, and that domestic abuse pamphlet in Ukranian is probably on its 50th printing.

I don't know why David's invoking IMBRA as the reason he can't contact Lana outside the website.  If that's what his marriage broker is saying, surely this has come up with his friends, and surely one of them has looked into it.  Shit, I did it and I don't even care about the guy.  Actually, I actively dislike him. 

And then I remember how he disregarded what the private eye was saying.  It sounds to me like he has some sort of mental disorder, and I'm now resentful that I spent the last 30 minutes looking into IMBRA because he's just full of shit and shit doesn't need to be researched.  Those people should just get a "whatever" and a turned back.

[deirdra]

Lana prefers to use the marriage broker's website because she gets paid.  If she goes off the website (over which IMBRA has no legal control), all she gets is David.

Edited June 16, 2020 by deirdra

[cinsays]

13 hours ago, Frozendiva said:

The celebrity questions were a waste of time.

In the future, no more friends allowed, no more folks who aren't involved in the story. And maybe some hard-hitting questions.

yeah, the celebrity questions were just an unfunny way to try to insult Big Ed (I dislike him immensely, but still) and unnecessary

and there was no need to have Stephanie's friends there - they tried to monopolize the tell all and were obnoxious, so why have them on here taking up time

I wanted to hear more from Erica and, again, I think she didn't get a chance to say all she wanted to

[LGGirl]

David is full of nonsense.   He and Lana met in person.  You can’t get more off the website than that.  He bought her a phone to communicate off the website.  

Lana will not allow contact outside the site because she doesn’t get paid.  

[magemaud]

2 hours ago, jackjill89 said:

I don't understand what he was saying about Lana not showing up just once when for the last two months we've been hearing that this was his fourth (or fifth?) time trying to meet her. Also, this idea that she is this poor, desolate soul... he is truly hooked. 

He said only the first time she "stood him up" because she got scared. After all, she was only 20. He doesn't mention that HE was at least 55! The other times she had what he considered a valid excuse (medical issues and a death in the family) although personally I don't believe it for a minute. This time when she was asked why she wasn't on the train, I think she said she had changed her mind. I suspect she changed it back when Sharp offered to pay her to really appear. 

David is such a dipshit. He believes she can't use an iPhone because of her long nails when we all saw her using a phone just fine with short nails. She can't get off the dating websites because that's how she communicates with her "friends", in other words, other paying American men. 

When asked about how many proposals came with a real diamond ring first he said one, then changed it to two. That indicated to me that he used the same ring twice for his potential American fiancees, and possibly the second one kept it so when he next proposed to a Ukrainian woman, to be on the safe side he didn't invest in another diamond. Plus, how many of his proposals were accepted? I believe he said earlier he had been engaged twice, so someone must have turned him down. 

Furthermore, why did he waste that jeweler's time looking at real diamonds then suddenly announcing he was looking for something "less than a diamond" which he could have picked up in Macy's. 

 

[Kayz Opinion]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

He seems to get really flustered to the point of angry that the rest of the world can't understand this ridiculous "law."  That's just one more indication (to me) that he's a taco short of a combination platter.

Best quote of the month!  Isn't there some "enterprising reporter" interested enough to dig up some sand on David the Millionaire.  Enquiring Minds want to know!  Find his family; interview the lot of 'em.

Can you imagine how irritated he gets when Lana's keepers explain what is required of him under the IMBRA umbralla?  And pissed when he explains to US that the poverty-stricken girl gets no money for the hours she spends every day/night with the American stooges?  Surely, they're mostly American.

[Kayz Opinion]

34 minutes ago, magemaud said:

Furthermore, why did he waste that jeweler's time looking at real diamonds then suddenly announcing he was looking for something "less than a diamond" which he could have picked up in Macy's. 

He led us to believe the jeweler suggested CZ.  The jeweler WE saw certainly seemed surprised at David's suggestion.  As for the ring, for $50 he could have had something much nicer.

[procrasstinator]

1 hour ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

 

 Surely there's been time for the marriage broker to do one website search and for David to compile his background information.  Lord knows the marriage broker has ample experience translating documents from English into Ukranian, and that domestic abuse pamphlet in Ukranian is probably on its 50th printing.

 

The first time the marriage broker was going to do a website search for David but then got shy and scared, the second time the marriage broker's brother was in the hospital, the third time there was a hockey game on.....

[magemaud]

20 minutes ago, Kayz Opinion said:

He led us to believe the jeweler suggested CZ.  The jeweler WE saw certainly seemed surprised at David's suggestion. 

Yes, I remember when I saw the scene I thought the jeweler looked pretty taken aback when David changed course and said he was looking for "less than a diamond." I might be wrong, but I seem to recall the jeweler replying something like, "Oh, you mean like a CZ?" and agreed that they're very sparkly, and that's why David claims it was the jeweler's idea. 

[magemaud]

I'm going to post a story about IMBRA over on the Small Talk forum, if you're interested 

[cooksdelight]

I’d be interested in a show that digs into each person’s past and puts it out there. Stuff they can legally share, saves us the time of being amateur private detectives. I’m betting Ed, David, Tom and of course our missing husband-to-be? I can’t even remember his name.

How many proposals or men on the hook has Lana had? Lisa probably has a colorful history as well.

[IvySpice]

I am a lawyer. I had no idea what David was talking about (I heard "imber law"), but his argument was instantly, clearly, obviously trash. There cannot be any law that bars an American from communicating as he wishes based on his participation on some foreign web site. It would be a First Amendment violation. I can't even come up with a scenario where the U.S. government could limit the right of an individual to have private conversations on the platform of his choice, unless it was a national security issue with talking to someone in North Korea or the like.

Any time I think, "This has to be scripted, no one could be this stupid," I remember that there are plenty of people sending money to Nigerian princes, so...yeah.

[AZChristian]

1 minute ago, IvySpice said:

I am a lawyer. I had no idea what David was talking about (I heard "imber law"), but his argument was instantly, clearly, obviously trash. There cannot be any law that bars an American from communicating as he wishes based on his participation on some foreign web site. It would be a First Amendment violation. 

Someone else on the tell-all said (describing limitations on foreign communications) "That would be illegal."  David said, "How is that illegal?  It's a business."  From what I've read (I am NOT a lawyer), the restriction is specifically on the marriage broker companies, and the law was created after a couple of foreign brides were brought here by abusive men and killed.

Free people can contact anyone they want to in the world.  But the law is that internet companies specifically set up as marriage brokers have to abide by the parameters of the IMBRA law.  I think of it as similar to a "Membership Fee."  If you want to participate on specific internet websites, there can be a membership fee AND rules.  

[IvySpice]

Right, but none of that is a law binding on David. He's a customer, not an operator. Heaven help people like David who think that clicking "agree" on some foreign web site's terms of service could subject them to legal consequences from the United States government. Unless the web site is for accessing child porn, that cannot be the case. No wonder there are billions to be made scamming the foolish.

[StatisticalOutlier]

59 minutes ago, IvySpice said:

I am a lawyer. I had no idea what David was talking about (I heard "imber law"), but his argument was instantly, clearly, obviously trash. There cannot be any law that bars an American from communicating as he wishes based on his participation on some foreign web site.

I outlined the law upthread, and provided a link to it.  It actually does bar Americans from communicating as a practical matter, because they can't get contact information until the website meets the requirements of IMBRA.  Without any other contact information, they can't communicate other than through the website.

The question then is why this hasn't been resolved in the past seven years.  Or maybe it has, and nobody's updated him because they have a financial interest in having him use the website.  So at one point the website was the only way to communicate, and maybe as far as he knows, it's still the only way. 

Unless he stalks her, of course.  He seems to believe the law allows that.

[deirdra]

The marriage broker's website may not allow the bride-to-be or stalker to share personal phone numbers & email addresses via their website (or deletes them if they try so as not to lose money), but it cannot keep them from sharing such information when they meet in person.  Lana probably used the IMBRA law as an excuse for not giving David her personal phone number or email address, so he gave her a phone that he already knew the number for (until she pulled the SIM card and pawned it).

Edited June 17, 2020 by deirdra

[AZChristian]

32 minutes ago, deirdra said:

Lana probably used the IMBRA law as an excuse for not giving David her personal phone number or email address, so he gave her a phone that he already knew the number for (until she pulled the SIM card and pawned it).

I 100% agree.  I don't think she's attracted to him at all.  I think the reason David hadn't heard from her recently was that she had gone to the pawn shop with the engagement ring . . . no more money, no more Lana.

[1011101010001]

I think that both David and Lana agreed to terms of service when they joined the website that precluded them from communicating offsite with the consequence of a permanent ban. Neither one wants to be banned because they both went to keep their options open to keep using the site if they chose to move on.  David may also have agreed to pay a certain amount for violating the terms of service.  Sort of like how people agree to pay a fixed amount if they violate a nondisclosure agreement.  He claims it’s an American company so maybe he thinks he can be sued in American courts.  That may be why he thought that people in other counties could violate the terms of service without the same consequences.  The IMBRA stuff was likely David misunderstanding or trying to deflect from the fact that he could be sued.

[Colfrmb]

Today is rip on Lana day for me.  So glad we super sleuths figured out what in IMBRA means.  What a joke.  So if the Marriage app searching party (I guess it could be a female) is required to input a “truthful” personal profile, shouldn’t the searchee do the same thing under penalty of “law” or risk getting banned from the site?  I think they should even allow downvotes for both parties so if one stands up the other, behaves badly, etc, everybody knows about it.  Then Lana should have at least half a dozen downvotes by now.  David is in denial and he doesn’t communicate the way normal people do (don’t remind me about mmmmm), but Lana is a liar and is not nice (not sure what to call it) because she had no excuse for standing him up so many times. She needs to be kicked off the site if it’s an “honest” way to find a mate...   who am I kidding here

[Mrs. Hanson]

On 6/16/2020 at 9:26 AM, jackjill89 said:

David is married to this lifestyle. He's all in. He will never marry an actual person. Then he couldn't be on the website chasing down these fantasy girls. He is so smug about this -- he has convinced himself that this is real and that anyone who dares say something contradictory is jealous, being conned themselves, etc. He's the expert and we're all idiots.

I agree.  He loves whatever "intimacy" he can get yet still being far away and in his own space, not having to share his money or time or have any conflict in real life.  He can be in the hunt and never  have to commit.

On 6/16/2020 at 9:26 AM, jackjill89 said:

Ed is really trying to make himself look like the victim. It's not a good look on him. I honestly don't care about this disability. It doesn't factor into who he is as a person at all. IMO, we saw the real BigEd in the Philippines. Now we're seeing a guy trying to fix a broken social media image as the happy go lucky, aw shucks I'm so much fun to be around, aren't I cute? little man. He's playing the victim that was taken in by that vicious, lying, gold digger.

I agree 100%.  Did some people make fun of his height and neck issue?  Sadly yes, but they are in the minorty.  I ragged on Ed for his condescending ways towards Rose.   When he tried to trap Rose into admitting her sister was in on "it" together" I half heartedly wanted Rose to say "Yeah, I was totally using you, just as you were using me a someone to screw and leave behind as you flee back to your air conditioned world.  You were never gonna marry me or be a dad to Prince."  

[magemaud]

3 hours ago, Colfrmb said:

She needs to be kicked off the site if it’s an “honest” way to find a mate...   who am I kidding here

I would think accepting a proposal that was filmed for a television show would change Lana's status to "engaged" and mean she could no longer be on marriage websites claiming to be single and searching IF the whole process was legit. 

[aimlessbird]

42 minutes ago, Mrs. Hanson said:

I agree.  He loves whatever "intimacy" he can get yet still being far away and in his own space, not having to share his money or time or have any conflict in real life.  He can be in the hunt and never  have to commit.

I agree 100%.  Did some people make fun of his height and neck issue?  Sadly yes, but they are in the minorty.  I ragged on Ed for his condescending ways towards Rose.   When he tried to trap Rose into admitting her sister was in on "it" together" I half heartedly wanted Rose to say "Yeah, I was totally using you, just as you were using me a someone to screw and leave behind as you flee back to your air conditioned world.  You were never gonna marry me or be a dad to Prince."  

To me Ed has shown his true colors over and over on the show.  His treatment of Rose, ridiculing David relentlessly during the Tell All, admitting he would give up his relationship with his daughter again if any woman gave him the time of day.    He does not seem to be a nice or kind man.  A lot of time his "humor" falls flat or it is very mean spirited.  No doubt being bullied as a child and as an adult helped shaped him into the person he is today but where is his empathy for others ever?  He's always poor me, poor pitiful me.  Do you still love me even as I treat you horribly ?  He most definitely has a victim mindset.

Ed is campaigning relentlessly to become a "personality."  He had his website and clothing sales all lined up before the first episode even aired.  I am sure others on Before The 90 days have pets but they didn't feel the need to share camera time with their pets.  Ed is trying way too hard to be a quirky personality.  It's never going to happen on a large scale, he talks too much and the truths come out.  He is his own worst enemy.

 

I am so disappointed in TLC giving this man yet another platform.  Even if the drugging and assault accusations prove to be unfounded Ed is not a man I would want my children admiring.  I am hoping that his moments of fame are fleeting.

[humbleopinion]

Ed won't get to cash in like the previous cast because the fan fest meet and greets are a Covid casualty.

He won't be able to collect appearance fees to sit his nasty self at a table and get oohh'ed and aahh'ed over by fans of the show....especially the female fans

If the fan fests are resumed and he is shrewd he will publish a picture calendar of he and Teddy so he can further monetize his 90Day fame because fans will buy a $25 calendar and then come up for a selfie and autograph on the new purchase

 

[cynicat]

3 minutes ago, humbleopinion said:

Ed won't get to cash in like the previous cast because the fan fest meet and greets are a Covid casualty.

Stop the presses--people actually come out to meet these nutcases?

[humbleopinion]

There is a whole circuit of fan fests you can meet teevee "celebs" plus state/county fairs, Home and Garden Shows, TLC Channel sponsors events where they corral their "stars" like to kick off showcases for critics and publicists.

Ed could hire a booker to snag events that will pay him money to show up, take selfies and interact with his fans.

Bonus for Ed: He could actually get laid as a result of these meet and greets...like shooting fish in a barrel with fans who likes to fornicate with "celebs" such as it were....

Covid put a temporary hold on such moneymakers  since the virus stopped travel, large group gathering and getting within 6 feet of people.

Edited June 18, 2020 by humbleopinion

[magemaud]

I just saw an ad for Monday night’s “Strikes Back” show and they described it as a new SERIES! I thought it was going to be a one episode special. 

[calpurnia99]

On 6/17/2020 at 3:21 PM, IvySpice said:

Right, but none of that is a law binding on David. He's a customer, not an operator. Heaven help people like David who think that clicking "agree" on some foreign web site's terms of service could subject them to legal consequences from the United States government. Unless the web site is for accessing child porn, that cannot be the case. No wonder there are billions to be made scamming the foolish.

I think he  confused the IMBRA on the website and the Terms of Service of the company. The TOS I am sure states that you are agreeing not to contact the person off the website. It's like on ebay, you agree not to sell the buyer anything else off their website or conduct transaction privately or they don't get their fee and you are violating eBay terms of service. Or I used to dogsit for DogVacay and both myself and the client had to agree to the TOS that we would not leave the website if we met through the website. I was not supposed to take them as my private client. However, I did do this a few times- I got more money and the client paid less- cut out the middle man. I broke the TOS. I think they could have sued me. Could I have been arrested, was I breaking the law? No, 

David I am sure it confusing this TOS with the IMBRA law. Moron.

[1011101010001]

Yes it’s like when you use a temp agency you are not supposed to hire the temp directly.  Or when an agent has a real estate listing the buyer and seller are not supposed to make a deal cutting out the agent.

[Christina]

On 6/18/2020 at 10:01 PM, magemaud said:

I just saw an ad for Monday night’s “Strikes Back” show and they described it as a new SERIES! I thought it was going to be a one episode special. 

Tom said it was 22 episodes. I'm hoping he is wrong, or at least, hoping that it bombs and TLC cuts it after a few episodes and they are out the rumored $10k paid to each castmember on the show. Why would they think the viewers would like to see the cast insult them? They act the fool on television for our amusement and when we comment on it, they get all butthurt and Strike Back! Bah.

[magemaud]

2 hours ago, Christina said:

Tom said it was 22 episodes.

I can't even imagine dragging things out that long, but the upside is that maybe one of us here will make it through the submission process and see our comments addressed on TV! 

[magemaud]

Here's the info: B90 Strikes Back is a brand new spin-off of 90 Day Fiancé: Before the 90 Days. It is set to premiere on June 22 on TLC at 8pm EST. B90 Strikes Back features fan favorite cast members from 90 Day Fiancé: Before the 90 Days watching back clips of themselves and commenting on the social media reactions. Since the show will be filmed during quarantine, each cast member is responsible for filming themselves. The cast list includes Before the 90 Days season 4’s Erika and Stephanie, Big Ed and Rosemarie, Avery and Ash, David, and Yolanda. They’ll be joined by Darcey and Tom, a fan favorite couple from Before the 90 Days season 3

no way could they milk this for 22 episodes, maybe Tom meant it was debuting on June 22? 

[deirdra]

56 minutes ago, magemaud said:

no way could they milk this for 22 episodes, maybe Tom meant it was debuting on June 22? 

I can't see there being 22 episodes, either.  22 clips/snide comments to rebuff, perhaps.

[1011101010001]

Wait Tom and Darcey were just on the same season with the others so why are they describing them as from a prior season?

[magemaud]

15 minutes ago, MrBuhBye said:

Wait Tom and Darcey were just on the same season with the others so why are they describing them as from a prior season?

Darcey has been on at least FOUR seasons and Tom for two PRIOR SEASONS

[humbleopinion]

On 6/18/2020 at 7:01 PM, magemaud said:

I just saw an ad for Monday night’s “Strikes Back” show and they described it as a new SERIES! I thought it was going to be a one episode special. 

 Kinda like Montezuma's Revenge or Delhi Belly.....