BMW
X1 / X2
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion Weinstein

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-18-2017, 05:23 PM   #89
jmg
Major General
jmg's Avatar
United_States
8641
Rep
9,734
Posts

Drives: F80 M3 CS, I01 i3 REx LCI
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by SakhirM4 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
Re-read my original hypothetical: If the actress walks away, the producer would blacklist her. It is in response to this SakhirM4 said it was 100% the actress's fault. Now, do you still defend it, despite the fact that what the producer did is in all likelihood illegal?
Nice twist of my post. I said that if she chose to have sex to get a job, that was on her. She has the choice to walk away. Was she put in a good situation? No. Could she walk? Yes. I never said the situation was all her fault.
What does that mean "that's on her"? Does that absolve the other party of guilt or responsibility? Is the actress not allowed any legal recourse because she chose to give in to an illegal proposition? Let's not forget that a prostitute is generally compensated with payment. A lot of these actresses are threatened with career suicide. There is a difference.
__________________
2018 F80 ///M3 CS - Lime Rock Grey Metallic | MPHAS | GC Camber Plates
2019 I01 i3 BEV - Giga World
Previous: F80 M3 | I01 i3 Rex LCI | I01 i3 REx | F30 340i M Sport ZTR | F30 328i Sport | Audi B7 S4 25Quattro #33 of 250 | E21 320i
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2017, 05:40 PM   #90
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
9590
Rep
8,236
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

JC, SOME of us (OK, *I*) resort to brief bits of humor in an attempt to lighten our own inadequate ability to voice our opposition in any really meaningful manner.
I have personally been BLESSED, on more than one occasion, to have a female as a boss. It pains me that I even have to mention their gender, they were just good bosses. I personally think, though, that it WAS because of their gender that they were a step above their male counterparts.

And the key element, which is glaringly obviously missing in this thread dominated by males, is empathy.

I guess some of us actually learned long ago what "No" means. Long ago I also learned to "not get your honey where you get your money"
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2017, 06:37 PM   #91
Delta0311
Banned
7395
Rep
10,130
Posts

Drives: 2011 BMW 335xi E92 2016 228xi
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NJ

iTrader: (1)

Time to bring back this gem. This should be Hollywood's theme song. Cause Harvey is raping everybody out here.


Appreciate 0
      10-18-2017, 08:32 PM   #92
JohnnyCanuck
Major
Canada
1141
Rep
1,279
Posts

Drives: 2018 Audi RS3
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
JC, SOME of us (OK, *I*) resort to brief bits of humor in an attempt to lighten our own inadequate ability to voice our opposition in any really meaningful manner.
I have personally been BLESSED, on more than one occasion, to have a female as a boss. It pains me that I even have to mention their gender, they were just good bosses. I personally think, though, that it WAS because of their gender that they were a step above their male counterparts.

And the key element, which is glaringly obviously missing in this thread dominated by males, is empathy.

I guess some of us actually learned long ago what "No" means. Long ago I also learned to "not get your honey where you get your money"
Humour, especially dark humour, doesn't bother me and I can't think of a post of yours that has ever caused me to think that you were attacking anyone personally. As I tried to explain a couple of posts ago ... this particularly issue hits a button with me because I'm immersed in it (and handling a live case right now that would mind boggle ...).

I too have had some fabulous female bosses. Not sure if it's empathy and I've had a few good male ones too (and my share of terrible bosses to boot), but a good female boss is usually really good for some reason.

On this issue (sexual harassment), a male colleague and I were talking recently and we both kind of conceded that we aren't sure we'd get it as guys if we weren't so deeply exposed to it in our day to day work.
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2017, 01:23 PM   #93
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
9590
Rep
8,236
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

JC

Here is an opportunity to bring this to a positive, learning exchange.

One of my toughest aspects of avoiding incidents here at work is something related to what you mentioned above (I think): "playful banter" Like when I walked into a room exclusively female and was asked if I knew what camel toe was. I probably turned red, avoided looking at anyone, and walked away. From a strictly technical standpoint I was probably harassed at that moment, correct? But I laughed it off, thought of some remarks, and decided not to continue.

On the banter issue, if those other employees in the room are ACTIVELY involved in a borderline or more situation, am I harassing/being harassed? Since neither party holds any power over the other, I don't believe so. When everyone within earshot is participating/laughing, is it a hostile work environment?

No, I would have no issue with my mom hearing what was said.
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2017, 01:28 PM   #94
Habs11
Private First Class
United_States
118
Rep
180
Posts

Drives: 2015 X5 35i
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Rochester, NY

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SumBMWGuy View Post
3....2...1 for the typical right wingers in this forum who will condemn Weinstein, yet will give a pass to Trump.
It's unfortunate that political affiliation drives most people's opinions. I try not to keep up on this Weinstein stuff because it's upsetting that people can actually be like this. He should be strung up by his sack. The people that looked the other way should be as well.

I'm not getting sucked into a political discussion on this one - the guy is 100% bastard.
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2017, 01:38 PM   #95
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
23309
Rep
9,750
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs11 View Post
It's unfortunate that political affiliation drives most people's opinions. I try not to keep up on this Weinstein stuff because it's upsetting that people can actually be like this. He should be strung up by his sack. The people that looked the other way should be as well.

I'm not getting sucked into a political discussion on this one - the guy is 100% bastard.
Too late. It is already political. From the New Yorker:

"The hostess walked me to the door. She had one last point to make. As Hollywood reckoned with its own culture and how to evolve it, there was a more pressing change she did not want people to lose sight of.
“Please, may this empower people to step forward about Trump, and we can bring him down,
” she said. With Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie and countless others speaking out about Weinstein—and more than five hundred thousand women sharing their own experiences with sexual harassment under the hashtag #metoo—the floodgates are open. (On Sunday, BuzzFeed reported that a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” who has accused Trump of groping and kissing her, had subpoenaed his campaign for documentation related to “any woman alleging that Donald J. Trump touched her inappropriately.” Trump has denied her allegations.) The hostess told me, “Trump women can come through and throw him down. That would be the biggest play women can make. That’s what we need to do.”"

Full Text:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...I2MTY2OTc3MQS2
__________________
Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...

Lewi6, First of His Name, Destroyer of Careers, Master of Pole Positions, 6X WDC, Master of All Tracks, Scorer of Maximum Points, Whisperer of Tires, Minimizer of Fuel Utilization, Maximizer of Consistency in Finishing. Look Upon Him With DRED.
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2017, 01:41 PM   #96
Habs11
Private First Class
United_States
118
Rep
180
Posts

Drives: 2015 X5 35i
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Rochester, NY

iTrader: (0)

Of course it's political - I'm just not getting sucked into it - criminals are criminals and I don't excuse any based upon their affiliations, be it political, sports or whatever.
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2017, 02:21 PM   #97
schoy
Captain
864
Rep
914
Posts

Drives: Melbourne Red E90 M3
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SakhirM4 View Post
Nice twist of my post. I said that if she chose to have sex to get a job, that was on her. She has the choice to walk away. Was she put in a good situation? No. Could she walk? Yes. I never said the situation was all her fault.
Here's my post (#62):
"Here's a question:
If a prominent producer tells an aspiring actress, "Have sex with me, and you will get this role. But if you don't, you'll never get any role anywhere ever again," how much blame goes to the actress if she agrees to it? A simple percentage of blame will suffice as an answer."

Here's your post (#71):
"The actress has a choice - 100% of her decision is on her. It's a bad situation, but it is her choice. The person is a scumbag for putting her in that situation, but it is her choice in the end. People are forced to make hard decisions every day."

First of all, my hypothetical wasn't choosing to have sex to get a job. It was choosing to have sex to avoid being blacklisted.

Second of all, you're saying that she has 100% free will. Which means you interpret her as having given consent. Which is contrary to how the law defines consent because clearly this is a case where she was coerced. Which means that the producer would be liable for sexual assault/harassment/rape (depending on context). Yes, she ultimately made the decision, but she also has legal recourse against the producer. Do you disagree?

Edit:
Note in my post (#62), I asked you to assign percentage blame (i.e. fault). You answered with 100%. Of course, you answered with "100% of her decision is on her", which is somewhat deflective, since you answered with a %, but with a different metric. So I ask you again: What % blame (fault) do you assign her?

Last edited by schoy; 10-19-2017 at 02:29 PM..
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2017, 02:32 PM   #98
SakhirM4
Major General
SakhirM4's Avatar
United_States
10232
Rep
8,712
Posts

Drives: '15 SO M4/'20 Z4 M40i
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2020 BMW Z4 M40i  [0.00]
2015 BMW M4  [4.38]
Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
Here's my post (#62):
"Here's a question:
If a prominent producer tells an aspiring actress, "Have sex with me, and you will get this role. But if you don't, you'll never get any role anywhere ever again," how much blame goes to the actress if she agrees to it? A simple percentage of blame will suffice as an answer."

Here's your post (#71):
"The actress has a choice - 100% of her decision is on her. It's a bad situation, but it is her choice. The person is a scumbag for putting her in that situation, but it is her choice in the end. People are forced to make hard decisions every day."

First of all, my hypothetical wasn't choosing to have sex to get a job. It was choosing to have sex to avoid being blacklisted.

Second of all, you're saying that she has 100% free will. Which means you interpret her as having given consent. Which is contrary to how the law defines consent because clearly this is a case where she was coerced. Which means that the producer would be liable for sexual assault/harassment/rape (depending on context). Yes, she ultimately made the decision, but she also has legal recourse against the producer. Do you disagree?
Getting a role IS getting a job. She absolutely had 100% free will to walk out the door. She could have walked out the door and taken her legal recourse. I don't disagree that she had legal recourse. But, I do disagree that she had to have sex.
__________________
Tejas Chapter, BMW CCA, mem #23915, President 27 years, www.tejaschapter.org
2015 ///M4, SO/full black, 6MT, HK, light 19"
Appreciate 0
      10-19-2017, 03:26 PM   #99
jmg
Major General
jmg's Avatar
United_States
8641
Rep
9,734
Posts

Drives: F80 M3 CS, I01 i3 REx LCI
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by SakhirM4 View Post
Getting a role IS getting a job. She absolutely had 100% free will to walk out the door. She could have walked out the door and taken her legal recourse. I don't disagree that she had legal recourse. But, I do disagree that she had to have sex.
Do you think it becomes consensual at that point? Is the perpetrator absolved form legal or moral recourse if the woman agrees to have sex?
__________________
2018 F80 ///M3 CS - Lime Rock Grey Metallic | MPHAS | GC Camber Plates
2019 I01 i3 BEV - Giga World
Previous: F80 M3 | I01 i3 Rex LCI | I01 i3 REx | F30 340i M Sport ZTR | F30 328i Sport | Audi B7 S4 25Quattro #33 of 250 | E21 320i
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2017, 01:50 PM   #100
Sassicaia
Brigadier General
Sassicaia's Avatar
Canada
3446
Rep
3,067
Posts

Drives: SMB F80 6MT
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Vancouver, Canada

iTrader: (0)

This.

"If everyone who knew about Weinstein's allegedly predatory behavior had refused to work with him, he would have been rendered powerless, incapable of inflicting pain for 30 years."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/opinio...ion/index.html

This includes woman who agreed to have sex in order to get a role.

It's an inconvenient truth, but true nonetheless.
Appreciate 1
MKSixer23309.00

      10-20-2017, 02:56 PM   #101
jmg
Major General
jmg's Avatar
United_States
8641
Rep
9,734
Posts

Drives: F80 M3 CS, I01 i3 REx LCI
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassicaia View Post
This.

"If everyone who knew about Weinstein's allegedly predatory behavior had refused to work with him, he would have been rendered powerless, incapable of inflicting pain for 30 years."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/opinio...ion/index.html

This includes woman who agreed to have sex in order to get a role.

It's an inconvenient truth, but true nonetheless.
I ask the same question: despite the failures of people who chose or felt they could not go against him, does that absolve Harvey of any crimes he committed? In other words, should assigning some blame at those women "who agreed to have sex in order to get a role" absolve Harvey of any moral or legal malfeasance, even in part? I've asked this question twice now, once of SakhirM4 and now of you.
__________________
2018 F80 ///M3 CS - Lime Rock Grey Metallic | MPHAS | GC Camber Plates
2019 I01 i3 BEV - Giga World
Previous: F80 M3 | I01 i3 Rex LCI | I01 i3 REx | F30 340i M Sport ZTR | F30 328i Sport | Audi B7 S4 25Quattro #33 of 250 | E21 320i
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2017, 03:29 PM   #102
Sassicaia
Brigadier General
Sassicaia's Avatar
Canada
3446
Rep
3,067
Posts

Drives: SMB F80 6MT
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Vancouver, Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmg View Post
I ask the same question: despite the failures of people who chose or felt they could not go against him, does that absolve Harvey of any crimes he committed? In other words, should assigning some blame at those women "who agreed to have sex in order to get a role" absolve Harvey of any moral or legal malfeasance, even in part? I've asked this question twice now, once of SakhirM4 and now of you.
Im not shying away from answering it at all so let me attempt to, and you let me know if you want further clarification.

No it does not absolve Harvey. With that said Harvey is not the only problem. This is rampant and WAY beyond just Harvey. Further, even as it relates directly to Harvey those who chose to engage in his "deals" rather then deny and expose him are also part of the problem.

As I said before they are those who specifically went out to "sell themselfs" in order to get a part - they instigated it.

No one engaged in the practice should be absolved. On the same token all sides should be held to account. I personally dont think we will see change until all sides of those who engaged are exposed and ousted.
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2017, 03:49 PM   #103
jmg
Major General
jmg's Avatar
United_States
8641
Rep
9,734
Posts

Drives: F80 M3 CS, I01 i3 REx LCI
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassicaia View Post
Im not shying away from answering it at all so let me attempt to, and you let me know if you want further clarification.

No it does not absolve Harvey. With that said Harvey is not the only problem. This is rampant and WAY beyond just Harvey. Further, even as it relates directly to Harvey those who chose to engage in his "deals" rather then deny and expose him are also part of the problem.

As I said before they are those who specifically went out to "sell themselfs" in order to get a part - they instigated it.

No one engaged in the practice should be absolved. On the same token all sides should be held to account. I personally dont think we will see change until all sides of those who engaged are exposed and ousted.
Thanks for not shying away from the question. I can appreciate someone who is capable of articulating their views.

This is a chicken or the egg situation. If Harvey didn't allow an exchange of favors for sex, then those actresses could not have felt going out to "sell themselfs" would bear fruit. If some women weren't actually willing to give in to Harvey's desires for sexual favors, then he wouldn't be taking advantage of his position.

So how do we hold all sides "to account"? Should an actress who felt forced to say yes to sex be sent to prison? If not, what is the punishment?
__________________
2018 F80 ///M3 CS - Lime Rock Grey Metallic | MPHAS | GC Camber Plates
2019 I01 i3 BEV - Giga World
Previous: F80 M3 | I01 i3 Rex LCI | I01 i3 REx | F30 340i M Sport ZTR | F30 328i Sport | Audi B7 S4 25Quattro #33 of 250 | E21 320i
Appreciate 0
      10-20-2017, 05:30 PM   #104
Sassicaia
Brigadier General
Sassicaia's Avatar
Canada
3446
Rep
3,067
Posts

Drives: SMB F80 6MT
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Vancouver, Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmg View Post
Thanks for not shying away from the question. I can appreciate someone who is capable of articulating their views.

This is a chicken or the egg situation. If Harvey didn't allow an exchange of favors for sex, then those actresses could not have felt going out to "sell themselfs" would bear fruit. If some women weren't actually willing to give in to Harvey's desires for sexual favors, then he wouldn't be taking advantage of his position.

So how do we hold all sides "to account"? Should an actress who felt forced to say yes to sex be sent to prison? If not, what is the punishment?
You are asking some good questions, and I can only give my opinion. First I need to address one thing: no actress was "forced to say yes". It was always a choice unless it was rape. Its not like Harvey said "say yes to sex or I will hurt someone you love". We are talking about a role in a movie, and the proof to that lays in 40+ woman who are currently speaking out saying they denied the proposition and said no. They either chose another industry, or made it anyway without him, but in either case proved there was a choice.

I keep going back to "this is bigger then Harvey" and many seem to focus on Harvey alone which is maybe part of the disconnect. I keep talking about the bigger issue which a.) includes Harvey b.) includes men as victims not just woman c.) includes woman who SUGGEST sex for a role (this happens more then you think) d.) includes two parties happy to "make the deal of sex for a role"


Here is my literal answer to your question, then I'll give an analogy and end with a question. The answer is we hold both sides to account. Both participated in the unethical and illegal act, and both sides did wrong. Its not unlike prostitution where both the prostitute and john broke the law. If we don't call out both sides then the fire will never extinguish.

I hate to say it, but there is an element of political "correctness" which seems to hold us from having woman in any way shape or form account for being part of what is happening in Hollywood as it relates to the sex trade for roles EVEN IF there are no examples associated to Harvey (but I know there are - lots).

In this situation Harvey is the "John" offering a currency to a would be actress for sex. If she accepts she is a "prostitute", and if she does not he is still the John. In either case he should go to jail or be held to account, and as soon as the actress makes the choice to take the role as the prostitute then so should she. Remove all those types of people and viola the industry is clean. Remove just the Johns and you are left with prostitutes that have the propensity to start more fire. Dont think for a second there arnt a bunch of prostitutes running around soliciting roles for sex - there are tons.

Make sense?
Appreciate 0
      10-23-2017, 07:56 PM   #105
DETRoadster
Space Force - 4 Star General
DETRoadster's Avatar
6886
Rep
2,945
Posts

Drives: M2 MG 6MT / Moto Guzzi V7
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzo View Post
Hollywood protecting Hollywood.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...criticism.html

NOW they're sorry.
Strange, Fox reporting on the Weinstein scandal yet pretty quiet about Roger Ailes' $20M lawsuit and Bill O's $32M lawsuit. Seems to be a problem plaguing both sides of the ideological spectrum.
Appreciate 1
jmg8640.50

      10-23-2017, 08:43 PM   #106
are0lies
Banned
United_States
4139
Rep
1,871
Posts

Drives: 2011 M3 E93
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Riverside

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DETRoadster View Post
Strange, Fox reporting on the Weinstein scandal yet pretty quiet about Roger Ailes' $20M lawsuit and Bill O's $32M lawsuit. Seems to be a problem plaguing both sides of the ideological spectrum.
Maybe because of this:
"Fox gave Bill O'Reilly big contract after $32 million settlement"
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/21/medi...ent/index.html
Appreciate 0
      10-24-2017, 05:22 AM   #107
gonzo
Lieutenant General
gonzo's Avatar
United_States
8711
Rep
13,888
Posts

Drives: as many as possible
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: TeXXXas

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DETRoadster View Post
Strange, Fox reporting on the Weinstein scandal yet pretty quiet about Roger Ailes' $20M lawsuit and Bill O's $32M lawsuit. Seems to be a problem plaguing both sides of the ideological spectrum.
First. I do not watch 'news', I read it. Or try to find it may be a better way to put it.
I remember them running these scandal reports, if only briefly and I've got zero problem saying bringing O'Reilly back looks bad. Real bad.
Take the heat and then count the money...

Reading it is dwindling down. I see myself nuking anything political from entering my space, on the horizon.
Sadly, I'm approaching the, I just don't care anymore, stage. Steals away at my mojo.
__________________
Crazy Diamond
Appreciate 0
      10-24-2017, 08:16 AM   #108
DETRoadster
Space Force - 4 Star General
DETRoadster's Avatar
6886
Rep
2,945
Posts

Drives: M2 MG 6MT / Moto Guzzi V7
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzo View Post
First. I do not watch 'news', I read it. Or try to find it may be a better way to put it.
I remember them running these scandal reports, if only briefly and I've got zero problem saying bringing O'Reilly back looks bad. Real bad.
Take the heat and then count the money...

Reading it is dwindling down. I see myself nuking anything political from entering my space, on the horizon.
Sadly, I'm approaching the, I just don't care anymore, stage. Steals away at my mojo.
Sorry Gonzo, I should have elaborated in my first post. It was a nod to the hypocrisy of Fox News and the OP's lame attempt to connect sex scandals to liberals, not an attempt to call you out personally. The only reason I latched onto your post was because it was a link to Fox News.
Appreciate 0
      10-24-2017, 08:25 AM   #109
are0lies
Banned
United_States
4139
Rep
1,871
Posts

Drives: 2011 M3 E93
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Riverside

iTrader: (0)

This guy is really pathetic, trying to make himself as the victim. I honestly hope his credibility goes straight down the tubes after all of this, because if he was so innocent, he never should have paid so much hush money.
"O'Reilly: I'm 'mad at God' over allegations of sexual harassment"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/or...D=ansmsnnews11
Appreciate 0
      10-24-2017, 10:01 AM   #110
walterbrooke
New Member
2
Rep
10
Posts

Drives: BMW 7series
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Chicago

iTrader: (0)

It's probably because Weinstein has had over 15 plus big name celebrity women come out against him. O'Reilly's allegations are less known
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:16 PM.




xbimmers
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST