History LoopholeAbuse / RealLife

24th Jun '18 8:49:48 AM SSJMagus
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The [[ThoseWackyNazis clever Germans]] abused numerous loopholes during the interwar period to build up their armed forced before completely repudiating the Treaty of Versailles. (Some of these methods however were actual violations of the Treaty, just difficult to prove):

to:

* The [[ThoseWackyNazis clever Germans]] abused numerous loopholes during the interwar period to build up their armed forced before completely repudiating the Treaty of Versailles. (Some of these methods however were actual violations of the Treaty, just difficult to prove):prove.) Notably, this patter of loophole abuse and outright cheating began ''before'' the Nazis took power; even under the (relatively) democratic UsefulNotes/WeimarRepublic looked to subvert the treaty in any way they could get away with:



** The treaty prohibited having motor torpedo boats. Finland developed the vessel class "motor gun boat" which looked exactly like a motor torpedo boat, except it had a large gun on fore deck and had no torpedo tubes. The torpedo tubes could be installed on one hour's warning time.

to:

** The treaty prohibited having motor torpedo boats. Finland developed the vessel class "motor gun boat" which looked exactly like a motor torpedo boat, except it had a large gun on fore deck and had no torpedo tubes. The torpedo tubes could be installed on one hour's warning time. Though with motor torpedo boats largely being rendered obsolete by missile boats, this proved unnecessary.



*** As a rule, everyone cheated the weight of their treaty-limited ships. The most common method of cheating was to pretend that a just-launched hull was seaworthy and weigh that (which meant that completed vessels were typically ''at least'' 20% over their treaty tonnage), even though standard displacement was '''supposed''' to be a ship that's fully complete and combat equipped, minus the weight of fuel.[[note]]This was a concession to the major naval powers (the UK, US and Japan) who all had to operate in the vast Pacific Ocean, while the lesser powers (France and especially Italy) who operated mostly or entirely in the confines of the Mediterranean could get by with much shorter range. With fuel being excluded from standard displacement, in theory only direct combat capability and not operating range would be limited by the treaty.[[/note]] The US' "23,000 ton" ''Yorktown'' class carriers, for example, never weighed less than 27,000 tons in service and by the end of the war USS ''Enterprise'' (yes, the namesake of ''that'' [[StarTrek USS Enterprise]]) typically weighed in at more than 10,000 tons heavier than her design weight. This wasn't technically a violation of the individual weight limit (27,000 [=CVs=] were allowed, and the treaty limits expired entirely upon the outbreak of WWII) but it was a violation of the ''collective'' weight limit; the US Navy's total carrier force was limited to a combined 135,000 tons and the 8,000 tons "saved" by lying about the weight of ''Yorktown'' and ''Enterprise'' meant the US had a leftover 15,000 tons (instead of an inherently unusable 3,000 tons) available to built a 7th carrier, USS ''Wasp''.[[note]]And once ''Langley'' was The Japanese ''Mogami'' class heavy cruisers may have won the prize for "most egregious treaty violation" (within a year of completely than were ''60% larger'' than claimed and almost 40% larger than allowed) but they were not without competition.
*** One major loophole that the US exploited with their aircraft carriers in particular was that an extra 3,000 tons could be added in refits to improve ships' torpedo and/or anti-aircraft protection. This was first used in the ''Lexington''-class carriers. The Washington Treaty allowed each nation to convert a pair of incomplete battleships or battlecruisers that had been cancelled by the treaty into aircraft carriers, with a 33,000 ton limit instead of the usual 27,000. Since ''Lexington'' and ''Saratoga'' if completed as battlecruisers would've been over 44,000 tons each, bringing them down to 33,000 was a significant design challenge. Since they were being built on very large hulls, these would be inherently heavy ships. Even after reducing the armor they would be too heavy, and there was even talk of removing half of the engines to bring it down. This was flatly rejected by the Navy as it would mean the 33,000 ton carriers would be inferior to a built-from-scratch 27,000 carrier, negating the entire point of the conversion. Instead the US Navy creatively reinterpreted what constituted a "refit" under the Treaty and deemed the very act of converting the ships from battlecruisers to aircraft carriers qualified. Thus the 2 carriers came in at a standard displacement of 36,000 each. For the duration of the Washington Treaty, every official publication mentioning the ''Lexington''s' tonnage [[InsistentTerminology listed them as 33,000 tons, with a prominent disclaimer that this did not include the 3,000 ton weight allowance for anti-submarine or anti-aircraft upgrades]].

to:

*** As a rule, everyone cheated the weight of their treaty-limited ships. The most common method of cheating was to pretend that a just-launched hull was seaworthy and weigh that (which meant that completed vessels were typically ''at least'' 20% over their treaty tonnage), even though standard displacement was '''supposed''' to be a ship that's fully complete and combat equipped, minus the weight of fuel.[[note]]This was a concession to the major naval powers (the UK, US and Japan) who all had to operate in the vast Pacific Ocean, while the lesser powers (France and especially Italy) who operated mostly or entirely in the confines of the Mediterranean could get by with much shorter range. With fuel being excluded from standard displacement, in theory only direct combat capability and not operating range would be limited by the treaty.[[/note]] The US' "23,000 ton" ''Yorktown'' class carriers, for example, never weighed less than 27,000 tons in service and by the end of the war USS ''Enterprise'' (yes, the namesake of ''that'' [[StarTrek USS Enterprise]]) typically weighed in at more than 10,000 tons heavier than her design weight. This wasn't technically a violation of the individual weight limit (27,000 [=CVs=] were allowed, and the treaty limits expired entirely upon the outbreak of WWII) but it was a violation of the ''collective'' weight limit; the US Navy's total carrier force was limited to a combined 135,000 tons and the 8,000 tons "saved" by lying about the weight of ''Yorktown'' and ''Enterprise'' meant the US had a leftover 15,000 tons (instead of an inherently unusable 3,000 tons) available to built a 7th carrier, USS ''Wasp''.[[note]]And once ''Langley'' was retired there was more tonnage freed up for USS ''Hornet''.[[/note]] The Japanese ''Mogami'' class heavy cruisers may have won the prize for "most egregious treaty violation" (within a year of completely than were ''60% larger'' than claimed and almost 40% larger than allowed) but they were not without competition.
*** One major loophole that the US exploited with their aircraft carriers in particular was that an extra 3,000 tons could be added in refits to improve ships' torpedo and/or anti-aircraft protection. This was first used in the ''Lexington''-class carriers. The Washington Treaty allowed each nation to convert a pair of incomplete battleships or battlecruisers that had been cancelled by the treaty into aircraft carriers, with a 33,000 ton limit instead of the usual 27,000. Since ''Lexington'' and ''Saratoga'' if completed as battlecruisers would've been over 44,000 tons each, bringing them down to 33,000 was a significant design challenge. Since they were being built on very large hulls, these would be inherently heavy ships. Even after reducing the armor they would be too heavy, and there was even talk of removing half of the engines to bring it down. This was flatly rejected by the Navy as it would mean the 33,000 ton carriers would be inferior to a built-from-scratch 27,000 carrier, negating the entire point of the conversion. Instead the US Navy creatively reinterpreted what constituted a "refit" under the Treaty and deemed the very act of converting the ships from battlecruisers to aircraft carriers qualified. Thus the 2 carriers came in at a standard displacement of 36,000 each. For Even ''after'' the duration expiration of the Washington Treaty, every official publication mentioning the ''Lexington''s' tonnage [[InsistentTerminology listed them as 33,000 tons, with a prominent disclaimer that this did not include the 3,000 ton weight allowance for anti-submarine or anti-aircraft upgrades]].



*** A similar dispute exists with Russia over the Kuril Islands, an island chain stretching from Japan's northeastern tip to Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula. Japan claims possession of Etorofu and Kunashiri (the southernmost islands, directly adjacent to Japan) while Russia claims (and currently possesses) Iturup and Kunashir. They're the same islands, just transliterated from Japanese to Russian. The basis of the Russian claim was that in the aftermath of World War II, Japan was required to relinquish all of its conquered territory. Not just conquered during [=WW2=], but all territory they had '''ever''' conquered. This left the Kurils unclaimed and thus available for the then-Soviet Union to seize. Japan counters that Etorofu and Kunashiri do not count as conquered territory because '''[[InsistentTerminology they were always part of Japan]]''', and that they can't be included in Russia's claim on the Kuril chain because '''[[InsistentTerminology they're not part of the Kuril chain]]'''. Unlike with the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute, the islands involved in the Kuril dispute are actually inhabited.

to:

*** A similar dispute exists with Russia over the Kuril Islands, an island chain stretching from Japan's northeastern tip to Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula. Japan claims possession of Etorofu and Kunashiri (the southernmost islands, directly adjacent to Japan) while Russia claims (and currently possesses) Iturup and Kunashir. They're the same islands, just transliterated from Japanese to Russian. The basis of the Russian claim was that in the aftermath of World War II, Japan was required to relinquish all of its conquered territory. Not just conquered during [=WW2=], but all territory they had '''ever''' conquered. This left the Kurils unclaimed and thus available for the then-Soviet Union to seize. Japan counters that Etorofu and Kunashiri do not count as conquered territory because '''[[InsistentTerminology they were always part of Japan]]''', and furthermore that they can't be included in Russia's claim on the Kuril chain because '''[[InsistentTerminology they're not part of the Kuril chain]]'''. Unlike with the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute, the islands involved in the Kuril dispute are actually inhabited.



** Japan is also forbidden (by way of their own laws) from having an aircraft carrier. But there's nothing in there that says they can't have a ''helicopter'' carrier. Japan officially calls these ships "helicopter destroyers", and claims their use is purely for anti-submarine warfare. However, there's nothing in there that bans Japan from developing a VTOL aircraft of their own, which would officially be a land-based fighter that might have to stop on these carriers to refuel or rearm in an emergency... you get the idea.

to:

** Japan is also forbidden (by way of their own laws) from having an aircraft carrier.carrier, because they consider them not to be merely defensive weapons. But there's nothing in there that says they can't have a ''helicopter'' carrier. Japan officially calls these ships "helicopter destroyers", destroyers"[[note]]While the Japanese term they use translates literally as "escort" rather than "destroyers", this has been how every Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer has been designated, and the totally-not-carriers are assigned "DD" hull numbers just like the actual destroyers.[[/note]], and claims their use is purely for anti-submarine warfare. However, there's nothing in there that bans Japan from developing a VTOL aircraft of their own, which would officially be a land-based fighter that might have to stop on these carriers to refuel or rearm in an emergency... you get the idea.



* In the [[UsefulNotes/DemocraticRepublicOfTheCongo Belgian Congo]], the slaved natives had to meet a rubber collection quota, which was enforced by a Force Publique militia. Not meeting this was punishable with death or [[AnArmAndALeg mutilation]]. To circumvent when the quotas were too high, the Force Publique would seek random natives to cut their hands and present them as proof of their job being done without killing the ones actually working with rubber. (the Force Publique also did mutilations for cover-ups: to prove the expensively imported bullets were spent shooting people instead of hunting, it was required for Force Publique soldiers to bring the hands of their victims, and at times the penis to prove they were [[MenAreTheExpendableGender not killing women]]; so every time someone went killing animals, a healthy person's limbs and\or [[GroinAttack genitals]] were cut)

to:

* In the [[UsefulNotes/DemocraticRepublicOfTheCongo Belgian Congo]], the slaved natives had to meet a rubber collection quota, which was enforced by a Force Publique militia. Not meeting this was punishable with death or [[AnArmAndALeg mutilation]]. To circumvent when the quotas were too high, the Force Publique would seek random natives to cut their hands and present them as proof of their job being done without killing the ones actually working with rubber. (the rubber (since [[CaptainObvious slaves without hands wouldn't be able to harvest any more rubber]]). (The Force Publique also did mutilations for cover-ups: to prove the expensively imported bullets were spent shooting people instead of hunting, it was required for Force Publique soldiers to bring the hands of their victims, and at times the penis to prove they were [[MenAreTheExpendableGender not killing women]]; so every time someone went killing animals, a healthy person's limbs and\or [[GroinAttack genitals]] were cut)cut.)
* The 1907 Hague Convention on "The Laws and Customs of War on Land" (among other things) prohibited the bombardment by land forces of undefended civilian area, which was intended to prohibit deliberate targeting via artillery of cities, unless that city was occupied by an enemy military force that was therefore a legitimate target. And when bombarding a ''defended'' city, the city's authorities must be notified before the attack so that civilians would have an opportunity to evacuate. In the same year a separate Hague Convention on "Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War" was adopted, with similar restrictions. Like most of the Hague Conventions, these treaties were adopted by all the major powers of the era. But the fact that bombardment by land and bombardment by sea were controlled under separate laws opened up a loophole that proved significant in UsefulNotes/WorldWarI: it hadn't occurred to any of the negotiators of the treaties in 1907 that [[DeathFromAbove a city might be bombarded from the air]], as the primitive aircraft of the time could lift little more than their own pilots off the ground. But technology advanced very rapidly, and soon after the outbreak of war many nations fielded bomber aircraft and sometimes used them to bomb cities. Also overlooked had been the large bomb loads that could be carried by German Zeppelins, as well as just how resilient the slow-moving Zeppelins could be against ground fire.
22nd Jun '18 8:52:57 PM costanton11
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The TroperTales for Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike was removed because it became nothing but huge complaints and was often one big FlameWar after the next. Several other tropes devolved into similar complaining in their Troper Tales sections until Troper Tales was removed entirely. So people turned to the [[Headscratchers/HomePage Headscratchers]] (at the time called "It Just Bugs Me") and let the complaining and {{flame war}}s begin anew.

to:

* The TroperTales Trope Tales for Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike was removed because it became nothing but huge complaints and was often one big FlameWar after the next. Several other tropes devolved into similar complaining in their Troper Tales sections until Troper Tales was removed entirely. So people turned to the [[Headscratchers/HomePage Headscratchers]] (at the time called "It Just Bugs Me") and let the complaining and {{flame war}}s begin anew.
13th Jun '18 2:42:23 PM Kadorhal
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** In both cases, the raw materials involved in making these items rarely surpass a buck or two[[note]]Realistically, $15 worth of vegetables and $5 worth of mayonnaise would fill up a good-sized grocery basket, and that's with the retail markup that restaurants don't pay for their supplies.[[/note]], so the restaurant isn't losing money, just making a smaller net gain. If the company was really losing money on either deal, ''they would absolutely care'' and they would immediately put the kibosh on it. It is also a loophole exploited by employees to effectively get an employee discount. Since they have to know how to make all the drinks anyways, any good employee would thus be able to do this as another perk of the job.

to:

*** In both cases, the raw materials involved in making these items rarely surpass a buck or two[[note]]Realistically, $15 worth of vegetables and $5 worth of mayonnaise would fill up a good-sized grocery basket, and that's with the retail markup that restaurants don't pay for their supplies.[[/note]], so the restaurant isn't losing money, just making a smaller net gain. If the company was really losing money on either deal, especially $20 and upwards on what's supposed to be a $5 sandwich, ''they would absolutely care'' and they would immediately put the kibosh on it. It is also a loophole exploited by employees to effectively get an employee discount. Since they have to know how to make all the drinks anyways, any good employee would thus be able to do this as another perk of the job.



** Coupons might have a note saying you can only use one per transaction. They don't say you can't use one and then immediately use another in a separate transaction.

to:

** Coupons might have a note saying you can only use one per transaction. They don't say you can't use one and then immediately use another in a separate ''separate'' transaction.



*** A similar is limiting individual coupons to 'one per family', but which in practice will be closer to "one per transaction", since stores don't bat an eye if every individual family member (assuming none are simply too young to be eligible) grabs their own shopping cart and buys their own sets of the items on the coupons.

to:

*** A similar is limiting individual coupons to 'one per family', but which in practice will be closer to "one per transaction", since most stores don't bat an eye if every individual family member (assuming none are simply too young to be eligible) grabs their own shopping cart and buys their own sets of the items on the coupons.coupons one after another.
13th Jun '18 1:25:40 PM Kadorhal
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The bump stock, made known from the infamous Las Vegas shooting in October 2017, is this for laws against fully automatic weapons. When a weapon is fired, the stock recoils against the wielder's shoulder. With a bump stock, the receiver recoils into a spring within the stock, the trigger falling into a recess in the grip so it is no longer being pulled, then bounces forward into the user's finger, pulling the trigger again. With this a weapon can fire repeatedly while still technically being semi-automatic. A blanket attempt to legally close this "loophole" following the massacre fell prey to the concept being so mechanically simple that the law proposed would have outlawed '''belt loops'''; individual states have had more success in banning the devices specifically, two states having already made them illegal before the shooting (California way back in 1990, New York in 2013) and five other states moving to do the same after (Florida, Vermont, Hawaii, Maryland and Washington).
13th Jun '18 1:12:42 PM Kadorhal
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Gustav Stracke, a prominent German astronomer, had specifically asked that no asteroid be named after him. In 1932, another astronomer, Karl Reinmuth, had given eight asteroids (1227-1234) names of plants and flowers the first letters of which spelled GSTRACKE...
* The bump stock, made known from the infamous Las Vegas shooting in October 2017, is this for laws against fully automatic weapons. When a weapon is fired, the stock recoils against the wielder's shoulder. With a bump stock, the weapon recoils into a spring within the stock, then bounces forward into the user's finger, pulling the trigger again. With this a weapon can fire repeatedly while still technically being semiautomatic. A blanket attempt to legally close this "loophole" fell prey to the concept being so mechanically simple that the law proposed would have outlawed '''belt loops'''; individual states have had more success in banning the devices specifically, California and New York already making them illegal before the shooting and five other states moving to do the same after.

to:

* Gustav Stracke, a prominent German astronomer, had specifically asked that no asteroid be named after him. In 1932, another astronomer, Karl Reinmuth, had given eight asteroids (1227-1234) names of plants and flowers flowers, the first letters of which spelled GSTRACKE...
out GSTRACKE.
* The bump stock, made known from the infamous Las Vegas shooting in October 2017, is this for laws against fully automatic weapons. When a weapon is fired, the stock recoils against the wielder's shoulder. With a bump stock, the weapon receiver recoils into a spring within the stock, the trigger falling into a recess in the grip so it is no longer being pulled, then bounces forward into the user's finger, pulling the trigger again. With this a weapon can fire repeatedly while still technically being semiautomatic. semi-automatic. A blanket attempt to legally close this "loophole" following the massacre fell prey to the concept being so mechanically simple that the law proposed would have outlawed '''belt loops'''; individual states have had more success in banning the devices specifically, California and New York two states having already making made them illegal before the shooting (California way back in 1990, New York in 2013) and five other states moving to do the same after.after (Florida, Vermont, Hawaii, Maryland and Washington).



* The highest-attended local films ever in Brazil are topped by a church-owned studio making the audience numbers of two religious films - ''The Ten Commandments'' (a CompilationMovie made out of an eponymous soap opera) and ''Nothing to Lose'' (the biography of the founder of said church) - ''much'' higher than they really are. [[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/15/nothing-to-lose-nada-a-perder-brazil-sold-out-empty-cinemas-universal-church Reports showed the sold out showings were often filled with empty seats]], because congregations would buy all tickets and distribute them in cults or outside the theater to whoever would accept it. In one city, a single person connected to the church purchased every single ticket of ''The Ten Commandments'' for the first two weeks in theaters (a total of ''22,700'') to deploy this scheme. Thus, both movies broke 10 million tickets sold (a sum only two Brazilian movies, one being ''Film/TheEliteSquad 2'', got without cheating), even if many those aren't connected to actual spectators.

to:

* The highest-attended local films ever in Brazil are topped by a church-owned studio making the audience numbers of two religious films - ''The Ten Commandments'' (a CompilationMovie made out of an eponymous soap opera) and ''Nothing to Lose'' (the biography of the founder of said church) - ''much'' higher than they really are. [[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/15/nothing-to-lose-nada-a-perder-brazil-sold-out-empty-cinemas-universal-church Reports showed the sold out "sold out" showings were often filled with empty seats]], because congregations would buy all tickets and distribute them in cults or outside the theater to whoever would accept it. In one city, a single person connected to the church purchased every single ticket of ''The Ten Commandments'' for the first two weeks in theaters (a total of ''22,700'') to deploy this scheme. Thus, both movies broke 10 million tickets sold (a sum only two Brazilian movies, one being ''Film/TheEliteSquad 2'', got without cheating), even if many those aren't connected to actual spectators.
12th Jun '18 3:37:07 PM Kadorhal
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The bump stock, made known from the infamous Las Vegas shooting, is this for laws against fully automatic weapons. When a weapon is fired, the stock recoils against the wielders shoulder. With a bump stock, the weapon bounces forward into the user's finger, firing the trigger again. With this a weapon can fire repeatedly while still technically being semiautomatic.
** An attempt to legally close this "loophole" fell prey to the concept being so mechanically simple that the law proposed would have outlawed '''belt loops'''.

to:

* The bump stock, made known from the infamous Las Vegas shooting, shooting in October 2017, is this for laws against fully automatic weapons. When a weapon is fired, the stock recoils against the wielders wielder's shoulder. With a bump stock, the weapon recoils into a spring within the stock, then bounces forward into the user's finger, firing pulling the trigger again. With this a weapon can fire repeatedly while still technically being semiautomatic.
** An
semiautomatic. A blanket attempt to legally close this "loophole" fell prey to the concept being so mechanically simple that the law proposed would have outlawed '''belt loops'''.loops'''; individual states have had more success in banning the devices specifically, California and New York already making them illegal before the shooting and five other states moving to do the same after.



* This is the origin of [[Music/{{ABBA}} ABBA's]] wacky costumes. [[https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/feb/16/abba-outfits-tax-deduction-bjorn-ulvaeus See, back in the Seventies and Eighties, there was a law in the Swedish tax code that allowed the cost of stage outfits to be tax deductible as business expenses on the condition that the outfits were too outrageous to be worn on the street. ABBA took advantage of this by performing in absurd costumes, thus making their outfits tax deductible.]]

to:

* This is the origin of [[Music/{{ABBA}} ABBA's]] Music/{{ABBA}}'s wacky costumes. [[https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/feb/16/abba-outfits-tax-deduction-bjorn-ulvaeus See, back in the Seventies and Eighties, there was a law in the Swedish tax code that allowed the cost of stage outfits to be tax deductible as business expenses on the condition that the outfits were too outrageous to be worn on the street. ABBA took advantage of this by performing in absurd costumes, thus making their outfits tax deductible.]]
12th Jun '18 1:07:57 PM Kadorhal
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

Real-world examples of LoopholeAbuse. See also the sub-pages for [[LoopholeAbuse/RealLifeLaw legal]] and [[LoopholeAbuse/RealLifeSports sports-related]] examples.
11th Jun '18 9:08:17 PM igordebraga
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Netflix has a no pornography rule. Documentaries about pornography are okay. The James Franco produced ‘’Kink’’ documentary has appeared on the service in the past and features unfiltered and uncensored footage of pornagraphic shoots.
** Arthouse films with unsimulated sex like ‘’The Nymphomaniac’’ are perfectly fine as well.

to:

* Netflix has a no pornography rule. Documentaries about pornography are okay. The James Franco produced ‘’Kink’’ ''Kink'' documentary has appeared on the service in the past and features unfiltered and uncensored footage of pornagraphic pornographic shoots.
** Arthouse films with unsimulated sex like ‘’The Nymphomaniac’’ ''Film/Nymphomaniac'' are perfectly fine as well.


Added DiffLines:

* The highest-attended local films ever in Brazil are topped by a church-owned studio making the audience numbers of two religious films - ''The Ten Commandments'' (a CompilationMovie made out of an eponymous soap opera) and ''Nothing to Lose'' (the biography of the founder of said church) - ''much'' higher than they really are. [[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/15/nothing-to-lose-nada-a-perder-brazil-sold-out-empty-cinemas-universal-church Reports showed the sold out showings were often filled with empty seats]], because congregations would buy all tickets and distribute them in cults or outside the theater to whoever would accept it. In one city, a single person connected to the church purchased every single ticket of ''The Ten Commandments'' for the first two weeks in theaters (a total of ''22,700'') to deploy this scheme. Thus, both movies broke 10 million tickets sold (a sum only two Brazilian movies, one being ''Film/TheEliteSquad 2'', got without cheating), even if many those aren't connected to actual spectators.
9th Jun '18 11:25:27 AM CrazyUncleNikola
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* Netflix has a no pornography rule. Documentaries about pornography are okay. The James Franco produced ‘’Kink’’ documentary has appeared on the service in the past and features unfiltered and uncensored footage of pornagraphic shoots.
** Arthouse films with unsimulated sex like ‘’The Nymphomaniac’’ are perfectly fine as well.
8th Jun '18 6:14:19 AM Starshock
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* This is the origin of [[Music/{{ABBA}} ABBA's]] wacky costumes. [[https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/feb/16/abba-outfits-tax-deduction-bjorn-ulvaeus See, back in the Seventies and Eighties, there was a law in the Swedish tax code that allowed the cost of stage outfits to be tax deductible as business expenses on the condition that the outfits were too outrageous to be worn on the street. ABBA took advantage of this by performing in absurd costumes, thus making their outfits tax deductible.]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 748. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=LoopholeAbuse.RealLife