Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
from the new-feature-time dept
Okay, we're launching a new feature this week, to see how it goes. We've had these voting buttons on comments for a while, which will show when certain comments are voted to be particularly insightful or funny, but thought we might as well do some more to promote those. So we're experimenting with highlighting the most insightful and funniest comments from the past week.On the most insightful comment, the highest voted comment came from Mike C. in response to the article about the fines the Canadian recording industry had to pay for infringing on the copyrights of artists, his comment, titled Let me see if I get this right read:
1) The major labels end up paying $45 million for over 300,000 cases on infringement. That works out to $150 per incident and yet they want $150,000 per incident here in the USA.In second place, we had a tie, with one comment from Spaceboy, responding to a question as to why it was unconstitutional that the DMCA blocks you from modding your own devices by explaining why people should be able to do what they want with a product they bought:
2) The labels get to CONTINUE to perform the acts of infringement as long as they "promise" to pay the artists infringed against in a "timely" fashion.
Yeah... and they wonder why we call them two-faced...
It's unconstitutional because it breaks fair use. I can't rip a DVD without breaking DMCA, yet I have the right to make legal backups of all my media.Voted equally insightful was this comment from Hephaestus concerning Twitter's response to the government's request for info on various Wikileaks volunteers. Hephaestus decided to make a larger prediction, noting that "this seems to be the year that the US Government will try to quash the 1st amendment and privacy on the internet":
In the case of the PS3, it's a product, and as consumers we should be able to do whatever the hell we want with it. I can mod my car to make it go way faster than the speed limit, but I am not breaking any laws until I actually go over the speed limit. The Jailbreaking software adds functionality back to the PS3 that Sony stripped away, and no one should be put in jail for modding their hardware.
I wonder if this will work out better for the US government than it did for the record labels. I some how doubt it. With RIAA and the labels you had an annoyance. With the US government you have a world superpower that is a threat to the first amendment and free speech on the internet. Confiscating domain names, shutting down peoples access to financial services, violating the first, fourth, and fourteenth amenedments of the constitution, calls for the assasination of the head of a foreign news organization. All in all power blatantly abused at the highest levels of government.For the funniest comment, the runaway winner (by far), was on our post about California's new higher copyright infringement fines, and the comment came from a non-registered user with the accurate username of Mr. Smarta** who broke out the sarcasm with his post:
With RIAA and the labels actions we have seen a slow gradual change in technology. With the US government getting involved in online affairs I expect to see a huge, and very fast increase in encryption usage and distributed systems. The words "Wake Up Call" come to mind.
I wonder who will win this battle over free speech, freedom to express our thoughts, and privacy on the internet? The billions of us or couple tens of thousand of them.
Those numbers are incorrect. After careful counting and using systems of evaluation that are perfect and without contest, the actual number of jobs lost due to piracy is about 32.5 billion jobs last year. Got that??? Over five times the planet's entire population was laid off!! You can't contest that. Every single person was hired and fired over six times. My boss called me in and said "Sorry. We have to let you go. Piracy is rampant and cost you your job." To which I replied "We sell engine blocks!!!" So there you have it. Someone trading a CD online cost some poor fast food employee his job because that one CD screwed up the burger he was making.Nicely done. Coming in second was a comment on our story concerning the World Erotic Art Museum suing Thomas Hawk for posting some photographs he took at the museum on Flickr. In its defense, the Museum noted that there was an "unspoken and unwritten understanding" that visitors wouldn't post such photos online, to which a commenter named Burton questioned:
And $58,000,000,000??? What a load of crap. I'll have you know that the actual loss last year alone was over three hundred times the gross domestic product. Got that?? Three hundred times of our stuff just suddenly was taken out and shipped overseas. Know what we have left now? Rocks!!! That's it! Rocks, and maybe some sand somewhere. Piracy cost us everything the United States owned. I hope you're happy now. Download one copy of the movie 'Inception', and suddenly some other country repo's the entire continent. What a bummer...
If the understanding is both unspoken and unwritten, how is it conveyed, mime?And, in the honorable mention category, we have a comment from Crade, which scored the combined highest on both the insightful and funny scales, in discussing the TSA's warning that wearing scanner resistant clothing means they'll have to grope you:
"My favorite might be the undergarments with the 4th Amendment printed in metallic ink"And there you go... Everyone's favorite comments of the week...
They should make some that say
"If you can read this, you are violating my rights"
or maybe
"Am I safe yet?"
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comments
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hardest button to button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hardest button to button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hardest button to button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hardest button to button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and remember this
so you could be looking at as many as a million infringements and they were done COMMERCIALLY which should have had the rcmp step in and in the end if found guilty 20,000 FINE per infringement
YOU figure it out how much the record industry owes , no one has the song count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OH and
we have our own law just seems that the harper govt and rcmp do not want to charge hollywood when it violates it.
SO from this precedent we can determine that civilly commercial infringement is as low as 150$ per infringement to maybe as low as 75$ per infringement.
And criminally the 20,000 FINE per INFRINGEMENT no longer applies at all.
THANK YOU HOLLYWOOD im a go start selling autocad now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OH and
We can even outsource the DMCA!
Hell, France wanted to be so much like us, they got Hadopi.
And BREIN? Small potatoes compared to what we've done with domains.
Yep, we have the whole world in our hands!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does anybody want it? I certainly don't, the only thing it does is pop up in my updates scanner and thus makes me come here just to see that nothing interesting was published.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
CwF + RtB stands for Connect with Fans and give them a Reason to Buy. The connect with fans part is what mike is doing here. He is allowing the individuals here to engage the people that visit this site. He is practicing what he preaches ... school is now out, now run along and go home and do your homework.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2. if its an update on the weekend, you can pretty much bet its going to be this type of stuff. just ignore it until monday... yes, the internet does in fact have an off button.
3. ????
4. profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's all weekend extras (probably because people like myself were sad without Techdirt on the weekends). However, with that in mind, you can safely ignore any weekend updates.
See? Easy fix. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I found it interesting. I have to wonder what 'update scanner' you're using that can't provide you with the title of the article before you're forced to come here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wonder what makes you think anybody is actually "forced to come here."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, just a theory. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The words "Paid To Troll" on a T-Shirt would be well received with my Bangalore Team, especially if they approve my capital request for the Hurricane 400 t-shirt cannon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wonder what makes you think I intended it to be taken literally. I know my jokes aren't funny, but they're usually pretty obvious (unless they're too British). I'm sorry if the image of someone being forced to visit Techdirt caused you any distress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then that just might be why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. The biggest giveaway is my spelling (and the fact that I keep telling people that I'm British).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neat to know, though. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does anybody want it? I certainly don't,...
It's just Mike's way or rewarding his favorite fan-boys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, here he is, practicing what he preaches and you act like he's doing something *bad* by adding value to his fans?!
..and like a lightbulb going on, it is obvious to me that you aren't a troll, you *honestly* don't understand what Mike is talking about. Very sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, the reason I've been posting is my hope to get a virtual pat on the head from Mike. Oh, wait, Mike doesn't make the choice, we do. What was your point again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, Mike does make the choice (as to who it is).
What was your point again?
I was just about to ask you the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: oh look
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oh look
What makes you think that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oh look
There are any number of reasons for an IP address to change. I don't see why anyone would do it intentionally in this case..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Want It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dig the new substance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I dig the new substance
Same here, but I wrote one, and was mentioned in the other. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vote: Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vote: Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vote: Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent infringement!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And ham! I was told there would be ham for this one. :(
I enjoy TD weekendy stuff, despite the lack of ham.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The AC's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The AC's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The AC's
I'll stop now for fear of feeding the AC trolls any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The AC's
Pot, meet kettle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He just did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Read the name of this place again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
mentioning them would be rather ... redundant. kinda the anti-thesis of the entire point of the report button, really...
(and the 'report'ed ones are still there. people can click and read 'em if they want to.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In fact, I don't know about everyone else, but they are so eye-catching that I *have* to open and read every one.
So fear not trolls, your idiocy does not go unlaughed at!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.
..
...
"Ouch"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC Trolls
Boy I wish the English would learn to spell "our" language correctly :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AC Trolls
So, let me get this straight, you want me to go upstairs this morning and knock up your sister?
Her teeth aren't very good but I would be willing to give it a try. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AC Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great addition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
accolades
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Score: 5, Funny)
.
.
.
Mod this +5, Funny! ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (Score: 5, Funny)
I actually think that is great. I mean, puns, ftw! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suggestion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suggestion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vote? What Vote?
What a joke, there is no "voting" process. It's just Mike marking which comments he finds "insightful or funny" and then claiming they were "voted" that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vote? What Vote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
I'd love to see some sort of proof to the contrary. Any at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
If you have proof that they do not work as expected, feel free to demonstrate it and we will move to a less simple theory.
If clicking something has no measurable effect for you, it could be as simple as that comment did not get whatever arbitrary number of votes required to get the flag. See above for why this answer is the more likely answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
No need to prove a negative. Just prove in the positive that the voting system is on the up and up.
Occam's Razor says that we should tend to the simplest answer until we can trade simplicity for a more thorough answer.
OK, the simplest answer is that the buttons don't do much.
If you have proof that they do not work as expected, feel free to demonstrate it and we will move to a less simple theory.
If you have proof that they really do anything, "feel free to demonstrate it and we will move to a less simple theory."
Some people are really gullible enough to believe anything Mike tells them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
Can we get some more sophisticated trolls please? Resorting to an argument from ignorance is desperate. You don't know whether the voting system is 'on the up and up'. Using this lack of knowledge, you assert that the voting system is not 'on the up and up'. Given that both of us are at least equally ignorant, where does the burden of proof lie? General convention (and good sense) places the burden on the person making the assertion, which would be you.
Further, it is taken for granted that the system is 'on the up and up' because while we do not know whether Mike is deceiving us, we can presume that he would claim not to. Given that he definitely knows then you would have to make the further assertion that Mike is deceiving us. So, not one, but two assertions for which you are trying to shift the burden of proof.
So, I see your two ad ignorantums and raise you an ad hominem: troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
Um, no, that would be Mike, if he's asserting that the system is "on the up and up." Otherwise, he's just making stuff up.
Further, it is taken for granted that the system is 'on the up and up' because while we do not know whether Mike is deceiving us, we can presume that he would claim not to.
Now you're making unfounded assumptions. Of course, I can see how you'd like to think that your own brownie points were awarded based on some type of merit rather than Mike's whims, huh?
So, I see your two ad ignorantums and raise you an ad hominem: troll.
You can't handle the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
So, please prove to us that your comments are your own and that you are not paid to be here. You're asserting that these are your real opinions, so prove it - otherwise you're just making stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
Huh? You apparently think that AC is one person. That's funny. Please, give us more of your great internet wisdom...
So, please prove to us that your comments are your own and that you are not paid to be here. You're asserting that these are your real opinions, so prove it - otherwise you're just making stuff up.
Likewise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
And yeah dummy, I know it's a stupid request and totally unfair - that was my whole point. He is for some reason challenging Mike to prove that the comment voting system isn't rigged, even though that's a wildly paranoid and unfounded theory - so I'm letting him taste his own stupid medicine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
So, by not saying anything he's making stuff up? I think I preferred the logic in your previous post.
"Now you're making unfounded assumptions. Of course, I can see how you'd like to think that your own brownie points were awarded based on some type of merit rather than Mike's whims, huh?"
If you want to believe that I crave attention from Mike then that's OK. I'm sure he's as comfortable as I am with the 'complete stranger who happens to frequent his website' nature of our relationship.
"You can't handle the truth."
That you might really be unbelievably ignorant rather than a troll? If that's the truth then I'd rather stay ignorant myself, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
To avoid confusion (having noticed that Mike has actually posted), replace the first sentence with: 'So, by not saying anything he would be making stuff up?'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
But if you want to assume nefarious intent for no good reason, I can't stop you. I have no idea what would be gained by rigging it, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
That's easy, it only takes one vote: Mike's.
"...I can't stop you."
Too bad, huh?
I have no idea what would be gained by rigging it, though.
Are you really that naive? Do you really have to have such obvious things explained to you or are you just feigning ignorance? Alright, here you go (just to see what excuse you'll come up with next): How about putting forth one's own personal opinion while claiming that that it's actually the opinion of a bunch of "voters" instead? A lot of politicians would LOVE to be able to get away with one (doesn't keep them from trying, though).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
This is also false. No single voter -- including myself -- can put anyone over the threshold. Which was very much done on purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
To what end? 'Hey, look what is proved by a bunch of anonymous people on my blog voting this comment most insightful'. Oh my Spaghetti! What power we have given him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
Likewise, to what end would I make it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
Perhaps he wrote an article that offended you. Are you suggesting there is an equivalency between your position and his?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
Perhaps he wrote an article that offended you.
Perhaps I wrote a comment that offended him?
Are you suggesting there is an equivalency between your position and his?
Absolutely. I guess I'm not on your deity list along with Mike, am I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
I'm not coming up with excuses, I'm just refusing to follow you down a silly path of grasping at straws. You are so desperate to discredit Techdirt that you are slinging accusations that don't make any sense. It's as if you said oh god, there's nothing much in this post for me to criticize since it's just aggregated comments, what can I do? What can I claim? I know! I'll accuse him of just making it all up.
Are you really so paranoid that you ACTUALLY think the votes for the pointless, semi-fun little comment badges are rigged? I find that quite difficult to believe, and quite unhealthy if true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
Then I suppose you would also agree that it would serve no purpose for me to make anything up either or that the poll showing that 90% of Techdirt readers agree with me was somehow rigged. Good, I'm glad we got that out of the way.
Do you picture the team sitting all day long watching the comments, saying "ooh, this guy deserves an LOL badge, let's give him one!"
Do you picture Mike "sitting all day long watching the comments" at all? Nah, we know that he never reads them, does he? (sarcasm)
I'm not coming up with excuses, I'm just refusing to follow you down a silly path of grasping at straws. You are so desperate to discredit Techdirt that you are slinging accusations that don't make any sense. It's as if you said oh god, there's nothing much in this post for me to criticize since it's just aggregated comments, what can I do? What can I claim? I know! I'll accuse him of just making it all up.
Huh? By your own reasoning, what purpose would any of that serve? How would it profit me?
Are you really so paranoid...
Oh boy, there you go again. Enough with the name-calling, already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
When you attack the messenger, you're engaging in name calling, even if you stand by it. I've seen people (often in a group) call other people terrible names and "stand by it", too. I've got news for you "Marcus" (or whatever your real name is), standing by it doesn't make it right, especially when you choose to it anonymously on the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
There, now we're equal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
There, now we're equal.
Said the teacher's pet. Apparently, "some are more equal than others", to use the words of George Orwell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
are you really prepared to say you are 100% sure it's the latter and not the former?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
:::dies laughing:::
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
According to the poll, 90% *agree* with me. You must be in that other 10%.
the godlike Michael Masnick as he cackles away on his throne
You're the first to suggest here that Mike is godlike or has a throne. Wow, a true fanboy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
Yes, 90% of the people who e-mailed you (possibly including yourself). That's not even remotely close to a decent methodology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
What? Are you suggesting I would rig the voting? But Mike wouldn't rig his, right? Riiiight...
That's not even remotely close to a decent methodology.
Every bit as "decent" as the voting *here* is.
Sorry, fangurl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
Yeah, I was totally stating that as my own opinion, and it was no way meant as a mockingly exaggerated version of yours. In fact there was measurably no sarcasm in that statement, just like in this one. I considered putting "/completelyliteral" at the end, but I see you figured it out anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
Fair enough.
....it was no way meant as a mockingly exaggerated version of yours.
That's good, but I don't engage in such worship.
In fact there was measurably no sarcasm in that statement, just like in this one.
If you say so.
I considered putting "/completelyliteral" at the end, but I see you figured it out anyway.
I bet you like to joke about bombs in airports too, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vote? What Vote?
Just to clarify: this is simply not true. I mean, why would I even bother setting up the whole voting process then? I could just as easily set up a post that says "these are my favorite comments." The voting system does work, and the comments selected were based on the actual votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
One possible reason was given above. Try reading.
By the way, the votes for the above poll have been counted and the results are in!
Percent of Techdirt readers who think the comment voting system is rigged: 90%
Percent of those who consider themselves fan-boys: 0%
Percent who dropped out of high school: 0%
Of the 10% who don't think it's rigged, 90% admit to being either fan-boys, high school drop outs, or both.
Hey, those were the votes, so you know it has to be true!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vote? What Vote?
In what way? Ad hominem much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vote? What Vote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poll
Is the Techdirt voting system rigged? YES or NO
Are you a Techdirt Fanboi? YES or NO
Did you drop out before graduating high school? YES or NO
I'll let you know how the Techdirt readers vote later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with the voting buttons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with the voting buttons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we need a "don't like" kind of button for trolls and idiotic arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
proof them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where did they go?
I'm not saying they disappeared, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]