Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
from the and-the-winner-is... dept
Well, this week, I thought we were going to have another single comment dominate both categories, but it was not to be. Dark Helmet took the top spot (by a wide margin) on the "insightful" side of things with the following comment concerning the legality of domain seizures by Homeland Security. It also came in second in the "funniest" category, being narrowly beaten out by another comment, which we'll discuss below. Generally speaking, the comments that win funniest or most insightful are not deep down in a thread, but this week's was an exception. The post, if you don't recall, laid out the legal arguments for why the seizures were against the law, and some of the usual critics in the audience started mocking it... without providing any actual rebuttals, and Dark Helmet apparently got fed up with the lack of substance:I'd have thought this would be right up your alley, AJ. Karl bothered to give a long thoughtful explanation of his view and backed it up with references to boot. Something you USED to do.The comment that came in second on the most insightful ratings was also about the domain seizures, and represented a plea to the world not to judge us by the ridiculous actions of our government. It was written by an aptly-named user, CommonSense.
Your response was to claim that one case controlled w/o bothering to cite why for all us non-DeVry law students and then dismiss the entire post as muddied and confused jumbled logic. To boot, you missed Karl's point about the method by which speech must be handled when POTENTIAL 1st Amendment defenses can be raised.
I can't read what you've been writing lately. I try....I really do. And I can read. And I see that you have written something. Yet usually about halfway through your first sentence, my eyeballs declare war on me for forcing them into this and try to stab me in the brain.
Do you have any idea how much this hurts? To have your own eyeballs try to stab you in the brain. I tried to reason with them. "C'mon eyeballs," I usually say. "You're my second favorite pair of balls on my body. I don't mean you no harm, I just want to read this guy's comment".
But do they listen? No. They just keep trying to stab my brain with oddly formed silia.
So, sorry, I tried....
The U.S. Government is quickly showing that it will do whatever it wants...I also did want to highlight another comment, which only came in fifth, but which I thought did a really nice job debunking some claims of critics who argued that the UK was right to prioritize the recording industry's old business model over internet access for more people. This was a personal favorite of mine, even if it didn't get enough votes to crack the top two or three -- so consider this one the "editor's choice" award. I won't post the whole thing, but here's a snippet:
Some of the U.S. citizens are equally scared, and equally despise our own government for it...
To the World: Please don't confuse U.S. Government Policy with the wishes of the U.S. People.
The purpose of IP shouldn't be to ensure jobs, that's the purpose of things like communism. The free market is perfectly capable of creating content without IP. If content can be created without IP (which it can) then the purpose of having jobs to begin with (to create goods and services) has been served. If it puts some content creators out of business then that will drive them towards more relevant jobs, jobs that are marginally (though not necessarily absolutely) more important than the job of creating content. It's not the governments job to direct what the free market needs. For example, there is only so much food that can be produced in a market at any given time and that amount of food is influenced by the amount of labor that goes into creating food. If the government directs more people to produce content through various free market distortions that means less people will work to produce food (since people only have so much time in a day to do work and there are fewer people producing food) and less food will be produced. The free market is best at determining the marginal value of everything and how much of each thing should be produced, not the government.Moving on to "funniest." Coming in first, and just edging out Dark Helmet's comment above was Lobo Santo's retort to one of our commenters who seems to go to great lengths to mock any and everything posted on the site:
I've been analyzing your posts, and I'm fairly certain I could replace you with a fairly small shell script.Second place was Dark Helmet's comment. Now, I should note that the humor in both of these comments seems to be directed at mocking/taking down some of the regular critics in the comments. I understand why this is being done, but I'm a little disappointed in it. I'd rather the comments be more focused on providing arguments focused on the ideas being discussed, rather than the people discussing them. So, a small plea from over here: let's try to keep things focused on ideas, rather than people.
In third place, we had JohnJac, who made a bunch of folks laugh with his prediction on what may happen to the kid who got burned on his face by super hot nachos at Disney:
5 years from now on school picture day, little Timmy will go into a panic attack with the photographer says "Say Cheese"For the editor's choice, I'm actually going to pick three, but the first one I'm not going to post the content, because it was on the story about plagiarism and whether or not it was appropriate to cite sources, and an anonymous coward posted his or her "thoughts" on the matter by simply plagiarizing my entire post. And, two more for the road, both by Dark Helmet. First is his note concerning the issues with autocorrect making people type funny errors via their mobile device:
Oh, please. There's nothing wrong with autocorrect. If you're low on blood sugar, just spend the sixty-five sense for a cock....And, finally, his response to the fact that he won the "editor's choice" last week with his brilliant DMCA notice in poetic form. He responded again, with another poetic legal threat:
Sent from my iPad
If I may say in this short preamble,Let's see if we can convince him to write more...
That here is another fine example,
Of yet another author's words being stolen,
And his rights left for others to trample,
You must have missed the point of my last epic poem joint,
Because you used it without my permission,
I did not grant or annoint, use of words that I'd coined,
For your own amused transmission,
So consider this another cereal request,
To take down this poem at my behest,
And watch as my chest will swell,
As I sue Techdirt straight to Hell,
You know where to find me, you socialist thief,
And don't you dare think about brushing this off, chief,
I'd continue writing but I have to poop,
Love: Dark Helmet's Legal Notice Writing Group.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You should consider compiling your comments into a short comedy work. I'm sure there are enough of us willing to pay/pirate your work for you to at least break even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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 ]
Re: Re:
It seems to have worked, surprisingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe you should put the koolaid down and get a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plagiarism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TAM had the most insightful/funniest comment of the week!
Every upvote for DH's comments was a lost click for TAM's!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confession:
Beginning from the 3rd paragraph on to the comment's completion, I blatantly plagiarized that comment word for word....from myself. I originally wrote it a year or so ago in response to...NAMELESS.ONE....
I can't tell what's funnier: the idea of my own eyeballs trying to murder my brain, or the fact that a certain commenter around here has become as inane as NAMELESS.ONE....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confession:
Is he African or European?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe I didn't find it as funny because I'm not a big Facebook user, but I think the more likely reason is that it was posted so late in the week. I didn't even see that article until today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't that be nice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am a firm believer that good critics help any cause. Critics force people to think rather than just posting the usual rhetoric and "preaching to the choir." When you know that every sentence you write is likely to be dissected by smart critics, it makes you more careful about everything you write. You think things through, and you don't say things that you know you can't defend.
So, here is a plea to AC, AJ, et. al. Please step it up a notch. We are counting on you to make TechDirt stronger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually I think seeing the "children" flaming rather than using facts to backup their opposing views often strengthens the views presented by the Techdirt articles.
If calling names or ignoring facts is the only way to prove their point then their point is not worth listening too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I can't say that I've noticed such a thing (at least no more than anywhere else). Personally, I tend to take a much more open and easygoing approach to people who aren't regulars and aren't posting anonymously and I've noticed others doing the same. If you feel you're being victimised then it may be because you post anonymously and people aren't as inclined to treat you as an individual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I have to say I've seen this too. Newcomers who post dissenting opinions -- assuming they don't start out by using insults or curses or whatever -- tend to get very friendly explanations for where we're coming from, and even pointers to more information.
The only times the comments start to get nasty is when someone is persistently abrasive, counter-logical or obnoxious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's funny, coming from someone posting anonymously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pseudonymously. You may not know my real identity, but my point was about being able to recognise someone as an individual, not about being able to look them up in the phone book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh, that's what I am too: pseudonymous.
You may not know my real identity, but my point was about being able to recognise someone as an individual, not about being able to look them up in the phone book.
There are those who know who I am, even if you don't. So you see, I'm not really anonymous after all either.
And as to recognizing individuals, how do I even know that you're even an individual and not some kind of shared persona? I don't. So, again, you're no less anonymous than I am.
Are you the pot or the kettle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As you seem suspiciously like the same Anonymous Coward who failed to recognise this distinction last time it came up, let me repeat:
Anonymous Coward isn't so much a name as it is a label. You'd be like an author with the pen name 'not known'.
"There are those who know who I am, even if you don't. So you see, I'm not really anonymous after all either."
Please be more blatant about ignoring what words mean in order to be contrary. Someone somewhere may be reading Techdirt offline and not have access to a dictionary.
"And as to recognizing individuals, how do I even know that you're even an individual and not some kind of shared persona? I don't. So, again, you're no less anonymous than I am. "
Fortunately my point was about my perceptions, not yours.
"Are you the pot or the kettle?"
The kettle. Who uses a teapot any more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What? You can recognize me as an individual? That kind of contradicts the basis of your argument, then, doesn't it?
Please be more blatant about ignoring what words mean in order to be contrary. Someone somewhere may be reading Techdirt offline and not have access to a dictionary.
Just following your cue. You were the one who started trying to deny that you were anonymous. But if I accept your argument that you're not anonymous (apparently using your personal dictionary), then neither am I.
Fortunately my point was about my perceptions, not yours.
You may only care about your own perceptions, but that really does little to convince me that you have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What argument? I was pointing out that personally I tend to recognise people who have a consistent name as individuals and suggesting that posting anonymously may affect how people respond to you. I'm not suggesting that I'm completely unable to tell anonymous posters apart, ever. That's your straw man.
"Just following your cue. You were the one who started trying to deny that you were anonymous."
I'm not denying that I'm anonymous, I'm pointing out that there is a distinction between anonymous and pseudonymous. I'm anonymous outside of the context of this site, but within this site I have a consistent individual identity.
"apparently using your personal dictionary"
Which would you prefer I use? I admit that I only referenced Wiktionary and Oxford Dictionary Online in that case.
"You may only care about your own perceptions"
I don't only care about my own perceptions, feel free to tell me about yours. I was pointing out that my post was based on my opinion and my perceptions and wasn't masquerading as some universal truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
i think the vitriol gets unleashed on people who make 5 year old arguments. i know i have unleashed the fury on a couple of "what if i were to copy your blog..." comments in the past.
i think the conversation here has progressed beyond a lot of the stuff that ACs tend to throw out and it looks like a lot of the regulars are just tired of having out the whole "OMG stealing" or "that only works/would never work for bands of X size and X popularity" debate for the thousandth time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good critics don't need to hold diametrically opposing views. I would argue that you're more likely to get criticism which will actually refine your ideas from people who mostly agree with you than those who don't agree with you at all. Both are good to have, but neither are as important as the ability to analyse and communicate.
"So, here is a plea to AC, AJ, et. al. Please step it up a notch. We are counting on you to make TechDirt stronger."
I'm not so sure it's a problem. If you're critically analysing the people you tend to agree with as much as the ones you don't then the us V them concept should be irrelevant. If people aren't critically analysing the people they tend to agree with then they should be, as much as they should be critically analysing their own views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I didn't post, if AJ didn't toss stuff in, if Anonymous (the user) didn't make comments, you guys would be in a mental circle jerk that would leave you satisfied but no further along the path of evolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem with many of the devils advocates is that they simply do an atrocious job of it. If they were pointing out errors, discussing the opposing facts, etc. then there could be a lively discussion.
Instead we have a horde of "Anti-Techdirters" who do nothing more than say that Mike is wrong for every single article, with little more than writing fluff to pad their attacks.
Or worse, the Ronald J. Rileys who take a "see no evil, hear no evil" stance, and will speak in utopian ideals rather than analyzing reality.
average_joe happens to be one of the sad few that will research his stance, and back up his opposition. Of course, he's got major attitude issues, and can't seem to make an argument without making personal attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This. Many times this. I understand Mike's request to battle ideas instead of people, and lord knows I'm probably one of the people who gets a little heated at times, but what do you do when the person you're arguing with is the one that makes things personal? Do you turn the proverbial other cheek?
God knows I've had arguments on this site with people I respect but have disagreed with. I've had those arguments cordially on several occassions. It's the boneheads who are so arrogant that they "know" they're right that piss me off....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to ignore the fact that my personal attacks started AFTER months and months of abuse from others for presenting views that differed from their own. Recently, if I even point out one factual mistake in Mike's article, several people immediately jump on me and give me grief. My personal attacks didn't start in a vacuum. I hope you realize that.
You're right, though, I do have an attitude. My attitude is disbelief that people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about insisting that my legal analysis is wrong. Believe it or not, but after 2.5 years of law school, I might actually something about the law. I tried to share that with others, but all I got in return was grief.
It's too bad, because I thought I had something of value to add to this place. I've moved along, and "AJ" is retired. I know when I'm not welcome. It's a real shame that so many posters' minds are closed to thought that differs from their own. That's not how productive exchanges work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AJ, kill the woe is me noise, partner. I'm one of the people that got pissed off and attacked you in the thread where you made that factualy correct correction. But it had nothing to do w/that. Rather, it had to do with the silly claim you made about Mike which WAS a personal attack and your inability to back up what you said was a logical point in it. I've had exchanges w/you in the past, many of them fruitful and cordial. In fact, Rose and I specifically lamented the fact that you've dissolved into a pale specter of your formerly rational, intelligent self. But you know all of this....
"You're right, though, I do have an attitude. My attitude is disbelief that people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about insisting that my legal analysis is wrong. Believe it or not, but after 2.5 years of law school, I might actually something about the law. I tried to share that with others, but all I got in return was grief."
Two things. First, I damn well KNOW that right off the bat you're going to know more about law in general than I am because of your background. That isn't the problem. The problem was your arrogant attitude, as though once you'd stated a position on the law that was the only valid point to be made and no one could argue against it. Karl proved that arguments from non-lawyers COULD be made, but you dismissed him ARROGANTLY. That was the crux of the problem. Secondly, most people for most of the time, myself included, have been fairly tollerant of your dissenting viewpoint. Hell, several of us ENCOURAGED it. It's the nonsense you've begun spouting more recently that's pissing people off....
"It's too bad, because I thought I had something of value to add to this place. I've moved along, and "AJ" is retired. I know when I'm not welcome. It's a real shame that so many posters' minds are closed to thought that differs from their own."
If that's what you want to do, that's your choice. Personally, I think it's too bad. All you really had to do was say, "Hey, you know what, I probably shouldn't have said that crap about loving child molestors. It was wrong and it didn't move the discussion forward. My bad."
How would any reasonable person be able to respond to that with anything other than, "Ok, good deal"? I know I certainly would have been okay with it. Particularly since I valued the links you generally provided to back up your arguments. Look, I'll show you how it's done, not to haughtily teach you by false apology, but because I truly mean it:
I shouldn't have gotten so upset at a slight against someone else. While I should have pushed back against the silly claim you made, I shouldn't have done it so vehemently, nor in a way that derailed another thread that had nothing to do w/the topic I was upset about. It was an emotional response, which is something I particularly argue against. So, seriously, I apologize for that. My bad. I'll make a point to work hard not to let it happen again.
I won't beg you to come back, AJ, but I hope you do, particularly in your original form. Come back as the helpful dissenting opinion. Lose the haughtiness. Lose the personal attacks. Lose the overwhelming arrogance.
Do that, and I believe you'll find yourself a valued member of the community once more....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
These people with "open minds" who also happen to have a an extraordinary self-interest in intellectual property law?
I would argue that, for the most part, people that comment on TD are more open minded and reasonable than typical in an online forum. A_J seems to like the status quo, always gives the benefit of the doubt to the government, and scares me with his interpretations of the US Constitution and interest in US hegemony. Perhaps the community here simply isn't a match for such intolerance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm the one with the open mind. I don't start with the conclusion and then work my way backwards like so many posters on here actually do. Having an open mind means looking at things from all sides, and then trying to find the right answer. It doesn't mean agreeing with the people you already agree with, and then spewing venom at anyone who disagrees.
The last thing you'll find amongst the Techdirt fanboys is an open mind. You can pretend like you guys are all open-minded, but this reader isn't fooled one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But when you do that, you tend to do so without recognising that people are discussing what the law should be. You have this running fallacy that because something is law then that makes it OK.
"I'm the one with the open mind. I don't start with the conclusion and then work my way backwards like so many posters on here actually do."
Is it possible that you've pre empted my request for an example by providing it within the argument itself? Oh, other posters. Example please.
"Having an open mind means looking at things from all sides, and then trying to find the right answer. It doesn't mean agreeing with the people you already agree with, and then spewing venom at anyone who disagrees."
I'm pretty sure being open minded is simply synonymous with being unprejudiced. Regardless, are you suggesting that we aren't allowed to agree with people we already agree with?
"The last thing you'll find amongst the Techdirt fanboys is an open mind. You can pretend like you guys are all open-minded, but this reader isn't fooled one bit."
I'm not sure I've ever claimed to be open minded. I've not really noticed anyone else claim it either. The conspiracy must be extremely subtle, especially if I'm supposed to be part of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to admit, unless someone's being generally bigoted then I tend to ignore random personal attacks, whether the perpetrators seem in agreement with me or not. I can dimly recall various pointless insults against you but you never seemed to respond to them so neither did I. I also remember what was probably the first time I had a discussion with you, in which you seemed to delight in belittling my semantic analysis with crude humour. Given that you seemed OK with making fun of someone who was trying to have a constructive discussion, I'm still at a loss to understand why you care about generally benign insults that come from people who aren't adding anything to the discussion anyway.
I mean, I wouldn't think of complaining about some of the seemingly malicious anonymous posters like the one who first responded to my favourites article, because they don't matter.
"My attitude is disbelief that people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about insisting that my legal analysis is wrong. Believe it or not, but after 2.5 years of law school, I might actually something about the law. I tried to share that with others, but all I got in return was grief."
So, you tried to share your analysis with people whom you apparently believe are incapable of understanding it? In the best case scenario from your point of view, 2.5 years of law school gives you very little credibility to tell complete strangers that you're an authority on the subject.
'It's too bad, because I thought I had something of value to add to this place. I've moved along, and "AJ" is retired. I know when I'm not welcome. It's a real shame that so many posters' minds are closed to thought that differs from their own. That's not how productive exchanges work.'
I've noticed a theme of vagueness with posts calling out other peoples apparent stupidity, or in this case closed mindedness. The cynic in me recognises it as an attempt to protect the argument from refute. How can we deny that many posters are closed minded when we don't know to whom you refer? How can we make the argument that most of them may not be the same people trying to have a constructive discussion anyway, when we don't know to whom you refer?
In an earlier post I asked an anonymous poster to clarify whether they were talking about me and wasn't surprised when they denied that they were, despite them responding to my post while referring to 'you guys'.
I'm honestly on the fence as to whether it'd be a shame to see you go. On the one hand, you seem to offer the most consistently constructive opposing view here lately. On the other hand, as merit-able as your contributions may be, I'm not sure they weigh favourably with the assumption that mere amateurs are unable to compete with 2.5 years in law school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could you be more specific; am I one of those people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just pick your average anti-govenrment thread of the week. You can class most of the posts in a very few categories:
1 - "hell yeah!"
2 - You made a typo, but "hell yeah!"
3 - I don't agree with you entirely, but the government sucks.
4 - America is now worse than (insert bottom of the barrel country here)
5 - I think you are over reacting, or don't have all the facts.
6 - "the #5 guy is a troll/ shill / tard / moron / child"
There isn't much else out there. There are exceptional posts out there that bring interesting information, but they are usually lost on a whole bunch of #1 and #6 types.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1 - "hell yeah!"
2 - You made a typo, but "hell yeah!"
3 - I don't agree with you entirely, but the government sucks.
4 - America is now worse than (insert bottom of the barrel country here)
5 - I think you are over reacting, or don't have all the facts.
6 - "the #5 guy is a troll/ shill / tard / moron / child"
There isn't much else out there.
If true, then maybe there's a reason for that. Like maybe it's just a reflection of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the actions of the government do not reflect the wishes of the people, why don't the Americans grow some balls and hit the streets? People in Libya hit the streets eventhough the chances are good that they will return home with a bullet in their head.
Obama encourages the people to stand to their oppressive governments. Is America somehow excluded from this statement? The only thing I can conclude from the silence of the American people is that government action does indeed reflect the will of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not in a position to take on a project of this size and scope but I would happily lend what time and resources I could. Americans protesting the corporate control of Washington D.C. is something long overdue, as we watch our liberties and freedoms trampled by those elected officials and their appointees, who are SUPPOSED to be representing the citizens but instead bow to the corporate pressure because that's where the money for re-election comes from as well as the job they will take once they leave office.
It really is a very unfortunate time for the citizens of our country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Many Americans, like the Tea Party, have been taking to the streets in recent years. The people are certainly not silent, maybe ignored would be a better word.
Obamas' approval rating is 48% (source gallup)
Congress' Job Approval rating is 13% (source gallup)
Clearly the people do not approve of our governments actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And you think that in some way compares to what's been happening in Egypt? How silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That, and presidential elections have devolved into a political Superbowl of sorts. Far too many people are busy rooting for their "team", instead of caring about the issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
the american government seems to have perfected 2 steps backward 1 step forward.
-comment to be completed as an exercise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair, I don't have to go to great lengths. You feed me such wonderful, one sided material, it isn't hard to find holes in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]