Library of Congress Threatens Washington Watch Wiki

BackRow writes "Washington Watch, a site devoted to tracking the cost of federal legislation, has raised the hackles of the Library of Congress with a new wiki that makes an unfavorable comparison to the LOC's THOMAS legislative search engine. After Jim Harper, Washington Watch's creator and the director of information policy at the Cato Institute, announced the wiki, he received a nastygram from the LOC." Quoting: "After the announcement, he was contacted by Matt Raymond, the Director of Communications at the Library (and the author of the Library of Congress' blog). Raymond said that he possessed 'statutory and regulatory authority governing unauthorized use of the Library's name and logo and those of Library subunits and programs,' and he asked that Harper stop using the names 'Library of Congress' and 'THOMAS' in his marketing materials."

Comments

Obvious Solution

[Qzukk]

Call it the Library of Progress, and refer to JEFFERSON.

Re:Obvious Solution

[Lithdren]

Library of !=(Pro) + gress

That would make a great T-shirt! (tm)

Re:Obvious Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Library of Progress

How many Libraries of Congress is that?

Re:Obvious Solution

[philpalm]

Quote from article:
"I contacted Raymond about the issue, and he tells Ars that he was acting under Library of Congress Regulation 112, which says that "the use of the Library's name, explicitly or implicitly to endorse a product or service, or materials in any publication is prohibited, except as provided for in this Regulation." For Raymond, the issue here is that Harper was critical of the Library's own work in a way which endorsed his own; as Raymond puts it, "the use of THOMAS in the Washington Watch press release in a negative way is clearly used in the context of endorsement, rather than general criticism."

Raymond claims that he has no intention of trying to silence critics, and points out that the Library's blog has opened itself to reader comments, critical or otherwise. His concern, rather, is "in the context of marketing and endorsement."
My comment:
It is not an obvious solution, Washington Watch wants to take it to court to determine the validity of the Law. Raymond the bureaucrat wants to be protecting himself (his job entails enforcing rules made by Congress) and the LOC in emphasizing that there is a law not permitting the use of the LOC in any marketing scheme.

Now if Washington Watch is a non-profit organization then I guess there would be no marketing scheme....

Re:Obvious Solution

[metrometro]

Now if Washington Watch is a non-profit organization then I guess there would be no marketing scheme.... Not quite. Nonprofit is just a tax status - they play by the same rules as business on just about everything else.

Re:Obvious Solution

[zippthorne]

i of them.

Re:Obvious Solution

[fractoid]

e^(-pi * LibrariesOfCongress) + 1 = 0
Finally it makes sense...

Re:Obvious Solution

[Bheckleman]

Nonprofit is just a tax status - they play by the same rules as business on just about everything else

True. The AARP, for example is a not for profit organization. However they also have a very strong marketing department. Even though they do not own the companies they market for (insurance, auto club, etc.) they seem to have quite a few business partnerships when it comes marketing to the senior segment.

Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[metrometro]

"Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Gat0r30y]

"Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?
No.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cato Institute

I'd compare some of the people at the Cato Institute to dogs. Good, mean, grizzly guard dogs. They do a great job of chasing down some of the bullshit in government, sinking their teeth into it, and ripping it apart.

But we shouldn't put dogs in charge of the government.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[metrometro]

Chew on the government, fine. But when they spend decades cranking out coal-funded "science" written by PR flacks, it's more like dingo-ate-my-baby than a watchdog.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be nice to live in a world where you can just systematically disregard the positions of someone else because you've already decided they're wrong because of who they are.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[qbzzt]

"Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?

Not if you believe that rights only belong to people who happen to agree with you.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[metrometro]

Oh boy. For what it's worth, I work for a D.C. government watchdog and am very familiar with Cato. I read their books, I go to their events. Their office is sweet - lots of windows, big atrium. Bottom line is their science positions are intellectually dishonest at a comprehensive level, and that keeps them well funded by industry. So yeah, I distrust the information they put out, because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[WilliamSChips]

It's called a track record. Ignoring it is called insanity.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[WilliamSChips]

A "free market in the field of government" rarely lasts, and only once that I can think of(maybe twice) has it lead to the second government not being a thousand times worse than the previous.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[metrometro]

This ain't about rights. Cato will be competently defended by their legion of industry-funded lawyers. It's a silly suit, and it will fail. But it's marketing gold for Cato, which may well have hoped for exactly this reaction.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[qbzzt]

"A free market in the field of government" means that if a government is bad you have the option to abandon it, and the country it runs, and find a better place to live.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> "A free market in the field of government" means that if a government is bad you have the option to abandon it, and the country it runs, and find a better place to live.

Um, no.

It's my country. *I have a right to change it.* "Love it or leave it" is just more facist crap. Stop trying to strip me of my constitutional rights.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Mr. Underbridge]

"Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?

Of course. Why else did you bring that Cato report to the restroom if you weren't going to take a nice dump and wipe your ass with it?

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you believe that rights only belong to people who happen to agree with you.

Well then I guess that makes him a card-carrying ACLU member!

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[FishWithAHammer]

It's my country. *I have a right to change it.* "Love it or leave it" is just more facist crap. Stop trying to strip me of my constitutional rights.

He didn't say you had to leave. But he's got just as much right to fight your wrongheaded bullshit as you have to spew it.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[that this is not und]

Wow. Right at the heart of it: pot, kettle, black. Tell us which advocacy group you work with in opposition to Cato's position. Cato dudes probably come and hang out in your building as well.

There are a lot of people whose 'science positions' are intellectually dishonest, and that keeps them well funded in the politics industry. Al Gore is a shining example. Real scientists have to hold their nose when they engage in any activity with Gore as an ally.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[qbzzt]

It's my country. *I have a right to change it.*

You have the right to try. You may or may not succeed.

"Love it or leave it" is just more facist crap. Stop trying to strip me of my constitutional rights.

I didn't realize I was doing that. I didn't write this .sig as a reply to you. I wrote it in 1998, as I was leaving Israel to build my life in the US. I hated conscription (I consider it a form of slavery), so I moved to a country where the government isn't as likely to vote my children into uniforms. Since then, I haven't seen anything that changed my mind (US citizen as of two weeks ago).

I wrote it as a way to tell people that if they don't like something their government does, and they don't think they have a snowball's chance in hell of changing it, they can still make a difference in their lives by finding a better package deal from another government. I apologize if you think that pointing out you have a right to leave the country strips you of any of your constitutional rights.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[zCyl]

I wrote it as a way to tell people that if they don't like something their government does, and they don't think they have a snowball's chance in hell of changing it, they can still make a difference in their lives by finding a better package deal from another government.

If you leave all of the nations that have problems you can't fix, you will very quickly get tired of swimming.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[lessthan]

No, not swimming! Look up! Thousands of worlds await our mistakes. LOL

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[tourvil]

Oh boy. For what it's worth, I work for a D.C. government watchdog and am very familiar with Cato. I read their books, I go to their events. Their office is sweet - lots of windows, big atrium. Bottom line is their science positions are intellectually dishonest at a comprehensive level, and that keeps them well funded by industry. So yeah, I distrust the information they put out, because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders.

It would be worth a lot more if you cited some examples and/or sources. I know very little about Cato, so I have no reason to give their studies more or less weight than others. But your post, which is currently modded 5 Insightful, gives me no information on why I should distrust their information.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[binarybits]

I would be curious to know which industry sources funded my paper criticizing the DMCA. Or for that matter, their recent papers criticizing the Bush administration's civil liberties record and the NSA's wiretapping program.

It's also interesting that you don't cite any "false information." Are we supposed to just take your word for it that a lot of what we put out is false?

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[binarybits]

If you check out Cato's 2005 annual report, you'll find that Cato only received about 2 percent of their budget. We don't have a legion of lawyers, corporate-funded or otherwise.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Azghoul]

Nice reply. Keep up the good work.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Retric]

Considering your response is a straw man argument, I think I will go with the parent post.

For those who need help following the conversation.

"because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders."

= Because some of there sources are tainted they have lost credibility.

"know which industry sources funded my"

Here is some non tainted information so not everything is tainted so you're wrong. (with an implicit argument that the parent said everything was tainted.)

"a lot of what we put out is false?"

Once again putting words in the parents post. If 1% of what they say is total bullshit then they have zero credibility. It's like soup, if it's 1% crap then it's not edible. It's not a question of balancing some scale either you constantly use creditable methods or you're a crackpot there is no middle ground.

PS: If you ever want to work with a credible think tank you should consider getting out soon their methods are clearly influencing your critical thinking skills.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[binarybits]

The problem is that metrometro didn't point to any specific examples of "false information," so there's not much I can do to respond to such a vague accusation. Instead, I thought I'd highlight our recent work on issues of particular interest to Slashdot readers in order to give readers some context. I'm not going to claim everything we publish is high quality (we publish about a dozen books, 50 papers, and hundreds of articles every year), but in my experience, the vast majority of what we publish is of high quality.

And incidentally, the insinuation that we're "well funded by industry" is false: if you look at our annual report, you'll see that only about 2 percent of our funding is from corporate sources.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Retric]

Thank you, for the surprisingly calm and well reasoned response to what may have been an overly dramatic and scathing post.

Anyway, while 2% of Cato's funding is directly from corporate sources 83% of their income is from "Individuals" who may or may not have close ties to industry. Now, I don't know how closely associated what Cato's publishes with how it's funded but there seems to be a significant "Conservative" bias.

As I am at work I don't really have time to go into a lot of details but I will use a specific example of a poorly thought out solution from the annual report.

Heath Savings Accounts are Government Supported Healthcare. They are just as much part of a Welfare State as Medicare. They don't lower the cost of healthcare, but the annual report assumes HSA are somehow different from Medicare and goes to great length to support this deception. Where it costs the American people just as much to give a targeted tax break to a specific individual or hand them the equivalent in cold hard cash there seems to be some sort of conservative feel good love that let's them gloss over the difference because it's a "Tax Break!!!" or some such.

Now an organization that's openly promoting such a bold faced lie is hardly credible in my option. I could go into why HSA's are the flavor of the month in conservative circles but feel free to follow the money trail. Hint, tax breaks don't help people paying the majority of their taxes into SS and Medicare relative to those making several times the SS cap.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[binarybits]

Anyway, while 2% of Cato's funding is directly from corporate sources 83% of their income is from "Individuals" who may or may not have close ties to industry. Now, I don't know how closely associated what Cato's publishes with how it's funded but there seems to be a significant "Conservative" bias.

Well sure. Most non-profits are supported by relatively rich people, and most rich people got that way from industry. So in some sense, every non-profit has "industry ties." I can tell you that no one at Cato has ever told me what subjects to write about or what conclusions to reach.

And the term you're looking for is "libertarian," not conservative.

As for HSAs, that sounds to me like a difference of opinion more than a lie. HSAs allow people to keep their own money in a tax-free account. That different from the state spending taxpayer dollars on peoples' health care. You may not agree with our health care scholars' conclusions, but I don't see how preferring HSAs to socialized medicine is a "bold faced lie."

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[dircha]

""Director of information policy at the Cato Institute..." Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to continue giving a shit after that?"

Well we don't want the government silencing someone even if we don't agree with them.

That said, the implementation of this website is deeply flawed and simply dishonest.

They estimate the cost of spending to the "average family" or "family of 3" basically working from the premise that a flat (non-progressive) tax is the only legitimate tax. Not only do they not argue for this assumption, it is completely disconnected from reality. Yes, the cost of a piece of legislation averaged over all taxpayers may be $100, but in reality most taxpayers won't pay anywhere near that toward the spending. But nonetheless this shill website suggests they will. Of course $100 may seem like a lot when you are working 3 minimum wage jobs to support your children, but it is pocket change to those in the top 1% paying the most toward it.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Retric]

Many non-profits are supported by relatively rich people. However, many are government supported, others operate as a normal business which send their profit to charitable causes so I think Most is a little over the top. Anyway, Cato has some independence from any specific donor but they do have a clear bias which does reduce their credibility. (Call it libertarian or conservative significant bias is still a problem.)

Anyway, HSA's are socialized medicine.
With HSA's someone making 100k/year could spend 1k on medical care.
Without HSA's someone making 100k/year could spend 1k on medical care.

What is the difference between the two?
At the end of the year with HSA's the government will give that person ~300$. Other than the person receiving a check for ~300$ nothing changed. Granted the government does not say where you spend the money but it's still a cost to taxpayers of 300$.

If we want to reduce the cost of medical care we need to change how money is spent not who pays for it. The US government spends more money per person on medical care than Canada which has "socialized medicine". Now if our government spends more money on X per person than a 1st world country with socialized X then we have socialized X even if not 100% socialized X.

I think we could save a lot on administrative costs by having basic socialized medicine. Say 300$ a month government insurance or 300$ a month toward private insurance of equivalent or higher level. Note: For this to work private insurance would have to give up age bias or young people would go private for better coverage and old people would be stuck with government coverage. Anyway insurance does not really save money because they have little control on how it's spent so it's mostly and administrative issue. So:

Heavily, subsidize medical school to make it more affordable for more qualified people thus reducing the doctor scarcity premium. (Need to insure that you don't subsidize poor quality schools or people.)

Limit the number of hours a doctor can work in a non emergency situation to reduce costly mistakes. This links with the doctor scarcity premium issue.

Limit doctor liability with specific binding mediation in all but the most extreme cases. (Reduce litigation costs.)

Increase automation in medical care to reduces staffing costs.

Automatic prescription review to reduce the over prescription of medication. (Estimated 50% of all prescription medication in the US provides no medical benefit to the pacent.)

I am open to criticism on how you think these ideas would cost more money or reduce the level of choice or medical care in the US. But the point was to illustrate the difference between cost saving measures and tax breaks like HSA's. You reduce taxes by reducing spending not arbitrarily saying people doing X get to save Y.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[binarybits]

Cato is staffed and funded by libertarians, so I guess it's true that we're "biased" in a libertarian direction. But that's rather different from saying that we "have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders," which was the comment I was originally responding to.

And I don't really want to get into an argument over health care, which I don't know very much about. It sounds to me like you have some policy disagreements with our health care scholars. That's rather different from them telling "bold faced lies."

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Retric]

I was giving a specific example where Cato was not speaking the truth. Perhaps they are acting out of incompetence instead of malice.

Cato is staffed and funded by libertarians, so I guess it's true that we're "biased" in a libertarian direction. But that's rather different from saying that we "have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders," which was the comment I was originally responding to.

There is nothing about libertarian ideas that prevents them from helping libertarians. So this could be a delusion vs. greed issue. But, as many Cato publications have major issues with their logic and presentation I don't see how this buys them much credibility. The fact that you believe what you're saying does not prevent those who fund you from using use as a shill. Plenty of people are willing to use the libertarian ideas of keeping the government out of X for their own ends when they don't want the government to get into X.

PS: I think we can both agree that Sallie James http://www.freetrade.org/bios/james.html = hot.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I don't really want to get into an argument over health care, which I don't know very much about. It sounds to me like you have some policy disagreements with our health care scholars. That's rather different from them telling "bold faced lies." Retric made the mistake of spurious elaboration. He should have left his response at, "At the end of the year with HSA's the government will give that person ~300$." That's not a policy disagreement, that's a clearcut point that HSA's are socialized when the Cato report takes it as a given that they are not.

It would be interesting to find out where the money came from for the specific work that produced those findings wrt HSAs. Did it come out of a general fund, or did it only nominally come from a general fund, or is the money trail completely in the open. Where the people doing the research even aware of the source of funding? Where they directed to do work on the topic of HSAs versus some other areas of research? What sort of editorial control was applied? How about peer reviews from people who might not really be peers?

As for the reports you wrote, just because they are in line with majority slashdot groupthink doesn't mean that there are no vested interests who stand to benefit from promotion of your conclusions. For example, look at how Verizon fought the DMCA not-really-subpoenas - they didn't give a rat's ass about their customer's privacy, they cared about the increased workload that they had to shoulder the costs of with no benefit to their bottom line.

I will now proceed to commit spurious elaboration myself...
In the post 9/11 era (and the pre 9/11 era for that matter) there have been a lot of bogus "security" measures that were essentially one group trying to push their costs off onto another group and still claim the benefits for themselves. The TSA is one huge "cover your ass by making it someone else's problem" organization - all of the overhead costs for "flight safety" that are born by the flying public are just the most obvious manifestation, a bazillion people removing their shoes in order to fly adds up to a lot of wasted time with little to no actual safety benefits - a cost almost totally carried by the public for a benefit almost totally carried by the TSA (look ma, no shoe bombs, gives another $1B in budget because are doing so good!)

It continues up the ladder of sophistication from there, for example, in order to be given certain types of security clearances - the investigation is farmed out to your own employer who is required to pay for commercial background checks because the US government is unwilling to pay for the investigation themselves. For large defense contractors all those expensive background checks add up.

So, the question comes down to: were your pro-slashdot-groupthink reports funded by people who earnestly believe in said groupthink, or were they funded by those who stand to gain personally (financially or otherwise) by wide-spread acceptance of said groupthink. If the former, than any errors or omissions should be considered innocent until proven guilty, if the later than they should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[musonius]

"...paying the most toward it"

that kind of sounds like you are saying those with the most make all the rules and as for the rest... let them eat cake... to misquote an old one.

So if that is what you mean why not get some of your rich buddies together, stand for president, and finally put an end to that fiction known as democracy.

Good luck with that.

Ironic, no?

[JohnnyBGod]

Does anyone else find it ironic that a library, of all organizations, is (supposedly) exercising its IP rights?

Re:Ironic, no?

[Romancer]

Especially the library of congress!!

Now talking about the repository of information for the United States is forbidden?!?!!

Re:Ironic, no?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. A supportable reason for the existence of trademarks is to let consumers know the true source of a good. In this case, the good is information. Cato should not be trying to mislead the public about what search engine they are using by misappropriating the IP of the United States Library of Congress. Yes, the THOMAS legislative search engine sucks (or it did last time I used it). But that does not mean some private company should be able to come along and mislead the public into thinking their search engine is the official one. This whole announcement reeks of a publicity stunt, since Cato should not be doing what it has in the first place and certainly not complaining loudly when they are called on their misdeeds. For shame, Cato.

Re:Ironic, no?

[MindStalker]

The offending bit was.
"WashingtonWatch.com provides a more user-friendly and interactive way for the public to learn about legislation than the Library of Congress' THOMAS site. It's all about government transparency."

Sorry, but its still legal to say that Nike provides a better running experience than Reebok (assuming its true).

The Library has no trademark ground to stand on, BUT they have extra Federal Statute protecting their name. When did it stop becoming a government "of the people"??

Re:Ironic, no?

[darjen]

Does anyone else find it ironic that a library, of all organizations, is (supposedly) exercising its IP rights?

I don't find it at all ironic that a government institution is striving to control any possible information that it can about itself. Especially that it will threaten the use of force in order to do so.

Re:Ironic, no?

[geobeck]

When did it stop becoming a government "of the people"??

About 1779?

Re:Ironic, no?

[profplump]

Actually it's legal to say it period, because it's completely subjective unless you provide an objective definition for "running experience".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery

Re:Ironic, no?

[belmolis]

The WashingtonWatch site does not purport to be "official". It refers to the Library of Congress site only by way of comparison. Here's a hint: when you compare A with B, that implies that A and B are different. Such comparison is not a "use of the trademark for endorsement". They don't even need a court ruling on this. This is well settled law. So long as there are no false claims of fact, Toyota is free to advertise that their vehicles are better than Ford's. Mentioning the competitor's trademark in this way is quite legal. WashingtonWatch should just tell the LOC to go jump in a lake. If the LOC wants to procede, they'll have to involve their lawyers, who will rapidly disabuse them of the idea.

Re:Ironic, no?

[belmolis]

Matt Raymond, the LOC Communications Director who made the complaint, is not a lawyer and therefore probably has no understanding of trademark law. According tot the bio on his blog, he has a background in journalism, with most of his career in "communication"/public relations.

Re:Ironic, no?

[*weasel]

When did it stop becoming a government "of the people"??

Somewhere between career politicians and the two-party system.

Library of congress to be changed to read

[Anonymous Coward]

Library of Parliament of Whores.

The LOC is wrong

[HaeMaker]

The LOC is wrong. Making a comparative in an endorsement is protected speech, and goes beyond trademark protection.

If he had said, "The LOC, and their THOMAS service, fully back the use of Washington Watch." that is misuse of trademark in the context of an endorsement.

To say a service is like another service only better, fully protected.

IANAL/JM2c.

Re:The LOC is wrong

[fatduck]

Mod parent up. This isn't about stealing copyrighted material as all the other knee-jerk responses would have you believe - it's about using a trademark in an advertisement. Owning a trademark doesn't mean you control every utterance of a word.

"Trademark dilution" lets owner of a "famous" mark stop any use that blurs or tarnishes its distinctiveness -- even if there is no chance that consumers will be confused. Because the concept of dilution has such potentially broad reach, there are specific defenses in the federal Lanham Act that are applicable to claims of dilution. "All forms of news reporting and news commentary" are exempted, as are comparative advertising, and "noncommercial use".

Re:The LOC is wrong

[LordMyren]

any use of a LOC logotype or emblem however would not be protected, as they can qualify as trademarks.

the more you know?

Re:The LOC is wrong

[Kadin2048]

any use of a LOC logotype or emblem however would not be protected, as they can qualify as trademarks.

Possibly, although I think the Lanham Act would still let you get away with it in the context of comparative advertising; even if you can't, it's not germane to this conflict anyway -- Cato wasn't using the LoC logo or emblem, they were just using the names in otherwise-generic text.

I think this guy at the LoC is in over his head; he should have called Legal before he hauled off and started sending out nasty emails. The Cato people love to pursue stuff like this, since it just fits into their image of the USG as a bunch of corrupt, wasteful, generally inept bureaucrats.

I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up costing that asshole his job, or at least his promotability.

Re:The LOC is wrong

[Brickwall]

since it just fits into their image of the USG as a bunch of corrupt, wasteful, generally inept bureaucrats.

Er, just exactly how does this image conflict with reality?

Re:The LOC is wrong

[that this is not und]

any use of a LOC logotype or emblem however would not be protected, as they can qualify as trademarks.

Not unless the LOC can provide evidence of a long history of concerted protection of said 'trademark.' IOW an entity can't just up and say 'it's now a registered trademark' if they haven't protected it in the past.

LOC Needs Thicker Skin

[WrongSizeGlass]

"the use of THOMAS in the Washington Watch press release in a negative way is clearly used in the context of endorsement, rather than general criticism." Used in a negative way is an endorsement? Maybe Raymond should read a few of those books in his library.

Re:LOC Needs Thicker Skin

[Apraxhren]

Apparently reading does not mean comprehension so I can't suggest the same to you. The endorsement is not of THOMAS, but of Washington Watch. In that endorsement THOMAS is used in a negative way, but this should all be clear as the part of the sentence you left off says:

For Raymond, the issue here is that Harper was critical of the Library's own work in a way which endorsed his own; as Raymond puts it, ...[your quote] sigh

What's the real reason for the nastygram?

[panaceaa]

Did Matt Raymond sent the nastygram to Washington Watch because the Library of Congress is part of the legislative branch, and Washington Watch can be perceived as critical of the corruption in Congress? Or did someone on the THOMAS team get personally insulted that someone could develop a better system than theirs, and push to punish the creator of the superior system out of jealousy? The latter seems a bit extreme, which leads me to believe Congressmen are scared of people knowing how much the government is actually spending on pork projects that they're even willing to have the Library of Congress send threatening letters to people who share the Library's vision for open information.

I want a letter!

[wizzard2k]

Marketing Materials:

• Library of Congress
• THOMAS

...waits for his letter.....

On a more serious note, I don't think marketing materials are covered under fair use, are they?

Re:I want a letter!

[Romancer]

You can say any comparison you want in your marketing materials, just so long as you have the fine print at the bottom saying that their logis if used are the property of their respective owners.

Re:I want a letter!

[shaitand]

The library of congress is not a private organization. Anything it owns is public property, including its logo. I'm pretty sure it will be discovered that the only time this guy really has the right to stop a citizen is if that citizen is using the name and/or logo in a fraudulent manner. For instance, a false claim that the LOC endorses his product.

Re:I want a letter!

[Romancer]

I'm not sure it works that way. Just because something is not a private organization, doesn't mean that it has no rights to restrict its brand or logo. Public property is sticky that way. Like the ways public land is used is restricted by the operators and can have restrictions like "no motorbikes" and "no 2 stroke engines in watercraft" The use of the public property is limited.

In this case I think you're right about the way he used it but I don't think it's a blanket law that allows the use of govt resources or brands or logos as public property in the way you may have meant (as in completely free use). It's more likely the same rights anyone has to use a corporate name, brand, or logo. They can't restrict discussion or reference.

Re:I want a letter!

[shaitand]

From TFA,

'I contacted Raymond about the issue, and he tells Ars that he was acting under Library of Congress Regulation 112, which says that "the use of the Library's name, explicitly or implicitly to endorse a product or service, or materials in any publication is prohibited, except as provided for in this Regulation."'

Reading the rest of the article explains that this guy is claiming that a comparison WAS an endorsement. This regulation is intended to assure that nobody can fraudulently claim the LOC endorses their product. This guy is criticizing their project, not claiming the LOC endorses his project.

Private entities can usually sue you if you publicly criticize them in a way that causes a measurable negative impact. Public entities can not. Public entities are held to a different standard because freedom of speech requires that citizens be able to publicly criticize the government.

The LOC has determined that preventing people from fraudulently claiming the LOC endorses them to be neccesary to carry out its charter. Therefore, it gave itself permission to stop people.

Re:Triple H-1B's Next Year

[rlp]

Sorry, very OT - meant to post under the 'IBM layoff' rumor.

Which Jefferson?

[Anonymous Coward]

Call it the Library of Progress, and refer to JEFFERSON

Which one - George or Weezy ?

What's in a name...

[Opportunist]

Why fight it? Rename it "nook of crooks" and still everyone's gonna know what's meant.

I pay may taxes.

[EaglemanBSA]

How soon before we're not allowed to make derogatory remarks about Congress itself, or the president? I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People, but apparently I'm wrong.

Re:I pay may taxes.

[adona1]

I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People

Where do you think you are, Soviet Russia? :)

Re:I pay may taxes.

[YodaYid]

I felt the same way when New York's MTA copyrighted the subway map (Here's Jeff Jarvis on the issue).

Re:I pay may taxes.

[exi1ed0ne]

I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People, but apparently I'm wrong.

I believe you have that backwards unfortunately. Anything that can be construed as a financial instrument is subject to seizure under the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The laws are already there on the books to take all your stuff, as was done with gold in 1933.

Or in slash-speak: a beowulf cluster of laws own all u base, it runs windows vista ultimate cluster edition, and that's Condoleezza under the hot grits.

Re:I pay may taxes.

[kimvette]

In Soviet Russia, politburo owns you?

Re:I pay may taxes.

[belg4mit]

Trademark and copyright are hardly the same thing. You could go and make your own
conception of an MTA map and you would be well within your rights. Now, whether or
not state and municipal agencies *ought* to restrict access and reuse of goods
produced in the public interest is another matter.

Re:I pay may taxes.

[PsychoSlashDot]

Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?

False. On a scale of 1 to 10, what is not my middle name.

Re:I pay may taxes.

[heinousjay]

I extended a similar offer once before: you are welcome to come to Lafayette Park next to the White House to watch me scream out that Bush is an asshole and he should be impeached.

You pick the time.

Re:I pay may taxes.

[YodaYid]

I was referring to the *ought* part ;-) Governments ought not be allowed to put any intellectual property restrictions (trademarks, copyright, etc) on publicly-funded work. The only valid restrictions would be fraud-related (e.g. putting up a website that pretends to be the LOC, printing counterfeit money, or impersonating a police officer).

It's hell...

[Black Parrot]

...having to compete.

And so much easier to send a C&D than to actually compete.

If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[Shihar]

You can accuse Cato of a lot of things... lacking principles and being anyone's lap dog is roughly the last. Brooking's, American Heritage, and lots of other think tanks can be 'flexible' in what they advocate based upon the party flavor of the month. Cato is unbending, rock solid, and deeply principled. Now, you can argue that their principles are abhorrent, but anyone who knows anything about Cato can not say that their principles are bent by who gives them money. They are Libertarians who are as happy to criticize business, Democrats, Republics, and anyone else who violates their principles (and all three do, regularly).

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You can accuse Cato of a lot of things... lacking principles and being anyone's lap dog is roughly the last. Being principled means two things - being consistent in the causes you advocate for and being consistent in the causes you do not advocate. Cato is pretty consistent in the first case, but the causes they choose to advocate for seem to be driven by their sponsors, perhaps leaving behind other causes that are not so beneficial for their sponsors, but may be more idealogically important to their principles.

Sure, the line has to be drawn somewhere, resources are not infinite. But that doesn't mean the line is drawn without an agenda.

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[cultrhetor]

"I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." - Nietzsche, Götzen-Dämmerung (1889)

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[sumdumass]

Being principled means two things - being consistent in the causes you advocate for and being consistent in the causes you do not advocate. Cato is pretty consistent in the first case, but the causes they choose to advocate for seem to be driven by their sponsors, perhaps leaving behind other causes that are not so beneficial for their sponsors, but may be more idealogically important to their principles.

So when I find some organization that believes in much of the same stuff I do and I then donate or do something to support that organization, It makes anything they do suspect because of my funding?

I mean seriously, we aren't talking about the chicken and egg concept here, we are bypassing it with you logic and going straight to connecting dotted line without paying attention to the numbers to paint whatever picture we want. Here is the scoop. I I run a business and someone is saying things benificial to my business, If it support them, I benefit. It doesn't not mean I tell them what to say.

The same can be said for politics in general. There was a lot of hubub going on about Charlie Tree (not sure on spelling and don't care enough to check) the chinese embassy worker who showed up to the white house with bags of cash called campaign contributions at the same times China was stealing nuclear secrets from the US the some claim led to their Nuclear arms program being successful. Nobody has convincingly made the case Clinton was selling secrets for campaign contributions. Similarly, Al Qeada has came out in support of some democrat leaders and their policies. This doesn't mean they are connected. Although there is enough other evidence that some kook could make a small case for that.

Whenever I see someone discount something specifically because of funding when they organization survives on donations, I see it as that person looking for a reason to be in denial. It s just that simple.

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So when I find some organization that believes in much of the same stuff I do and I then donate or do something to support that organization, It makes anything they do suspect because of my funding?

It does when your funding is directed at a specific project in that organization. It means you expect the results of that specific project to be particularlly beneficial to you specifically. Especially if that specific project would not have been undertaken without your funding.

Whenever I see someone discount something specifically because of funding when they organization survives on donations, I see it as that person looking for a reason to be in denial. It s just that simple.

And here's my counter-strawman -- whenever I see someone discount the source of funding as a source of bias, I see it as that person as being in denial. It's just that simple.

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[sumdumass]

It does when your funding is directed at a specific project in that organization. It means you expect the results of that specific project to be particularlly beneficial to you specifically. Especially if that specific project would not have been undertaken without your funding.

So all these studies supported by democrats and such claiming global warming and such re fake then. Of course Koyoto had been hijacked by a bunch of rejected policies that the liberals supported. Thanks for giving us the go ahead summarily dismissing all of these. I guess all the studies about women being abused and the danger they are in if the purp is free to walk around after an assault on her are false too. We can disregard all those too. I think the state funded all the studies concerning alcohol and teens driving being a bad thing can be rejected on a similar not. We should lower the drinking age to 16 or something.

And no, That wasn't a strawman. It is a direct transliteration of your statement. I did what you said was entirely appropriate.

And here's my counter-strawman -- whenever I see someone discount the source of funding as a source of bias, I see it as that person as being in denial. It's just that simple.

Well, here is problem. I can check the facts and truth about what is being said to verify the accuracy of any statements regardless of who is funding who. You cannot check anything except who is funding who with your position. Although you position is pretty convenient for dismissing anything you don't want to agree with you won't be any more right in your position.

It is clear there are benefits from both approaches. With looking at the positions and statements I have the advantage of gaining knowledge to base my decisions on even if I don't agree the groups position or who funds it. You have the advantage of blindly dismissing anything you don't agree with by whoever has contributed money to them. I think it really is a battle between becoming more knowledgeable and remaining an imbecile. You stated your intent and I hope all the imbeciles all the best wishes possible. Even though they possess the ability to piss everyone who is smart enough to look at the facts surrounding the situations off. I guess to some, ignorance isn't only bliss, it is a way of life.

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And no, That wasn't a strawman. It is a direct transliteration of your statement. I did what you said was entirely appropriate. Lol, if you say so. Personally I can't figure out what fuck all yer democratic paranoia fantasies have to do with LOC and THOMAS.

I can check the facts and truth about what is being said to verify the accuracy of any statements regardless of who is funding who. Yeah, good luck with that. Let me know as soon as you get a hold of the raw data behind one of these 'studies.'

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[sumdumass]

Personally I can't figure out what fuck all yer democratic paranoia fantasies have to do with LOC and THOMAS.

I know it is hard to follow the progression of a conversation. all you have to do is hit the parent button a few times.

The story submission and the article pointed to a guy who was the creator of this wikki that the library of congress is having an issue with is also the Director of information policy at the Cato Institute. Someone posted about not giving a shit after that. Another person said he thinks they are strong watchdogs while, The first person replied with a coal funded organization statement in an attempt to place doubt on it's creditability. Then another person said "You can accuse Cato of a lot of things... lacking principles and being anyone's lap dog is roughly the last"

Then you enter with the with a challenge on Cato's integrity because they received funding from groups you don't agree with. The rest is out conversation.

Yeah, good luck with that. Let me know as soon as you get a hold of the raw data behind one of these 'studies.'

The raw data will be used in other studies. It isn't like they are creating a set of numbers specifically for the purpose of making something up. Unless it is an opinion or conclusion in the study, everything should be verifiable in other places. It isn't impossible to figure this out and chances are that others would be releasing studies from the same numbers if not accessing the raw data from the source to verify the stuff. Verifying something doesn't mean sitting down and figuring it out yourself. It means finding others things to support it and also checking against known numbers and facts.

I think maybe your picking the option of ignoring things because of the funder so you can be intellectually lazy.

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Then you enter with the with a challenge on Cato's integrity because they received funding from groups you don't agree with. I think you need to hit the parent button a few times yourself. Either that or work on your reading comp. Name one group I mentioned as providing funding to Cato that I disagree with, or even agree with for that matter.

The raw data will be used in other studies. It isn't like they are creating a set of numbers specifically for the purpose of making something up. Unless it is an opinion or conclusion in the study, everything should be verifiable in other places. You make me laugh. Really. Obviously you have never tried to run down the raw data from a cato report or any other "think tank" - you'll be lucky if you can even get complete citations for the data, much less access to it.

I think maybe your picking the option of ignoring things because of the funder so you can be intellectually lazy. You keep repeating that strawman, do you love it so much you took it behind the barn and got it pregnant?

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[sumdumass]

I think you need to hit the parent button a few times yourself. Either that or work on your reading comp. Name one group I mentioned as providing funding to Cato that I disagree with, or even agree with for that matter.

So the stickling point is that you didn't name a group funding Cato that you disagree with. It is clear you made the inference that disregarding something because of the people who funded it is appropriate, I cannot fathom why you would disregard that source if you didn't agree with it. Please explain how.

You make me laugh. Really. Obviously you have never tried to run down the raw data from a cato report or any other "think tank" - you'll be lucky if you can even get complete citations for the data, much less access to it.

You seem to be lacking skill on some area. I'm not sure exactly were but the data can be found. At least the key elements of it can be verified. If Cato or some other "think group" doesn't give you access to it right there on the same page as the report doesn't mean it isn't available. The reason most of this raw data isn't just given away is because they pay someone else for access to it. They don't own the raw data and the raw data may have come from several different sources.

Maybe you need to buy an access pass to lexis nexis or something. Maybe you need to look up the individual numbers or maybe you will need to purchase a data set just like the report authors did. Maybe you just need to practice your google finger a little better but it is there.

You keep repeating that strawman, do you love it so much you took it behind the barn and got it pregnant?

I would hate to think you were the product of a love fest with an idea I appose. Truth is, I'm not your daddy and I didn't get the strawman pregnant. But it isn't a strawman either. It is the common facts surounding it. A straw man has to has some elements this doesn't have.

I made a statement about how dismissing something because of who is behind it will allow you to remain ignorant. This is that same statement worded differently but with the same intent and meaning and in the same context. It doesn't fit the definition of a strawman argument on several levels. That is unless the funding of the definition was done by some group that you consider suspect and are now throwing the definition out the window because of it in favor of your own. either way, you are in a position of ignorance at this point and are satisfied with being Intellectually lazy.

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It is clear you made the inference that disregarding something because of the people who funded it is appropriate, Damn! How MANY times do I have tell you to fucking QUIT IT with that strawman? I NEVER said that, it's only your single-minded desire to joust with windmills. What I said over and over again in many different forms is it is apropriate to question the vermisilitude of a report based on its funding.

You seem to be lacking skill on some area.
I'm not sure exactly were but the data can be found. Bada Bing! Bada Bum!
You keep right on talking out of your ass there. When you ARE sure where the data can be found, then you get back to me. Otherwise, STFU already.

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[sumdumass]

What straw man. There is no straw man there. How many times do I have to tell you that. If you would look the definition up from a source not funded by only who you agree with, you would know that.

Bada Bing! Bada Bum!
You keep right on talking out of your ass there. When you ARE sure where the data can be found, then you get back to me. Otherwise, STFU already.

I did not say the data would be somewhere were you could easily find it. I said you have to look for it. I explained some of the processes needed to find the data and some of the reasons why it isn't just givin away. This is why I think you are intelectually lazy as well as an imbecile. Just because you are too lazy or stupid to find it, doesn't mean it isn't there. If you look harder, you will find it in the last places you looked. But no one said it would be easy, This is why organization like the Cato institute get funding from source that you think mifght bring the study into question. If it were easy, you couls pump studies out and we wouldn't need them, would we?

Re:If Nothing Else, Princpled.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What straw man. There is no straw man there. How many times do I have to tell you that.

Indeed, there is no difference between DISREGARDING and QUESTIONING. I am SOOOO glad you cleared that up for me. Now go find someone else's point to build your windmills on quixotita.

Remember The Onion Presedintial Seal Fiasco

[N8F8]

Nothing new here folks, remeber the same sort of thing with The Onion using the Presidential Seal?

LOC maybe, THOMAS, no

[whoever57]

The PR flak at the LOC quoted:

Library of Congress Regulation 112, which says that "the use of the Library's name, explicitly or implicitly to endorse a product or service, or materials in any publication is prohibited, except as provided for in this Regulation."

This regulation may restrict the use of the term "Library of Commerce", but it doesn't appear to limit the use of such terms as "THOMAS".

Re:LOC maybe, THOMAS, no

[philpalm]

So Will LOC go after Thomas the train engine too?

Re:LOC maybe, THOMAS, no

[Ajehals]

Tank Engine, its Thomas the Tank Engine. Oh and I wish that they would change the song back to the original one, the new one drives me nuts...

Re:LOC maybe, THOMAS, no

[Tacvek]

This regulation may restrict the use of the term "Library of Commerce", but it doesn't appear to limit the use of such terms as "THOMAS". Agreed. For the record, it appears that LOC regulation 11 is codified as 36CFR701.35, and appears to be receivable via this URI: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20061 500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/julqtr/36cfr70 1.5.htm

Your humble servant...

[flyingfsck]

Is there anyone here that knows when Civil Servants stopped signing their letters that way?

Re:Your humble servant...

[mmdog]

Just guessing here, but I'd say it has something to do with people not understanding what the word "servant" means. Unfortunately most government employees treat their job as an entitlement, as opposed to an opportunity to 'serve' their country.

Don't mess with the library, man...

[FlyingSquidStudios]

They'll give you an overdue notice and then you won't be able to wait for a homeless person to stop looking at porn so you can check you're e-mail.

I don't know which I dislike more...

[nanosquid]

The LOC response was heavy-handed and unjustified. But the "Washington Watch" site is typical over-simplifying libertarian rhetoric: you cannot account for the cost of legislation in that way.

So, I don't know which to dislike more: LOC government arrogance, or libertarian populist oversimplification.

Re:I don't know which I dislike more...

[Azghoul]

This isn't insightful, it's a poor attempt at flinging an ad hominem attack at libertarians.

Tell us - how do YOU account for the costs of government then??

Re:I don't know which I dislike more...

[nanosquid]

This isn't insightful, it's a poor attempt at flinging an ad hominem attack at libertarians.

"Ad hominems" are (as the name implies) about attacking people, not issues or movements. I'm criticizing a movement, libertarianism, as being prone to populist rhetoric and oversimplification.

Tell us - how do YOU account for the costs of government then??

Carefully, on a case-by-case basis, and without trying to reduce cost/benefit analyses to simple arithmetic exercises.

Re:I don't know which I dislike more...

[Azghoul]

*snort.

"Carefully". That's helpful. And when there is no information available online for the general public to get any kind of information about the costs of particular legislation, and an organization comes along to help provide those costs in an easy to use, transparent manner, that is somehow "oversimplification" in your eyes? Also helpful.

Case-by-base is a ridiculous answer given the sheer volume of legislation that comes along. There is no way a single person can possibly judge costs for every piece of legislation out there.

So really, what you're suggesting is useless at best, disingenuous at worst. Again, helpful.

Also, you're wrong about "ad hominem": You're attempting to dismiss the entire exercise based on the political philosophy of those putting it out there.

Re:I don't know which I dislike more...

[nanosquid]

And when there is no information available online for the general public to get any kind of information about the costs of particular legislation

There are plenty of organizations that provide this information, organizations with a long track record of neutrality and non-partisanship. Furthermore, the data itself is freely available from the government.

You're attempting to dismiss the entire exercise based on the political philosophy of those putting it out there.

Of course, I do. People presenting information about the supposedly actual cost of legislation should not have a political philosophy at all, at least in their professional lives.

The LOC statute is irrelevant.

[AllParadox]

This is not a situation where some commercial outfit is making money off of using the name of the Library of Congress. If I see some commercial business doing that, I will turn them in myself.

This is plainly about freedom of political speech, a right enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Harper's use of the site, even his comparison of his search engine against THOMAS, is aimed at promoting his personal political agenda, both for his site and including his comparison.

Congress did not repeal the First Amendment.

For once, somebody has a beef with some meat on it. This is where you hire the attorney to reply with a nastygram.

Re:The LOC statute is irrelevant.

[mvdwege]

This is not a situation where some commercial outfit is making money off of using the name of the Library of Congress.

Excuse me?! This is the Cato Institute we're talking about. You know, the think tank for hire, that will act as an 'indepedent source' to criticise any regulation you want as long as you pay enough.

This is bloody well a commercial outfit drumming up publicity to get more customers, and the teenage libertarians on Slashdot are falling for it in droves.

Sheesh.

Mart

In my opinion...

[It doesn't come easy]

Whoever originally coined the word Con-gress ... should be modded the most insightful and prescient individual in history.

tags

[Anonymous Coward]

stop tagging things with "usa". it's redundant. there's a big american flag for the topic icon. like it or not, this is a US-centric site.

you misunderstand

[commodoresloat]

as long as your right to criticize the King of Thailand is unfettered, you live in a free country.

Exclusive Owernship?

[LifesABeach]

The last time I checked, the LOC was a government funded operation. Maybe the Matt-ster should look at that generous paycheck he gets from the sweat off of MY hard working brow. But then again, there is that pesky law called the, "First Amendment." But what I think is most significant is the part where a government official has all the time in the world to bring down the full force of the government against a citizen that questions the governments authority; That is something worth investigating.

Love it or leave it.

[hotsauce]

1. "Love it or leave it" nowhere suggests he should try to change it before giving up. You're missing an important step.

2. He may not be free to leave it. Some countries do not allow you to leave without authorization, and most do not let you enter and settle down without authorization.

3. Leaving nation by nation for the corporatocracy to overrun will result in a domino effect. "When they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me..." and all that stuff.

A test case for something bigger?

[Caspian]

This guy criticised a service of the government's library, and got a nastygram/Cease-and-Desist. Perhaps this is an advance test of the feasibility of using lawyers to squash criticism of the government, much like how corporations often do the same?

Re:A test case for something bigger?

[fishbowl]

>Perhaps this is an advance test of the feasibility of using lawyers to squash criticism of the government, much like how >corporations often do the same?

You shouldn't act on a C&D letter unless it's signed by a judge (which makes it a lawful order.)

As for squashing criticism of government, that's a tough one. It's one of those things that each of us is supposed to be ready and willing to kill or die for, but none of us actually are, when it comes down to it.

in jest

[witte]

>... asked that Harper stop using the names 'Library of Congress' ...
What's next ? Furlongs and gallons ?

You need to learn to read English.

[wiredog]

Endorsement of Washington Watch, not the LOC.

Cato Publications

[binarybits]

I'm a longtime Slashdot reader and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. I'm not sure why you're so hostile to the Cato Institute, but you might want to check out a few of our recent publications:

• Circumventing Competition: The Perverse Consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (By me, criticizing the DMCA)
  
• Effective Counterterrorism and the Limited Role of Predictive Data Mining (By Harper, criticizing the NSA wiretapping program))
  
• The REAL ID Act: Ill-Considered (By Harper, testimony before the Utah legislature against a de facto national ID)
  
• Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush (By my colleagues Gene Healy and Tim Lynch, criticizing the Bush administration's attacks on civil liberties)
  
• "Supreme Court Ruling Could Save Vonage" (By me, criticizing software patents)
  
• "Broadcast Flag Burning" (By me, criticizing the broadcast flag)
  

Obviously, you're not going to agree with everything we publish, but you'd be hard-pressed to find another think tank that's done as much work on the issues near and dear to the hearts of Slashdotters.

which wiki engine?

[m0!]

Does anyone happen to know which wiki engine this is using?

MOD PARENT AND GRANDPARENT UP!

[figgypower]

OT: I never know how effective shouting to mod up parent and grandparent posts, but these two posts are at the very end of the thre and will probably never get modded up -- despite both comments being very insightful/interesting.