Slashdot Mirror
Nielsen Sends Wikipedia DMCA Takedown For Station Descriptions
RockMFR writes "A DMCA takedown notice sent by Nielsen Media Research to the Wikimedia Foundation has resulted in the deletion of over 300 pages on the English Wikipedia. The pages were 'templates' and categories that listed television stations within various geographical markets in the United States. Discussion of the deletions has focused on whether this type of information can actually be copyrighted, though the content of the takedown notice have not been made public."
are not copyrightable. There is no "question" here.
Mod me flamebait if you want, but I thought Wikipedia was all about information being free. For having the tendency to cave so easily, makes me wonder what kind of people are really running the place.
I'd really be curious to see exactly when was stated in the notice to make them take the info down. Has there been any talk of it being made public?
One Can Never Own Enough Musical Instruments...
... should be a criminal offense. And a serious one, too.
Actually, the ability to force someone to cease speech on simple "say-so", without ever having visited court first, should never have become law in the first place. I believe DMCA takedown notices will eventually be determined to be a classic case of unbridled "prior restraint".
the same URL with &action=purge followed by scrolling down to "Nielson DMCA Takedown" may be needed to see the discussion.
Also, when this rolls into the archives, one of these two links should have it: Archive 169, Archive 170.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I believe that in some cases, however, compilations can. In that case - though I could be wrong - specific arrangement of facts could be considered copyrighted if it were copied verbatim, like OCR'ing a phonebook or something of the sort.
If memory serves cases have gone for and against this though, so it's not that clear-cut.
As noted on the admin page, "The entire categorization schema that was in place was copyrighted by Nielsen and could not be used under our GFDL license," so it wasn't just that the information was used, but that it was copied pretty much directly.
The entire categorization schema that was in place was copyrighted by Nielsen and could not be used under our GFDL license.
the DMCA notice included at least the use of Nielsen's 'Designated Market Area' (DMA) classification system. As our Media market article says, Nielsen coined the term and holds a trademark on it. The takedown notice may have included more, but I think it is fairly clear that much at least was an issue. Hence
It looks like they used a categorizing scheme originally produced and copyrighted by Nielsen, which could warrant a legit takedown request - the complete takedown of the pages (especially such a large number of them), however, seems to be overkill.
That you can get a copyright on something like that, to me, seems ridiculous, but then again, I don't make money by selling people their own production numbers back to them.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
Apparently Toledo TV has been undeleted. (Mirror in case it goes again.)
How in God's name is an association of TV station titles to markets in which they can be received copyrightable?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
...that TV stations don't exist, they're a Hollywood movie script. They must be, if the station itself is subject to the DMCA.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Because if there's one thing an encyclopedia must have, it's a list of all the television stations in the United States.. and every single episode of every single show, all with original reseach about each.. and show schedules... :)
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I get marketing research phone calls from Neilsen subsidiaries doing surveys. If I have time, I do them. Now I'll tell them *NO*. You can't have it both ways, Nielsen. I suggest other readers do the same.
They also mailed me a survey when I bought a new car. My prize was 'a chance' to win some petrol. An hour of my time for 'a chance'. They seem to have an inflated view of their own self-worth.
In this episode: A marketing research company learns about public relations.
Nielsen obviously can't prevent Wikipedia from having templates listing, say, television stations in the New York City area, even if it happens to be the same ones Nielsen lists. They at least have a borderline claim on using the specific names and numbers from their Designated Market Area system, though.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Not sure what information the pages had on them, but you can get a lot of technical information on stations from the FCC. Including the the exact lat/long of their antenna, it's height above sea level, output in watts, etc. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/tvq.html You can also easily get programming information at tv.yahoo.com. I'm not sure what Neilsen is trying to "protect" here.
are they going to sue the FCC for their database of commercial television and radio stations?
this is just too crazy and frivolous?
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
The Google Cache is different, at least for now. The key difference: The words "Nielson DMA#."
The Internet Archive also has older versions.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
stop watching television!
That'll show them.
Also our IQs will go up several points.
So... not prior restraint. But it certainly IS restraint of speech, without due process.
I made a promise to myself that if I found the information there, I was going to hit the donate button and send $346,217.12.
Alas, I didn't find the information.
While I don't agree with the DCMA, nor most copyright laws in most countries, I do wonder why this hasn't happened before, and indeed is not a regular occurrence. Wikipedia is absolutely full of plagiarized material. Almost every single movie page is more or less ripped verbatim from imdb, just as one small example.
I would have thought that wikipedia was a lawyer's wet dream come true. I mean sure, they don't have a great deal of money (especially since Jimbo keeps dipping his hand in the cash register), but there's still some money to be made there. I really can't understand why Wikipedia has had such a free ride so far.
We don't know the whole story but this much is being guessed about:
Nielson divides the country into "Market areas" some of which are stand-alone metro areas and some of which are combinations of cities which may contain "creative content." For example, if the metro areas A, B, C, and D are in close proximity, you can combine them in dozens of ways, ranging from lumping them all together into 1 market area, having 4 separate market areas, or one of several combinations of 2 or 3 market areas. Doing this across the country creates a list which is potentially copyrightable because it contains the creative thought that went into deciding just where to combine the metro areas into the market areas.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I have one thing to say to the dumbasses that filed this DMCA notice:
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
I took a look at the Toledo page.
If all the pages fit that template I honestly can't see anything in there that would not be part of the public record easily obtainable by other means.
Thus collating the information in a single repository would only serve as a public service.
It strikes me to think that the information provided here is of the same as recording all the weather information for every city in the US for the Date January 1st 2000. The information is just simply factual in nature.
Yet another example of how the US legal system needs a complete and total over hall. The Patent / Copyright systems are now completely governed by corp greed and legal muscle.
When this sort of public information can be censored at will you are now looking at a system that fundamentally has steered away from it's democratic roots.
I'm feel ashamed for you, the people of the United States. I hope you can dig your self out of this mess.
Because whoever submitted the DMCA notices should have read the wikipedia submitting policy. We should be busy edit warring those things.
Nielsen coined the term and holds a trademark on it.
DMCA takedown requests are meant to be used in cases of alleged copyright violations. Trademarks and copyrights are two different things, so Nielsen's recourse in this instance does not include filing a DMCA takedown request.
If trademark protection is the only thing at stake here, the original editor could easily file an un-takedown request and tempt the fates as to whether Nielsen files a lawsuit against them or Wikimedia Foundation for improper use of trademarks (a suit they would likely lose, since it would be difficult to prove that their trademark was actually misappropriated).
If you look at the Google Cache for one of the pages, you can see that there was actual Nielson-owned data shown and available for download - which does violate their copyright.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:T_8mWU_bfEYJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Miami_TV+Template:Miami_TV&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
This DMCA notice now makes me worry about my own site. It uses the same list, which is in fact the same list the FCC uses in its own rules and regulations. I've started investigating alternative listing methods, but none of them make sense because they all organize their "target city" by DMA! Listing by state is stupid because a station in New Jersey always targets New York or Philadelphia. Without being able to use the Nielsen DMA, the whole system of listing stations goes to hell.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the FCC making rules that cannot be read because some company has a copyright on it. Examples:
When digital TV stations were signing on, the FCC said commercial stations in the top 100 markets have to be on the air by 05/01/2002. If you don't have permission to look at Nielsen's "copyrighted" list, then how would a station be able to know what market they're in? Not every station is subscribed to Nielsen's data.
In 47CFR73.622(f)(5), the FCC lists an exception that allows stations to expand coverage to match "the largest station in the market." How do you know which stations are in your market if you're not allowed to look at Nielsen's market boundaries?
This whole thing rubs me the wrong way, and makes me nervous.
The problem with this, you can go to http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp to get pretty much ANY information that they publish.
Also, the WRTV (World Radio and Television Handbook) has been in existence for literally decades. This lists EVERY known station in the WORLD, their location, power output, frequencies of operation, sometimes antenna structures, etc., etc., etc... WAY more than Neilsen ever produced.
NOW, if the information was gleaned directly from Neilsen, then yes, it's copyrightable. BUT, if they only used FCC.gov, or ANY of the radio afficianado sites on the internet (and I know of literally a hundred plus) to look up information, then it's complete bullshit.
HOWEVER, as someone else had said, it is wrong for them to take the pages down, just on a DMCA. WRONG. The DMCA was enacted to protect things. The DMCA should be followed, but a standard should be set that after the DMCA has been followed, the offending pages removed, their should be some type of review to see if the pages where, in fact, in violation.
Anywho, it's funny. Nielsen is trying to copyright information available on the internet from nearly every government spectrum management association.
--Toll_Free
DMCA notices are the PATRIOT act subpoenas of the digital world. Nobody really knows what they can or can't say about what they've received, and no one really knows what their rights are if they contest it.
If I contest a DMCA notice, I have to potentially represent myself against an army of really expensive lawyers. If I contest a PATRIOT act subpoena, I'll probably be tossed into prison for trying, and then I'll have to go up against an army of lawyers.
Strange how the difference isn't all that different.
This only demonstrates to me that laws such as the DMCA (given their extremely wide scope and the relative inability of any USian citizen to challenge a (good or bad) takedown notice without spending a fortune on lawyers and court fees) could only have been passed by a body that only has the interests of commercial corporations at heart.
Surely information such as the reception range of various television stations quite rightly is public information.
DMCA notices shouldn't have been needed for this. Simply going in and making the requisite modifications, or asserting that certain information is copyrighted, and then citing proof of copyright should have been all that is required.
And besides that, isn't the Neilson corporation about producing viewer statistics not about regulating the reception areas of the transmitters for various television stations?
as I understand it, in order to stay within the 'safe harbors' provision, the website operator has to take down content basically immediately and then review, and give the chance for the poster/publisher to respond.
I'm curious - on Wikipedia, is a DMCA takedown he same technically as a community-driven "delete"?
Does the community do the copyright review or are there staff at wikipedia that make the call?
Nielsen produces marketing data, like viewership numbers and which station belongs to which market, etc. The technical data from the FCC is publicly available.
The problem is that any listing of TV station relies on those Nielsen numbers because every station crafts their programming and coverage based on those numbers. Further, the FCC uses them in some of their rules! There's one rule that says a station is allowed to exceed the FCC power limit to "match the coverage of the largest station in the market." Well, if you can't get a list of stations in your market, how are you supposed to know which station is the largest?
Why didn't they just edit Wikipedia? Seriously, why go to the trouble of a DMCA take down notice?
Consider the value Mendeleev added to the names of the elements when, instead of listing them in alphabetical order, he organized them into the Periodic Table.
Consider the value Tom Lehrer added to them when he arranged them to make a funny song out of them.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
What would Wikileaks do?
This is why companies want to move to other countries, or in some cases the ocean.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Listing TV stations that are sorted in geographical order is a copyright infringement?
How can that be? makes no sense to me.
Beside, how can Nielsen Media Research own this type of listing in the first place? Aren't these stations already OWNED as is? How can Neilsen Media Research even think that they are the only entity allowed to own such a list and I assume dictate who else can either display it or use it? Anyone can browse the various websites these TV networks have, and come up with a list of their own.
Websites like TV.com for example, list TV shows, are they going to get sued for being able to list the stations based on geography?
See TV.com listings as an example.
I think the Neilsen Media Research is overreaching themselves and certainly, when push comes to shove, if this ever went to court, they would lose. After all, they do NOT own any of these stations to begin with. Anyone can come up with this type of list. These TV stations are are businesses, I've never heard of anyone not being able to list a bunch of businesses by geographical order yet.
OK, having actually READ TFA and some other postings about this topic, here's what this appears to be about.
Wikipedia wanted to list all the TV stations for each major television market.
But how do you define what stations are in a given "market"? For example, does the "New York City" market area include Newark, NJ? What about Trenton, NJ? Does it extend into Connecticut? If so, how far?
Ultimately, the way you group a set of locations into regions is somewhat arbitrary, and there are a lot of ways to do it. For example, the US Census Bureau has one set of metropolitan areas they use to report major statistics. Nielsen has their own grouping of cities (and therefore stations located in those cities) into markets.
Nielsen's grouping is not identical to other public groupings like the US Census bureau's. It's what they feel are the appropriate groupings for television advertising marketing, since that's who their customers are. And they put work into developing and refining their classification scheme.
What appears to have happened is that Wikipedia wanted to list television station, and wanted to organize that list of stations by Nielsen market area. Heck, take a look at the delete log in the original post--they were even calling their organization "Nielsen markets."
Nielsen's position, as I understand it, is that Nielsen's mapping of cities (and therefore stations) into markets is their own unique work, which is not public domain, and it's not OK for Wikipedia to use Nielsen's mappings without their permission. If Wikipedia had used a different organizational scheme for the same data (e.g. US Census metro areas), Nielsen likely wouldn't have had an issue with it.
Please note I'm not trying to play apologist for Nielsen or the DCMA here--I'm not a huge fan of the DCMA or US definitions on what's "copyrightable." However, I do prefer looking at a case on it's individual merits to knee jerk "anyone using the DCMA must be evil!" arguments.
Now, I'm just your average Area Man, but I think this would be a whole lot simpler if people didn't waste so much time watching TV.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
I know why people don't fight the DMCA notices with counter-notices: it's too expensive and could lead to litigation.
But I really wish they would in cases like this :( Maybe the EFF will step in if whoever was hit by the notice asks them to?
The DMCA announcement probably took a shotgun approach and all templates which used the trademarked terms probably got the "zap first ask questions later" routine.
Suppose there was a TV station halfway between Toledo and Detroit. Which market area is it in? It's in whatever market area Nielson puts it in. That's enough to establish a plausible claim to copyright. Plausible meaning you won't get laughed out of court, not that you will win.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Let's add a fourth category to Unnecessary, Invalid, and Bullying. Failure to differentiate patents from copywrite. A template or classification system is essentially a "system and method", so it really falls under patents, not copywrite (protection of creative works). Unlike literature or software, a classification system is not a work of art. So why not sue using the patent (if they wanted one)? OK, I'm not a lawyer, and they may have a case. I'm still pissed off at the concept.
If there are 100 market areas and even 1 is creative, the whole list becomes suspect and needs to be given an individual examination. It's trivial to spot the ones like "Dallas/Ft. Worth" or "Indianapolis" but there are some non-trivial ones in the list.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I admit I'm not well-informed re: DMCA, but I didn't know that sites receiving the notice could do that.
http://transformativeworks.org/
I'm changing my TV channel to CSPAN and leaving it there.
the courts have also held that speech may not be forcefully restrained without due process; it matters little who is doing the restraining.
The fact that restraint of speech principles apply to individuals, and not just government, is evident from a vast multitude of court cases. If you doubt this, you need only look up cases involving blacks in the South and the KKK, for example.
You can disagree with me all you like, but modding my comment as "redundant" was simply wrong. It was a valid and original reply to the person who posted.
...for this shit, being busy with the big offshoring project and all...
takedown notices should have had to go through the courts, not just let companies send takedown notices for no reason. what a terrible piece of legislation
Threat -> Extortion, which IS a crime. When lawyers using this method go to jail, the rest will be encouraged to use the mechanism as it was intended.
Offtopic, perhaps, but if a categorization schema can be copyrighted and summarily suppressed by Neilsen in this way, with the switch to digital in progress in the U.S., what's to prevent somebody from copyrighting and similarly suppressing transmissions themselves based upon a particular encryption algorithm used in the act of transmission? Seems like it would set the stage for blanket censorship of the media at a fairly fundamental level, and that IS worrisome. At the very least, it could require visual media to be offered on a subscription basis only, which kinda negates the concept of free speech, doesn't it?
This is all about the censorship. After all, censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already place protesters in fenced-in cages, ban books like "America Deceived" from Wikipedia, Amazon and Facebook, and shut down Ron Paul. Free Speech forever.
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
1: Demand to see Nielson's copyright notice and sue them when it's not forthcoming.
2: Wikileaks!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Make your own site copyrighted. That way if nielsen sends you a DMCA takedown notice, send them back a copyright violation notice stating they didn't get your written permission to copy stuff from your website to send you the DMCA takedown.
This is how companiy lawyers think.
Use their own notice to your advantage and claim in courts you were wronged. Plus sue them in small-claims court. Tell the court nieslen copied stuff from your site and show the judge "crucial" parts of their letter (silently ignoring the fact its a DMCA notice) and establish a precedent.
Nielsen can't come down to small claims without a lawyer: so that can't come at all.
Once you set a precedent, move to County or sympathetic state courts where your precedent plays a more crucial role than their lawyers.
That way you can defeat them easily, plus earn serious money.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Just for this, if Nielsen ever asks to track my household television viewing, I'm going to feed them a pack of lies!
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
> Wikipedia and most other website owners will comply with a DMCA notice
> regardless of whether or not it is valid because they don't care
> and is the simplest thing to do.
No, they will comply because doing so gives them, via other provisions of the DMCA, a modicum of immunity to monetary liability for copyright infringement.
My reaction to reading this article was: why doesn't wikipedia have a policy to publish all received notices (if not locally, then perhaps on Chilling Effects)?
Does slashdot have such a policy? If not, why not?
Does your website have such a policy?
Just use the deleted page url and append cache: before it in a google query.
Google's still got some of the urls cached,
As of this post, this and others are cached.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
To a large extent, we are running the place, no matter what certain Wikipedia admins might think. A few of the really obviously non-Nielsen related articles (which dealt with what TV stations are available in which localities) which were deleted have already been put back up.
In this light, I call on you and all of us to go and preemptively adopt the parallel Arbitron radio markets info just in case Arbitron gets ideas. I.e., go back them up so we can reinstate them more easily.
If the unregulated users of Wikipedia take action, Nielsen is up the creek. As stated in other posts, the DCMA does not enable "prior restraint", so the Wikipedia admins only need to delete the articles after notification of their existence. If they are recreated almost instantly, by us, this will just be a big waste of Nielsen's time and money.
> Maybe they agree and took it down because they personally recognise
> that the copyright belongs to Nielsen?
Er, probably not. The DCMA provides for non-judicial takedowns, but it also gives organizations which acquiesce to those takedowns a large amount of immunity to monetary damages. Practically everyone prefers to have to go through the rigmarole of removing the content, filing a counterclaim, and reinstating the content, in order to greatly lower financial exposure.
BTW, do you really think that Nielsen owns a copyright on the list of TV stations available in the Toledo, Ohio area?
Wikipedia hasn't released an English dump (backup) for months, if not over a year.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market#United_States_of_America :
Harry Potter is written by a private member, not by the public institution.
Enough to create a monopoly that will last 100 years?
No.
(1) I would have told Nielsen to go fuck themselves, followed by "See you in court, asshole!";
(2) As previously stated, facts like these are public domain and not copyrightable;
(3) DMCA is a fucked up law that never should have seen the light of day anyway;
(4) It is for bullshit reasons just like this that Wiki is doomed and shitty.
... for living on a country where DCMA is NOTHING...
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
These articles are no loss IMHO, I mean, 300 articles about some stupid Nielsen Marketing Boxes (whatever that are) are OK on Wikipedia, but one little article about an esoteric programming language or a too deep explanation of some fan fiction is deleted. At least now other useless subjects are treated the same and also have 0 articles.
So what about Deletionpedia http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page
They claim that they store all deleted Wikipedia pages. IF this is so, wouldn't they also be subject to the DCMA notice? Or does Nielsen have to give them a separate one as well?
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Wow, it's really a pity that Slashdot didn't let you add that dramatic drum-roll in the background...
Just the other day I got a survey from Nielsen with 2 dollars with it, and I was more than happy to fill it out and turn it in but now suddenly I'm not so interested in filling in any check boxes.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Doesn't this FCC Market Rank Listing violate Neilson copyright as well? http://www.fccfees.com/tvmarkets.htm
Never seen a legitimate use of it? Have you ever seen a site like YouTube, which can stay afloat despite hosting all sorts of copyrighted material? The DMCA is a weapon against content holders as well, as it allows hosting providers a safe harbor against lawsuits as long as they comply with takedown notices. If not for the DMCA, YouTube would have been sued into the ground a long time ago.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
IANAL etc. etc. but the whole point of the takedown provisions was to provide an expedited removal process that didn't require the courts. Last time I read the DMCA it seemed like the process was pretty straightforward: you send a takedown notice to the site that informs them someone posted infringing copies of your material on their site, and you include all your relevant contact information. The site takes down the material and informs the poster they've done so. The poster can then request the material be restored if they provide full contact information for themselves, to be forwarded on to you. Now you have contact information for the infringer and you can file suit if you care to.
Everybody gets up in arms over the DMCA takedown notice process, but this actually seems like a pretty reasonable policy in an otherwise really bad law. By providing expedited takedown, sites limit their liability for hosting infringing material. Anyone who receives a takedown can request the material be restored, at which point there's no counter-counter-takedown notice, it just moves completely to the courts. Sites do not get caught in the battle between copyright holder and infringer, unless they want to be.
Nothing is stopping a site from ignoring the takedown notice if they know it's bogus. The biggest downside is that contesting the notice requires losing anonymity, which leaves open the possibility of abusing the process specifically to find anonymous critics.
It's not a perfect process, but I think actually this is one part of the law where they were at least trying to do the right thing. (I'd bet that the copyright cartels didn't want any counter-notice process.)
People are never as simple as their stereotypes. This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, and Emacs-lovers.
I wish that every page removed by DMCA was replaced with a note "This content removed by DMCA by [party's name] on [date]." Then we could track who is abusing the request and petition them.
The archive isn't subject to editing, BUT the embedded elements may be captured at different times.
For example, if they captured the html and an image on 1/1/96 and again on 1/1/98, and for whatever reason deleted the image, a later version of the image and/or the "live" copy of the image will be used instead, or perhaps a placeholder will be used.
This can lead to bizarre situations where a page from a given date embeds a 3rd-party newsfeed, and the newsfeed is from months or years after the page in question.
In the case of http://www.google.com/ the oldest page is a "coming soon" page with no logo. The 2nd-oldest page is from 12/02/1998. The image is http://www.google.com/google.jpg. The oldest copy of that is dated 5/4/99. When you pull up the 12/08/98 version of www.google.com, you see the image from 5 months later, because there is no older archived version.
This is not a case of Google "buying off" The Internet Archive. It may be something as simple as them asking that the pre-5/4/99 versions be removed, or more likely, that they were never saved in the first place.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
... that regardless of my ability to comply with your demand, your attitude does not motivate me to do so.
I am quite familiar with the EFF (I am a long-time supporter), and Find Law. But you seem to be very forceful about your insistence that I do not know about these things, without presenting any contrary evidence or argument of your own.
./ and I am not impressed. If you want to make a counter argument, then make one. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.
./, the truth is that I don't have a lot of respect for your opinion.)
Sorry, guy. I have watched a number of your posturings here in
(Actually, I take that back. You are not wasting my time. I just found this comment of yours by looking back at old subjects, and I really don't much give a shit whether you reply or not... based on your other comments here on