Slashdot Mirror


Richard Stallman Interviewed By Bryan Lunduke (youtube.com)

Many Slashdot readers know Bryan Lunduke as the creator of the humorous "Linux Sucks" presentations at the annual Southern California Linux Exposition. He's now also a member of the OpenSUSE project board and an all-around open source guy. (In September, he released every one of his books, videos and comics under a Creative Commons license, while his Patreon page offers a tip jar and premiums for monthly patrons). But now he's also got a new "daily computing/nerd show" on YouTube, and last week -- using nothing but free software -- he interviewed the 64-year-old founder of the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman. "We talk about everything from the W3C's stance on DRM to opinions on the movie Galaxy Quest," Lunduke explains in the show's notes.

Click through to read some of the highlights.
"Instead of the DMCA, which makes it a crime to show people how to break DRM, it should be a crime to make, import or lease or sell devices with DRM," Stallman says. "Both the players and the media. It should be a crime. The executives of the companies that are now pulling the strings of the W3C, they should go to jail for doing DRM. "

Asked about Sir Tim Berners-Lee's endorsement of DRM in HTML5, Stallman quipped that "The fact that he's a knight means he was of service to the empire. And now he's being of service to another empire...What's happening here is that Berners-Lee and Jeff Jaffee have convinced themselves that by making this a standard, they will make the injustice of DRM smoother and less annoying in minor ways. And they've convinced themselves that that's the purpose of their lives... "

"He should handle it by saying no. But he can't really. And the reason is he set up an organization which is controlled by the businesses that want to put in the most money... By structuring it so it's controlled by the businesses, they've structured it so it wouldn't defend us from those businesses."

Stallman calls Skype "a non-free program with a network effect" whose users are "victim co-perpetrators," and also says that "Nobody uses Facebook, Facebook uses them. Facebook doesn't have users. It has useds. If you have a Facebook account, Facebook is using you to get information about you and about other people you know..."

Stallman pans mobile devices "that are full of peripherals that require non-free software at the system level. So there's no way to free them and have them work, except lots of painstaking reverse engineering, which is proceeding slowly."

And Stallman reserves a special bile for "the internet of Stings", saying "I personally wouldn't tolerate anything in my home that was talking to the internet except for my computer. They're designed to mistreat you. And part of the way they're designed to mistreat you is that they contain non-free software. And as happens often in the non-free software world, they have malicious functionality... It's the act of folly to use such a device."

Citing evils including surveillance, DRM, and back doors, as well as censorship and tethering to a remote server, Stallman says "If any proprietary program nowadays has no malicious functionality, that's basically luck."

"With free software you can remove any malicious functionality [or] a few other users can get together and release their modified version, and you just have to use it. With free software the community of users can defend itself from malicious functionalities. With proprietary software, the users are defenseless. This is why the mere fact of being proprietary software is an injustice." At one point he even says that proprietary software is like a dangerous drug, and "we've got to teach people to get off of it."

His advice to others? "Reject products with DRM. Never use any product designed to restrict you unless you have, immediately to hand, what it takes to break the handcuffs."

Stallman says he's running Trisquel's GNU/Linux distro on a ThinkPad x60, "one of the models of computer that can run a free BIOS with no binary blobs in the BIOS or in Linux, no proprietary software at any level of the GNU system. This is basically what we were aiming for 34 years ago."

Lunduke asks Stallman how a staunch proponent of free software -- and a man who doesn't agree to EULAs -- gets his entertainment media? Stallman replies, "No movie or show or song is worth giving up my freedom for. So I don't. So the only ways I will get copies of publications is when there's an ethical way to do it, one that doesn't mistreat me, doesn't do injustice to those who are using it..." "I buy music on CDs from physical stores... The problem is in the U.S. it's hard to find such stores any more!"

As a recovering teenaged TV addict, he no longer owns a television -- he went cold turkey when he went to college -- but he loved The Prisoner, and quotes it. " 'I'm going to escape and come back and wipe this place off off the face of the earth' is an inspiration to me. You might say that spirit is the base of the Free Software Movement. I'm going to escape from proprietary software, and come back, and wipe proprietary software off the face of the earth."

Finally, Stallman says we need more free software champions to help with this great work, and when Lunduke conveys the thank-yous of many free software fans, Stallman replies, "The best way to thank me and the thousands of other people who've worked on GNU is by helping us advance. So look at GNU.org/help, and you'll see see dozens of different kinds of work you can do or contributions you can make. And it's not all programming..."

32 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Nobody cares by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You opened the article, and even posted in it. You care!

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  2. harsh by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    He's harsh on Tim Berners-Lee for supporting DRM. I can't say he's wrong, though.
    Also he's harsh on Facebook.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He is Richard Fucking Stallman. He is going to be direct, blunt, and passionate, and everything he says is going to be true.

    2. Re:harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't say he's wrong, though.

      That's Stallman in a nutshell. Particularly the "though".

    3. Re:harsh by unixisc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      'Liberal' is being incredibly generous to RMS. Go through his website stallman.org: you'll see that he's a Progressive, bordering on Socialist. Of course, he claims that his ideals are closer to that of Social Democrat parties in Western Europe, rather than Socialist or Communist parties anywhere. Yet, he had been supportive of Hugo Chavez, when he was around (although I wonder where he stands on the current Venezuelan unrest)

    4. Re:harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ahh, 'progressive'. It's funny how you lot are so scared of that word.

      His ideals are, in fact, that much closer to european social democratic movements. But I don't know why you're so scared of Socialism; the US has lots of examples of it, and some of them aren't even corporate welfare.

      On Chavez: I think a lot of lefties (me included) were very supportive of Chavez when he appeared on the scene; the first few years of Chavez rule were significant in terms of how they improved the lives of the poor.

      Did Chavez go off the rails? Yes. But perhaps that started when the US backed an attempt to have him forcibly removed from an aircraft when it wasn't even on the ground.

    5. Re: harsh by guruevi · · Score: 2

      The w3c is set up for business interest takeover though. To be a member you have to pay a sum, to become part of a working group to create a "standard", you quickly have to sink in thousands if not hundreds of thousands per year. Few individual, small busones or even hobbyist groups will be able to make that expense, the only names you see on there is Adobe, Microsoft, Google etc.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  3. Re:Nobody cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Judging by your reaction something is making you angry. Would you like to talk about that?

  4. Re:Nobody cares by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    Shut up, Emacs Doctor!

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  5. FSF = not practical by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I sympathize with his ideals, because the truth is that a lot of DRM sucks ass and big companies like facebook are screwing their users in unethical ways. But it's still hard to take Stallman seriously because he doesn't provide practical solutions to these problems. The reality is, we live in a world choke full of DRM and information harvesting megacorps - the free software idealism has lost and will never win - and Stallman seems like a radical extremist that advocates blowing up parlament and engaging in civil disobedience by opting out of all the services modern life offers. This is not a practical or tolerable solution for 99% of the population. Most people want to watch Netflix, connect with their friends on facebook and perform Google searches. If you just tell them they can't have all that, you'll never win them over.

    1. Re:FSF = not practical by gringer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the free software idealism has lost and will never win

      It's becoming more popular in the biology / medical research community, as people start to understand the importance of reproducible and open research. Every thing that can be opened up and inspected is another thing that doesn't need months (or years) of work to repeat.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    2. Re:FSF = not practical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > I sympathize with his ideals, because the truth is that a lot of DRM sucks ass [...]

      This is probably the most insidious geek trap. "It can't be done perfectly, so I better do nothing..." "Oh! someone tweeted something!". Uncountable geek's corpses lay scattered around on that cliffs.

      The best antidote is: Do as well as you can. Pick your battles. Keep it fun, while not losing the goal's sight. Accept imperfection. Above all, keep it fun.

    3. Re:FSF = not practical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "the free software idealism has lost and will never win"

      Never is a very, very long time.
      Never is literally everything ever to come in the future.
      Including thousands and perhaps even millions of years from now.
      It will take billions of years before our sun is gone.
      You could've written "will probably never win".
      But you didn't, you wrote "will never win".
      Humans have only had computers for less than 100 years.
      Think about that for a moment.

      "If you just tell them they can't have all that, you'll never win them over."

      That's why what he says is often more nuanced.
      See, for instance, his writings about DRM'd games.

    4. Re:FSF = not practical by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Free software is winning. What is the most popular OS kernel? Is there a modern computer or mobile device that doesn't run GNU software? Do you think companies like Google would open source their software if free software was losing?

      What about the internet? It was all proprietary, closed systems before free software and protocols set us free.

      Netflix will give us DRM one day. They would do it now I think, if it were not required for licencing the material they offer.

      Think how much worse things would be without free software.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:FSF = not practical by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2

      Stallman seems like a radical extremist that advocates blowing up parlament

      No, he doesn't.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    6. Re:FSF = not practical by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The reality is, we live in a world choke full of DRM and information harvesting megacorps - the free software idealism has lost and will never win"

      His idealism has nothing to do with it, he's not an extremist. Basically its people like you who don't understand that the free market is a myth in a society of high speed internet where software producers are under private control, pre-high speed internet their was a balance between buyers of software and makers/sellers of software. AKA you got the software to run entirely on your computer because they physically had to let go of the software, post high speed internet. Basically Steam/mmo's/drm/software companies can take software hostage on the other side of the internet, break it into two pieces.

      Free market theory can't work in such a society because 1) You'd have to be physically close to the companys producing software to hold them accountable and thereby prevent DRM from being forced upon you. 2) The average layperson in capitalist society is not technology literate enough to be a market participant. AKA the primitive primate brain was never designed to make rational decisions in a high tech capitalist society.

      If anything permanently spying on people because private ownership of megacorporations doesn't work when the population using their services/products are physically not close enough to effect their policies. It's not that I wanted Steam or mmo's (drm'd rpg's with a subscription) to take off, it's that the informed members of capitalist society are not organized in a way to produce bad market outcomes. The idea that the average clueless tech illiterate kid is going to make rational decision regarding the future of videogames for instance (aka drm everywhere) is a myth. It has very little to do with Stallman being an extremist and everything to do with the free market having always been a myth, any large organization that controls a large share of the worlds wealth can simply forcibly impose policies on populations because the population is 100's of miles away, without physical proxmity in a post high speed internet age, there's no way to prevent having these policies forced on the population if they want to participate in the culture. Basically the myth of the free market is being shown to be a farce with the rise of the internet.

      The myth of consumer choice is the issue - you can't have genuine accountability or influence over corporations policies without physical proxmity, aka drm wouldn't be a think if we all lived within a few blocks of these companies. They get to force it down our throats because they are taking advantage of the fact the internet allows you to 'distribute' the product while holding part of its functionality hostage on companies servers, aka it's corporate warfare on peoples right to their own personal computers and the files they are purchasing from these companies. UWP and encrypted computing Microsoft and big companies are working on are working to turn computing devices into magical dumb terminal permanently. The entire internet is being re-engineered to take total control of software away from the end user, since the end user is too technically illiterate to understand the sophistication of the attacks on their rights.

      If anything stallman is right and the free market corporate extremists are wrong, in what world do you want to have you private data bought and sold by anonymous corporations and then sold to people who are hostile to your interests AND have your own computer files like games encrypted so you can't modify them while the legal environment is being remade to make file modifications illegal to software you've paid for? What kind of fucked up world do you live in that you want to be a slave of a giant corporation these little ceo kings and ignorant peasants? If anything its the average free marketeer that is the extremist.

      No market relationship can exist when buyer and seller are 100's of miles away from each other, there's no accountability so producers can impose their will on society and the average person is not intelligent enough to make rational decisions regarding technology because the human brain didn't evolve to deal with it.

    7. Re:FSF = not practical by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When he started there was no such thing as an entire operating system of free software and no hardware you could run it on. This exists today - it didn't then. It's not as readily and easily available as it should be - but it exists. And, as he rightfully pointed out, if he had compromised the ideal of that existing - it would still not exist at all. It only exists because he never settled for less than that.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:FSF = not practical by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stallman has never opposed commercialism - he has no problem with people earning a living - you just shouldn't get to earn money by ripping people off (stealing their freedom is arguably worse than stealing their money - and that's what's happening, it may be cleverly disguised but conjobs always are - they are still fraud).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:FSF = not practical by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stallman is more like the kind of political extremist who would tell everybody not to vote because it perpetuates the system. He doesn't force anybody to do anything, he only forces himself and suggests to others. Forcing is what he's against.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    10. Re:FSF = not practical by ausekilis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm gonna go ahead and channel my inner RMS:

      Free software is winning. What is the most popular OS kernel? Is there a modern computer or mobile device that doesn't run GNU software? Do you think companies like Google would open source their software if free software was losing?

      Android itself is not open source. There is the Android Open-Source Project which, last I checked, was more than a few version behind what the latest flagship phone ships with. Google appears to be slowing down with the contributions to AOSP, which is why Cyanogenmod started in the first place.

      Sure GNU/Linux runs on damned near anything, but it is still a bit niche. Android being the exception, most people don't know or care that Linux is running on that webserver, or that router, or their TV.

        I don' t keep up with what Google has open-sourced... but their primary revenue source (us, ads specifically) and their search algorithms are still proprietary. Have they published the bottom-to-top design and software of their search system? Their datacenters?

      What about the internet? It was all proprietary, closed systems before free software and protocols set us free.

      There's a difference here. Open protocols vs open software. Internet explorer uses an open protocol, but is not free (as in speech) itself. If Microsoft had the pull to force everyone to use their own proprietary protocol/format, you can bet your ass they'd monetize it. Just look at the ODF/OOXML battle a few years back. Microsoft wanted to keep office document formats locked into their own MS Office format.

      Netflix will give us DRM one day. They would do it now I think, if it were not required for licencing the material they offer.

      Netflix already has DRM. They have since day one. Their original web player used MS Silverlight because it could handle DRM and was more difficult to hack than Flash (the bar was low). Now with HTML5 supporting DRM, they can move away from the defunct Silverlight, while maintaining that control over distribution and keeping the MAFIAA happy.

      Think how much worse things would be without free software.

      I have no doubt that things would be worse without free software. I think the GPL has done some great things and kept companies honest about using great, freely available software. There has even been government (Munich, some others) action to move away from vendor lock-in, and those guys are routinely the hardest to break away from the status quo. Unfortunately, the masses don't really *care* if the software is free, non-malicious, openly inspect-able and modifiable. Ask any Apple fanboi why they chose Apple, and the answer is probably "It just works. I can buy other Apple stuff and it all just works together". The truth is 90+% of the population don't want to tinker with stuff, they just want to get whatever job done.

    11. Re:FSF = not practical by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it's still hard to take Stallman seriously because he doesn't provide practical solutions to these problems.

      Actually he does: opt out. It won't kill you to only buy entertainment which is DRM-free. So you can't stream the latest episode of Game of Thrones; if you have access to a library you have more alternative ways to entertain your imagination than you'll ever have time to use.

      The problem is not being able to buy what the people around them are buying is just too radical for most people.

      This is not a practical or tolerable solution for 99% of the population.

      This is not anticipated to be tolerable by 99% of the population. They don't actually know, because they'll never try it. Stallman seems to be happy enough without Netflix. But Stallman is a nut. Why is he a nut? Because he's happy enough without Netflix. It's circular reasoning; for all you know you're a nut too, you just don't know it.

      This is how powerful corporations control people: by manipulating their unexamined assumptions of what they can tolerably live with. They don't need police power, because people will police themselves.

      In a sense this is nothing new, they're just manipulating a longstanding fact about human nature: people are very bad at predicting how things will affect their future happiness. I've recently developed an interest in the old Greek and Roman philosophers called the Stoics. They reasoned more or less thus: if happiness is having all your wants satisfied, the surest path to happiness is to want less. But even they realized that nobody can really adequately regulate their own desires. The best you can achieve is a kind of skepticism about what would otherwise be unchallenged assumptions about what you need. But even though it falls short, it goes a long way toward freeing you from self-afflicted dissatisfaction.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:FSF = not practical by alphaomega325 · · Score: 2

      Okay now, what should we do about it? All this complaining, all this saying that we can't beat back the system and the corporations, it is in essence us brushing our hands off for the responsibility for actually changing things. I believe that the only way that we can change things is to go ahead and build brand new hardware, brand new software that instead of taking control away from the user instead bring the control back to the user. And it will only happen if we build the hardware and the software. Otherwise what your prediction says will happen and the Open Source Movement will die. And we will only have ourselves to blame.

    13. Re:FSF = not practical by Kjella · · Score: 2

      When he started there was no such thing as an entire operating system of free software and no hardware you could run it on. This exists today - it didn't then. It's not as readily and easily available as it should be - but it exists. And, as he rightfully pointed out, if he had compromised the ideal of that existing - it would still not exist at all. It only exists because he never settled for less than that.

      Well evil tounges would suggest that without Linus we'd still be waiting on GNU/Hurd. GCC forked off and became ECGS. "Linux libc" forked away from glibc and was only later "gnu-ified" again like ECGS. The rest the FSF made seems mostly to be small utilities, for sure having a GNU/free ls, awk, sed, grep etc. is important but hardly the showstopper. His one (admittedly huge) crowning achievement was writing the GPL, but most the projects seemed to refuse his leadership.

      And even then the adoption by some of the core players seemed to be more by chance than ideological success, like Linus primarily wanted to see what other developers were doing to learn so he could run it on his box. User freedom was never a big deal for him nor most other Linux kernel core developers, which is why the GPLv3 was met with a "meh". X11 and Wayland doesn't use the GPL. Apache isn't using the GPL. Android isn't using the GPL except the kernel. It is popular? Yes. Is it the only commonly used open source license? Very far from it.

      According to Black Duck GPLv3 + LGPLv3 + Affero GPL = ~10% of all projects and GPLv2 + LGPLv2 ~20% so most projects haven't really been following Stallman since 2007. And that's not counting the non-GPL licenses, my impression is that the Apache license has gained a lot of popularity particularly with corporations like Google (Android), Apple (Swift) and Microsoft (ASP.Net). The kernel is the one project that seems to get away with copyleft because you can run any userspace on top. And because it doesn't really crack down on shims and driver blobs.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  6. I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... that Lunduke would even interview RMS again after RMS telling Lunduke that he should go broke rather than develop software... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA

    1. Re:I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that is not what he said.

      Q: The job I am doing is unethical, but it earns me lots of money. Do you want my children to starve?

      A: That does not make it ethical and there are other jobs out there.

  7. He is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have enjoyed every interaction I have had with him because he doesn't bend his principles. He becomes a modern prophet of sorts to us calling out the truth we already know but are maybe too lazy to actually apply to life without being reminded.
    Now my wife would call him and quite often me a real Sheldon Cooper but we need a few dorks around calling us to do the right thing to shepherd us against those motivated by personal or corporate gain and 'free' not libre systems which actually just use us as farmed cash crops.
    He did like my suggestion for the next openmoko/Neo900 which included a POCSAG pager module though he disagreed on the agreed upon modem module implementation in that design. He would own a phone if it was one which didn't abuse him, having a pager on passive alert and only connecting to the phone network when he chose to to answer/call back his calls sounded good to him.
    I suppose the problem is there is less commercial pressure to produce a phone or computer which fully respects the user when even a little abuse spread among thousands or millions of units can enrich a small number of executives. I think well over 90% of users in our endless September could care less about the mostly invisible abuse going on and like airline passengers just care about the price no matter how bad they are treated.

  8. 34 years by ledow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, after 34 years, in a world of on-demand entertainment, mobile devices, in-home electronics, video conferencing, etc., Stallman is using a decade-old laptop, watching no entertainment at all, presumably has nothing in the line of other devices (e.g. tablets, phones, CCTV, etc.) and can't talk to anyone who doesn't use the same kind of software as him (e.g. everyone on Skype, WhatsApp, etc.). And he also thinks you should go to jail for wanting to put a restrictive licence on things you own?

    And we're supposed to follow this guy's ideals?

    The guy's a moron. And that's coming from someone who does do an awful lot of things the open-source way, including my own programming.

    If you want to fix this problem, rather than mouth off, try and fix some of the primary problems identified by the FSF - which has included open-source video conferencing for years. Hell, they're still talking about an open-source alternative for Flash which has lived and died in the time they've been trying to create one.

    The sentiment is overblown, the direction is a good one, but the reality is so poor that everyone gave up waiting (e.g. for Hurd which only recently got SATA functionality...). And you're seriously advocating a years-old laptop as the way to live? That laptop stopped manufacture before millions of the users of things like iPads and WhatsApp were even born.

    Not only are you bad at fixing the problem, you're bad at finding interim solutions, and bad at making suggestions, and nothing but bad press for people who DO still want free and open kit.

    I'm incredibly disappointed that NOBODY with these large organisations with tons of skilled people on board has thought to monetise the exact thing they can do : Make a series of machines that are free and open from top to bottom. You can use sales from them to develop further. People would buy one just for a certified "open" tag.

    But, no, the closest you can get is System76 who recycle old IBM laptops still and who have just thought about getting into the game of end-to-end production.

    We could have been doing that since the 386 era when this guy first started mouthing off publicly, but nothing has been done in that direction.

    I'm all for free software but, you know what, I have to talk to real people. That means a mobile phone. I have to use computers. That means ones I can buy in a shop today. I have to live and enjoy. And that means playing games on Steam and watching movies on Amazon.

    Because there are precisely ZERO viable alternatives, short of a 10-year-old laptop and giving everything else up.

  9. Re: Nobody cares by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    And yet if you go back to some of the recent Android articles, you'll find people saying that Android isn't really Linux, because it doesn't contain the GNU stuff that they expect on a 'real Linux' system.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  10. Re: Nobody cares by unixisc · · Score: 2

    It's what people see. Like if I have a microwave oven or washing machine that has Linux underpinnings and someone asks me whether I run Linux, my answer would be no, since this computer that I'm typing on is TrueOS, and so Linux ain't what I do my computing on.

  11. Re:Stallman's jihad: beating something w/ nothing by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    his goal at the end - eviscerating proprietary software from the face of the earth - just reveals his evil Stalinist tendencies that have never left him, and never will.

    The problem with Stalin wasn't his ideals. The problem with Stalin was that he killed people who disagreed with him. Either you have a very basic lack of understanding, or you are purposely trying to mislead people. Which is it?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  12. Re:Stallman's jihad: beating something w/ nothing by unixisc · · Score: 2

    I never said that Stallman shared Stalin's ideals. I did imply that he has goals similar to what Stalin had, except that whereas Stalin eviscerated entire populations and conducted genocide, Stallman wants to wipe out businesses that operate on principles different from what he believes in. Yeah, he doesn't want to kill people, but he wants to stamp out all ideas other than his own. Not a whole lot better than the Soviet leader.

  13. Re:Nobody cares by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    Maybe it's a witch doctor? Or a faith healer? Unless the difference is lost on you like it is on me.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20