I mean jeez, most people actually think mp3's and CDs burned from them sound good enough!!! (emphasis mine.)
For most people, MP3-derived CDs are good enough. I wouldn't do it myself, but that's because I don't listen right from CDs for the most part.
If I was, oh, making a background music CD for use in gaming, or a compliation of songs for a car-drive, I'd probably use MP3s as a holding format. The quality would be good enough for what I wanted it for.
The only hope the labels have is to release exclusive content on SACD and artists arent gonna stand for that...
Some will. And saying "then they're not artists" is a cop-out.
The labels can just shift things over to SACD; playing with the prices would help, too. If it looks like a CD and plays like a CD, but it's cheaper and contains a bonus high-quality part, most consumers would buy it. (If it's marginally more expensive, some would STILL buy it.)
Anyone who things that "intercontinental radio" will keep them safe from RIAA has something else coming. They can go after you using the local laws, or after your upstream provider in the US--or they can just buy you out.
Everyone has a cost. Some people just have costs so large no one is willing to pay them.
considering their future next to cable and DSL access, for all intents and purposes AOL is dead.
Oddly enough, I could switch to AOL (from Road Runner) for $0 more per month. I can even get "unlimited dial-up" for somewhere between $7 and $12 per month.
Depending on how much spam I continue to get with my RR address, I might switch over. Also depends on how well AOL supports Mozilla et al.
many creators of valuable copyrighted works do not own the copyrights and that is just plain wrong.
I agree completely. I'm all fine with authors having a lifetime and a half copyright on their works; I'm not fine with immortal corporations having even a single whole lifetime control of any work of art. (or even "could be art" like what they chiefly have.)
Consider that artists and inventors are probably more closely related in what they do than you give them credit for. It is harder to patent something (or at least it should be!) than to copyright something. More effort must go into creating something unique to earn a patent. I could write a very crappy story which I can copyright and retain the rights to for a VERY long time, yet if I work my ass off and invent something incredibly useful and valuable to the human race, I only get a small window of opportunity... A bit unbalanced IMHO.
Well, it's the value of having other people being able to use the "IP" that you've created that causes the balance.
It's very valuable if everyone in an industry can use the same patents--it lets things like economies of scale kick in, and competition, and all the rest of the things that make capitalism work.
Copyrights, on the other hand, don't give a lot to society if anyone can re-use them willy-nilly. There isn't a competetive market advantage to someone stealing whole chapters from your bad novel. (Remember: Copyright applies to the actual text, and the unique characters, but not the literary ideas you might come up with.)
The works are irrelevant, the important thing is that the ideas are spread and the public has a base to learn from and build on.
Which is more important, culturally: The Mona Lisa, or the artistic innovations that Leonardo contained therein?
If you say the innovations, is it for themselves, or for the improved quality of post-mona lisa paintings?
Art is a work that is worthwhile in and of itself. The word's abused a lot, but Art--real art--is worth protecting for its own sake even if it doesn't contain a single quantifiable idea or innovation.
Maybe not novels -- but one of the textbooks I considered for my class comes with the equivalent of an end-user license agreement. Yippee.
I hate textbooks. They should be sold as one-chapter PDFs to the school, and never printed excpect for locally, on-demand, if the student wants it.
I thought we both agreed that some people would continue to create and even publish even without direct compensation.
People would create, and some would even write novels--but the art form would quickly die out, or use contracts to get back to where it was, which would be bad for readers.
Shakesphere didn't write plays for a book; he wrote them because he needed plays to perform. I believe the oriental woman who wrote the world's first novel did so because she began it and the crown supported her.
Better crappy boy-bands than no new music at all.
That's a matter of opinion, I guess.:)
Yep. And further proof that I'm deranged, apparantly... but I would rather have boy-band music than no music at all.
If they're going to legislate me into putting in 'assistive technology' into my websites, why don't they force magazines to put out Braille versions, or make them supply audio-cassettes or CDs with the contents transcribed ? Why don't they widen airplane and car and bus seats so morbidly obese people can sit in them ?
IANAL, but...
I believe that the standard for disability is something like "resonable effort for reasonable access." Things like ramps for stores, and magazines printing out braile versoins if they can afford to do so.
Don't take my word for it, but if you get a complaint about someone wanting to force you to make brail-versions of your bird-watching website, check with a lawyer if you can't come to a compormise; I suspect that you'd be able to tell the angry blind man to go away if it requires unreasonable effort to accomodate their wishes.
I've heard the same story--and I do believe that, like most things in America, the facination in and belief in Duck Tape came from the military. (Our coffee addition & love of cars came from there, too.)
We are approaching this anyway, because of the lunacy of intellectual "property"... Except now, one has little option but to deal with the huge publishers and distributors.
No one, to date, has voiced a major complaint with how publishers sell novels. Oh, sure, there's RIAA and the MPAA and Microsoft and all that, but the old-fashioned booksellers really haven't changed that much.
Oh, and one CAN deal outside of the large publishers and distributors in a book-selling world. E-books, print-on-demand, self-publishing--not to mention a rather healthy variety of literary agents and booksellers.
It's not entirely clear to me that less creative output -- but by those who actually really really care -- would necessarily be a bad trade.
Less output is a good thing; it lets them focus more on the work than the deadline.
NO output, on the other hand, is something else. Better crappy boy-bands than no new music at all.
Anotherng that will hold the iPod is it's exclisive Macintosh support.
There's an iPod version made specifically for Windows--three of them actually. With a FAT32 file system, Musicmatch 7.1 for access, and even a 6-pin-to-4-pin adapter for the firewire cable.
But when they speak about how cool macs are and how uncool PCs are, they do so because they got money from Apple.
I have never gotten more than a few marketing pamphlets and a bottle of water from Apple.
I think Apples are far "cooler" than PCs, and I'd trade the beige box I've got at home for a Mac in the short time it'd take me to transfer the files & pics & ROMS & MP3s over.
Re:Unethical Behavior: RedWolves2's Amazon Link
on
Slack
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
How the heck is that unethical?
RedWolves2 pointed out to a populace reading a book where they could save some money on it. Pointing them to his affiliate page doesn't cost the hypothetical/. poster anything. It's exactly how affiliate programs should work--he referrs them to Amazon, and if they buy from Amazon he gets money for it.
Besides which, it looks like/. did the same thing...
I only offer this because I'm tired of hearing how, if there were no copyrights, no one would ever create anything.
If there were no copyrights, we would have far fewer artists in the world. Why bother putting years of your life into a novel if anyone who reads it can simply print & sell it and not give you a thing?
IIRC, the original copyright system was created, at least in prinicpal, to keep authors from getting ripped off by their publishers. Considering how many scumball agents there are in America today, I have no doubt that, sans copyright, we'd be right back where we started.
I have no doubt that creativity and storytelling would continue if copyrights were abolished, but I wager that the novel, in all its forms good and bad, would either dwindle to nothing or become so entwined with a series of contracts so complex--incluing a contract with the reader--that we'd be worse off than we are today.
However, if the copyright period is continually extended, what incentive is there for someone to create something new if their old ideas are still making money?
To make more money, of course.
Trust me--we don't want to force great authors to crank out works. If their next work takes ten years to write, let it take ten years; better than than to have ten works that are all mere shadows of what could be.
The mega-corporations pushing for the extensions are only doing it so they can continue to reap in the $$$ from (very) old cash-cows. If they couldn't fall back on these, they would be forced to try to find something new and innovative!
I agree 100%. Corporations, IMHO, shouldn't be allowed to hold copyright at all. If they must, then it should be for a very reduced term.
Has anyone wondered why copyrights should last longer than patents?
Well, that's easy. A patent is pure innovation; a copyright, on the other hand, is more art & derivation than innovation. A patent's monopoly is an advantage on a differnet product, while a copyright is just an enforcement of commerical worth; there are a very few situations where "copyright licensing" is an issue for someone's work that isn't just a reprint of the original work.
I would think the Open Source model stands as a direct contradiction of this assertion. Sometimes, at least, people offer creative contributions without seeking any chance of monetary reward. It simply isn't true that the only value is economic value -- sometimes things happen for reasons other than money.
"Reasons other than money" are, as far as the law concerns, still money. If you and I make a contract where I mow your yard, it doesn't matter if you agree to pay me or you just agree to go to church on sunday--it's still a contract.
OSS uses the copyleft concept to counteract an overextension of copyright into the software domain. Bridge plans or novel inventions do not derive their major protection from copyright--they derive it from patent law. The innovation and design patent system, IMHO (IANAL), is sufficient to protect software and recoup development costs; the industry just wants to have four times the useable life of their product locked down.
IIRC, Stallman actually agrees with me on this one; not all IP laws are bad, just the ones where they're abused, like software.
The public needs to be reminded that the purpose of copyright is to help spread new ideas, not make money.
The purpose of copyright (and patent) laws isn't to spread new ideas--that goal would be done much easier if it was simply illegal to hide an idea.
Copyrights (and patents, but not trademarks) exist so the creators of new ideas / written works CAN make money, and thus are encouraged to keep on making new things.
Ergo, the often-quoted balance between "public good" and "private benefit" that is copyright. The private party wants to enjoy as much economic beneift as possible from their works. The public wants to just enjoy the works, as cheaply as possible and as often as possible.
Copyright is how we pay authors, artists, and computer programmers. (Let's just ignore the GPL for this ONE argument, can we?). It's not that it's main purpose isn't to make money; it's that we as a society are "hiring" IP producers to make IP, and if they don't continue to produce a re-evaluation of their agreement (copyright law) might be in order.
Go pick on someone your own size. Gaim, Peng, Jabber, etc., seems like AOL just likes to harass non-profit, open-source projects. Come on, these people are working (mostly for free) on the software, giving out the software for free, and releasing the source code too. AOL should be ashamed of itself for for harassing people who are just trying to help their fellow man.
Take a closer look at those software projects:
gAIM: A pirate-client (as much as yahoo messenger or msn messenger) on the valuable AIM network.
Jabber: A program attemting, also, to hack into the AIM network.
(Remember, it's not just 'free software' that AOL is going after; they're also picking at anyone at all who tries to "hack" into AIM.)
Peng: well, heck. It's a Linux "dialer" that intentionally allows people to use AOL's servers to connect in a way that AOL doesn't intend, to use them as a common ISP.
On a completely different note, it would not surprise me at all, in light of congresses latest whorish display of its ability to move in contortions suggestive of a complete lack of backbone in granting president Baby Bush with a blank check for mayhem and idiocy, we didn't find ourselves embroiled in a war by this time next year that is far bigger, and far uglier, than we ever intended.
I don't know about you, but MY intentions (as a citizen of the USA) are to have a war that neither stops short nor forgets its purpose, and expands as needed to rebuild and reconstruct every and any country that cannot undo the damage that European Imperialism did to them--most importantly, for the moment, the middle east.
I intend to support my country in a war that will not end until Islam is a great world power again, and not just an excuse for terrorism. I intend to vote and speak out and, if necessary, join the military to fight for the betterment of all mankind.
As for the sticks and stones bit... it'd be steel & black powder before sticks & stones, and even those are a bit far off.
It might. Could you browse up this thread and let me know what you think of my posting?
Before removing the splinter from thy brother's eye, first remove the beam from thine own. As a Christian, you should have known that, and acted accordingly.
Sometimes I wish that JC had never said that. It almost seems like whenever a Christian stands up for something, they get accused of hyporcircy. *sigh* (And, yes, I wish that my fellow Christians were less hypocritical...)
I have always found that people who proclaim their faith the loudest are also the most obnoxious ones. You're not doing a good job as an evangelist, are you?
Well, no. I'm here on/. to be a geek, not an evangelist. Evangelism is something that I've found to not be worth the bother; people simply don't like being told that they're wrong, no matter how you say it.
I started appending my religion into my/. sig when I realized that no one knew what faith I was. Still, time for a new sig, me things...
Slashdot Mirror
I mean jeez, most people actually think mp3's and CDs burned from them sound good enough!!! (emphasis mine.)
...
For most people, MP3-derived CDs are good enough. I wouldn't do it myself, but that's because I don't listen right from CDs for the most part.
If I was, oh, making a background music CD for use in gaming, or a compliation of songs for a car-drive, I'd probably use MP3s as a holding format. The quality would be good enough for what I wanted it for.
The only hope the labels have is to release exclusive content on SACD and artists arent gonna stand for that
Some will. And saying "then they're not artists" is a cop-out.
The labels can just shift things over to SACD; playing with the prices would help, too. If it looks like a CD and plays like a CD, but it's cheaper and contains a bonus high-quality part, most consumers would buy it. (If it's marginally more expensive, some would STILL buy it.)
no way to stop it
Hah. Hah, hah, hah!
Anyone who things that "intercontinental radio" will keep them safe from RIAA has something else coming. They can go after you using the local laws, or after your upstream provider in the US--or they can just buy you out.
Everyone has a cost. Some people just have costs so large no one is willing to pay them.
considering their future next to cable and DSL access, for all intents and purposes AOL is dead.
Oddly enough, I could switch to AOL (from Road Runner) for $0 more per month. I can even get "unlimited dial-up" for somewhere between $7 and $12 per month.
Depending on how much spam I continue to get with my RR address, I might switch over. Also depends on how well AOL supports Mozilla et al.
many creators of valuable copyrighted works do not own the copyrights and that is just plain wrong.
I agree completely. I'm all fine with authors having a lifetime and a half copyright on their works; I'm not fine with immortal corporations having even a single whole lifetime control of any work of art. (or even "could be art" like what they chiefly have.)
Consider that artists and inventors are probably more closely related in what they do than you give them credit for. It is harder to patent something (or at least it should be!) than to copyright something. More effort must go into creating something unique to earn a patent. I could write a very crappy story which I can copyright and retain the rights to for a VERY long time, yet if I work my ass off and invent something incredibly useful and valuable to the human race, I only get a small window of opportunity... A bit unbalanced IMHO.
Well, it's the value of having other people being able to use the "IP" that you've created that causes the balance.
It's very valuable if everyone in an industry can use the same patents--it lets things like economies of scale kick in, and competition, and all the rest of the things that make capitalism work.
Copyrights, on the other hand, don't give a lot to society if anyone can re-use them willy-nilly. There isn't a competetive market advantage to someone stealing whole chapters from your bad novel. (Remember: Copyright applies to the actual text, and the unique characters, but not the literary ideas you might come up with.)
The works are irrelevant, the important thing is that the ideas are spread and the public has a base to learn from and build on.
Which is more important, culturally: The Mona Lisa, or the artistic innovations that Leonardo contained therein?
If you say the innovations, is it for themselves, or for the improved quality of post-mona lisa paintings?
Art is a work that is worthwhile in and of itself. The word's abused a lot, but Art--real art--is worth protecting for its own sake even if it doesn't contain a single quantifiable idea or innovation.
Maybe not novels -- but one of the textbooks I considered for my class comes with the equivalent of an end-user license agreement. Yippee.
:)
I hate textbooks. They should be sold as one-chapter PDFs to the school, and never printed excpect for locally, on-demand, if the student wants it.
I thought we both agreed that some people would continue to create and even publish even without direct compensation.
People would create, and some would even write novels--but the art form would quickly die out, or use contracts to get back to where it was, which would be bad for readers.
Shakesphere didn't write plays for a book; he wrote them because he needed plays to perform. I believe the oriental woman who wrote the world's first novel did so because she began it and the crown supported her.
Better crappy boy-bands than no new music at all.
That's a matter of opinion, I guess.
Yep. And further proof that I'm deranged, apparantly... but I would rather have boy-band music than no music at all.
If they're going to legislate me into putting in 'assistive technology' into my websites, why don't they force magazines to put out Braille versions, or make them supply audio-cassettes or CDs with the contents transcribed ? Why don't they widen airplane and car and bus seats so morbidly obese people can sit in them ?
IANAL, but...
I believe that the standard for disability is something like "resonable effort for reasonable access." Things like ramps for stores, and magazines printing out braile versoins if they can afford to do so.
Don't take my word for it, but if you get a complaint about someone wanting to force you to make brail-versions of your bird-watching website, check with a lawyer if you can't come to a compormise; I suspect that you'd be able to tell the angry blind man to go away if it requires unreasonable effort to accomodate their wishes.
I doubt that the two versions of Office would create the exact same file, meaning there is probably a trackable difference between the two.
Hmm... interesting thought.
Can macs write to FAT32? Or is there some other way to compensate for the differneces in the OS file system...
Darn, now I really want a Mac.
"our writer" ? A small hint that it's a Microsoft employee?
Not really. It's grammatically correct when speaking about a subject to refer to "ours."
Imagine a pair of biologist watching a lion, and saying "now that she's given birth, our lion will have to tend to these cubs."
For all the factual errors in that article ("Hey, look, Windows XP is better than my old Mac II!"), they at least got the grammar sorta right (AFAIK.)
(I have never recieved anything from MS, aside from a "thank you letter" for them sending me a free copy of XP.)
How about:
There is enough new about XP to fill a "switch" campaign; MS just doesn't have the cojones to pull it off, nor the respect for their users.
------------------
*: These are, of course, relative to previous MS versions / the extant consumer PC market.
**: If there is a game on the shelves today that doesn't have a windows version, I'm not aware of it.
Sounds apocryphal -- source?
I've heard the same story--and I do believe that, like most things in America, the facination in and belief in Duck Tape came from the military. (Our coffee addition & love of cars came from there, too.)
We are approaching this anyway, because of the lunacy of intellectual "property"... Except now, one has little option but to deal with the huge publishers and distributors.
No one, to date, has voiced a major complaint with how publishers sell novels. Oh, sure, there's RIAA and the MPAA and Microsoft and all that, but the old-fashioned booksellers really haven't changed that much.
Oh, and one CAN deal outside of the large publishers and distributors in a book-selling world. E-books, print-on-demand, self-publishing--not to mention a rather healthy variety of literary agents and booksellers.
It's not entirely clear to me that less creative output -- but by those who actually really really care -- would necessarily be a bad trade.
Less output is a good thing; it lets them focus more on the work than the deadline.
NO output, on the other hand, is something else. Better crappy boy-bands than no new music at all.
Anotherng that will hold the iPod is it's exclisive Macintosh support.
d ex.html
There's an iPod version made specifically for Windows--three of them actually. With a FAT32 file system, Musicmatch 7.1 for access, and even a 6-pin-to-4-pin adapter for the firewire cable.
http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/02q4/021003/in
But when they speak about how cool macs are and how uncool PCs are, they do so because they got money from Apple.
I have never gotten more than a few marketing pamphlets and a bottle of water from Apple.
I think Apples are far "cooler" than PCs, and I'd trade the beige box I've got at home for a Mac in the short time it'd take me to transfer the files & pics & ROMS & MP3s over.
How the heck is that unethical?
/. poster anything. It's exactly how affiliate programs should work--he referrs them to Amazon, and if they buy from Amazon he gets money for it.
/. did the same thing...
RedWolves2 pointed out to a populace reading a book where they could save some money on it. Pointing them to his affiliate page doesn't cost the hypothetical
Besides which, it looks like
I only offer this because I'm tired of hearing how, if there were no copyrights, no one would ever create anything.
If there were no copyrights, we would have far fewer artists in the world. Why bother putting years of your life into a novel if anyone who reads it can simply print & sell it and not give you a thing?
IIRC, the original copyright system was created, at least in prinicpal, to keep authors from getting ripped off by their publishers. Considering how many scumball agents there are in America today, I have no doubt that, sans copyright, we'd be right back where we started.
I have no doubt that creativity and storytelling would continue if copyrights were abolished, but I wager that the novel, in all its forms good and bad, would either dwindle to nothing or become so entwined with a series of contracts so complex--incluing a contract with the reader--that we'd be worse off than we are today.
However, if the copyright period is continually extended, what incentive is there for someone to create something new if their old ideas are still making money?
To make more money, of course.
Trust me--we don't want to force great authors to crank out works. If their next work takes ten years to write, let it take ten years; better than than to have ten works that are all mere shadows of what could be.
The mega-corporations pushing for the extensions are only doing it so they can continue to reap in the $$$ from (very) old cash-cows. If they couldn't fall back on these, they would be forced to try to find something new and innovative!
I agree 100%. Corporations, IMHO, shouldn't be allowed to hold copyright at all. If they must, then it should be for a very reduced term.
Has anyone wondered why copyrights should last longer than patents?
Well, that's easy. A patent is pure innovation; a copyright, on the other hand, is more art & derivation than innovation. A patent's monopoly is an advantage on a differnet product, while a copyright is just an enforcement of commerical worth; there are a very few situations where "copyright licensing" is an issue for someone's work that isn't just a reprint of the original work.
(IANAL, but I am a writer.)
How does newer == "less secure"
The longer a software program has been out, the higher the percentage of known exploits is.
'course, they're abusing the logic, since MS has switched just about every part of the OS since Linux came out.
I would think the Open Source model stands as a direct contradiction of this assertion. Sometimes, at least, people offer creative contributions without seeking any chance of monetary reward. It simply isn't true that the only value is economic value -- sometimes things happen for reasons other than money.
"Reasons other than money" are, as far as the law concerns, still money. If you and I make a contract where I mow your yard, it doesn't matter if you agree to pay me or you just agree to go to church on sunday--it's still a contract.
OSS uses the copyleft concept to counteract an overextension of copyright into the software domain. Bridge plans or novel inventions do not derive their major protection from copyright--they derive it from patent law. The innovation and design patent system, IMHO (IANAL), is sufficient to protect software and recoup development costs; the industry just wants to have four times the useable life of their product locked down.
IIRC, Stallman actually agrees with me on this one; not all IP laws are bad, just the ones where they're abused, like software.
... is to promote the spread of ideas. ...
No, it's to promote the "progress of science and useful arts." Not the spread of ideas, but rather the creation of said ideas in the first place.
Copyright, as a concept, goes back a bit further than the US constitution.
The purpose of copyright is indeed to spread new ideas.
Or to put it another way, "The purpose of copyright is to create a capitalist mechanism where new works can be spread and their authors compensated."
(ideas aren't copyrightable.)
The public needs to be reminded that the purpose of copyright is to help spread new ideas, not make money.
The purpose of copyright (and patent) laws isn't to spread new ideas--that goal would be done much easier if it was simply illegal to hide an idea.
Copyrights (and patents, but not trademarks) exist so the creators of new ideas / written works CAN make money, and thus are encouraged to keep on making new things.
Ergo, the often-quoted balance between "public good" and "private benefit" that is copyright. The private party wants to enjoy as much economic beneift as possible from their works. The public wants to just enjoy the works, as cheaply as possible and as often as possible.
Copyright is how we pay authors, artists, and computer programmers. (Let's just ignore the GPL for this ONE argument, can we?). It's not that it's main purpose isn't to make money; it's that we as a society are "hiring" IP producers to make IP, and if they don't continue to produce a re-evaluation of their agreement (copyright law) might be in order.
Go pick on someone your own size. Gaim, Peng, Jabber, etc., seems like AOL just likes to harass non-profit, open-source projects. Come on, these people are working (mostly for free) on the software, giving out the software for free, and releasing the source code too. AOL should be ashamed of itself for for harassing people who are just trying to help their fellow man.
Take a closer look at those software projects:
gAIM: A pirate-client (as much as yahoo messenger or msn messenger) on the valuable AIM network.
Jabber: A program attemting, also, to hack into the AIM network.
(Remember, it's not just 'free software' that AOL is going after; they're also picking at anyone at all who tries to "hack" into AIM.)
Peng: well, heck. It's a Linux "dialer" that intentionally allows people to use AOL's servers to connect in a way that AOL doesn't intend, to use them as a common ISP.
On a completely different note, it would not surprise me at all, in light of congresses latest whorish display of its ability to move in contortions suggestive of a complete lack of backbone in granting president Baby Bush with a blank check for mayhem and idiocy, we didn't find ourselves embroiled in a war by this time next year that is far bigger, and far uglier, than we ever intended.
I don't know about you, but MY intentions (as a citizen of the USA) are to have a war that neither stops short nor forgets its purpose, and expands as needed to rebuild and reconstruct every and any country that cannot undo the damage that European Imperialism did to them--most importantly, for the moment, the middle east.
I intend to support my country in a war that will not end until Islam is a great world power again, and not just an excuse for terrorism. I intend to vote and speak out and, if necessary, join the military to fight for the betterment of all mankind.
As for the sticks and stones bit... it'd be steel & black powder before sticks & stones, and even those are a bit far off.
Perhaps that says something?
/. to be a geek, not an evangelist. Evangelism is something that I've found to not be worth the bother; people simply don't like being told that they're wrong, no matter how you say it.
/. sig when I realized that no one knew what faith I was. Still, time for a new sig, me things...
It might. Could you browse up this thread and let me know what you think of my posting?
Before removing the splinter from thy brother's eye, first remove the beam from thine own. As a Christian, you should have known that, and acted accordingly.
Sometimes I wish that JC had never said that. It almost seems like whenever a Christian stands up for something, they get accused of hyporcircy. *sigh* (And, yes, I wish that my fellow Christians were less hypocritical...)
I have always found that people who proclaim their faith the loudest are also the most obnoxious ones. You're not doing a good job as an evangelist, are you?
Well, no. I'm here on
I started appending my religion into my