From the article: "A hardware based random number generator (RNG) has been added. This creates true random numbers from the random electrical noise on the chip."
Why do I get the feeling that "random electrical noise" is anything but?
"a German fan was outraged that the cockpit dimensions of an X-wing star fighter varied from those in the movies. Blackman looked into it and found that the game's version was indeed off -- by 6 centimeters."
[Long, slow whistle, as if passing by a train wreck.]
You know, when I first read the description of your problem, the first thing I thought of was that poor, poor goatse.cx gent. Because if everything you say is true, you're in pretty much the same position.
And that's what you company is gonna look like if you don't have NDAs in spades signed by this guy.
Tablizer writes: "Okay, how about, "covers at least 2/3 of its expenses". The idea is to differentiate between people who do stuff for fun and/or hobby and those trying to make mula."
Alternet.org doesn't charge anything, how can they turn a profit? Indymedia.org doesn't charge anything either.
Besides, what gives you the impression that only sites that turn a profit are sources of good information? Are you aware that information websites that are commecial in nature are a relative new-comer on the net and almost unheard of if you pare them down to only the profitable or almost-profitable? Are you aware that most sites that charge for information are not going to get indexed (because you have to pay for that info) so their inclusion in Google's results is a non-sequiter because googlebot is polite and does not index sites the owner does not wish for them to index?
"If you don't like my definition, how about your own, btw."
This is sort of like a theist challenging an atheist to come up with their own definition of god if the atheist does not like the ones proffered. Or like asking what hair color "bald" is. You're asking me to defend a position I don't think is defensible because what is "useful" and "un-useful" information does not share a common boundary with "not-blogs" and "blogs." You've tried to draw the line at profitability which I think is almost the exact opposite of what you'd want.
Go ahead -- try and use Google but only clicking on hits that come from domains you have a good reason to suspect turn a profit.
mivok writes: "Having multiple games would make each player less enthusiastic about each individual game, and consequently the community wouldnt be anywhere near as thriving."
I don't think this would happen. People tend to find a game or two that they like most and then play that. This is because of two factors; there are only so many hours in a day and the games are goal oriented. Me, personally, I'm going to concentrate on Planetside (and drop Army Operations) because I'd rather have a really good character in Planetside then two middling characters in both.
Well, that's half-true. Your player doesn't get much better in A:O. Your honor goes up but that just gives you preferential selection of weapons and I like the standard-issue stuff better anyway.
So even if you rolled them up under one hood, I can't think of anyone I know who would feel compelled to play more than their top one or two faves.
Why not just create a "-source" flag or, as has been suggested, "-noblog"? Why are blogs being marginalized as any less authoritative than other hits? Why is using "-" (eg: ["trading cards" -hockey]) utilized for weeding out certain criteria but not employed here when the goal is the same? Could we at least have a flag for combining the two results?
A comparison is being made between blogs and the newsgroups which are worlds apart in a number of different ways not the least of which is the thread-nature of the groups.
What defines a blog, anyway? What defines a not-blog? Is CNN.com a blog? Is it not a blog because many people write for it, because of the number of hits it gets or because it has press credentials? Which category does indymedia.org fit into?
Will I only get news results when I search for "ferret care?"
What if the source IS a blog? If the subject IS the blog, will a news site reporting on the blog wind up in the main search results while the subject itself -- the blog -- be only in the blog search?
HanzoSanwrites: "If everything is unoriginal why the hell should artists own anything? Why should dre own his shit if you admit no one really owns the music because nothing is original?"
Perhaps I misspoke or was unnecessarily vague with my wording. I agree with you. Ownership of information -- music, in particular -- strikes me as a very bizarre concept and not at all a beneficial or obvious way to proceed.
The point of copyright, as admitted by it's founders, was to encourage people to create things and share them in exchange for a limited monopoly on that creation. To claim that copyright is necessary in the field of art one must be claiming that art would come to a grinding halt if nobody was given a monopoly for doing so. Obviously not the case. Graffiti is a good example (and perhaps one of the oldest, which may not be an unrelated coincidence) but there is an endless supply for which this holds correct.
I understand copyright in things like engineering and pharmaceuticals, or any case, really, where a foray into development will not be made without a financial incentive. I'm not sure you have any hobbists out there looking for a cure to AIDS. But I don't understand copyright in art at all. It's simply ludicris.
black mariahwrites: "If the sample is recognisable [sic] as a major part of another song, it should have to be cleared for use by the artist. Simple as that."
This is about as useful as saying "A means B, period." Well..why? Why is the threshold the recognition?
And by who? A career musician or a man on the street? How recognizable does it have to be? Does 50% qualify? More? Less? Is it deemed "recognizable" when someone says "yeah, I've heard that before, that's been done" or do they have to name the artist, too? Or the song from whence it came?
Where on the planet should this recognition take place? If you answer "where the sample was produced," does that mean the copyright for the sample degrades as you get further away from the point of origin?
When does the recognition count, for that matter? When the sample was produced? Does this mean that as recognition goes down over time the copyright degrades?
Do you understand the contradiction in that by sampling the music you increase the recognition of the original and therefore put yourself in jepoardy that you would not be in if you didn't sample the recording at all?
And to get even more basic, by what inalienable right does a person have a right to own information?
Do you feel you owe the first person to string together the words "simple as that" some money now?
Only pure idiocy could create a system by which an original song's worth is increased dramatically by an action that will get you sued by the owner of that song.
Repugnant Shit (that's his username, really) writes: "If I'm going to get in trouble because I legally encode CDs into Ogg/MP3, then why shouldn't an artist get in trouble for actually profiting off someone else's work? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the law should apply to everyone."
It isn't a matter of "if," it is a matter of degree. EVERYTHING is unoriginal. I'm quite sure that someone played an F note at some point before 1980, so is the original band infringing copyright? Do you need three notes in sequence to qualify? Four? How about if the riff is recognizable by 50% of the population? Where? New York? New Zeland? Now or then?
From another CNN article released yesterday, Gates says this of DRM: "Consumers shouldn't be worried that Microsoft Corp.'s new security technology will wrest control of their PCs and give it to media companies, Bill Gates said this week. They can always choose not to use it, he said."
Holy poopy-poop, that's misleading. People are going to read this and think "they" means "them." As in "the consumer can always choose not to use it." It, of course, doesn't. It means the creators of the content. And there goes fair use. And while I'm on it, can someone who is a lawyer tell me if we have a right to fair use or is it merely a thing that we've enjoyed because copyright holders couldn't ever get such a firm grip on it enough to effectively control it?
But anyway, back to the issue. In the same article further down, we see:
"Gates said the format of digital content is up to their creators, and Microsoft is only providing a platform on which record labels and movie studios -- as well as others -- can build."
This is a fairly reasonable argument, not so different from the people who run Kazaa saying "hey, we're just an indexer, blame the end-user." Perhaps Microsoft isn't culpable here, either. What they're creating here is a valid tool, one that can allow people a strong form of encryption. The blame for the abuse of that tool, I think, does not rightfull belong in Microsoft's lap.
You might correctly argue that MS is doing this knowing full well that abuse is going to occur and stands to profit from it. Again, Napster et al. We cannot play both sides of the fence here.
baldeep writes: "Really, who cares what the director intended? If you're interested in your own viewing pleasure, the movie should be watched in the way that is most enjoyable to you and not the director. If that means 16:9 for you, then great."
The director, presumably, added "information" to the mix when he shot the thing. Without a director you have a camera pointed in one direction, permanently. So the director has value, as long as you do not take the stance that the director is so bad that the movie would be better off if the camera was stationary or perhaps turned off entirely. But if you take the position of "getting away from what the director intended is irrelevant" then why not just watch pure tv static? Or stare at a photograph for two hours? You've just negated what the director intended, just to a more absolute degree.
"But just because a director may have "intended" for something to be seen a certain way doesn't mean that he/she knows how the audience will want to see it. "
If you are going to a movie with the posit that the directors input is worthless then I can't imagine why you'd go in the first place!
"My point? Preaching preferences is pointless."
Here I see your point. I, myself, am a big fan of the "arguing over opinion is stupid" school of thought. But I'm not sure this qualifies. I'm not saying you cannot enjoy a movie move when information has been clipped out of it but merely that it is less likely to be the case. Again, back to my static example. If you accept the logical premise that cutting out parts of the film is analagous to adding noise (read; static) one, I think, without resorting to argument over opinion, quantitatively and conclusively say that less static is "better."
analog line writes: "Well, seeing as Kurosawa shot Seven Samurai AND Rashomon in 1.33:1 aspect ratio, I'd say I can watch it quite easily, as that is the format he used..."
Thanks go out to you and the six trillion others replies preceeding yours which pointed this out. I can only hope that my error causes ever videophile who reads slash to reply in a similar fashion prior to reading any of them. =)
An AC writes: "Actually, neither Seven Samurai nor Dr. Strangelove are widescreen films."
I'll admit I didn't know this but as odd as it may seem, it doesn't change the point. I'm only opposed to people altering the original. If these weren't shot widescreen then I guess there is no harm done or even possible when presending it fullscreen. But my point was more along the lines of "how could you take these films if they were clipped?"
That's all.
Not trying to squirm out of it though, I really had no idea. =)
HungWeiLo writes: "Actually, both Kubrick and Kurosawa made a majority of their films in 1.33:1 ratio, i.e. full screen. (There are, however, some notable exceptions, like 2001 Space Odyssey and Spartacus)"
Hm. That's interesting. The two movies I had in mind when I wrote the post were Seven Samurai (with those wide, panning shots of fight scenes and such) and Dr. Strangelove (for which I think a lot would be lost in the war room scenes if those wide, almost-panoramic shots were clipped at all).
By point stays the same (though your observations are appreciated); so long as you get to see what the director saw through the lens (and subsequently the editor, which presumably was under the direction of the director) then you're screwed.
Call me a snob, a bigot, whatever. But I cannot fathom how people stomach non-widescreen. I mean, it's cutting off sizeable chunks of what the director intended you to see. With competent editing it is a disaster. With incompetent editing it's unwatchable.
How the hell are you supposed to watch Kubrick or Kurosawa, for that matter, on a format other than they shot it in and not walk away with (almost literally) half the picture?
Wtcher writes: "I suspect the game is less about playing at real life than it is about control and success. Look at Sim City. The real life counterpart to this sort of job isn't fun to most people. The concept of the game at its basic level doesn't sound all that fun either. Now - how many people here can admit to playing it? And enjoying it? Why?"
FINALLY! Someone with an intelligent reply.
Good point. I guess the recursiveness of it all just struck me as bizarre. Still does, but I can accept your take on it and really have no points to argue.
Limekiller. Reader of Slashdot and sometimes typist. He thinks he's seen every rant devised by man. He also believes that he has come to grips with the Slashdot editor's penchant for beating the proverbial dead horse. It is with this jaded approach that he will begin his evening routine with a bookmark. A bookmark that leads...to the Twilight Zone.
</voice>
Dear sweet Christ would you let the qwerty debate die! Hath you no shame!?
Dummy Account/Death By Disagreement
on
The Sims 2 Announced
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
This is awesome! In the last 7 days or so, I've typed up some twenty posts on Slashdot. Viz:
Good mix here, two fives, two fours, some after-discussion. Some of the posts are out-and-out tirades, they were received well. Debated on their merits. Cool.
So now I write a post about the absurdity of playing a game whose purpose is to lead a regular human life. Within minutes:
You have to wonder about the mental state of a person or persons who are this paranoid about someone peeing on their bubble such that they'd go through such lengths to quash it.
No wonder my post(s) hit such a nerve! Go ahead kids, knock this one out of the park too. here, I'll even post with my karma bonus. It's karma. It's a number. =)
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
"A hardware based random number generator (RNG) has been added. This creates true random numbers from the random electrical noise on the chip."
Why do I get the feeling that "random electrical noise" is anything but?
"a German fan was outraged that the cockpit dimensions of an X-wing star fighter varied from those in the movies. Blackman looked into it and found that the game's version was indeed off -- by 6 centimeters."
[Long, slow whistle, as if passing by a train wreck.]
[Very, very much like a train wreck, actually...]
scubacuda writes
"Recently, however, Class II "Warhol attacks"--such as the SQL Slammer worm that make themselves famous in 15 minutes--have emerged."
If they were really Warhol attacks, they'd be crappy hacks (because they'd only be famous for 15 minutes, not in 15 minutes.)
You know, when I first read the description of your problem, the first thing I thought of was that poor, poor goatse.cx gent. Because if everything you say is true, you're in pretty much the same position.
And that's what you company is gonna look like if you don't have NDAs in spades signed by this guy.
Tablizer writes:
"Okay, how about, "covers at least 2/3 of its expenses". The idea is to differentiate between people who do stuff for fun and/or hobby and those trying to make mula."
Alternet.org doesn't charge anything, how can they turn a profit? Indymedia.org doesn't charge anything either.
Besides, what gives you the impression that only sites that turn a profit are sources of good information? Are you aware that information websites that are commecial in nature are a relative new-comer on the net and almost unheard of if you pare them down to only the profitable or almost-profitable? Are you aware that most sites that charge for information are not going to get indexed (because you have to pay for that info) so their inclusion in Google's results is a non-sequiter because googlebot is polite and does not index sites the owner does not wish for them to index?
"If you don't like my definition, how about your own, btw."
This is sort of like a theist challenging an atheist to come up with their own definition of god if the atheist does not like the ones proffered. Or like asking what hair color "bald" is. You're asking me to defend a position I don't think is defensible because what is "useful" and "un-useful" information does not share a common boundary with "not-blogs" and "blogs." You've tried to draw the line at profitability which I think is almost the exact opposite of what you'd want.
Go ahead -- try and use Google but only clicking on hits that come from domains you have a good reason to suspect turn a profit.
mivok writes:
"Having multiple games would make each player less enthusiastic about each individual game, and consequently the community wouldnt be anywhere near as thriving."
I don't think this would happen. People tend to find a game or two that they like most and then play that. This is because of two factors; there are only so many hours in a day and the games are goal oriented. Me, personally, I'm going to concentrate on Planetside (and drop Army Operations) because I'd rather have a really good character in Planetside then two middling characters in both.
Well, that's half-true. Your player doesn't get much better in A:O. Your honor goes up but that just gives you preferential selection of weapons and I like the standard-issue stuff better anyway.
So even if you rolled them up under one hood, I can't think of anyone I know who would feel compelled to play more than their top one or two faves.
I asked:
"What defines a blog, anyway? "
Tablizer replied:
"How about: If it turns a profit, it is no longer a blog."
Well, there goes CNN.com, Alternet.org, Fair.org, ACLU.org, Kuro5hin, IMDB, the MIT Tech Review and everything on the BBC website.
On the other hand we'll now get authoratative hits from Amazon, Buy.com and Microsoft.
Woot!
Why not just create a "-source" flag or, as has been suggested, "-noblog"? Why are blogs being marginalized as any less authoritative than other hits? Why is using "-" (eg: ["trading cards" -hockey]) utilized for weeding out certain criteria but not employed here when the goal is the same? Could we at least have a flag for combining the two results?
A comparison is being made between blogs and the newsgroups which are worlds apart in a number of different ways not the least of which is the thread-nature of the groups.
What defines a blog, anyway? What defines a not-blog? Is CNN.com a blog? Is it not a blog because many people write for it, because of the number of hits it gets or because it has press credentials? Which category does indymedia.org fit into?
Will I only get news results when I search for "ferret care?"
What if the source IS a blog? If the subject IS the blog, will a news site reporting on the blog wind up in the main search results while the subject itself -- the blog -- be only in the blog search?
Klingon? Oh, hell, I'd settle for someone who can speak "Girlfriend."
I bet there is some lawyer in Africa who has a thing for topology who is laughing his ass off right now.
HanzoSan writes:
"If everything is unoriginal why the hell should artists own anything? Why should dre own his shit if you admit no one really owns the music because nothing is original?"
Perhaps I misspoke or was unnecessarily vague with my wording. I agree with you. Ownership of information -- music, in particular -- strikes me as a very bizarre concept and not at all a beneficial or obvious way to proceed.
The point of copyright, as admitted by it's founders, was to encourage people to create things and share them in exchange for a limited monopoly on that creation. To claim that copyright is necessary in the field of art one must be claiming that art would come to a grinding halt if nobody was given a monopoly for doing so. Obviously not the case. Graffiti is a good example (and perhaps one of the oldest, which may not be an unrelated coincidence) but there is an endless supply for which this holds correct.
I understand copyright in things like engineering and pharmaceuticals, or any case, really, where a foray into development will not be made without a financial incentive. I'm not sure you have any hobbists out there looking for a cure to AIDS. But I don't understand copyright in art at all. It's simply ludicris.
black mariah writes:
..why? Why is the threshold the recognition?
"If the sample is recognisable [sic] as a major part of another song, it should have to be cleared for use by the artist. Simple as that."
This is about as useful as saying "A means B, period." Well
And by who? A career musician or a man on the street? How recognizable does it have to be? Does 50% qualify? More? Less? Is it deemed "recognizable" when someone says "yeah, I've heard that before, that's been done" or do they have to name the artist, too? Or the song from whence it came?
Where on the planet should this recognition take place? If you answer "where the sample was produced," does that mean the copyright for the sample degrades as you get further away from the point of origin?
When does the recognition count, for that matter? When the sample was produced? Does this mean that as recognition goes down over time the copyright degrades?
Do you understand the contradiction in that by sampling the music you increase the recognition of the original and therefore put yourself in jepoardy that you would not be in if you didn't sample the recording at all?
And to get even more basic, by what inalienable right does a person have a right to own information?
Do you feel you owe the first person to string together the words "simple as that" some money now?
Only pure idiocy could create a system by which an original song's worth is increased dramatically by an action that will get you sued by the owner of that song.
Repugnant Shit (that's his username, really) writes:
"If I'm going to get in trouble because I legally encode CDs into Ogg/MP3, then why shouldn't an artist get in trouble for actually profiting off someone else's work? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the law should apply to everyone."
It isn't a matter of "if," it is a matter of degree. EVERYTHING is unoriginal. I'm quite sure that someone played an F note at some point before 1980, so is the original band infringing copyright? Do you need three notes in sequence to qualify? Four? How about if the riff is recognizable by 50% of the population? Where? New York? New Zeland? Now or then?
From another CNN article released yesterday, Gates says this of DRM:
"Consumers shouldn't be worried that Microsoft Corp.'s new security technology will wrest control of their PCs and give it to media companies, Bill Gates said this week. They can always choose not to use it, he said."
Holy poopy-poop, that's misleading. People are going to read this and think "they" means "them." As in "the consumer can always choose not to use it." It, of course, doesn't. It means the creators of the content. And there goes fair use. And while I'm on it, can someone who is a lawyer tell me if we have a right to fair use or is it merely a thing that we've enjoyed because copyright holders couldn't ever get such a firm grip on it enough to effectively control it?
But anyway, back to the issue. In the same article further down, we see:
"Gates said the format of digital content is up to their creators, and Microsoft is only providing a platform on which record labels and movie studios -- as well as others -- can build."
This is a fairly reasonable argument, not so different from the people who run Kazaa saying "hey, we're just an indexer, blame the end-user." Perhaps Microsoft isn't culpable here, either. What they're creating here is a valid tool, one that can allow people a strong form of encryption. The blame for the abuse of that tool, I think, does not rightfull belong in Microsoft's lap.
You might correctly argue that MS is doing this knowing full well that abuse is going to occur and stands to profit from it. Again, Napster et al. We cannot play both sides of the fence here.
baldeep writes:
"Really, who cares what the director intended? If you're interested in your own viewing pleasure, the movie should be watched in the way that is most enjoyable to you and not the director. If that means 16:9 for you, then great."
The director, presumably, added "information" to the mix when he shot the thing. Without a director you have a camera pointed in one direction, permanently. So the director has value, as long as you do not take the stance that the director is so bad that the movie would be better off if the camera was stationary or perhaps turned off entirely. But if you take the position of "getting away from what the director intended is irrelevant" then why not just watch pure tv static? Or stare at a photograph for two hours? You've just negated what the director intended, just to a more absolute degree.
"But just because a director may have "intended" for something to be seen a certain way doesn't mean that he/she knows how the audience will want to see it. "
If you are going to a movie with the posit that the directors input is worthless then I can't imagine why you'd go in the first place!
"My point? Preaching preferences is pointless."
Here I see your point. I, myself, am a big fan of the "arguing over opinion is stupid" school of thought. But I'm not sure this qualifies. I'm not saying you cannot enjoy a movie move when information has been clipped out of it but merely that it is less likely to be the case. Again, back to my static example. If you accept the logical premise that cutting out parts of the film is analagous to adding noise (read; static) one, I think, without resorting to argument over opinion, quantitatively and conclusively say that less static is "better."
cyberchondriac writes:
"It's a matter of budget, frankly. Our 27" TV just fizzled out last week."
Bah! I'd rather have SquintyVision (TM) and get the whole idea than a bigger picture and 2/3rds of the idea.
"Hey, we got similar sigs"
Yeah, but yours is funny. =)
analog line writes:
"Well, seeing as Kurosawa shot Seven Samurai AND Rashomon in 1.33:1 aspect ratio, I'd say I can watch it quite easily, as that is the format he used..."
Thanks go out to you and the six trillion others replies preceeding yours which pointed this out. I can only hope that my error causes ever videophile who reads slash to reply in a similar fashion prior to reading any of them. =)
An AC writes:
"Actually, neither Seven Samurai nor Dr. Strangelove are widescreen films."
I'll admit I didn't know this but as odd as it may seem, it doesn't change the point. I'm only opposed to people altering the original. If these weren't shot widescreen then I guess there is no harm done or even possible when presending it fullscreen. But my point was more along the lines of "how could you take these films if they were clipped?"
That's all.
Not trying to squirm out of it though, I really had no idea. =)
HungWeiLo writes:
"Actually, both Kubrick and Kurosawa made a majority of their films in 1.33:1 ratio, i.e. full screen. (There are, however, some notable exceptions, like 2001 Space Odyssey and Spartacus)"
Hm. That's interesting. The two movies I had in mind when I wrote the post were Seven Samurai (with those wide, panning shots of fight scenes and such) and Dr. Strangelove (for which I think a lot would be lost in the war room scenes if those wide, almost-panoramic shots were clipped at all).
By point stays the same (though your observations are appreciated); so long as you get to see what the director saw through the lens (and subsequently the editor, which presumably was under the direction of the director) then you're screwed.
Call me a snob, a bigot, whatever. But I cannot fathom how people stomach non-widescreen. I mean, it's cutting off sizeable chunks of what the director intended you to see. With competent editing it is a disaster. With incompetent editing it's unwatchable.
How the hell are you supposed to watch Kubrick or Kurosawa, for that matter, on a format other than they shot it in and not walk away with (almost literally) half the picture?
Ric writes:
"...including one for pop-up audio ads that cannot be turned off."
Ha. Hahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.
Too bad there is no moderation for "not terribly insightful but damned succinct."
Wtcher writes:
"I suspect the game is less about playing at real life than it is about control and success. Look at Sim City. The real life counterpart to this sort of job isn't fun to most people. The concept of the game at its basic level doesn't sound all that fun either. Now - how many people here can admit to playing it? And enjoying it? Why?"
FINALLY! Someone with an intelligent reply.
Good point. I guess the recursiveness of it all just struck me as bizarre. Still does, but I can accept your take on it and really have no points to argue.
Oh god. This is like a bad Twilight Zone episode.
...to the Twilight Zone.
<voice style="serling">
Limekiller. Reader of Slashdot and sometimes typist. He thinks he's seen every rant devised by man. He also believes that he has come to grips with the Slashdot editor's penchant for beating the proverbial dead horse. It is with this jaded approach that he will begin his evening routine with a bookmark. A bookmark that leads
</voice>
Dear sweet Christ would you let the qwerty debate die! Hath you no shame!?
This is awesome! In the last 7 days or so, I've typed up some twenty posts on Slashdot. Viz:
Replies:1 Score:1
Replies:1 Score:1
Replies:2 Score:3, Interesting
Score:2, Funny
Score:1
Score:1
Replies:1 Score:1
Replies:5 Score:4, Funny
Score:1
Replies:4 Score:5, Insightful
Score:2, Insightful
Replies:1 Score:1
Replies:1 Score:1
Replies:6 Score:5, Insightful
Score:1
Score:2, Insightful
Replies:1 Score:1
Replies:2 Score:1
Replies:3 Score:1
Replies:1 Score:4, Interesting
Replies:1 Score:1
Good mix here, two fives, two fours, some after-discussion. Some of the posts are out-and-out tirades, they were received well. Debated on their merits. Cool.
So now I write a post about the absurdity of playing a game whose purpose is to lead a regular human life. Within minutes:
Score:0, Flamebait
Replies:1 Score:0, Flamebait
Replies:4 Score:0, Troll
Gee, I wonder if someone has a dummy account!
You have to wonder about the mental state of a person or persons who are this paranoid about someone peeing on their bubble such that they'd go through such lengths to quash it.
No wonder my post(s) hit such a nerve! Go ahead kids, knock this one out of the park too. here, I'll even post with my karma bonus. It's karma. It's a number. =)