FPPs to Copyrighted Material February 9, 2007 2:39 AM Subscribe
Is there a definite rule about not FPPing links to possibly copyrighted material? As Viacom noticed there's a lot of videos on YouTube that probably shouldn't be there, and I'm unsure if we're allowed to include such things in posts.
There is no rule and most of the posts linking to copyrighted material in the blue are left up, even if they contain in excess of three thousand different links. Go for it, I say, as long as it's interesting.
posted by The God Complex at 3:11 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by The God Complex at 3:11 AM on February 9, 2007
*opens moleskin notebook and taking detailed notes, watching Eideteker carefully*
posted by loquacious at 3:15 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by loquacious at 3:15 AM on February 9, 2007
+begins. ...and begins taking detailed notes... Damnit. Damn winter SAD sleep dep grumblegrumble what the hell does a dick haveta do to get a decent cup of coffee in a faphouse like this? grumblegrumblegrumble
posted by loquacious at 3:17 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by loquacious at 3:17 AM on February 9, 2007
Dick Choke! Please stop asking these questions. It's been pedantically asked enough goddamn times already. Seriously. Dudes already know about copyright infringement.
Oh choke on a dick. It does not behoove you to hamhandedly attempt to protect the potential copyrights of unknown corporations from possible infringement by mostly anonymous persons on the internet.posted by blasdelf at 3:36 AM on February 9, 2007 [3 favorites]
blasdelf: methinks these are two separate questions (though this question HAS been asked before, I'm sure). Your choke on a dick comment was in regards to somebody in askme asking about piracy. This is a question about whether or not it's ok to link to copyrighted material in FPPs.
posted by antifuse at 3:52 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by antifuse at 3:52 AM on February 9, 2007
Pétainisme!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:21 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:21 AM on February 9, 2007
While they diverge in terms of perspective (1st vs 3rd person), they both come from the same line of pedantic handwringing — "Should I prostrate myself before copyright, hallowed be it's name?" vs. "Hey, that guy isn't bending over quite as hard as he can!". At least this guy's just ruminative on the subject, not a bully like so many others.
posted by blasdelf at 4:23 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by blasdelf at 4:23 AM on February 9, 2007
The guy asked if there was a rule about it. You can step off the soap box now.
posted by The God Complex at 4:27 AM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by The God Complex at 4:27 AM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
they both come from the same line of pedantic handwringing
No, they really don't. One is saying "OMG Teh Piracy!" and the other is saying "Hey, can I do this?"
posted by antifuse at 4:38 AM on February 9, 2007
No, they really don't. One is saying "OMG Teh Piracy!" and the other is saying "Hey, can I do this?"
posted by antifuse at 4:38 AM on February 9, 2007
The very fact that it feels like it needs to be asked shows us (*assumes eyebrows-akimbo semi-ironic pedantic combat stance*) how deep the Skullfuck Copyright FlyFishers Of Men™ have set their memetic hooks in our brains, I'm going to suggest. We collaborate and strengthen their strangehold just by asking if it's OK. Is it safe? Is it safe?
Or something. Whatever. My new piracy technique is unstoppable!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:49 AM on February 9, 2007
Or something. Whatever. My new piracy technique is unstoppable!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:49 AM on February 9, 2007
The very fact that it feels like it needs to be asked shows us (*assumes eyebrows-akimbo semi-ironic pedantic combat stance*) how deep the Skullfuck Copyright FlyFishers Of Men™ have set their memetic hooks in our brains, I'm going to suggest. We collaborate and strengthen their strangehold just by asking if it's OK. Is it safe? Is it safe?
Or something. Whatever. My new piracy technique is unstoppable!
Dude, why don't I like raisins?
posted by The God Complex at 4:55 AM on February 9, 2007
The very fact that it feels like it needs to be asked shows us (*assumes eyebrows-akimbo semi-ironic pedantic combat stance*) how deep the Skullfuck Copyright FlyFishers Of Men™ have set their memetic hooks in our brains, I'm going to suggest. We collaborate and strengthen their strangehold just by asking if it's OK. Is it safe? Is it safe?
Or something. Whatever. My new piracy technique is unstoppable!
posted by cillit bang at 4:57 AM on February 9, 2007 [5 favorites]
Or something. Whatever. My new piracy technique is unstoppable!
posted by cillit bang at 4:57 AM on February 9, 2007 [5 favorites]
Heh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:58 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:58 AM on February 9, 2007
blasdelf, I am not a pedantic handwringer w/r/t copyright. On my own site, I would link to anything and everything regardless of apparent copyright issues. I figure YouTube's infringments are Google's problem, not mine. This question was plain and simple a mefi etiquette issue, before I goof up bigtime in the blue.
posted by roofus at 4:58 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by roofus at 4:58 AM on February 9, 2007
i asked this. the answer is to use your common sense.
posted by unknowncommand at 5:07 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by unknowncommand at 5:07 AM on February 9, 2007
So nobody knows why I don't like raisins? Or, for that matter, why I'm not especially fond of apricots? Maybe I'll just put a question up in AskMetafi... Oh, wait.
Do you guys think "Why don't I like apricots?" is a sufficiently different enough question that I could ask it? Or am I just inviting the perishable item police down on the site?
Heh.
This, in contrast to the favorite you left, seems much more heartfelt, a gesture that cillit bang would really appreciate.
I often (once, ten seconds ago) wonder what life would be like if, when you made a joke, someone responded by marking a tally on a placard that hung around your neck while staring at you vacantly. I mean, sure, you'd feel good that the joke really connected--and, hey, maybe she really digs me; I hope she doesn't like raisins!--but there would be something slightly unsettling about it.
On a similar note, before favorites existed, I think it was always possible to think to yourself, "Well, nobody actually took the time to type out 'Haha' after my joke, but most people wouldn't do that anyway. Probably most people laughed, or at least snickered, though." But now it's just that [ + ] mocking you, as if to indicate that you would have been better served watching Brazil for the fortieth time than leaving that comment which seemed like a great idea at the time.
At least that's what I imagine some people think.
posted by The God Complex at 5:16 AM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
Do you guys think "Why don't I like apricots?" is a sufficiently different enough question that I could ask it? Or am I just inviting the perishable item police down on the site?
Heh.
This, in contrast to the favorite you left, seems much more heartfelt, a gesture that cillit bang would really appreciate.
I often (once, ten seconds ago) wonder what life would be like if, when you made a joke, someone responded by marking a tally on a placard that hung around your neck while staring at you vacantly. I mean, sure, you'd feel good that the joke really connected--and, hey, maybe she really digs me; I hope she doesn't like raisins!--but there would be something slightly unsettling about it.
On a similar note, before favorites existed, I think it was always possible to think to yourself, "Well, nobody actually took the time to type out 'Haha' after my joke, but most people wouldn't do that anyway. Probably most people laughed, or at least snickered, though." But now it's just that [ + ] mocking you, as if to indicate that you would have been better served watching Brazil for the fortieth time than leaving that comment which seemed like a great idea at the time.
At least that's what I imagine some people think.
posted by The God Complex at 5:16 AM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
I like a great number of things. Raisins among them. Other things, I really shakefisthate, but mostly only because life is boring as shit without things to rouse yourself and get exercised about.
But I love you TGC, inasmuch as one can love someone you've never seen or met, someone you know only through things that they've said with their keyboard, that you've read. A drink or ten, I'd buy you.
What were we talking about?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:35 AM on February 9, 2007
But I love you TGC, inasmuch as one can love someone you've never seen or met, someone you know only through things that they've said with their keyboard, that you've read. A drink or ten, I'd buy you.
What were we talking about?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:35 AM on February 9, 2007
I'm going to start using "strangehold."
posted by staggernation at 6:10 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by staggernation at 6:10 AM on February 9, 2007
The thread that unknowncommand linked is the best answer this thread can produce, and, well, it already did so. That's...pretty much it.
loquacious, you also spelt "Moleskine" wrong.
Hi, blasdelf!
posted by cortex at 6:19 AM on February 9, 2007
loquacious, you also spelt "Moleskine" wrong.
Hi, blasdelf!
posted by cortex at 6:19 AM on February 9, 2007
Dude, the raisins thread is awesome, if only for this sentence, which conquered up some kind of bastardized Norman Rockwell scene for me:
# Then you could impress your family with your newfound raisin enlightenment, and fit in at the family gatherings I'm picturing (which involve people sitting around a table, comatose with joy, raisins everywhere).
Psst... The God Complex. I quote you in my profile. Because you are funny.
posted by Famous at 6:25 AM on February 9, 2007
# Then you could impress your family with your newfound raisin enlightenment, and fit in at the family gatherings I'm picturing (which involve people sitting around a table, comatose with joy, raisins everywhere).
Psst... The God Complex. I quote you in my profile. Because you are funny.
posted by Famous at 6:25 AM on February 9, 2007
There's no rule. It's not frowned upon. Use your judgement (youtube link to a cartoon is a lot less problematic then "here's the BT download link to an album that comes out in three months by a very popular band!").
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:47 AM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:47 AM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
Wait, cillit can put his eyebrows on his hips? Isn't that how Ron Jeremy got started?
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:23 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:23 AM on February 9, 2007
Every link goes to copyrighted material. Some links go to arguably infringing material, but (so far as I know) there hasn't been a case yet where linking equated with liability.
So, stop being such a fucking narc.
posted by klangklangston at 7:53 AM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
So, stop being such a fucking narc.
posted by klangklangston at 7:53 AM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
So, stop being such a fucking narc.
klang, at least read the thread. roofus was asking about etiquette re: his own plans to post such material. Calling someone a narc for thinking about doing the sketchy thing you think they're narcing on is a pretty clear jumping-in-without-reading indictment.
posted by cortex at 8:11 AM on February 9, 2007
klang, at least read the thread. roofus was asking about etiquette re: his own plans to post such material. Calling someone a narc for thinking about doing the sketchy thing you think they're narcing on is a pretty clear jumping-in-without-reading indictment.
posted by cortex at 8:11 AM on February 9, 2007
People can narc on themselves. It's called autonarcory.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:26 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:26 AM on February 9, 2007
YIZ ALL A BUNCHA DURTY CHEEZ EATIN' NARKS AND I'M SICKOFIT, SNITCHES GET STITCHES BITCHES!
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:48 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:48 AM on February 9, 2007
However, in the interest of equal time a counterargument would be:
IF YA BOOTLEG YA GET YOUR LEG BROKE.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:53 AM on February 9, 2007
IF YA BOOTLEG YA GET YOUR LEG BROKE.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:53 AM on February 9, 2007
"here's the BT download link to an album that comes out in three months by a very popular band!"
what band???!!!?
posted by matteo at 9:04 AM on February 9, 2007
what band???!!!?
posted by matteo at 9:04 AM on February 9, 2007
Is it safe? Is it safe?
I hope you cleared that quote with William Goldman.
posted by timeistight at 9:22 AM on February 9, 2007
I hope you cleared that quote with William Goldman.
posted by timeistight at 9:22 AM on February 9, 2007
No. No. No. No. No.
It is not illegal to link to copyrighted material.
It is not illegal to DOWNLOAD copyrighted material.
posted by empath at 9:58 AM on February 9, 2007
It is not illegal to link to copyrighted material.
It is not illegal to DOWNLOAD copyrighted material.
posted by empath at 9:58 AM on February 9, 2007
It is not illegal to link to copyrighted material.
If by "link to copyrighted material," you actually mean "intentionally link to copyrighted material distributed by someone without the right to do so," then you're probably wrong. Whoops.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:43 AM on February 9, 2007
If by "link to copyrighted material," you actually mean "intentionally link to copyrighted material distributed by someone without the right to do so," then you're probably wrong. Whoops.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:43 AM on February 9, 2007
I don't believe that's settled law, and it seems rather a stretch. But if you've got a cite, I'm happy to see it.
posted by klangklangston at 10:52 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 10:52 AM on February 9, 2007
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes; Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:02 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:02 AM on February 9, 2007
In the first case, that's the 2600 DeCSS case, which wasn't about linking to copyright material, but linking to software which was banned under the DMCA.
posted by empath at 11:16 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by empath at 11:16 AM on February 9, 2007
Most FPPs link to copyrighted material. If we took down all the FPPs that link to copyrighted stuff, there wouldn't be much left on the front page.
Take this FPP, for example, which is currently is the second from the top, it links to an article that appears to be copyrighted by the Washington Post Company. (We have no way of knowing for sure whether that is true, since WaPo might have sold the copyright to someone else this morning, which would place the copyright with someone else.)
Like empath said, it is not illegal to link to copyrighted material. 99% of the stuff on the net is copyrighted by someone. If you don't want people to look at it, don't put it up there.
Now, it is, of course, illegal to copy copyrighted material and distribute it on YouTube or elsewhere. But there is really no way of knowing for sure who has the copyright to something, just like you cannot tell for sure who the owner of a car is, just by looking at it. (Yes, sometimes you can make an educated guess, but you can always be wrong.)
posted by sour cream at 11:33 AM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
Take this FPP, for example, which is currently is the second from the top, it links to an article that appears to be copyrighted by the Washington Post Company. (We have no way of knowing for sure whether that is true, since WaPo might have sold the copyright to someone else this morning, which would place the copyright with someone else.)
Like empath said, it is not illegal to link to copyrighted material. 99% of the stuff on the net is copyrighted by someone. If you don't want people to look at it, don't put it up there.
Now, it is, of course, illegal to copy copyrighted material and distribute it on YouTube or elsewhere. But there is really no way of knowing for sure who has the copyright to something, just like you cannot tell for sure who the owner of a car is, just by looking at it. (Yes, sometimes you can make an educated guess, but you can always be wrong.)
posted by sour cream at 11:33 AM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
The only problem with linking to copyrighted material is that it might be yanked before the thread has run its course. And there's no liability of the poster, or even Metafilter for linking it. If it's a video on YouTube, and the content is proprietary, it's Youtube's problem, not Metafilter's.
posted by Dave Faris at 11:43 AM on February 9, 2007
posted by Dave Faris at 11:43 AM on February 9, 2007
Astro Zombie: People can narc on themselves. It's called autonarcory.
I knew a guy that had that problem. I think they treat it with modafinil, nowadays.
posted by Gamblor at 12:24 PM on February 9, 2007
I knew a guy that had that problem. I think they treat it with modafinil, nowadays.
posted by Gamblor at 12:24 PM on February 9, 2007
"Now, it is, of course, illegal to copy copyrighted material and distribute it on YouTube or elsewhere."
In reading the second decision, the argument is held that viewing the page makes a "copy" locally, and is thus infringing.
Or, what I got out of reading those is that a) it is settled law, b) our copyright laws are retarded, c) the legislature is going to have to remedy this, not the courts, and d) the bizarro distinctions of technological form (where all code is equally conduct, therefore anything on the internet is at least partially unprotected) remind me of Hegel's criticisms of Roman law deviating from any underlying truth through decisions made on precedent. That you can publish URLs in physical form and not have that be infringment, but when you type them through a computer, it can be, seems as silly as the varied rules for who sends what litter (and what litter it must be) to bear the defendant to court in Rome.
posted by klangklangston at 12:28 PM on February 9, 2007
In reading the second decision, the argument is held that viewing the page makes a "copy" locally, and is thus infringing.
Or, what I got out of reading those is that a) it is settled law, b) our copyright laws are retarded, c) the legislature is going to have to remedy this, not the courts, and d) the bizarro distinctions of technological form (where all code is equally conduct, therefore anything on the internet is at least partially unprotected) remind me of Hegel's criticisms of Roman law deviating from any underlying truth through decisions made on precedent. That you can publish URLs in physical form and not have that be infringment, but when you type them through a computer, it can be, seems as silly as the varied rules for who sends what litter (and what litter it must be) to bear the defendant to court in Rome.
posted by klangklangston at 12:28 PM on February 9, 2007
klangklangston, your litter-bearing analogy is my new favorite thing for the next few minutes, at least.
posted by cgc373 at 12:30 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by cgc373 at 12:30 PM on February 9, 2007
But I love you TGC, inasmuch as one can love someone you've never seen or met, someone you know only through things that they've said with their keyboard, that you've read. A drink or ten, I'd buy you.
What were we talking about?
Happy Valentine's Day to you, too! (Warning: irrevocably damaging concept contained within).
I'm pretty sure everyone else is debating copyright for the nine-hundreth time. I, however, was referencing this (thankfully) now deleted thread which asks the question on the aching tip of our eternal tongues: Why don't I like raisins? I expected it to break into a Jerry Seinfeld routine at any moment.
Give fair advance warning if you ever return to the bountiful Canadian westcoast and I'll do the buying, provided we drink long enough that someone starts quoting Henry Miller.
posted by The God Complex at 1:08 PM on February 9, 2007
What were we talking about?
Happy Valentine's Day to you, too! (Warning: irrevocably damaging concept contained within).
I'm pretty sure everyone else is debating copyright for the nine-hundreth time. I, however, was referencing this (thankfully) now deleted thread which asks the question on the aching tip of our eternal tongues: Why don't I like raisins? I expected it to break into a Jerry Seinfeld routine at any moment.
Give fair advance warning if you ever return to the bountiful Canadian westcoast and I'll do the buying, provided we drink long enough that someone starts quoting Henry Miller.
posted by The God Complex at 1:08 PM on February 9, 2007
I love this thrall people hold copyright in. Have I had my stuff copied? Sure. Was I upset? Sure. Did I still continue getting work? Sure.
Heck, some of my craptastic blog stuff has recently started appearing in those new-fangled scraper blogs. At first I was "OMGIMBEINGCOPIEDHOLSHITHOLYSHIT" but as long as they link to my site, which they generally do, why would I care?
posted by maxwelton at 1:11 PM on February 9, 2007
Heck, some of my craptastic blog stuff has recently started appearing in those new-fangled scraper blogs. At first I was "OMGIMBEINGCOPIEDHOLSHITHOLYSHIT" but as long as they link to my site, which they generally do, why would I care?
posted by maxwelton at 1:11 PM on February 9, 2007
"Another failure to understand, asserted by Caecilius of Phavorinus, a philosopher at any rate may without blushing acknowledge: jumentum, which without any arcera was the only legal way to bring a sick man into court as a witness, was held to mean not only t horse but also a carriage or wagon. Further on in this raw Caecilius found more evidence of the excellence and accuracy of the old statutes, which for the purpose of non-suiting a sick man at court distinguished not only between a horse and a wagon, but also, as Caecilius explains, between a wagon covered and cushioned and one not so comfortably equipped. Thus one would have the choice between utter severity on one side, and on the other senseless details. But to exhibit fully the absurdity of these laws and the pedantic defence offered in their behalf would give rise to an invincible repugnance to all scholarship of that kind."
From Hegel's Philosophy of Right, §3, Remark ¶ 7.
posted by klangklangston at 1:16 PM on February 9, 2007
From Hegel's Philosophy of Right, §3, Remark ¶ 7.
posted by klangklangston at 1:16 PM on February 9, 2007
(And I know it totally marks me as a 'tard, but every time he mentions jumentum, a cart, I can't help but think of alternately Jewmentum or Joementum).
posted by klangklangston at 1:17 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 1:17 PM on February 9, 2007
Psst... The God Complex. I quote you in my profile. Because you are funny.
Oh, goodness: a dream realized. I will, in my own, curious way, use this as a source of energy to power the ego-battery of my Metafilter existence.
So, stop being such a fucking narc.
On an entirely different note, I recently discovered that kids don't call each other narcs anymore (or don't appear to with as much frequency). When I was in elementary/high school people use to call each other narc all the time, in that exact same tone I'm imagining you saying it (Don't be such a fucking narc, man,). When challenged on one's own narciosity (a word, surely), one felt immediately ashamed, even if they didn't think they were really being much of a narc at all.
Now, my highschool days aren't all that far behind me, but it appears this is no longer the case. Completely randomly--I assure you I wasn't attempting to do research on the matter--it came up in the presence of six or seven grade 11 or 12 types and none of them had any idea what calling someone a narc was supposed to accomplish. I was shocked; I was awed; I felt bandied about at the whims of dark gods; I felt, for the first time in my life, kinda old.
What were we talking about?
posted by The God Complex at 1:21 PM on February 9, 2007
Oh, goodness: a dream realized. I will, in my own, curious way, use this as a source of energy to power the ego-battery of my Metafilter existence.
So, stop being such a fucking narc.
On an entirely different note, I recently discovered that kids don't call each other narcs anymore (or don't appear to with as much frequency). When I was in elementary/high school people use to call each other narc all the time, in that exact same tone I'm imagining you saying it (Don't be such a fucking narc, man,). When challenged on one's own narciosity (a word, surely), one felt immediately ashamed, even if they didn't think they were really being much of a narc at all.
Now, my highschool days aren't all that far behind me, but it appears this is no longer the case. Completely randomly--I assure you I wasn't attempting to do research on the matter--it came up in the presence of six or seven grade 11 or 12 types and none of them had any idea what calling someone a narc was supposed to accomplish. I was shocked; I was awed; I felt bandied about at the whims of dark gods; I felt, for the first time in my life, kinda old.
What were we talking about?
posted by The God Complex at 1:21 PM on February 9, 2007
We were talking about you being such a fucking narc, man.
*focuses Irrational Shame Beam on TGC's forehead*
posted by cortex at 1:24 PM on February 9, 2007
*focuses Irrational Shame Beam on TGC's forehead*
posted by cortex at 1:24 PM on February 9, 2007
TGC, I wish I hadn't clicked on your irrevocably damaging concept. I hope to god it isn't your freaking livejournal icon or something like that.
posted by pinky at 1:35 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by pinky at 1:35 PM on February 9, 2007
Hi roofus,
Yes it's generally fine, the linking
love,
Jessamyn
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:17 PM on February 9, 2007
Yes it's generally fine, the linking
love,
Jessamyn
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:17 PM on February 9, 2007
In reading the second decision, the argument is held that viewing the page makes a "copy" locally, and is thus infringing.
If that is so, then reading the any newspaper online constitutes copyright infringement, because it "makes a copy locally".
posted by sour cream at 2:39 PM on February 9, 2007
If that is so, then reading the any newspaper online constitutes copyright infringement, because it "makes a copy locally".
posted by sour cream at 2:39 PM on February 9, 2007
Are you kidding? How can it be infringement if the copyright owner wants you to read it online?
BTW I just googled "jumentum" trying to figure out what it means, and got this weirdness (PDF).
posted by exogenous at 2:59 PM on February 9, 2007
BTW I just googled "jumentum" trying to figure out what it means, and got this weirdness (PDF).
posted by exogenous at 2:59 PM on February 9, 2007
TGC, I wish I hadn't clicked on your irrevocably damaging concept. I hope to god it isn't your freaking livejournal icon or something like that.
Thankfully, no. I was equally irrevocably damaged upon receiving it yesterday, and since then I've done my best to spread the love around.
posted by The God Complex at 3:07 PM on February 9, 2007
Thankfully, no. I was equally irrevocably damaged upon receiving it yesterday, and since then I've done my best to spread the love around.
posted by The God Complex at 3:07 PM on February 9, 2007
I was sorry the raisin thread was deleted. I was going to nominate this answer for the hall-of-fame.
posted by timeistight at 3:36 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by timeistight at 3:36 PM on February 9, 2007
I recently discovered that kids don't call each other narcs anymore
i think the current term is snitch
posted by pyramid termite at 4:10 PM on February 9, 2007
i think the current term is snitch
posted by pyramid termite at 4:10 PM on February 9, 2007
I recently discovered that kids don't call each other narcs anymore.
That's because all the kids that told on the other kids are dead kids now.
posted by unknowncommand at 5:13 PM on February 9, 2007
That's because all the kids that told on the other kids are dead kids now.
posted by unknowncommand at 5:13 PM on February 9, 2007
unknowncommand, that's not pc to call them dead ... they're existentially challenged
posted by pyramid termite at 6:28 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by pyramid termite at 6:28 PM on February 9, 2007
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Short answer: If Matt gets a letter, he takes it down.
posted by Eideteker at 2:59 AM on February 9, 2007