what's the protocol, if any, for a situation like this? August 28, 2006 4:19 PM Subscribe
So what's the protocol, if any, for a situation like this?
To be absolutely clear, this is not a caddis call-out/pile-on/group violation. I don't think caddis deserves any of that.
It's more that it seems like the FPP is a damn good one, and people are reading it, but the primary link is to a site that's pretty clearly plagiarizing.
I dunno: I don't want to see the FPP nuked, or caddis penalized. I'd just like to see credit correctly given for the source of the art.
posted by scrump at 4:22 PM on August 28, 2006
It's more that it seems like the FPP is a damn good one, and people are reading it, but the primary link is to a site that's pretty clearly plagiarizing.
I dunno: I don't want to see the FPP nuked, or caddis penalized. I'd just like to see credit correctly given for the source of the art.
posted by scrump at 4:22 PM on August 28, 2006
If the site being stolen from offers the same substantial content as the site originally linked to, I reckon an edit to the post and a note from an admin would be kosher.
posted by cortex at 4:23 PM on August 28, 2006
posted by cortex at 4:23 PM on August 28, 2006
Ditto. Edit the FPP link to give credit where credit's due.
posted by cribcage at 4:37 PM on August 28, 2006
posted by cribcage at 4:37 PM on August 28, 2006
No knock about ktoad, a cursory glance backs his restrained claim. (I doubt I would be as reasonable.)
But should Metafilter start arbitrating disputes over originality? I say we have to let the sites fight it out.
What happens when a non-mefite writes mathowie and demands a link be removed because the artwork was copied? Should #1 have to investigate every claim?
I'd simply add ktoad's site to the original FPP. Maybe with a comment on the link noting ktoad's original comment.
posted by ?! at 5:01 PM on August 28, 2006
But should Metafilter start arbitrating disputes over originality? I say we have to let the sites fight it out.
What happens when a non-mefite writes mathowie and demands a link be removed because the artwork was copied? Should #1 have to investigate every claim?
I'd simply add ktoad's site to the original FPP. Maybe with a comment on the link noting ktoad's original comment.
posted by ?! at 5:01 PM on August 28, 2006
I agree with ?!'s reasoning.
posted by Kickstart70 at 5:12 PM on August 28, 2006
posted by Kickstart70 at 5:12 PM on August 28, 2006
Isn't that pretty much what they were suggesting?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:13 PM on August 28, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:13 PM on August 28, 2006
the primary link is to a site that's pretty clearly plagiarizing.
How do you know that? How does ktoad know the images came from his site? Not hating, just wondering what the evidence is. Are the image file names something unusual? Is there a watermark? What?
I'd simply add ktoad's site to the original FPP. Maybe with a comment on the link noting ktoad's original comment.
Yeah, if ktoad would explain how he's certain the images are plagiarized, that seems the right thing to do.
posted by mediareport at 5:15 PM on August 28, 2006
How do you know that? How does ktoad know the images came from his site? Not hating, just wondering what the evidence is. Are the image file names something unusual? Is there a watermark? What?
I'd simply add ktoad's site to the original FPP. Maybe with a comment on the link noting ktoad's original comment.
Yeah, if ktoad would explain how he's certain the images are plagiarized, that seems the right thing to do.
posted by mediareport at 5:15 PM on August 28, 2006
I am trusting him on this. Some of the images have the same exact size etc. In the original thread I have suggested an edit to Matt and Jess. Check out his whole site, not just Calvin. It's great.
posted by caddis at 5:22 PM on August 28, 2006
posted by caddis at 5:22 PM on August 28, 2006
It is true that I can't prove the images are from my site beyond all doubt. That's part of why I've tried to be cool about it. It's the rarity of the images that I think speaks to my claim.
And images like this one from their site and its equivalent from my site have the exact same measurements (in this case 481x600).
And since I scanned many of them in myself, like this one, I can see the exact same little specks from the scanner I see in my own. That one also has the same image title.
And they are identical suffixes on my site and theirs as well, .jpg for .jpg and .gif for .gif.
So no, I can't prove it. And yes I'm convinced.
Thanks again for this thread, I appreciate the discussion.
posted by ktoad at 5:24 PM on August 28, 2006
And images like this one from their site and its equivalent from my site have the exact same measurements (in this case 481x600).
And since I scanned many of them in myself, like this one, I can see the exact same little specks from the scanner I see in my own. That one also has the same image title.
And they are identical suffixes on my site and theirs as well, .jpg for .jpg and .gif for .gif.
So no, I can't prove it. And yes I'm convinced.
Thanks again for this thread, I appreciate the discussion.
posted by ktoad at 5:24 PM on August 28, 2006
Those two ktoad cites are almost certainly the same exact scan, if you look (as ktoad says) closely at the errors and flaws. Here's a vote that the original post be edited to feature ktoad's site only.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:32 PM on August 28, 2006
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:32 PM on August 28, 2006
I can see the exact same little specks from the scanner I see in my own. That one also has the same image title.
Thanks. That's the kind of thing I was looking for. Seems like fairly solid proof to me - certainly proof enough to add your site to the post.
should Metafilter start arbitrating disputes over originality?
The answer is clearly yes when the plagiarized site being posted to the front page belongs to a MeFi member. I think that's a fine place to draw the line.
*lights torch, bids on ebay pitchfork*
posted by mediareport at 6:00 PM on August 28, 2006
Thanks. That's the kind of thing I was looking for. Seems like fairly solid proof to me - certainly proof enough to add your site to the post.
should Metafilter start arbitrating disputes over originality?
The answer is clearly yes when the plagiarized site being posted to the front page belongs to a MeFi member. I think that's a fine place to draw the line.
*lights torch, bids on ebay pitchfork*
posted by mediareport at 6:00 PM on August 28, 2006
DDoS?
Jeez. It's not like ktoad wrote the comics. They both love Calvin. Fan love sites often take material from each other. Platypus put together a great "love Calvin" site. It was tacky to take from ktoad's site without any attribution. Platypus really should have said " Some of the rare images here come from the most wonderful Calvin tribute site ...." The best fan sites share the love because that only increases the love for the site subject. Nevertheless, these things are rare and getting them out there for people to see is the important thing.
posted by caddis at 6:32 PM on August 28, 2006
Jeez. It's not like ktoad wrote the comics. They both love Calvin. Fan love sites often take material from each other. Platypus put together a great "love Calvin" site. It was tacky to take from ktoad's site without any attribution. Platypus really should have said " Some of the rare images here come from the most wonderful Calvin tribute site ...." The best fan sites share the love because that only increases the love for the site subject. Nevertheless, these things are rare and getting them out there for people to see is the important thing.
posted by caddis at 6:32 PM on August 28, 2006
wait a minute.. now, i don't know whether ktoad has received permission to reproduce what is certainly copyrighted work (it doesn't say on his site, at least not where i can see), and if he has, then this question is somewhat moot:
while i realize that it is a labor of love and not-for-profit and about appreciating watterson's work and all sorts of warm 'n fuzzy stuff that bill would probably* condone, does someone who violates copyright by reproducing and distributing someone else's work hold any sort of moral or ethical claim to ownership of that reproduction? (i can't imagine there is any legal standing to be had.)
i mean, on the one hand i can see that ktoad's site has taken a lot of work, but on the other hand i think getting upset about copied copied content is either mixed-up or disingenuous. i don't know, i could go either way, and i'm just curious as to what everyone else thinks.
* never a good assumption to make however, given how artists (in particular, this one) feel about their rights over their creations.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 7:08 PM on August 28, 2006
while i realize that it is a labor of love and not-for-profit and about appreciating watterson's work and all sorts of warm 'n fuzzy stuff that bill would probably* condone, does someone who violates copyright by reproducing and distributing someone else's work hold any sort of moral or ethical claim to ownership of that reproduction? (i can't imagine there is any legal standing to be had.)
i mean, on the one hand i can see that ktoad's site has taken a lot of work, but on the other hand i think getting upset about copied copied content is either mixed-up or disingenuous. i don't know, i could go either way, and i'm just curious as to what everyone else thinks.
* never a good assumption to make however, given how artists (in particular, this one) feel about their rights over their creations.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 7:08 PM on August 28, 2006
That's a good point, sergeant. Anyway, ktoad didn't seem that broken up over it so I find calling for blood is kinda strange.
posted by bob sarabia at 7:17 PM on August 28, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 7:17 PM on August 28, 2006
I see you took me seriously, caddis. Sorry.
But hey, if ktoad did all the scanning grunt work, he deserves some measure of credit. The line forms behind scrump to pat him on the back.
posted by Eideteker at 7:34 PM on August 28, 2006
But hey, if ktoad did all the scanning grunt work, he deserves some measure of credit. The line forms behind scrump to pat him on the back.
posted by Eideteker at 7:34 PM on August 28, 2006
I think it is all about attribution. When you are putting up the work of others, rare and wonderful as it may be, you are not asking for others to not copy it. Just that if they lift your scan for God's sake at least give you some credit for finding the material, scanning it and then cataloging it on a nice page. ktoad's wonderful site deserves some love and some attention. Here's hoping that these post give it.
posted by caddis at 7:35 PM on August 28, 2006
posted by caddis at 7:35 PM on August 28, 2006
Indeed, sergeant sandwich. That's the other reason I didn't want to rant and rave. I have no claims over this stuff, just the annoyance of someone who spent a bunch of time only to have someone else grab the fruits of that research without doing the legwork. So whatever the MeFi gods ultimately do, I can live with it.
posted by ktoad at 7:35 PM on August 28, 2006
posted by ktoad at 7:35 PM on August 28, 2006
jeez, ktoad, that's a great site. i'll add my voice to modifying the fpp.
posted by lester at 8:03 PM on August 28, 2006
posted by lester at 8:03 PM on August 28, 2006
And oddly, from the site fpp'd:
posted by kyleg at 8:03 PM on August 28, 2006
So, apparently, I'm still the only one who's brought you rare newspaper-exclusive strips and comments from Berke himself and such. I think I also need to go back and watermark the strips--none of the other sites had found me yet, but they were all ripping off each other. Then again, none of them have been updated since 2002.So he thinks ripping people off is just what happens, or he wants to protect his own work? I have no idea what this guy is thinking.
posted by kyleg at 8:03 PM on August 28, 2006
We need MetaFilter Community Subpoenas so we can rope people into our discussions of them.
I'm pretty sure ktoad has absolutely zero reason to lie. FPP'd dude is obviously just a fucknut.
posted by blacklite at 9:21 PM on August 28, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty sure ktoad has absolutely zero reason to lie. FPP'd dude is obviously just a fucknut.
posted by blacklite at 9:21 PM on August 28, 2006 [1 favorite]
Seems like fairly solid proof to me - certainly proof enough to add your site to the post.
OK, seriously. Adding his site to the post is not some truly wonderful blessing that we bestow upon him. And he is "we". Member since 2005. It's credit where credit is due.
Not only that, it's a hyperlink, on the internet, to his website. He didn't need to prove it was his to you personally, and your approval isn't terribly meaningful.
I feel bad for ktoad, clearly this *is* a lot of work, and he's been a member for a while now. He deserves better treatment than this "OK, we link you, little one" and most people here are giving it to him. You should too. A link on MeFi is not a blessing or a gift or even very fucking important.
posted by fake at 9:39 PM on August 28, 2006
OK, seriously. Adding his site to the post is not some truly wonderful blessing that we bestow upon him. And he is "we". Member since 2005. It's credit where credit is due.
Not only that, it's a hyperlink, on the internet, to his website. He didn't need to prove it was his to you personally, and your approval isn't terribly meaningful.
I feel bad for ktoad, clearly this *is* a lot of work, and he's been a member for a while now. He deserves better treatment than this "OK, we link you, little one" and most people here are giving it to him. You should too. A link on MeFi is not a blessing or a gift or even very fucking important.
posted by fake at 9:39 PM on August 28, 2006
...unless ktoad can get some ads or merchandise up on his site ASAP...
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:53 PM on August 28, 2006
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:53 PM on August 28, 2006
He didn't need to prove it was his to you personally, and your approval isn't terribly meaningful.
Whatever. I was just chiming in and offering my opinion about what I thought should happen. You know, like people do here. Are we allowed to do that in your version of MeTa?
posted by mediareport at 10:55 PM on August 28, 2006
Whatever. I was just chiming in and offering my opinion about what I thought should happen. You know, like people do here. Are we allowed to do that in your version of MeTa?
posted by mediareport at 10:55 PM on August 28, 2006
I'm with sergeant sandwich on this one.
Too bad for ktoad that someone ripped off his hard work.
And I don't mean that in the same way that its too bad for Watterson that every other pick-up truck south of the Mason Dixon line has a sticker of Calvin peeing on something or other on it.
posted by allkindsoftime at 5:39 AM on August 29, 2006
Too bad for ktoad that someone ripped off his hard work.
And I don't mean that in the same way that its too bad for Watterson that every other pick-up truck south of the Mason Dixon line has a sticker of Calvin peeing on something or other on it.
posted by allkindsoftime at 5:39 AM on August 29, 2006
This kind of Interweb prissyness is completely silly. OH MY MOTHERFUCKING JESUS H. CHRIST YOU STOLE MY SCAN OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK.
Did you make it? No. You scanned it. Scanning isn't exactly hard.
posted by reklaw at 10:46 AM on August 29, 2006
Did you make it? No. You scanned it. Scanning isn't exactly hard.
posted by reklaw at 10:46 AM on August 29, 2006
I think he's talking about the collection of the material, not the scanning. Thanks for being a dick about it though.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:00 AM on August 29, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 11:00 AM on August 29, 2006
Somehow I doubt you would be so forgiving if you had scanned the material and spent the time on such a comprehensive web site. It isn't just the fact that the scans were taken, it is that the scans were something unique that made the entire web site better and some joker came along and took the material to put on his own site and then bitched about people stealing from HIS site despite (allegedly) doing the same.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:12 AM on August 29, 2006
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:12 AM on August 29, 2006
This kind of Interweb prissyness is completely silly. OH MY MOTHERFUCKING JESUS H. CHRIST YOU STOLE MY SCAN OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK.
Did you make it? No. You scanned it. Scanning isn't exactly hard.
posted by reklaw at 10:46 AM PST on August 29
If ktoad hadn't scanned it, we wouldn't be looking at it. Ktoad didn't say he wrote or drew the fucking strips. Jesus.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:01 PM on August 29, 2006
Did you make it? No. You scanned it. Scanning isn't exactly hard.
posted by reklaw at 10:46 AM PST on August 29
If ktoad hadn't scanned it, we wouldn't be looking at it. Ktoad didn't say he wrote or drew the fucking strips. Jesus.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:01 PM on August 29, 2006
Fine, he scanned it, nice thing to do. The point is that it's silly to get precious about someone else taking the scans, considering the work involved wasn't his to begin with.
posted by reklaw at 12:50 PM on August 29, 2006
posted by reklaw at 12:50 PM on August 29, 2006
No one is getting "precious" about anything. Here's exactly what ktoad said:
No biggie, just woud've appreciated a link or acknowledgement or something. It's been a long road and a lot of research time.
Do you seriously have any problem with that?
posted by brain_drain at 1:13 PM on August 29, 2006
No biggie, just woud've appreciated a link or acknowledgement or something. It's been a long road and a lot of research time.
Do you seriously have any problem with that?
posted by brain_drain at 1:13 PM on August 29, 2006
I don't think he deserves anything. He owns absolutely zero rights to the image -- not copyright, not moral rights. Zilch.
posted by reklaw at 1:25 PM on August 29, 2006
posted by reklaw at 1:25 PM on August 29, 2006
That's an interesting position, reklaw. Is it absolute, or limited to this specific case?
posted by scrump at 1:32 PM on August 29, 2006
posted by scrump at 1:32 PM on August 29, 2006
reklaw's just being a jerk. It's his shtick; nobody can stop him, but there's no need to urge him on.
posted by languagehat at 1:43 PM on August 29, 2006
posted by languagehat at 1:43 PM on August 29, 2006
I don't think he deserves anything. He owns absolutely zero rights to the image -- not copyright, not moral rights. Zilch.
posted by reklaw at 1:25 PM PST on August 29
I wonder how you feel about Project Gutenberg.
"Man fuck those assholes for making great literature available to the public! Ugh I'm going to send a very cross letter to the newspaper!"
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:52 PM on August 29, 2006
posted by reklaw at 1:25 PM PST on August 29
I wonder how you feel about Project Gutenberg.
"Man fuck those assholes for making great literature available to the public! Ugh I'm going to send a very cross letter to the newspaper!"
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:52 PM on August 29, 2006
I assume that you understand that Project Gutenberg only disseminates works that are out of copyright, right?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:04 PM on August 29, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:04 PM on August 29, 2006
scrump: I can't think of any situation where scanning stuff in and putting it on the web would give you any kind of rights to it, to be honest.
Project Gutenberg texts are explicity public domain. It would be very silly if Gutenberg was scanning them and then claiming any kind of rights over them.
And Mr. Hat, you wound me deeply.
posted by reklaw at 2:20 PM on August 29, 2006
Project Gutenberg texts are explicity public domain. It would be very silly if Gutenberg was scanning them and then claiming any kind of rights over them.
And Mr. Hat, you wound me deeply.
posted by reklaw at 2:20 PM on August 29, 2006
At the risk of incurring the Wrath of Hat...
He's just saying "I put a lot of work into scanning this stuff and putting it online. It'd be nice if someone gave me credit for that."
Asking for credit for the scanning of things != claiming author/ownership of the things in question.
posted by scrump at 2:38 PM on August 29, 2006
scrump: I can't think of any situation where scanning stuff in and putting it on the web would give you any kind of rights to it, to be honest.But he's not claiming rights over anything.
He's just saying "I put a lot of work into scanning this stuff and putting it online. It'd be nice if someone gave me credit for that."
Asking for credit for the scanning of things != claiming author/ownership of the things in question.
posted by scrump at 2:38 PM on August 29, 2006
Did you make it? No. You scanned it. Scanning isn't exactly hard.
Iwas thinking this yesterday, but didn't say anything because I already have enough people bitching about me. Glad to see I 'm not the only one (which, of course, is the real reason Ididn't say anything) Without taking away from the work that has gone in to collecting and scanning the material, then creating the site, ktoad has no right to claim ownership of the material, really. What a few here seem to overlook is that he didn't make this claim. He made a (quite appropriate) comment that he would have liked to receive credit for the work he did (collecting, scanning, creating site) and left it at that. The "claim of ownership" never happened, as far as I could see - this was assumed by others.
posted by dg at 3:14 PM on August 29, 2006
Iwas thinking this yesterday, but didn't say anything because I already have enough people bitching about me. Glad to see I 'm not the only one (which, of course, is the real reason Ididn't say anything) Without taking away from the work that has gone in to collecting and scanning the material, then creating the site, ktoad has no right to claim ownership of the material, really. What a few here seem to overlook is that he didn't make this claim. He made a (quite appropriate) comment that he would have liked to receive credit for the work he did (collecting, scanning, creating site) and left it at that. The "claim of ownership" never happened, as far as I could see - this was assumed by others.
posted by dg at 3:14 PM on August 29, 2006
But why should he deserve any credit? That's the thing. If the name of the original author was in mile-high letters, then the name of the guy who scanned the damn thing in should be this big. Like I say, scanning ain't that hard.
posted by reklaw at 3:15 PM on August 29, 2006
posted by reklaw at 3:15 PM on August 29, 2006
Example for reklaw: Shakespeare wrote a great deal of literature. If a book was published that dug through all of his greatest works and only selected the most poignant passages, and this book was then completely pirated and passed off an original compilation, the original book's publisher would have every right to be completely pissed off that his work (unoriginal, yes, but nevertheless work to bring out the best Shakespeare) was wrongfully stolen.
Same thing here. The original compiler of Watterson's works isn't looking for copyright recognition, money, or any other form of restitution. He simply wants to be given credit for being the original compiler of such great work. He did all the legwork, only for some dumbass to steal the credit. Recognizing ktoad's hard work is only fair. Otherwise, it's a form of plagiarism.
Finding these documents, scanning them, creating the story, and publishing them took time, effort, and deserves to be recognized since (I'm just guessing) he was the first to do it like this. I can only imagine that you've never created something original or creative and had it stolen (in some form) later. Have you never implemented a really great idea only to have someone else pass it off as their own?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:24 PM on August 29, 2006
Same thing here. The original compiler of Watterson's works isn't looking for copyright recognition, money, or any other form of restitution. He simply wants to be given credit for being the original compiler of such great work. He did all the legwork, only for some dumbass to steal the credit. Recognizing ktoad's hard work is only fair. Otherwise, it's a form of plagiarism.
Finding these documents, scanning them, creating the story, and publishing them took time, effort, and deserves to be recognized since (I'm just guessing) he was the first to do it like this. I can only imagine that you've never created something original or creative and had it stolen (in some form) later. Have you never implemented a really great idea only to have someone else pass it off as their own?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:24 PM on August 29, 2006
He deserves credit for compiling the material on his site. It's a bit more involved than simply runnning stuff through a scanner, as you know. Nowhere near as involved as creating the work in the first place, sure, but some credit is due and it is wrong for another party to take that value-added material and pass it off as their own.
Not a huge deal, I think, just common decency. Which, of course, is all too uncommon these days.
posted by dg at 4:24 PM on August 29, 2006
Not a huge deal, I think, just common decency. Which, of course, is all too uncommon these days.
posted by dg at 4:24 PM on August 29, 2006
I assume that you understand that Project Gutenberg only disseminates works that are out of copyright, right?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:04 PM PST on August 29
If I could form letters out of the very stars, there would not be enough in the universe to spell out a NO SHIT large enough to respond to your question.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:28 PM on August 29, 2006 [2 favorites]
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:04 PM PST on August 29
If I could form letters out of the very stars, there would not be enough in the universe to spell out a NO SHIT large enough to respond to your question.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:28 PM on August 29, 2006 [2 favorites]
And Mr. Hat, you wound me deeply.
Yeah, you didn't deserve that; you do often sound like a jerk, but then you post good stuff like that British-censorship article, and I'm almost always willing to forgive jerky comments for actual contributions to the site. So: sorry, and I'll try to bite my tongue next time.
posted by languagehat at 5:26 PM on August 29, 2006
Yeah, you didn't deserve that; you do often sound like a jerk, but then you post good stuff like that British-censorship article, and I'm almost always willing to forgive jerky comments for actual contributions to the site. So: sorry, and I'll try to bite my tongue next time.
posted by languagehat at 5:26 PM on August 29, 2006
I'm in the "recognition for ktoad" camp.
But only if it has marshmallows.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:20 PM on August 29, 2006
But only if it has marshmallows.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:20 PM on August 29, 2006
I'm also in the "recognition for ktoad" camp. He did a lot of work and set up a great site. And, IIRC, he does own the copyright to the scans themselves (not the subject of said scans). For example: someone takes a photograph of the Mona Lisa. While that person doesn't own the copyright to the Mona Lisa (I believe the Louvre holds that*), said person owns the copyright to the actual photograph.
*IIRC (again), you're not allowed to photograph the Mona Lisa, but that is beside the point.
posted by deborah at 9:35 AM on August 30, 2006
*IIRC (again), you're not allowed to photograph the Mona Lisa, but that is beside the point.
posted by deborah at 9:35 AM on August 30, 2006
Any copyrights in the Mona Lisa have long expired. However, you are right about the scan, which is in essence a photograph. Nevertheless, it is difficult to assert your rights in a scan which is itself infringing. All fan sites are filled with copyright infringing material. I am sure Platypus took ktoad's scans because ktoad's site is the only source. Here all ktoad wanted was some attribution. He may not have gotten it at Platypus, but he at least got it here. Who knows, maybe they are in email communication and Platypus will give him a link as the source of some of its goodies? ktoad may even want to add some of Platypus's stuff to his archive.
posted by caddis at 10:33 AM on August 30, 2006
posted by caddis at 10:33 AM on August 30, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by OmieWise at 4:21 PM on August 28, 2006