Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube) Video FBI raids St. Louis home over movie buff's film collection, and his sharing of classic flicks. DIFFICULTY: 1977   (youtube.com ) divider line
    More: Video, FBI, St. Louis, collectors  
•       •       •

3809 clicks; posted to Video » on 09 Jun 2013 at 2:44 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-08 11:56:23 PM  
Illegal then and illegal now.
 
2013-06-08 11:59:48 PM  
<pauses "Iron Man 3" stream>

...say what?
 
2013-06-09 12:43:36 AM  
This is the ridiculous patent/copyright/trademark/etc system that you keep voting for (or sitting back, not voting and complaining about), America.
 
2013-06-09 12:56:35 AM  
IDK how the 16mm film copies were made or obtained.  If the kid obtained them legally, he had every right to sell them.
 
2013-06-09 03:15:37 AM  
This story is from a year before I was born so I would be interested in how someone would obtain 16mm copies of films. However, I would have to agree that if you are simply watching the movie in your own home or having some friends over to watch a movie it shouldn't be illegal. You're not profiting from it.

The common argument against this is that you're hurting the movie industry by cutting into their profits, but we know this simply isn't true because when they actually make something worth spending money on the movies profit or even become some of the biggest selling movies of all time as we've seen more than a couple of times over the last decade.

What it comes down to, imo, is people don't have the money to throw away on every pos hollywood pumps out and with prices not coming down any time soon they would rather "preview" something before spending their hard earned money on it so they don't end up feeling ripped off. The avengers, harry potter, batman, ect. have all proven that people will spend the money...if it's worth it.
 
2013-06-09 03:34:45 AM  

Utard_Free: What it comes down to, imo, is people don't have the money to throw away on every pos hollywood pumps out and with prices not coming down any time soon they would rather "preview" something before spending their hard earned money on it so they don't end up feeling ripped off.


That's a totally lame argument.  It would be like claiming you can take a jar of peanut butter to see if you like it before you buy it.  With a film once you have it there is no need to buy it.
 
2013-06-09 04:27:25 AM  
Conned.
 
2013-06-09 05:46:51 AM  

rnld: Utard_Free: What it comes down to, imo, is people don't have the money to throw away on every pos hollywood pumps out and with prices not coming down any time soon they would rather "preview" something before spending their hard earned money on it so they don't end up feeling ripped off.

That's a totally lame argument.  It would be like claiming you can take a jar of peanut butter to see if you like it before you buy it.  With a film once you have it there is no need to buy it.


If 90% of the jars of peanut butter I bought were full of rat turds or maybe just devoid of peanut butter altogether you can bet your ass I'd want to open the jar before I paid.
 
2013-06-09 08:38:15 AM  

Utard_Free: This story is from a year before I was born so I would be interested in how someone would obtain 16mm copies of films. However, I would have to agree that if you are simply watching the movie in your own home or having some friends over to watch a movie it shouldn't be illegal. You're not profiting from it.

The common argument against this is that you're hurting the movie industry by cutting into their profits, but we know this simply isn't true because when they actually make something worth spending money on the movies profit or even become some of the biggest selling movies of all time as we've seen more than a couple of times over the last decade.

What it comes down to, imo, is people don't have the money to throw away on every pos hollywood pumps out and with prices not coming down any time soon they would rather "preview" something before spending their hard earned money on it so they don't end up feeling ripped off. The avengers, harry potter, batman, ect. have all proven that people will spend the money...if it's worth it.


static.neatoshop.com

How about instead you just wait for the POS movies to be released at a price point more inline with what you think its worth, ie on netflix or never.
 
2013-06-09 09:28:11 AM  
If you actually watch the video you see he advertised in magazines, sold his copies of movies etc. Guy is totally in the wrong and does nothing but whine about the nasty FBI ruining his "hobby".

It takes a rare case to make me side with the studios and the industry, but this is one.
 
2013-06-09 10:04:20 AM  
 
2013-06-09 10:09:51 AM  

Flint Ironstag: If you actually watch the video you see he advertised in magazines, sold his copies of movies etc. Guy is totally in the wrong and does nothing but whine about the nasty FBI ruining his "hobby".

It takes a rare case to make me side with the studios and the industry, but this is one.


How so?  If he owns the movie he can sell how he see fit.  The copy write owners only get money from the first sale. It's called First-sale doctrine.
 
2013-06-09 10:24:21 AM  
We'll never know how close he came to destroying the entire American movie industry and our way of life.

Thank God for freedom.
 
2013-06-09 10:33:02 AM  

mrlewish: Flint Ironstag: If you actually watch the video you see he advertised in magazines, sold his copies of movies etc. Guy is totally in the wrong and does nothing but whine about the nasty FBI ruining his "hobby".

It takes a rare case to make me side with the studios and the industry, but this is one.

How so?  If he owns the movie he can sell how he see fit.  The copy write owners only get money from the first sale. It's called First-sale doctrine.


Nowhere does the story, or the linked article, say how and where he got these prints. AFAIK these were never sold to the public, and the fact that he sold one for $200 (in 1977!) shows that they were not generally available. He does not benefit from first sale because there never was a (legitimate) first sale.  These prints would have been meant for theatres and TV stations and never sold for public use.
The copyright holder can legally decide that no copies be sold privately. Just as Bill Watterston can decide that no C+H toys or merchandise be sold.
 
2013-06-09 11:01:40 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Illegal then and illegal now.



the FBI are just doing what their Corporate owners tell them to do.  its all to protect Freedom and all that good stuff.

the other 98% of you little people are on your own.
 
2013-06-09 11:46:52 AM  
I'm just pleased to see that Herb Tarlek found work reading the news after WKRP closed.
 
2013-06-09 12:18:50 PM  

Flint Ironstag: If you actually watch the video you see he advertised in magazines, sold his copies of movies etc. Guy is totally in the wrong and does nothing but whine about the nasty FBI ruining his "hobby".

It takes a rare case to make me side with the studios and the industry, but this is one.


I remember when you could place an ad in a computer magazine for swapping games and people would offer lists of games they had. The magazines even had an ad category just for it.

/And suddenly it stopped
//not wondering why
 
2013-06-09 02:06:28 PM  

lewismarktwo: If 90% of the jars of peanut butter I bought were full of rat turds or maybe just devoid of peanut butter altogether you can bet your ass I'd want to open the jar before I paid.


Yeah, exactly the same as a film.  Not like it won't be on PPV for a whopping $3.99 or on you local cable provider soon enough.

Yoir argument has become even more lame.
 
2013-06-09 02:08:00 PM  

mrlewish: How so?  If he owns the movie he can sell how he see fit.  The copy write owners only get money from the first sale. It's called First-sale doctrine.


You can't sell stolen goods.
 
2013-06-09 03:37:24 PM  
"FBI people"? Did this station hire fourth graders for its "news writing guys"?
 
2013-06-09 04:07:56 PM  
Dmn , the FBI is now into time travel!!!
 
2013-06-09 04:17:23 PM  

rnld: mrlewish: How so?  If he owns the movie he can sell how he see fit.  The copy write owners only get money from the first sale. It's called First-sale doctrine.

You can't sell stolen goods.


We don't know how he got these films, so we don't know if they were stolen at some point, either physically or by copying them.
 
2013-06-09 04:21:05 PM  

cepson: "FBI people"? Did this station hire fourth graders for its "news writing guys"?


Perhaps they weren't sure everyone with the FBI was actually an agent.
 
2013-06-09 04:38:13 PM  

Krieghund: rnld: mrlewish: How so?  If he owns the movie he can sell how he see fit.  The copy write owners only get money from the first sale. It's called First-sale doctrine.

You can't sell stolen goods.

We don't know how he got these films, so we don't know if they were stolen at some point, either physically or by copying them.


I doubt anyone would pay $200 (in 1977 money) for a movie if they were legitimate and freely available.
 
2013-06-09 06:39:39 PM  
Ah, the era of news teams in matching blazers... good times...


No, these 16mm and 8mm film prints were made and sold by the studios for a couple of markets.  The shorts were often rented thru a distributor to anybody that wanted to see them: when we were in junior high in the 70's our film club had a catalog of movies on 16mm you could rent, and even charge tickets for, as long as you met certain requirements in the rental agreement. 8 and 16-mm  prints of Three Stooges and Abbott and Costello movies were a major staple of that market. Look up an outfit called "BlackHawk Films". Often what you got on the 8mm were silent  highlight clips of only some pars of the original movie. The 16 mm usually came with an optical sound track.

The 16mm dubs of long-form theatricals were a smaller market, but again, these were sold for private use. In the case of this collector, he might have been in violation of some contract from the distributor, but he  was not making and selling copies of his print: the optical printing technology of the day was fabulously expensive for a private citizen to own. He was trading the same single copy to people, not making more copies.  If some of them aimed a (at that time crappy quality and expensive) home Video recording camera at the screen to make a dub, that was not going to run any corner theater out of business.


The guy was probably turned in by another collector, not "Hollywood", though he was stupid for placing the ad out in the open....  He seems a little sketchy and might have done a sour deal with someone who then ratted him out.
 
2013-06-09 07:20:54 PM  
If you read the link to the judgement, he won and the films were returned to him.
 
2013-06-09 07:31:15 PM  

rnld: Utard_Free: What it comes down to, imo, is people don't have the money to throw away on every pos hollywood pumps out and with prices not coming down any time soon they would rather "preview" something before spending their hard earned money on it so they don't end up feeling ripped off.

That's a totally lame argument.  It would be like claiming you can take a jar of peanut butter to see if you like it before you buy it.  With a film once you have it there is no need to buy it.


Do you open your containes of eggs to check for cracked ones before buying them?
 
2013-06-09 07:40:19 PM  

wild9: Do you open your containes of eggs to check for cracked ones before buying them?


Of course.  How are you comparing this to theft?
 
2013-06-09 07:47:18 PM  

rnld: wild9: Do you open your containes of eggs to check for cracked ones before buying them?

Of course.  How are you comparing this to theft?


I like to see if the movie is going to be a bad egg. If not, then I wait for it to come out for home viewing and purchase it.
 
2013-06-09 08:02:55 PM  

wild9: rnld: wild9: Do you open your containes of eggs to check for cracked ones before buying them?

Of course.  How are you comparing this to theft?

I like to see if the movie is going to be a bad egg. If not, then I wait for it to come out for home viewing and purchase it.


Your scenario is not like that at all.  To compare apples and apples you would simple need to open the box and make sure the correct movie is in the box.  Just because none of the eggs are cracked doesn't mean they aren't going to taste bad.
 
2013-06-09 08:11:16 PM  

rnld: Utard_Free: What it comes down to, imo, is people don't have the money to throw away on every pos hollywood pumps out and with prices not coming down any time soon they would rather "preview" something before spending their hard earned money on it so they don't end up feeling ripped off.

That's a totally lame argument.  It would be like claiming you can take a jar of peanut butter to see if you like it before you buy it.  With a film once you have it there is no need to buy it.


You have five jars. I take one. You have four.

You have a digital copy of a film. I download it. You still have your copy.

See why your comparison to theft, as opposed to copyright infringement, is stupid? I'd like to think so, but if you couldn't figure it on your own I don't have much hope.
 
2013-06-09 08:18:36 PM  
Fwiw I don't agree with utardfree's argument either.
 
2013-06-09 08:19:45 PM  

Smackledorfer: You have five jars. I take one. You have four.

You have a digital copy of a film. I download it. You still have your copy


It cost a lot more to make the film than it did the jar.  It's not about the physical.

You have a credit card, I steal the number and spend money. You still have the credit card.  Even if the bank limits your loss to $50, should it be legal to do this?  Should I have the right?
 
2013-06-09 08:21:43 PM  

Smackledorfer: See why your comparison to theft, as opposed to copyright infringement, is stupid? I'd like to think so, but if you couldn't figure it on your own I don't have much hope.


When people start to lose an argument, words like stupid start to appear.
 
2013-06-09 08:51:27 PM  

rnld: Smackledorfer: See why your comparison to theft, as opposed to copyright infringement, is stupid? I'd like to think so, but if you couldn't figure it on your own I don't have much hope.

When people start to lose an argument, words like stupid start to appear.


You said someones point was lame. I said yours was stupid.

You might want to reconsider throwing stones from that glass house. There isn't much difference there.
 
2013-06-09 08:53:49 PM  

rnld: Smackledorfer: You have five jars. I take one. You have four.

You have a digital copy of a film. I download it. You still have your copy

It cost a lot more to make the film than it did the jar.  It's not about the physical.

You have a credit card, I steal the number and spend money. You still have the credit card.  Even if the bank limits your loss to $50, should it be legal to do this?  Should I have the right?


Your comparison is still lame.

Theft is not the same, or even similar, to copyright infringement.

I'm not making an argument that infringement, theft, or credit fraud for that matter, are ok.
 
2013-06-09 09:08:36 PM  

Smackledorfer: Your comparison is still lame


Comparing a jar to a movie?

I totally understand copyright infringement.  It's still theft.

You can infringe on a copyright by recording a song and after selling it, not paying the songwriter.

You can slap a Levi's logo on a pair of crap jeans and that is copyright and trademark infringement.

If it takes away ONE sale, that's theft.
 
2013-06-09 10:13:02 PM  

rnld: Smackledorfer: Your comparison is still lame

Comparing a jar to a movie?

I totally understand copyright infringement.  It's still theft.

You can infringe on a copyright by recording a song and after selling it, not paying the songwriter.

You can slap a Levi's logo on a pair of crap jeans and that is copyright and trademark infringement.

If it takes away ONE sale, that's theft.


Now you see why I had so little hope that you would understand the difference between the two.

Hint: it isn't about dollar amount, unlike your earlier response.
 
2013-06-09 11:18:17 PM  

Smackledorfer: You have five jars. I take one. You have four.

You have a digital copy of a film. I download it. You still have your copy.

See why your comparison to theft, as opposed to copyright infringement, is stupid?


(sigh)  I have no love for the RIAA, MPAA, etc.  But this is probably the most tired argument out of all the tired arguments trotted out there, and you are doing your position no favors by using it ad nauseum.

The content rights holder is not getting paid - bottom line.  Call it theft of services if that makes you feel better or makes the issue clearer for you.  You have taken something that is not yours to take, period.  So enough with the semantics and just own it.  I really don't care what you do in your private life, but just own it so you don't look like a fool trying to defend it.
 
2013-06-09 11:33:03 PM  

karmachameleon: Smackledorfer: You have five jars. I take one. You have four.

You have a digital copy of a film. I download it. You still have your copy.

See why your comparison to theft, as opposed to copyright infringement, is stupid?

(sigh)  I have no love for the RIAA, MPAA, etc.  But this is probably the most tired argument out of all the tired arguments trotted out there, and you are doing your position no favors by using it ad nauseum.

The content rights holder is not getting paid - bottom line.  Call it theft of services if that makes you feel better or makes the issue clearer for you.  You have taken something that is not yours to take, period.  So enough with the semantics and just own it.  I really don't care what you do in your private life, but just own it so you don't look like a fool trying to defend it.


Lol, 'my position'? My only position is it isn't theft if you don't take anything. Are the owners of the work out anything? Not necessarily - depends on if the pirate in question would have purchased the item. There is a very important difference there.

You say you hold no love for mpaa and riaa, but if you think some pirating is the same as theft, why wouldn't you support them?

Shouldn't these creators have an infinite length of ownership on all they create? Or does your idea of theft begin and end with the copyright law?

I know those questions sound loaded, so if I am way off base let me know.

As for owning any piracy I might do? Meh, I'm not in this thread pretending copyright infringement is some just cause, so don't attribute that to me just because I overlap with my opinion regarding what constitutes stealing something from another.
 
2013-06-10 01:25:50 AM  

karmachameleon: Smackledorfer: You have five jars. I take one. You have four.

You have a digital copy of a film. I download it. You still have your copy.

See why your comparison to theft, as opposed to copyright infringement, is stupid?

(sigh)  I have no love for the RIAA, MPAA, etc.  But this is probably the most tired argument out of all the tired arguments trotted out there, and you are doing your position no favors by using it ad nauseum.

The content rights holder is not getting paid - bottom line.  Call it theft of services if that makes you feel better or makes the issue clearer for you.  You have taken something that is not yours to take, period.  So enough with the semantics and just own it.  I really don't care what you do in your private life, but just own it so you don't look like a fool trying to defend it.


People who 'pirate' media were never going to buy that media to begin with.  You have lost nothing.  There was no sale.  To claim that there was makes you look foolish.
 
2013-06-10 01:47:01 AM  

Flint Ironstag: mrlewish: Flint Ironstag: If you actually watch the video you see he advertised in magazines, sold his copies of movies etc. Guy is totally in the wrong and does nothing but whine about the nasty FBI ruining his "hobby".

It takes a rare case to make me side with the studios and the industry, but this is one.

How so?  If he owns the movie he can sell how he see fit.  The copy write owners only get money from the first sale. It's called First-sale doctrine.

Nowhere does the story, or the linked article, say how and where he got these prints. AFAIK these were never sold to the public, and the fact that he sold one for $200 (in 1977!) shows that they were not generally available. He does not benefit from first sale because there never was a (legitimate) first sale.  These prints would have been meant for theatres and TV stations and never sold for public use.
The copyright holder can legally decide that no copies be sold privately. Just as Bill Watterston can decide that no C+H toys or merchandise be sold.


Movies were expensive back then.  When my parents got their first VCR (a Betamax) they bought one movie.  It was Patton and cost $80 and that was a few years after 1977.  I just checked Amazon.  You can rent that movie for $2.99 or buy it on BluRay for $9.99.  The DVD is even cheaper.

Granted, that's an old movie now, but I didn't adjust for inflation either.  It wasn't exactly a new movie when my parents bought their first VCR.  Imagine how many times it got watched and by how many people.  The pairs of eyeballs that saw it vs. the cost still probably makes it more expensive than a movie theater.

The news story sucks at the details, but if he was making copies and selling them or even dealing in unauthorized copies that were copied they had good reason to give him a visit.
 
2013-06-10 01:54:25 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Illegal then and illegal now.


Why?
 
2013-06-10 02:00:13 AM  
BumpInTheNight:

How about instead you just wait for the POS movies to be released at a price point more inline with what you think its worth, ie on netflix or never.

Suck the MPAA's dick all you want. They won't loathe and look down on you any less.
 
2013-06-10 02:44:48 AM  

lewismarktwo: People who 'pirate' media were never going to buy that media to begin with.  You have lost nothing.


Why would someone bother to pirate something they don't want or weren't going to buy?

You may notice that nobody pirates the whistling grandma does the songs old Aunt Tilly wrote.

If the benchmark is "ah, I wasn't going to buy it anyway", that's weird.  Does it just end with media?
 
2013-06-10 03:16:40 AM  
I'm no lawyer, but shouldn't this just be a civil suit? Why is the FBI involved in a civil suit?
 
2013-06-10 03:59:47 AM  

rnld: lewismarktwo: People who 'pirate' media were never going to buy that media to begin with.  You have lost nothing.

Why would someone bother to pirate something they don't want or weren't going to buy?

You may notice that nobody pirates the whistling grandma does the songs old Aunt Tilly wrote.

If the benchmark is "ah, I wasn't going to buy it anyway", that's weird.  Does it just end with media?


I looked at your profile as I do with all people who seem to have an agenda and noticed you are from LA.  Do you actually own the rights to some works or are you just one of the cogs in the machine waiting to make it big?
 
2013-06-10 05:13:06 AM  

Smackledorfer: karmachameleon: Smackledorfer: You have five jars. I take one. You have four.

You have a digital copy of a film. I download it. You still have your copy.

See why your comparison to theft, as opposed to copyright infringement, is stupid?

(sigh)  I have no love for the RIAA, MPAA, etc.  But this is probably the most tired argument out of all the tired arguments trotted out there, and you are doing your position no favors by using it ad nauseum.

The content rights holder is not getting paid - bottom line.  Call it theft of services if that makes you feel better or makes the issue clearer for you.  You have taken something that is not yours to take, period.  So enough with the semantics and just own it.  I really don't care what you do in your private life, but just own it so you don't look like a fool trying to defend it.

Lol, 'my position'? My only position is it isn't theft if you don't take anything. Are the owners of the work out anything? Not necessarily - depends on if the pirate in question would have purchased the item. There is a very important difference there.


All irrelevant, and I think you know it.

"Steal:  Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."

Pretty simple.  Do you own (the rights to) the movie?  No.  Does somebody else own (the rights to) the movie?  Yes.  Do they charge a price to let you own a copy?  Yes.  Did you pay that price?  No.

I mean, which part of any of this is confusing to you?  Does it matter if you have deprived someone else of the thing that's been stolen?  No.  Does it matter if anyone is "out anything"?  No.  Does it matter if we're talking about physical property like a car or digital property like a file?  No.  Does it matter if you would have paid for it or not paid for it, and took it anyway?  No.  None of these things change the basic definition of "steal".

You did not pay for the item in question and have no other legal right to possession of the item in question.  Period.  Anything else is just specious rationalization.

You say you hold no love for mpaa and riaa, but if you think some pirating is the same as theft, why wouldn't you support them?

I think the major content creators and their spokespeople in the MPAA and RIAA are frequently anti-consumer and don't "get it" when it comes to the copyright wars.  DRM is futile and piracy is a fact of life and business.  I don't support their tactics and I think they're ignoring much better and more effective tactics to their own detriment.  But none of that means anyone has the right to steal their wares.  We are not entitled to these things without paying for them.

Shouldn't these creators have an infinite length of ownership on all they create? Or does your idea of theft begin and end with the copyright law?

What else do you think there is?  That's the law of the land.  No, I don't think they should have infinite length of ownership and I think copyright laws badly need revising in the digital age and reform in general.  But again, that's not justification for stealing.

I know those questions sound loaded, so if I am way off base let me know.

They're fine.  I'm all about doing things with integrity.  Stealing their work and owning up to it is integrity, as far as it goes.  Stealing their work and then rationalizing it away with a bunch of hand-waving and redefining what is already well defined has no integrity.  Do what you will, I'm not judging you, but own it and don't make lame excuses for it.

As for owning any piracy I might do? Meh, I'm not in this thread pretending copyright infringement is some just cause, so don't attribute that to me just because I overlap with my opinion regarding what constitutes stealing something from another.

If you don't pirate, there's nothing to own up to.  If you do, just say it, or not.  But don't redefine "steal" or "theft" just because it suits you.  Pirating movies and music is stealing.  You didn't pay for it, you don't have a legal right to it, and yet you have it.  Stealing.  It's not a judgment, just a fact.
 
2013-06-10 05:14:09 AM  

lewismarktwo: karmachameleon: Smackledorfer: You have five jars. I take one. You have four.

You have a digital copy of a film. I download it. You still have your copy.

See why your comparison to theft, as opposed to copyright infringement, is stupid?

(sigh)  I have no love for the RIAA, MPAA, etc.  But this is probably the most tired argument out of all the tired arguments trotted out there, and you are doing your position no favors by using it ad nauseum.

The content rights holder is not getting paid - bottom line.  Call it theft of services if that makes you feel better or makes the issue clearer for you.  You have taken something that is not yours to take, period.  So enough with the semantics and just own it.  I really don't care what you do in your private life, but just own it so you don't look like a fool trying to defend it.

People who 'pirate' media were never going to buy that media to begin with.  You have lost nothing.  There was no sale.  To claim that there was makes you look foolish.


Another very tired rationalization that has no basis in reality.  See my response to Smackledorfer above so I don't have to type it again here.
 
2013-06-10 05:24:34 AM  

karmachameleon: lewismarktwo: karmachameleon: Smackledorfer: You have five jars. I take one. You have four.

You have a digital copy of a film. I download it. You still have your copy.

See why your comparison to theft, as opposed to copyright infringement, is stupid?

(sigh)  I have no love for the RIAA, MPAA, etc.  But this is probably the most tired argument out of all the tired arguments trotted out there, and you are doing your position no favors by using it ad nauseum.

The content rights holder is not getting paid - bottom line.  Call it theft of services if that makes you feel better or makes the issue clearer for you.  You have taken something that is not yours to take, period.  So enough with the semantics and just own it.  I really don't care what you do in your private life, but just own it so you don't look like a fool trying to defend it.

People who 'pirate' media were never going to buy that media to begin with.  You have lost nothing.  There was no sale.  To claim that there was makes you look foolish.

Another very tired rationalization that has no basis in reality.  See my response to Smackledorfer above so I don't have to type it again here.


I see you resorted to basing your argument on 'it's the law!' so I would say it was you who are using tired rationalizations that have no basis in reality.

Good day.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report