Amazon sends Orwell to 'memory hole'

Jul 18, 2009
Amazon's new Kindle DX 9.7" Wireless Reading Device is ready for shipment at the warehouse in June 2009 in Campbellsville, Kentucky. Amazon fended off Saturday accusations of Big Brother-like behavior after it quietly erased two George Orwell books from customers' electronic book readers this week.

Amazon fended off Saturday accusations of Big Brother-like behavior after it quietly erased two George Orwell books from customers' electronic book readers this week.

From Thursday, customers on Amazon's web forums said copies of the British author's dystopian classics "Animal Farm" and "Nineteen Eighty-Four" were mysteriously wiped from their Kindle devices.

The online retailer later told CNET the books were uploaded by a publisher who did not have reproduction rights and so they were deleted.

"We removed the from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers," spokesman Drew Herdener said.

The move drew unfavorable comparisons to events in Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four", in which documents unfavorable to a fictional authoritarian government are dropped into a "memory hole," to be erased forever.

Herdener said the system would be changed so books would not be erased in future.

(c) 2009 AFP

Explore further: Gift Guide: Strong photo, video gear options

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Group protests Kindle e-reader's read-aloud limits

Apr 07, 2009

(AP) -- A group representing the blind and other people with disabilities protested limitations to the new read-aloud feature on Amazon.com Inc.'s latest Kindle electronic reader Tuesday, arguing that the ...

Amazon.com buys Stanza e-book app maker Lexcycle

Apr 28, 2009

(AP) -- Kindle e-book retailer Amazon.com Inc. has purchased Lexcycle, a year-old company that makes the iPhone e-book application Stanza, in a move that ratchets up Amazon's presence in the electronic book market.

Sony e-book reader gets 500,000 books from Google

Mar 19, 2009

(AP) -- Google Inc. is making half a million books, unprotected by copyright, available for free on Sony Corp.'s electronic book-reading device, the companies were set to announce Thursday.

Recommended for you

Ear-check via phone can ease path to diagnosis

Dec 18, 2014

Ear infections are common in babies and young children. That it is a frequent reason for young children's visit to doctors comes as no consolation for the parents of babies tugging at their ears and crying ...

Gift Guide: Home products come with connectivity

Dec 18, 2014

Do you really need an app to tell you to brush and floss? It seems every household appliance is getting some smarts these days, meaning some connection to a phone app and the broader Internet. But then what?

BlackBerry launches Classic in last-ditch effort

Dec 17, 2014

(AP)—BlackBerry is returning to its roots with a new phone that features a traditional keyboard at a time when rival Apple and Android phones—and most smartphone customers—have embraced touch screens.

Tag Heuer changes tune, now looking at smartwatches

Dec 16, 2014

Barely a few months after dismissing Apple's smartwatch, the new chief executive of luxury Swiss watchmaker Tag Heuer conceded Tuesday that such a hi-tech gadget might after all have a place in his firm's ...

User comments : 27

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2009
Was the money for these works refunded to the customers automatically as well? I think that would be my primary concern.
M_N
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2009
Yes, it was refunded:

"We removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers," spokesman Drew Herdener said"
vika_Tae
5 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2009
Yes, the money was refunded. However, my primary concern is that a private company has the authority and audacity to go into each and every one of its customer's private hard drives, and delete data found there. Let's hope this does not become a trend. I would be horrified to find that Amazon had been rifling through my hard drive and private files. I know that is not what happened here, but its only a small step away.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2009
But that is precisely what happened, and yes- you should be horrified
NeilFarbstein
3 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2009
Yes, the money was refunded. However, my primary concern is that a private company has the authority and audacity to go into each and every one of its customer's private hard drives, and delete data found there. Let's hope this does not become a trend. I would be horrified to find that Amazon had been rifling through my hard drive and private files. I know that is not what happened here, but its only a small step away.

But If it was the government that came into your home to check your lightbulbs and matress tags would that be OK?
russcelt
5 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2009
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -- Gerald Ford
dachpyarvile
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2009
Yes, the money was refunded. However, my primary concern is that a private company has the authority and audacity to go into each and every one of its customer's private hard drives, and delete data found there. Let's hope this does not become a trend. I would be horrified to find that Amazon had been rifling through my hard drive and private files. I know that is not what happened here, but its only a small step away.


But If it was the government that came into your home to check your lightbulbs and matress tags would that be OK?


We are already close to that now. We are just a hop, skip and a jump away from government inspections in our homes. We already have our choices in lighting Federally mandated and restricted thanks to the Democrats in office.

I bought and installed a ceiling fan just a couple months ago. I found a Federally mandated device installed in the fan that limits the kind of lighting you can put into it. And, damn! if it doesn't look suspiciously like some kind of microphone! I had to inspect the device closely to make sure that it wasn't a microphone.

Anyway, anything more than a certain amount of watts consumed will cause the lighting in the fan either to fail or to become so dim as to catch one's attention.

Point is, if the government can mandate certain kinds of devices to be installed in our appliances without our consent, it is only a small distance to cross that line and mandate certain other kinds of devices.

Gerald Ford was right when he made the statement that he did.
Doug_Huffman
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2009
Either we are equal or we are not. good people ought be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. Against an intrusive government and its agents is OK.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2009
Doug_Huffman:

Several people have decided that it OK to murder FBI agents already.

And HAVE DONE SO.

So watch what you advocate. You ARE advocating murder.

There are legal means to fight back IF the government exceeds its authority. The Constitution is still intact.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2009
dachpyarvile

I bought and installed a ceiling fan just a couple months ago. I found a Federally mandated device installed in the fan that limits the kind of lighting you can put into it. And, damn! if it doesn't look suspiciously like some kind of microphone! I had to inspect the device closely to make sure that it wasn't a microphone.


Would you care to give to give some evidence for this paranoid claim. The FEDs don't have a law or requirement for such a thing.

Now there may indeed be a power limit on for the lights on the fan. If you chose to buy a cheap piece of crap that can burn down your house if you use too much power then its possible that the manufacturer decided to use a device to limit the power available so as to limit the companies liability.

Also where was it made? In China? Perhaps CHINA put a microphone to spy on YOU. Yes just YOU. After all you know all that Obama is doing so if they spy on you they will know what he is doing even before Obama does.

Ethelred
defunctdiety
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2009
You ARE advocating murder.


An act committed in defense of one's self, property or family is not murder. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

There are legal means to fight back IF the government exceeds its authority.


Wake up. The Federal government has been exceeding it's authority for decades. The Constitution is nothing more than a shield it occasionally picks up to make itself more powerful.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2009
An act committed in defense of one's self, property or family is not murder.


So far all the people doing these things HAVE committed murder. They ALL had legal alternatives or had lost, quite rightly, already. In some cases they chose to bomb the judge. Supporting such lunatics is a not a sign that you are rational on this subject.

Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.


False quotation. Barry Goldwater wasn't that radical. He REALLY said:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.


And even that version is beyond reason. It can easily be construed as supporting the September 11 attacks. It put no limits on what should be done. It was pure political rhetoric to whip up a partisan crowd. Barry was usually much more moderate than that.

Killing people that are there to enforce laws that ARE CONSTITUTIONAL is MURDER. Pretending that it is self-defense is typical of fanatics whether religious or political.

Wake up. The Federal government has been exceeding it's authority for decades.


And the Supreme Court has been making it behave itself for all those decades. Not one of those people that has MURDERED federal agents has done so in any way that even remotely could be considered reasonable. They have been done to evade taxes or to avoid returning children to parents that had good reason to think they were in the hands of dangerous fanatics.

Take it to court. If you are right you WILL win. So far anyway. Those that lost had bizarre interpretations o the Constitution. Such as those imbeciles that think income tax is unconstitutional despite the amendment that makes it legal.

Ethelred
dachpyarvile
4 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2009
dachpyarvile

I bought and installed a ceiling fan just a couple months ago. I found a Federally mandated device installed in the fan that limits the kind of lighting you can put into it. And, damn! if it doesn't look suspiciously like some kind of microphone! I had to inspect the device closely to make sure that it wasn't a microphone.


Would you care to give to give some evidence for this paranoid claim. The FEDs don't have a law or requirement for such a thing.

Now there may indeed be a power limit on for the lights on the fan. If you chose to buy a cheap piece of crap that can burn down your house if you use too much power then its possible that the manufacturer decided to use a device to limit the power available so as to limit the companies liability.

Also where was it made? In China? Perhaps CHINA put a microphone to spy on YOU. Yes just YOU. After all you know all that Obama is doing so if they spy on you they will know what he is doing even before Obama does.

Ethelred


You are a fool, Ethelred! And, you are clearly...well...clueless about Federal mandates and legislation.

Here is word-for-word text in a box from the front cover of the manual for the fan:

Federal regulations require all ceiling fans with light kits manufactured or imported after January 1, 2009, to limit total wattage consumed by the light kit to 190W. Therefore, this fan is equipped with a wattage limiting device. If you lamp this fan's light kit with bulbs totalling more than 190W, the wattage limiting device will reduce the watts consumed to 190W.


Now, get a clue about what the Democratic majority in our government are doing and start reading the relevant legislation before accusing people of paranoia.

Now, the fan certainly was no cheap piece of crap. It has the finest materials, remote control system and electronic switching system, and it also had so little wobble from initial installation that it required no weight-balancing whatosever--unlike cheap, Chinese-made pieces of crap that most people buy in places like Walmart or Home Depot. It barely moves at all even at full speed, bordering on unobservable if you don't know what to look for.

The company that sold the fan is a US-based company with a US patent on components which are part of the fan assembly. Only the light kit was manufactured in China but the electronic components were in the fan, not the light kit assembly. Of course, most electronic components come from Malaysia and China or Taiwan, anyway...
dachpyarvile
4 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2009
Here is a selection of text from the relevant legislation.

"(4)(A) By January 1, 2007, the Secretary shall consider and issue requirements for any ceiling fan lighting kits other than those covered in paragraphs (2) and (3), including candelabra screw base sockets.

"(B) The requirements issued under subparagraph (A) shall be effective for products manufactured 2 years after the date of the final rule.

"(C) If the Secretary fails to issue a final rule by the date specified in subparagraph (B), any type of ceiling fan lighting kit described in subparagraph (A) that is manufactured after January 1, 2009--

"(i) shall not be capable of operating with lamps that total more than 190 watts;...




Because Ethelred acted the ignoramus, he can search out the citation information and look up the additional material from the Department of Energy himself with no further assistance from me. :)
dachpyarvile
4 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2009
Oh, by the way, I do know that the original three sponsors of the bill were Republicans from Texas and California (and we already know how crazy California is getting with its environmental (with emphasis on "mental") legislation) but it is the Democratically controlled Congress that passed the bill.
dachpyarvile
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2009
Ugh! Can't express my thoughts very clearly today! The law was further modified by the Democratically controlled congress over the years and they have maintained the federal regulation regarding non-functionality of ceiling-fan light kits if exceeding 190W while modifying other aspects of the law.



In order to get Democrats to sign onto the good stuff in the legislation they had to include the sections regarding control of wattage so the Republicans could get what they wanted from the legislation.

In the end it all amounts to the same as I have said above in the long run. :)
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2009
[]qYou are a fool, Ethelred!

You are paranoid-schizophrenic and a complete ass.

And, you are clearly...well...clueless about Federal mandates and legislation


I have read the Constitution. Try doing that yourself.

Now, get a clue about what the Democratic majority in our government are doing and start reading the relevant legislation before accusing people of paranoia.


You are illiterate. The law YOU POSTED started January 2009. Obama wasn't inaugurated yet you idiot. BUSH WAS RESPONSIBLE, it was his people that were still in office. Learn how to read and use a calender.

p. It has the finest materials, remote control system and electronic switching system, and it also had so little wobble from initial installation that it required no weight-balancing whatosever


And subject to BUSHIES rules. Not Obamas. And congratulations on a buying such a fine Bush approved device. No Obama regulations existed at that time.

Because Ethelred acted the ignoramus,


Because YOU ARE an illiterate ignoramus you failed to note the date, January 1 2007. Still deep in the heart of BUSHIE time. The Democrats didn't take control until a few days later and the legislation had passed much earlier. With a PURE Republican President who had to sign the bill, Vice President there to break ties, and SECRETARY to enforce the laws the Republicans passed.

Next time you call people fools try looking in the mirror first. Don't blame Obama for the actions of Republicans.

he can search out the citation information and look up the additional material from the Department of Energy himself with no further assistance from me. :)


You can learn to eat crow instead. Look at what you post before doing so.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2009
Oh, by the way, I do know that the original three sponsors of the bill were Republicans from Texas and California (and we already know how crazy California is getting with its environmental (with emphasis on "mental") legislation) but it is the Democratically controlled Congress that passed the bill.


Still Republican then. Still a Republican President that signed it.

http://www.washin...802.html

Ugh! Can't express my thoughts very clearly today! The law was further modified by the Democratically controlled congress over the years and they have maintained the federal regulation regarding non-functionality of ceiling-fan light kits if exceeding 190W while modifying other aspects of the law.


What Democats? Those were Republicans. Even YOU knew it since you knew that Republicans CREATED the thing. A Texan was involved at that.

In order to get Democrats to sign onto the good stuff in the legislation they had to include the sections regarding control of wattage so the Republicans could get what they wanted from the legislation.


Than again it was Republicans that had the majority and introduced the law. And signed it.

In the end it all amounts to the same as I have said above in the long run. :)


It all amounts to you lying when you blamed Obama.

None of it justifies murdering Federal agents either.

Now if you don't like the laws go tell your representatives. Run for office. Do something relevant. Calling for murder is not a rational response.

Put LEDs in the damn thing if you want more light and lower temperatures. The whole idea of a ceiling fan is to keep the room comfortable when it is hot. It may be silly legislation but it was REPUBLICAN legislation.

Ethelred
dachpyarvile
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2009
...
It all amounts to you lying when you blamed Obama.

None of it justifies murdering Federal agents either.

Now if you don't like the laws go tell your representatives. Run for office. Do something relevant. Calling for murder is not a rational response.

Put LEDs in the damn thing if you want more light and lower temperatures. The whole idea of a ceiling fan is to keep the room comfortable when it is hot. It may be silly legislation but it was REPUBLICAN legislation.

Ethelred


I said nothing about Obama, said nothing about murdering Federal agents or about murder. Period.

LEDs are still too inefficient and too low in lumens to do the job, forcing me to use incandescents of a variety less common in stores than the ones that exceed the limiting device.

And, in order to garner enough votes to pass Republicans had to pander to the Democrats to get them to vote Yea on it, which meant adding the legislation concerning limiting wattage in order to cut power consumption and "save the planet from awful greenhouse gases."

The bill initially was a good thing before all sorts of things got tacked-on to it to appease the Dems enough to sign onto it and allow its passage.

Following this, the Democratic majority continued modifying the law later and left in the stupid legislation that you claimed did not exist, Ethelred.

It was originally Republican legislation but it was the Dems who retooled it to get what they wanted.
dachpyarvile
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2009
Or, did you forget that Bush was on record as being opposed to legislation regarding "global warming"?

Even if he had vetoed it it still would have come back to life another way or by overriding vote of Congress.
dachpyarvile
3.5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2009
Correction: Although I didn't at first, I find I actually can partially blame Obama after all because he was one of the Yea votes. McCain--the guy I voted for--voted NAY on the bill.


* * * * *

McCain (R-AZ), Nay

* * * * *

Obama (D-IL), Yea

* * * * *

defunctdiety
5 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2009
And the Supreme Court has been making it behave itself for all those decades.


Umm, no. The Federal Government should keep it's nose out of anything that could be handled on a state level or by the people. This includes everything from so called "gun control", to social issues (education, abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, stem cell research), to healthcare, to the "Stimulus Package" [puke] and economic regulation (bailouts, the FR) and any of the other numerous ways the Federal Government is trying to incorporate the nation. Ethelred I never would have pegged you to be such an adamant member of the sheeple flock.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2009
I said nothing about Obama, said nothing about murdering Federal agents or about murder. Period.


Sorry, I got you confused with the other guy. Indeed I was the first to mention Obama.

You said Democrats in office.

The Democrats only got control of both Houses in the latest election and the Republicans had FULL control till they lost the lower House in the 2006 election.

LEDs are still too inefficient and too low in lumens to do the job, forcing me to use incandescents of a variety less common in stores than the ones that exceed the limiting device.


LED are about as efficient as fluorescents and much smaller. However you would have wire the thing for lower voltage. Fluorescents might not handle the vibration of a even the best fans.

And, in order to garner enough votes to pass Republicans had to pander to the Democrats to get them to vote Yea on it,


False. The bill was passed when the Republicans controlled both houses. You posted the information yourself. Thank you.

The bill initially was a good thing before all sorts of things got tacked-on to it to appease the Dems enough to sign onto it and allow its passage.


Bull. Stuff gets tacked on to every bill and the Bushies had full control at the the time the bill was written and passed. They did it themselves.

Following this, the Democratic majority continued modifying the law later and left in the stupid legislation that you claimed did not exist, Ethelred.


Well, I did ask for evidence. I am willing to change my mind on things. You gave evidence. However, it is also evidence that the Republicans did it.

It was originally Republican legislation but it was the Dems who retooled it to get what they wanted.


The ORIGINAL bill was passed in 2006 and that is what you posted. Otherwise it wouldn't start on the first day of 2007 and its all there in the original. From Republicans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or, did you forget that Bush was on record as being opposed to legislation regarding "global warming"?


No. But he did eventually figure out that the world is warmer these days. Yes even one of the worst Presidents of all time managed to figure out that the ice is melting.

Even if he had vetoed it it still would have come back to life another way or by overriding vote of Congress.


It was a Bushie Congress that passed it. It wasn't going to overturn his veto.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I didn't at first, I find I actually can partially blame Obama after all because he was one of the Yea votes. McCain--the guy I voted for--voted NAY on the bill.


Well McCain showed just how much he thinks of the US. He selected the wife of a man that want to secede from the US for VP. So I don't think much of the man you voted for as a Presidential candidate. As a Senator he is competent. Which is important but not enough to be a guy I would vote for. Bush Sr. was competent on foreign affairs for instance but bad on the economy. Not as bad as at least two of his sons but still bad.

Obama was a member of the minority party at the time. Republicans other than McCain passed that bill.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2009
Umm, no.


Ignorance is Beyond the Right Wing. The Supreme Court is never going to be perfect. But is far better than the States Rights fans would have for us. Slavery for instance is now illegal in all fifty states and both Blacks and Women can vote. States Righters have fought against all those Human Rights.

The Federal Government should keep it's nose out of anything that could be handled on a state level or by the people.


A state is a State whether federal or our now fifty states. There is no qualitative difference between them, except corruption which increases as the level become more local.

If the People choose to have federal government because the Several States made a mess of things, as they did, that is the People's choice. It is truly amazing how many of the alleged Right Wing Cognoscenti have managed to stay ignorant about the original U.S. Articles of Confederation which worked exactly the way they usually say they want things to work. They failed utterly and had to be replaced by the Founding Fathers with the U.S. Constitution.

This includes everything from so called "gun control", to social issues (education, abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, stem cell research),


Beyond the Right Wing is ignorance. All of those have become INTERSTATE trade and therefor are the right and proper purview of the Federal Government. Except for the single case of the the Alien and Sedition Acts the cry of States Rights has always been to deny someone's Human Rights.

Ethelred I never would have pegged you to be such an adamant member of the sheeple flock.


I have never seen a person that is rational on any subject use the ludicrous word 'sheeple'. It mostly comes from Beyond the Right Wing nutters that have false ideas about State and local government vs the Fed plus bizarre interpretations of the Constitution. The other main source of that idiot word is Conspiracy Fans. The two intermingle quite a bit.

Quit the nutters. Become one of the Enlightened. Join with the Founding Fathers and embrace the idea of a Federal Government of the People by the People and for the People as opposed to Government by the States of the States and for the States. A Federal Government that was designed to become more important as the Nation became more intertwined.

Ethelred
defunctdiety
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2009
The Supreme Court..is far better than the States Rights fans would have for us. ... States Righters have fought against all those Human Rights.


Your arguments are ineffective. The first sentence is opinion and speculation, invalid. For the second sentence, it is now the States who are fighting for social progressivism (gay marriage, right to die, etc. etc. etc.). You're antiquated examples for defense are simply no longer applicable in modern america, with modern americans. It's laughable you would try and use this as a defense.

A state is a State whether federal or our now fifty states. There is no qualitative difference between them, except corruption which increases as the level become more local.


You're neglecting one thing, the Constitution. Which clearly and expressly delineates between the two, and the roles of the two. And again your corruption theory is speculation. Prove it. And then prove qualitatively that it is worse than the rampant federal corruption, with more victims.

They failed utterly and had to be replaced by the Founding Fathers with the U.S. Constitution.


The Federal Government is failing the citizens of the U.S., your kind of outright denial of the obvious is what will doom us, if the swollen Federal Government budget hasn't already.

All of those have become INTERSTATE trade and therefor are the right and proper purview of the Federal Government. Except for the single case of the the Alien and Sedition Acts the cry of States Rights has always been to deny someone's Human Rights.


LMFAO, oops, you seemed to have forgot to address these: healthcare, the "Stimulus Package" [puke] and economic regulation (bailouts, the FR)...

And incorrectly addressed gun control, the current proposed laws go beyond interstate trade regulation, and explain to me how the No Child Left Behind (education) act is interstate trade? As well as the FBI raiding CA medical marijuana clinics? And stem cell research how is this interstate trade? Ethelred you are so ideologically flawed, and blatantly spewing lies, you can't even see the forest fire for the trees.

I have never seen a person that is rational on any subject use the ludicrous word 'sheeple'. It mostly comes from Beyond the Right Wing nutters that have false ideas about State and local government vs the Fed plus bizarre interpretations of the Constitution.


You just bleet your faulty rhetoric and follow the leader, take an honest look at where this Nation is going, and where that path went through to get there.

It's indicative of your close mindedness and indeed your indefensible stance that you call me "beyond the right wing", and that you repeat it over and over as you have so little else (especially in the way of truth) to say and like that phrase would someone disprove my truths, or lend validity to your faulty arguments.

While I am fiscally conservative in the classic sense (beyond national defense, federal government spending should be a minimum), I am by any standard socially liberal if not libertarian, and I have many views which don't fit either Dem or Rep platforms. Ethelred, thank you for being a glowing example of true ignorance.
defunctdiety
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2009
Ethel, it really is laughable. As I read through your argument again it's amazing that the one thing you have to say, relevant to modern politics, is the Alien and Sedition Acts and indeed is in support of my argument. All the rest is just faulty logic, rhetoric and ideological posturing. You have no leg to stand on. You failed to demonstrate how the Federal government has the individual citizens best interests at heart.

The State Governments are what is most directly answerable to the people, the states are who is fighting for human rights now, for individual freedoms, the Fed only wants to take away and control. The Federal government is systematically moving to control as much of your life as it can, especially through the currency (inflation) and social and economic policy, so that you are always dependent on it. This is not right, it's very very wrong, and anyone who defends what the Federal government is and has been doing for the past twenty or thirty years or so has some very evil beliefs and intentions.
defunctdiety
3 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2009
Nice, Ethel, you can rate my comments 1 but you can't come up with a valid response. Way to go.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.