Tom2004
02-20-2008, 01:30 AM
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there are many sites right now under the control of providers while collecting the finishing touches of evidence they will eventually act on and eventually shit it all down. Pansat, Coolsat, Viewsat, Hashhu, TotalFTA, FTAHQ, FTAforall come to mind. FTA manufacturers have filed 4 motions so far this year and loss them all on the recent lawsuits filed by the providers. We will be going into discovery very soon, so bye bye Mr. Kim
gallo55
02-20-2008, 02:56 AM
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there are many sites right now under the control of providers while collecting the finishing touches of evidence they will eventually act on and eventually shit it all down. Pansat, Coolsat, Viewsat, Hashhu, TotalFTA, FTAHQ, FTAforall come to mind. FTA manufacturers have filed 4 motions so far this year and loss them all on the recent lawsuits filed by the providers. We will be going into discovery very soon, so bye bye Mr. Kim
This is still a long process, This is a civil suit and can take years to go to trial. There is no speedy trial in a civil case.
The Lizard King
02-20-2008, 04:35 AM
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there are many sites right now under the control of providers while collecting the finishing touches of evidence they will eventually act on and eventually shit it all down. Pansat, Coolsat, Viewsat, Hashhu, TotalFTA, FTAHQ, FTAforall come to mind.
dssftp, perhaps? :D
TLK :cool:
bud02
02-20-2008, 09:45 AM
The sky is falling ! The sky is falling!
You peep with replies like this never cease to amaze me.
It just confirms how shallow thinking you are, do you think that every thing is static, nothing ever changes?
Let me clue you in, there is nothing visible in the whole know universe that is static everything is in a state of change.
You add people and money to that piece of fact and I assure you that every thing we do here today, for the most part will be gone and mostly forgotten 25 years from now.
The people that watch and expect change are not the fools. The people that expect nothing to happen, and laugh when nothing does, are just simply idiots.
bud02
02-20-2008, 08:09 PM
Panarex discovery
I thought this was an interesting line and date.
The parties agree to exchange disclosures pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on or before February 29, 2008, and
supplement such disclosures in accordance with subsection (e) of that rule.
Neither party shall argue that the agreements reached herein preclude the other
party from later seeking leave of the Court to serve additional interrogatories.
The parties agree that requests for production or inspection and requests for
admission are unlimited in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 7 of 12
If the raid is true D!CK wasted no time requesting admission. Throw a complex map call knowing it will take time to decript and call the feds with request for inspection.......hummmm.:cool:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
Richard R. Olsen (pro hac vice)
rolsen@twwlaw.com
Timothy M. Frank (pro hac vice)
tfrank@twwlaw.com
T. WADE WELCH & ASSOCIATES
2401 Fountainview, Suite 700
Houston, Texas 77057
Telephone: (713) 952-4334
Facsimile: (713) 952-4994
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
William K. Mills (SBN 107222)
mills@pmmlaw.com
John W. Hurney (SBN 161617)
hurney@pmmlaw.com
Ann C. Schneider (SBN 156893)
schneider@pmmlaw.com
PARKER MILLS LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 622-4441
Facsimile: (213) 622-1444
Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE L.L.C., a
Colorado Limited Liability Company,
ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, a Texas
Corporation, and NAGRASTAR
L.L.C., a Colorado Limited Liability
Company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PANAREX, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
Case No. CV07-5897 GPS (PLAx)
JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and L.R. 26-1, Plaintiffs
EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies Corporation (collectively
“EchoStar”) and NagraStar L.L.C. (“NagraStar”)1 and Defendant Panarex, Inc.
(“Panarex” or “Defendant”) conferred telephonically on January 22, 2008 on a
proposed discovery and case management plan, and respectfully submit this Joint
Report reflecting the matters on which the parties agree, unless otherwise stated.
I. STATUS OF THE PLEADINGS
Plaintiffs filed this action on September 11, 2007 against Defendant and
Does 1-10 seeking relief under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §
1201 et seq., Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 605 et seq.,
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq., and California
state law. Defendant filed an answer on November 30, 2007. Plaintiffs anticipate
naming additional parties specifically as the true identities of the “Doe” defendants
are subsequently discovered. There are currently no motions pending before the
Court; however, both parties anticipate motions for summary judgment.
II. FACTUAL SUMMARY OF THE CASE
A. Complex Litigation
The parties agree at this time that the Manual for Complex Litigation should
not be utilized in this case, given that it does not appear at this time that the case has
a level of complexity to warrant use of these rules.
B. Plaintiffs’ Statement2
EchoStar is a multi-channel video provider, providing video, audio, and data
services to customers throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands via a Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) system. EchoStar uses
high-powered satellites to broadcast, among other things, movies, sports, and
general entertainment services (“Programming”) to consumers who have been
1 EchoStar and NagraStar are collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs.” 2 Each party’s statement of facts is their own statement and does not constitute any
admissions or agreements to facts by the opposing party.
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 2 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
authorized to receive such services after payment of a subscription fee (or in the
case of a pay-per-view movie or event, the purchase price). EchoStar operates its
DBS Programming under the trade name “DISH Network.”
To provide customers with a variety of Programming channels, EchoStar
continues to contract and purchase the distribution rights of copyrighted
Programming from providers such as network affiliates, pay and specialty
broadcasters, cable networks, motion picture distributors, sports leagues, event
promoters, and other content providers. Accordingly, EchoStar’s ability to generate
revenues through the sale of subscription Programming, along with the ability to
attract and retain the distribution rights for such Programming, is dependent upon
preventing the unauthorized reception of its satellite signals.
EchoStar protects DISH Network Programming from unauthorized viewing
by using a management and security system provided by NagraStar (“Security
System”). The Security System allows EchoStar to encrypt (electronically
scramble) its satellite signals using proprietary “smart cards” (“Access Cards”) that
contain a microprocessor component that functions as a security computer to a
“conditional access system” known as Digital Nagra Advanced Security Process
(“DNASP”). These Access Cards are utilized in the satellite receivers that
customers either purchase or lease, and are equipped with secret keys and software
that contain technology codes (“Nagra Software”) used to communicate with the
receiver and enable the descrambling of DISH Network Programming.
Despite continual improvements to Plaintiffs’ Security System, satellite
piracy proliferates with the ever-growing access and popularity of the Internet.
With the Internet as a sword, pirates steal DISH Network Programming by using
so-called “free-to-air” receivers (“FTA Receivers”). FTA Receivers are devices
that can receive “free-to-air” satellite television signals, which are either not
scrambled or scrambled but available free of charge. “Free-to-air” channels do not
offer the same type of popular programming found in subscription television
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 3 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
packages. Instead, “free-to-air” television channels typically include limited ethnic,
religious, business, music, information, and advertising content.
While FTA Receivers contain many of the same components found in an
EchoStar set-top box, the units cannot descramble and receive DISH Network
Programming without utilizing the security keys and technology codes found in the
Nagra Software (i.e. ROM code segment, EEPROM code segment). Upon
information and belief, manufacturers of FTA Receivers developed firmware and
components within each unit that have been specifically designed to communicate,
accept, and receive illegal pirate software (“Pirate Software”) that contains the
secret keys and codes to Plaintiffs’ Security System. Once this technology is
downloaded or “flashed” into the FTA Receiver, the unit will illegally receive
DISH Network Programming.
Panarex imports a variety of “Pansat” branded FTA Receivers from a
manufacturer in Asia. It is believed discovery will show that this manufacturer not
only creates the firmware and components within each device, but develops,
designs, and updates the requisite Pirate Software with the assistance and support of
Defendant. Thereafter, Panarex directly, and through others acting in concert,
distributes the updated Pirate Software to select website administrators and
moderators, who then disseminate this illegal technology to consumers on the
Internet. Because Plaintiffs continue to develop technological measures that
effectively control access to the copyrighted Programming on the DISH Network
satellite platform, the demand for updated Pirate Software remains constant. As a
result, the popularity of pirate websites and discussion forums continues to grow.
Defendant continues to violate federal and state law by offering to the public,
providing, or otherwise engaging in the traffic of devices, components, and
technology that are primarily designed to circumvent and/or defeat Plaintiffs’
Security System and ultimately facilitate the unauthorized reception of EchoStar’s
encrypted satellite signals and DISH Network Programming.
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 4 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
B. Defendant’s Statement3
Defendant denies Plaintiffs’ allegations. Defendant plays no role in illegally
pirating Plaintiffs’ signal. Defendant distributes FTA Receivers to customers
throughout the world who use them to obtain freely transmitted uncopyrighted
materials. Defendant’s products have commercially significant noninfringing uses.
Defendant believes Plaintiffs are primarily responsible for their signal being
stolen by their failure to take active and significant security measures to protect
their signal, as has been done by other subscription satilite television provider(s).
Rather than invest in upgrading their own security system, Plaintiffs have taken the
course of pushing out of the industry distributors of FTA Recivers in an effort to
take full control of the Free to Air industry. Further, upon information and belief,
Plaintiffs lack standing as they do not possess the copyrights that are alleged in
their complaint.
III. PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN
A. Subject Matters of Discovery
Plaintiffs anticipate discovery on at least the following subject matters:
1. Design and development of Panarex hardware and software;
2. Importation and distribution of Panarex hardware and software;
3. Advertising and marketing of Panarex hardware and software;
4. Servicing and repair of Panarex hardware and software;
5. Structure and ownership of Panarex and related entities;
6. Evidence preservation efforts by Panarex and related entities.
Defendant anticipates discovery on at least the following subject matters:
1. Proof of the allegations made in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, including
but not limited to:
///
3 Each party’s statement of facts is their own statement and does not constitute any
admissions or agreements to facts by the opposing party.
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 5 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
a. Proof Defendant manufactured and/or distributed with
intent to facilitate the reception of Plaintiffs’ signal;
b. Policies and purpose behind Dish Network’s unscrambled
promotional channels;
c. Design and development of Plaintiffs’ security system;
d. Research by Plaintiffs into alternative security systems;
e. Proof that Defendant designs its products to receive
illegal pirate software;
f. Proof Defendant’s product has no practical other and/or
commercially significant use;
g. Proof Defendant ever loaded piracy software on their
product or distributed pirated technology;
h. Proof of any connection between PANAREX and any
alleged pirate web site;
i. Proof Defendant provides piracy technology to
administrators of alleged pirate web sites;
j. Proof Defendant assists Asian manufacturers by providing
them updated pirate software;
k. Proof Defendant is pressured to provide consumer pirates
with an immediate “fix” to combat countermeasures taken
by Plaintiffs;
l. Proof Defendants know or employ a person or entity they
refer to as “Blacklist;”
2. Information as to Echostar Europe’s sale of Free to Air boxes;
3. Information as to Echostar Europe’s design of Free to Air boxes;
4. Information as to Echostar Europe’s marketing of Free to Air
boxes;
///
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 6 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
5. Information as to Echostar Europe’s profits from sale of Free to
Air boxes;
6. Efforts by Plaintiffs to stop the sale of Free to Air boxes in
North America;
7. Efforts by Plaintiffs to stop the sale of Free to Air boxes in the
United States;
8. Efforts by Plaintiffs to stop the sale of Free to Air boxes
worldwide;
9. Efforts by Plaintiffs to stop distributors from selling Defendant’s
products;
10. Efforts by Plaintiffs to stop distributors from selling any Free to
Air box that is not distributed and/or manufactured by Plaintiffs.
11. Structure and ownership of Plaintiffs’ corporations and related
entities;
12. Evidence of preservation efforts by Plaintiffs and related
entities.
B. Limitations on Discovery
1. Disclosures. The parties agree to exchange disclosures pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on or before February 29, 2008, and
supplement such disclosures in accordance with subsection (e) of that rule.
2. Written Discovery. The parties agree that EchoStar and
NagraStar each be permitted to propound thirty (30) interrogatories on Defendant,
and that Defendant be permitted to propound thirty (30) interrogatories on EchoStar
and thirty (30) interrogatories on NagraStar, totaling sixty (60) requests per side.
Neither party shall argue that the agreements reached herein preclude the other
party from later seeking leave of the Court to serve additional interrogatories.
The parties agree that requests for production or inspection and requests for
admission are unlimited in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 7 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
Any response to a request for production, request for admission, or interrogatory
will be amended as required by Rule 26(e).
3. Depositions. Given the nature of the allegations and defenses
in this case, coupled with the potential number of additional parties and/or fact
witnesses, Plaintiffs have agrued the presumptive limit of ten (10) depositions
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A) is inadequate. Therefore,
the parties, in the spirit of cooperation, have agreed that Plaintiffs and Defendant
each be allowed to take fifteen (15) depositions. In addition, Plaintiffs may take the
deposition of Panarex’s custodian of records and/or information officer with
knowledge of the computer systems, programs and preservation measures used in
the ordinary course of business pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(b)(6). Plaintiffs may also take a separate deposition of Defendant’s corporate
representative (which may include multiple deponents) regarding various issues
pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Likewise, Defendant may take the deposition of
EchoStar’s custodian of records and/or information officer with knowledge of the
computer systems, programs and preservation measures used in the ordinary course
of business and, separately, NagraStar’s custodian of records and/or information
officer with knowledge of the computer systems, programs and preservation
measures used in the ordinary course of business, both pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Defendant may also take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of
EchoStar’s corporate representative and, separately, NagraStar’s corporate
representative (both of which may include multiple deponents), regarding various
issues pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
The parties agree that the number of depositions requested herein is a
preliminary number, and the parties will confer in good faith at a future time should
it become apparent that additional depositions are reasonably necessary. The
parties further agree that the presumptive limit of seven (7) hours pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2) should apply to all depositions. Neither
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 8 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
party shall argue that the agreements reached herein will preclude leave of the
Court to take additional depositions.
4. Phases of Discovery. The parties agree that, with the exception
of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of each party’s information systems personnel, no
deposition will take place until June 1, 2008, absent a specific showing of need.
There are no additional limitations on the timing of discovery.
C. Claims of Privilege & Trial-Preparation Material
The parties agree to an order regarding claims of privilege or of protection as
trial-preparation material asserted after production, as follows: If either party
produces a document believed to be protected by privilege or as trial-preparation
material, through inadvertence or mistake, the producing party shall have ten (10)
days from discovering the production of said document to identify and request the
return of such material in writing, without waiving any right to assert privilege or
protection as trial-preparation material. Upon receipt of such a written request, the
receiving party will have five (5) days to return the documents identified as
privileged or trial-preparation material, without waiving its right to later challenge
the protection claimed by the producing party. The parties request that this
agreement be included in a subsequent Protective Order entered by the Court.
D. Producing Documents & Electronically Stored Information
The parties agree to produce documents, whether originating in electronic or
hard copy format, as a searchable PDF file on a compact disk, unless either party
provides notice that production should occur in an alternate format, and the basis
for deviating from the agreed upon form of production. The parties will then confer
on the proposed alternative format prior to the production of any material.
The parties further agree that when a document is produced as a searchable
PDF file, or any other form of static image agreed to by the parties, the producing
party shall maintain a separate file as a native file, which will not be modified in
any manner that changes the file or meta-data. After a static image is produced, the
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 9 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
party seeking production may request and obtain the native file by demonstrating a
particularized need for that production. If the producing party desires to redact any
content of a native file for privilege or protection as trial preparation material, then
the producing party must clearly indicate the file has been redacted and maintain an
original, unmodified file. The production of any document in native format must
be done in a manner that preserves the integrity of the file.
E. Protective Order
The parties agree that a protective order governing discovery, including
testimony, should be entered. At this time, the parties are preparing an agreed
protective order to submit to the Court, which the parties anticipate will have more
than one level of protection and contain the parties’ agreement regarding claims of
privilege and protection as trial-preparation materials.
IV. SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS
The parties have agreed that documents in this matter will be served upon the
parties via e-mail. The parties agree to maintain an e-mail service list and to use
that list in serving said documents. A document served via e-mail shall, for timing
and responding purposes, be treated as a document that was served via First Class
U.S. Mail unless the parties otherwise agree in writing that the specific document
be considered personally served.
V. SETTLEMENT
The parties agree that settlement is unlikely at this stage of the proceedings
given the requested relief. Nonetheless, in accordance with L.R. 26-1 and 16-15,
the parties select Settlement Procedure No. 3 as the mandatory dispute resolution
procedure for this action.
VI. PROPOSED PRETRIAL & TRIAL SCHEDULE
The pretrial and trial schedule agreed to by the parties is as follows:
Pretrial or Trial Event Requested Deadline
Exchange Initial Disclosures February 22, 2008
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 10 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
Amend Pleadings and Join Parties August 22, 2008
Fact Discovery Closes March 20, 2009
Disclose Affirmative Experts & Exchange Reports April 24, 2009
Disclose Rebuttal Experts & Exchange Reports May 29, 2009
Exchange Supplemental Expert Reports June 26, 2009
Expert Discovery Closes August 28, 2009
File Dispositive Motions October 30, 2009
Final Pretrial Conference January 15, 2010
File Motions in Limine February 5, 2010
Trial February 15, 2010
(3 weeks)
DATED: February 1, 2008
By: s/Timothy M. Frank
Richard R. Olsen (pro hac vice)
rolsen@twwlaw.com
Timothy M. Frank (pro hac vice)
tfrank@twwlaw.com
T. WADE WELCH & ASSOCIATES
2401 Fountainview, Suite 700
Houston, Texas 77057
Telephone: (713) 952-4334
Facsimile: (713) 952-4994
Jeffrey A. Rosenfeld (SBN 136896)
jeffrey.rosenfeld@dlapiper.com
Rachel E. K. Lowe (SBN 246361)
rachel.lowe@dlapiper.com
DLA PIPER US LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 4th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 595-3000
Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
///
///
///
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 11 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT
DATED: February 1, 2008
By: s/John W. Hurney
William K. Mills (SBN 107222)
mills@pmmlaw.com
John W. Hurney (SBN 161617)
hurney@pmmlaw.com
Ann C. Schneider (SBN 156893)
schneider@pmmlaw.com
PARKER MILLS LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 622-4441
Facsimile: (213) 622-1444
Attorneys for Defendant
Case 2:07-cv-05897-GPS-PLA Document 10 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 12 of 12
bud02
02-21-2008, 05:04 AM
2. Echostar do not own the copyrights of the material they alleged copyright infringiment
This is the statement.
Further, upon information and belief,
Plaintiffs lack standing as they do not possess the copyrights that are alleged in
their complaint.
To clear things up for our 1 post C/P wonder, you simply have to read both statements. "EchoStar continues to contract and purchase the distribution rights".
Not the copyright itself.
And goes on to say that contract is dependent on preventing the unauthorized reception of its satellite signals. Showing a potential to lose its rights to broadcast that will lead to loss of EchoStar’s ability to generate revenue. Which will lead to Mr Kim being sued, in the least. That's before you even get to the Fed charges that will follow If he losses. If he continues he could dig a very deep hole. Hence the need to humble himself before the investors and board members of his company in Korea. Perhaps to contemplate there options?
Or maybe you are thinking that EchoStar has no right to protect its sig.
Or Mr Kim himself possess the copyrights that are alleged in their complaint.
Or Mr Kim himself has secured distribution rights of copyrighted Programming from providers
Perhaps next post you can fill in the gaps with your infinite wisdom such as these other brilliant individuals
garysam
02-21-2008, 10:04 AM
You peep with replies like this never cease to amaze me.
It just confirms how shallow thinking you are, do you think that every thing is static, nothing ever changes?
Let me clue you in, there is nothing visible in the whole know universe that is static everything is in a state of change.
You add people and money to that piece of fact and I assure you that every thing we do here today, for the most part will be gone and mostly forgotten 25 years from now.
The people that watch and expect change are not the fools. The people that expect nothing to happen, and laugh when nothing does, are just simply idiots.
Now, that's deep!
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.