Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 46

Thread: German Government Neo-Luddism

  1. #1

    Default German Government Neo-Luddism

    So, I was going to post an article about how German patent laws continue to be used as a mallet for non-German conglomerates to smack each other. It's a tricky thing, because patent law problems aren't unique to Germany. Then I stumbled on this crazy article about the governing coalition in Germany proposing a bill to make large companies who link to news sites pay those news sites for the privilege of giving them traffic.

    This bill is nominally targeted at search engines, but the underlying principle still seems incredibly alien to me. It also seems to be completely antithetical to the whole point of the Web. From the user perspective, page linking is the original innovation of hypertext language.

    Are these newspapers just being rent-seekers (IE trying to suck money via legislation instead of changing their business model)? Or, like with Web privacy, is this somehow a cultural thing that is totally beyond my moral/economic consideration set?

    Article below.

    March 11, 2012
    Germany Trying to Cut Publishers In on Web Profits
    By ERIC PFANNER

    PARIS — In a move aimed at helping newspapers generate new revenue from struggling online operations, the German government intends to require search engines and other Internet companies to pay publishers whose content they highlight.

    The German governing coalition, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, said last week that it planned to introduce legislation to create a new kind of copyright for online publishers. Under the proposal, Internet aggregators and search engines would have to pay the publishers if they wanted to display all or parts of their articles — even small snippets like those that are shown in search links.

    The proposal was cheered by German publishers, who complain that Internet companies like Google have profited hugely from their content, while generating only scraps of digital revenue.

    “In the digital age, such a right is essential to protect the joint efforts of journalists and publishers,” the Federation of German Newspaper Publishers said, adding that it was “an essential measure for the maintenance of an independent, privately financed news media.”

    But the announcement set off howls of protest from Internet companies and bloggers, who said the proposal could threaten free speech and stunt the development of the digital economy in Germany.

    “I fear that such a regulation would slow down the development of the Internet because it creates additional costs and leads to inefficiencies,” Eric E. Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, told the news agency DPA during a visit to the CeBIT technology fair in Hanover, Germany, last week. “The Internet is an important component of Germany’s economic success. That’s why one has to be careful with such changes.”

    Mr. Schmidt did not give specific examples, but analysts have suggested that some news aggregators might simply shut down their operations in Germany, rather than pay the fees.

    The proposal, in an announcement of the coalition’s legislative agenda, follows intense lobbying by publishers, after the idea was initially put forward several years ago.

    The plan authorizes ministers to draft a bill, which is expected to go to the Bundestag, the lower house of Parliament, this summer.

    The coalition document says Internet companies, including search engines and news aggregators, would have to pay publishers a fee “for the dissemination of press products (like newspaper articles).” The fees would be gathered and distributed by a collecting society, like those that disseminate royalties to authors and composers. Content would be protected for one year. “In this way, publishers would share in the profits that commercial Internet services have been making with the unpaid use of publishers’ products,” the paper says.

    The proposal addresses a debate that has raged since the early days of the Internet: Who benefits more from digital links and the traffic they generate — search engines, aggregators and other online hubs, or the sites that produce the content?

    Google does not sell advertising on its German news aggregation service, which displays snippets of articles and links to the originating sites. But the company earns billions of euros from advertising on its search engine and other services.

    Most German newspaper publishers, on the other hand, generate only minuscule revenue online from advertising or other sources, like so-called pay walls around their content.

    Mathias Döpfner, chief executive of the largest German newspaper publisher, Axel Springer, said last week, as the company announced financial results, that the measure would have a “negligible” effect initially, but could grow into a “significant” source of revenue over the middle to long term.

    Analysts are skeptical about whether the fees could ever replace the revenue lost from declines in print advertising.

    Details like pricing have yet to be worked out. Publishers say they want a variable-rate system under which the use of full articles would incur a higher fee than the display of a short phrase, like the kind that is typically embedded in search links.

    Opponents of the plan say that granting copyright protection to fragments like “International survey: Merkel leads ranking of European politicians — 40 minutes ago,” as the Google search link to one German news story read Friday, could restrict free speech. It might also be cumbersome, they add, to determine which sites should pay and which ones should benefit from the new protection.

    “Could every blog register with the collecting society that is to be founded?” wrote Thierry Chervel, co-founder of Perlentaucher, a German cultural Web site. “If so, wouldn’t the financial benefit from the ancillary copyright be rather meager for the newspapers?”

    Another question is what to do about journalists, who want a share of any remuneration from the planned fees. Under German copyright law, journalists retain a so-called author’s right, giving them control over uses of their articles after they have been published.

    Publishers say these issues will be cleared up when the legislation is drafted in full. Freedom of speech would be protected, they insist, because certain uses, like journalistic citations from other news articles, would be exempt. The coalition document says private Internet users would not have to pay any fees.

    Germany is not the only place where publishers are seeking new tools in the struggle to extract revenue from aggregators.

    In the United States, a number of publishers, including The New York Times Co., recently joined together to introduce a system called NewsRight, which tracks the unpaid online use of their articles and seeks to turn aggregators into licensed, paying customers.

    The German proposal goes further in taking aim at the use of snippets, not just full articles. If it works, publishers say, it could help swing the balance of power in the digital world in their direction.

    “There is no other developed country that has given publishers this kind of right against aggregators,” said Christoph Keese, president of public affairs at Axel Springer and co-chairman of a copyright committee of German publishers. “This could be a benchmark.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/bu...b-profits.html

  2. #2
    This is hardly something focused in only germany. Google has been facing lawsuits for years with the way they copy images and text with their Google news. They lost a Belgium case and the main reason news.google.com doesn't display advertisements is so Google can hide behind fair use in the US. Google has also caved somewhat and now supports the pay walls some sites use.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 04-23-2012 at 01:23 AM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    So, I was going to post an article about how German patent laws continue to be used as a mallet for non-German conglomerates to smack each other. It's a tricky thing, because patent law problems aren't unique to Germany.
    At least you are honest. If it comes to patient laws and using them on foreign conglomerates, no one beats the USA. But of course they can, their exceptional! But honestly do you really think that it is any better in the field of copyrights?
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  4. #4
    I think there is a case to be made that the German patent system is more open to abuse. At least over in the USandA, it's been a point of discussion among technology writers over the past few months.

    The main argument is Germany has a system of dedicated patent courts, which render quick decisions but are overwhelmingly favorable to patent holders. The courts are also very willing to ban the sale of products that violate patents. So the large tech companies are abusing German courts to block sales of whole lines of electronic products in a major market.

    Granted, this isn't an area that I'm too familiar and interested in. I'm far more interested and knowledgable in the media/copyright/legislative/cultural issues that leads to these kinds of taxes on the Internet.

  5. #5
    Bizarre idea, but probably not unique to Germany. I have vague memories of a few bizarre attempts in the US and elsewhere to bork the net as we know it. Even so, there is definitely something strange going on in Germany.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I think there is a case to be made that the German patent system is more open to abuse. At least over in the USandA, it's been a point of discussion among technology writers over the past few months.
    Oh the discussion in Germany is huge, also about US patents. Heise.de(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heise_Online) frequently gets several pages of discussion about the issue.

    Germany also sees the rise of the Pirate Party which has huge successes in the latest Landtagswahlen. The major topic of the pirate party is to have a more liberal copyright law than the current. At the moment I don't see any law getting into place that tightens copyright. The major parties of the EU already stopped the ratification of the ACTA treaty.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  7. #7
    While the US is on the verge of passing CISPA

    From what I understand, there is a part of Germany that is very friendly to copyright holders, but who's actions usually get reversed in higher courts. Very similiar to the way that US patent trolls love Texas.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  8. #8
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,006
    What exactly is "luddite" about this?
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    Oh the discussion in Germany is huge, also about US patents. Heise.de(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heise_Online) frequently gets several pages of discussion about the issue.

    Germany also sees the rise of the Pirate Party which has huge successes in the latest Landtagswahlen. The major topic of the pirate party is to have a more liberal copyright law than the current. At the moment I don't see any law getting into place that tightens copyright. The major parties of the EU already stopped the ratification of the ACTA treaty.
    Funny, I thought that pro-piracy political movement was mostly confined to French suburbs. Nice to see it's migrated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    What exactly is "luddite" about this?
    I think it's luddite (luddesque?) because it seems to undermine one of the foundational structures of the Web: hyperlinking. While of course the German ministers aren't proposing to actually ban the technology behind hyperlinks, they are proposing a regulatory scheme behind hyperlinking that I find abnormal and absurd. The Belgians dabbled in this five years ago, but I thought it was so obviously ludicrous that people weren't going to try this in a neighboring country.

  10. #10
    The article says the law is proposing to charge people for using snippets of articles on their news aggregation services, not for linking.
    Why do we build the wall, my children, my children? We build the wall to keep us free.
    How does the wall keep us free, my children, my children? The wall keeps out the enemy. And we build the wall to keep us free.
    Who do we call the enemy, my children, my children? The enemy is poverty. And the wall keeps out the enemy. And we build the wall to keep us free.
    That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. Because we have and they have not, my children, my my children. Because they want what we have got.
    What do we have that they should want, my children, my children? We have a wall to work upon. We have work and they have none. And our work is never done. And the war is never won.
    The enemy is poverty, the wall keeps out the enemy, and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall, we build the wall to keep us free.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Funny, I thought that pro-piracy political movement was mostly confined to French suburbs. Nice to see it's migrated.
    I think you might be confusing French with Sweden? That's where it's from anyway. Most European countries have them by now I think.

    Heh, just looked it up, there's also a few in the USA.

    I think it's luddite (luddesque?) because it seems to undermine one of the foundational structures of the Web: hyperlinking. While of course the German ministers aren't proposing to actually ban the technology behind hyperlinks, they are proposing a regulatory scheme behind hyperlinking that I find abnormal and absurd. The Belgians dabbled in this five years ago, but I thought it was so obviously ludicrous that people weren't going to try this in a neighboring country.
    As I understand it, the point is against showing articles, or parts thereof. Which is actually denying them traffic (and revenue) that you said they are providing in your first post (and generating traffic for the search engines or aggregate sites). And for 'luddite' anti-copyright-infringement stuff that goes against the very idea of the internet you don't have to leave your own country (SOPA anyone? Before you ask, I did check out what was in that bill before jumping on the anti-SOPA bandwagon). That said, I think the law is a bad idea, mostly because it seems rather arbitrary at what are newspapers and what aren't.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  12. #12
    Kopimism is also in the process of gaining federal recognition as a religion in the US
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  13. #13
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I think it's luddite (luddesque?) because it seems to undermine one of the foundational structures of the Web: hyperlinking. While of course the German ministers aren't proposing to actually ban the technology behind hyperlinks, they are proposing a regulatory scheme behind hyperlinking that I find abnormal and absurd. The Belgians dabbled in this five years ago, but I thought it was so obviously ludicrous that people weren't going to try this in a neighboring country.
    You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it actually means.

    Next up: We go on to prove how the various levels of lobbyism in Washington prove that the US is a deeply luddite country.

    Luddism is a movement against technology which is perceived as evil.
    This particular movement is not against the technology per se, but rather about protecting profits.

    By your logic, any and all kinds of lobbying for protection against some new movement or other is luddite. Which then makes your country the king of the luddites.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Funny, I thought that pro-piracy political movement was mostly confined to French suburbs. Nice to see it's migrated.
    Honestly, where do you draw the connections to the French suburbs from?
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  15. #15
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,006
    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    Honestly, where do you draw the connections to the French suburbs from?
    It's probably easy to mistake geeks, liberals (in the true meaning of the word) and technophiles for downtrodden migrant slum inhabitants.

    If you're blind, deaf and dumb, that is.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  16. #16
    I don't think blind, deaf and dumb is sufficient to draw that connection, you would need a enhanced* imagination to do so.

    * Naturally or by substances don't really matter in that case.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Luddism is a movement against technology which is perceived as evil.
    This particular movement is not against the technology per se, but rather about protecting profits
    Actually, you have that almost exactly wrong. The original Luddites smashed up factory machines because they were putting them out of work, so Dread's use of the term here is in fact dead on.
    Why do we build the wall, my children, my children? We build the wall to keep us free.
    How does the wall keep us free, my children, my children? The wall keeps out the enemy. And we build the wall to keep us free.
    Who do we call the enemy, my children, my children? The enemy is poverty. And the wall keeps out the enemy. And we build the wall to keep us free.
    That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. Because we have and they have not, my children, my my children. Because they want what we have got.
    What do we have that they should want, my children, my children? We have a wall to work upon. We have work and they have none. And our work is never done. And the war is never won.
    The enemy is poverty, the wall keeps out the enemy, and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall, we build the wall to keep us free.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    The article says the law is proposing to charge people for using snippets of articles on their news aggregation services, not for linking.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    I think you might be confusing French with Sweden? That's where it's from anyway. Most European countries have them by now I think.

    Heh, just looked it up, there's also a few in the USA.


    As I understand it, the point is against showing articles, or parts thereof. Which is actually denying them traffic (and revenue) that you said they are providing in your first post (and generating traffic for the search engines or aggregate sites). And for 'luddite' anti-copyright-infringement stuff that goes against the very idea of the internet you don't have to leave your own country (SOPA anyone? Before you ask, I did check out what was in that bill before jumping on the anti-SOPA bandwagon). That said, I think the law is a bad idea, mostly because it seems rather arbitrary at what are newspapers and what aren't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it actually means.

    Next up: We go on to prove how the various levels of lobbyism in Washington prove that the US is a deeply luddite country.

    Luddism is a movement against technology which is perceived as evil.
    This particular movement is not against the technology per se, but rather about protecting profits.

    By your logic, any and all kinds of lobbying for protection against some new movement or other is luddite. Which then makes your country the king of the luddites.
    Indeed, I think this is about more than news aggregators. The definition of "news aggregator" that's apparently being used is indistinguishable from a search engine. And the criteria basically puts a red flag around *any* type of hyperlinking.

    Sites like Bing News and Google News post a prominent link to a news story and a small snippet (usually less than two dozen words). It's an invitation to go to the news source, not a replacement. And these links send literally millions of visits per year to the news sources. And they do it for free.

    EG here's a great list of stories on Bing News about Heart Attack Grill: http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Heart+Attack+Grill

    The links are indistinguishable from any other search engine results, except they are filtered to only include news sources. If the news sites can get Bing or Google to pay them to give them free traffic, why can't anyone get money from Google and Bing for appearing in their index? This reeks of rent-seeking, and it's an attack on the basic principles of hyperlinking. The news organizations are acting like luddites and trying to destroy the technology they mistakenly believe is putting them out of work.

    Put another way...

    Newspaper websites can reduce their traffic by 32.08% by simply asking Google to stop sending them traffic.

    Written By Shafqat

    In what can only be seen as great news amongst all the doom and gloom for newspapers recently, it seems like newspapers are having the opposite problem to the one we expected: they are getting way too much traffic. So much traffic in fact, that many newspapers are calling out and asking for help from search engines and news aggregators. Organizations such as News Corp and the Associated Press are asking for search engines to stop indexing their content so as not to send them any more free traffic. The ones that are especially inundated by traffic (i.e WSJ) are also asking news aggregators to stop linking to them and imploring them to reduce the traffic sent. By not linking, newspapers can also ensure that their Google PageRanks don’t get any higher since the consequences are severe: even more traffic than they can handle.

    In a surprising move, even the Guardian Media Group, an organization that normally enjoys and appreciates incoming traffic is asking for the government to review the role of news aggregators like Google News.

    I thought I’d take a few minutes to guage the severity of the “traffic abundance” problem and see how Google and other news aggregators can come to the newspaper’s rescue. With some help from Robin Goad at the Hitwise Blog, I was able to get some statistics to shed some more light here. Although this data is based on UK data, I’m fairly sure it is representative of the wider world as well (in either case, let’s assume some margin of error).

    According to the statistics, newspaper websites can reduce their traffic by 32.08% by simply asking Google to stop sending them traffic. If they ask Facebook and Yahoo to stop linking, they can reduce by a further 4.69%. If they really want to reduce traffic even further, they can shut down all news aggregators and that should comfortably reduce their traffic by around 40%. That will leave them with 60% of the current traffic, which I imagine should satisfy their current needs.

    Jeff Jarvis, who knows a thing or two about the news business says “Google is far and away the most productive means of sending audience to news sites.” (OK, so he said that two years ago, but he’s ahead of the pack). As such, it is no surprise that newspapers are turning to Google immediately to help solve their current traffic overload problems.

    Finally, Jay Rosen also has a great post about this exact same issue, also from two years ago. It seems like these traffic spurts come in cycles, and we’re in the middle of a veritable plague of traffic and readers. The only way to escape this plague is to shut down the aggregators, turn off Google, turn away atleast 40% of your readers and wait for it to pass.

    http://blog.newscred.com/?p=182

  19. #19
    I can't be the only one who skims aggregators. Thats a major reason they exist. You get a preview of what you want to read and don't read what you're not interested in. I'll go for several periods of a time skimming headlines to get the gist and trends but not actually click on anything.

    These sites don't like that because thats advertising on their site they are losing since the skimming is being done elsewhere.

    Are they valid concerns? Taken out of context like what is happening here, are they encouraging a healthy business model? I don't so. But I'm also not foolish enough to think these sites are that stupid; they don't want delisted, and if that is going to happen, I'm betting they want want an all or nothing approach. These news sites are working towards a business model of having people go directly for them for news, and searching through them for the news. They don't like competition, be it with aggregators, or against each other because of the aggregators. Especially on trending topics. There is a valid comparrison in here to how the media giants treat redbox and netflix.

    You are presenting this in to narrow a view IMO, Dread.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  20. #20
    Dread are you going to answer my question?
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Indeed, I think this is about more than news aggregators. The definition of "news aggregator" that's apparently being used is indistinguishable from a search engine. And the criteria basically puts a red flag around *any* type of hyperlinking.
    That's according to the bills opponents, though, not necessarily what's in the actual bill. It would be very easy to legislate to exclude the items title from this law.

    That said, I think you're basically right here. A few pieces of information.

    a) It is the easiest thing in the world to control whether or not you appear on Google et al. Just make a file on your sever called robots.txt and write 'noindex, nofollow' in it. Bang, you vanish from google and everyone else. You can do this for individual pages, so search engines can index your category pages but not specific articles if you want.
    b) You can control exactly what appears in the snippets used by search engines by setting a meta description tag. Google's news aggregation service seems to honour this as well. If news organisations were actually concerned about their copyrighted news articles appearing on Google snippets, they can just put something else in the meta description and that will get used instead.
    c) If you look at the HTML on any given news article, you'll see they already do this. Not only do they use the meta description tag, but also use facebook's open graph meta tags. So their pages are already optimised to appear on search engines or be shared on facebook. So they can't be that butthurt over it.

    So, yeah.
    Why do we build the wall, my children, my children? We build the wall to keep us free.
    How does the wall keep us free, my children, my children? The wall keeps out the enemy. And we build the wall to keep us free.
    Who do we call the enemy, my children, my children? The enemy is poverty. And the wall keeps out the enemy. And we build the wall to keep us free.
    That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. Because we have and they have not, my children, my my children. Because they want what we have got.
    What do we have that they should want, my children, my children? We have a wall to work upon. We have work and they have none. And our work is never done. And the war is never won.
    The enemy is poverty, the wall keeps out the enemy, and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall, we build the wall to keep us free.

  22. #22
    Before this hits page two, I'd like to point out that the title of this thread is heaped with biases that aren't necessarily connected.

    German government doesn't mean all governments. The subtle suggestion is that Germany deserves more criticism than any other nation. That's preposterous.

    "Neo-Luddism" sounds like something thrown into the soup, just to make anyone who expects modern legislation that considers modern times, and designing era-appropriate legislation and applications.....as backward-thinking, anti-technology, anti-modern rubes.


  23. #23
    I think they deserve more criticism than other governments because this is the first (and, as far as I know, only) governing coalition to propose this. Coupled with a number of other Web/content policies plus their status as a battleground for electronics manufacturers to sue each other, I think they are truly unique at this time.

  24. #24
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I think they deserve more criticism than other governments because this is the first (and, as far as I know, only) governing coalition to propose this. Coupled with a number of other Web/content policies plus their status as a battleground for electronics manufacturers to sue each other, I think they are truly unique at this time.
    IIRC SOPA was worse, especially with regards to the 'antithetical to the whole point of the Web'.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I think they deserve more criticism than other governments because this is the first (and, as far as I know, only) governing coalition to propose this. Coupled with a number of other Web/content policies plus their status as a battleground for electronics manufacturers to sue each other, I think they are truly unique at this time.
    You yourself admitted the Belgium case that google has already lost, so Germany is hardly the first country to have these types of laws, and Texas is notorious for patent trolls, usually funded by big name electronics manufacturers, and how they love to sue everyone.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  26. #26
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,033
    Not to agree with OG even more, but why does Dread have this uncut hardon to poke at Germany (aside to irritate Khen?)
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  27. #27
    Because we always blame it on ze Germans, it's so much fun.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  28. #28
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,033
    When did Germany become the new France?

    Oh well.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  29. #29
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Not to agree with OG even more, but why does Dread have this uncut hardon to poke at Germany (aside to irritate Khen?)
    I have already given my opinion on Dread. This is just more evidence.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  30. #30
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,033
    Well, no one cares about your opinion on Dread, as you are easy to irritate.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •