Cease & Desist from Twitter

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Twitlonger

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 6:32:31 PM8/13/09
to Twitter Development Talk
I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing
Twitter claiming that my website www.twitlonger.com was infringing on
their trade mark and was inherently likely to confuse users. The
version of the website they were objecting to didn't have a similar
font but did use the same birds as the old version of the site (fair
enough to be asked to remove them).

The timing coincided with a redesign of the site anyway which went
live this week. I emailed them back pointing this out and then ended
up on the phone with them with the claim being that the site as it
stands now could still be seen as "potentially confusing". I want to
know how different they expect a site to be (especially when it
doesn't even include the full word "twitter" in the name. Compare this
to Twitpic, Twitvid etc who are using the same contraction AND the
same typeface.

This feels so much like a legal department doing stuff that is
completely contrary to the Twitter team who have been so supportive of
the third party community. Of course, all these applications have been
granted access to be listed in the posted from field in the tweets,
been granted special access to the API via whitelisting which requires
the application to be named and described and, in many cases, been
registered with OAuth, again requiring the name and description of the
app.

Has anyone else received similar letters where they have no problem
with the service but can't seem to tell the difference between two
sites if blue is present in each?

:(

Letter copied below.
---
TWITTER - Trade Mark and Website Presentation Issues
We act for Twitter, Inc. in relation to intellectual property issues
in the UK.
Twitter has asked us to contact you about your ww.twitlonger.comwebsite
(the..Website..).Twitter
has no objection to the service which you are offering on the Website.
However, Twitter does need
you to make certain changes to the Website. We have set out the
reasons below.
Your Website
Twitter owns a number of registrations for its TWITTER trade mark,
including Community trade mark
registration number 6392997. Your use of a name for the Website which
is based on the TWITTER
trade mark is inherently likely to confuse users of the ww.twitter.com
website into thinking that the
Website is owned or operated by Twitter, when this is not the case.
You are using a font on your Website which is very similar to that
used by Twitter for its TWITTER
logo. You have no doubt chosen to use this font for this very reason.
You are also using a blue
background and representations of blue birds. These blue birds are
identical to those which Twitter
has previously used on the www.twitter.com website. The combination of
these factors and the name
of your Website inevitably increase the likelihood of confusion.
We therefore ask you to confirm that you will, within seven days of
giving the confirmation:
1. incorporate a prominent non-affiliation disclaimer on all pages of
the Website;
2. permanently stop any use on the Website of a font which is
identical or similar to the font used by
Twitter for its TWITTER logo; and
3. permanently stop any use on the Website of (i) representations of
blue birds which are identical or
similar to the blue bird design previously or currently used by
Twitter on the www.twitter.com
website; and (ii) a blue background.

Dean Collins

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 6:41:55 PM8/13/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
Hey Stuart,

I'm glad someone else posted they were being pursued by Twitters Legal representatives apart from myself.

(I'm still waiting for answers to my questions so nothing new to report here).

Do you feel that their real beef is using the word "Twit" in your URL?

I put a counter proposal to Twitters legal representative to rename my application www.MyTweetButler.com which as per Biz Stone's blog post of July 1st he indicated he was very happy with 3rd party developers to use the word "Tweet"
http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html#links

There have also been discussions online that although Twitter inc have applied for a trademark for Tweet (not granted yet) that the term was actually coined by an end user so Twitter would actually have a lot of problems if they decided to pursue people with the word Tweet in their name.

Do you think that this will satisfy them?


Regards,
Dean Collins
de...@MyTwitterButler.com
+1-212-203-4357   New York
+61-2-9016-5642   (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).

Neil Ellis

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 7:28:51 PM8/13/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
Man that's sad, your website is unmistakable and there is no doubt
you are not Twitter. It sounds like it was potentially confusing before.

Hmmm... outsourcing trademark checking seems to have pitfalls
(i.e. eating into company goodwill).

It makes you really stop and think about building a business
around someone's API doesn't it - that's what we're doing right now,
but it encourages me to diversify pretty darn fast. I suppose it was
naive of me not to consider just how much you can be beholden to the
API owner in the first place.

It doesn't put me off working with Twitter, but it does make me want
to get some more baskets for these eggs :-)

Thanks for letting us know your situation and good luck.

All the best
Neil

Dale Merritt

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 7:35:09 PM8/13/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
Dean, please let us know how it comes out with your rename suggestion of MyTweetButler.com
That would set a real precedent for Tweet.  I would be sort of surprised if they would commit that to you, but that would be very helpful..  Good luck..dm

--
Dale Merritt
Fol.la MeDia, LLC

Dale Merritt

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 7:39:40 PM8/13/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
You saw this right? 
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Dean Collins <De...@cognation.net> wrote:

Goblin

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 7:44:34 PM8/13/09
to Twitter Development Talk
To be fair, the new version mostly seemed to please the guy I was on
the phone with, but I got the impression he was shooting from the hip
when he said that I would probably need to change the blue in the
logo.

It just seems weird that we spend two or three years building sites
with the twit/tweet theme running so it is clear they are add-ons to
Twitter and *then* the lawyers decide to get antsy. I know Twitter is
in the position that if they don't act to protect their trademarks
they can lose them, but it would be nice if we were told a few months
back "Look guys, we're going to need to start enforcing trademark
stuff. It might be a hassle for you so we're giving you a heads up".

It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the "twit*/
twitter*" apps were to use "tweet" instead, would that sort the issue
out. I have www.tweetlonger.com (and @tweetlonger) so it would be
reasonably trivial to migrate over to the new domain if that would
sort things out.

The before page wasn't really potentially confusing, especially since
I designed it, resulting in it looking like a 4 year old had been let
loose with MS Paint, but you'd have to be pretty confused to think the
new one and the Twitter homepage are the same people.

On Aug 14, 12:28 am, Neil Ellis <neilellis1...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Man that's sad, your website is unmistakable and there is no doubt
> you are not Twitter. It sounds like it was potentially confusing before.
>
> Hmmm...  outsourcing trademark checking seems to have pitfalls
> (i.e. eating into company goodwill).
>
> It makes you really stop and think about building a business
> around someone's  API doesn't it - that's what we're doing right now,
> but it encourages me to diversify pretty darn fast. I suppose it was
> naive of me not to consider just how much you can be beholden to the
> API owner in the first place.
>
> It doesn't put me off working with Twitter, but it does make me want
> to get some more baskets for these eggs :-)
>
> Thanks for letting us know your situation and good luck.
>
> All the best
> Neil
>
> On 13 Aug 2009, at 23:32, Twitlonger wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing
> > Twitter claiming that my websitewww.twitlonger.comwas infringing on
> > has previously used on thewww.twitter.comwebsite. The combination of

Terry Jones

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 7:50:03 PM8/13/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
> To be fair, the new version mostly seemed to please the guy I was on the
> phone with, but I got the impression he was shooting from the hip when he
> said that I would probably need to change the blue in the logo.

Law firms bill by the hour.

David Fisher

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 7:55:48 PM8/13/09
to Twitter Development Talk
I am wondering if this is a case of their legal department getting a
bit heavyhanded and running loose.

What they asked of you seemed fairly reasonable however, and the name
of your application doesn't seem to be the issue.

I'm glad you didn't think you were being sued :)

It seems that Twitter should develop better UI guidelines for
applications using their API, since it seems that there are many
potential trademark concerns that their legal department is now
bringing up. Happens with every big company at some point I guess- and
Twitter is now getting 'big' and probably is just around the corner
from hiring their first full time attorney or something at this rate.

Hope it resolves well. Sounds like you're handling it well.

-dave

Neil Ellis

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 7:56:02 PM8/13/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
Sorry everyone if this seems off topic, but understanding the legals
of the
API are as (actually more) important to me as understanding the tech.

On 14 Aug 2009, at 00:44, Goblin wrote:

>
> To be fair, the new version mostly seemed to please the guy I was on
> the phone with, but I got the impression he was shooting from the hip
> when he said that I would probably need to change the blue in the
> logo.
>

I get the picture :-) and that seems to be the price of outsourcing the
legals - i.e. the people enforcing in it have no personal stake in the
community and relations. As you say later, clarification would be good.


> It just seems weird that we spend two or three years building sites
> with the twit/tweet theme running so it is clear they are add-ons to
> Twitter and *then* the lawyers decide to get antsy. I know Twitter is
> in the position that if they don't act to protect their trademarks
> they can lose them, but it would be nice if we were told a few months
> back "Look guys, we're going to need to start enforcing trademark
> stuff. It might be a hassle for you so we're giving you a heads up".

Yeah this really needs to get sorted out 'between' friends, legals stir
up so much stuff and make people feel quite upset. Better to have a
friendly - hey we're concerned about your site - from the Twitter team
(even if it is a standard letter) first rather than lawyers first.

>
> It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the "twit*/
> twitter*" apps were to use "tweet" instead, would that sort the issue
> out. I have www.tweetlonger.com (and @tweetlonger) so it would be
> reasonably trivial to migrate over to the new domain if that would
> sort things out.

I suspect after the last huge thread some clarification will wind it's
way
down in the near future. It would seem to be wise, it's like finding out
your best friend's sweet little 8 year old carries an Uzi in her lunch
pack
when a site as community friendly as Twitter starts launching C&Ds.

>
> The before page wasn't really potentially confusing, especially since
> I designed it, resulting in it looking like a 4 year old had been let
> loose with MS Paint,

:-) I'm at that stage right now :-) Glad you got past it. Site looks
very
clean now.


> but you'd have to be pretty confused to think the
> new one and the Twitter homepage are the same people.

Agreed!

Dewald Pretorius

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 7:59:40 PM8/13/09
to Twitter Development Talk
On Aug 13, 8:44 pm, Goblin <stu...@abovetheinternet.org> wrote:
> It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the "twit*/
> twitter*" apps were to use "tweet" instead, would that sort the issue
> out.

Doesn't this blog post [1] from the "big horse's mouth" already settle
that question?

[1] http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html

It is also interesting that Biz wrote favorable blog posts about
TwitterCounter [2] and Twitterific [3]. Wonder how that will impact
anything, if at all.

[2] http://blog.twitter.com/2008/07/follower-stats-by-twittercounter.html
[3] http://blog.twitter.com/2008/06/congratulations-twitterrific.html

Dewald

Neil Ellis

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 8:04:36 PM8/13/09
to Neil Ellis, twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
Although I have to admit the actual wording from the lawyers is much
more polite than you often see :-) and the demands not unreasonable.

Goblin

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 8:08:06 PM8/13/09
to Twitter Development Talk
I think the blog post actually makes things more confusing:

"Regarding the use of the word Twitter in projects, we are a bit more
wary although there are some exceptions here as well."

So, what are these exceptions? Does it come down to the projects @ev
and @biz particularly like? What if it's twit*** which obviously isn't
using their trademark but uses the same base (heck, by that logic
@leolaporte should be on my case)?

It would seem odd that mine is the only site to have received a
letter. If the primary concern was the twitter bird then why is the
new version an issue? When I was on the phone I think he said he was
waiting to hear back from California, so there is more than a passing
chance that it was personal opinion of a guy in London instead of
Twitter's own people.

As has been said, some proper clarification and a bit more
transparency with the community would go a really long way here
(although are Twitter now at the stage they can't comment on legal
matters until the lawyers check things over?)

JDG

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 8:09:37 PM8/13/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
That's true. They're not asking you to drop the domain name or anything like that. I've seen MUCH nastier C & D letters issued. That one indicates to me that they actually do appreciate your service, but simply are trying to defend their brand.
--
Internets. Serious business.

Neil Ellis

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 8:14:05 PM8/13/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
To be fair Goblin, reading the letter they only ask you to make
clear you're not affiliated. Not change the domain.

However, point taken it's confusing.

Take Twitterific's page: http://iconfactory.com/software/twitterrific

That bird looks familiar and the blue and there is no disclaimer.

I keep wanting apply everyday logic, but in the legal world it just
seems to go out of the window :-)

Now I really must do some coding :-)

JDG

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 8:11:08 PM8/13/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
Why do they have to spell it out? It's a trademarked name, and they don't have to give any exceptions if they don't want to. If you want to use it, ask permission. They *can* grant it.
--
Internets. Serious business.

Goblin

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 8:19:25 PM8/13/09
to Twitter Development Talk
Yeah, I think it's a pretty easy going C&D, but I don't really want to
keep making tiny changes and have a lawyer hhmm and ahh to decide if
it's not "potentially confusing".

If Twitter came out and said they were going to have to ask everyone
to stop using twit in application names and move to tweet then at
least we'd know where we stand. It's the ambiguity over it all, not to
mention the dozens of websites in a similar position to mine that have
a look and feel way closer to Twitter (past or present). www.twitterholic.com
is my favourite: "Styles ripped directly, and we mean directly, from
Twitter.com."

At this rate, the only app not needing to change it's name will be
Seesmic :)

Zac Bowling

unread,
Aug 13, 2009, 10:16:19 PM8/13/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
Wow. Twitters legal team thinks twitter owns blue backgrounds. Hehe.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Twitlonger <stu...@abovetheinternet.org>
wrote:

Goblin

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 7:16:07 AM8/14/09
to Twitter Development Talk
LOL, problems are now all sorted, lawyers happy it isn't confusing
anymore.

Turns out that he thought there was a big grey box in it, similar to
the new Twitter front page, but only because he was using IE6 and I
don't bother applying any transparent png fixes :)

On Aug 14, 3:16 am, Zac Bowling <zbowl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow. Twitters legal team thinks twitter owns blue backgrounds. Hehe.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Twitlonger <stu...@abovetheinternet.org>  
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing
> > Twitter claiming that my websitewww.twitlonger.comwas infringing on
> > has previously used on thewww.twitter.comwebsite. The combination of

Andrew Badera

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 7:18:01 AM8/14/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Goblin<stu...@abovetheinternet.org> wrote:
>
> LOL, problems are now all sorted, lawyers happy it isn't confusing
> anymore.

friggin IE6. Had to GIF some PNGs recently myself.

∞ Andy Badera
∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private
∞ Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=(andrew+badera)+OR+(andy+badera)

Goblin

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 9:20:03 AM8/14/09
to Twitter Development Talk
Yep.

I'm at the stage now for personal projects (and clients if they are
cool with it) that I'm just not worrying anymore about IE6.

Twitlonger runs about 3% IE6 so it's just not worth degrading the
experience for the people with decent browsers to make exceptions for
those living in the past.

Out of curiousity, have you tried the Unit PNG fix to deal with IE6?
Interested to know if you did and it didn't work out for you.

Andrew Badera

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 9:24:09 AM8/14/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Goblin<stu...@abovetheinternet.org> wrote:
> Out of curiousity, have you tried the Unit PNG fix to deal with IE6?
> Interested to know if you did and it didn't work out for you.

I was unfamiliar with it, I'll have to check it out, thanks.

Message has been deleted

Goblin

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 10:39:16 AM8/14/09
to Twitter Development Talk
I would assume the logo download is for use in press articles.

On Aug 14, 3:31 pm, Vision Jinx <vjn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for this post! I am wondering when Twitter trademarked "Twit",
> Blue and Birds?
>
> Maybe Twitter should be considered an offensive word when making apps
> and use Twi***r instead? Makes me really question making apps using
> this service. :(
>
> Additionally, I also don't get the dual stance on things, why it's OK
> for some and not others?
>
> Maybe people/companies who are using "Tweet" in their apps prior to
> Twi***rs claim to the name should challenge it and do the same back?
> (If they want to keep the name) If Twi***r trademarks it then then
> encourage ppl to use it anyways, then why bother trademarking it in
> the first place, unless they plan on being selective or whatever (or
> being able to change their mind later or charge licensing fees for its
> use). Just a thought.
>
> The other thing that comes to mind is from what I am able to gather
> (maybe I'm wrong here) Twi***r is a privately funded company (http://
> twitter.com/about#about) and does not have the ad revenue or a hefty/
> unlimited source of income ("we spend more money than we make.") like
> say Google does so if people challenge these law suites and go the
> distance how long is Twit***s funders going to want to donate their $$
> $ to pay for these legal battles? If I was investing in the company I
> would want my dollars going somewhere productive not to launch legal
> battles with half the internet.
>
> Also (last thought here), why do they allow people to download and use
> their logo then? What am I missing here? >> "Download our logo"http://twitter.com/about#download_logo
>
> I'm just confused by most this :(
>
> Thank you for your time dev community! :)
>
> On Aug 13, 4:32 pm, Twitlonger <stu...@abovetheinternet.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing
> > Twitter claiming that my websitewww.twitlonger.comwasinfringing on
> > has previously used on thewww.twitter.comwebsite. The combination of

Dean Collins

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 10:46:14 AM8/14/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com

Not when point 5 of the API TOS is the request you use one of the twitter logos.....

 

 

  1. Please give us a nod in your app, perhaps by including one of these stylish "Powered by Twitter" badges:

Powered-by-twitter-sig Powered-by-twitter-badge

 

 

I somehow get the feeling the legal department haven’t read the wiki.

Regards,

Dean Collins
de...@MyTwitterButler.com

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com [mailto:twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Goblin
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 10:39 AM
To: Twitter Development Talk

image001.gif
image002.gif

Neil Ellis

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 10:47:34 AM8/14/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
Hi

It's actually the investors who would be likely to be concerned about
brand and IP issues. I don't blame them for avoiding brand dilution -
it's dangerous for a near commodity service to have their brand
diluted. However the non-deterministic nature of their attempts
to secure their brand are likely to make 3rd parties uneasy. Again
though this is business, and the lesson we should take away is to
not fly too close to the flame :-) That is don't bet your business on a
resource that someone else controls, stay flexible and (if possible)
diverse. I'm sure that's a reasonable lesson in business full stop.

Bottom line, it's their party and we're an invited guest. Parties need
guests, but the hosts till run the show :) Personally I'm enjoying the
party so far ;) Twitter has an amazingly vibrant third party community.

Just be nice to not have lawyers making the first move as that tends
to ruffle feathers somewhat (bad pun) ;-)

ATB
Neil

>> I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing

>> Twitter claiming that my websitewww.twitlonger.comwas infringing on

>> has previously used on thewww.twitter.comwebsite. The combination of

David Fisher

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 11:42:07 AM8/14/09
to Twitter Development Talk
How are some of you failing to see the difference between "Powered by
Twitter" being something they want you to do and "http://
TwitterApplication.com" is something they don't want you to do?

Why don't they want the latter? Because someone with the email of
"adultsex...@googlemail.com" registered the domain. Not exactly
the type of company that Twitter wants to associate itself with. Yet,
for applications and sites that DO comply with the ToS, they want an
attribution and link back to their site. Aren't some of you self
proclaimed SEO/Marketing experts? Everyone wants links back to their
site, including Twitter.

Making a logo downloadable doesn't mean either that they want you to
use it, or their font on your website when doing your own branding.

Some people here are confused

dave

Duane Roelands

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 1:14:16 PM8/14/09
to Twitter Development Talk
Lots of folks don't understand trademark law.
Other folks are mad because they've been asked to stop selling spam-o-
trons.

I can't fault Twitter for their behavior in this matter.

On Aug 14, 11:42 am, David Fisher <tib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How are some of you failing to see the difference between "Powered by
> Twitter" being something they want you to do and "http://
> TwitterApplication.com" is something they don't want you to do?
>
> Why don't they want the latter? Because someone with the email of
> "adultsexdatin...@googlemail.com" registered the domain. Not exactly

Goblin

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 2:08:27 PM8/14/09
to Twitter Development Talk
Nice little footnote to the story, got this email from Jillian at
Twitter which has made me feel all warm and fuzzy:

Hey Stuart,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention and for reaching out. Our
Platform team should be communicating our goals (in relation to C&Ds,
and why they're sent) to the Developer community soon, but I just
wanted to thank you for making those changes to your site and let you
know that our intentions were never to be pushy. Things sometimes get
lost in translation, and while we wanted to make sure your site was
understood as a third party app and not a subset of Twitter, we do
understand that your application is great and thank you for your
support.

Kindest Regards
Jillian (I deal with our TM protection here)

Neil Ellis

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 3:01:56 PM8/14/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
And the love returns .....

The PR value of a few nice words :-)

Ty

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 10:56:44 AM8/14/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
I have used sites with part of twiiter name in it and do not get confused. If you think the bird is just like twtter's bird than maybe change that but i wouldn't go through changing your name unless you feel you would benefit by changing it. But I'm against big, wealthy corps using big lawyers to scare people. Twitlonger sounds nothing like twitter to me. Twitter's name is big enough I doubt people will get confused. If they did, stuff happens. Are you in the same business as Twitter? I don't think 'similar' birds is a valid cause for you to cease and desist.

I was married to a lawyer and sometimes they are bullies lol Don't be worried because they are lawyers. They are wrong plenty of times. 

TyAnne

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Twitlonger <stu...@abovetheinternet.org> wrote:

I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing
Twitter claiming that my website www.twitlonger.com was infringing on
has previously used on the www.twitter.com website. The combination of

Dossy Shiobara

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 5:15:53 PM8/14/09
to twitter-deve...@googlegroups.com
On 8/14/09 10:56 AM, Ty wrote:
> I have used sites with part of twiiter name in it and do not get
> confused.

IANAL, but ... in the "likelihood of confusion" test, I don't think the
standard includes us. By the virtue of the fact that we are in this
developer group already separates us from the average person. If any
Twitter developer ever mistakes a third-party app. being a part of
Twitter itself, just stick your head in the oven and breathe deep until
you go to sleep.

Think of your average person who's only joined Twitter because they
heard about it on Oprah and want to follow Ellen Degeneres. They still
haven't figured out what "retweeting" is. Now, they see a third-party
app. developers site: is it likely they might be confused? Of course!
They're a shade smarter than garden mulch and the words "ketchup" and
"catsup" confuses them. They believe that pro-wrestling on TV is
*real*. And guess what: they constitute probably upwards of 80% of the
world's population.

Lowest common denominator. Welcome to humanity!

--
Dossy Shiobara | do...@panoptic.com | http://dossy.org/
Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/
"He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages