Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Lawyer Puts $10k Bounty on Blogger's Identity

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Jan 28, 2008 06:11 PM
from the turn-yourself-in-for-ten-grand dept.
The Internet Privacy
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Raymond Niro of Niro Scavone Haller & Niro is fighting back against criticism from the Patent Troll Tracker blog by offering a $10,000 bounty for the identity of the person behind it. He thinks the blogger might work for Microsoft, Intel, or has connections to a 'serial infringer' and that could 'color' what they say."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Lawyer Puts $10k Bounty on Blogger's Identity by Anonymous Coward
[+] Cisco Lawyer Outs Self As "Patent Troll Tracker" 62 comments
DustyShadow writes "Slashdot previously discussed the $10,000 bounty (since raised to $15,000) that was put on the identity of the Patent Troll Tracker author by a law firm that represents patent holding 'shell' companies. After he received a threatening email last week, the author identified himself as Richard Frenkel, a director in Cisco Systems' intellectual property group. According to law.com, many patent litigators have followed the Troll Tracker closely and are worried that it may now be discontinued. According to the lawyer who offered the bounty, it has not been claimed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Lawyer Puts $10k Bounty on Blogger's Identity 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • This reminds me of the time Richard Stallman offered a half eaten french fry and all the change he could find in all the couches of MIT's student commons area for the identity of an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot that called him a "tree hugging bearded hippie."
    • It was half eaten? Stallman said it came that way :(
    • I'll give a half eaten tortas and a bag of doritos if someone posts the lawyers home address and phone number. I'll through in some guacamole dip if you can get his cell phone number.

      El tortas no es una mentira!

      • Re:Oota Goota, Troll Tracker? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 28 2008, @10:10PM (#22217252)
        Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, Ltd.
        Business address: Suite 4600, 181 West Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602-4515
        Phone: (312) 236-0733
        Fax: (312) 236-3137

        Unfortunately, he has the same name as the firm's president and senior partner (Raymond P. Niro, Sr.), so it's hard to separate out their records.
        They appear to have homes in Barrington, IL, Arlington Heights, IL, Chicago, IL and Snowmass Village, CO (perhaps they like to ski).
        For some reason, even though the law firm is in Chicago, the president's address in its corporate filing shows his home as 2401 Spanish River Road, Boca Raton, FL 33432, phone (561) 362-7371.
        Another address seems to be 1005 N Arlington Heights Rd, Arlington Heights, IL 60004-5669, phone (847) 749-1208.

        Their addresses within Chicago are likely to be:
        Raymond P. Niro, Sr. - 181 W Madison St, Ste 4600, Chicago, IL 60602-4635, phone (312) 236-0733
        Raymond P. Niro, Jr. - 25 E Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60604-2201, phone (312) 362-8701

        Oh, and just in case Raymond P. Niro, Sr., his wife Judith, or Raymond P. Niro, Jr., are reading this - all this information is publically available, so don't even think of suing.

  • So long as said blogger is truthful.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by KublaiKhan (522918) on Monday January 28 2008, @06:15PM (#22214900) Homepage Journal
    Truth is a defense for libel. So long as the blogger in question has not made any actual false statements, and has couched all opinions as such, rather than as facts--then he should STFU and GBTW.

    But then, if he's a patent troll, he's rather defined as "not being able to STFU and do something useful," now, is he?

    • Truth is a defense for libel.
      Yeah, but what about 'truthiness'? If Niro, Jabba, Hutt & Niro hope to pursue litigation, how do they deal with someone who has a gut feeling that what they are doing is generally wrong?

      After reading his blog [blogspot.com] it's evident that this bounty is the only thing this lawyer can do. This blogger is good with what he writes and knows his limits. They won't be able to force blogspot into divulging that info without a warrant in my opinion though I am not a lawyer, I still have a soul.

      Have they tried asking Mr. Troll Tracker nicely? He lists his e-mail as trolltracker@gmail.com ...

      • Re:So long as said blogger is truthful.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TheSkyIsPurple (901118) on Monday January 28 2008, @07:04PM (#22215626)
        I was involved in a libel suit awhile back, and the court was not thrilled with the whole anonymous thing.

        That court at least was of the opinion that if I was doing something anonymously then I clearly knew I was doing something wrong.
        (Completely missing the argument that what I did was legal, and I was trying to avoid being in court making the argument that it was legal because I knew one of the other parties was a litigious psychopath... in my opinion ;-) )

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by rk (6314)
            Thus spake the Anonymous Coward...

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by krunk7 (748055)

            If you don't want to be punched, kicked, or litigated, then don't line up against them.

            If you line up against a murderer, expect to be murdered! Oh wait, there goes the entire penal system's reliance on the people standing up for themselves.The fact is, in all of the situations you list... no, you shouldn't expect to be "anythinged". Punching, kicking, litigating, and murdering without cause is not ok.

            I also suggest you read up on the whole freedom of the press and anonymous sources thing.

              • Re:So long as said blogger is truthful.... (Score:5, Insightful)

                by sumdumass (711423) on Monday January 28 2008, @08:15PM (#22216310) Journal

                Freedom of speech without freedom of response is meaningless.
                No, it is just as powerful as any free speech.

                I can say anything without "giving" you the ability to respond. You have to locate and do that on your own. But more importantly, free speech cannot happen if there is fear of repercussion. I'm sure that plenty of people have seen things that they though were wrong in their life but failed to speak out against it because they though it would cause bodily harm, financial harm, or some other harm. I could easily get into the holocaust and other hot topics but lets just say that there are people who see things happen at their job that is illegal or unethical but fail to say anything because they would lose their job and probably be blackballed out of the business. Anonymous reporting of things like this is key to speech about it.

                Anonymous tips to the police and news stations about drive by shootings that manage to miss everything but the three year old kid inside a neighbors house playing with the family cat is key to getting heinous crimes solved without fear of retaliation from the thugs who did the shootings.

                Free speech without freedom of response is not only meaningful, without it is detrimental to a safe and working society.

        • ... lawyer who apparently is unable to engage any of the numerous detective firms out there who could find his information for much less ...
          Unable? I thought exactly the opposite when I read this. I think this Niro lawyer probably wants people to know he's taking this route. I figured it was a lawyer showing his true colors. He's making a public announcement that typically comes from gangsters who have grown too powerful. It is something to the effect of:

          "I am the law. I have so much money and disposable income that I pay any problem away without batting an eye. You want to start a blog criticizing me? Well, this is how I deal with you. I don't have time for warrants and regular channels. I will find out who you are and make you pay. Let this be a lesson/example for the rest of you."
          And that, my fellow Americans, is the stench of corruption. Fix it or face becoming a victim yourself.

            • Re:So long as said blogger is truthful.... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by rtb61 (674572) on Tuesday January 29 2008, @12:24AM (#22218186) Homepage
              For $10,000 dollars and to be able to mock the lawyer even more, the blogger in question is most likely quite willing to sell them self out, although he/she better make sure he/she has a good attorney, because undoubtedly he/she will end up needing to sue them to get the money ;).

    • Re:So long as said blogger is truthful.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by russ1337 (938915) on Monday January 28 2008, @06:25PM (#22215060)
      this post [blogspot.com] has a list of what he's said and why the Blogger has a 'bounty' on him. Here's the summary:

      Here is a grand summary of my posts about Ray Niro (you can click on the Niro Scavone labels [blogspot.com] to read them all):

      1) I posted Fish & Richardson's allegations against him. But those were F&R's words, not my own. By the way, the judge granted expedited discovery to allow F&R to determine whether to add Ray Niro personally as a defendant. And if F&R does sue Niro, personally, I'll report about it here. Which is not disparaging him, just reporting.

      2) I posted about how Niro secured a permanent injunction that was stayed in light of BMC v. Paymentech. True!

      3) I dared Niro to sue the New York Yankees in Boston on the '341 patent. But I don't think he wants to litigate out of state. C'mon Ray, if you want to stay in Chicago, at least add the Detroit Lions and Minnesota Vikings as defendants, too. (They have JPEG [detroitlions.com] images [vikings.com]).

      4) I reported that he represents Acacia in a bit of patent litigation. All true.

      5) I speculated that he actually represents non-practicing entities as a fair amount of his overall practice. Also, true.
    • Truth is a defense for libel.

      True... but you still have pay for *your* defense - even if you 100% in the right. That sucks.
      • Look at the list(and pockets) of the companies that he thinks the blogger may work for. More than likely what he is hoping for is that the blogger works for big company X, and then he can sue big company X for a lot, and in order to avoid (potential) embarrassment and/or the potential for a huge loss, he assumes that big company X will settle out of court for a handsome sum.

  • It's obvious who it is (Score:5, Funny)

    by ProteusQ (665382) <proteus71@gmail . c om> on Monday January 28 2008, @06:18PM (#22214944) Journal
    CowboyNeal. Isn't that the answer to everything around here?

    (Attention lawyers: I'm _kidding_! Put the subpoena down!)

  • This is getting rediculous (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alexx K (1167919) <alexkenny08&gmail,com> on Monday January 28 2008, @06:20PM (#22214972)

    It's not even been a week since The smartphone was patented [slashdot.org], and now we've got people wanting to sue for criticising patent trolls. I thought America was the "land of the free". Oh wait, it is, if you've got millions of dollars in your pocket and a lot of lawyers.

    What's saddening is that this stuff never makes it to the mainstream media.

    • Re:This is getting rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)

      by riseoftheindividual (1214958) on Monday January 28 2008, @06:52PM (#22215474) Homepage
      I thought America was the "land of the free"

      That's a common mondegreen... it's actually "Land of the FEE". Don't sweat it, I used to believe it was "free" myself.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MightyMartian (840721)
      Just remember, Jesus loves patent trolls. He wants greedy non-innovating lawyers to flood the patent office with useless and obviously ludicrous patents. Jesus loves lawyers, and wants them to make vast sums at the expense of the public, because Jesus hates the common man.

      (See previous references as to why Jesus hates the poor. Let's remember, Jesus only loves money, and those with lots of it).

  • great publicity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nguy (1207026) on Monday January 28 2008, @06:21PM (#22214994)
    Thanks! I hadn't heard of this blog before, but now that the $10k bounty has been offered, I know about it. Great publicity!

  • Tu quoque (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MyNymWasTaken (879908) on Monday January 28 2008, @06:22PM (#22215006)
    A position isn't false, or wrong, because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with said position.

  • Doosh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caspper69 (548511) on Monday January 28 2008, @06:22PM (#22215012)
    "Is he an employee with Intel or Microsoft? Does he have a connection with serial infringers? I think that would color what he has to say."

    This is douchebag lawyer speak for "companies that spend money researching, developing and selling products." Unlike his clients who think up obvious ideas and rush to file a patent, without ever doing a bit of work. It's scumbags like this that exacerbate the terrible state of our patent system. I for one can't wait until there's real reform and this guy's out of business.

    • Re:Doosh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by canuck57 (662392) on Monday January 28 2008, @06:50PM (#22215440)

      I for one can't wait until there's real reform and this guy's out of business.

      Don't hold your breath. For the most part it were elected lawyers who made the law in the first place. Make a problem like the patent system, then profit by it.

      I too would like to see all software patents expired. It is hindering innovation and diversity in this business. Even if a patent is blatantly prior art, frivolous and meaningless, it can bankrupt most in just defending off an attack by the vultures. Thus, kicks the little guys out.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cduffy (652)

          Companies invest a lot developing not-fun-to-code stuff that ends up being lucrative. To get rid of software patents would mean large companies would have little R & D incentive in software.

          Software is still protected by copyright, so the difficulty of writing code ("not-fun-to-code") is still there for anyone doing a reimplementation; what's made easier is coming up with the ideas.

          Thing is, though, that ideas in software aren't all that they're made out to be -- getting the implementation right, and ha

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by caspper69 (548511)
        There is no good answer, but I would say that it should be a much more open process, and as a condition you should have to actually develop your idea, or partner with a commercial firm that will (i.e. have a sponsor).

        Eliminating patent examiners, as they are now, would also be a great start. Have people volunteer from various fields of expertise, and when reviewing a patent, pick 12 randomly to review the application and vote on whether to approve or deny the patent. This would eliminate stuff like "s

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by QuantumRiff (120817)
        I think you mean the $3Billion for new drugs. $700Million or so to actually develop it, and the rest for marketing. You know, the "Ask your doctor if $Drug is right for you" without ever mentioning what the hell the drug does... If their drugs are so miraculous, why would they need to advertise them? Shouldn't the results speak loudly enough? Oh, and don't forget the "tweaking" the drug and filing a new patent. Zyban was a anti-depressant that had a side effect of people not wanting to smoke. Near th

  • No Harm, No Foul (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mansing (42708) on Monday January 28 2008, @06:27PM (#22215086)
    I would hope an attorney of Mr. Niro's stature and experience would realize he has no right nor legal recourse against this anonymous blogger. I suspect that had the blogger written anything libelous, Mr. Niro would have already brought suit.

    Since Mr. Niro has not brought legal proceedings against this blogger, I can only quote the next best legal authority on this matter:

    Ha, Ha!

  • Copyright Solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rxmd (205533) on Monday January 28 2008, @06:40PM (#22215264) Homepage
    The blogger could write them a letter disclosing his own identity, cash in the $10k himself, and when they publish the letter sue them for infringing upon his copyright on the letter.

  • Is it Rumplestilskin? (Score:5, Funny)

    by blanchae (965013) on Monday January 28 2008, @06:55PM (#22215514) Homepage
    Can I have the $10,000 now?

  • we can win this. (Score:4, Funny)

    by DingerX (847589) on Monday January 28 2008, @07:27PM (#22215866) Journal
    Go to questionable startup rate your prof^H^H^H^Hlawyer [lawyerratingz.com] and pull up their list of IP and Patent lawyers. Send "registered" emails from separate accounts for each name on the list. Then, if he should ever determine the identity, chances are it's on the list, and whoever sent the email will have a good claim on the money. That is provided, of course, said mouthpiece doesn't accuse the snitch of participating in a conspiracy to do exactly that. So the flipside is that if we spam the address with false positives, either the real stoolie will have little hope of making any money off of it, or we get in on the action.

    I'm just speaking hypothetically, of course. I'm pretty sure someone else holds a patent on this sort of spam, and the lawyer involved has set an elaborate trap for an infringement suit.

  • Nothing to worry about ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by golodh (893453) on Monday January 28 2008, @07:27PM (#22215868)
    Well, nice mr. Niro probably wants to know the identity of the anonymous blogger to have a chance to have an intimate legal conversation with him. Lawyer talking shop to lawyer as it where, in a private setting.

    I really don't see the problem, do you? I'm certain it will all be legal, so there's nothing to worry about. No. Really.

  • Flip this shit around. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cadallin (863437) on Monday January 28 2008, @08:27PM (#22216432)
    We already know who this Lawyer is, and who his firm is and who they work for. There is an exceptionally expedient way for society to deal with this. It is unfortunate that it is necessary, but we must reconcile ourselves to fact that societal institutions have been corrupted. We must search for means to enact reform, and if they have forced us to take plays from their books, then so be it.

    Vigilantism is not only necessary, it is justified. We need to seek out the personal information of this lawyer, his entire firm, and the President and board of directors of the companies that employ them. Publish their names, home addresses, any phone numbers that can be found, their license plate numbers, the names of their family members, the schools their children attend. Everything. This is War, ladies and gentlemen. Of a more dire and extreme sort than any in history. Only by securing true strategic objectives can the enemy be worn down. We must destroy not just his willingness, but his ability to fight. Destroy the ability of those who drive the conflict to live their lives in the most basic way and victory is assured.

    We, the greater whole of society, are everywhere. We surround them. We can destroy them. All that is required is the will.

  • Huh... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Richard.Tao (1150683) on Monday January 28 2008, @09:21PM (#22216870)
    If the blogger was really suave, he'd reveal his identity to the lawyer and then ask for the 10k. What would they do then? Seems like they'd come out looking like fools.
  • I hate to steal karma, but there's a comment on PTT's blog that was so insightful that I felt it serves as useful food for thought. It was a comment left last thursday by one using the pen name "ipreactionary", all credit goes to him:

    [http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2008/01/j-carl-cooper-and-technology-licensing.html]:

    "As a practicing patent attorney with a large corporation, I can see why PTT and other commentators might want not to divulge their name. His anonymity works for me, because the subject of our interest shouldn't be who PTT is, but rather whether the US patent system is functioning effectively and fairly. And PTT's remarks on patent predators aren't any less germane because the sharks are identified by name, and he/she isn't. Forget that it's Niro (or Acacia, or whoever) that PTT comments on, and focus on the fact that they and others are manipulating an imperfect system to the detriment of both the system and its participants.

    BTW, there are those who might defend the abuses written of here as nothing more than "arbitrage". I don't agree. Arbitrage smooths out market irregularities caused by assymetrical information or unbalanced supply and demand. It is ethical, and even helpful, where a market is efficient and the market rules are clear and fairly enforced. The swamp of legal, political, technical and economic uncertainties that trolls are rooting around in (and helping muddy up) is more like an armed prospectors' land-grab than what the patent system set out to be: A reward of exclusivity in return for the useful sharing of information. Vigorous enforcement of patents on trivial or useless "inventions", by contingency-fee opportunists, doesn't make them any less trivial and useless. And bundling or accumulating them under shell corporations, the better to leverage them against companies for whom the expected value of a loss at trial (however unlikely) exceeds the price of a settlement, does nothing to better the "market" for IP. It doesn't promote adoption or commercialisation of technology. It doesn't raise capital in support of yet more innovation. It doesn't improve the function of the patent system. It's extortion, pure and simple.

    This isn't an abstract, theoretical discussion. It won't be long before Congress, made up of individuals who understand neither the purpose nor the functioning of the US patent system, begins to tinker with it as if it were a tax code with which additional revenues could be extracted and assets could be more equitably redistributed. Trolls cheapen the patent system in a way that makes legislative erosion even more likely. The abuses PTT writes about call the patent monopoly and its proponents into disrepute, and thereby weaken the rights appropriately reserved under other patents to those who really have made a technical contribution to society. As far as I'm concerned, PTT can call the trolls by name. The moneys they've extracted from productive members of society should be enough consolation for them.

    Blog on, PTT!
    "

  • Bulverism strikes again (Score:4, Informative)

    by Oloryn (3236) on Monday January 28 2008, @10:16PM (#22217298)
    Sounds to me like yet another exercise in Bulverism [wikipedia.org]. Rather than actually try to argue with your opponent on the merits, you fantasize some motive on the part of your opponent, and assert that that motive must be throwing your opponent's reasoning off. You saw the same thing with SCO insisting that Groklaw must be being paid by IBM. Actually, this reasoning is irrelevant. Even if the opposition actually is motivated by the fantasy motive, their reasoning could still be correct. You find out if their reasoning is correct by examining it logically, not by speculating about their psychology.

  • Well (Score:5, Informative)

    by bigsexyjoe (581721) on Monday January 28 2008, @11:31PM (#22217860)
    His number is (312) 236-0733. Call him and give him theories. I think everyone should.

  • ethical quandary (Score:4, Funny)

    by f1055man (951955) on Tuesday January 29 2008, @02:26AM (#22218802)
    I don't believe in imaginary property either, but I do believe in $10,000. ....I'll take the case!

  • I'm the blogger (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Tuesday January 29 2008, @09:05AM (#22220864) Homepage Journal
    and so is my wife.

      • Re:Reality check (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ScrewMaster (602015) on Monday January 28 2008, @07:15PM (#22215746)
        You mean that Americans (who happened to be black) invented them. I don't mean anything derogatory by that, but making such distinctions only serves to demean those individuals and their works. The implication is that there's something so noteworthy about a black person achieving anything of substance that their race must be mentioned. Of course black people have made significant contributions to our society, our culture and our technology. So have French, Greeks, Germans, Italians, Russians, Czechs and millions of others of all nationalities. Why does their ethnic background matter so much to some people? They were all citizens of this great nation, all helped to make it what it is today. That should be enough.

        My girlfriend is a true African-American ... she came to the U.S. about twenty-five years ago from that continent, earned her citizenship, and has the right to call herself an African-American. But she doesn't. She calls herself an American and she's proud of that. This is her country now. As for me, I was born here, but I don't go around brandishing my ethnic roots. That would be complicated, since I'd be something like a "Greek-Irish-German-with-some-other-stuff-mixed-in-American". Not so easy on the ears.

        She told me flatly that she could cure all of them of their desire to be called "African Americans" by the simple expedient of sending them to her home country for a few months. Most of them would come back here and would count themselves lucky to be Americans. Bad as things can be for many people in the United States, there are places that are worse. Much worse.

        • Re:Reality check (Score:4, Interesting)

          by cptdondo (59460) on Monday January 28 2008, @07:49PM (#22216028)
          A friend of mine was born and raised in Africa, by white parents who were also born and raised in Afica. He has now moved to the US. Does that qualify him as African-American?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by twistedcubic (577194)

            A friend of mine was born and raised in Africa, by white parents who were also born and raised in Afica. He has now moved to the US. Does that qualify him as African-American?

            A friend of mine had gas because he ate some poison. So they took him to the hospital and pumped his stomach. Does that make him a gas pump?

          • Re:Reality check (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Propaganda13 (312548) on Monday January 28 2008, @09:15PM (#22216816)
            If a person is born in Africa then becomes a US citizen, they're African-American.
            If a person is born in America and stays a US citizen, they're American.

            Heritage is all screwed up. How many generations have to be born in America before you consider it part of your heritage?

          • Re:Reality check (Score:4, Funny)

            by snickkers (1023847) on Monday January 28 2008, @10:44PM (#22217508)
            You're totally right. We've all got so caught up in all the arguing and bickering that we've forgotten what's really important. What's really important is which god you believe in.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by conlaw (983784)
          This story about Dr. Drew's death is an urban legend. A biography of him, Charles Richard Drew : the man and the myth by Charles E. Wynes, sets forth what really happened:

          Dr. Drew suffered fatal injuries in the wreck. Despite the immediate attentions of the three other physicians who were with him (two of whom were substantially uninjured), and prompt attention at a nearby mixed-race (segregated) hospital, where he was attended by three other physicians, one of whom was the co-owner of the hospital, Dr. Dr

        • Re:Reality check (Score:4, Insightful)

          by zappepcs (820751) on Tuesday January 29 2008, @08:08AM (#22220402) Journal
          the next time that you are called a 'white' by someone that insists blacks are African Americans, you might find it fun to insist that they call you 'slave trader' American, or remind them that the abbreviation for African American is AA. Perhaps reminding them that Lincoln tried to ship them back to Africa will give them some humility? History is so full of fun facts. If they pull out the term caucasian, you would do well to remind them that 'whites' are NOT from the caucasus islands. Another fun little fact of life: in Africa they are also prejudiced against one another by skin color. Yes, light vs dark, or one tribe versus another, one country vs. another. That kind of solidarity of dark skinned people ONLY happens in North America, so exactly what kind of African American are they? and what tribe do they support? Personally, I'm Anglo-Saxon American, I'm listed in the DAR (revolutionary American), and I just prefer that you call me by my name...

          On those little quizzes, always select 'other' as the discussion as to why you chose other can be lots of fun. Its a racial question that does not account for South Americans, mulatto etc. If your grandfather was black, your grandmother was chinese and your mother was south american, what race do you belong to? How do you answer the quiz? select 3 or more categories?

          ALL PC terms are insulting.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.