Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Businesses The Media News Apple

Think Secret's Nick dePlume Revealed 621

Nick dePlume has a name, after all. Apple filed a lawsuit against the pseudonymous founder and editor of Think Secret, who correctly predicted two just-announced Apple products and has been the subject of several cease-and-desist letters from Apple in the past; dePlume's identity has now been revealed. Reader willibeast writes "The Harvard Crimson reports that 'Apple Computer, Inc. is suing a Harvard undergraduate who runs a popular Mac information website for disclosing details about unreleased Apple products, including two unveiled at this week's Macworld conference. Nineteen-year-old Nicholas M. Ciarelli '08, known on the internet as Nick dePlume, has run the site, thinksecret.com, since age 13.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Think Secret's Nick dePlume Revealed

Comments Filter:
  • Bad timing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel.johnhummel@net> on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:03PM (#11339933) Homepage
    [sarcasm]Dang, if only that had sued him 2 years earlier he'd still be a minor and wouldn't be responsible....[/sarcasm]
    • by dcarey ( 321183 )
      [sarcasm]Dang, if only that had sued him 2 years earlier he'd still be a minor and wouldn't be responsible....[/sarcasm]

      Never stopped the RIAA.

      Unless that's what you're implying by sarcasm.
  • by fembots ( 753724 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:03PM (#11339934) Homepage
    Well, Nick dePlume will have to find out via his website contact page, which offers tipsters "complete anonymity," and urges visitors to submit "news tips" and "insider information".

    Who knows? Maybe he'll get another insider tip reassuring him that Jobs was quoted as saying "Just pull a lawsuit stunt to scare the shit of this kid, bwahahaha."
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:07PM (#11339991)
      There is nothing wrong with this. He isn't the one violating any laws. He never signed an NDA. Matt Drudge does this exact same thing, if you look at the news submission box in the lower right of drudgereport.com.
      • There is nothing wrong with this. He isn't the one violating any laws. He never signed an NDA. Matt Drudge does this exact same thing, if you look at the news submission box in the lower right of drudgereport.com.

        Are they suing him for posting it or suing him for information on the tipster? With the former, I don't think they have much of a case. Perhaps they do with the latter.
      • Re:Is Apple Serious? (Score:3, Informative)

        by larkost ( 79011 )
        Apple is saying that he "induced" the leaker to give him the information. This is illegal under California law. How the whole thing will work out in court will probably depend on the exact wording of all the legalese, and precedents.

        Apple's case might not be nice, but it does have merit.
    • by TheViffer ( 128272 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:23PM (#11340222)
      Pretty much what I think it is also. But its not like Nick will have too much of a problem finding a lawyer or two that will do this pro bono. I would think there is one or two .. or huge boat loads of lawyers or soon to be lawyers running around Harvard. Great second semester assignment if you ask me. Would be fun to walk into a court room with 50+ lawyers.
  • by Gr33nNight ( 679837 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:04PM (#11339952)
    What Apple should be doing is finding out who is suppling Nick with this information. He isnt just pulling this stuff out of his ass.
    • The threat of a big lawsuit can make one forget how much one cares about the anonymity of submitters.
      • by lpret ( 570480 ) <[moc.liamtoh] [ta] [24terpl]> on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:49PM (#11340565) Homepage Journal
        What if he never knows the identity of his submitters? He cannot be held liable for not knowing his sources.
    • by Ironsides ( 739422 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:07PM (#11340000) Homepage Journal
      That's probably what they are trying to do. Only they basically need this guy to tell them who is supplying him with information and/or his server logs. Seeing as how he says he will offer complete anonymity, i don't think he will tell apple willingly. Thus, their only real chance is to sue him to get a court order ordering him to turn over the names of the people violating the NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement)
    • by slashnutt ( 807047 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:12PM (#11340059) Journal
      Apple's lawsuit alleges that Think Secret is illegally soliciting Apple employees to violate confidentiality agreements and disclosing that information online without Apple's permission.

      The core problem is that any information your employee tells me is free for me to use. Social engineering has to be thwarted by educating Apple's employees just like some government employees. If you divulge secret information owned by the government you go to jail; you divulge company secrets you get fired or if you have an agreement to work for the company it could have a damages clause forcing you to pay compensations. Case closed

      "I employ the same legal newsgathering practices used by any other journalist," he wrote. "I talk to sources of information, investigate tips, follow up on leads, and corroborate details. I believe these practices are reflected in Think Secret's track record."

      Based on the little evidence I have been given, I see no legal stance from Apple that will hold up in court.
    • Actually what Apple is doing is making this guy famous, useful stuff when looking for a job after college.
    • What Apple needs to do is execute a Canary Trap [lspace.org]. They probably have made a list of who could have leaked the mini Mac info. Then they should separate those people into groups and give each group a credible but different "rumor" of new products. When the rumor shows up in print, they know which group leaked and are much further down the path of finding out who it was. This is assuming they _want_ to stop the leaks!
  • Clever name... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JeTmAn81 ( 836217 )
    Nick DePlume, like nom de plume but for nerds...I get it!
  • NDA (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrBlackBand ( 715820 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:05PM (#11339964)
    So did he sign an NDA with Apple? If not, then he has nothing to worry about. Except the massive legal fees of course.

    Oh wait.

    • Re:NDA - Bzzzt (Score:5, Informative)

      by HogGeek ( 456673 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:15PM (#11340103)
      FTFA -

      ""California is one of approximately 44 or 45 states that have adopted [the] Uniform Trade Secrets Act. That statute makes it wrongful to acquire or publish without authorization information you know or have a reasonable basis to know is a trade secret of another," Milgrim said."

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Re:NDA - Bzzzt (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:34PM (#11340335) Homepage Journal
        so wait a second..
        i'll post my OWN trade secret to some guys mailing list and then I can sue him in the states? wtf you need patents for when you have such more powerful tool in your portfolio then, why bother patenting anything when you can just say that it's your trade secret and forbid anyone from talking about it?

        someone 'published' the information to him - or are all the websites that reported on this quilty? would slashdot be quilty if i posted my own trade secrets on slashdot?

        or maybe he'll just say that he pulled it out of his ass and say that "look, i've made so many predictions that at least once in 10 years i'm going to be right about something".
        • Re:NDA - Bzzzt (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:45PM (#11340507)
          would slashdot be [g]uilty if i posted my own trade secrets on slashdot?

          If you divulge your own trade secret it is no longer a trade secret. If you divulge somebody else's trade secret you've broken the law. This entire situation is dependant on the assumption that the informant who sent the trade secret to Think Secret was not authorized to divulge the information. If that isn't the case, neither the informant nor Think Secret has done anything wrong. It would be pretty hard to prove either way...
          • but if someone else knows it, is it a secret?

            still, if it was posted on their mailing list - insta publishing it , could think secret be responsible, even if they didn't publish the information(it was their informant directly)?

      • by dillon_rinker ( 17944 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:42PM (#11340470) Homepage
        $50 says that Apple had plans BEFORE these "secrets" were published to announce them at MacWorld. So the judge is going to look at this and wonder why, if it's such a secret, they announced it to the largest gathering of journalists, developers, and customers in the world.

        I suspect Apple may win their suit and be awarded $1 in damages. If Nick's smart enough to file a countersuit, he's liable to win and be awarded $1 in damages and attorney's fees.
        • Re:NDA - Bzzzt (Score:3, Informative)

          by Entrope ( 68843 )
          If the plaintiff wins a suit, or even has a reasonable basis to believe they may win (as determined by a court in possible countersuit -- and US legal tradition is pretty friendly towards the original plainiff here), then the defendant will not be awarded costs or fees related to that suit.

          California breaks this down by cause of action: if the plaintiff pursues a single frivolous cause of action, even if every other part of their lawsuit is sound, the defendant might be able to recover costs related to def
    • actually you are wrong/. if you read apple suit they are claiming "tortious"(sp) interference. basically that nick coerced an apple person to break their nda.

      do i think that happened?

      No.

      Do you or i know all the facts?

      No.

      Does apple have a case?

      Possibly, so we should not be so quick to say "oh evil corp is trying to smother someone's free speech"

      Let me ask you a question:

      If an apple person is leaking this stuff for free (to nicks site) is it within the realm of possibility that this person could be br
    • by PCM2 ( 4486 )
      So did he sign an NDA with Apple? If not, then he has nothing to worry about.
      Unless the courts determine he was trafficking in stolen trade secrets for commercial gain (i.e. revenue from advertisements on his Web site). Wouldn't that suck?
  • Apple evil? (Score:2, Insightful)

    So how much love do we have to give apple before we can admit they are dicks to?
    • Re:Apple evil? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JaxWeb ( 715417 )
      I got to say, I find Apple to be much worse than Microsoft as a company.

      In terms of products, they're probably just about the same. Microsoft have some good products, Apple have too. There's no reason to be religious about either products though, much less be religious about a company which exists merely to screw you over. In light of that, I think most people can admit that Apple are indeed being dicks.

      Of course, there are lots of examples of other companies being dicks, too.
  • by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:06PM (#11339974) Homepage Journal
    Great public relations coup, Mr. Jobs.

    Remember when you and the Woz were just kids in a garage?

    Apparently not...
  • Widely known (Score:5, Informative)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:06PM (#11339976) Homepage Journal

    Aw, come on now. I was under the impression that Nick's identity has been widely known and documented over the years as Nick Ciarelli. After all, even in 2003, eweek [eweek.com] had stories co-authored by Nick Ciarelli and Matthew Rothenburg.

  • by Safety Cap ( 253500 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:06PM (#11339977) Homepage Journal
    1. Insert several new products in the pipe, but release no substantial information about them.
    2. Stomp the hell out of people who really like your products when they release "premature" info even though they are really, really interested in your new products.
    3. ???
    4. Profit!!!
  • by atlantis191 ( 750037 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:06PM (#11339982)
    From the article:
    "Usually you would want to sue your enemies and not your friends," said Gary Fine, a Northwestern professor of sociology and expert on rumors. "I can't think of an instance in which a corporation would sue its own fans. I haven't heard anything like this."

    Hasn't this guy heard of the RIAA?
    • Except that RIAA is not receiving money prior to any lawsuits.

      Presumably Nick is buying Apple stuff and if nothing else providing free advertising. Nick is not stealing Apple hardware nor is committing copyright infringement, at least not in regard to the website (he is a student so...).
    • The people being sued are fans of the artists, not the RIAA. The RIAA doesn't have any fans. The RIAA is suing their customers. Good quote, though.
  • Wow! (Score:2, Troll)

    by kuwan ( 443684 )
    I've probably been reading ThinkSecret since he was 13 and it's been consistently the most accurate of all the other rumor sites that I know of.

    Way to go kid!

    --
    It works. [wired.com]
    Free Flat Screens [freeflatscreens.com] | Free iPod Photo [freephotoipods.com]
  • by numbski ( 515011 ) * <numbski&hksilver,net> on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:07PM (#11339996) Homepage Journal
    Tell me, Apple (or rather article author even). You're worried about market advantage 'being measured in nanoseconds'.

    I can see no case where disclosing information a week early would do irreperable harm to the company.

    Sure, you could argue customers will hold off buying products if they know the next generation is around the corner, but I tell ya....you're an idiot to buy ANY Apple products directly before a MacWorld expo.

    If you're going to buy, you buy directly after an upgrade. Or at least wait until the next expo comes around.

    So far as the competition...sure, I suppose a Dell or an HP could counter the MacMini, or the iPod Shuffle or whatnot, but really.

    I can't help but think Apple is suing over an issue of pride. They want to know who the leak is, so they're going after the person posting the information from the leak(s).

    That being said: I hate lawsuits. Period. :(
    • Tell me, Apple (or rather article author even). You're worried about market advantage 'being measured in nanoseconds'.

      Everyone knows that if Microsoft finds out about a Mac OS X Tiger feature they will have a legion of flat-food-only-eating coders implement it in Longhorn within nanoseconds.
    • >I can see no case where disclosing information a week early would do irreperable harm to the company.

      but that's for apple to decide, not for those who signed the NDA who leaked the insider info to thinksecret.

      in this case, the "rumor" was so spot on that it was obviously a leak, not just a random (or even well thought out) guesses. someone who signed an NDA leaked this to ThinkSecret and ThinkSecret is soliciting such leaks. apple is asking ThinkSecret to tell them who leaked it. they are not suing

    • you're an idiot to buy ANY Apple products directly before a MacWorld expo.

      Actually, I did rather well doing exactly that. Apple dropped the price to clear out existing stock just before the keynote. I ordered, but it didn't ship before the keynote and so was upgraded (at no cost) to the latest model. I then sent it in for repairs a bit later. They lost it, and replaced it with the later model (which almost made up for being without it for 2 months). I am typing this on a PowerBook two generations mo

    • I can see no case where disclosing information a week early would do irreperable harm to the company.

      It's about their stock price, not so much about lost sales or competition or anything. Apple's stock price is driven as much by company performance as it is by people's expectations. If Jobs goes on stage and introduces a couple of unexpected products that are really cool then people get all excited, lots of good press and buzz comes up, Apple's share price goes up, and Apple gets lots of free marketing f

  • We all know that 19 year olds have millions of dollars to spare....

    Maybe if Apple didn't encourage such a fanatical following, there would be an Apple information website.
  • Lawsuit World (Score:3, Informative)

    by FiReaNGeL ( 312636 ) <fireang3l@@@hotmail...com> on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:07PM (#11340001) Homepage
    Getting sued for correct predictions is stupid. Even if he had insider information, proving it will be very difficult.

    I hope they have some serious proof that he had access to confidential information under a non-disclosure agreement or something along these lines.

    From the article : "The suit, filed on Tuesday in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, aims to identify who is leaking the information and to get an injunction preventing further release of trade secrets. However, in filing the suit, Apple identifies specific articles that contain trade secrets, indicating that at least parts of those reports are on the mark."

    At least they're not suing him for damage, but to obtain the source of the leak. I'm no lawyer : can a court order someone to reveal its sources?
    • Re:Lawsuit World (Score:2, Informative)

      by Otto ( 17870 )
      I'm no lawyer : can a court order someone to reveal its sources?

      In some states, yes. In California, where I assume they're suing him, no. Google for the California Shield Law. It's pretty broad.
    • I'm no lawyer : can a court order someone to reveal its sources?

      Yes. That is why Judith Miller [usatoday.com] (New York Times) was fined and ordered to jail: for contempt in refusing to name sources to the federal grand jury investigating the Valeire Plame leak in October (the contempt charge is currently suspended while on appeal).

      There is no true or guaranteed protection of sources where the law is concerned.
    • Re:Lawsuit World (Score:3, Informative)

      by gkuz ( 706134 )
      I'm no lawyer : can a court order someone to reveal its sources?

      More and more, the answer is yes. Federal court judge Ernest Torres recently convicted Jim Taricani of the Providence, RI NBC affiliate station of criminal contempt [turnto10.com] for refusing to name a source. The only reason he didn't send him to jail is that the reporter is a heart transplant recipient who would be endangered by that, so he sentenced him to six months' house arrest instead. Taricani broke no law. Welcome to the new USA.

  • According to the complaint, Think Secret generates revenue from online advertising.

    Wow! And does the New York Times or 20/20 generate revenue from print or television advertising?!
  • by adzoox ( 615327 ) * on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:10PM (#11340036) Journal
    I'm a little stunned by this revelation, but here's the real issue. Someone is feeding this kid. Someone who doesn't like Apple.

    All of Think Secret's commentary seems to be negative spins on Apple and Apple financials.

    I would not be surprised if we find out this guy's father was a fired Apple employee or someone involved in this reseller lawsuit [thinksecret.com]. Nick DePlume just seems to know this infomation to intimately.

    There has to be some sort of bribery or maliciousness here, because I would consider Macrumors more of a premeir rumor site with MUCH wider base of followers and info providers.

    • Yeah; because everything on that website is wrong. It seems that even if his information is negative that it still turned out to be true. Doesn't that mean something? Oh; that's right; Apple Zealots - my bad.

      Seriously though; if someone is going to feed you information you have the right to do what you wish to it. If Microsoft was in this position this website would be all over it; screaming about how a they are going after the little guy. But when Apple comes into the picture, they get some kind of nega
  • by Solr_Flare ( 844465 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:10PM (#11340040)
    A man who has been predicting the end of world was issued a cease and desist order today. The world rejoiced at the threat to humanity being ended. In other news, the government has begun issuing cease and desist orders to individuals predicting war, famine, plague, and other such sundries as part of their "early prevention system"
  • bzzz (Score:2, Interesting)

    by demon411 ( 827680 )
    Honestly seems that apple is just try to creatte more buzz about their products. Banning distribution of Jobs speech, subpoenas against unnamed individual who leaked the information .. it's all the same, and the press eats it up. Yeah, they might have kept the secret for like 5 days longer but that really is going to have no affect to their sales nor will they get any money from these fools . my new chick roommate works at apple store and she knew about some of the stuff before think secret , it just gets
  • "Induced"?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StevenHenderson ( 806391 ) <stevehenderson AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:12PM (#11340054)
    Apple claims that Ciarelli and his company, The dePlume Organization, broke the law when soliciting insider tips online from anonymous sources, "inducing" Apple employees to break their confidentiality agreements with the company.

    How did he induce these people to provide tips? It is not like a college undergrad is going to pay people off. Apple really contradicts themselves when later they blame the ability of people to place "anonymous" tips on his website. Doesn't sound like they are being "induced" but rather lured by the option to remain anonymous.

    True, I think it is wrong that employees are violating their C.A.'s, but it is not Ciarelli's fault. Find the employees that do it, and fire them. Don't go after a kid that discovers where you leak...

    • Re:"Induced"?!? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 2nd Post! ( 213333 )
      But if you read any of the linked articles you'll see:

      The suit, filed on Tuesday in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, aims to identify who is leaking the information and to get an injunction preventing further release of trade secrets. However, in filing the suit, Apple identifies specific articles that contain trade secrets, indicating that at least parts of those reports are on the mark.

      They go after the kid that discovers where you leak because the kid knows where you leak.

      Isn't t

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:13PM (#11340067)
    For years, liberals and pinkos have rattled on and on about supposedly "superior" computers produced by the California lefties at Apple Computer. I will explain why this company is nothing more than a front for the International Communist Conspiracy, aided and abetted by their liberal fellow-travelers in the American computer community.

    This so-called "company" was founded by a pair of dope-smoking phone service thieves from Berkeley, a hotbed of Communist activity even today. "Apple Computer" supposedly went on to pioneer a graphical interface - actually developed by the good American patriots at Xerox - and develop its own hardware monopoly, just as its Communist creators would impose a state monopoly on all computer-using Americans.

    For a short time, this Red front tried to infiltrate the American business community by facetiously engaging in free trade practices, but this only served to disillusion its enthralled socialist followers who complained about a supposed drop in quality. What they really couldn't stand, like all liberals, was choice and capitalism. They only returned to "Apple" when it returned to its old crypto-Stalinist practices.

    "Apple Computer" is nothing more than a liberal-backed fifth column intended to subvert the American computer industry, and ultimately bankrupt good capitalist companies such as Microsoft and Intel. "Apple" isn't the only front group run by the International Communist Conspiracy. "Sun Microsystems" engages in similar monopolistic practices, trying to enforce a single hardware and software standard on all users, instead of the choices offered by Microsoft. Worst of all are the smaller Red fronts using the communist Linux operating system, with names like "Mandrake" (a French front, of course), and even really obvious ones like Red Hat! Linux is distributed under a Commie license that forces developers to give away the fruits of their labour, just as Marx ordered all good Communists to work as much as they could for a pittance in return in an illusory equal society.

    All of these so-called companies are just fronts for Communists and liberal fellow-travellers. Remember, when you buy Apple or download Linux, you're supporting Communism. Good Americans support real freedom-loving businesses like Microsoft, SCO, and AMD.

    Laugh at me now, remember me later when you're all forced to used slow computers with horrid, fruity interfaces foisted upon an enslaved public by the commissars who used to fester in American business under the liberal myth that they were an independent company that loved capitalism called Apple Computer.
  • IANAJ, but does his capacity as publisher of ThinkSecret confer upon him the status of member of the press, and the "anonymous" tipsters then function as his sources?

    Normall, the penalty for failing to reveal your sources is usually a contempt charge and 6 months in jail.

    But since he doesn't know his informants, does this

    1) create a loophole or
    2) exclude him from asserting his status as a journalist
  • I hate Jobs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sheepdot ( 211478 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:21PM (#11340197) Journal
    has run the site, thinksecret.com, since age 13

    No offense, but this is the kind of kid/guy that you'd think Jobs would be hiring, not suing.

    Why again does everyone see Jobs as some sort of geek pariah that *earned* his way to fame? He just rode on Wozniak's coattails!
    • Re:I hate Jobs (Score:3, Informative)

      by Junta ( 36770 )
      As much as I think it is not particularly good, why the *hell* would they care about hiring him?

      If it was the frequently heard story of some person doing a technological hack to do amazing things with a product I would agree. An engineer that shows remarkable talent and resourcefulness with a company product is valuable to that company.

      All this guy has done is leak whatever he could get a hand on to the internet. He didn't dress it up or drive marketing for Apple above and beyond what is normal, simply
  • Not quite accurate? (Score:5, Informative)

    by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:23PM (#11340221) Homepage
    The article says Apple is suing 19-year-old Nick Ciarelli. But surely they are actually suing The DePlume Organization, LLC, the limited-liability corporation that claims copyright to everything on the site? It seems unlikely that Ciarelli himself will suffer financial liability for this.
  • look at fuckedcompany.com, which provided timely and valuable news during the dotcom meltdown, that couldn't have happened without anonymous tips.

    Nick dePlume's operation should be found to be protected free speech and any laws saying otherwise should be ruled unconstitutional.

  • by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:37PM (#11340386)
    All he did was pass on information that was passed on to him from an insider in violation of that person's contract. You can hardly call what he did "prediction." Really he just passed on information that somebody else had given him. No educated analysis required.

    Not only that, but Apple probably wouldn't be giving him such a hard time if he'd tell them who leaked the information to him.
  • by amichalo ( 132545 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:41PM (#11340454)
    There are many financial news websites posting articles about Mac mini and iPod Shuffle. After reading them, I can better understand just WHY Apple took the action it did against Think Secret.

    In summary, the articles stated that the stock price of Apple ran up more than 7% in the days preceeding Mac World in anticipation of the leaked rumors of a $500 Mac and a flash iPod. Further, the stock dropped about 6% during the key note primarily because Apple sold "only" 4.5 million iPods. More than the 4 million many analysts predicted, but less than the 4.6 and 4.8 million other analysts had.

    Now, if the share price of Apple can drop 6% because the wildly sucessful iPod "only" clobbered-the-shit (technical term) out of the competition versus some analysts estimating it would clobber-the-ever-lovin-shit, imagine what would have happened if Apple had NOT released the said rumored products.

    Further, imagine how big the POSITIVE impact would have been if the Mac mini had remained a secret until Jobs' announcement.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @05:55PM (#11340644)
    ...until somebody looses an i.

"You tweachewous miscweant!" -- Elmer Fudd

Working...