Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [videoblogging] Wikipedia Hypocrisy (was... Scoble...)

Expand Messages
  • Ron Watson
    ... So apparently, you are interested in streaming profits to the corporate media, that’s your interest. ... The point I’m trying to make is that
    Message 1 of 100 , Dec 31, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > I've been offline for a bit and I'm not trying to drag this thread out
      > further, but felt like I should respond:
      >
      > > Jake
      > > You obviously care about distributed media.
      > >
      > > You want to help people do that. So your beliefs have something
      > to do
      > > with being on this list.
      >
      > I want to help people get from whatever their vision is to something
      > approximating that vision, whether that's something as simple as
      > recording
      > video from their webcam or something complex like figuring out the
      > right
      > tools for some grand video project. It is my belief that everyone
      > who wants
      > to make video (whether it be for their family and friends, or for
      > everyone
      > on the planet) should be able to harness all the tools available to
      > do so.
      > So I suppose in that sense, my beliefs come into play.
      >
      > I do not, however, have any kind of us versus them agenda, because
      > it is
      > also my belief that the corporate machine being raged against here is
      > equally entitled to making video and distributing it however they
      > want to. I
      > don't have to like the end result, but I "vote" for what I like by
      > watching
      > it or tuning out.

      > I never ascribed any ulterior motives to your reason for being here
      > other than your desire to help people with distributed media.
      >
      >
      > > I think you are missing an important point. the Corporate Media
      > would
      > > like to coopt this space to make it stream profit to them.
      >
      > Then my interests and the Corporate Media (as described by you) have
      > something in common. I enjoy making videos. Sometimes making videos
      > means
      > streaming profit to me. When I get paid for doing something I
      > enjoy, it
      > means I have more freedom to continue doing that thing I enjoy.
      >
      > If by co-opting this space, you mean Corporate Media want to
      > distribute
      > videos via RSS, rise to the most popular spots in iTunes,

      So apparently, you are interested in streaming profits to the
      corporate media, that�s your interest.

      >
      >
      > > We are basically stealing their profit by giving people another
      > > outlet for their media consumption.
      >
      > This is where you get off track a bit...
      >
      > Every person on the planet has a finite amount of time to do
      > anything. We
      > all make tradeoffs and choices about how we spend that time -
      > especially the
      > time allotted as "free time" throughout the day. Networking
      > programming
      > competes with sporting events which compete with the arts which in
      > turn
      > compete with taking the kids to soccer practice, which competes with
      > millions of other options like podcasts, videoblogs, etc.

      The point I�m trying to make is that distributing media for free
      takes up bandwidth and exists outside of a market. If we are taking
      up their bandwidth, and not playing in their market, we are stealing
      their potential profits. It�s tantamount to expropriation.

      >
      >
      > > How much has Youtube taken from
      > > their bottom line?
      >
      > YouTube and the rest of the video sharing sites are taking from
      > Corporate
      > Media's bottom line by leveraging the expensive content created by
      > Corporate
      > Media. If you look at what is consistently among the most viewed
      > shows on
      > YouTube, etc., it's stuff uploaded from places like Comedy Central,
      > ABC,
      > NBC, etc., not from indie content creators.
      >
      > I personally think it's a lousy deal for the content creators for
      > Joe Smith
      > YouTube user to upload Corporate Media content and the content
      > creator get
      > nothing for it. YouTube makes ad money (even if it's less than a
      > penny per
      > view). The creator gets nothing. If you set aside WHO the content
      > creator
      > is, it's not a real stretch to empathize with the content creator
      > who makes
      > money from making content when someone else is making money from their
      > efforts while they get nothing.

      Has nothing to do with the question. Nothing at all.

      You tube and the viewing of non-corporate media has taken eyes from
      the corporate media�s content.

      Piracy of content aside, there are millions of people spending
      millions of hours on You Tube.

      The niche interests, Frisbeedogs, Parkour, Dog trainers, skaters, to
      name just a few have zero ability to see their stuff in the
      corporate media, and instead spend their time intereacting with media
      on social networking sites and video sharing sites.

      Each niche market with hundreds of �channels� each with a few
      thousand views per video represents thousands of hours where people
      are not planted in front of the tube or reading print. This is a
      growing problem, especially as social networking sites get more
      accessible, and more and more eyes and hours are going to be removed
      from the corporate media�s ad markets. Less eyes mean less profit.

      The corporate media has spent trillions of dollars gobbling up their
      competition to get to the point where less than a dozen companies own
      a huge percentage of media and control the market of information that
      is accessible for humanity.

      This incredible investment to create an oligopoly of information is
      about to be rendered moot by millions of regular old people; people
      who used to be the product being sold.

      To think that the corporate media with their ability to sponsor
      public policy through sponsoring politicians, legislation and the
      vast majority of information that people use to make decisions about
      public policy are going to just abandon that investment and let their
      power be taken away from them is simply naive.

      > To respond to that idea by shifting to an argument of piracy is
      > disengenious.
      >
      > > TV is going down the toilet.
      >
      > TV was never great, it was merely the most available option. But
      > this is a
      > subjective argument because I can list at least 10 people I know
      > who ask me
      > if I saw television show X last night when I run into them at the
      > coffee
      > shop. It's naive to assume that because many of us on this list
      > have little
      > interest in what's on television that the rest of the world is just
      > like us.
      >
      > The studios will live on. The affiliate networks who have
      > maintained a gravy
      > train of checks from both the studios and the advertisers are the
      > ones who
      > are in real trouble because the studios don't need them anymore. The
      > Internet is the affiliate network and the local affiliates are
      > going to have
      > to start paying to be a distributor so that they have something to
      > run ads
      > against, similar to the way AP wire stories are licensed by Internet
      > portals.

      > I think I agree with this, and I think it�s already happening.
      > Local news is a shining example of this. I think it is extremely
      > damaging to the public too. I could care less about this in the
      > entertainment world, as it's been happening for decades, but for
      > news it's downright dangerous.
      >
      > > People are networking
      > > socially, watching independent video online, and that's a problem
      > for
      > > the corporate media.
      >
      > Some people are watching independent video. Many people are still
      > watching
      > Corporate Media that was uploaded by individuals. Most of the "hey
      > check out
      > this video" emails I get are either links to Jon Stewart uploads or
      > some
      > video of a pet doing something cute. The former is not a problem for
      > corporate media as soon as they figure out a way to allow people to
      > share
      > their stuff and still have a bottom line (there is an easy way to
      > do it but
      > they just aren't listening), the latter isn't a threat to anyone
      > because
      > it's a distraction.

      A distraction from corporate media content is a loss of profit for
      the corporate media. Less eyes means less profit.

      >
      > As a side note: If you look at the peak viewing periods for
      > YouTube, it is
      > not network television that's getting beat up by YouTube viewing, it's
      > corporate productivity. The peak viewing times are when most people
      > in the
      > U.S. are in their cubicles, a time when no one normally watches
      > television.

      That�s a great observation. Even more reason for the corporate media
      to co-opt this space. It�s a new market.

      >
      >
      > > Of course they're going to come to someone like you. You know the
      > > space. You will give them information to be more competent in this
      > > space. Just because they approach you doesn't mean they support you.
      >
      > Paying for my knowledge is not the same thing as supporting me,
      > true enough.
      > I don't see anything as simple as an us vs. them or good vs. evil
      > battle.
      > There is room for everyone to play in the video pool.
      >
      > But "they" also link to me and occasionally re-distribute me, which
      > does
      > directly or indirectly support me. And it's typically a different
      > "they"
      > asking for advice than the one's linking. Getting a video on MTV (with
      > permission from me) is good for my brand. Getting on the tech page
      > of the
      > BBC or any major newspaper site is good for my brand. Those places
      > have
      > audience I may never reach otherwise, which has value to me because
      > new
      > people are seeing what I do. This is no different than being a
      > indie creator
      > in the sea of content and getting link love from Engadget (both pre
      > and post
      > AOL buyout), or Lifehacker, or Make, or Boing Boing, or FARK. Those
      > places
      > all have readers/viewers who might never see what you do if you
      > didn't get
      > that link, and while they may all be "independent" of Corporate
      > Media, they
      > are all businesses that exist in part to make a profit.
      > I think this was my point. You made it sound as if they were
      > supporting you with their seeking out of your services. Of course
      > there�s going to be a quid pro quo.
      >
      > > As far as the NYT goes, I don't see the logical connection there.
      > Old
      > > Media is dying. We are killing them. They'll do what they have to
      > do.
      >
      > I am not a killer of anything, so please don't include me in your
      > 'We'. :)
      >
      > Old media isn't dying. There will be business casualties who don't
      > figure
      > out how to take what they are doing and make it fit with what
      > people want -
      > simple laws of supply and demand in effect. Those old media
      > companies who
      > adapt will continue to thrive, those that don't will be replaced by a
      > company that "gets it", possibly an indie upstart or a different
      > old media
      > company.
      You don�t have to have the intent to kill them to be part of �my
      �We��. The idea that your content is taking away their product at all
      is hurting them.

      You don�t need to have the intent to take them down to hurt their
      business.

      I just see the idea that people like you and me and the rest of us on
      this list who are taking thousands of eyes from their content, and
      wresting away some of their control over the market of information is
      doing them damage. It is taking away their power to inform without
      question.

      I agree that the corporate media will always be there. The only
      question is whether or not they have the ability to lie for their
      sponsors without fear of being called on those lies. (speaking mainly
      about news�)

      >
      > > They already dropped their 'special' pay to play Op Ed stuff, didn't
      > > they? Why? Because it wasn't profitable. It didn't fit the space.
      >
      > And I dropped forums from my site several years ago because they
      > were more
      > hassle than I wanted. A business decision, not a sign of death.
      >
      > Yes, but iirc, you implied that the streaming media was a sign that
      > they were on our side. That they were supporting this community. I
      > was the one saying it was a business decision in the first place.
      >
      > > Streaming video allows them to sell ads. If nobody watches it,
      > nobody
      > > gets paid. Give it up for free and you get more viewers.
      >
      > If nobody buys the oranges in the fruit stand, the fruit seller
      > doesn't get
      > paid either, however, if he gave it away for free he'd simply go
      > broke. Your
      > statement makes the leap of faith that no indie video maker (not
      > Corporate
      > Media) wants to get paid for what they do.
      >
      > I happen to need an income of some kind in order to meet my basic
      > needs of
      > food, shelter, new video equipment, luxury suite at the Bellagio, etc.
      > (maybe you are independently wealthy?) as I assume is true of most
      > people on
      > the list. If I can get paid to make video or blog or anything else
      > that I
      > happen to enjoy, I'll actively seek ways to get paid to do something I
      > enjoy, rather than doing something I hate and making the thing I
      > enjoy a
      > sideline.

      Apples and oranges, Jake, and I believe that it proves my point.

      If they charged for their streaming video and nobody watched it,
      they�d make no money, �they�d sell no oranges and not get paid.� By
      giving it up for free and selling ads on it, they get to sell their
      oranges.

      Once again, you are mistaking the product being sold by the corporate
      media. The NYT is selling their viewers to the advertisers. The
      viewers are the oranges in this metaphor, and the pay to play model
      did exactly what you described in this metaphor.

      >
      > Jake Ludington
      >
      > http://www.jakeludington.com

      Patrick,

      I'm sure there are several reasons you find my words so unpalatable.
      I think there is one part that is political and one part that is
      based upon how each of us think.

      There are people who like to deal with the concrete, the step by
      step, the details.

      Others like to deal with the big picture, the connections, the abstract.

      The meyers briggs (sp) test for personality types breaks this down
      into Subjective (the former) and Intuitive (the latter), and I think
      that's a huge part of our problem in communicating.

      I believe you are a strong S. You think subjectively.

      I believe that you find Jake's step by step so refreshing because it
      gives you a solid roadmap to follow. You make the mistaken assumption
      that it's based in fact because you can follow it. It fits your
      method of thinking, so it's factual.

      I find it maddening because it leaves so much out. There are just as
      many assumptions in his statements as mine, but they're not active
      assumptions. They're omissions of fact. It's almost as if they exist
      in a vacuum.

      Some of the omissions include:

      Net Neutrality and a tiered internet.

      The idea that giant corporations are actively trying to price us out
      of the game, as we type, so they can give their content preferential
      treatment guaranteeing that they maintain the power over distribution
      of information.

      The recent actions of the FCC.

      Allowing further consolidation of distributive power over information.

      Corporate sponsorship of politicians, legislation, and regulation.

      This leads to corporate sponsored public policy.

      Absent these understandings, and I find them to be quite factual, I
      think Jake's arguments make quite a bit of sense.

      Add these understandings and I find it that it leads to truthiness
      and lacks critical thinking.

      I don't think I'll be participating any longer in this conversation,
      but who's to say.

      Cheers,
      Ron Watson
      http://k9disc.blip.tv
      http://k9disc.com
      http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog
      http://pawsitivevybe.com



      On Dec 30, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote:

      > Some may lean towards an opinion of 'you were both right' but I think
      > this was an example of truthiness vs. critical thinking.
      >
      > I have no doubt that the majority of this community is capable of the
      > latter. They're just less often heard.
      >
      > It was interesting to see my original argument take human shape in
      > Ron's email. It was even more interesting to hear Jake's response.
      > These are the kinds of responses that are often lacking from our
      > heated threads. Much of what Scoble is referring to might have been
      > avoided had the community stood up for itself when confronted with
      > these kinds of conspiratorial opinions.
      >
      > What do we want more? A long list of 'People who hate and/or pity
      > this group' or rational, evidence based discussions?
      >
      > On Dec 30, 2007 5:18 PM, Ron Watson <k9disc@...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Great post, Jake.
      > > I wish we could talk. I'm sure it'd be far more productive.
      > >
      > > This is not a very efficient way to communicate, and there's a lot
      > > left out that takes too damn long to write, and then there's even
      > > more spaces open for misunderstanding.
      > >
      > > I'm going to bow out now.
      > >
      > > Cheers,
      > > Ron
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > On Dec 30, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Jake Ludington wrote:
      > >
      > > > I've been offline for a bit and I'm not trying to drag this
      > thread out
      > > > further, but felt like I should respond:
      > > >
      > > > > Jake
      > > > > You obviously care about distributed media.
      > > > >
      > > > > You want to help people do that. So your beliefs have something
      > > > to do
      > > > > with being on this list.
      > > >
      > > > I want to help people get from whatever their vision is to
      > something
      > > > approximating that vision, whether that's something as simple as
      > > > recording
      > > > video from their webcam or something complex like figuring out the
      > > > right
      > > > tools for some grand video project. It is my belief that everyone
      > > > who wants
      > > > to make video (whether it be for their family and friends, or for
      > > > everyone
      > > > on the planet) should be able to harness all the tools
      > available to
      > > > do so.
      > > > So I suppose in that sense, my beliefs come into play.
      > > >
      > > > I do not, however, have any kind of us versus them agenda, because
      > > > it is
      > > > also my belief that the corporate machine being raged against
      > here is
      > > > equally entitled to making video and distributing it however they
      > > > want to. I
      > > > don't have to like the end result, but I "vote" for what I like by
      > > > watching
      > > > it or tuning out.
      > > >
      > > > > I, want help with media. That's why I'm on this list.
      > > >
      > > > I get the sense that many people are on the list for this same
      > > > reason, in
      > > > spite of the original thread all this discussion evolved out of.
      > > >
      > > > > I think you are missing an important point. the Corporate Media
      > > > would
      > > > > like to coopt this space to make it stream profit to them.
      > > >
      > > > Then my interests and the Corporate Media (as described by you)
      > have
      > > > something in common. I enjoy making videos. Sometimes making
      > videos
      > > > means
      > > > streaming profit to me. When I get paid for doing something I
      > > > enjoy, it
      > > > means I have more freedom to continue doing that thing I enjoy.
      > > >
      > > > If by co-opting this space, you mean Corporate Media want to
      > > > distribute
      > > > videos via RSS, rise to the most popular spots in iTunes,
      > > >
      > > > > We are basically stealing their profit by giving people another
      > > > > outlet for their media consumption.
      > > >
      > > > This is where you get off track a bit...
      > > >
      > > > Every person on the planet has a finite amount of time to do
      > > > anything. We
      > > > all make tradeoffs and choices about how we spend that time -
      > > > especially the
      > > > time allotted as "free time" throughout the day. Networking
      > > > programming
      > > > competes with sporting events which compete with the arts which in
      > > > turn
      > > > compete with taking the kids to soccer practice, which competes
      > with
      > > > millions of other options like podcasts, videoblogs, etc.
      > > >
      > > > > How much has Youtube taken from
      > > > > their bottom line?
      > > >
      > > > YouTube and the rest of the video sharing sites are taking from
      > > > Corporate
      > > > Media's bottom line by leveraging the expensive content created by
      > > > Corporate
      > > > Media. If you look at what is consistently among the most viewed
      > > > shows on
      > > > YouTube, etc., it's stuff uploaded from places like Comedy
      > Central,
      > > > ABC,
      > > > NBC, etc., not from indie content creators.
      > > >
      > > > I personally think it's a lousy deal for the content creators for
      > > > Joe Smith
      > > > YouTube user to upload Corporate Media content and the content
      > > > creator get
      > > > nothing for it. YouTube makes ad money (even if it's less than a
      > > > penny per
      > > > view). The creator gets nothing. If you set aside WHO the content
      > > > creator
      > > > is, it's not a real stretch to empathize with the content creator
      > > > who makes
      > > > money from making content when someone else is making money
      > from their
      > > > efforts while they get nothing.
      > > >
      > > > > TV is going down the toilet.
      > > >
      > > > TV was never great, it was merely the most available option. But
      > > > this is a
      > > > subjective argument because I can list at least 10 people I know
      > > > who ask me
      > > > if I saw television show X last night when I run into them at the
      > > > coffee
      > > > shop. It's naive to assume that because many of us on this list
      > > > have little
      > > > interest in what's on television that the rest of the world is
      > just
      > > > like us.
      > > >
      > > > The studios will live on. The affiliate networks who have
      > > > maintained a gravy
      > > > train of checks from both the studios and the advertisers are the
      > > > ones who
      > > > are in real trouble because the studios don't need them
      > anymore. The
      > > > Internet is the affiliate network and the local affiliates are
      > > > going to have
      > > > to start paying to be a distributor so that they have something to
      > > > run ads
      > > > against, similar to the way AP wire stories are licensed by
      > Internet
      > > > portals.
      > > >
      > > > > People are networking
      > > > > socially, watching independent video online, and that's a
      > problem
      > > > for
      > > > > the corporate media.
      > > >
      > > > Some people are watching independent video. Many people are still
      > > > watching
      > > > Corporate Media that was uploaded by individuals. Most of the "hey
      > > > check out
      > > > this video" emails I get are either links to Jon Stewart
      > uploads or
      > > > some
      > > > video of a pet doing something cute. The former is not a
      > problem for
      > > > corporate media as soon as they figure out a way to allow
      > people to
      > > > share
      > > > their stuff and still have a bottom line (there is an easy way to
      > > > do it but
      > > > they just aren't listening), the latter isn't a threat to anyone
      > > > because
      > > > it's a distraction.
      > > >
      > > > As a side note: If you look at the peak viewing periods for
      > > > YouTube, it is
      > > > not network television that's getting beat up by YouTube
      > viewing, it's
      > > > corporate productivity. The peak viewing times are when most
      > people
      > > > in the
      > > > U.S. are in their cubicles, a time when no one normally watches
      > > > television.
      > > >
      > > > > Of course they're going to come to someone like you. You know
      > the
      > > > > space. You will give them information to be more competent in
      > this
      > > > > space. Just because they approach you doesn't mean they
      > support you.
      > > >
      > > > Paying for my knowledge is not the same thing as supporting me,
      > > > true enough.
      > > > I don't see anything as simple as an us vs. them or good vs. evil
      > > > battle.
      > > > There is room for everyone to play in the video pool.
      > > >
      > > > But "they" also link to me and occasionally re-distribute me,
      > which
      > > > does
      > > > directly or indirectly support me. And it's typically a different
      > > > "they"
      > > > asking for advice than the one's linking. Getting a video on
      > MTV (with
      > > > permission from me) is good for my brand. Getting on the tech page
      > > > of the
      > > > BBC or any major newspaper site is good for my brand. Those places
      > > > have
      > > > audience I may never reach otherwise, which has value to me
      > because
      > > > new
      > > > people are seeing what I do. This is no different than being a
      > > > indie creator
      > > > in the sea of content and getting link love from Engadget (both
      > pre
      > > > and post
      > > > AOL buyout), or Lifehacker, or Make, or Boing Boing, or FARK.
      > Those
      > > > places
      > > > all have readers/viewers who might never see what you do if you
      > > > didn't get
      > > > that link, and while they may all be "independent" of Corporate
      > > > Media, they
      > > > are all businesses that exist in part to make a profit.
      > > >
      > > > > As far as the NYT goes, I don't see the logical connection
      > there.
      > > > Old
      > > > > Media is dying. We are killing them. They'll do what they
      > have to
      > > > do.
      > > >
      > > > I am not a killer of anything, so please don't include me in your
      > > > 'We'. :)
      > > >
      > > > Old media isn't dying. There will be business casualties who don't
      > > > figure
      > > > out how to take what they are doing and make it fit with what
      > > > people want -
      > > > simple laws of supply and demand in effect. Those old media
      > > > companies who
      > > > adapt will continue to thrive, those that don't will be
      > replaced by a
      > > > company that "gets it", possibly an indie upstart or a different
      > > > old media
      > > > company.
      > > >
      > > > > They already dropped their 'special' pay to play Op Ed stuff,
      > didn't
      > > > > they? Why? Because it wasn't profitable. It didn't fit the
      > space.
      > > >
      > > > And I dropped forums from my site several years ago because they
      > > > were more
      > > > hassle than I wanted. A business decision, not a sign of death.
      > > >
      > > > > Streaming video allows them to sell ads. If nobody watches it,
      > > > nobody
      > > > > gets paid. Give it up for free and you get more viewers.
      > > >
      > > > If nobody buys the oranges in the fruit stand, the fruit seller
      > > > doesn't get
      > > > paid either, however, if he gave it away for free he'd simply go
      > > > broke. Your
      > > > statement makes the leap of faith that no indie video maker (not
      > > > Corporate
      > > > Media) wants to get paid for what they do.
      > > >
      > > > I happen to need an income of some kind in order to meet my basic
      > > > needs of
      > > > food, shelter, new video equipment, luxury suite at the
      > Bellagio, etc.
      > > > (maybe you are independently wealthy?) as I assume is true of most
      > > > people on
      > > > the list. If I can get paid to make video or blog or anything else
      > > > that I
      > > > happen to enjoy, I'll actively seek ways to get paid to do
      > something I
      > > > enjoy, rather than doing something I hate and making the thing I
      > > > enjoy a
      > > > sideline.
      > > >
      > > > Jake Ludington
      > > >
      > > > http://www.jakeludington.com
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • WWWhatsup
      In a recent article for The Register: Dismantling a Religion: The EFF s Faith-Based Internet
      Message 100 of 100 , Dec 31, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In a recent article for The Register: 'Dismantling a Religion: The EFF's Faith-Based Internet'
        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/bennett_eff_neutrality_analysis/ engineer Tichard Bennett
        digs into the technical details of Comcast's activity with BitTorrent which, after a certain amount of connections
        have been reached, is to spoof connection resets to BT clients. According to Bennett, particularly in the
        DOCSIS system used on cable networks, the actual number of packets transmitted is as crucial to network performance
        as the bandwidth used. Cutting the number of connections that a BitTorrent client uses can actually improve
        throughput without impeding access.

        Apparently it is a growing mood at the IETF that the the bandwidth based principle of 'flow rate fairness'
        - implicitly governed in TCP by dropped packets - is being abused by clients that make huge numbers of
        connections. Something will have to be done, perhaps by rejiggering the packet-dropping aspect.

        joly



        At 11:21 AM 12/31/2007, you wrote:
        >You're dead on and it has already happened, Comcast has admitting to
        >traffic shaping, slowing upload and I believe download speeds to
        >users who were, in there own words, "abusing" the bandwith. So how
        >much is abusing? Whatever they decide. So little old me, who is
        >uploading a video a day and maybe starts uploading very large files
        >because storage is becoming so cheap, all of a sudden I can be
        >an "abuser". Oh, Comcast guised it as combating priacy, but if it
        >walks and quacks like a duck....
        >
        >Heath
        >http://batmangeek.com

        ---------------------------------------------------------------
        WWWhatsup NYC
        http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
        ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.