Yoz Grahame's Cheerleader: Want a line? Here's a line.

February 28, 2005

Want a line? Here's a line.

Apparently, some more definitiveness is required. Not only did I get another (email) response from Dave asking me to further clarify things, but several other smart people also seem to be touting the slippery slope argument as well as demanding that their content be delivered to the user's eyeballs unaltered. "We are on the first step down the road to madness!" they yell. "Where is the line to be drawn?" God knows, I've been aching to draw a line under this whole thing since it started (which was the point of my first post).

Dave specifically requested I answer his email publicly: I shall quote it in its entirety with my interspersed responses, and tackle Scoble, Calacanis, Rubel et al at the same time. While eating a banana. (Excellent value for your attention dollar, that's me.)

Now how about answering the question I asked. Where is the line? What are the rules?

I thought Roger Benningfield nailed this one already, but clearly it needs further clarification. You want a completely solid line? Here goes:

If a content-modifying function:

has a definition that is completely understood by the user
is only invocable at the user's request and in isolation (i.e. not automatically)
has an effect limited to the user who invoked it

... then it's entirely within the spirit of the Web, no matter what modification it performs. No exceptions.

Google AutoLink fits completely within that definition. Hence, it's fine and not worth arguing about. There are other existing functions out there that step over the line. (Note that stepping over the line does not automatically imply evil. Just that staying behind the line is a guarantee of non-evil.) But, for the rest of this discussion, we're dealing entirely with tools that work like Google AutoLink, since that's what everyone seems to have a problem with.

It's at this point that I say goodbye to anyone who wants to run off down the slippery slope and imagine a bunch of plugins, browsers and robot henchmen that are outside of this definition and, say, eat puppies. Please feel free to do so, but not here. As soon as reality catches up with your imaginings, I will too. Until then, I prefer to deal with real problems that exist today.

Can I scrape Google and replace their ads with mine?

Sho'nuff, as long as it stays on your machine (point 3). If you want to write a plugin to do it and pass it around your friends, that's fine too, as long as it fits with the rules above. It's only if you publish these scraped pages to the web that Google might have a problem with it. But then, they don't seem to have shut down Scroogle yet. (For many other fascinating Google-scrapers, see Cory's excellent collection.

(If you can't see the difference between making the modification on your own machine and publishing it to the rest of the web, then you need to read up on fair use in copyright, not to mention the concepts of passing off and fraud.)

Can Microsoft?

Why not? No, really, why not? What's the difference between Microsoft doing it, Google doing it, and my 10-year-old neighbour doing it? The argument doesn't magically change just because you write "Microsoft" in the title bar, no matter what Scoble seems to think. Abuses of monopoly power happen when the consumer has a choice taken away from them. Nobody is forcing anybody to install Google Toolbar. Were an MSN Toolbar to be similarly optional, exactly the same rules would apply.

This leads onto another hot topic, which is that Google AutoLink creates links to providers of Google's own choice, as if any company which doesn't also advertise its competitors is somehow evil. We now have a situation where Google, bless 'em, have modified the Toolbar so it can link to Yahoo! Maps if the user wishes. This is a wonderful feature and in no way were they required to do it. If you want all your map links to go to Yahoo!, then install the Yahoo! Toolbar. If you don't like the fact that Google AutoLinks to, say, Amazon, then don't click the AutoLink button. They've been completely open about what it does, and nobody's forcing you. This really isn't that hard.

And while we're talking about Microsoft, I should point out that for several months now, Microsoft has automatically installed on its users' machines an automated content-modifying function that is part of Internet Explorer. Furthermore, this is a function which removes ads and thus hits publishers' revenue. Yep, it's the pop-up blocker in SP2. (Thanks, rOD.) And Microsoft did it because the users were crying out for it. I'm intrigued to know who amongst the AutoLink opposition have automated pop-up blocking enabled in their browsers, and whether they think this might be a teeny bit hypocritical.

Please post your answers on the web.

Here you go. If you like, you can download this page and do whatever you want with it as long as you don't republish those modifications without my permission. (Because, Natalie, such changes have no effect on my site. They only change one person's view of it.) It's weird that I have to spell that out because that's how the web — no, wait, that's how publishing has always worked.

Jason: Imagine that you're a paper magazine publisher (free or paid, doesn't matter). I've got one copy of your magazine and taken it home. Are you seriously suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to do whatever the hell I like with it? That, say, I shouldn't be able to rip all of the ads out of it (or scribble over them) if I so choose? Are you further suggesting that if News Corporation creates some kind of paper-mangling machine that turns your magazine into a Fox News papsheet, that I shouldn't be allowed to buy it? As long as I am completely informed as to what the machine does, why can I not be allowed to make that choice myself?

After your ad hominems and sarcasm, there wasn't much left other than "I don't agree." Dave

I sincerely and unreservedly apologise for any ad hominem attacks on you, Dave.

As for sarcasm, I believe (and many others around the web seem to agree, based on the trackbacks) that satire was a valid and effective way to communicate my problems with the argument. Clearly, there have been some problems with it since you believe that there was no argument there, even though there is nothing I argue in the second piece that wasn't in the first.

Okay, I'm pretty much done here, and I hope that I can mostly leave this sorry mess behind and get on with blogging about something more directly relevant to me, like cleaning this banana off my keyboard. In the meantime, however, I want to leave all those who are still opposed to my viewpoint, and still running off down that tempting slippery slope, with this thought:

If you must have a slippery slope to play with, then imagine one that slopes the other way. One where the content publishers have more and more control, where they have the power to decide, say, who can link to a page, how long your browser must stay on a page before being allowed to leave, which pages it is allowed to exit to, etc.

Just like the slippery slope I've been complaining about, this one is similarly absurd. But if you want to take the first real step down it, it's simple: Turn your pop-up blocker off.

Posted by Yoz at February 28, 2005 05:29 PM | TrackBack

Comments

I'm cautious about (2), since I'd regard as entirely acceptable a Google Toolbar that, having made its raison d'etre clear, enabled AutoLink by default. This satisfies (2) in a technical sense -- I requested the download, after all -- but appears to clash with your definition of "automatically." In my view, this is more about transparency than whether I've clicked a button (or simply downloaded some software) to enable a feature; it remains *my* choice.

Posted by: Wayne on February 28, 2005 06:33 PM

Wayne: I was trying to deny any kind of situation where the user had not actively enabled the feature in some way, whether by clicking a button, installing, whatever - or possibly not enabled that feature on its own, in that it might be an unrequested (though still known) side-effect of a new piece of software.

You may be right; perhaps I've been too specific. Even so, I do say later on that even if a content-modification feature doesn't completely fit with the rules, that doesn't mean it's evil. It just means that a little more thought is required.

Posted by: Yoz on February 28, 2005 06:41 PM

We love you Yoz, cuddly ad homoinem sapien that you are.

Posted by: Andy on February 28, 2005 08:46 PM

What if AutoLink was a Firefox extension? One that behaved exactly like Google Toolbar? What if it had been developed by some random guy? Would we be hearing all of this? I don't think so.

A Popup blocker also "changes" a website behavior and content, doesn't it? And the only people to bitch about it are website owners. Not users. I'm seeing the same thing with AutoLink.

What amazes me is that people like Jeffrey Zeldman are actually joining this dementia, providing tools for "Protecting your site from Google Toolbar". "Protect"? Grr. It's stuff like this that makes me loose all the respect I have for these guys.

Posted by: Jonas Galvez on March 1, 2005 12:07 AM

This is probably an ad hominem itself, but one of Dave's ongoing problems is that he consistently thinks that 'Dave Winer is wrong and here is a detailed explanation of why' is an ad hominem. There is only so much explaining you can do before wishing there was an AutoBeatYourHeadAgainstTheWall button on your browser.

Posted by: nick on March 1, 2005 07:40 AM

I think you're missing the point. The point is not that it's opt in. The point is that Google, being the biggest search engine on the web, gets a position to influence the thinking of every person that uses Autolink. You could argue they get to do that now. If you search for Bush they could make sure that only anti (or pro) Bush sites come up first. Or if not only, then 55% of them to make it look like a legit search but still sway opinion/

For some reason, to me, if a user goes to Google and types "Bush" and it comes up with mostly pro bush sites that's fine with me. But if a user goes to MY anti-Bush site and clicks "Autolink" and all the links point to pro-Bush sites that's not fine to me.

It's also NOT the same as the user editing the page themsevles. They are not the ones editing the page, one central authority, google, is editing that page. That's the scary part.

Posted by: Gregg Tavares on March 1, 2005 11:04 AM

"It's also NOT the same as the user editing the page themsevles. They are not the ones editing the page, one central authority, google, is editing that page. That's the scary part."

Sorry, Gregg, but it's *exactly* the same. If I know exactly what the button does, and I click it, then I'm performing those modifications myself. It's like you're saying that auto-format functions in MS Word shouldn't exist, because it's Microsoft making the decisions about how to format my document, not me.

Okay, look at it this way: You're saying that hand-editing the document is fine, pressing the browser button and having Google edit it isn't. How about if I load the document into a scripted text-editor and run a bunch of pre-prepared scripts that Google gave me? Is that okay? How about if Google tells me exactly what edits I need to make, and I follow the instructions? Is that okay?

You're saying there's a line in there somewhere, and I want you to show me that line, because as far as I can see it doesn't exist.

Posted by: Yoz on March 1, 2005 12:22 PM

I hate being a "cheerleader", but this post is simply perfect. We should just stop bickering about this useless tool and spend our (nowadays scarce) reserves of "Big Brother paranoia" for more important issues. I, for one, am much more worried about any not-acknowledged rewrite effort *on the publisher's side* (e.g. on CNN or WhiteHouse sites), something that is now commonplace and that really should spook the hell out of us.

Posted by: Giacomo on March 1, 2005 02:48 PM

Just curious, what's your feeling about this... http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/180-affiliates/

(In summary, software running on client computers that re-writes referal ids, so the maker of that software get the payments and not the website operator who did the hard work.)

Just curious.

Posted by: Bill Godfrey on March 1, 2005 09:15 PM

Bill: I've just taken a brief skim over the 180 document, but it looks like straightforward spyware, which breaks both rule 1 (since the user almost certainly doesn't know what it's doing) and rule 2 (the user did not choose to invoke it on its own - even when it tells of its installation, most spyware doesn't give users a choice in the matter when installing the application to which the spyware is attached).
In other words: Invalid (by my definition of validity).

Posted by: Yoz on March 1, 2005 09:24 PM

They would say that the software is running only because a user agreed to. (It was two thirds of the way down an n-million word EULA.)

(Pause for an eye roll.)

Posted by: Bill Godfrey on March 1, 2005 10:10 PM

Bill: Burying a condition at sentence n/2 of an n-sentence EULA is wrong because it is intentionally deceptive. As others have similarly stated, deception is wrong because it's *deception* (regardless of the means by which it's achieved). I'm sure I abhor tricky EULAs as much as you, but they have no relevance to the AutoLink debate.

Posted by: Wayne on March 2, 2005 01:02 AM

When all else fails, call them names!
http://trenchant.org/daily/2005/2/28/

Posted by: Roberto on March 2, 2005 02:44 AM

Yoz,

Getting back to my original comment(s), I think existing copyright law forbids what Google is doing. They are taking someone's content and changing its meaning (by changing/adding links) for commercial purposes.

But let's say that existing copyright law, examined by the best lawyers in the world, turns out to have little to say about this technical marvel. Given that copyright, going back hundreds of years, exists to provide a fair balance between consumers and producers of content, don't you think that these new techniques and technology alter that balance?

This isn't some kiddy script being played with by a select few. This is a toolbar that probably 90% of people downloaded and installed to prevent pop-ups and maybe show a cool Googlerank meter. This will clearly find its way into the hands of people who didn't specifically want to re-mix the web.

Posted by: Carter Rabasa on March 2, 2005 03:29 AM

Gah, I can't sleep! This whole topic is ruining my ability to sleep easily tonight.

Thought #1: ƒ(x) = y

If the content as I host it on my webserver is x and the content that Google Autolink creates is y, then I feel that the term "distribution" needs to be updated a bit. If the code in Autolink is identical on the clients it is installed on, then I would wonder if, for the clients that have installed and are using the Autolink feature (which presumably is greater than 1), it is correct to say that Google is re-distributing "y" which is an unauthorized derivative of "x".

Thought #2:

What if DJ Danger Mouse, instead of doing the mashup and distribution of the Beatles and Jay-Z himself had simply written a (bear with me technically) program that you could buy for a mere $xxx that would auto-download (or ship with) legitimate digital copies of the songs in question, mash them up (per his artistic instructions) on your PC, and thus provide you with your very own "fresh" Gray album. Can he do this? SHOULD he do this?

Posted by: Carter Rabasa on March 2, 2005 04:38 AM

Carter: The analogy is a poor one. Your model specifies that he's secured the rights to those songs. So, yes, he can re-distribute them.

For the sake of argument, let's consider (what appears to be) a more controversial question. Can DJ Danger Mouse sell a program that mashes-up copies of songs you already own (but that distributes no content itself)? This is more suitably analogous to what AutoLink does. (Remember, AutoLink doesn't distribute anything; it modifies your local copy of web page.) Would it be OK? Of course! I can do whatever I want with *my* copies of songs (for the same reason I'm allowed to take a Sharpie to all the dirty words in my book collection.) I'm struggling to see how this is anything more than the digital equivalent of writing in the margins.

Posted by: Wayne on March 2, 2005 06:05 AM

The spyware people say that consent with words buried in an EULA is fine, most of us seem to say that's not.

Other people say that what Google is doing is fine. Other says it isn't. (People saying that Google's modifications should clearly be marked as Google's doing.)

Where's the line?

Posted by: Bill Godfrey on March 2, 2005 10:11 AM

Okay, this is getting exasperating. (I hope this shows Dave that, even if you don't alter the page at all, the meaning can go completely AWOL for some people.)

Bill: The line is still exactly where I drew it at the start of this blog entry. 180, in common with most spyware, both doesn't explain its complete workings to the user (no, not even in the EULA - please read http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/180-affiliates/installation.html ) and it usually installs silently in tandem with something else, then automatically activates. If you can't see how this utterly cacks over all the rules I've specified, I can't help you.

Carter: I was going to respond, but Wayne's put it much better than I could, so I'll leave it to him.

Posted by: Yoz on March 2, 2005 11:36 AM

I don't know who you are. Nor do i have time to find out. But,

What you talking about makes a lot of sense. Bravo, Yoz !! Brilliant post with lot of clarity unlike plethora of posts with FUD. Keep it up.

Posted by: Ram on March 2, 2005 10:16 PM

I note with amusement that when Dave says 'This is one of those times when we have a story way in advance of other bloggers, and way in advance of the business press', he uses the famous 'Dewey Defeats Truman' headline, apparently without irony.

http://archive.scripting.com/2005/03/02#publishersNote

Posted by: nick on March 3, 2005 01:32 AM

Thanks for the response. My appologies for continuing this line of reasoning. I thought it was an interesting aside, but for all the heat my comment generated, maybe its a point I should have kept to myself. Ho hum.

"Is the user in control?" makes the difference between a good tool or a bad tool in my book. (And IMO the user is in control with Autolink.)

("All generalisations are false" is another good phrase.)

Posted by: Bill Godfrey on March 4, 2005 03:09 AM

Your arguement that it's the person's choice makes sense that it's clearly legal.

But, I'm surprised that it doesn't bother you that one company will get to select the links for every single person that clicks that button.

Maybe we'll start seeing some custom versions. There will be the Bill O'Reilly Autolink button. Click it and every word on the page will be linked to a page the Bill thinks you should read. Does that sound any more scary?

I'm sure you rebuttle will be that only people that opt in for Bill's toolbar will push that button. I agree, Google is not Mr O'Reilly, Mr. O'reilly would only have a small fraction of the millions of people that will be using Google's Autolink. It still scares the crap out of me that one company will have the power to effect the links of every person that clicks that button.

Posted by: greggman on March 4, 2005 08:13 PM

greggman, why is this so hard to understand. If I want Bill O'Reilly links and I've turned them on deliberately and I understood upfront that turning on O'Reilly links is what I would get, then I would be quite happy to get what I wanted. As the user, I am in control. Now, if I turn on O'Reilly links and get Al Franken links, then it is not legitimate.

Posted by: jdb on March 5, 2005 12:26 AM

"It still scares the crap out of me that one company will have the power to effect the links of every person that clicks that button."

So it's not about the general principle; it's about the fact that Google doing it? In which case, as Mr Kottke says:

'if you're against AutoLink because you think Google is becoming too big, they're evil, they're abusing their power, or they bought another blog company instead of yours, then that's fine. Just be up front about why you're upset.'

Posted by: nick on March 5, 2005 05:11 PM

It's not that it's "google". It's that it's any one entity. Can you name another tech on the net that has the chance to influence the opinions of as many people? Can you name another tech on the net that has the same potential for abuse? No other tech on the net has the ability to modify so many pages from one centrally controlled place. I'm not sure which scares me more, that fact that one company will have this influence or that fact that you can't see that it's a bad thing for one company to have that influence.

Maybe the first time you find that some link that you think should show up all over the net but it doesn't show up when autolink is clicked because it somehow threatens google, maybe you'll get it then. Maybe the day when google allowes you to not click the button but have it be the default behavior and you find that 80%+ of the net has it set to their default therefore never following any links except google's.

Posted by: greggman on March 5, 2005 06:38 PM

'Can you name another tech on the net that has the chance to influence the opinions of as many people?'

So, it's about Google. But it's not about Google. Which is it, mate? If it's about Google, be honest and admit it.

'Maybe the first time you find---'
'Maybe the day when---'

And as Yoz and Cory both said, they'll raise their objections then, when it's appropriate, rather than crying wolf over features that have not even come *close* to being implemented. As will I. Or when the Googlebots invade Belgium. Whichever comes soonest.

If Firefox included GreaseMonkey by default, with a set of user scripts that exactly emulated the Google Toolbar's AutoLink, would you be complaining?

Posted by: nick on March 5, 2005 07:22 PM

"No other tech on the net has the ability to modify so many pages from one centrally controlled place."

How do you know that AutoLink is centrally controlled?

Posted by: on March 6, 2005 01:29 AM

I mean, obviously the software was released by Google, but web browsers are centrally released, too. As far as I know, AutoLink does not contact the Google servers when running.

Posted by: on March 6, 2005 01:30 AM

" As far as I know, AutoLink does not contact the Google servers when running."

You might want to read the fine print:
http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/static.py?page=features.html

"Google may collect information about web pages that you view when you use advanced features such as PageRank, SpellCheck, AutoLink, and WordTranslator."

BTW - some users assume they can freely alter content to create derivative works. That isn't correct. If by doing so this act deprives the copyright holder of income, then I doubt the courts will have much problem cutting through the "ok if it benefits the user" argument.

Posted by: Gavin Child on March 6, 2005 10:22 PM

> If by doing so this act deprives the copyright holder of income, then I doubt the courts will have much problem cutting through the "ok if it benefits the user" argument.

It's got nothing to do with income. Copyright doesn't guarantee income. It restricts copying and some forms of distribution.

No content is being copied or distributed. It is being altered.

It's a bit difficult to infringe on copyrights when you aren't copying or distributing anything, wouldn't you say?

Posted by: on March 7, 2005 06:36 PM

excellent, that was really well explained and helpful

online casinos

Posted by: online casinos on April 6, 2005 12:14 AM

Children! I did not create the universe, this planet and yourselves just so you could have pointless arguements about something so utterly trivial and inconsequential as the internet.

Please, open your eyes. There are fellow human beings being killed, being raped, starivng to death, and you are arguing with each other over some kind of internet knick knack? Honestly now....

Please, come along now. Buy yourselves a Bible, a Torah, a Qu'ran, the Tao Te Ching, the Zend Avesta or even just something by that Carlos Casteneda guy (doesn't realy matter which. They all say pretty much the same thing from my point of view).

Just be nice to each other, ok? That's all I really want. Stop creating yet more ill feeling on your planet over the internet. Please.

Don't make me come down there.

Posted by: God on April 15, 2005 10:09 AM

Lovely way to make your points. Is this what an autowinerbot looks like? See, now, THAT is altering and hijacking a blog in such a way that the user has no choice in the matter. THAT'S forcing advertising. If I had been able to choose for myself whether to automate a linking service to your real estate, hair removal and/or casino empire, that would be something else altogether.

However, in trying to prove your point, you've removed all your credibility and handed over the argument to Yoz. You've chosen to spam and remove user choice by altering a competitor's website and content. Yes, comments are open, but somehow, you don't pass the smell test. It's obviously a juvenile attempt at making a point about what you imagine Autolink does - but you only succeed in becoming your own worst, baseless depiction.

Far as I can tell, Autolink is like me choosing to hire a personal information booth consultant to follow me on my travels. Having hired them myself, I'm aware of what they are wont to recommend, and for, not despite that, I have retained them. I CHOSE IT MYSELF. It affects only MY web browsing experience. If I was disturbed to have only the limited expansion of links due to the choices Google makes, I'd not use it.

BTW, I also retain the choice to refuse the link provided by autolink as well.

According to the detractors, I'm a mindless, led-by-the-nose user who will haplessly click on Amazon in a fugue state and order any ISBN listing offered just because it appeared before my eyes. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I am not Google's unwashed prole mass, and what's more important, I'm not YOUR unwashed prole mass either. You don't have a right to make me your captive audience...and I'm not so stupid that I imagine that the links Google provides are in any way part of your content.

I'm SEEKING to generate alternatives and supplementary links. If you have a beef with someone even gaining a view to opinions contrary to your political views, then your content must be so weak that it actually relies on controlled ignorance. You actually fear any dissent and seek to squelch it.

It's in Beta, too - so much of the effort on the part of the detractors could be funneled into improving the Autolinker by offering constructive, not inflammatory, fearmongering feedback.

Don't like that it's only Amazon being shown? Request that the autolink be able to determine what page it's on and to provide competitor links commensurate to that vendor. Whatever, but don't think you have the right to dictate what helpers I take shopping with me. I hired them, and I know what they offer. Disable my freedom, and I disable your bookmark.

Posted by: Scav. on April 26, 2005 09:54 PM

I mean, obviously the software was released by Google, but web browsers are centrally released, too.

Posted by: Maria on May 4, 2005 12:17 PM

A Popup blocker also "changes" a website behavior and content, doesn't it? And the only people to bitch about it are website owners. Not users. I'm seeing the same thing with AutoLink.

Posted by: porn from a to z on August 5, 2005 11:45 PM

http://www.sdiy.org/pasty/rape/230268/gallerys.html http://www.sdiy.org/pasty/toon/rvwfrryq/garfield.html agentmanhoodragged

Posted by: stainless on January 24, 2006 09:21 AM

wine
beer wine liquor
wine rack
wine gift basket
wine club
wine gift
wine basket
wine cooler
food and wine
wine country gift basket
wine store
wine glasses
red wine
wine cellar
iron and wine
wine spectator
wine storage
wine online
wine making
wine of the month club
strawberry wine
wine enthusiast
book en in investing primeur wine
wine refrigerator
wine bar
wine accessory
wine country
wine tasting
wine of the month
red red wine
wine tour
wine cabinet
california wine
wine and spirits
french wine
buy wine online
wine opener
total wine
wine country basket
wine rating
napa wine
ice wine
wine shop
buy wine
wine chiller
port wine
italian wine
white wine
wine of the world
mulled wine
wine label
wine making kit
wine bottle
wine making supply
wine glass
california wine tour
wine review
wine note
german wine
fine wine
april wine
wine decanter
wine country gift
wine prices
type of wine
food world wine
oregon wine
australian wine
food and wine magazine
riedel wine glasses
wine stopper
mulled wine recipe
wine glass rack
iron and wine lyric
wine charm
wine and cheese
wine bottle opener
food and wine pairing
wrought iron wine rack
dessert wine
wine carrier
southern wine and spirits
sparkling wine
wine guide
sams wine
wine decanters
sweet wine
merlot wine
wine bottle holder
metal wine rack
monthly wine club
stemless wine glasses
how to make wine
napa wine tour
best wine
wine library
wine glass charm
wine merchant
www.azwinebottles.com
www.azwinebottles.com
http://www.azwinebottles.com

Posted by: beer wine liquor on January 24, 2006 02:38 PM

http://www.suomifutis.net/pasty/pissing/sltm8yc/cunt.html http://www.suomifutis.net/pasty/gay/839308714/korea.html http://www.suomifutis.net/pasty/gay/167288031/free-gay-personals.html bagsdignityxeroxed

Posted by: electromagnetic on January 26, 2006 09:13 AM

watches
watch
replica watch
citizen watch
jewelry watch
man watch
seiko watch
fossil watch
watch music video
omega watch
heisman watch
watch tv
pocket watch
watch free movie online
swiss army watch
football ticket
watch winder
nba ticket
cartier watch
price watch
tag heuer watch
tag watch
casio watch
wrist watch
gucci watch
breitling watch
watch free movie
invicta watch
kenneth cole watch
bulova watch
nixon watch
guess watch
timex watch
womens watch
automatic pilot productpage watch
hockey ticket
swiss watch
swatch watch
tissot watch
watch repair
watch music video online
watch tv on the internet
designer watch
celtic productpage watch
watch band
anne klein watch
world of watch
michele watch
nike watch
basketball ticket
atomic watch
lady watch
third watch
skagen watch
watch tv online
watch free tv online
woman watch
hamilton watch
rado watch
luxury watch
fake watch
esq watch
geneva watch
pulsar watch
discount watch
watch movie online
diesel watch
relic watch
diamond watch
night watch
elgin watch
raymond weil watch
dive watch
watch free music video
whale watch
croton watch
dkny watch
concord watch
vintage watch
watch battery
watch box
wholesale watch
iwc watch
jacob watch
santa watch
oris watch
watch cases
luminox watch
mickey mouse watch
market watch
watch movie
freestyle watch
watch strap
coach watch
longines watch
citizen eco drive watch
army watch
used rolex watch
gold watch
antique watch
military watch
http://www.azbrandwatches.com
www.azbrandwatches.com

Posted by: military watch on January 28, 2006 12:38 AM

penis enlargement
penis enlargement pills
penis enlargement products
penis extender
http://www.online-manufacturer.com
www.online-manufacturer.com

Posted by: penis enlargement on January 31, 2006 11:00 AM

http://www.topwebs.de/user/buchi/incest/index.html http://www.topwebs.de/user/buchi/mature/qynkpzky/fee.html forcesvibratevile

Posted by: building on February 1, 2006 03:59 AM

hard porn online porn porn sex get porn porn porn

Posted by: on February 1, 2006 07:57 PM

Posted by: DdBKPVtvOT on February 4, 2006 01:49 PM

Posted by: KNMYdDVFTk on February 5, 2006 12:49 AM

http://www.villagedusexe.com/jeunefille/buchi/incest/167834352/real_incest_boys.html http://www.villagedusexe.com/jeunefille/buchi/mature/hmkcp96avo/jamaican.html exampleglidetaking

Posted by: privacy on February 5, 2006 03:59 AM

http://www.westlakes.org/wwwboard/messages/951.htm billydriverseducing

Posted by: ribbed on February 6, 2006 07:27 AM

http://www.assparade.com/t1/pps=fabianb/ http://www.assparade.com/t1/pps=fabianb/ http://www.assparade.com/t1/pps=fabianb/ http://www.assparade.com/t1/pps=fabianb/ http://www.assparade.com/t1/pps=fabianb/

Posted by: darcyblackssad on February 6, 2006 05:46 PM

Posted by: CVzFlbGnYL on February 7, 2006 06:16 AM

Posted by: MrmnCTNbfA on February 9, 2006 12:57 AM

Boat cover!If you must have a slippery slope to play with, then imagine one that slopes the other way. One where the content publishers have more and more control, where they have the power to decide, say, who can link to a page, how long your browser must stay on a page before being allowed to leave, which pages it is allowed to exit to, etc.

Posted by: Boat cover on February 9, 2006 11:50 AM

boat cover,
boat cover fol all

Posted by: Boat cover on February 9, 2006 11:52 AM

http://cheerleader.yoz.com/archives/001930.html

Posted by: Boat cover on February 9, 2006 11:53 AM

Posted by: lIezfVaArQ on February 11, 2006 10:13 PM

http://zoomy.home.sapo.pt/gay/016760485/totallyhidden.html http://zoomy.home.sapo.pt/toon/5l40iwbawd/save.html bargainentertaingrey

Posted by: bob on February 12, 2006 09:18 AM

http://zoomy.home.sapo.pt/gay/016760485/totallyhidden.html http://zoomy.home.sapo.pt/toon/5l40iwbawd/save.html bargainentertaingrey

Posted by: bob on February 12, 2006 09:18 AM

Pornographic character information...

Posted by: Febe on February 13, 2006 10:03 PM