INFORMED OPINONS & OTHER COMMENTS
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:02:50 -0500
At 01:22 PM 8/31/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello, John...I'm wondering if you can give me any advice
>in the following matter. I just received an e-mail
>that I should cease displaying one of my satirical
>works, using two "Peanuts Characters". This cartoon
>can be seen at:
This is not my field, but I think you had better comply. Even
if you have a good argument that you are using the work as a
satire, you don't want to have to hire an attorney to defend
your right to do so in court. The battle would be uphill and
even if you won, it would cost you too much money.
Sorry that I could not give you more pleasant advice. You
could call some other attorneys, but I think you will get the
same advice.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:57:36 -0400
The best way to deal with this is to go to the US Copyrights
web site. You can find it under the US Copyright office by
doing a search under government under yahoo. And then write
them about what you are doing and give them the full details.
They will help you with this. Don't be intimidated by what
someone else is doing ... I never worry ab0ut it... :) It's
just harassment... But go to the copyright office just the
same dear...
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:24:54 -0700
Hi Zeke
An old adage in war...pick your battles. Consider your losses
in defeat and your gains in victory.
In this battle you are vastly out gunned. You would be
fighting in the quagmire (at this time a horrendous battle is
going on about copyrights and the www) swamp, where the
copyright holders are trying to prove a point. To fight it
would would be in the realm of lawyers, where no one ever
wins. If the lawyers contact the site owners they will cancel
you automatically. The site holders hve really been burned on
this one and will take no chances. Then you would have to
prove you are in the right (see above) before most sites would
let you use their area.
If you win you have saved 2 cartoons.
It does not seem that there is any gay issue involved.
If you retreat, you have lost 2 cartoons.
My .02$
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:47:28 -0700
(Yes, I'm bad and wrong for posting to APH - but I'm a
cartoonist too - so please forgive!)
I'm no lawyer, but as a rule of thumb you can get away with
parody imitation of copywrit and/or trademarked material if
the following conditions are met: The work is a one-shot and
no franchise and the creative work is original and not copied
or copied and altered. A single "peenuts" cartoon parody -
written and drawn by yourself, should be perfectly legal.
Contact the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund for legal support if
it comes to that. From looking at your cartoon, I think the
cartoon syndicate hasn't a legitimate leg to stand on -
especially as you're distributing it for no profit. Peanuts is
common material for MAD magazine to parody, perhaps finding an
example would be of use.
Do look for a public spirited lawyer to help you free of
charge. This is likely a free speech issue - and perhaps even
the ACLU would help you out.
(By they way, I don't share your sentiment that "no comment"
regarding gayness in a sunday strip can be equated with
homophobia, particularly where the subjects are intended to be
pre-adolescent. Your cartoon would argue Calvin and Hobbes or
Pogo or Blondie..etc. is in the same category as Jesse Helms,
which is simply not true.)
Best of luck!
(My comics can be seen at http://myksite.fsn.net)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 06:44:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Threatened with copyright infringement
Sounds like they're ready to eat you up!
There was a similar case not long ago where someone was sued
for depicting DISNEY characters in sexual flagrante.. They
lost, big time, with some draconian punishment. Just some
obscure zine cartoonist, in Florida, I think.
Make nice, and maybe they'll go away.
Don't mess with CHARLIE schulz, American Icon.
Frater Xanthrope
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 01:17:17 -0400
> I'm wondering if anyone can give me
> any advice in the following matter.
> I just received an e-mail that I
> should cease displaying one of my
> satirical works, using two "Peanuts
> Characters".
Were I you, I'd remove it IMMEDIATELY. Then I would be
contrite and apologize to United Feature Syndicate, etal and
PRAY that they don't prosecute their case. They ARE NOT
someone you wish to tangle with. This is not parody and you
will lose in court and it will be very costly for you to do
so.
With all the talent I know that exists within the gay
community and within the ranks of those who support your
causes and goals, surely there is someone who can whip up a
first class cartoon which will serve the purpose w/o resorting
to steal the work of another as was done to Mr. schulz. Don't
forget that not only is United Feature Syndicate involved but
the characters are also the spokespersons for Metropolitan
Insurance.
And to peddle ad specialties with the logo on it could land
you a federal criminal charge (depending on how much clout
they have and whether any of it is made overseas). Not
something I would look forward to.
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1998
Saw your comix--a bit heavy-handed and/or strident, but
subversive, indeed. Are you sure about immunity for
disability? Lack of assets won't stop them--they are
multi-nefarious.
LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.
LITIGANT, n. A person about to give up his skin for the hope
of retaining his bones.
LITIGATION, n. A machine which you go into as a pig and come
out of as a sausage.
(Ambrose Bierce)--one more, then I'll hide....
SATIRE, n. An obsolete kind of literary composition in which
the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded
with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had
more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it
is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humor that we
mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and
sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are "endowed by
their Creator" with abundant vice and folly, it is not
generally known that these are reprehensible qualities,
wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a
sour-spirited knave, and his every victim's outcry for
codefendants evokes a national assent.
--------------------------------------------
You are right, of course, and detournement is my favorite
entertainment---but lawyers give me the willies.
Doonesbury and that Canadian comic both have gay characters.
I'd like to see gay Zippy, Fusco Bros, Dilbert for sure.
Insouicant ridicule---that's the concept!
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: RTMARK
Subject: Re: Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass!
Cc: Negativeland
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ezekiel,
We've put a link to your Peenuts on our site.
First of all, you probably already know that the cease-and
-desist letter is probably not going to lead to anything else,
and that you shouldn't reply to it. What you're doing does
indeed look like Fair Use, and I don't think the real Peanuts
wants bad publicity....
You might want to talk to Negativland about this if anything
else happens. And we might add a line about this to our next
press release, if you don't mind.
Thanks for writing and letting us know about this.
Take care,
r
http://rtmark.com/
Bringing IT to YOU.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:22:14 -0700
From: Mark/Negativland
Hi- I agree with RTMARK...don't let 'em scare you!!! They
are not going to come bust down your door and take your
computer........
Make a big stink and ignore them. Or make no stink and
ignore them...either way- IGNORE THEM.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:36:19 -0400
My layman's, although I do pay attention to copywrite matters
because of involvement with software, take on Peenuts is that
you are infringing on Peanuts. I also believe that your
reference to the creator of Peanuts may be actionable by
Charles schulz. Your strip appears to be less satirical and
more abusive of Shultz and Peanuts, because your reference to
"all sunday strips" doesn't really divert attention from
Peanuts to all strips. Because of that personal sounding
attack, I hope you do move on to another attempt and ditch
this strip.
Now if you grabbed a character from many Sunday strips, you
will probably be OK.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998
From: Andra
Jeez, I see so many imitations of comics on the internet.
Figures they would pick on someone whose cause was
actually a good one, because hell, most of those imitations
are just plain perverted and yet they don't do anything
about them.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998
From: Paul
Sorry you have run into trouble over the Peanuts characters.
I'd like to think you are scoring some points for gays by
pointing out the lack of gay cartoon characters in the papers,
but I fear that all the lawyers are interested in is getting
you to stop using their protected property. The only way to
defend yourself would be to claim they allow others to use it
for parody without their disapproval. At any rate, will they
come after you if you don't comply with their deadline? Are
you getting any legal advice?
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 20:49:04 EDT
Subject: Re: Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass!
In a message dated 9/6/98 2:38:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ezekielk@iname.com writes:
[[You have read, no doubt, my very latest message regarding
the probable upcoming lawsuit of Charles Schulz vs. Ezekiel
Krahlin.]]
I guess that Charles Schulz is no Lynn Johnston. I'm sure Mr.
Schulz would be shocked if Charlie Brown turned out to be gay.
It's not supposed to happen in innocent worlds (in his mind,
anyway), but it does.
It would be a mistake for Charles Schulz to go after small
potatoes, not representing any real business interest. It
looks too much like bullying and homophobia. If he does really
hassle you, publicity is probably your best ally.
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 02:06:06 +0000
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright
infringement!
>And as for my Pee Nuts issue: any help on this matter, is
>greatly appreciate...for my victory is a victory for gay
>rights. Even if I lose the court case, the fact that I was
>able to voice my point about no gay presence in mainstream
>comics...is the real victory; for it will raise the Amerikan
>public's consciousness. And the more media attention this
>gets, the more the consciousness is raised.
After seeing the strip in question, I can't imagine there will
ever be a court case, because they have high-priced lawyers
and you would have to get someone like the ACLU to support
you.
After seeing the strip in question, I can't imagine the ACLU
would bother with this case. If the goal of this is to raise
awareness, perhaps it would best be done with a strip that was
pointed and funny. This strip is an infringement of their
copyrighted characters, being used to slander their creator as
anti-gay, merely because his strip isn't pro-gay.
Slandering American icons like Charles Schultz is not the
beginnings of a master plan to help raise people's
consciousness about gay issues. It would just seem to further
the divide. "For Better or Worse" has had a running gay teen
character for a while now, and has seen controversy whenever
the character appears.
I was a newspaper reporter on the east coast when their gay
character was initially introduced, and can still recall the
hostile e-mail, letters to the editor and phone calls the
paper received because we ran it (on the editorial page, by
the way, pulled off the comics page, for the duration of that
character's story line). So, if you think middle America wants
Nancy to start eating out Peppermint Patty every Sunday,
you've been in San Francisco too long. These are still major
issues for a lot of people.
I'm also not familiar with cases of "parody" whereby the goal
was only to slander and insult the person who created the work
being parodied. It's usually done in good humor, to my
knowledge.
Peace,
Jeff
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 10:14:29 +0800
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright
I forgot my cardinal rule. "Stand back and look at what a man
is doing, not what he is saying. His silence can be more
instructive than his words."
I missed the point, didn't I? This isn't about the cartoon,
its about keeping the issues in the public forum and keeping
the discussion going. If you say somthing that everybody
agrees with, they say nothing. If they say nothing, people
hear nothing, and everything carries on as it has been.
I dislike the comic, but your "original work" isn't the comic
is it? Its this very debate. Your are not about to agree with
anybody because that would put an end to it.
Okay, now I think I have learned something.
--
"...there is sometimes little to choose between
the reality of illusion and the illusion of
reality."
Patrick White, The Aunt's Story , 1948
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 10:35:58 -0700
Subject: RE: Charles Shulz's Attorneys Are After
Ezekiel,
I was really at a loss for a way to properly express your
position and politics. First, let me say, I am quite serious
in my statement that any equal rights movement needs the
Ezekiels in order to be succcessful.
The words extremist, fundamentalist or Chauvinist all describe
your position but they have such a pejoritive sense in most
people's minds. Once, during the height of the racial riots
of the 60s, I heard the expression, "angry blacks". While
angry gay might describe you, it also describes me and many
others who have been fighting for decades for gay equality.
The Farrakhan reference was more to give the feel of a
supremicist. I get the feeling that you could properly be
described as a gay supremicist.
The comment was mine only and I wait to see what others on the
list feel should be the focus. Perhaps the list needs this
input.
You may not recall my name but I am sure I have e-mailed you
with a bit of my history. One of the things that becomes
engrained in a CJS professional is a need to "show
credentuals". My credentuals for comments on the fight for
gay equality begin in the winter of 1964/65 when I attended
the first (and only) Mattachine organizational meeting in
Seattle. It was only a short time after that that a number of
us started the fight here. Luckily for the gays of the
future, some have began a compilation of the early history of
the gay rights movement in Seattle. I was in that frist
group. In 1965, I was on the first radio broadcast in Seattle
(maybe everywhere?) discussing the need for gay equality. I
was on the first panel discussions of The Seattle Council of
Religion and the Homosexual (patterned after San Francisco's).
I was the first person to successfully sue a law enforcement
agency to regain my job after being fired for homosexuality
(1974). There are a number of "credentuals" I could flash but
the only reason for showing them is to indicate that I know
what I am talking about when I say that the gay equality
movement needs the Ezekiels as well as those suit and tie
conservatives.
You are going to often find people seperating themselves from
you and "your ilk". This is a political necessity. It is a
wise person that does not allow this political seperation to
create anger or dislike on the personal or private level.
Oh by the way, I recall someone commenting on a "Gay
Manifesto". I seem to recall the publication of a "Gay
Manifesto" in the late 60s or early 70s. If you need, I can
look through my bookshelves and see if I have it.
Remember that my comments on the relivence of your message to
the list, are only mine and you need to keep reading the list
for the comments of others. Don Jarak (is that right?) who is
a Lt. in N.Y. is sort of the list owner. If he says anything,
that will probably be gospel.
Keep up your fight and keep poking a stick into the ribs of
those who either supress gay rights or who are ambivalent to
gay equality. Make them think.
Doug
==================================
| Comments are my own and do not
| reflect any official policy or
| position of the Wa. State Patrol
| or any other organization.
==================================
From: "Crusader"
Subject: Re: Charles Shulz's Attorneys Are After My Ass!
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 12:29:08 -0700
Try the following contacts:
1. Human Rights Campaign, (202) 628-4160 (V) or 347-5323 (F)
or hrc@hrc.org
2. Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund (213) 937-2728 (V)
937-0601 (F) 6300 Wilshire Bl Ste 200, Los Angeles, CA
90036-3617
3. Paul Wotman, Esq. (415) 864-1900 (V) or 575-3827 (F)
414 Gough St No. 2, San Francisco, CA 94102-4416
Also, I want to include your story in my October column, so I
will be in touch with you to see how this matter progresses.
For whatever it is worth, I didn't even get responses when I
contacted dozens of cyber-rights groups on the net when
LinkExchanged banned by home page. I have some other thoughts
for contacts, but start with these first. Good luck!
There was a similar incident recently with the Orange County
Register who forced a "satire/criticism site" off the web. I
wrote about it in my August column
http://home.earthlink.net/~mrcrusader/aug98.html
From: Person1 at Disinformation Zine http://www.disinfo.com/
Subject: RE: Charles Schulz's Attorneys Are After My Ass!
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:52:43 -0400
Hi Ezekiel,
We're doing a thing on electronic civil disobedience for
Disinformation soon, so I'm forwarding your email on to our
editor who's handling that section.
Good luck with your fight against Schultz's pitbulls.
How UPTIGHT!
You go girl,
Richard
From: Person2 at Disinformation Zine http://www.disinfo.com/
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 17:12:00 -0400
Subject: Re: FW: Charles Schulz's Attorneys Are After My Ass!
This is perfect for the copyright/copywrong section...it'll
focus extensively on Fair Use issues...
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:32:47 GMT
From: [A Person]
Subject: Re: Schulz's Attorneys charged me w/copyright
infringement. Seek help.
This is just a comment to your numerous posts on this issue,
and nothing more.
While I suggest you seek legal assistance from Legal Aid,
considering your financial circumstances, I am not clear why
you feel that this issue is a matter of 'parody', since it is
not satirizing the original _work_ within, but making a
_derivative use_ (for personal profit and donations from what
I saw) of copyrighted characters that United Features
Syndicate owns, through their agreement with Mr. Schulz. This
appears to be United's disagreement with you, and _not the
content of your comments_. Since you did not seek the
permission of United or Mr. Schulz, they do appear to be
within their rights to ask for your website's removal of their
copyrighted characters, IMO.
Further, there is definitely some question in my mind whether
you can 'copyright' your work (except for content) as the
characters depicted are not owned by you, nor make a profit
from their use.
However, this was pointed out to you several times on
misc.legal.moderated, so I will leave it at that.
This is merely my arms-length personal opinion only, as I do
not practice law. I did read your website review of case
law, but did not believe it to be 'on point'. This, again, is
my opinion only.
Such comments/opinions do not create an attorney-client
relationship, and do not constitute legal advice.
[A Person], J.D.
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 05:26:57 -0400
From: [A Person]
Subject: Re: Schulz's Attorneys charged me w/copyright
infringement. Seek help.
Dear Mr. Krahlin:
I viewed your parody--interesting.
I know of an intellectual property clinic at the University of
Maryland School of Law that might help.
Try contacting Max S. Oppenheimer, who is the director.
Subject: Re: Schulz's Attorneys charged me w/copyright
infringement. Seek help.
From: ([2 people])
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:22:00 GMT
Mr. Schulz is a client of mine and I can Assure you he is a
bastard when it comes to this kind of issue. He has simply
CRUSHED individuals in similar instances. This is a guy with
so much clout in the courts that when an employee of his SHOT
to DEATH her husband, in Schulz's private studio, she was
acquitted. He personally testified to her distress, and the
torment by the dead guy. There were 4 witnesses, and when
the police arrived she literally had the gun in her hand.
If what you received was a warning I suggest the following:
1. If you want to make a free speech issue of it, find a
civil liberties lawyer with nothing to do. Expect to lose.
2. Consider yourself warned, flattered by the attention, and
drop it.
My suggestion would be the latter.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:35:36 -0400
Subject: pee
I read your site (via Fringeware) It's not a funny cartoon -
that's probably what's offensive about it. How do you make
time for all these disputes?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:09:25 -0500
Subject: Re: My gay-rights cartoon is charged with copyright
infringement!
YOU TOOK A RISK Gambled and ??????perhaps you Clintoned
it... er
maybe youll get off the Hook.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:30:46 -0700
From: San Francisco Examiner
Subject: peenuts
hi ezekiel,
your e-mail on your problem with Chalres Schulz' attorneys was
forwarded to me. i'm a reporter at the Examiner. where d'you
live?
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:44:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Got me a lawyer!
>A lawyer from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund voice called
>me this afternoon, Sept. 24. Conclusion: I have a good case,
>and if it should go to court, it will most likely be tried in
>Washington, D.C. We will remain in contact, and I will keep
>everyone updated on this Pee Nuts web site.
Good luck.
As someone who greatly values our First Amendment and freedom
of speech, I hope you win or force them to settle.
You may disagree, but I do not believe this is a gay issue at
all. It is a simple freedom of speech issue which affects a
lot more than gay folks -- a win would be good precedent to
stop corporate bullying of anyone on the net who parodies a
commercial work.
---
http://www.turnleft.com/personal/
"The opposite of war isn't peace... it's creation"
Subject: RE: Charles Schulz's Attorneys Are After My Ass!
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:25:01 -0400
Organization: |d|i|s|i|n|f|o|r|m|a|t|i|o|n
You are bonkers, dude, but in a good way.
Send all updates to [someone], [someplace].com, so he can keep
abreast of this.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:05:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: spinn http://www.spinnwebe.com/
Subject: Re: Thanks for your critique of my Pee Nuts!
I'm at work now. I'll reply more fully later. For now, let me
hit two points:
I didn't contact you directly because I saw the stats page and
saw that I've given you the biggest hit boost you've had thus
far. Knew you'd find me eventually.
As for the "beyond logic" statement: I don't believe that sort
of thing until I look for myself. I went through many of your
pages and decided I agreed with them.
Actually, three things: no, there isn't a "fair use parody
clause". There is a way to interpret fair use such that parody
can be included, but parody is not categorically allowed. Talk
to Negativland; they'll tell you. It's very open to
interpretation based on usage. If there were such a parody
clause, you wouldn't be having this problem.
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 18:41:53
Subject: Gay Rights: WHAT?!
After reading your strip and its related articles, and I was
thinking: My God, how dumb.
Believe it or not, I'm Gay, and even I fail to see the humor
in this. Not only is it unrelated to Peanuts, but your
argument cannot even support itself. You're saying that Schulz
is against Gay people i general because he doesn't have a
Gay-rights message embedded in the strip? Did you even
honestly EXPECT that to work as a defense? And does that
honestly mean ALL people who don't scream about Gay rights
morning, noon, and night are homophobic (or "anti-gay", as you
so "succinctly" put it) as well?
I sincerely believe that you ought to have read Spinn's reply.
I think that his answer clearly sums up what a logical answer
would entail: http://www.spinnwebe.com/letters/antigay.shtml
Oh, nevermind. Everyone I've talked to who's seen it says
you're beyond logic, anyway.
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 22:44:59
From: someone@somewhere.net
Subject: Re: [Re: Gay Rights: WHAT?!]
Oh, God. I didn't expect such an enthusiastic wave of
response.
For starters, I am AMAZED - and APPALLED - that you had the
GALL to call me conservative. I just know what's funny and
what isn't. That ain't funny. And to say that I'm a
conservative when you don't even WANT to know what the
homophobes at my high school did - and there are a Hell of a
lot of them - is amazing. And you haven't even seen how
vicious a civil libertarian I am. I've alienated people
because of my liberalism. I want a revolution too, and don't
you forget it.
Look: calling someone "Charles Schitz" because he just doesn't
look out for every possible group offendable isn't a copyright
violation, it's libel. Sure, not only does he not have Gay
characters, but he also doesn't have Asian characters. And I
haven't seen Joe Chang bang out a cartoon stating "Charles
Schitz is racist because he doesn't have Asian characters in
it".
Beyond that, the cartoon so much isn't a parody as it is a
political statement. Usually people don't find concrete
political statements funny. If you could've done something
less abrasive (Not calling the strip "Peenuts" or its writer
"Charles Schitz" would be a good start) and tried to give it a
solid joke I think it would function as parody. But right now,
a statement saying "Schulz is homophobic because he doesn't
include gay rights in his comics" is just political. And
vulgar at that.
Most certainly, HELL YES I believe that there should be Gay
characters in mainstream comics. But Peanuts, for crying
aloud? These kids aren't even pubescent yet! Until they have
characters that are old enough to proceed beyond puppy love -
say, 13 or 14 - we need to find another outlet. Luann would be
a great idea, for example. Something in which characters have
definitively sexual desires.
Finally, if you wanted a Gay character in the funnies,
SAY IT. When I saw "or else he would include gay rights in his
strip", I couldn't help but imagine some sort of Pride Parade
with Snoopy pulling an "It's a Community Not a Commodity"
float with a Zamboni. Grouping the inclusion of a Gay
character is not the same thing as the struggle for Gay rights
itself.
In the end, I suggest you take this to USENET, that is,
rec.arts.comics.strips. I think that this could progress
somewhere if we proceed in a calm, rational, and
community-oriented fashion. Please think about it. I really
don't like being yelled at. I really don't.
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 13:34:30
From: someone@somewhere.net
Subject: Whatever
I'm mailing you to let you know - I'm surprised I'm even
giving you the courtesy - that I killfiled your email address.
I'm exceedingly tired of putting up with your sickening
vulgarity, your thinly veiled, ridiculous prejudices, and
especially these Non Sequiturs. Don't mail me again. This
doesn't mean that you win. This means I'm sick of you already.
Subject: Why not....
To: DPOIRIER@baker-hostetler.com,
ezekielk@members.gayweb.com
From: [someone]@stanford.edu
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 05:02:59 -0800
Go fuck yourselves and Charles "Closet Case" Shulz as well.
I'm not sure why the fuck you're harassing this guy
"ezekielk@members.gayweb.com" - especially since Schulz has
said NOTHING of any relevance (socially) in the last twenty
fucking years.
Perhaps you might consider finding yourself a fucking life
rather than head-fucking some unknown satirist you litigious,
bottom-feeding, pieces of shit.
Please, go die.
---end of document