From
http://www.wafb.com/global/story.asp?s=2774728&ClientType=Printable

"Investigators with the Attorney General's High-Tech Crimes Unit say the situation started when a 15-year-old female student created a website called "Loranger's biggest queer.com." The website featured pictures of a 14-year-old male student. He responded with his own web site, which investigators say included a list of students he called "The Preps," and poems so graphically violent, investigators say "they crossed the line."

Kris Wartelle with the Attorney General's Office said, "It sort of was like bullying on the Internet that got even worse, and we're lucky it didn't escalate to something even worse."

After seeing the boy's website, a concerned parent alerted the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's Office. The Attorney General's High Tech Crime Unit was contacted and began an imediate investigation. Authorities confiscated the student's computers.

Both students were arrested, as well as 18-year old Joseph Sanchez, who was charged with contributing to the delinquincy of a minor. Authorities say Sanchez helped the younger male set up and maintain his website. The pair called themselves the "8-Ballas," and targeted students they called "The Preps."

Also, on this incident
http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2751626
"HAMMOND, La. State and Tangipahoa Parish authorities are investigating complaints about a Web site operated by a pair of students at Loranger High School.

Deputies and agents from the state Attorney General's office searched the students' homes and seized four computers as well as related devices.

Tangipahoa deputy Jimmy Travis says the site has links to material such as poems that advocate violence against students the two students considered preppies or elitists. The investigators confiscated computers, digital cameras, printers, external disk drives and dozens of compact discs during the search."
========SNIP=========
More on "Cyber Bullying"
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/10545779.htm?1c

===========SNIP=================
"Cyber bullies!!!????"
What's next, people getting sued for downloading music?

It's those "related devices" that get you in trouble.

You know, Code....Chairs, curtains, television sets, pinball machines, Gameboys, socks, soap....All things that may have been used to either encourage or contribute.

Wonder if the kids had any rap, punk or current pop CDs produced by "legal music sources" that they may have gotten inspiration from?

Also, they could have been expressing their frustration at how screwed up their "newly downloaded from RIAA approved sources" music files are.

After all, I would be almost ready to turn homicidal after going through all the DRM BS only to find out that the music sucked!

"Wonder if the kids had any rap, punk or current pop CDs produced by "legal music sources" that they may have gotten inspiration from?"

Hmm... It sounds like you're blaming the music. Uh-uh... don't go there.

related devices.....hmmmm....wonder if that means CD burners being used to burn music downloaded off kazaa....

This just in... Electricity deemed root cause of music piracy... RIAA sues descendants of Benjamin Franklin... Seeks injunction to shut down entire U.S. power grid...

Well, then you might as well blame science for causing Ben to find electricity, in fact I blame evolution for causing folks to discover things from the beginning, yep, there's yer root cause alright!

Don't kids in their early teens have anything better to do that put up websites threatening each other? What were they, trenchcoat mafia wannabes?
-WillySage
New site member

no they don't have anything better to do. and it's been this way forever. someodd years ago, it was just written on notebook paper and passed hand to hand instead of typed and saved on a computer.

i'm still trying to figure out what "crime" they were arrested for. i could sue so many people from my youth, i'd be set for life.

Welcome, willsage2005--always room for one more! Sometimes I think these sites are therapeutic--they allow the kids the chance to blow off steam and work out their aggressions, but I guess there's a point where they go too far. Maybe an adult monitoring the sites would have been able to stop it before it escalated out of control. Kids today have so much anger. Gee, I wonder why.

And please don't start the evolution thing again or somebody will bring up you know who...

Oops, I dropped a "y" somewhere! Welcome willysage 2005!

Thank you ShadowMom...best site on the web, and nicest people!

"And please don't start the evolution thing again or somebody will bring up you know who..."

Oh, no, not the "G" word — please, anything but that. (Unless it's for a profane use; then it's okay.

Kids today are using the tools of today available to them. Is this any suprise?

For the most part, kids are told their homework will be available on the net. Certainly it is so in college. Have blundered into many of them when I cast my search critera too wide.

Is there any astonishment that kid pranks follow to the net? There is one distinction here. The net isn't life, it is a reflection of life. Think we can all think back to when we were kids and pull up examples from our own memories that kids aren't always nice to each other. It is part of growing up and finding the acceptable boundries for the unwritten rules of society. Sadly they don't teach that in school as a subject. Instead they throw all the kids together to get along and work it out. Only teachers today don't do as good a job at refereeing as their hands are tied so as not to offend daddy and mommy. Should daddy and mommy have done their proper jobs as parents it would have for the most part not been necessary to learn in school.

I guess they are gonna come after us next. After all, we "bully" the RIAA.



...But seriously, we gotta watch what control we give the government. Things like this could lead to that slippery slope twords fascism.

You should be able to say whatever you want on your own damn website! True threats of violence tword another person is never cool, but if it is your own site, it is YOUR site.

It is up to admin to censor (or not) anything anyone else posts on the admin's site.

The government or ANY outsider has NO FLIPPING RIGHT to censor (or arrest you) for what you say on YOUR site. I don't care how disgusting and vile you are. You have a right to say what you want and I will defend your right!

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

Isn't there any line, Shmoo?

We have free speech, which allows you to tell someone to their face, or online, or whatever, that you hate them, despise them, will be happy when their name is in the obituaries and it is completely legal. As we have seen, you can also get away with comments sterotyping ethnic or racial groups. Everyone will think you're an asshole, but so far it's still legal to be a vocal bigot.

Isn't it somehow different if you say, "I am going to [insert threat here] to [intended victim - could even be themself]"? You're no longer offering an opinion but expressing a specific intent to commit an action.

Stop in at your local bank and tell them you're going to come back next week and clean the vault out. The cops will be talking to you before next week gets here.

I see your point George, but if you walk into a bank and threaten such an action, you are no longer on your own webpage/soapbox. One shouldn't scream "fire" in a crowded theatre and all that jazz.

But free speech is FREE SPEECH, in the America I was led to believe I grew up in, especially when it is YOUR soapbox.

I know you wouldn't want to be edited, nor think it fair if someone came and arrested you for words said at azoz.com.

Yeah, those are a valid points.

So, I guess there are limits.

And isn't it illegal somewhere (in Europe, right?) to say that the Holocaust never happened?

"Yeah, those are a valid points."

Look, I'm getting so good at my grammar, I don't need any edit button!

(And don't think it couldn't happen if we ain't on guard against such perversions of our civil liberties ...just look at who has seats in Washington DC.)

...it COULD happen.

Often when computer equipment is confiscated, it is not returned for months if ever.

I think you cross the line, Shmoo, when you make direct threats to another person, especially if it's on a webpage. A list of people with threats of violence to those people is going too far. It's like taking out an ad in the paper. Kids have to learn to be responsible for what they do, too. A webpage is not a pen-and-paper diary--it's public.

"I know you wouldn't want to be edited, nor think it fair if someone came and arrested you for words said at azoz.com."

If I confessed to a crime, made libelous statements or threatened someone directly, it would be evidence, not a defense.

I would like to know a couple of things that would help me to understand the situation better.

1. Was the website owned by the school and only used by the student, or was it fully owned by the student?

The article mentions that school officials were deciding whether or not to expel the students. If it was a school owned site, they have every right to do that. However, if the student owned the site and maintained it on his own time at home, I don't see how it is any of their business. A school can't expel you for having a fight in your own backyard.

2. Were the threats blatant and direct or were they all interpreted from poetry?

If it was all in the form of poetry and was suggestive or vague, rather than overt, then the authorities need to tread very lightly. Pretty soon we could be looking at more fascistic contol over art. Of course, if it ever came to that, a large number of RIAA artists would be sitting in jail for their violent and threatening "art."

Unfortunately, without access to this information, it's difficult to debate how appropriate it was to arrest these three. I'm assuming the websites have been shut down.

The 8-ballaz vs. the Preps. How fantastically retarded. Why arrest them? Just put them to death.

And I agree with George.

pubic hangings !!yeah flbgbt

I think both students should claim they were "induced" into posting those bad websites by the website software manufacturer and their ISP.

No - claim they were inspired by listening to rap music.

The following is taken from the Guiness book of world records:

Largest fine for an internet crime.

US anti-abortion activists who operated a website called "The Nuremberg Files" which contained "wanted" posters listing the names and addresses of doctors who performed abortions, were ordered to pay fines of over $107 million in February, 1999.

Aw fuck... we ARE next then! (or, close enuff)

(Holy Cow, I thought you'd be on MY side of this fence George... or are you just playing "devil's advocate?")

YIKES!

(Just wait 'till my "admin powers" kick in and the threads here are moderated... It's gonna be a REALLY tough job on my soul when I occasionally have put you and mroopie's posts in the "back pages" when the flames appear.)

...talk about a dilema.

Not sure I am gonna enjoy my job as much as I had hoped.

But, I have already talked to Leflaw & gang about my ideas for a "solution"

(Wish me luck!)

If our insults are backed by accurate information, the RIAA has nothing on us...

We have to *prove* they signed a pact with Satan.

Say what you want! (Just don't "flame" other posters/members here... or risk that particular post being swept "out back")

THAT shall be the LAW!

Censorship sucks! When you start sweeping posts "out back," you can just sweep me right out the door and don't ever expect me to come back.

(I know, I know...you won't consider that a loss.)

If we can't say what we feel, what's the point in coming here? I haven't seen anyone posting poetry about wanting to kill anyone.

Besides, how big a flame are we talking about? A raging fire? A campfire? A match? Who gets to decide?

In case you hadn't guessed, my username suggests that I can't stand censorship. Feel free to "deletethispost," but the second you do, you have just deleted my presence and my support.

I'm not talking about "delete" being used on ANYONE...

What I am talking about is making the "front page" marginally more acceptable.

The New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, etc. and all those BS "big name" news/media outlets don't have all the troll poop on the "front page" (even tho we all know they are ALL full of it inside.)

...just wait and see what happens.

If what I propose does NOT work, we can ALWAYS go back to what we have now.

(of course, I may be just talking out my ass because BOYCOTT-RIAA belongs to an entity known as "Dmusic Network L.L.C." and the OWNER(s) of that entity have the FINAL say in ALL matters that occur here.)

...but the past few years of HISTORY has shown that VERY RARELY have ANY posts been "deleted"

I just want NOTHING in the way of us reaching the still ignorant public...

(AND, I still want us to cuss at each other with "dirty words" all we want at the same time.)

NOBODY will be "deleted" (even mroop) if I have my say so!

Sweeping posts under the rug has the same overall effect. How is this different from Bush shuttling protesters to so called "Free Speech Zones" miles away from the event being protested.

By selectively hiding posts (removing them from context and burying them in seldom visited sections of the site), you would be effectively modifying everyone's collective content so it better fits your idea of what everyone should be reading.

If you are going to do that, why bother asking visitors to post at all. Why not just write what you want to present and forget about allowing posts.

It would be just the same as big media outlets "warping" reality to fit their own agendas.

But, hey! If you are "in" with the dmusic folks, then you can do whatever you want. Just don't be surprised if some of us don't stick around.

I don't see any difference between what you call flaming and threatening us with your "admin powers."

Censorship is censorship, no matter how you sugar coat it.

blah. i don't see why deleting someone's comments because they were intended purely for inflammatory purposes is so evil just because it's a form of censorship. Is that why there's no edit button on this site? We'd be censoring your own mistakes, right? The work of the devil...

Over the years, been to many forums. Gotta say this is certainly one of the better ones for the lack of censorship. Censorship isn't necessary provided the members behave themselves but there are those that won't. Be it for attention, for the sake of arguement, or just because they gotta feather up their butt don't matter.

Utlimately, the owner of the site is the one that can be sued or have his site shut down.

I sort of laugh about folks that won't stand censorship as you are censored pretty much at all times by your own sense of right or wrong. Only way you will have the 100% lack of censorship is with your own site where you make the rules. At some point some one will take advatange of it and you will be forced into the censorship mode to either resolve the strive or you will lose your membership over it. No matter how you feel about it, some guidelines and rules are necessary, just as in society. There must be some sort of consequences to encourage "proper" behavior and prevent repeats of the problems.

We are censored ever day of our lives, either by ourselves or by the powers that be. You're not going to move to another country where it is totally free to do so. It is the nature of life that such be or society would not function.

No matter how much censorship is disliked it isn't going to go away from your life because you don't like it. It is the way of the world. If you want a good example of censorship, watch the nightly news on tv. Ask Howard Stern if he ever heard of it.

This site is fair freer than most and as such the subject of censorship rarely comes up here.

Okay, Sherm. But, who get to be the one with their finger on that button? Who gets to decide what stays and what goes? How will this site look when that person suddenly decides that a post needs to be deleted just because the opinions expressed differ from their own? Who decides where the line is?

If someone steps over the line and posts a flame, are we not mature enough to make our own decisions whether or not to just ignore that post?

Many people have posted to this site that the internet is different from the real world. It's different because here we are (should be) free of most of the limitations that wet1 lists. The internet is not held to the limitations of borders.

Self-censorship is a completely different thing because it is our choice.

I protest because independentmusic is threatening to use his "powers" to censor what he considers to be flames that, until now, have not been censored. I haven't seen anything on this site that was so inflammatory or bad that it warrented removal. What some people consider a flame, others simply consider good, solid debate.

I haven't seen any posts that say, "I'm going to you, you !!!," in reference to other posters. That is, unless they have already been censored.

Snide comments and sarcasm is not the same thing as a flame, imho. However, based on independentmusic's comments, he intends to start rebuilding posts to suit his own desires. If you are all okay with it, you are welcome to your own opinion. I'm not sticking around, though, if it comes to that.

I've seen mroop scolded for flaming quite often, when all he was really doing was voicing disagreement. Granted, he doesn't always do it in the kindest way, but I haven't seen him post anything worthy of removal.

Shmoo has shown a lot of common sense here, and deserves a chance. Occasionally, the name-calling gets out of hand here, and I don't think he will abuse his powers of "delete." You can always continue an argument in the forums. Leflaw has deleted a few things himself, and I'm sure Shmoo knows what is expected of him. But we really do need a moderator here sometimes....

We have always had need at times for a moderator here. No, I don't mean a heavy handed individual you gotta suck you to stay in good graces. I mean for times like spam trolls and the like. For when things get truely out of hand, which is rare at this site.

Personally, I don't think of mroop as a troll. He doesn't fit the catagory. Every forum will attract a certain type of individual. One who wants the facts straight and will provide such facts when necessary. To see this in mroop, you have to be around here a while. Mroop has in the past demonstrated a rare knowledge. He continues to do so today. He doesn't post a lot so for many members it comes from left feild and at times appears to be a new member to some.

The thing is mroop's style is confrontational. He is most intelligent and has little tolerance for what he sees as BS. I too, have been called to carpet by him occasionally, so what? Can't say at the time he was wrong with his facts, he wasn't. That is not the mark of a troll.

While caustic in his remarks at times, he does provide balance and alternate viewpoint. That is needed at any site. To my knowledge I am unaware that mroop has been censored here but I am sure there have been discussions over it. No, I don't have the inside ear here but common sense tells me it has had to happen at some point.

It speaks well of the admin that over a period of time, mroop is still posting and saying what is on his mind.

Enough said....

Geeze, one of these days I gotta learn to proof read...

"No, I don't mean a heavy handed individual you gotta suck you to stay in good graces."

Was meant to be, "No I don't mean a heavy handed individual you gotta suck up to stay in good graces."

I don't have a huge problem with reasonable moderation, when necessary.

I DO have a problem when someone wants to play, "I'm king of the hill!"

Here is the comment that sparked my distress:

"Just wait 'till my 'admin powers' kick in and the threads here are moderated..."
- Shmoo

As far as I can tell, the only thing George did to prompt this response was to disagree with Shmoo:

"I thought you'd be on MY side of this fence George..."
- also Shmoo

Basically, Shmoo was indicating that he would be spending a lot of time censoring posts, specifically singling out George and mroop as targets of his "powers." Of course, once he's done with them, who's next?

Ironically, Shmoo has started his own share of fires with some of his posts, if my memory isn't failing me. So it seems like it's all about CONTROL. The same thing the RIAA lusts after.

However, like I said, the owners of this site are free to handle it anyway they see fit. I just don't see the point in hanging around and trying to contribute while they are sitting around with their finger on the delete button. Although they have the final say in what gets censored, with regard to my own posts, I have the first say. Since I am obviously a single voice alone in the dark on this one, perhaps I should refrain from posting anymore and save them the trouble.

Sorry to have wasted everyones time with this.

Cya!

"How will this site look when that person suddenly decides that a post needs to be deleted just because the opinions expressed differ from their own?"

maybe that's your problem then. You think that censorship in any form requires that the person in control also censor ideas just because they're different. If that's the case, then the person doing the censorship is doing something wrong (probably) and I oppose it and agree with you. There's no reason to think that will be the case though. We have decent people running this site.

Back up the bus, folks.

I'm on the side of no censorship, even for trolls. But I don't own the site, so it's not my decision, or Sherm's or mroop's or the FCC's or deletethispost's or Shmoo's.

If I tell someone to [bleep] off, and someone deletes it, oh well. Once again, it's not my site. If I can't conform to the rules of the forum, then I deserve it. As Shmoo has pointed out, I have my own site and, so far, have been free there to say whatever I feel.

As I have here. But I don't think that's what Shmoo was even talking about in the first place.

Every story which appears on this site is not of equal value. Every story does not stimulate an intelligent discussion. Every story is not even necessarily truly relevant.

The ones that ARE relevant, interesting, timely, perhaps controversial, and especially the ones which provoke intelligent interaction belong on the front page in a manner that does not rely on putting next week's date on it.

Those stories also should not immediately disappear from the front page simply because more stories followed it.

I don't think it's a censorship/control issue as much as it is a journalistic thing of having your best stuff on the front page.

-------

And no, Shmoo, I'm not playing devil's advocate, at least not this time.

This is my reasoning, which may or may not be valid, but it's the only one I've got.

When you change from saying
I Think...
I wish...
We oughta...
You should...
Why don't you...


to saying "I'm going to..."

then a different rule is in play. It's no longer an expression or an opinion or a feeling or a theoretical. It's now evidence of intent to commit an act. If the act is criminal, then the announced intent is subject to a different kind of scrutiny.

"You should be able to say whatever you want on your own damn website! True threats of violence toward another person is never cool, but if it is your own site, it is YOUR site."

Shmoo, I have to disagree with you here. I look at it this way. If you own a home, are you allowed to paint it day-glow pink and spell FUCK YOU in neon green lettering on your roof? It is your property. You own the house. You own the land. Can you put up billboards in your front yard defiling your neighbors? Can you print up your own flyers with vile, derogatory and racist comments and pass them out in your front yard?

I don't think any city council or government will allow you to do this. Your front yard is a public place even though you own it. So think of a website as an extension of your front yard. It is a public place where anyone can drive by.

Now just as you can do pretty much anything INSIDE your house and allow only those you want to enter, you can also put up a password on your website and allow only those you want to enter. Then your site is no longer public and you can do as you please.

Just my 2 cents.

For Deletethispost:

How do you know that the driver of the bus you just got on won't go nuts and ram the bus into a concrete abuttment at 60mph?

You don't.

You just have to TRUST him to do his job.

Same here.

Going on and on about Shmoo's jokes like it's the beginning of the end of free speech on this site indicates (to me at least) that you really don't follow this site and it's threads fairly closely.

The only posts I've seen deleted here was when some moron created a false name and posted the same sentence a hundred times or so.

It seems childish to get pissy because the moderator has the "power" to moderate. How do expect the moderator to control the thread? By asking pretty please?

I'm involved (as a subscriber) with a photo site where the moderators have seem to have disappeared for a month or so. The threads are turning to anarchy and are a mess. Without some semblance of control, nothing gets done.

Wow...as always, it is interesting how threads evolve, and clearly, this topic was good food for conversation and debate.

This goes to the fundaments of what should be free speech.

Some time back, at one of my blogs, I "opined" on this "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" question.
"Posted at 05:32 pm by codewarriorz
Permalink


YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER

Those who would set limits to free speech , invariably come up with the same hackneyed reference, i.e., "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater".

As others have pointed out, this is a fallacious statement. If there actually IS a fire, you would endanger lives NOT to advise others that a fire is raging. And, if a play is being shown, and hollering "FIRE" is part of the play, of COURSE you can yell fire in a crowded theater.

I've personally been in a crowded theater and seen a character in a movie yell "FIRE" and no one stopped the movie for the yelling of same.

So, when you hear an opponent of free speech making this ludicrous statement, just be aware of the limitations of their knowledge, and the overall incorrectness of what they say."
http://codewarriorz.blogdrive.com

I have to take a middle path in the debate. I think firstly, we have to look at what is "legally actionable" speech. This would include but not be limited to thinks like libelous statements that could injure ones reputation,(unless one is a politician , and do they really HAVE a reputation worth a damn anyway?)

These are, by definition, things that are said that are untrue. Truth is always an affirmative defense to charges of libel. To me, that one is a no brainer. Such speech should NOT be generally protected by law.

Use of profanity, in and of itself, should not be banned.

Then, there is the "inciting violence" aspect, or threatening violence aspect, and here, I must side with GeorgeZiemann. I certainly would not advocate anyone threatening violence against Shmoo, George, Mroop or other members.

This site is not public property to the extent that it has to be open to anyone and everyone, nor does anyone have the right to attempt to harass, intimidate, threaten, or otherwise badger another member.

This site has a legitimate and very useful purpose, and ultimately, leflaw is the one who decides matters on what is, and what is not legitimate content, and that is as it should be. On azoz.com, George is the editor/owner/etc and he decides.

To some extent, those of us who own domains, websites, etc. , and who work hard to maintain them, really turn them into a virtual living room in which we can invite friends to share time with us, and speak their mind. But, as invitees, and guests, you do not have absolute right to smear feces on the walls, blow a hole in the TV, or throw cookie crumbs around on the virtual carpet.

Ultimately, the site owner has to decide what is right and what is wrong, but, also, there are federal laws that apply to what is legal and not legal, and making terrorist threats is one area that will bring the force of the law down on you.

I think the kids were wasting their time, BUT, perhaps it would have been o.k. for one kid to say that they think, THINK mind you, that someone is gay, but when you get into making specific, or even thinly veiled threats, then you are sacrificing your right to free speech, and using speech to stalk, harass, intimdate, etc.

Kyodylee has a good point.

I hate to come down limiting free speech, but, there is an old saying that the right of another to swing their fist ends, where your nose begins.

As far as Shmoo starting to deleting posts, I've not heard anything from Leflaw on this, but, I don't think George will get his posts deleted any time soon by anyone.

Shmoo, if you have had these talks with Leflaw about this, certainly I would be interested in hearing about this, and George and Tom, as my fellow newsteam members need to know if this is going to start. I haven't seen your icon change to a gold lightning bolt nor admin status added, so this is news to me.

BTW, I agree, Mroop is not a troll.

Hey, I don't really even know what I'm talking about as far as the front page. That was merely conjecture on my part, thinking out loud.

Shmoo said, "I'm not talking about "delete" being used on ANYONE...

"What I am talking about is making the "front page" marginally more acceptable."

This is much ado about nothing. Shmoo is my pal. If we get a story kicked "out back" that doesn't mean anything is censored or deleted, just that it might not stay as the leading story at the top of the front page.

No big deal. It's like working at a newspaper and your story goes on page 4 instead of page one. Sometimes, the editor will change something.

Of all the things to worry about, this is kind of misplaced, although it has actually served as a very good example of the danger of making even a casual, veiled threat on the Internet.

"This is much ado about nothing. Shmoo is my pal."

Do agree with this. Censorship is not something that has really been an issue here and no need to fly off about it. I can say with certainty that I sort of look forward to the groups posts as there seems to always be something that strikes a spark and gets me thinking.

Code made mention earlier of how a thread develops its own life and there is no telling where it will wander. Many times the wandering is as enlightening as the starting article itself. Over the years have had this thought time and again myself. From long experience I have learned you can't steer a thread, it goes its own way. Whether you are a mod or a member doesn't matter in this aspect. It is the nature of a forum.

Some people are so weak psychologically that just words and sentences can cripple them. Only the intelligent and smart ones know how to ignore things that would otherwise put others in an uproar.

Shmoo...sent a Dmusic note to ya. Have a great weekend folks!

I think today's front page made my point about the front page. Multiple versions of more than one story that we really weren't talking about (and had already been on the front page) have crowded out most everything we WERE discussing.

Rule of Life:

Less is more.

Thats all that Schmoo meant.

And Mroop is not a troll.

Headstone on Boot Hill in Tombstone, AZ

Here Lies Les More
No Les
No More

Anyone Know if Ares is under Attack yet or is it just Kazaa