Governments block YouTube over that video Google’s YouTube service is under fire across the Muslim world after several governments blocked the site outright after the web giant refused to remove or restrict access to a video uploaded by a US filmmaker ridiculing the Prophet Muhammed. The 13 minute video, a trailer for an amateurish film called the Innocence of Muslims …
".......Why doesn't Google censor the video there?....." We also have laws against inciting violence, and your apparent encouragement to commit suicide bombings in order to "get the meesage across" would be construed to being just that. Maybe you should be a bit more careful of your choice of words.
how do we draw the line as to what is a "hate speech" and what isn't?
For example, if a video was created by the KKK that shows the nature of African Americans, and the video followed this video's example, it made fun of the African Americans. Would such a video be considered hate speech? if "yes", then why is a video making fun of the Muslims Prophet isn't?
Another example, in the game Medial of Honor you play the role of a multiple American soldiers who shoot different Muslims factions in Afghanistan. The argument here is that the game is based on an actual battle that is taking place and therefore it is no a "hate" game. If this argument can hold, then the question is: Can a developer make a game where a white police officer hunt down crime syndicates (been waiting for a chance to use this), it is just that those syndicates happened to reside in black and/or Asian neighborhoods. Would such a game be as acceptable as MoH was?
Will someone please clarify why is it not considered to hate speech when a certain group of people are attacked and not another?
(please do forgive my ignorance in this subject)
This post has been deleted by its author
"....you played a white police officer who was going up against the triads - cue lots of shooting of Asians." So what? The basis of the game was not massacare Asians it was investigate/stop a criminal gang. The fact the gang was a Triad one may just have been due to publicity around Triads at the time. There have been historic waves of publicity of different criminal gangs which have affected the depiction of criminals in movies, books and games. Examples are the Eighties movies about Mafia gangs, all redolent with Italian-Americans. Then you have blackxplotation movies like "Shaft" from the Seventies, where heroes and baddies were black. Going back even further to the Thirties you had Hollywood gangset movies with distinct racial gangs, such as Irish-Americans fighting Italian-Americans (all white, no coloured people involved at all). Before 9/11 the typical Hollywood terrorist was a white European such as Rutger Hauer in "Nighthawks" or Alan Rickman in "Die Hard". Trying to claim that gangs did not exist in racial groups, and that depicting such racial groups is unrealistic or offensive, is simply stupid and smacks of over-sensitve appeasement of vocal minorities.
From a legal standpoint, hate speech is speech that is inherently threatening to a group of people or can cause that group to be discriminated against. In US, short of direct incitement to violence, such speech is protected by the First Amendment. Note, however, that the movie in question wouldn't even qualify as hate speech. While, it mocks Muhammed and Islam (and does a terrible job of doing that), it is no more hate speech than the episode of South Park about Catholic Church.
>soldiers who shoot different Muslims factions in Afghanistan
I haven't played the game but I suspect the targets are Islamic extremists not your average rank and file Muslim.
The only games I play are aircraft simulations and way back during the cold war the set scenarios were mainly against targets in Russia and Korea. I don't recall any Russians nor Koreans getting all uppity about it.
>Will someone please clarify why is it not considered to hate speech when a certain group of people are attacked and not another?
Maybe you can explain why a group of people who blow up buddhas in the face of world opposition can claim to exempt from criticism.
Maybe you can explain why a group of people who blow up buddhas in the face of world opposition can claim to exempt from criticism.
I am assuming that you are referring to the Taliban here. You are generalizing the actions of the Taliban as if those actions represent to general Muslim world. The truth is, even Muslims didn't get along with the Taliban. I even recall being told that many of the Taliban's views actually goes against the normal Islamic teachings.
Any way, for now you might wish to keep in mind that in other Muslim countries, statues are still been preserved, example in Egyptian museums.
Sorry, I forgot to add something,
you might also wish to keep in mind that those protests are taking place in countries that already have previous problems with unemployment and poverty. The people would have gone to a protest for one reason or another, this happened to be the reason this time. Extremists are just taking the opportunity to push their agenda.
>You are generalizing the actions of the Taliban as if those actions represent to general Muslim world
Thankyou, that's what I was expecting so I can now retort, and muslims are generalizing the action of one film maker as if he represent the general western world.
What's the difference?
What's the difference?
you and I? it might not be enough, but that's how it is right now.
As wrote in the post above yours, these protests are taking in place in some countries, countries that already had problems and the people would have gone on a protest for any reason.
I currently work and live in Tanzania, I've seen Muslims who watched the video, their reaction: Closed the page and just say something about the creators of the film. Not a word about the USofA nor a single word about the West in general.
>you and I? it might not be enough, but that's how it is right now.
I suspect most people realise the actions of one individual or small group don't speak for the general community.
>As wrote in the post above yours, these protests are taking in place in some countries, countries that already had problems and the people would have gone on a protest for any reason.
I'd go further and suggest what we see on out TV news from those countries has been edited to enhance the dramatical effect.
".....Any way, for now you might wish to keep in mind that in other Muslim countries, statues are still been preserved, example in Egyptian museums." Thanks for the perfect example to show one of the hidden truths of history. If you look at the pyramids at Giza in Egypt you may want to wonder what they actually looked like BEFORE the Arabic hordes conquered Egypt. The invading muslim Arab armies stripped the coating of white stone and the gold caps off the pyramids and used the Sphinx for target practice. They later made up a story blaming Napoleon's French troops. Amusingly, there is evidence (graffiti) on the many tombs in the Valley of the Kings to suggest there were tourists going back to ancient Greek times, so it more likely as not that the treasures of Egypt were only saved by a little bit of Arab greed rather than a desire to save them for future generations - they wanted to get the tourist revenue even back in the day before the term "tourist" existed!
1st, you mean the Spanish did better when they saw the gold? 2nd, you are ignoring the comment that my post was replying to. You are expanding my reply to areas that were never part of the discussion. The Taliban-Buddha incident is a recent one and I was replying to the fact that it wasn't religiously motivated act but a Taliban act.
"....Another example, in the game Medial of Honor...." Dial-up version for modem play?
".....you play the role of a multiple American soldiers who shoot different Muslims factions in Afghanistan...." Incorrect, and probably deliberately so! In the game you shoot different factions of people in Afghanistan (possibly Afghans, but also Pakistani or other Taleban-friendly types such as Chechens) that are fighting the government of Afghanistan and killing other (muslim) Afghan civillians and soldiers. I'm betting you don't want me to remind people that the majority of victims of Islamic terrorists such as the Taleban are other muslims, right? The fact that the "opposition" in the game are probably muslim is neither proven nor is it the reason you are fighting them. Doesn't a little context mess with your portrayal of Western racism?
".....Can a developer make a game where a white police officer hunt down crime syndicates (been waiting for a chance to use this), it is just that those syndicates happened to reside in black and/or Asian neighborhoods....." Your example makes several assumptions based on RACE, not religion. Firstly, I can bet you're making the assumption that all the police would be white - first fail! The story could be quite easily set in China, use Oriental cops, and have them hunting white gangs such as Russian Mafia. Secondly, you ignore the existance of racially-aligned criminal gangs that do exist in Western towns (Yardies for example).
Sorry, but trying to equate questioning the rationality of a religion with racism is a big fail.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Incorrect, and probably deliberately so! In the game you shoot different factions of people in Afghanistan" who are also Muslims, so where is the mistake? Your point of view doesn't denies mine.
"I'm betting you don't want me to remind people that the majority of victims of Islamic terrorists such as the Taleban are other muslims, right?" Which wasn't the subject of my post. It was that the targets shared a common religion, not what the targets did. An oversight on my behalf, but not an intentional one.
"Your example makes several assumptions based on RACE, not religion." Which was the point I am trying to make: race hate is unacceptable, yet religious one is acceptable, why? (hint, read the 3rd reply to my first post)
"Firstly, I can bet you're making the assumption that all the police would be white - first fail!" Actually I am not making that assumption, which is why I made the point of specifying that the police officer is white.
"you ignore the existance of racially-aligned criminal gangs that do exist in Western towns" Will the KKK qualify? They were in there in the first part of my post.
"........"Incorrect, and probably deliberately so! In the game you shoot different factions of people in Afghanistan" who are also Muslims, so where is the mistake? Your point of view doesn't denies mine...." You tried to imply the ONLY reason they were being shot at in the game was because they were muslim, rather than the truth that they are muslims that kill other muslims and hence the "enemy" of a force trying to restore order to Afghanistan.
"....An oversight on my behalf, but not an intentional one...." I'm not surprised with those blinkers you have on.
".....Will the KKK qualify?...." You mean the Klan, as investigated and punished by majority WHITE authorities?
".... Which was the point I am trying to make: race hate is unacceptable, yet religious one is acceptable, why?...." Your very tired attempts to equate racism and anit-Islam are both very old and boring. Please, go get a new script, that one has been done to death by apologists for Islam for years. Islam is not a race, it's a cult.
This is kind of cool actually. I wonder if anyone has noticed. Go back through this thread and read the posts. Christianity is mentioned more times than Islam, even though it has nothing to do with the article. Posts that decry the Islamists' behavior expressly avoid mentioning them or Muhammed. I don't think there's much to add to this.
I was going to stay out of this "debate" but: There have been many rowdy protests, yes, there have been a few seriously violent protests, I don't know about all the ones which turned violent, but the Lybian protest where the American embassy was gutted and diplomats killed was no ordinary protest. The local Al Queda affiliate group had organised a large amount of armed thugs to attend the protest. These thugs turned up with rocket propelled grenades and assault rifles. This is a terrorist attack on an embassy, while a protest was taking place. Similar things happened with the pIRA during the "troubles" and we don't see people lining up to decry Catholicism as a religion of violence.
Religion = brainwashing...and Islam is better than the rest at that as its so dogmatic. These people have no perspective on reality. Im tired of hearing how the Koran promotes tolerance and peace - thats clearly bollocks. Weve seen enough evidence over the last 30 years to know that just isnt true anymore & its about time that the civilised nations of the world adopted an equally intolerant attitude towards religious fanatics...
For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love to talk alot about how bad others are. They do not appear to realise that atheism gives one no way to determine either.
For a bunch of people that claim to 'think for themselves', atheists display a singular lack of ability in that respect. They are however great at the, predictable, knee jerk reaction, when Islam is mentioned.
Many would have heard the words...'sticks and stones, blah blah blah', however not many will appreaciate that the closer something is to you, the more you love something, the more it will hurt, when someone says something against it. So take for example the offense taken when current soldiers are made a mockery of, or when someone says something against them.. then this becomes speech that is not acceptable. The perpetrators of such speech are taken to court and made to pay for their words. Free speech finds a limit as does ones tolerance.
In the house of Islam, the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, is the most beloved of human beings.. more than ones family, more than oneself. It actually hurts when you use his name without using the, peace be upon him, to follow it.
In the house of Islam, we are specifically forbidden from doing so to others..
Quran 6:108: And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah , lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do.
Most apply no self control, thier knees will jerk... and what is inside, will be splurged out for all the world to see.
The name, Muhammad, means 'the praised one' in Arabic.. and it is a fact that he is being praised world wide, every minute of every day, since his name is mentioned in the call to prayer, which is recited five times a day. A sign, for those with the wherewithall to see.
You are tying to get us to understand from your point of view, which is a good thing - if more people tried to understand others viewpoints we would probably all be better off.
However the first thing you do is attack a group in exactly the same manner as others - "They do not appear to realise that atheism gives one no way to determine either". How is that any different from someone outside of Islam from insulting Muhammad?
Just because an atheist doesn't have a religion to tell them what is right or wrong, doesn't mean they do not know. Not everyone has to be told these things!
I said atheism does not give any basis for good and bad.. which is true.. atheism is only 'there is no god', it is nothing else.
It does not tell you anything else, it does not say that you had to come to this understanding, using logic, science, having a dream etc.. are all equally valid ways of getting to the understanding that 'there is no God'.
If you have a look at atheist websites.. thats what they say.
I merely said what atheists say.
As to good and bad, most people follow the prevailing views. Atheism did not give it to them, society did.
In order to promote more understanding, if you are really that interested...
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=muhammad%20the%20greates&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsabr.com%2Fdownloads%2Fcategory%2F4-seerah%3Fdownload%3D10%253Amuhammad-the-greatest-doc&ei=7IVZUOGEB6jB0QXPrIHQDA&usg=AFQjCNFS6M90NUmbvG0wdSQi6fegVB6KRQ
should be a link to a short pdf booklet about the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him.
"I said atheism does not give any basis for good and bad.. which is true.. atheism is only 'there is no god', it is nothing else."
What you actually said was:
"For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love to talk alot about how bad others are. They do not appear to realise that atheism gives one no way to determine either."
The two sentences are not the same.
Atheists (in general) say we/they do not believe in god(s). What the majority mean when saying this is that atheism doesn't mean being 100% certain that God doesn't exist. It means being certain enough. It means thinking God is hypothetically possible, but unless we see some better evidence for him, we're going to assume he doesn't exist. I guess this means that the majority of us are 'strong agnostics' rather than atheists. I've talked to (and met) very few people who have the 'faith' to say 100% 'there are no gods'.
"I merely said what atheists say."
And people are merely saying that they have observed the 'religion of peace' being terrifically violent.
Do you see?
"As to good and bad, most people follow the prevailing views. Atheism did not give it to them, society did."
And if you'd have been born in a different society, your religious views would most likely be different to what they are now. The number of people who change religions are tiny. The number of people who stay in the religion of their birth group is vast. The number of people who renounce their religion because they see the problems and injustice that religions cause are growing, and growing quite rapidly.
"Good" and "Bad", "moral" and immoral" are all culturally relative, but with thought and compassion a reasonable personal code can be constructed that can change over time. Having a fixed code that is hundreds or thousands of years old can only lead to conflict with a modern society and viewpoints.
-"I said atheism does not give any basis for good and bad.. which is true.. atheism is only 'there is no god', it is nothing else."
-What you actually said was:
-"For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love to talk alot about how bad others are. They do not appear to realise that atheism gives one no way to determine either."
-The two sentences are not the same.
How so.. atheism is 'there is no god', nothing else.. and atheism gives no basis to determine right and wrong etc.. seem to be saying the same thing.. no?
While true the statements are not identical, they are saying the same thing.
-And people are merely saying that they have observed the 'religion of peace' being terrifically violent.
The word Islam, in Arabic, means to get to peace by submitting ones will to the Will of God. This means following whatever He says, whether one agrees with it or not.
Islam is a way of life of strength and justice. If someone strkes you, you have every right under law to get redress.. however, it is better to forgive. It is not for nothing that it has grown ever since the time of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him.. and is still growing.
Peace does not mean that you allow others to beat you up, and keep doing so for years.. and you do not respond. It seems to be a common misunderstanding that being a muslim means that you should be a monk or something. Do not raise a hand to defend yourself.. this is not Islam.
As to violence and who is being the most 'terrific' at it. If one only views the standard media.. yes one will ofcourse get the view that Islam and Muslims are the baddest people on the planet. Hardly a surprise there.
However, if you were to view independent media..
http://www.counterpunch.org/
http://www.medialens.org/
..these are non-muslim examples.. you get quite a different picture of what actually is going on.
-And if you'd have been born in a different society, your religious views would most likely be different to what they are now. The number of people who change religions are tiny. The number of people who stay in the religion of their birth group is vast. The number of people who renounce their religion because they see the problems and injustice that religions cause are growing, and growing quite rapidly.
Agree with most of this. However, the number of people entering into Islam is growing aswell.. and such people are not people who are uneducated, or have been picked up from some cave and popped into this time.
-"Good" and "Bad", "moral" and immoral" are all culturally relative, but with thought and compassion a reasonable personal code can be constructed that can change over time. Having a fixed code that is hundreds or thousands of years old can only lead to conflict with a modern society and viewpoints.
This is only the case where one has no basis for good and bad.. if you take God out of the equation, then ofcourse its your word, your opinion against mine.. the point to keep in mind is that with God in the picture, your and my views do not count for anything. God's view trumps ours.
In the house of Islam, the point being made is exactly this, that I am not trying to push my view upon you. Just passing on the view of God.. I expect you'll want evidence.. God provides evidence.. the Quran is the evidence, the creation is evidence, you are evidence.
I expect you do not accept the creation as evidence.. in which case, stick with the Quran. It claims to be a miracle, it claims that you cannot produce even 3 sentences like it, challenges you to do so. It claims that it is with out contradictions, it contains no doubts.. essentially, God is saying, come take me on if you can. He even goes further.. He says, get all your buddies together, your equipment etc.. and produce something like the Quran.
Now, if you are truly after evidence, I posted a link earlier.. have a read, think about it. This man, Muhammad, peace be upon him.. we are claiming is the greatest of all human beings. Does what is presented in the booklet make sense. At the very least, it may dispel some views one may have picked up.
The Quran is evidence, take up its challenge.. read it, deconstruct it..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y2Or0LlO6g
This is a TED lecture, 10 mins, on the take of an agnositc Jew, on her reading of the Quran.
Atheist like to claim that they are free thinkers.. people that think for themselves.. well the Quran is addressing you. People of intellect, people who think, those that know, those that think deeply etc...
"I expect you'll want evidence.. God provides evidence.. the Quran is the evidence, the creation is evidence, you are evidence."
Moron alert. Whoop whoop. A book written by humans is not evidence; in that case Harry Potter is evidence of wizards. Creation isn't evidence of a will or creation force, so don't use that, else what created the god? And I am evidence of evolution. Surely you believe in that, since I can demonstrate it? Or next time you get sick with drug-resistant illnesses, you can die.
-You can add one to your list, as I am more than happy to state with total conviction that 'there are no gods".
I agree, there are no gods.
The begining of Islam is come to the conclusion that there are no gods.. that there is nothing worthy of worship. No man can be, no sun moon fire etc.. nothing in creation is worthy of worship.
The literal meaning of the creed of Islam begins with, "There is nothing worthy of worship"...
It then goes on to, ", except Allah", the one and only worthy of worship
It completes with, ", and Muhammad is His messanger.". ie. the messenger, peace be upon him, is not God, is not worthy of worship.. keep it straight in your heads, and don't make the same mistake others have made in the past.
Now, where would like to go with this?
"For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love to talk alot about how bad others are. They do not appear to realise that atheism gives one no way to determine either."
Atheists have morality, as do religious believers. We just don't think our moral compass is planted in us by God or supernatural forces, and we don't think fear of God's punishment is necessary to be a good person. We base our morality in this life: our empathy with others, and our observations about what causes suffering and happiness.
"Free speech finds a limit as does ones tolerance."
Limited "free speech"? Not exactly free then, is it?
'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?'
- Stephen Fry
So essentially you have agreed that atheism gave you nothing but, 'God does not exist'.. the rest did not come from atheism, it came from which ever other sources you happened to like at the time.
None of which is universal and can be applied to anyone else other than you (your experiences, perceptions, conclusions are yours alone), and also has to be subordinated to the prevailing views (which are applied to everyone).. and within the limit of the law (again applied to everyone).. in other words.. you have come up with pretty much nothing. Or have you actually come up with something that one could not attribute as I have done so above, something from athiesm?
Please note, I did not say that atheists do not have morality.. I said, that they cannot claim that atheism gives it to them.
As to limited free speech not being free, agreed.
Quoting Mr Fry does not help.
Neither does the use of bad language. It merely shows a lack of self control, and the ability to come up with an argument, whether it is quoted or not.
Saying anything, providing proof on top of proof, to most people makes no difference.. they do not care.
However, to say that I am offended to someone who has the empathy/compassion etc.. that you mention, will mean that they will be more careful with the subject in question. Their empathy/compassion etc..leads to such behaviour. They may not agree, but they will be careful. Mr Fry, is wrong, it does make a difference, depends on who your are talking to. Most of the posters on this site, are in the camp of offend away.. which one are you in? and yet at the same time they will claim to have the empathy etc.. as you claimed above.
The "Religion is the source of all morality in the world" argument is such an obnoxious pile of horse shit you could keep Que Gardens in tip top condition with it for the next decade.
If only religious people are moral then why does the catholic church enable paedophilia and helped Nazi war criminals escape justice whilst downplaying the holocaust?
On the subject of Nazis, why did Nazi uniforms include a belt buckle inscribed with the phrase "God On Our Side"?
Most atheists have a very simple but effective moral code: "If I didn't want somebody doing that to me then I'll refrain from doing it to someone else".
Christian "morality" on the other hand endorses rape, slavery, disproportionate punishments and the extermination of all non-believers.
And that's relatively mild compared to what Islam endorses!
Get off your moral high horse, it's made of plastic and has a Fisher Price logo on it.
I don't count myself as an atheist, but I am most definitely not religious. I don't come from the angle that "there is definitely no God", rather I come from the angle of "oh yeah, some people think there's a god, well it really doesn't bother me one way or the other". Religion, or the absence of it, simply has no relevance in my life.
So, how do I know what's right and wrong you seem to be asking. Simple. I was taught right and wrong by my parents, by growing up in a society where there is not just right and wrong - good and evil - but a whole spectrum of middle ground, and from my empathy with others and my humanity.
From this point of view I can see quite clearly that while making a film that mocks someone's beloved Prophet may be insensitive (this is the middle ground I spoke of), reacting to that by rioting, attacking foreign embassies, and murdering ambassadors is most definitely wrong, no matter how offensive the film is perceived to be. You talk of knee jerk reactions, well I wonder which group is having the biggest jerk.
Don't feed the [Islamic] troll, guys!
Seriously J1, you only exemplify the problems you will find most reasonable and civilized people will have with you.
Start with your definition of atheist. The word is a strange term that exists only because it is forced to in the presence of deism or theism.
I am an atheist, an anti-theist, and, by the way, an anti-fairyist. Cos I don't believe in fairies at the bottom of my garden either. I also don't believe there is a fine china teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars. See how we don't need to make the point in civilized conversation.
If that doesn't work, all you need to know, troll, is that when you follow your indoctrination to its logical conclusion, you will eventually find men in your way who will guard against you, one way or another, and that one day you will be consigned to the dark ages of history where you belong.
>>It actually hurts when you use his name without using the, peace be upon him, to follow it.
Like you didn't in your own post;
>>The name, Muhammad, means 'the praised one' in Arabic.
Forgetting the ṣalawāt is serious, it's quite clear in the Qur'an that it's a requirement (Surah 33:56), and the Hadith stresses that if you fail to do this you will be denied paradise (or it could all be nonsense, I suppose).
"For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love to talk alot about how bad others are. They do not appear to realise that atheism gives one no way to determine either.
For a bunch of people that claim to 'think for themselves', atheists display a singular lack of ability in that respect."
I am an atheist. My parents are Christians. I arrived at the the conclusion that there was no God by questioning the teachings of the religion of my parents. All atheists would have religious ancestors, so at some point the've chosen to abandon religion by thinking for themselves. Unless you've converted to Islam, it's likely that your belief has been bestowed upon you by your parents, so the thinking for yourself argument hardly stands.
I am an atheist. I believe that there is no God. No God means probably no afterlife. No afterlife means you only get one shot at life. Therefore murder destroys the potential that a person had for the rest of their life. Therefore murder is bad. Not able to determine good or bad without religion - give me a break?
One element of the script, at the time of the original shooting, was that there was an arranged marriage between a 7-year-old girl and the character identified as "Master George".
This fits with one version of the marriage of Aisha to the Prophet, but that age can only be traced to one single source. Other sources, including Aisha's own account, only make sense if she was older. If she were that young, she wouldn't remember the things she said she did. The issue is the subject of scholastic argument in the Islamic world.
But when you check this through Google, there are a lot of websites which appear to uncritically accept the version with the 7-year-old Ayesha, not even saying it is only one version of the story.
Islam is unusual in that a huge amount of detail was written down while the witnesses to the Prophet's life were still alive. This film, and many websites, seem to pick and choose the details they use, to suit their purposes. What we see may be no more reliable an expression of the reality than is The Da Vinci Code.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
