[scratt]

Originally Posted by Magnus These Rumor sites leak nothing that developers haven't already seen.

Do you know what this is actually about!??! Jesus!

[oingoboingo]

Perhaps if someone cited a case where a company successfully sued a journalistic organization for publishing a trade secret, it would help the debate a lot....

Thanks, banana. I'm interested in this as well, if anyone can find something.

On a side note, it looks like Apple is stepping into the political fray, whether they had intended to or not:

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/stor...le&dist=google

[Banana]

From the article above,

The judge said that the Apple news and gossip sites were not "legitimate members of the press." This legal issue will develop over the next few years, but it does not bode well for a free press if you can declare one sort of information outlet legitimate, and another illegitimate. It's been long known in big media circles that these pesky websites have the potential to hurt established players. So instead of supporting the websites in this fight, little is being done. And it's quite likely that big media would like to see this ruling stand up.

That speaks volume.

Whatever the case, this court ruling represents a very slippery slope since it suggests that some members of the press would have to pass a government standard to be afforded the protection of shield laws designed to promote open and free discussion of ideas. Eventually this could lead to licensing. And we don't need that since it would kill the free press and the substantial benefits to society that accrue from it.

That's what they faced in Falwell v. Flynn and other cases. I am fairly sure that there is a precedent for courts not want to designate who is the press and who is not and should be taken in consideration.

This is a price to pay for free press; if you want free press then you have to allow people of low quality print low quality articles and let the public sift the information themselves. If you feel that the public is incapable of doing such thing, then by all means push for a state-controlled media.

I'm still waiting to see if anyone will cite a case where trade secret violation was successfully prosecuted against a journalistic organization, or at least against people who abused the NDA/trade secret/whatever.

We also have to consider whether public interest is relevent; it seems to me it is a moot point because of our presumed support for a free press. A while back, it was said that the first amendment is not revelent to Trade Secret Act; but if Congress can't pass any laws abridging free speech, would it put the Trade Secret Act under scrutiny?

Granted, I don't have complete understanding of everything involved and I admit it. I can only hope that everyone else will contribute something substantial to this and bring this into a clearer focus.

[Banana]

Visited First Amendment Center, and got this article on Shield Law

This explains a lot why

1) There was no definition of journalism; there never was one and it was simply patched over

2) There was controvesy about whether Nick's article falls under free speech or under trade secret act- there were several contradictory decisions and has yet to be consistizied (is that word? )

So, I would think that yes, the case would have precedent, since it is a relatively new frontier here.

[Banana]

This suggests that Nick did not break any trade secret law if he did not submit any technical details on the mini, if I read this correctly

Trade secret protection has been recognized for product manufacturing and design information, (10) but has been denied for general information concerning a product's physical or performance characteristics or a product formula when release would not reveal the actual formula itself. (11)

There may be more legal points....

[Kickaha]

Does that still apply if the physical form is covered by a design patent?

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Does that still apply if the physical form is covered by a design patent?

Good question; the quote from trade secret act does includes "design information" then denies for "general product's physical characteristic"



Yep, going to be a lot of works here... One can only hope that whatever happen in this case is for best of everyone involved....

[Kickaha]

Actually, to answer my own question (which I realized as soon as a I got in the car), design patents, and patents in general are a public disclosure in exchange for exclusive use rights for a period of time. So anything patented is by definition not secret. Silly me.

[Magnus]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut my god, you are delusional

Ok, first of all, the fact that you all are here on a MAC RUMORS site forum every day and have the nerve to attack the very source of the news YOU CONSUME is hypocrisy in the highest.
Second, If you can't replay with fact, then stop the pathetic name calling.

Furthermore, Apple HAS benefited "IN KINd" (Look up the legal meaning here) from this very activity that they are now attacking.
Your arguments on this forum regarding Apple's need to secrecy don't hold any water since the beta are often unveiled on a STAGE and then info is posted in an entire area of apple's site accessable to the public. Them attacking a news site for NDA leakage is ridiculous on it's face. Not to mention you have no answer to the fact that if this were a LARGE corp. site, they would not dare sue a reporter with this case.
Again, no facts, less logic, more name calling from you.

While I the news sites I read about the case on stated his legal bills were in no way covered, you claim this is wrong. Where do you obtain your news on this case as the headline to the editorial stated clearly he will be bankrupted and it was a Mainstream news site and is the info contained on every major story I google.

Since you can't comprehend the comparision with the music industry, let me bring it to a child like level for you: Apple, while the music industry was SUING it's customers, chose to find a creative solution to profit from the desire of people to get ONE SONG at a time. Got it? Apple no sue=make money Music industry idiots, no profit, punish the fans of their product. It's pure stupidity to defend the mistakes you just attacked someone else for and profited from fixing.

Now, the only delusion here is that you think these facts are not supported.

[waveydavey]

Magnus?, TRoT 'Nut?, Scratt? - guys, what's up with all this 'handbags at dawn' business??

Aren't we all Mac-headz here?

Don't we all want the same thing:- like a need to belong (to a superior platform), a wish to be first (with all the gossip/facts), a chance to shoot-the-shit with like minded people, openly discuss these hot topics (whether or not we agree with each other, you never know, we could all learn something from even the most mindless(=genius) rants), and one day, maybe just one day, for everyone globally to experience the Mac in all its finery - all at the same time....? Boy, what a mind blast that would be, eh.... Oh, and of course free sex (well at least government subsidised for the needy) - Ds - and rock 'n' roll.

Now I'm off to stare at some wall paper very closely, until the effects wear off, cos I'm getting some real good traces right now.

So...

Lets stop targeting each other and get back to pulling apart the damn system, until we find an amicable solution for both Nick and Apple before they both end up embarrassing themselves and ultimately make us lot look stupid to PC (microtoss) users.

Respect
TEMPEST

[scratt]

I blame it on the time of the month myself!

Remarkably good typing by the way wavedavey.. Normally when I am dealing with tracers I make more typos than when I am straight.. And boy do I have a lot of typos in my posts normally anyway... But then I haven't been sure for a few years if the tracers have really gone or not, or if they are just hovering over my shoulder waiting to invade my vision at a crucial moment! :smokey:

[waveydavey]

[quote=scratt]I blame it on the time of the month myself!

Cheers fella,

I dig. It took me one whole hour - I think!?! And both sides of Ogden's Nut Gone Flake - on 8-Track of course - plus two cups of tea, but well, it is a Friday - I'm knackered now.

But if it was thought about, the authorities can trace any communication whatever the medium and even tell ya whether it was real one-to-one/hacked interception/or sidewinded through various different digital mediums to disguise the transmition.

BigBrother's listening device can playback more than 2 million/16 bit stereo tracks at the same time - without breaking a sweat - and I think there is at least five on the go at any one time between Europe and the States listening/recording digital/phone communications at between 2 and 8bits per second. I'm sure the person leaking the facts would have been discovered by now. But to secure a convition in such cases the accused parties have to slip up on their own. I covered some basics in the other closed thread. Basically if you say it wasn't me - it gets very difficult for the authorities to press charges. But then there's ethics involved, Apple's reputation which we all believe in and all that... Whatever. It's a tough one.

TEMPEST

[waveydavey]

I personally think that all the effort, views, writings and support from posters either for or against Nick/Apple on this subject has been admirable and made for some of the best arguments I've seen on the net.

Keep em coming.

TEMPEST

[oingoboingo]

At the risk of being bullied again or accused of not bringing anything to the discussion, here's another article from Business Week Online. They have an interesting comment from a lawyer about Trade Secrets, which was basically the same thing that Banana observed about the law from the US DOJ site.

Bad Image But continuing on Apple's current legal course doesn't make sense. For one thing, the lawsuits are no slam dunk. Bruce Sunstein, co-founding partner of the Boston law firm Bromberg & Sunstein, points out that descriptions of unannounced products may not even qualify as "trade secrets." Unlike the secret formula for Coke, such descriptions are certainly not secrets once Apple has trumpeted them to the world at one of Jobs's famous keynote speeches. "And what's the extent of the harm? You can argue that leaks like these actually help by creating an air of anticipation for when the product is announced," says Sunstein. And what if Apple wins? Then, the much more important First Amendment issues will take center stage. Then Apple, which has long played the underdog role, would be cast as the enemy of free speech. It would be better to let the lawsuits fade away.

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/Me...ans-41485.html

[Kickaha]

Okay, that's the first argument I've seen regarding trade secrets that made me rethink my opinion. "Is it a trade secret if you *intend* to share it with the public?" I guess it would depend on whether the *timing* was strategic to the business. ie, if you unveiled it at a certain point, it would help your business, but it was unveiled sooner, it would have the reverse effect. (And yes, this happens all the time - few businesses have the skill at timing that Apple seems to.)

FWIW, I've been using personal privacy as my own benchmark on this one. (I don't agree with corporations being given more or less the same rights as individuals in law, but since that's the case, let's use it here as an analogue.) This means I've been using personal secrets as a yardstick for trade secrets, since the law really is highly amorphous on that front. "What makes a trade secret a trade secret?" can be answered by asking "What makes your private things private?" Both can be answered by: *you* decide what is and isn't private, and you have to work to ensure that it remains that way. At a first crack, it seems like a reasonable comparison, and in line with trade secrets law as I've been able to find it.

So... can a person be harmed by even a to-be-public secret getting out early? Sure. If you were planning on surprising your SO with a proposal, and it leaked out, it would rather ruin the surprise, wouldn't it? If your SO were on the bubble, that last bit of romantic surprise might be what takes the day. *shrug* Contrived, sure, but let's face it, no one likes their surprises ruined, specifically because the act of unveiling creates a bit of drama that feeds public opinion.

Now, as to why I don't think that this is that bad a comparison: if journalist shield laws are so poorly written such that anyone, anywhere, can claim themselves to be a journalist by simply writing a blog, and if those shield laws prevent them from ever having to reveal a source, then *OUR* privacy is at stake. It wouldn't matter if it were a Pulitzer Prize winner, or Joe Snoop that you know - they can publish whatever they want *about you*, and legally never have to say where they heard it, no matter how damaging it was to you, your life, your family, your reputation, or your business. It means that any hack calling themselves a journalist, for which there is no legal definition, can pry into your private life and expose it to the world with no consequences for themselves.

That's the slippery slope I see.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Okay, that's the first argument I've seen regarding trade secrets that made me rethink my opinion. "Is it a trade secret if you *intend* to share it with the public?" I guess it would depend on whether the *timing* was strategic to the business. ie, if you unveiled it at a certain point, it would help your business, but it was unveiled sooner, it would have the reverse effect. (And yes, this happens all the time - few businesses have the skill at timing that Apple seems to.) FWIW, I've been using personal privacy as my own benchmark on this one. (I don't agree with corporations being given more or less the same rights as individuals in law, but since that's the case, let's use it here as an analogue.) This means I've been using personal secrets as a yardstick for trade secrets, since the law really is highly amorphous on that front. "What makes a trade secret a trade secret?" can be answered by asking "What makes your private things private?" Both can be answered by: *you* decide what is and isn't private, and you have to work to ensure that it remains that way. At a first crack, it seems like a reasonable comparison, and in line with trade secrets law as I've been able to find it. So... can a person be harmed by even a to-be-public secret getting out early? Sure. If you were planning on surprising your SO with a proposal, and it leaked out, it would rather ruin the surprise, wouldn't it? If your SO were on the bubble, that last bit of romantic surprise might be what takes the day. *shrug* Contrived, sure, but let's face it, no one likes their surprises ruined, specifically because the act of unveiling creates a bit of drama that feeds public opinion. Now, as to why I don't think that this is that bad a comparison: if journalist shield laws are so poorly written such that anyone, anywhere, can claim themselves to be a journalist by simply writing a blog, and if those shield laws prevent them from ever having to reveal a source, then *OUR* privacy is at stake. It wouldn't matter if it were a Pulitzer Prize winner, or Joe Snoop that you know - they can publish whatever they want *about you*, and legally never have to say where they heard it, no matter how damaging it was to you, your life, your family, your reputation, or your business. It means that any hack calling themselves a journalist, for which there is no legal definition, can pry into your private life and expose it to the world with no consequences for themselves. That's the slippery slope I see.

At that point I should clarify some points;

Corporations are legal persons; they may be treated as if they were single person. No, your analogy is pretty reasonable. However, the ugly thing about calling a entity that has several employees, several locations, severals divisions a single entity is it has its implications and thus doesn't always work when comparing to a actual single person. That false dictohomy has yet to be worked out.

Furthermore, private citizens (i.e. you and me) can sue any journalistic organization for libel/slander if they publish something outright false. That's well-established. However if we become public (e.g. I am a mayor of a city), we lose that protection in degree to our knowledge. If I'm a mayor of a small city, and I'm slandered by a newspaper somewhere in distant city, then I still can sue that newspaper, but I can't sue my own city's newspaper. On next level, the president of US... Well need I say that he has no protection at all?

There are limitations/constraints on journalistic organizations to keep them publishing accurately. If I'm not mistaken those will also apply to private citizens. So if I blog that Brad is most single biggest jerk I've ever met and accuse him of doing various crimes, then Brad may have a case and can sue me, even though I am not a journalist per se, for making that statement.

You are correct; sheild law is crappily written. But consider the reasons; should we risk the concept of free press by designating who's a journalist and who's not? There are some people who says playboy is awesome journalistic magazine. They are in minority, and we're supposed to protect the minority's rights, so for that reason, the court will not (at least should not) get involved in journalist raffle. For better or worse, that will have to be left up to the public.

As for trade secrets... IMO, secrets are only secrets as long as you don't tell anyone else. Doubtless you have heard countless times where someone told you, "I have dirt for you. I promised him/her not to tell, but..." but it happens everyday. Leaks happens... does it mean it's still a secret? Patenting is more clear cut as you said, public disclosure in exchange of exclusive rights.

That said, it should be realized that secrets are very very fragile. No matter how well you legislate it, there's bound to be problems, loopholes and questions as discussed earlier. I would daresay that trade secrets are more meaningful in context of corporate espionage. Here, that is a clear cut of someone violating confidentiality and selling out and thus should be prosecuted.

Do I think the leakers should be punished for telling Nick about the mac mini? Yes, they broke their NDAs and there should be consequences. But going after Nick is going to be problematic. IMO, it would be far more easier to make it impossible for leak to happen without a clear red line to the person. That's what armed forces do all times; compartimentize their departments to the point that the person has no idea what other persons are working on and that person has no clear understanding of what is actually going on the project as whole, and they're simply given an assignment without any reasons. If one person leaked, the blame is clear; the content of leak is directly linked to what person knows, and because only one person know about that, so... off to the gallows we go.

Would Apple go for that? That's entirely up to Apple. Whether or not, Apple has to realize that trade secrets is nothing but a liablity.

[oingoboingo]

Invasion of Privacy is not what the court is considering. Back to Trade Secrets, I found this:

Generally, to recover for violation of a trade secret, the plaintiff must prove each of the following: a. The alleged trade secret exists. b. The plaintiff used means reasonable in the circumstances to keep the information secret. c. The defendant wrongfully obtained the trade secret from the plaintiff (not merely by reverse engineering or independent discovery). d. Harm will result from actual or threatened misappropriation or disclosure.

Also, theft of a Trade Secret is now a federal crime. So if Apple is arguing that ThinkSecret did something wrong, and if in fact they did do something wrong, they can take the 5th, therefore not testify.

On October 11, 1996, President Clinton signed "The Economic Espionage Act of 1996" into law. The theft of trade secrets is now a federal criminal offense. This is a major development in the law of trade secrets in the United States and internationally. The Department of Justice now has sweeping authority to prosecute trade secret theft whether it is in the United States, via the Internet, or outside the United States. Section 1832 of the Act makes it a federal criminal act for any person to convert a trade secret to his own benefit or the benefit of others intending or knowing that the offense will injure any owner of the trade secret. The conversion of a trade secret is defined broadly to cover every conceivable act of trade secret misappropriation including theft, appropriation without authorization, concealment, fraud artifice, deception, copying without authorization, duplication, sketches, drawings, photographs, downloads, uploads, alterations, destruction, photocopies, transmissions, deliveries, mail, communications, or other transfers or conveyances of such trade secrets without authorization. ------------- A violation of Section 1832 can result in stiff criminal penalties. A person who commits an offense in violation of Section 1832 can be imprisoned up to 10 years in prison and fined up to $500,000.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by oingoboingo Invasion of Privacy is not what the court is considering. Back to Trade Secrets, I found this: Also, theft of a Trade Secret is now a federal crime. So if Apple is arguing that ThinkSecret did something wrong, and if in fact they did do something wrong, they can take the 5th, therefore not testify.

As I have been saying all along they could be found guilty of a criminal offense.

But as for pleading the 5th... Dude, you watch too many movies. It's not as simple as that...

[scratt]

Perhaps I am speaking for myself Magnus, but I don't give two hoots whether Nick does what he does or not. I come to this site, as I suspect many others do, for the conversation and the colourful characters.

Nick's site whilst interesting if you are totally obsessed with what Apple might do next is not somewhere I visit often and if Apple blast him out of existence I couldn't give a damn.

Perhaps if you had been around for more than 3 posts you might understand what AppleNova is about. It is certainly not a rumour site. We also do not try to get Apple employees to break their NDAs. If they want to and come here to do it that is their decision, but not what AppleNova is about at all...

[scratt]

You can delete posts but you cannot hide!!

Originally posted by Magnus.... Then why does this site come from APPLEINSIDER.com which is the rumors site? THese are the forums you reach when you click forums at the top of the page.

It's a long history of which I was not part of so I will leave it to someone else to explain.

Obviously Think Secret gets discussed here and there is the link. I am not part of the "original crew" of this site much as I love what they have done.. But if you take the time to look around AppleNova is more of a local Pub for Mac users and as such everything from teenage anxst to PCs get discussed here...

Stick around. Chill out. And have fun here...

[BarracksSi]

Firstly: macusermillion = troll. Just like all the others that have jumped into AppleNova since this case started up.

Now, I really don't need to add anything, because a bunch of you guys have gotten it right. Some excerpts:

Originally Posted by Undertaker Some sources of ts, ai, and Powerpage all believe to be under NDA, so they are breaking NDA by giving confidential info. Apple just wants to find out who broke them and punish them. If these sites comply, they will not be sued.

Originally Posted by Mero Taking a companies trade secrets and placing them on the internet is not "journalism." It has never been journalism. And it has always been unacceptable. There is nothing new here.

Originally Posted by scratt Just to clarify something here. Theft is criminal. Stealing secrets is theft. That opens up the pandoras box and allows the criminal law to be applied... and rightly so IMHO.

Originally Posted by FFL "An interested public is not the same as the public interest." --Judge James P. Kleinberg Very well stated, Judge. http://news.com.com/Apple+wins+round...8819&subj=news

(good catch, FFL)

I'm posting now because, mainly in other editorials, I've only recently seen the term "whistle blower" being applied to this case. That's completely wrong. Nick wasn't blowing the whistle and saying to the public, "Here's what Apple is doing wrong that can harm humanity!" To label him as a whistle blower is absolutely ludicrous, and is an attempt to make him -- and others like him -- into a hero figure.

Frankly, I can't believe how stupid that is. So, I'm finally agitated enough to make a post.

Non-Disclosure Agreements, as we all know, mean that the person involved agrees to not disclose information. Duh. Someone who breaks the agreement and doesn't expect consequences is absolutely blind.

There is no gray area here. This is not about free speech. This isn't anything close to free speech. This is about broken legal agreements.

The people that can't understand that are either 1) stupid, 2) barking up the wrong fucking tree, or 3) out for self-promotion.

Sorry that I sound so pissed -- journalistic integrity hits close to home for me (my dad's been in the newspaper business for 35 years). These guys are not journalists and have no integrity.

[LudwigVan]

Originally Posted by BarracksSi Sorry that I sound so pissed -- journalistic integrity hits close to home for me (my dad's been in the newspaper business for 35 years). These guys are not journalists and have no integrity.

Does your father have an opinion on the TS suit or the other one by Apple against rumor websites?

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by LudwigVan Does your father have an opinion on the TS suit or the other one by Apple against rumor websites?

I haven't asked, but I'm 99% sure he'll agree that TS -- and their sources -- are at fault.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by BarracksSi Firstly: macusermillion = troll. Just like all the others that have jumped into AppleNova since this case started up. Now, I really don't need to add anything, because a bunch of you guys have gotten it right. Some excerpts: (good catch, FFL) I'm posting now because, mainly in other editorials, I've only recently seen the term "whistle blower" being applied to this case. That's completely wrong. Nick wasn't blowing the whistle and saying to the public, "Here's what Apple is doing wrong that can harm humanity!" To label him as a whistle blower is absolutely ludicrous, and is an attempt to make him -- and others like him -- into a hero figure. Frankly, I can't believe how stupid that is. So, I'm finally agitated enough to make a post. Non-Disclosure Agreements, as we all know, mean that the person involved agrees to not disclose information. Duh. Someone who breaks the agreement and doesn't expect consequences is absolutely blind. There is no gray area here. This is not about free speech. This isn't anything close to free speech. This is about broken legal agreements. The people that can't understand that are either 1) stupid, 2) barking up the wrong fucking tree, or 3) out for self-promotion. Sorry that I sound so pissed -- journalistic integrity hits close to home for me (my dad's been in the newspaper business for 35 years). These guys are not journalists and have no integrity.

Good points man.

I have mentioned a couple of times how suspicious it is that all these new users in various forums have popped up since this case started... And they all seem to be fanatics dedicated to the cause of Nick de Plume! It's very strange! But they do seem to be marginally retarded, kind of like religeous zealots!!

Nick de Plume is basically a scandel monger. He is of no higher journalistic integrity than the shoddy Sunday Sport and National Enquirer publishers. As such he is not a "whistle blower", nor does he give a shit about the truth, for truths sake. He is a self promoter.. You only have to look at his "corporate web site" to see that, if his pseudonym name doesn't give it away anyway!

Now we cannot take away the fact that he supplies consistently accurate info, but that is not a reason to ignore his motives and put the blinkers on when he gets caught out for his underhand methods.

Now for those that think he has a legal foot to stand on, or even more absurdly can plead the 5th... Take a look at the law again.. He has made the DePlume Organisation into a company. Unfortunately for him he now no longer has the protection afforded to a private individual and cannot play the kind of childish games to get out of the shit that a person of his integrity might...

[Magnus]

ok, The reason I deleted that post was because it was late and for some reason I couldn't find the mac rumors site that this forum is linked to and I was not about to post in error. God forbid, for you rabid jackels would pounce on the blood scent.

No , this is not nick deplume, and now that I know this site links to THinksecret.com I can say exactly what I wanted to.
Namely, that if you hate the purpose of thinksecret, you sure as hell shouldn't be leeching off his SIte. Nor is it logical to use this forum to attack anyone who dares to disagree with a bunch of uptight arrogant asses who smugly ignore and refuse to discuss facts.
The fact is that anonymous tip lines are standard fare in journalism. Someone tried to throw out the CIA outing of Valerie Plume as an example of illegal activity but forgot to mention that Robert Novak who did it was NEVER prosecuted, nor was CNN, and in fact, since he was in league with the Bush Junta he faced NO punishment for committing a FELONY. Once again, attacks were thrown out there by childish name callers but never backed up by actual research.

[Kickaha]

BZZZZZZT. I think you'll find that most here would find Robert Novak someone who SHOULD be prosecuted, and your tossing up that he wasn't only because he was protected from 'on high' reinforces that point. You sure which side you're arguing there?

No one's 'leeching' off of anybody else's site, if you'll notice. Missing a few facts here, are you?

[Magnus]

How exactly is DIRECTLY being FED From THINKSECRET.com not leeching from your point of view? I realize that there is an applenova.com, but the if you are SO much more aware of the relationshop of the two it should follow that you would have had FAR more tolerance of the fact that we would be coming from opposite viewpoints. IF you so hate the rumor site, then you should sever the relationship and we can continue our discussions away from each other and with those who share ONLY our views.

Not to mention that Applenova forums contain THIS TOPIC:
Speculation and Rumors (19 Viewing)
Focused discussion and speculation about future computer products.

Again, this is the type of thing fed by NDA leakage.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Magnus How exactly is DIRECTLY being FED From THINKSECRET.com not leeching?

What are you talking about? Can you explain?

[BarracksSi]

Hey, it's no use arguing with an idiot.

Consider me unsubscribed from this thread. I said what I had to say, and if it's not clear enough to some people, then they're just to stupid to be discussing this in the first place.

This non-discussion illustrates why stupid people need to keep their filthy hands out of law.

[Kickaha]

Explain to me how having a link on *this* site *to* TS constitutes leeching *off* of TS. Really. All that does is feed people *to* TS, not the other way around.

Now, TS does have a link to here. It was put there *by Nick*. So, by your argument, TS is leeching off of here.

BZZZZZZZZZZT.

I admire your passion, but your logic needs remedial work.