?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Here's the thing

I've taken yesterday's posts private. I do not disavow any of what I've said, but I'm uncomfortable with the split in my head between the principles involved and the persons involved.

I've spoken from a very emotional standpoint on the matter in question, and I stand by my judgment. However, that said, there's no utility in venting my spleen and making it impossible for someone to make amends in the future. That does, of course, assume that the person involved sees a need to make amends. I have my doubts that anyone implicated has any desire to make amends, but won't close off the doorway.

I also don't want to put undue pressure on other folks who are peripherally involved and entitled to make their own judgments about things.

So from here on out, I'll keep the public conversation on the logical level. The old posts still exist, they're just put away where they won't cause harm. I don't mind in the least making someone who did something wrong squirm and feel uncomfortable, and I'm not at all ashamed of my stance on the matter. But I *do* mind making another innocent party or parties feel uncomfortable.

So, to reiterate, this time in a less emotive manner:

1. Plagiarism is wrong.
1b. "Textual poaching", in the Jenkins sense, is not the equivalent of plagiarism, and to claim that by copying someone else's works in fandom you are by default not plagiarising is wrong.
2. Selling your personal fan fiction is wrong -- especially when doing so might endanger other folks' work.
3. Fan fiction is not by default equal to plagiarism. In many instances, fan fiction is not even a derivative work, but a transformative one.
4. Authors should *not* encourage uncredited copying of their texts into another person's story.
5. Saying that someone "inspired" your work does not constitute a credit for having taken whole segments (be they sentences, paragraphs or scenes)from someone else's work.
5. Credits should always be *specific* -- if you've taken paragraphs, whole scenes, or even just vague plotlines from another source, you should SAY SO and specifically.
6. Permission to copy should be obtained *prior* to publication, not after you get caught copying.
7. All of the above applies to published, real-life, paid authors' work as well as to fan fiction.
8. It's harmful to the notion that fan fiction is a legitimate creative endeavor to take text from someone else and reuse it.
9. Both online and offline fandom are insistent on proper credit and disclaimers being used.

Comments

( 44 comments — Leave a comment )
(Anonymous)
May. 28th, 2003 10:23 am (UTC)
fic controversy
First off, anonymous thanks to the individual who alerted me to this live journal thread-- Chris had e-mailed me, but hadn’t directed me to the blog. This reply is long, so I’ll have to post in sections. Please bear with me.

I really thought that this had all been resolved, but evidently my selling of an illustrated print zine version of my stories at this past weekend’s Media West Con touched some nerve. I’ll get to the backstory in a minute, but first let me share with all of you what I told Chris in my response to her e-mail, in which she informed me that Isabel Ortiz’ fiction was being taken off the fic archives.

Chris wrote, in part:

I cannot and will not leave the Sandlot
vulnerable to legal implication via commercial uses prosecution, and so have
removed Isabel Ortiz as an author from the archive, since she has now
published hard copy and received monetary remuneration for said fiction.

While personally I don’t feel this is a significant issue to be worried about (I’m not at all paranoid about the consequences of fannish activities), I responded:

OK, fair enough. I guess we come from two very different fan cultures. I "grew up" in print zine fandom, in which the buying and selling of artistically self-produced print zines is commonplace practice. Fanzines have been around a lot longer than the internet has. There are many, many fans who do not participate at all in online fandom, and for whom print zines are their only access to fanfiction -- including mine. I had a sign that clearly stated that all the stories in the zine were available online, but not the accompanying digital artwork -- my own creations -- that was to be found in the print version. (Which, by the way, cost a pretty penny to produce, once you add up the paper and ink for art drafts, the color laser printed covers, and the Kinko’s binding and very-expensive-but-necessary computer use for formatting time. FWIW, I still have not recouped my expenses in printing the zine)

Chris wrote:

To be honest, I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to write this notification
to you, as I'm entirely infuriated that I didn't take the opportunity to
speak up earlier in public about the whole thing, and thus avoid the
implication that lists such as SS or the Gutter would have any part in
supporting textual poaching, which whether legal or not, I consider morally
repugnant.


Lisa responded:

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I respect your right to your opinion, and support you doing what you feel you must. For the record, I consider myself a moral person, and do not have qualms about my actions. From your tone, I assume (regretfully) that you are most likely not going to be willing to accept an "agree to disagree" proposition from me regarding possible future encounters; but I, for one, promise to be respectful and polite if we do ever meet face-to-face, and as morally repulsed as you are by me, I would hope that you might be able to say the same thing.

Cordially yours,

Lisa


Chris
speaking entirely for her own, personal self

chrisjournal
May. 28th, 2003 09:04 pm (UTC)
Re: fic controversy
So one does wonder exactly how much snark is appropriate in a circumstance where private emails are posted directly online...

No matter. I should have expected no less. And there's nothing in anything I've written I'm unwilling to have out here.

My thanks, also, to your anonymous poster. I wrote email to you quite a bit before posting this to my journal, and hadn't had a chance to respond to your email when LJ decided to go nuts.

I'm more than willing to engage in this forum rather than in private discussion if you'd like, although I will certainly point out that it is, in fact, my personal journal/blog/whatever you want to call it. I'll make an attempt to respond inline here, though I find the structure of responding at this kind of length in a journal unwieldy.

I really thought that this had all been resolved, but evidently my selling of an illustrated print zine version of my stories at this past weekend’s Media West Con touched some nerve.

Yes. A nerve. That's one way to put it. If you really want to discuss this in public, then let me start with this. I, too, thought it was over with in February when we discussed the matter. To say that your activities at the con surprised the hell out of me is an understatement, to be sure. I thought at the very least that we'd come to an understanding that your original "disclaimer" was hardly sufficient to inform readers that a rather significant portion of Epiphanies was not, in fact, authored by Isabel Ortiz. Not that you ever posted an updated disclaimer to either of the yahoo lists or offered to send one to me for the Sandlot. Lesson learned for me as an archivist: be specific with folks who seem to be a little lacking in the ethics department. Or should that be "from a different fan culture than I"?

And just for the record -- there was no plotting involved in the circumstances that unfolded recently. It was sheer happenstance that Kelly, a moderator who is on both SS and the Gutter, remembered the thing with the list member from February.

She didn't get all conspiratorial and follow you around, nor did she deliberately purchase your 'zine to "get" you. I want to make that crystal clear. The reaction you see here and perhaps that someone has copied you from my private journal, is mine and mine alone.

Head on to the next post.
Re: fic controversy - (Anonymous) - May. 29th, 2003 02:07 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - part 2 - chrisjournal - May. 28th, 2003 09:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - part 2 - spicklething - May. 28th, 2003 09:40 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - part 2 - (Anonymous) - May. 29th, 2003 05:11 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - part 2 - nashvillain615 - May. 29th, 2003 07:04 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - part 2 - (Anonymous) - May. 31st, 2003 04:17 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - part 2 - nashvillain615 - May. 31st, 2003 05:49 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - part 2 - spicklething - May. 31st, 2003 08:33 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - part 2 - (Anonymous) - May. 29th, 2003 04:01 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - part 2 - (Anonymous) - May. 29th, 2003 04:01 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Anonymous)
May. 28th, 2003 10:24 am (UTC)
fic controversy
Now, the crux of the problem seems to be Epiphanies, a story in which I, with full cognizance, textually poached -- and I use that term deliberately -- some of Diane Davis’ (aka Cynthia Hatch’s) Beauty and the Beast prose from her zine Kaleidoscopes III for the sex scenes. As I wrote to Chris back in February, I had credited Cynthia in my author’s notes and personally thanked her – before any question about legitimacy of language use was ever brought to fore. I actually had gone to fairly great lengths in what’s left of the die-hard BaTB community to obtain her contact information (my first move was to contact Dori, who is on the SS and Gutter lists and who knows me from several BaTB cons and can vouch for my good character) so that I could find Diane and write to her.

I think the rest of my work to date shows that I am more than capable of writing my own sex scenes -- I had a specific reason for openly referencing Cynthia’s in Epiphanies, and that is that I see a deep connection between Vincent and Catherine’s story and Spike and Buffy’s. I see lots of connections between fan pairings I like across the board, and writing fanfic is a hobby, something I do as simple entertainment for myself and others, not profit. As far as I’m concerned, fanfic involves playing with text – deriving it, deconstructing it, reconstructing it, reinventing it. This is my considered opinion. I realize you are unlikely to agree with me here, but both personally and academically for me, in this tiny little literary sub-genre we call fanfic, sampling and resampling for and from any author, provided they are informed, is legitimate textual creation. I repeat, the act of writing fan fiction is by definition textual poaching. In Epiphanies, I was consciously referencing Cynthia’s BaTB universe (the one that had so inspired me to write romantic fan fiction) as both an homage to her and as a way to layer meaning into my story. If I’d intended to keep it a secret, I would have never even drawn attention to it in my author’s notes to begin with. The first version of the note is more of a personal nod to Diane, the only person I thought would even care; after the question was raised by a list member I voluntarily re-wrote the note to more clearly state the relationship between Cynthia’s Kaleidoscope III and Epiphanies, and indicate that language is used with permission.

My original disclaimer is, unfortunately, the one used in the illustrated version that went to print. It’s also the version with a beta comment about a comma, and a couple of other things that I’d missed, still stuck in it. It is a mistake that the older disclaimer is on there, but this comes from my being incautious, not from any malicious intent, or desire to engage in subterfuge.

Out of curiosity, how many people here have actually read Cynthia’s work? Or self-produced an illustrated print zine?

wickedprincess3
May. 28th, 2003 03:15 pm (UTC)
Re: fic controversy
Out of curiosity, how many people here have actually read Cynthia’s work? Or self-produced an illustrated print zine?
Sorry I've never even seen a zine and I don't read fic other than BtVS/Ats, pardon me, I'm just a newbie.
But I don't see what that has to do with anything. Yes you work hard and pay money to put out a zine, that had *your own fic in it*. That's great, whatever. But that isnt the issue is it? The issue is the "poaching" not how much work we do in fandom or how varied our experience is.
Can I not say "stealing is wrong" until I have ten years of fandom under my belt? Cause it's first grade logic (tm Kita) stealing=wrong
Its not about a personal attack on you for making zines or question your hard work. It's a question of "poaching" or whatever.
Re: fic controversy - chrisjournal - May. 29th, 2003 08:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - wickedprincess3 - May. 29th, 2003 11:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - chrisjournal - May. 30th, 2003 06:24 am (UTC) - Expand
chrisjournal
May. 28th, 2003 11:16 pm (UTC)
Re: fic controversy
Now, the crux of the problem seems to be Epiphanies, a story in which I, with full cognizance, textually poached -- and I use that term deliberately -- some of Diane Davis’ (aka Cynthia Hatch’s) Beauty and the Beast prose from her zine Kaleidoscopes III for the sex scenes.

Although the issue you describe with Epiphanies is certainly a central issue here, I need to nuance the perception you are creating. My major problem is more than a objection to an act of plagiarism or a poorly done citation.

At the core of my many objections here is your attitude, and the harmful effects of a similar attitude in the generic. I perceive at a *minimum* an attitude of thoughtlessness, and judge that there is certainly potential that you've acted with intent to deceive. I also state categorically that whether you had intent to deceive or not, what you ultimately did, your actual acts, were deceptive in nature.

In the generic case, I have an intense dislike for anything that smacks of intentional dishonesty of thought or expression, mainly because of the stultifying effect on fandom as a whole if many folks thought as (little) as you apparently do of the respect due the creative endeavors of other writers and artists in fandom.

As I wrote to Chris back in February, I had credited Cynthia in my author’s notes and personally thanked her – before any question about legitimacy of language use was ever brought to fore. I actually had gone to fairly great lengths in what’s left of the die-hard BaTB community to obtain her contact information (my first move was to contact Dori, who is on the SS and Gutter lists and who knows me from several BaTB cons and can vouch for my good character) so that I could find Diane and write to her.

Actually, what you said was:

"> > >*chris to Cynthia*that you were aware of the content of the fic prior to its being written
> and
> > >posted publicly.
> > *lisa to both*I attached an e-mail that I wrote as soon as I received Diane's e-mail.
> > More on that in a moment."

Which was followed later with what you state below pretty much verbatim. This seems to indicate a different order of events than the usual 1. Obtain permission 2. Cite quotations.

More on that in a moment.

I think the rest of my work to date shows that I am more than capable of writing my own sex scenes -- I had a specific reason for openly referencing Cynthia’s in Epiphanies, and that is that I see a deep connection between Vincent and Catherine’s story and Spike and Buffy’s. (snip)

I'll pass up the rich opportunities to act as if I'm 12 years old here, but you might want to consider how effective the piece was at conveying this intent to draw parallels between the couples when the reader lacked any indication that there was any textual reference to a BatB text.

As far as I’m concerned, fanfic involves playing with text – deriving it, deconstructing it, reconstructing it, reinventing it. This is my considered opinion.

In *my* considered opinion, *writing* and even *thinking* involve playing with and generating generic "text". Fanfic, on the other hand, involves playing with very specific text: text produced by the object of the fandom that is publicly published and clearly in a domain eligible for 'fair use'. There's an entire treatise in the definition and debate about the definition of what's eligible for 'fair use', but the only way I can construe any specific instance of a fan-written text as a significant enough work that another author could productively add actual value is when permission has been given and credit *properly* used. Obviously you believe your form of credit was proper, and just as obviously, I do not. That's never been in question between us, though, has it?

I realize you are unlikely to agree with me here, but both personally and academically for me, in this tiny little literary sub-genre we call fanfic, sampling and resampling for and from any author, provided they are informed, is legitimate textual creation.

You are correct that we disagree. And I take issue with the terms you've chosen to describe fan fiction: tiny, little, and sub-genre, that is. I can live with literary.

Out of room on the comment. More in the morning.
Re: fic controversy - (Anonymous) - May. 29th, 2003 05:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - chrisjournal - May. 29th, 2003 07:33 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - spicklething - May. 29th, 2003 07:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - (Anonymous) - May. 31st, 2003 04:55 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - rusty_halo - May. 30th, 2003 12:17 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - chrisjournal - May. 30th, 2003 04:54 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - (Anonymous) - May. 30th, 2003 02:38 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - (Anonymous) - May. 30th, 2003 02:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - (Anonymous) - May. 31st, 2003 04:32 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - chrisjournal - May. 29th, 2003 07:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: fic controversy - (Anonymous) - May. 31st, 2003 04:47 am (UTC) - Expand
harmonyfb
May. 29th, 2003 05:45 am (UTC)
Re: fic controversy
Now, the crux of the problem seems to be Epiphanies, a story in which I, with full cognizance, textually poached -- and I use that term deliberately

So you admit that you deliberately plagarized another author's work? Wow. I've never encountered anyone quite that brazen before.

Or self-produced an illustrated print zine?

::snort:: I think you have very little idea what sort of people you're addressing. Of course I have. I've produced not only 'zines, but also professional newsletters. I've been active in SF fandom of one sort or another since the 1970's. Also, I'm a writer - copywriter, author of published horror fiction, technical writer, desktop publisher.

sampling and resampling for and from any author, provided they are informed, is legitimate textual creation

It's not "creation" at all, dear. It's stealing. Just ask the rappers who were sued for 'sampling' without prior permission. It's reprehensible behavior, and I'm very happy that chrisjournal brought this to light.

If a theif calls their stealing 'liberating', it makes it no less a theft. Ditto for your 'textual poaching'. You do realize that the word 'poaching' implies illegal activities, right?

repeat, the act of writing fan fiction is by definition textual poaching

No, it's not. And someday I expect you'll get the cease-and-desist order that brings the lesson home to you.
Re: fic controversy - spicklething - May. 29th, 2003 07:30 am (UTC) - Expand
(Anonymous)
May. 28th, 2003 10:24 am (UTC)
fic controversy
I do see the community of fan fiction writers as the pop literary equivalent of a folk music subculture. I wrote to Diane and Chris that “…fan fiction is by very definition of its genre a derivative literary form,” and I referred Chris to Dr. Henry Jenkins’ Textual Poachers for an academic approach to the subject. He writes, “Fan Fiction is the way of the culture repairing itself in a society in which modern myths are owned by corporations, instead of the common folk,” and I added a reminder that the folk tradition relies on expanding the existing repertoire through overt change. You couldn’t have the Manhattan Transfer’s Birdland without first having had Charlie Parker’s, for example. But does the fact that the later song references so heavily the first negate the artistry or value of the second creation? I think not, rather the MT version relies on its source to give it a deeper and more layered intrinsic meaning.

At any rate, I assumed the matter had been settled by the e-mail Diane had written to Chris, et al, in response to Chris’ request that she provide a statement attesting to the fact that she did not consider Epiphanies to be a plagiarism of her work (which she did, in fact, provide).

So, anyway, this is all that there is for me to say, really. I’m sorry for the controversy and the heightened emotional responses, but in the fannish world that I’ve lived and actively participated in for well over two decades, I have not sinned. You are welcome to disagree, and I will still champion your right to do so, as well as continue to celebrate fandom’s essential diversity, of which this very basic disagreement is illustrative. Feel free to contact me personally about this; I am more than willing to engage in civil conversation. My conscience is clear regarding this matter; I only regret the controversy, and the fact that Kelley chose to conceal her concerns about the zine from me at the con. I think a face-to-face conversation would have been more up front, regardless of whether or not it would have altered her subsequent actions.


Thanks for listening,
Lisa


ps: Is there any possibility that this thread could be toned down to the level of civil discourse, and not name calling
harmonyfb
May. 29th, 2003 05:47 am (UTC)
Re: fic controversy
Is there any possibility that this thread could be toned down to the level of civil discourse, and not name calling

I call a shovel a shovel. A plagarist - and an unrepentent one at that - is what you are.
spicklething
May. 28th, 2003 10:52 am (UTC)
Okay, seeing that my name is now tossed into to this, let clarify...there was nothing shifty about me purchasing the zine. Didn't realize that epiphanies was the story in question until I was reading the zine that night and realized it was the same story in question from before. But yes, after the fact it did cause some eyebrows to be raised.

Whether the story was for sale in a zine is less of an issue for me. I have actively participated in the zine aspect of fandom both as a contributor and collector for nearly a decade. And yes, the issue about zines is definitely a quagmire when it comes to copyright law. I could go on and on about the rights and wrongs about zine sales. George Lucas, for example, knows that zines exist, used to collect them, but also would clamp down on them if they contained material that he did not approve of (ie, graphic sexual content, slash, etc.) Personally, if it is sold to recoup loses and not generate a profit, I don't have a problem with zines. But if Chris wants to protect her website from this debate, I totally understand and respect that decision. Anyhow, the ethics of printzines is a whole different debate for a completely different day.

But I don't think the crux of this issue is whether the fanfiction collection was sold. Putting it in print just brought it back to the fore. Where many people, like myself have a problem with this is - heck I'll just say it - the blatent plagiarism of a previously written text. The disclaimers did not state this. Had they, this would not be in debate. Rather, the author's note mere thank Cynthia, whom I assume is the original writer. What she is being thanked for is not clearly stated. It looks like any other note of thanks one would give a good friend, beta reader or other individual. It does not reference the previous work, it does not cite Cynthia as the original writer.

As for the fanfiction as a derivative under the Fair Use act, I don't buy it. Yes, fanfiction can be considered deriviative, but it is also transformative. And being such, does stand seperate when one considers the concept of intellectual property. I'm not saying that one can copyright a fanfiction. But to me, the mere fact that it can be considered a transformative work does lend some semblence of ownership to a body of fannish work.

Besides, when utilizing the freedoms of fair use, it is expected that the original source is cited or quoted. Credit is given where due. But in the story in question, this citation is lacking.

That is where I have problems. I don't care that the zine was sold. Heck I bought several zines over the weekend. But where I do see areas of concern lie in the debate between textual poaching and outright plagiarism.
harmonyfb
May. 28th, 2003 11:43 am (UTC)
I'm not saying that one can copyright a fanfiction.

I am. Of course fanfiction can be copyrighted. Any original work is protected by copyright from the moment of creation. However, in order to print, sell, or otherwise make it commercially available, one would require permission from the holders of the trademark/copyright of the characters.

This is how writers like Chris Golden make a living - by producing original works using characters developed by JW/Mutant Enemy.

The stories, situations, dialog and words we use in telling a story are (or should be) original, and therefore protected by copyright. If I remove references to the Buffyverse from my work, it is still protected by copyright. Titles cannot be copyrighted.

Legal issues aside, plagiarism is flatly unethical. If one has lifted passages, word-for-word, from another person's work, then at minimum the other person should have been asked previously, and should be listed as a co-author. To do otherwise is dishonest in the extreme.

When one presents the work of another as their own, that is lying, plain and simple. This, of course, is not the same as an 'homage', where a sideways reference may be made (such as one story I read where Spike briefly mentioned fighting a 'killer snot demon' - said demon figured prominently in a different author's story.)

A generic 'thanks to' is insufficient when entire passages have been copied, and only the names of the characters changed.
telaryn
May. 28th, 2003 02:33 pm (UTC)
First of all, thanks to harmonyfb for alerting me to this discussion. I feel I have somewhat of a unique perspective to offer, having written for a printzine in the late eighties that had to explore the issue of plagarism. It's also interesting reading that the sales in question happened at "MediaWestCon", because that very convention in the late 80's is where a lot of this was brought to a fiery head.

First of all, as to the question of whether or not fanfiction can be copyrighted. According to the attorney my editor/publisher contacted, the *story* most assuredly can be copyrighted. This is what she ultimately ended up doing with a stand-alone 'zine that another writer was trying to publish as her own work.

The *legal* idea behind this is that the narrative could conceivably be transported to *any* universe and make the leap from fanfaction to fiction. So it remains the property of the writer.

The setting and the characters remain the property of the entity that originally created them. Now while it is commonplace on the internet for each individual writer to slap a detailed disclaimer on their stories, this in *my* experience is not done with a published work. Typically the publisher (in my case an actual company) provides one disclaimer to cover the entire 'zine.

Joy's disclaimers were always worded with a strict eye towards legalities. I can dig a typical one up later and post it, if anyone is interested.

Now I have not read the stories in question, but based on what harmonyfb has told me, and what I've read here from both chrisjournal and the author, legalities would fall on the side that plagarism is in fact what has occurred, albeit plagarism with consent, as far as the internet version of the story in question is concerned.

It is *doubtful* that any of the internet sites hosting it would be legally actionable for providing a forum for plagarized work...the exception being if they reap any financial revenue for doing so.

Ethically, however, if the original author changes her mind down the road and decides to make an issue of it, the host site's reputation would pretty much be garbage.

*Selling* plagarized work and pocketing the money, as it seems has occurred in the case of the printed 'zine, is most definitely actionable -- yes, even for something as under the radar as fanfiction.

Of course at this point, I'm assuming neither author has filed for copyright on the plot, so as far as *that* is concerned, legally it would become a question of who thinks of doing it first.

Ethically...well, I wouldn't want to jump in the path of *that* karmic payback, kwim?
taramisu
May. 28th, 2003 02:42 pm (UTC)
venting my spleen

That's gotta hurt. I've run out of vital organs to vomit, though, so I hear yah.
chrisjournal
May. 29th, 2003 08:42 pm (UTC)
Re:
Yeah, it hurts, but it feels better when it's all over, you know? Like when the Imitrex isn't handy and the migraine gets outta control -- the pain is bad, but the purge helps.
shadowlass
May. 28th, 2003 03:03 pm (UTC)
Filing for copyright isn't actually necessary--any piece of writing is considered copywrited the moment it is written. Since the original author's work was known to have appeared before that of Isabel Ortiz, the copyright already belongs to her.
telaryn
May. 28th, 2003 07:50 pm (UTC)
You are correct -- however, I was always taught that if you end up in an ownership fight, it's always better to have as much legality on your side as possible.

Granted we're not talking deathless prose here, but the rules and ethics are universally applicable IMO.
Re: - chrisjournal - May. 28th, 2003 08:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - shadowlass - May. 28th, 2003 10:54 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - harmonyfb - May. 28th, 2003 08:21 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - shadowlass - May. 28th, 2003 10:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
( 44 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2006
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031