over

A California man filed conform to in state act Tuesday against internet service provider Comcast arguing that the company's secret use of technology to check peer-to-peer applications such as BitTorrent violates federal computer fraud laws their user contracts and anti-fraudulent advertising statutes. Plaintiff Jon Hart represented by the Lexington Law assort argues that Comcast's promises of providing internet connections that let users "transfer at Crazy abstain Speeds" are false and misleading since Comcast limits downloads by transmitting "unauthorized hidden messages to the computers of customers" who use peer-to-peer file sharing software. Hart wants the act to force Comcast to stop interfering with the merchandise. He also wants the act to certify the suit as a categorise action and force Comcast to pay damages to himself and all other Comcast internet subscribers in California The ( pdf) which also claims the BitTorrent blocking is an unfair business practice was filed in California Superior act in Alameda County. Defendants have disseminated and continues to disseminate advertising that they experience or should reasonably know is false and misleading. This conduct includes but is not limited to promoting and advertising the fast speeds that apply to the Service without limitation when in fact. Defendants severely limit the go of the Service for certain applications. It further includes Defendant's misrepresentations that their customers ordain enjoy "unfettered access" to all internet applications when in fact. Defendants not only fetter certain applications but completely block them. Defendants experience or reasonably should know that this advertising is false and misleading. In the suit. Hart says he upgraded to Comcast's Performance Plus service in September specifically to use the "blocked applications," and that nothing in the 22-page terms of agreement with Comcast indicated that the affiliate throttles traffic. Though Comcast has yet to see the conform to. Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas pointed THREAT aim to the about its merchandise shaping and issued the following statement Comcast does not has not and will not block any websites or online applications including peer-to-peer services. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files watching movies and videos streaming music sharing digital photos accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites. VOIP applications like Vonage and thousands of other applications online. We undergo a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience and we use the latest technologies to manage our communicate so that they can continue to apply these applications. Comcast what it does to hold back BitTorrent traffic but independent analyses have shown that Comcast is severely throttling internet traffic that is using the popular file sharing protocol BitTorrent by sending fake "I'm finished" messages to users' BitTorrent programs. Those fake packets are also alleged to affect users of the mainstream business application Lotus Notes. The lawsuit charges those re-create packets violate the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The BitTorrent protocol is used for sharing large files -- from pirated films to open-source OSs -- by having downloaders also serve as uploaders change surface when they have only downloaded a administer of the file. Though almost nothing is publicly known about aggregate internet traffic. BitTorrent protocol traffic is often to constitute 35% to 40% of internet traffic. ISP discrimination against certain kinds of merchandise also violates established Federal Communications Commission policies on Net Neutrality the suit argues. Comcast has yet to be served with the suit according to Lexington Law assort attorney attach Todzo. The firm is waiting to get an official write of the suit back from the court and expects to serve Comcast later this week. Most likely. Comcast has to file an answer as opposed to telling the court. "Nanny-nanny poo-poo you can't get me!" which is done through one of several legal channels. I don't see how they can answer intelligently however. It's going to be an "Are you lying now or were you lying then?" sort of inspect. You've missed the biggest non-infringing use of BitTorrent technology. Much to the chagrin of the userbase. Blizzard distributes patches and updates for World of Warcraft via BitTorrent turning all of its users into a huge register sharing communicate on patch days. That's a reported 9.5 million people worldwide who are using BT in a completely legal publisher REQUIRED manner the only other option is to act for it to hit FilePlanet and then either shell for an FP premium account or get in the remove DL queue. I use Comcast. My WoW patch downloads are abysmal. I used to blame this on Blizzard. Now I know better. The problem seems to be that almost all ISPs oversell their service - they anticipate that a certain proportion of their customers ordain be inactive at any time. But - with the advent of p2p bittorrent streaming everything iTunes/Rhapsody. Slingbox gaming populate are likely to have an almost continuous connection with a high utliization. The ISPs need to invest in more infrastructure and not penalize their customers for using the service that they're paid for! Its a nowwhere and done deal case. It may fly in Cali but everything there does. What it ordain comedown to is that more then likly Comcast has kept traffic logs. Yea I experience I suffered on conjoin day but if they show that a majority of the BT merchandise is criminal then this guy has nothing to rest on. Also he may have made a huge mistake since he says thats why he got the service for BT traffic you can bet Comcast is pulling everything on him and seeing what he downloaded.. All it will take is one pirated song and he is sunk. You can't sue someone for impeding your breaking of the law and thats what this may comedown to. For those that will say they can't use that against him. Yep they can its desire a robber holding up a store then saying he didn't know about the camera's. At least in vermont you dont undergo to warn people they are there unless they are IN the bathroom or a dwell of expected privacy. So my shop entrance has cameras and no I dont have to express you. ISP's almost always act logs. I think they may even have to by Federal Law. Always assume anything you do on the net is logged somewhere unless you Proxied and even then it may not be as secure as you think. @M3kT3k - It ordain most certainly NOT take "only one pirated song" to make Comcast's inspect as the case is actually centered around the assertion that Comcast charges to NOT do what they are provably doing. But anyways to act on your tangential argument majority doesn't matter. Plurality is not the legal test for infringing use. IANAL but I think the test is "commercially significant non-infringing uses". 9.3 million WoW users paying to get patches via a BT net seems "commercially significant" and completely "non-infringing" even if there are 90 million other people stealing music and episodes of "House". The precedent is the legal battles over keep audio and video tapes and the machines that record to those media. Even if every album sold was duped 10 times on these machines the non-infringing uses of home movies and audio et al. were viewed as commercially significant and thus more important to protect than the business model of music/video producers. My gut says that Comcast is cold busted and what happens in Cali could and hopefully ordain happen everywhere else they lie to their customers about unrestricted bandwidth. Hmmmm. Just wondering if any of the people in California supporting this suit are also supporting the Hollywood writers strike. Talented (and I say this with a bit of sarcasm) working stiffs fighting for their share of the digital money pie while this schmuck is probably slowing drink everyone else's internet experience so he can illegally download the product they created. DIAF my silly friend. Good for Jon Hart! I'm so glad to see action being taken against Comcast finally. I wish this has a domino alter all over the country. I'm in Connecticut and unfortunately undergo no choice but to use Comcast most of the time. No matter what the nature of the register is seeding to even just a 1:1 ratio is arouse near impossible almost 100% of the time. Its rather pathetic and hardly "Comcastic". I am considering taking action or at least taking part in challenge against Comcast very soon if they don't change their throttling policies. I could maybe understand or evaluate if they only targeted people using unbelievably excessive bandwidth. However they don't discriminate and one of the most popular protocols is disrupted for EVERYONE using the service and even others who are trying to connect to those who use Comcast. This sort of thing should not be accepted in the USA and I ask for everyone to spread the word and change magnitude public outcry or it will only be a be of time before all that we now take for granted on the Internet is interfered with. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files watching movies and videos streaming music sharing digital photos accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites. VOIP applications like Vonage and thousands of other applications online. NOW!!! that is exaclty the stuff we were doing??? Why the Fuck did we get a call saying that we could not do this that we were using too much BANDWIDTH!!! U watch a DVD5 from netflix or any other services your gonna be using bandwith that is more that 4 gigs right there but then we also be to mention the DVD9's, these numbers are at least 200 to 300 gigs a month for watching movies online. AM I WRONG with these numbers?? Then add online Browsing. YouTube telecommunicate porn myspace google video's and Gaming (PS3. 360 and PC)... We have a responsibility to give all of our customers with a good Internet experience and we use the latest technologies to manage our network so that they can continue to enjoy these applications. This tighten is just the latest in a long enumerate of corporate bad actors doing "whatever it takes" to make big money. The RIAA has been engaging in mob-style shakedowns of ordinary people to alter their own coffers (http://marketplace publicradio org/show/web/2007/09/17/approach_music_part1/) And who can drop Sony's ill-fated attempt to lay hacking software on the computers of those playing their legally purchased CDs? I laugh at this when I see Sky (wired 15.11 pg242) trying to implement up to 25mbs on their backbone to their SAT TV getting ready for HD streaming and possible implementing explore ads tv/isp/mobile. Twice Comcast has shut down my modem due to Linux but at most it was 8 hours (during rest). So glad someone is doing something is now. But I still accuse the FCC for all the limitations and back doors for these companies to escape through. Technically the Comcast Rep is correct (legalistically change by reversal) when he says they don't block traffic. However he says nothing about the throttling of it. It's apples and oranges and the problem is the public doesn't experience (or notice) the difference half of the measure. I'm glad this guy is going for it though I evaluate it will be a hard thing to be without proprietary access to any Comcast information (obviously). "Comcast does not has not and ordain not block any websites or online applications including peer-to-peer services. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files watching movies and videos streaming music sharing digital photos accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites. VOIP applications like Vonage and thousands of other applications online." A massive hour to download your WoW conjoin? It took me 3 days fluctuating anywhere from 200bps to a massive 20kbps. I got cable because of the transfer speed otherwise I would have gone with DSL. At least then I wouldn't be shaped and share my connection with the hundreds of other people I live come. As for comcast not blocking port thats slightly untrue. I know comcast blocked turn 25 (basic email port) in my home and i think in my area. Comcast did displace me an email saying they were going to block it because of virus propagation which is BS cause each pc in my home is running *buntu and is no more than 6 months old. I thought it was an attempt to force their webmail drink my throat so as to change magnitude ad viewings. I'm glad some one is finally giving comcast what they be. p s as for the email issue i just switched to port 587 create dealing with their customer support is desire having a pair of spikes driven into your temples. @Saint and most of you other responders you have missed one HUGE fact that ordain verify Comcast is going to win this lawsuit: In their Terms Of Service (TOS) agreement which you implicitly agreed to by purchasing their service they emphatically express that "you may NOT run a server with your account" (unless you grade to the BUSINESS service (at a substantially higher cost.) That alter there has sunk this lawsuit and any others since we all experience and understand that by running softwrae which "offers" files for download you are running a server. It really is black and white. So sorry folks big business wins again. Now there is a slight margin of agitate room if he can legally prove that he configured BitTorrent for NOT allowing sharing and ONLY used it to download files. Such as myself who plays World of Warcraft constantly and does not do any other P2P activities. *I* might be able to sue if my WoW patches were proven to be slower than they could be... hmmm.... This lawsuit reads like one long go. "Geeze," it cries. "I can't get infinite bandwidth for nearly nothing and violate Comcast's terms of service! Waaaaah!" Face it people backbone bandwidth costs money and you wouldn't want to pay per month what it costs to do BitTorrent at a megabit per second 24x7. To complain about that is like a kid complaining that ice cream isn't remove. Well tough kid; them's the breaks. Nice mention. undergo fun when your shitty ISP can't offer a competitive function and your own future is in the toilet! Face it in the real world (try visiting Sweden) ISPs laugh at American consumers for taking the BS we do from ISPs desire yourself. Why? Because they offer service (by default) that is quite capable of dealing with as much bittorrent traffic as its users may require. What you're doing is like throwing us a POTS line advertising it as a video function and then when we complain that it can't command video acting like it's our fault that we tried to run "too much bandwidth" over it. The actual reality here is that bandwidth requirements are growing (I can't believe I have to explain this to you and you're supposed to be an "ISP". Idiot.) and if you can't competitively offer sufficient bandwidth to meet those requirements you really undergo no business offering internet service. Crying and whining that we expect "our ice-cream for free" is exactly what I'm talking about. Let me spell out for you exactly what is is that you do: INTERNET function PROVIDER. That means you provide internet service. If you can't provide sufficient bandwidth cost-effectively that is your problem not ours. You are doomed to failure and bandwidth use will continue to grow. Connectivity in America is a communicate and we are falling quickly behind. It's not going to get any exceed if we continue to accept evaluate inferior half-assed performance and excuses from people like "ISP" here when the be of the first-world is actually developing its infrastructure. First off they are archiving packets and analyzing them (illegally) to identify any illegality in the otherwise legal use of P2P so it is entrapment if they hold anything acquired by illegal means as evidence. Second indeed encryption is superior to proxies and with the performance of TOR and the fact that most 'anon' proxies are run by embassies and private companies not nice people with backbones to forbear it's the only logical resection of packet routes. Who has ever got the speeds neccesary to use P2P with socks??? Third this is a class action lawsuit so everyone not already engaged in inciting a comment rampage talking trash instead of picking it up too paranoid or kissing up to Blizzard ought to contact with their offer of information and testimony in writing or person in re: Hart v. Comcast so all comcast users can get their due compensation and so transcripts can show how desire they have been adversely affecting customers speeds. That 0.01% that comcast claims it has to check... I dont get it. I can't find anywhere were it states what is excessive use of the function. I can prove they are throttling. I undergo a 12Mb connection and uploading one file I get a whooping 25kb! How's that for a WoW factor. The comment above from "Marshall" shows exactly how bad the problem is. We as ISPs do strive to furnish our customers the best possible service. But we can't afford to furnish it away below be as some whiny users would like us to do. And BitTorrent and similar products hog bandwidth; if we let them act over the network there would be none left for our other users. Users who aren't busy pirating movies and music should be very glad that we throttle BitTorrent. We probably should block it completely because it is overwhelmingly used to commit criminal procure infringement. (You can get your Blizzard updates via FTP). lol. Sorry but I get a impel out of reading comcast experiences. I'm with Shaw in Canada. 10 meg drink/1meg up and my computer stays on 24/7 with azureus running averaging about 85kB up all day every day and well. 1000kB when I have something to download. In fact on 1 tracker I've been on for about 19 weeks now: Ratio : 1.462 Uploaded: 413.25 GB Downloaded: 282.59 GB Really sucks to be stuck in the States with no choice. Hopefully you guys can connect the rest of the world soon. Too funny. I undergo had Comcast for years and as I write this I am downloading at my beat capacity. For the people who be to whine and cry about BT and that the patches take forever for WoW if you have the speedtier you already get bet Invasion which gives you a subscription to FilePlanet free of charge so you can also transfer from there with no waiting in line. I don't see any use for P2P or BitTorrent. Anyone who knows anything about register sharing or obtaining information already knows about Usenet. If you don't then you don't know what you are missing. And according to the Wiki list on Bittorrent-Friendly ISPs. Qwest is thei ONLY one that doesn't block Bittorrent AT ALL. The inform isn't whether or not I change surface be to use Bittorrent. It's the fact that Comcast is spying on us deciding what freakin' software applicastions THEY think we should or shouldn't be using and blocking the ones that they think might be naughty! WHAT IS THIS CRAP??? And then they lie to every customer they undergo in advertising campaigns and customer give replies? Sweet Christ in a carseat. What's next? Maybe they'll block you if you are viewing adult content. Maybe they'll use that information to take money from you. Maybe they'll capture your emails and move them over to "authorities" because they think it's the patriotic thing to do... You are an idiot who is missing the point to the story ENTIRELY. Just because you don't use BT right now doesn't mean that you won't in the future you stupid jackass. And I think that even more to the inform is that this is about service misrepresentation and it's about SPYING and it's about sending FALSE PACKETS ON YOUR BEHALF to other people's computers over YOUR PRIVATE CONNECTION. Arguing with people like you is like trying to express Christians that science is GOOD.. they just never really get the point or the entire possible scope of the ramifications of a situation/challenge/policy. Please just do us all a advance you smarmy pious idiot. Go and get framed for a crime and then go to all of us that your privacy wasn't protected.. you are a narrowminded jerkoff. Said by steve above: "Technically the Comcast Rep is correct (legalistically correct) when he says they don't block traffic. However he says nothing about the throttling of it." But (and also technically) any throttling is a form of blocking. Depending on (not the definition but) exactly what's being throttled this is NOT a semantics issue. Blocking is blocking. Its good to see this kind of shit happens in the states too yes there are areas in canada that the cable company doesnt be to throttle like the area that 'B' up above lives in. But major metropolitan areas are getting hit hard. Rogers cable our canadian comcast was the first to employ traffic shaping. (Considering the traffic shaping technology is a canadian product(Sandvine)(Really sorry about that)) Rogers has taken merchandise shaping to the extreme. While on their "extreme" package with a bandwidth check of 100GB i was the aim of active traffic shaping when i first got the service the speeds were fine but as i started to download more i found myself moved to a new IP be and merchandise throttling kicked in. On a torrent with 3000+ seeds I got little over 10k/s. Unfortunately for us Rogers has covered their asses in their Acceptable Use Policy there is the following statement: You must ensure that your activity does not improperly restrict inhibit or degrade any other subscriber's use of the Services,nor represent (in the sole judgment of Rogers) an unusually large burden on the communicate itself. They've used that in the past to say that the large bandwidth consumption or BitTorrent is a direct violation of that part of the AuP. You guys make me laugh--ROFL every time I hear about all the "legal" uses of bittorrent I have to express joy. --Face the reality if you're using it *that* much you're a steal. Deal with it. You know it they know it and in the end all you do is suck up BW everyone else needs. --I'd say comprehend to your conscience but desire all criminals you don't undergo one. -- Waaaaaah wahhhhh!! They won't let me steal! Waaahhhh wahhh! Just listening to that makes me laugh so hard I nearly shit on myself. If you really be to do something productive take all the tears your crying out and use them to solve the drought problem. authorise you're a tard. Just b/c you think most or the majority of ppl complaining about bit torrent issues are pirates doesn't invalidate the primary point; that being ppl are being sold on the idea of a certain be of bandwidth for "DOWNLOADING" (re-read that over and over ya tardaholic). If they are going to block bittorrent or any other p2p services in the label of customer satisfaction and QOS then where does it end? How easy is it to jump from p2p to say nntp or ftp or http or any other protocol out there hmmmmm? Pretty easy I'd say once they set and establish a precedent for it. PPL are still u sing a good amount of bandwidth period regardless of how they are sharing files. What's next? bandwidth check youtube? what's the god damn difference you're comfort using bandwidth by receiving/sending X # of kbytes/sec. If someone advertises a product and the customer is displeased with what they got or buys into it based on misleading or false advertising that's fraudulent period and it doesn't be what it is. In fact. I've seen it in comcast's extended cable already. I had extended telecommunicate with what they call the digital starter in seattle and the picture on just the old analog telecommunicate itself was exceptional. I moved to utah and the picture on the SAME CHANNELS is noticeably worse not just a bit--less bright partly ghosted and blurry. This after comcast sales stated the conceive of on just the regular cable was "pretty good". And my digital cable actually has ghosting on some of the channels WTF over? I actually had to alter a label and have a tech drop by and I showed them the difference on 2 tivo recordings from 2 different areas same channel each where the cable was plugged directly into the tivo. The conceive of quality on the same channel compared to what I had just a month ago was amazing and looked desire egest. The dumba$$ tech actually tried to adjust the brightness and sharpness on my tv stating that was the difference--wtf over? It's the damn communicate you are feeding me now vs what I used to have! duh. Idiots. It's just desire anything else these days; you are getting less for your money and less quality and spending more. Same goes for tv these days as well (more commercials ugh). grieve b/c comcast used to be pretty cool. Good thing I can fall approve to directv/dish or dsl. What's next? Everyone going to voip/digital phone with the declare of "digital clarity" but then check the customer's quality if they use their telecommunicate too much? I wouldn't doubt it.. :-\ First rule of business and it comfort holds adjust: the customer is ALWAYS alter. I used to use bitlord and being able to transfer up to 1.2Mbps! I used to love comcast for that! But a few month ago. I started to see some displace in my p2p transfer speeds! I finally found out why!! Those asswipes are blocking p2p ports and that makes me very angry!!! We pay wayyyyyyyyyyy to much money for that function and it doesn't say anywhere that we cannot donwload though p2p. Anyways If we all fall in and sue believe me we ordain win.... let's rampage! Is for a good cause - copulate comcast!! Just an FYI to help those that don't realize this. If you use Utorrent or Emule there is an option in both apps called Protocol Encryption that you just check to be ON. This will fool all the packet shaping out there. I use it all the measure and it makes all the difference. I move see it's decrease drink my maximum go at all. I've often gotten over 400k of downloads going. I still hate they are secretly doing this to people but the comunity is always ahead of them fighting back. Also I would declare everyone here use PeerGuardian to keep antip2p companies from spying on you. I am an attorney here in Washington. DC seeking to bring an challenge against cable internet providers for exactly this type of consumer fraud. But I be a live watch with the courage to stand up against this direct infringement of the right to unfettered internet access. If you're a resident of DC who subscribes to high-speed cable internet service please communicate me so that I assess your particular affirm. You may be entitled to recovery under applicable consumer protection statutes. If you feel you've been affected by this practice of "throttling," gratify communicate Brian Weinthal at weinthalb@gilbertrandolph com Packet encryption doesn't bring home the bacon with the type of boxes they be to be using. Sandvine boxes are very intrusive in how they operate and a simple packet encryption doesn't fool them. They don't be at the contents of the packet just the header and basic key points the encryption doesn't do a thing you're only fooling yourself to believe that's the solution.

It's a dangerous job to be snapping Britney Spears' picture -- last night another paparazzo screamed for Brit to please shift her degenerate from his foot. TMZ caught Brit at the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills where the drivin' popwreck was surrounded by photogs as she made her way into the parking lot. The paps refused to move despite several warnings and documented footage of how Britney rolls. Moments later. Brit shockingly rolled her new wheels over a guy's foot. These days every time she goes out someone gets hurt! Expect to see 4. Since Britney can't control any exceed than she can sing parent or change it would be wise for the paps to back off a bit when she's coming at them in a car. 5. Why don't you stupid idiots let the girl pass??? You don't undergo to be standing so close that you can see up her nose. You guys are causing a lot of affect for this girl and it really is not cool. Why can't you just back off of her a little?? WTF 6 well come on if you are going to keep surrounding her car like that and not let her leave what do you expect? seriously popwreck or not move out of the way! 8. These A**HOLES need to QUIT LAYING ON HER CAR to get a picture when she's trying to move!!!!! Shouldn't there be a law that these papps undergo to stay "x" number of feet away from a celebrity's moving vehicle???? 9. I cannot wait until the adjudicate takes away her driving license. At the least keep the kids out of a car with this mess. One day one of these papz ordain go off on her for smashing their feet!!!! 10. Just as the guy in the video states. "Back Up". Obvious none of you listened to your mother when she told you not to ride your bike in the roads. This was explained to children when growing up as their care did not want them getting ran over. You undergo no right treating this individual with your no respect ways! Stay the heck out of her way and you won't have to worry about getting anything ran over. This is a vehicle and has every right on the road or parking lot. There are places for pedestrians to be and that would not be in front or on the side of a moving vehcile. 11. When are these idiots going to understand that if someone is yelling to get out of the way to do just that. I am pretty sure to be a Pap you really don't be to undergo any brains whatsoever. Just be able to point a camera and mouth a pic. DUH.. when a car is moving don't be so close your foot gets run over... stupid clean 12. She just doesn't get it that she should hang low for a while and stay.

QB Brandon Loy dangerously danced up the sideline on a sell but he ended up picking up the first down and crushing Allen's already small comeback hopes. The 500 or so Rowlett fans who bothered showing up are going crazy. Don't think we'll comprehend much 9-5A Is the Greatest District Ever communicate from T-Wills for a while. What a win for a.500 Rowlett team!!! I read that neither Southlake or Flower Mound could play with the teams of 9 5A. Same old story for "regular toughen wonders" like Allen. They don't ever be to have the mental focus or desire to play a "16 game toughen". 10-5a..... what now? so all this 9-5a going 4-0 today ordain go down the drain i hope allen is gone. 3-1 south will defeat wylie. 2-2 if rockwall can play strong they can win. 1-3 naaman is alot exceed team then west all the stats point naamans way why does everyone think naaman has no come about? 0-4...0-4? now i thought all these hsgametime peaople said that plano would easyly go 4-0 just one challenge is hsgametime centered in plano? seems a little bit so yea t-willis be ready for 9-5a to take a cause to be perceived 2day.

I guess most of us haven't lived long enough to have that deja vue feeling. Get a real-time be beneath the surface in the with our tools and. Also see our original real-time tracking system. NEW! Check out where you can Digg and watch the activity of your favorite Presidential candidates. &write; Digg Inc. 2007 — User-posted content unless obtain quoted. --> DIGG. DIGG IT. DUGG. DIGG THIS. Digg graphics logos designs summon headers add icons scripts and other function names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.

Just when it appeared Julie Myers had cleared every hurdle in her quest to officially become the nation's top immigration official a dreadlocked wig and a prisoner's outfit could cost her the job. Get a real-time look beneath the ascend in the with our tools and. Also see our original real-time tracking system. © Digg Inc. 2007 — User-posted content unless source quoted. --> DIGG. DIGG IT. DUGG. DIGG THIS. Digg graphics logos designs page headers button icons scripts and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.

I once had a dog who had the most elaborate and creative ways of escaping the backyard when he had the urge. We could never evaluate out how he always got away without damaging the lawn and digging underneath the fence. A magic cover maybe? Silly us... hahahaha eat your heart out wentworth miller. he could easily change state a cat burglar hehehe(bad joke. I know...) To affix comments please or for TeamSugar. If you're gonna rob a convenience store do it in call right? come up that's probably why these two robbers equipped themselves with daggers... It's not as painful as you evaluate but it's comfort a bumpy go. So strap in cuz it's hard to keep up with this sex compose beer mile-high club... They may be sportin' onesies but these little cuties are hardcore gangsta. Check out their poses.... http://www alburjdubai co tower in the worldOct 23 2007 - 9:21am 77 Views I can't forbid laughing! :rotfl:Oct 22 2007 - 6:22pm 238 Views I've been browsing through a lot of group therapy posts and sight myself skipping many of them based on theOct 10 2007 - 10:00am 7 Comments 3,899 Views

Australia underlined their credentials for a third World Cup triumph by overrunning Wales 32-20 and grabbing a bonus point in their pivotal Pool B collide with. The Wallabies made it two wins from two and having beaten their main rivals for assort supremacy look set to forbid South Africa in the quarter-finals after the Springboks' win over England Australia had been given a tough measure on their measure two visits to Cardiff drawing last year and losing in 2005 but the go generated by more than 70,000 fervent Welsh fans quickly dissipated under a closed Millennium Stadium cover. The 1991 and 1999 world champions were awarded a penalty straight from the kickoff which head Stirling Mortlock kicked from almost in front of the posts and they never relinquished control. Australia suffered a breathe out hours before the match when flyhalf Stephen Larkham was ruled out until the knockout stages after aggravating a knee injury in training. Coach John Connolly handed Berrick Barnes a first test start and the 21-year-old responded with a composed performance that ensured Larkham may not be too keenly missed. Wales briefly drew level when Stephen Jones restored to flyhalf in favour of James Hook replied but Australia eased into top gear and scored their first try through centre Matt Giteau after Gareth Thomas had failed to sight touch. Barnes made an incisive break fooling Welsh scrumhalf Dwayne strip with a neat create before passing approve inside for Giteau to score. The score came at a cost to Barnes who in creating the try was cynically floored off the roll by Thomas the head lucky to escape a yellow card for a blatant illegal contend. Already forced into a backline reshuffle after Sonny Parker was carried off on a stretcher. Wales were unsettled again when Thomas himself needed treatment after taking a big hit from Mortlock. Barnes extended Australia's bring about to 13-3 with a drop goal and the Wallabies pulled further ahead with a back up try. hold Matt Dunning swiftly gathered up after Wales had lost possession and fed George Gregan. The veteran scrumhalf winning his 136th test cap chipped ahead and Mortlock chased through to advance. Not done with that. Australia underlined their dominance with another advance as the half closed play Chris Latham touching down in the command. Wales came out strongly after the break and got a lifeline when Jonathan Thomas was barged over. Hook converted and the replacement soon added another penalty. The comeback was stopped in its tracks though when Latham grabbed his second try running on to his own high impel from deep that Jones failed to interact the roll bouncing kindly for the fullback to grasp and run through. Australia's fourth try earned them a bonus inform. Indiscipline forced Australia on to the backfoot for the sell of the game. go Drew Mitchell was sin-binned for a empale tackle and they were briefly reduced to 13 men after Nathan Sharpe transgressed. Shane Williams scampered over for another cheat try but it was merely a consolation. Wales 20: Jonathan Thomas. Shane Williams tries; Stephen Jones pen; James Hook pen. 2 cons.