Closed Captioning In Web Video? 164
mforbes writes "Like many geeks, I enjoy watching TV, movies, and streamed video. However, in company with 2%-3% of the population, I suffer from a problem known as Central Auditory Processing Disorder, which essentially means that I have difficulty separating the sounds of human voices from various background noises. When watching TV and when watching movies at home, this isn't a problem, as I can simply turn on the closed captioning. (I find radio to be simply an annoyance.) How much effort would it take the major purveyors of Internet video (the broadcasting majors, etc.) to include an option for CCTV? I doubt the bandwidth required would be more than 1% of that required for the video already being presented. As a social libertarian, I would never ask for government regulation of such an enterprise; I ask only that the major studios be aware of the difficulties that those of us with auditory disorders face. If it's rough for me, how much more difficult can it be for someone who can't hear at all?"
AOL Video Provides CC (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AOL Video Provides CC (Score:2)
At this point I think the lion's share of the effort is in the transcribing the audio into text. This is viable for movies and TV because of the large viewership, but if you are talking about CC for YouTube, you're out of luck for now, except perhaps a few directors videos. I suppose it would be possible to create a program/plug-in that would do real time transcribing, but it's gonna be one mother of a complex program to decypher home-video quality sound.
Re:AOL Video Provides CC (Score:1)
Re:AOL Video Provides CC (Score:1)
Once upon a time. Now it's more like this:
Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]:Re:AOL Video Provides CC (Score:2)
Re:AOL Video Provides CC (Score:3, Insightful)
It's basically like subtitling, you just leave out the translation part. This is a lot of work, and unless there are already plans to subtitle/localize the program into other languages, I don't know whether anybody would really do this.
Re:AOL Video Provides CC (Score:2)
Other centralized links (Score:2)
Google video with captioning [blogspot.com] and the developer instructions [google.com] and tools [google.com].
Here is a related article [i711.com] on this topic.
Closed Captions online are awesome (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Closed Captions online are awesome (Score:5, Informative)
It absolutely sucks for deaf people (Score:3, Insightful)
Google should get on it.
Re:It absolutely sucks for deaf people (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It absolutely sucks for deaf people (Score:2, Insightful)
Google Video's samples. (Score:2)
Re:It absolutely sucks for deaf people (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It absolutely sucks for deaf people (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah wouldn't it be nice if we had a way of transmitting information in a text format saving huge amounts of bandwidth and without the need for any fancy browser plugins? Oh wait, we have this thing called html, or heck even plain text.
Video is killing the internet, making information inaccessible to many users. As a 28.8Kbps dial-up user, I simply cannot get the information contained in huge videos that so many people link these days, when a simple text transcript of perhaps a few kilobytes would download in seconds or less.
And how does one spider the content of a video? (yeah sure, download the video use sophisticated software the separate the audio track and transcribe it... blah, blah - wouldn't it be so much easier to just post a transcript?)
Damn kids! Get off my lawn! I want my text based internet back!
Re:It absolutely sucks for deaf people (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, hang on...
Re:we can't coddle the deaf (Score:3, Insightful)
dotSUB (Score:5, Informative)
http://dotsub.com/ [dotsub.com]
Re:dotSUB (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:dotSUB (Score:3, Informative)
here's [dotsub.com] a rocketboom on dotsub about dotsub and how it works.
Re:dotSUB (Score:1, Troll)
The market (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The market (Score:5, Insightful)
*wipes soda off of the screen*. What planet are you from? The reason most close caption is because they are required to by law. Most really don't care about the small segment of the marketplace. If you want proof, look at the large number of complaints about poor close captioning, and the vast majority of commercials without CC (Commercials are not required to CC by law). If the market drove companies to produce close captioning, then the commercials would be CC'd as well. Your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.
Re:The market (Score:3, Interesting)
It's getting bigger every year, and as time goes on, it's probably going to become an important minority. I've just recently developed high-frequency hearing loss, and my audiogram shows a typical "artilleryman's notch." Not surprising, considering the time I spent on the Gun Line back in '72. More and more 'Nam vets, Gulf War vets, and Iraq vets are going to be needing hearing aids as time goes by, and it's a good thing that the VA provides them! (FYI, the VA is the biggest purchaser of hearing aids in the US.)
But we're not the only ones who's hearing is being ruined by noise exposure, there's a lot of you out there who are doing it to yourselves. What do you think all those rock concerts are doing to your ears, and your boom-boxes set to 10? Your hearing might be fine now, but give it time and you'll be wanting closed captions just like the rest of us. I think having them on video clips (as an option) is a great idea, but I'd rather see it done voluntarily than by government fiat.
Re:The market (Score:3, Insightful)
The TV, and now online video, is so diverse and diluted to the point where viewers can only watch so much. Speciality channels in particular have very small audiences. With the multiplication in the number of shows, the number of viewers for each show diminishes, yet the cost of captioning each show remains the same (until machine speech recognition evolves to a suitable point). Thus, it is actually become less and less worthwhile--if it was ever worthwhile at all--for stations to caption their shows, because the number of hearing-impaired people *per capita* is not really growing.
So, personally, I'd rather see it done by government regulation rather than trusting content providers to just 'be nice.' We all know how well that tends to work. What would end up happening if captioning laws were revoked would be that 1) almost all stations would cease closed captioning, 2) then a speciality station catering to the interests of deaf people would start up, and 3) this single station would be the extent of the choices that hearing-impaired people would have.
Re:The market (Score:2)
As for remembering the ratings of the '60s and '70s, I'm a Nam vet; that means I remember what ratings were like in the '50s as well. Among other things, I was watching the night Lucy had her baby, the show with the highest percentage of all sets tuned in for any regular broadcast. Not bragging, mind you, just showing you a bit of my perspective.
Re:The market (Score:2)
Re:The market (Score:2)
Re:The market (Score:2)
Re:The market (Score:2)
A brief history of closed captioning (Score:2)
Try again.
Closed Captioning wasn't a market-driven process, it was a social-equity driven process, a government-driven process.
[T]he Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1976 set aside line 21 for the transmission of closed captions in the United States. Once the Commission gave its approval, PBS engineers developed the caption editing consoles that would be used to caption prerecorded programs, the encoding equipment that broadcasters and others would use to add captions to their programs, and prototype decoders.
Toward the end of the technical development project at PBS, it became clear that in order to get the cooperation of the commercial television networks, it would be necessary to establish a nonprofit, single-purpose organization to perform this captioning. And so in 1979, HEW announced the creation of the National Captioning Institute.
On March 16, 1980, NCI broadcast the first closed-captioned television series. The captions were seen in households that had the first generation of closed caption decoders. A silence had been broken. For the first time ever, deaf people across America could turn on their television sets-with a caption decoder-and finally understand what they had been missing on television.
With this success, it was only natural that captioned television viewers would want more accessible programming like prime-time series, soap operas, talk shows, game shows, sports, children's programming, cartoons, and home videos--the same rich and wide variety of programming that hearing people take for granted. They wanted instant access to live programs such as national and local newscasts. In 1982, NCI developed real-time captioning, a process for captioning newscasts, sports events, specials or other live broadcasts as the events are being televised. In real-time captioning, court reporters who have been trained as real-time captioners type at speeds of over 225 words per minute to give viewers instantaneous access to live news, sports and information. As a result, the viewer at home sees the captions within two to three seconds of the words being spoken.
In addition to a wide variety of captioned TV programs, viewers also can enjoy their favorite releases on home video. In 1980, there were only three-captioned home video titles. Today, deaf viewers can routinely expect new home video releases on VHS and DVD to be captioned.
NCI ensured a bright future for captioned television by partnering with ITT Corporation to develop the first caption-decoding microchip that could be built directly into new television sets at the manufacturing stage. This led to the introduction and subsequent passage of the Television Decoder Circuitry Act in 1990, which mandated that, by mid-1993, all new television sets 13 inches or larger manufactured for sale in the U.S. must contain caption-decoding technology. Now, millions of people have access to captions with the push of a button on their remote controls. Also in 1990, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed to ensure equal opportunity for persons with disabilities. The ADA prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment, State and local government services, businesses that are public accommodations or commercial facilities, and in transportation. Title III of the ADA requires that public facilities, such as hospitals, bars, shopping centers and museums (but not movie theaters), provide access to verbal information on televisions, films or slide shows. Captioning is considered one way of making such information available to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Federally funded public service announcements also must be captioned. The U.S. Congress continued to show its support of closed captioning by passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. To implement the closed captioning requirements included in the Act, the FCC established rules and implementation schedules for th
Re:The market (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, there are people who call on the supposed omnipresent "Market" like some ancient pagan deity. Like any religion, their belief is more than a little irrational and unsubstantiated. Adam Smith has been elevated to the status of a prophet, and all he did was write a book or two. The Church of the Market has unfortunately become the state religion in many countries. Whither now separation of church and state?
The "Market" cannot solve everything. Some things it will not even attempt to solve or rectify, subtitling programs among them, as pointed out by other posters. Better example include public services, healthcare, water and electricity production and distribution, education, etc, etc. Any attempt to leave such matters entirely in the hands of "Market" forces has resulted in the wider stagnation of society. Yes, Government can be big and inefficient, but at least it gets the job done. Private companies won't even do that unless there's money in it for them.
Wait for the start up (Score:2)
This is actually a disorder? (Score:2)
Re:This is actually a disorder? (Score:1)
I almost always watch with subtitles.
@yg
Re:This is actually a disorder? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem I think starts at the mastering. For some reason or other, the person at the mixing panel decides that some SFX has to be REALLY LOUD, and of course, there's some conversation going on or another. Well, the sound effect ends up masking the dialog! (Probably through the same effect that makes things like MP3 possible). Oh great, now what did the guy say?
Then when movies get broadcasted on TV, they get mixed down, making the effect even worse. Or heck, even TV programs do the same - they overlay SFX or canned laughing or other stuff that masks the dialog. Or if it isn't masked, it covers some syllable making you do a double-take (did they just say what I thought they said?).
I have pretty good hearing as well - but I have closed captioning on all the time - at least I can read what I just missed or figure out what they just said. The fact that A/V receivers and DVD players come with "dialog clarifiers" should be indication enough that perhaps people want to understand dialog.
YouTube and the like videos are even worse - there's often so much background noise that even normal conversation levels are hard to make out over the buzz. Properly done YouTube videos often re-mix the audio afterwards, but they're the minority. The rest are either echos or the guy speaking (muffling voices even more over the background hum), or talking just barely louder than the noise level.
Re:This is actually a disorder? (Score:2)
Imagine listening to a talk-radio show with the woofer turned high, the tweeter low. You'll hear all the words, but you'll be surprised to find how hard it is to follow what's going on. Try it some time, and you'll see what I mean.
Re:This is actually a disorder? (Score:2)
DVDs usually have 5.1 or more channels of sound. Simply turn up the center channel and you will find the majority of the voices stand out far more clearly.
Note this works especially well if you are only using two speakers, as the DVD player is still having to downmix form the surround sound and they nearly always over emphases the Left/Right front channels instead of the center.
DVD sound is one of the few things where they don't aim to the lowest common denominator. If you have a player/tv/amp that doesn't allow you to adjust the surround balance you can be sure that your setup isn't playing the sound anything like correctly.
Think outside the couch. (Score:2)
Some of us interact with people face to face as opposed to just watching them on the TV, you know.
And, yes, I too have some minor trouble discriminating speech over background noise (not as bad as the poster of the article, though). While I rarely need to result to closed captioning to get by watching a movie, I do frequently have to ask people to repeat themselves despite having been tested as having slightly above average hearing. I can easily hear a pin drop in a quiet room, but I can't understand people talking in the front of a car from the back seat over common road noise.
I don't know if it is a good idea. (Score:4, Funny)
There's no need ... (Score:2)
Its not like TV - you have a hi-res monitor capable of displaying plenty of text. Just include a text link, or embed the video in a page with text, displaying the dialog.
Now there's a thought - a REAL dialog box :-)
Laws (Score:1)
The real question is, do the various video codecs include specifications for easy to add captions? I know that with videos I've worked on, I've just used Adobe Premiere to add in a text layer, and it seemed like a really clunky way of doing things.
Re:Laws (Score:5, Informative)
Next the transcript needs to be broken up into phrases and sentences for the screen using natural cadence (can't be done by computer automatically) and then the resulting captions need to be synchronized to the video - basically creating time stamps for each caption bit which are then turned into a caption track able to be read by a computer media player like Real, Quicktime or Flash.
This is very labor intensive work. It's basically costing around $100/hour of video to do right now, and that's prohibitive in the public education system where resources are scarce - and there's the question of whose responsiblity it is to pay for it and have it done, not to mention intellectual property issues wherein a caption or transcript is being publicly released for a video obtained from a copyright owner - legally the transcript belongs to the owner!
So don't tell me this is cheap or easy unless you're willing to come do it at my college, cheapy and easily.
Re:Laws (Score:2)
So for now, and for the forseeable future, our students will still be required to check out the physical tapes and DVD's. That means waiting lists for tapes, limited viewing times, and continuing expenses to replace the tapes and DVD's as they wear out.
Re:Laws (Score:1)
Re:Laws (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Laws (Score:2)
Laws Plus Money (Score:2)
At the end of the program, they credit whomever payed to develop the closed captions. Until recently, it was always one government agency (at least, whenever I noticed it. Small sample size warning.) I forgot which one.
Closed captions on The Weather Channel (Score:1)
At least on The Weather Channel, closed captioning is sponsored by HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn is available without a prescription at retailers nationwide.
Re:Laws (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Laws Neither Cheap nor Easy (Score:1)
The true mark of someone who's never done something is when they say "It is cheap and easy". (The engineer in me knows that too well.)
It is neither cheap nor easy.
NOT CHEAP: The prices for closed-captioning production and encoding software start at around US$2k, and quickly climb to almost US$10k. I own a video production business, and those prices are simply out-of-reach for the few times (zero) that a client has ever asked for CC.
NOT EASY: There have been a few times when clients have asked me to add captions (open, on-screen text) to training videos at selected points. Simply transcribing dialog takes a long time. It also takes time (ie: costs money. ie: is not cheap) to synchronize the caption with the video.
OH, AND THERE'S STANDARDS: Closed captioning is not a one-for-one straight transcript of the words spoken. There are paraphrasings, there are audio hints. There is a reason why there's only a small handful of companies that do CC for professional production... It takes training. It takes practice. It takes discipline. It's not flashy, trivial, or cheap.
The non-broadcast demand for is so incredibly small. So, it's incredibly expensive in money and time and expertise.
Yeah, I'd love to be able to add CC to my work. It's how I view most TV and movies myself. But without some breakthrough, it ain't gonna happen soon.
Tom
Politics aside, I also have that problem (Score:1)
Maybe they could offer a swap? (Score:1)
Re:Maybe they could offer a swap? (Score:1)
Offer x large numbers of hours of decent content mailed back on disk for every hour of volunteer transcribing? There might be a ton of semi or full retired folks might want to get into that, if the software deal was setup for them and it was easy to use and understand.
"Offer x large numbers of hours of PORN mailed back on disk for every hour of volunteer transcribing? There might be a ton of semi or full retired folks might want to get into that, if the software deal was setup for them and it was easy to use and understand.
There ... fixed it for you.
could be (Score:1)
heh heh heh
Re:could be (Score:1)
More than 2-3% of a population would benefit (Score:2, Interesting)
Whilst it needs to be done, I doubt it will be - seems there's just not enough money in it. Guess I'll have to keep on buying those DVDs, or missing out on a lot of content.
OpenCaptions.com (Score:5, Informative)
When you think about sites like youtube, you can't hope to have users caption their videos before uploading, but you still want this content available in an accessible way. OpenCaptions takes any online video source, and allows user-captioning, that can be layed over video in a number of ways. It still requires a captioner, like any other captions, but allows the tasks to be distributed to anyone who wants to lend a hand at captioning a video.
From the about [opencaptions.com] page:
Re:OpenCaptions.com (Score:2)
What about quality control? (Score:1)
I'm often dismayed by closed captions on regular TV that are often garbled (words are omitted, grammar is improperly done, and worst of all, sentences trail off into a garble of random characters that are impossible to decipher. Also annoying is the fact that on some shows, the dialogue and captions are out of sync, so it makes it even more difficult for me to follow.
I feel that it is necessary to impose some sort of quality control that will keep these problems from happening in web video as often as they occur on broadcast TV.
Re:What about quality control? (Score:1, Informative)
When sentences trail off into garbage characters, it's not because the captioning is bad but because the video signal from which the captions are being decoded (line 21 of the NTSC broadcast specification) isn't good enough to decode the captions clearly. The failure could occur because the satellite signal isn't good enough, or even if the caption feed has interference before it is injected into the cable broadcasting system, which would explain why you might see a clear picture but garbled captions sometime.
Re:What about quality control? (Score:2)
Speech Recognition (Score:1)
Re:Speech Recognition (Score:1)
Vista Compatability (Score:1)
Seperate caption software (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Seperate caption software (Score:4, Interesting)
Example #1 [cpcweb.com]
Example #2 [intlc.com]
More links... [captions.org]
I've got a double whammy (Score:2)
Realistically, I seriously doubt that most producers (and I'm including YouTubers in that group) are going to subtitle any video that they aren't legally required to. And I don't support any legal requirement to do so.
Basically, I think those of us that are deaf or hard of hearing are either going to have to just suck it up or find another way around the problem.
Re:I've got a double whammy (Score:2)
Perhaps these guys are to blame. (Score:2)
No. Stop trying to kill the web. (Score:1, Troll)
Oooo! I'm a social libertarian! Look at me! (Score:1)
Just goes to show you that the hearing impaired can be just as fucking ignorant as any Cletus T. Jigglebelly you'd see on Jerry Springer.
Re:Oooo! I'm a social libertarian! Look at me! (Score:2)
He's clearly not calling for gov intervention like the TV version.
Re:Oooo! I'm a social libertarian! Look at me! (Score:2)
The problem is that the poster seems to take for granted the CC on TV, which is there because of government regulation, but somehow wants CC on web video without regulation. Like a lot of libertarians and other anti-regulation folk, the poster appears to forget about the *good* stuff that regulation has achieved whilst railing against *all* regulation.
I personally don't think CC on web video can be regulated. But that's because the internet is global and we've already seen companies move their servers to a different country to get around local regulations. I'm not going to be a hypocrite and attack regulation (in general) whilst taking advantage of so many regulations at the same time.
Re:Oooo! I'm a social libertarian! Look at me! (Score:1)
Revver uses Project ReadOn (Score:2, Informative)
They announced it on their blog [revver.com] a few weeks back.
The Ask A Ninja videos tend to be captioned, here's an example one with captioning already done [revver.com], just click the closed captioning link under the video.
Google Video... (Score:2)
Ironic (Score:2)
You'd think that someone who tries to be inventive and use the internet as a new medium would take that in to cosideration, but apparently they can't be bothered.
(With their prices I doubt they'll last long anyway, but that's a differen story)
Other languages too (Score:2)
Subtitles would be quite useful in cases like these.
Adobe provides CC in their video player (Score:1)
example: http://www.adobe.com/products/flash/ssi/iframe/fe
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop
Now whether they make it easy for others to do the same with their products, I'm not sure. I haven't seen Flash CS3's video options.
Transcription (Score:1)
QuickTime, iTunes maybe. (Score:2)
The blurb is here [apple.com], but the rest is my speculation. I'd suggest inquiring with Apple in any case.
I agree (Score:2)
likely illegal to close-caption? (Score:2)
How "you are ruining potential future dollars that I probably won't bother to reach anyway" translates to 'stop doing free subtitling' is debatable, but I suspect doing free closed captioning would result in the same corporate response.
Text tracks are how this is done (Score:2)
Captions are done with text tracks. A text file with time codes and dialog can be added to any movie with QuickTime. I don't know what the support is in MPEG-4 for this yet, but it would be done the same way, the QuickTime container and the MPEG-4 container are the same, inside you have audio track, video track, now you need a text track with dialog and time codes. The only other option would be to burn the text into the video frame by frame, but that means you can't run captions off, you can't modify the size of them later, you can't localize them, and you ruin the video encoding algorithm.
The only tools you need to caption a movie is QuickTime Pro ($29, Apple, Mac/PC) and any text editor. Both of these are already on any video-editing work station.
The text file looks something like this:
[00:00:01:22]
It's a nice day today.
[00:00:04:13]
Sure is.
[00:00:06:00]
See you later.
That is SMPTE time code (hours:minutes:seconds:frames).
However for a lot of Web video the tool chain is not professional. You can only appreciate it compared to having no video at all. If you use any Microsoft tools you are just supposed to be amazed on the rare occasions when the audio and video synchronize.
Apple - Education - QuickTime Text Tracks [apple.com]
Are headphones an answer? (Score:2)
Noise reduction, or noise blocking, headphones may be an answer.
If you buy noise reduction, go for a good pair (Bose seem to get the best reviews). I tried a Bose pair on a flight and was amazed, then bought a Panasonic pair and was dissapointed.
There are also noise blocking phones that shield out a lot of background noise. Again, you get what you pay for with these.
How about MKV posters actually including the subs? (Score:2)
Video Formats (Score:2)
Thank you for all the responses... (Score:2)
Re:Wouldnt this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wouldnt this.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wouldnt this.... (Score:2)
You're right, though, the question should be whether such laws are already on the books. I wonder, though, whether the original poster would very likely know about it if it was already law, given the fact that (if he lives in the U.S.) he lives with aspects of the Americans With Disabilities Act every day.
Re:Wouldnt this.... (Score:2)
For quite a long time, there was a void in people with disabilities using the internet. Even today, screen scrapers for braille readers really dont work well, due to nefarious HTML/CSS/javascript tricks. Considering that the meat-space USA is governed by ADA, why not US based websites? The ruling from last year only reaffirmed that net-space is NOT different than meat-space with respect to federal law.
---In other words, if you let YouTube become YouTube and then require it to add things like closed captioning, eventually everybody benefits from it. If you make it harder to be YouTube in the first place, maybe no one will ever see what it can be. I'm just thinking out loud here, and it's admittedly not really the point we're talking about. But it struck me as an interesting side point, I guess.
Can YouTube legally modify them? I would ask around to see if the DMCA exception for media aggregation (I forget the exact exception, but that DMCA exception is what allows YouTube) allows a content poster to MODIFY a copyrighted work...
I'm thinking the kind of problems one can get into is similar if a common carrier starts filtering "bad stuff". Doing that makes them liable for bad stuff that gets through.
---You're right, though, the question should be whether such laws are already on the books. I wonder, though, whether the original poster would very likely know about it if it was already law, given the fact that (if he lives in the U.S.) he lives with aspects of the Americans With Disabilities Act every day.
From what I understand, meat-space places meant for the public must follow a convoluted set of ADA guidelines. The ruling also applied that to US based websites, but I believed that also had a time frame for ADA compliance.
After reading the code and the opinions, it seems ADA would only apply if YouTube sold something, but I'm sure it could be argued.
BTW, I'm not handicapped, but I have a few friends who are, and I have designed a few ADA accessible websites.
Cuts off the only viable solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite frankly, it only incenses people that understand that the free market isn't going to solve this for everything.
After all, by the tenets of the free market, the lack of presence of these services shows that they do not meet the test of reward vs. cost. If the market for people that needed closed captioning was large enough to defray the costs of providing closed captioning, it would be more common. To ask businesses to provide closed captioning at a loss is antithetical to the core tenets of free market capitalism.
However, if you think that helping the hearing impaired be fully included in society is a worthwhile goal, then you should be able to accept government intervention in the matter. Otherwise, you're left "voting with your dollars" for a position that will never gain the critical mass to succeed. You reap what you sow.
Re:Wouldnt this.... (Score:1, Troll)
Wouldnt this be covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act already?
perhaps he just needs a firmware upgrade?
Re:Wouldnt this.... (Score:2)
And BTW... Whoever modded this troll go read my history WRT Solar system and digitizing humans for space travel.
He is not a troll.
Re:Hey (Score:2)
Re:Hey (Score:3, Funny)
"Just get a Q-Tip. We don't need you to make up some disorder because you're too lazy to clean your ears."
[X] That's how I poked my eardrum out in the first place, you insensitive clod!
Re:Fail at life (Score:1)