Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
I have no use, whatsoever, for the Drudge Report Retort. AP's threats against them , however, are bullshit. I say boycott them...
Update: An alert reader tells me I have somewhat bungled this:
Just to clarify here, Drudge Report is the slimy originator of crap stories. Drudge Retort, which is who the AP is going after, is something quite different, which is to say, it's Roger Cadenhead's news aggregation site. Except for the parody name, the Retort is nothing like the Report, and does deserve our sympathy and support. I'd agree with your argument that even if it was the evil Drudge Report, we'd have an obligation to boycott them, but as it happens, the Retort is a much less destructive site in the first place.
Thank you for the clarification.
Comments
It's Drudge Retort, not Drudge Report.
Posted by: Coturnix | June 13, 2008 9:31 PM
The latter has no use for AP as Drudge just invents "news" out of whole cloth.
Posted by: Coturnix | June 13, 2008 9:32 PM
Granted, but if the AP gets away with this, who is next?
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | June 13, 2008 11:43 PM
Just to clarify here, Drudge Report is the slimy originator of crap stories. Drudge Retort, which is who the AP is going after, is something quite different, which is to say, it's Roger Cadenhead's news aggregation site. Except for the parody name, the Retort is nothing like the Report, and does deserve our sympathy and support. I'd agree with your argument that even if it was the evil Drudge Report, we'd have an obligation to boycott them, but as it happens, the Retort is a much less destructive site in the first place.
Posted by: SJohn | June 14, 2008 12:54 AM
I can see why the AP might be right on this one. I think they may be coming down on DR with an iron fist, but they are likely on the right side of the law.
That said, whether or not they're right, boycotting them achieves zilch. Bloggers aren't a primary consumer.
Posted by: The Chemist | June 16, 2008 9:57 PM
Nope, they don't have a leg to stand on. Then of course, there is this
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | June 17, 2008 10:36 AM