Gordon Holt telling it like it is.

jakelm

tonyb wrote: »

In case you haven't noticed,analog is back bigtime

Really?? where???? My family and I, lived our lives selling, comparing and enjoying the recordings and the equipment we play it on. Albums after albums after albums were bought. Not one of us has bought an album in over 15 years.

Record stores are starting to pop up again by me.

Where?? Those little mom and pop shops, that doesnt count. Try to find an album in a store where the albums used flurish like cd's do now. You cant.

Maybe because....hmmm...it sounds better than an IPOD.

Better than Ipod, absolutly!! Better than all digital?? I dont think so... As a matter of fact, I know a few digital recordings I would put up against Vinyl master recordings anyday...

Not barking on ya but it's a generation thing.Quality vs convenience.I can dig the attraction to haveing a thousand songs at your fingertips,but untill they get the quality issue down,can't get on board with it.Brittany needs the money right now,you should be buying all her stuff.:)

Absolutly...

Yashu

You are right... I get carried away when people get ignorant.

Anyway... I don't like ipods any more than you guys... but those kids and their white earbuds are what create fans, and fans go see concerts and buy CDs. If an artist can't get their music heard, how can they sell anything, much less an album. Radio play might get one song heard, but today's buyers know all too well the "one hit wonders"... the only way to keep musicians doing what they do best is for their albums to be heard, one way or another, they have to be heard to build a fanbase.

My main point in my diatribes is this: In the time since Holt made his predictions, a lot has changed, but much of that has been in the music business... distribution, formats, and the internet has completely changed how this stuff works. The reason the "traditional" labels are dying is because they refuse to change, but while they have become less important, something amazing has happened... No longer does an artist need to depend on a big "record contract" to make it. For the first time since the dawn of recorded music, traditional labels don't have a monopoly on music and it's distribution. That, whether any of us like it or not, is something that would not have been predicted then... and it happened because people wanted to share their music. I think it is a good thing... for me, this means that I have access to more music than I could have ever imagined, and have discovered hundreds of wonderful artists I would not have otherwise.

I don't like being called a thief for doing something legal, but also what I think is actually saving the music industry, not destroying it. Other than that, no hard feelings.

tonyb

Didn't say it was better than all digital.Your right,some digital will stand up to the best analog.But most won't take digital to that level....not your average joe anyway.Most won't do the same for analog too.Goes back to that generation thing.Ask some of the analog heads here when the last time they bought a record.Sure it wasn't 15 years ago.Ma and pa shops are comming back,selection limited? Yep.Still better than none at all.Regardless,there is room for all media,and a buying consumer to support it.What else do you need?

jakelm

My 2 boys are music lovers, like myself. I try..oooohh..I try , to get them to sit and listen to quality audio,

"listen how good and how much depth and 3D the music sounds", I say. "listen to how the singer sounds like he is in the room with us and how you can feel the emotion and the drums"

"yeah it sounds cool dad, copy it on my mp3, so I can listen to it while I play 360"

I just lower my head, "but son, thats not the point, yes it is a good song, but listen to the quality"

"huh??, yeah it sounds good, now can you please put it on my mp3 player"

"ok son", with watery eyes, I say

tonyb

So true big guy,he is a tad young though to appreciate such madness,no?

jakelm

tonyb wrote: »

So true big guy,he is a tad young though to appreciate such madness,no?

No, I dont think its the age. I just think he is like mostly everyone else, like you said, just satisfied more with convenience then quality.

hearingimpared

Yashu wrote: »

I don't like being called a thief for doing something legal, but also what I think is actually saving the music industry, not destroying it. Other than that, no hard feelings.

Good I'm glad there are no hard feelings but could you explain to me how "sharing" music is legal please? If it were legal Napster wouldn't have had to change its way of doing business.

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote: »

Didn't say it was better than all digital.Your right,some digital will stand up to the best analog.But most won't take digital to that level....not your average joe anyway.Most won't do the same for analog too.Goes back to that generation thing.Ask some of the analog heads here when the last time they bought a record.Sure it wasn't 15 years ago.Ma and pa shops are comming back,selection limited? Yep.Still better than none at all.Regardless,there is room for all media,and a buying consumer to support it.What else do you need?

Jake, there are numerous online stores that sell NEW vinyl, new releases. There are hundreds of stores where you can pretty much find any LP ever produced. I just recently purchased at least 15 new LPs. I buy one CD a month and it is from yourmusic.com.

The president of Atlantic records sent an edict out a few months back that at least 10,000 LPs must be made of any new release they put out. The 10K was just a start. Analog is the sound that digital is compared to and the manufacturers of the high end digital gear are trying to get the digital to sound like.

Analog is back and in a big way. It still will never get to the lofty heights of the 60s/70s/80s but the priced of used LPs has gone up.

My opinion is that digital has gotten very close but is not yet quite there, almost though.

I've made up my mind that I am going to buy a high end digital (CD/SACD) player within the next few months. I am buying something that I feel will rival my analog front end.

TroyD

Yashu wrote: »

You are right... I get carried away when people get ignorant.

Anyway... I don't like ipods any more than you guys... but those kids and their white earbuds are what create fans, and fans go see concerts and buy CDs. If an artist can't get their music heard, how can they sell anything, much less an album. Radio play might get one song heard, but today's buyers know all too well the "one hit wonders"... the only way to keep musicians doing what they do best is for their albums to be heard, one way or another, they have to be heard to build a fanbase.

My main point in my diatribes is this: In the time since Holt made his predictions, a lot has changed, but much of that has been in the music business... distribution, formats, and the internet has completely changed how this stuff works. The reason the "traditional" labels are dying is because they refuse to change, but while they have become less important, something amazing has happened... No longer does an artist need to depend on a big "record contract" to make it. For the first time since the dawn of recorded music, traditional labels don't have a monopoly on music and it's distribution. That, whether any of us like it or not, is something that would not have been predicted then... and it happened because people wanted to share their music. I think it is a good thing... for me, this means that I have access to more music than I could have ever imagined, and have discovered hundreds of wonderful artists I would not have otherwise.

I don't like being called a thief for doing something legal, but also what I think is actually saving the music industry, not destroying it. Other than that, no hard feelings.

Ignorant?? Who the f*ck are you to call anyone ignorant? Spoken like a true ****. There may be differing opinions but you are in NO position to call anyone ignorant.

The FACT is that music sales are down. That's a fact.

Filesharing is illegal and it's stealing. That is a FACT.

Now, the implosion of the music industry...there are lots of factors but filesharing is one of them. Why buy what you can get for free? If you take the profit out of the business....there is no business.

Lastly, the Holt's view has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MUSIC INDUSTRY. It is a separate issue. He's not even talking about hifi as we know it. He's talking about the HIGH end.

Eh, I could go on but one, it probably would do a complete flyby and two...I'm pretty much losing interest at this point.

BDT

Yashu

but could you explain to me how "sharing" music is legal please? If it were legal Napster wouldn't have had to change its way of doing business.

Here in Canada, it is completely legal to share music. It is not legal to PIRATE music, which means, sharing is ok, but making a profit off of it is not. Period. That is just the way it is... Napster was an American company... you guys have laws that favor large corporations, we have laws that favor the general population and the consumer. It is just a culture divide, that's all.

Filesharing is illegal and it's stealing. That is a FACT.

No, it's not... not even in your country. In the USA, for one thing... the people are accused of "infringement" not stealing (HUUUUUUGE legal difference)... but also, it is technically legal to share as well. I would advise you to look into the laws, I suggest you look at the EFF website. There is a lot of information... I also hear that Groklaw has some useful info, but again, I don't really need it, since like I said... it's legal here. In fact, it is encouraged... CDRs sold carry a tax, and that tax is for the right to share. Every citizen has that right to fare use. If I buy an album, I can share it with as many people as I like, but I cannot turn a profit from it.

I really really don't want to flame you... I am trying to tread lightly. I used the word ignorant because you aren't aware of certain things, I am not calling you stupid.

Lastly, the Holt's view has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MUSIC INDUSTRY. It is a separate issue. He's not even talking about hifi as we know it. He's talking about the HIGH end.

I am speaking of high end as well, or do you audiophiles not use CDs or vinyl? Are you really saying that the music has nothing to do with this hobby or high end? Any audiophile knows that the source is very important, how it is recorded, and what formats that it is distributed on, and so forth. Music is just as important as your gear. Because of the internet, there is more music now than ever, on CD, vinyl, all formats, actually. The business is booming. A few old record companies are having problems not because of sharing, but because of a failure to adapt to the new economy. The non RIAA/CRIAA labels are the ones that are doing well... and what a shock... they are the ones that don't sue people into the ground for using their legal fair use rights. Apparently, NOT treating customers like criminals is good business practice... who knew?

I am not trying to insult you, I just want you to know that the USA is not the entire world. Every country has different laws. You don't want me to go into what we consider illegal that you guys do not... trust me.

I also would like to say that using a PC as a digital source is a perfectly legitimate path to "high end". If a CD transport can be called high end, than so can a PC as a source... bits are bits, and in some ways the PC has the advantage, and in some ways the traditional digital setup has them... but the differences aren't so much in sound quality, but in personal preference and complexity. PC hifi is not for everyone, no big deal... but don't assume that your bits are magically superior to mine.

Just say you think all digital is not "high end" and get it over with.

TroyD

Here in Canada, it is completely legal to share music.

For those of us subject to US law.....the RIAA says it isn't and it would seem that the courts agree that it does constitute copyright infringement.

Yes, peer to peer filesharing of non-copyright material IS legal. Sharing of copyrighted material isn't. Ask Napster.

I am speaking of high end as well, or do you audiophiles not use CDs or vinyl?

In the scope of what Holt was commenting on....IT DOESN'T HAVE THE FIRST DAMN THING TO DO WITH IT. It's a completely separate topic. Please, reread the article for christsakes. He is refering to a 'standard' of equipment. It's a separate issue. I'm not going to rehash it because if you are to lazy to read it or too dense to comprehend what he is driving at, I have no desire to try and explain it, AGAIN.

I'm not dense to the fact that other countries have different laws. Jesus, I never thought of that. I've been to a few different countries. However, among us, who are primarily US citizens we are talking about US law. Forgive me if we don't footnote the legal practices of other countries.

I never said that digital couldn't be high end nor do I believe that to be true.....nor do many others. CAN PC based source be high end? Sure, why not, the possibility exists. Right now? What you are hinting at is that all digital source, because bits are bits....should sound the same. That is a crock of ****. If you believe it, bully for you but the majority of people interested in audio disagree. Just because YOU think it doesn't make it so or, for that matter, other people ignorant.

Lastly, don't put words in our mouths....I'm not sure why this is but you (sort of like J. Gordon Holt) have a view of how things should be and dismiss out of hand the validity of opposing views and the intelligence of those who hold them. Basically, it makes you sound like an ****.

BDT

Yashu

We were talking about things about Stereo high end that Gordon Holt had not predicted about today.

Aside from jitter, bits are bits. Two 44.1khz redbook signals clocked to the highest standard are going to sound essentially the same going into the same DAC.

Also, yes it is legal. Period. It is NOT "copyright infringement" or whatever you want to call it. It is perfectly legal for me to share my music with my friends if I am not turning a profit from it. Napster was an American company that had a central server index of files, that is why they were shut down. Read about the case before you keep using it as an example. It is perfectly legal to share with your friends... but maybe you don't share... when people come over you have to tell them they are not allowed to listen to music on your system, not allowed to test theirs and definitely not allowed to watch movies with you either, right? NOW you are being just silly. You share music every time you let people listen to your gear and every time you listen to your music on someone else's. Police should be breaking down your door!

Don't call, nor hint, that I am a thief again. Until you actually read up on this subject like I have been asking, I really don't think you need to be going around making such accusations. You don't seem to know much about any of these subjects or the state of the music industry, including the high end. After this much back and forth it is pretty clear to me that you aren't interested in learning... so I will save everyone from having to keep watching this train wreck by bidding thee Adieu. Please PM me if you wish to keep talking.

hearingimpared

Dude you sound like that moron from Washinton that just got banned. Make your statement then bail out.

I believe that if you give someone a copy of an LP, CD, file or whatever and that person keeps that instead of buying his own copy, that is theft. Have I done it in the past yes! Do I do it now, absolutely not because I know it is theft.

You can call it sharing or whatever you like the description above is theft . . . PERIOD!

cfrizz

Yashu is simply going by what is considered legal in HIS country just like some do in ours.

But the plain fact of the matter is this, if I buy an over inflated priced cd then it is MY property & if I wish to make a copy of it and GIVE it to someone else, as far as I'm concerned it is my right to do so. I don't give a rats **** what the record labels have to say about it.

If this was TRULY a bad thing the flea market on this & every other forum would not exist since it should be illegal to sell our old gear to someone else as well!

Why is it somehow different when it comes to sharing music? Why do we own our gear but don't own the music that is played on them. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DAMN SENSE!

It's greed plain & simple.

As for high end...pfft couldn't care less. I'm just one of the ordinary people who buys the best she can afford & enjoys it to the fullest.

I realize that life is built on change & simply adapt when needed to. The people who refuse to change & adapt will be the ones to die.

Music will always exist in some form or another & I will be right there with it no matter what form it comes in.

treitz3

I see where this thread is heading and I have to say that as far as "stolen" property is concerned, if the property is stolen when one user gives or broadcasts it to another, then all forms of public reproduction shared should be banned with the advent of recording media. Radio stations, XM, soundtracks on movies, etc...can all be recorded by "thieves".

Treitz3 telling it like it is.

markmarc

With respect to all the pro file sharing people out there, I believe the making of a perfect copy and distributing in a way that can be shared/distributed in an uncontrollable geometric fashion is theft. Artists are no different than any other group of people asking to be paid for their work. Broadcasting on the radio is not the original copy due to frequency response limits and poor channel separation.

But in reality, the whole recording medium is changing making the argument somewhat mute. But, I will respect the rights of artists.

WilliamM2

If this was TRULY a bad thing the flea market on this & every other forum would not exist since it should be illegal to sell our old gear to someone else as well!

Why is it somehow different when it comes to sharing music? Why do we own our gear but don't own the music that is played on them. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DAMN SENSE!

Nonsense. When you buy equipment, it is yours, and you can sell it. When you buy a CD, that CD is yours, and you can also sell that CD any time you wish.

How does that justify copying the CD and distributing it to others?

DarqueKnight

cfrizz wrote: »

But the plain fact of the matter is this, if I buy an over inflated priced cd then it is MY property & if I wish to make a copy of it and GIVE it to someone else, as far as I'm concerned it is my right to do so. I don't give a rats **** what the record labels have to say about it.

CF,

What you are overlooking is the fact that when you buy a CD, you are paying for two things: (1) the physical medium that the music is stored on, and (2) a license for your personal use of the music. You own the physical medium outright. The music stored on the physical medium is owned by whoever holds the copyright. That musical content, since it belongs to someone else, is not yours to do with as you please. You have only purchased a limited right for personal use.

It is similar to the "license" that software companies sell for the use of their software products. You don't actually own the software, you just own a limited right to use it.

cfrizz wrote: »

If this was TRULY a bad thing the flea market on this & every other forum would not exist since it should be illegal to sell our old gear to someone else as well!

When you purchase audio gear, such as an amp, you own the physical construct of the device. You do not own the creative content, patents, circuit designs, etc., that went into creating the device. Therefore, unless the amp design is in the public domain, you are not free to COPY or CLONE the amp and then give it away to whomever you chose. You are free, of course, to sell the original amp, since it is your personal property.

cfrizz wrote: »

Why is it somehow different when it comes to sharing music? Why do we own our gear but don't own the music that is played on them. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DAMN SENSE!

It actually makes perfect sense. You do own your gear, including the physical recording media that contains the music played on that gear. However, the intellectual property that went into creating that gear and the creative process that went into creating that music is protected from unauthorized copying and distribution. Of course, making a copy of your own music media for your own personal use is acceptable to most record companies, although some would prefer that you buy a separate copy for multiple personal use. I'm sure if you made an exact copy of a pair of Krell monoblocks to use in a second system in your home, Krell wouldn't sic their lawyers on you. If you copy those monoblocks and then start giving them away, well, you can expect some legal intervention.

cfrizz wrote: »

It's greed plain & simple.

There is an element of thuggery and greed in the music business, just as there is in health care, professional athletics, organized religion, or any other endeavor where there is the potential for huge profits. Greed notwithstanding, if you like a piece of music, the creators and producers of that music deserve to get paid for their efforts. Put yourself in the artist's shoes for a moment. How would you feel if thousands of people were copying and distributing your music and you weren't seeing a dime of royalty income from it?

TroyD

Bravo, DK, bravo.

Regardless of if you agree or not about the concept.....that's the legality of it.

BDT

TroyD

Yashu wrote: »

We were talking about things about Stereo high end that Gordon Holt had not predicted about today.

Aside from jitter, bits are bits. Two 44.1khz redbook signals clocked to the highest standard are going to sound essentially the same going into the same DAC.

Also, yes it is legal. Period. It is NOT "copyright infringement" or whatever you want to call it. It is perfectly legal for me to share my music with my friends if I am not turning a profit from it. Napster was an American company that had a central server index of files, that is why they were shut down. Read about the case before you keep using it as an example. It is perfectly legal to share with your friends... but maybe you don't share... when people come over you have to tell them they are not allowed to listen to music on your system, not allowed to test theirs and definitely not allowed to watch movies with you either, right? NOW you are being just silly. You share music every time you let people listen to your gear and every time you listen to your music on someone else's. Police should be breaking down your door!

Don't call, nor hint, that I am a thief again. Until you actually read up on this subject like I have been asking, I really don't think you need to be going around making such accusations. You don't seem to know much about any of these subjects or the state of the music industry, including the high end. After this much back and forth it is pretty clear to me that you aren't interested in learning... so I will save everyone from having to keep watching this train wreck by bidding thee Adieu. Please PM me if you wish to keep talking.

First of all, reread the Stereophile article. J. Gordon Holt is talking about hardware and the goal (or lack thereof) of high end manufacturers to build equipment that will reproduce the sound of live, unamplified, acoustic music as faithfully as possible. His contention is that particular sound may not be as sonically 'pleasing' as one might think or hope but that is irrelevant in terms of true high fidelity. His contention is that the high end is a response to the wonderful sounding, yet woefully innaccurate sounding, consoles that were the standard of the day. I've heard many of those consoles....they are/were warm and smooth and wonderful to listen to but they weren't accurate. His point IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL RECORDED MEDIA.

Next, I'm not calling you a thief no more than I'm calling someone who speeds a criminal so go ahead and change your tampon already and have a glass of cranberry juice.

On the subject of filesharing, if you want to do it, go ahead. I'm not even that sympathetic to the plight of the music industry. I could care less. What I AM saying is that under US law (and DK lays it out very well).....sharing copyrighted material like that is illegal. If you want to do it? Knock yourself out. As far as the Napster thing goes....it still goes back to the point that copyrighted material was being transferred ILLEGALLY. The mechanics of how it's done is NOT RELEVANT.

Also, broadcasting over the radio is an entirely different issue.

As far as the bits being bits thing....I've heard enough different gear to know that they DON'T all sound the same.

BDT

DarqueKnight

treitz3 wrote: »

I see where this thread is heading and I have to say that as far as "stolen" property is concerned, if the property is stolen when one user gives or broadcasts it to another, then all forms of public reproduction shared should be banned with the advent of recording media. Radio stations, XM, soundtracks on movies, etc...can all be recorded by "thieves".

Treitz3 telling it like it is.

Actually, radio stations (and other commercial entities who play copyrighted pre-recorded music in public) have to pay fees for the music they broadcast. What? You thought all that music on the radio was "free"? Nah...no way. The "greedy" music industry would never allow that. There is something called the "Performing Rights Royalty". This definition is from wikipedia.com:

"Performing rights are the right to perform music in public. It is part of copyright law and demands payment to the music’s composer/lyricist and publisher (with the royalties generally split 50/50 between the two) when a business uses music in a public performance. Examples of public performances are broadcast and cable television, radio, concerts, nightclubs, restaurants etc. When music is performed by a business they must obtain a license to use that music and compensate the author (composer and lyricist) and publisher.

In the United States, broadcasters can pay for their use of music in one of two ways: they can obtain permission/license directly from the music’s copyright owner (usually the publisher), or they can obtain a license from ASCAP and BMI to use all of the music in their repertories. ASCAP and BMI along with the much smaller SESAC are the three performing rights societies in the U.S. and once they receive payment from the broadcasters they are responsible for compensating the music authors and publisher.

Nearly every composer, songwriter, lyricist and publisher is a member of a performing rights society and the income received from them is a major source of their income." [Source: Wikipedia.com --Performing Rights Definition]


Here are some more links:

Performing Rights Royalties

The Music You Enjoy On Your Favorite Radio Station Is Not Free

Broadcasters Must Pay Royalties For Streaming Web Content

Internet Radio Stations Must Cough Up Royalty Dough

How Do Radio Statio Pay Royalties

Such good cash flow.

TroyD

Just for public consumption....

Yashu (and any like minded individuals),

I don't argue via PM, if I have something to say, I'll say it in front of everyone else.

You have no business DEMANDING I PM anything so don't bother sending me another one.

If you don't like it, put me on ignore or take it up with a moderator.

BDT

jakelm

If I change the bit rate, the file size or the structure of that song/software, I have made it my own, I can do what I want with it.

If its not a bit for bit copy, then its not a copy.

Lets take for example, the song, Nickelback "Rockstar", If I change the bit rate in the recording, or cut the song 2 seconds short, is it still a "copy"?

A copy in deffenition, to me, is a perfect replica of an original.

But this file sharing subject is way off subject to this "Holt's" thread.

Lets try to get back on subject.

TroyD

<swerving back onto the main road>

I think Holt's argument is fundamentally flawed. The implication is that there is *one* sound that the high end should strive for. That's awful from a business standpoint because everyone would be trying to attain the *same* sound and then it's a matter of trying to distinguish between indentical products. Yeah, that'll work.

BDT

treitz3

The only sound I want to achieve is real sound, no matter what that real sound may be. I don't believe I'll get there in my lifetime, but I'm sure having fun trying.

DarqueKnight

jakelm wrote: »

If I change the bit rate, the file size or the structure of that song/software, I have made it my own, I can do what I want with it.

If its not a bit for bit copy, then its not a copy.

Lets take for example, the song, Nickelback "Rockstar", If I change the bit rate in the recording, or cut the song 2 seconds short, is it still a "copy"?

According to US copyright law, yes it is. This comes under the area of "derivative works" in the US copyright law.

"A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. [Source: US Copyright Circular 14: Derivative Works]

jakelm wrote: »

A copy in deffenition, to me, is a perfect replica of an original.

The practice of sampling, where only a portion of another song is copied in some fashion, is very prevalent in contemporary music. Even if the copied portion or portions are altered in some way, the sampling artist still must receive permission from the copyright holder. The legal standard is, can the original (sampled) work be easily identified in the derivative work?

There are many examples in the case law where one artist misappropriated another artist's work and tried to use the "my work is completely different from his" or "I was not even aware of the original work". Usually, all the offended artist had to do was play his original work and then play the misappropriated derivative work in order to get $$$$. Here is a link to one such case:

Supreme court upholds $5.4 million judgment against Michael Bolton and Sony

Yashu

2) The discussion of politics and religion is not allowed on this forum.

4) No fighting. Personal attacks, trouble making, inappropriate language, or any threatening or offensive behavior will not be tolerated.

Troy... I sent you a PM to respect the forum and to abide by it's rules. Don't gripe at me for doing what is right. I can't even quote what you wrote back because it wouldn't even be appropriate for a Martin Scorsese film, let alone a public forum. If you can't respect me, respect everyone else by following the rules in the TOS. This is Polk's forum, not yours.

hearingimpared

Troy has shown us all mucho respect. You on the other hand get up on your soap box and spew disertations AT us all the time as if you are the only one who matters here and knows it all and I can speak for very many here, it is quite insulting.

Check your ego at the sign on screen. Then maybe you would get that sense of family that Troy speaks of in another thread.

Your Martin Scosese analogy is absolutely rediculous!

TroyD

Are you still here?

Look, go back and reread my posts...while certainly sarcastic after a fashion, they were not vulgar nor did I attack you. I never called you a thief or anything of the kind.

Now, in my PM, I'm not at all ashamed of what I said....you sent me an unsolicited message and I responded an let you know in no uncertain terms what I thought and to go sodomize yourself. What YOU should do is just let it go at this point. Put me on ignore. Please. I'm not going to NOT respond...that's just the way it is especially since I haven't (so far) gone out of my way to antagonize you.

BTW, anyone that does want a transcript of the PM's...I'll be happy to send them to you. If you send a SASE, I'll send you an autographed copy.

BDT

TroyD

***back to your regularly scheduled programming***

BDT