Toronto and the Gruesome Twosome

[A_MichaelUK]

>Personally, I don't care how the effect was done, just that it looked cool.

You're last two posts have been pretty pathetic - no offence intended. I'm happy to go over them if necessary, but I'm getting as bored as everyone else is.

[SKULLBOY]

>Personally, I don't care how the effect was done, just that it looked cool.

You're last two posts have been pretty pathetic - no offence intended. I'm happy to go over them if necessary, but I'm getting as bored as everyone else is.

Pathetic because they are true, or pathetic because you can't admit you took my initial post the wrong way and are just being stubborn? I was bored a long time ago. If you recall, quite a while ago, I said it was a silly debate. Either way I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth or accusing me of certain things here or in the PMs.

[A_MichaelUK]

>Pathetic because they are true, or pathetic because you can't admit you took my initial post the wrong way and are just being stubborn?

I present for evidence YOUR use of the word "video" in a reply to someone else on the same subject.

>If you recall, quite a while ago, I said it was a silly debate.

Who cares what you think? I don't think it's "silly" at all for reasons I've already given. I can still be bored with it. Like I said, I'm happy to continue this if you insist.

>Either way I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth or accusing me of certain things here or in the PMs.

I don't need to put anything anywhere as your posts do that already. One other thing - it's pathetic (yes, that word again) for you to refer to private messages which no - one here knows the existence of or the contents of. You must need the sympathy really badly. It's a shame and also strange because I don't recall you being this irrational in any of your previous posts. I guess though, that it can be expected from someone who uses the word "video" deliberately when they admit that all along they were referring to lighting. I'm sure there may be people who read your post and genuinely thought there was video used during "Vengeance Is Mine" would appreciate how you spread false information, then when challenged, started putting up all sorts of desperate semantic defences.

[A_MichaelUK]

>I said it was a silly debate.

I'm curious why you don't defend yourself against the comments that WickedYoungMan made.

[SKULLBOY]

>I said it was a silly debate.

I'm curious why you don't defend yourself against the comments that WickedYoungMan made.

I already replied to his comment. There was nothing to defend.

[A_MichaelUK]

>I already replied to his comment.

No, you didn't. He directly addressed the issue about your wording. You glossed over it and merely re - iterated your postion and tried to lay the blame elsewhere, as well. You're really out of your league.

[SKULLBOY]

>I present for evidence YOUR use of the word "video" in a reply to someone else on the same subject.

Okay? I didn't realize we needed evidence.

Watch this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OopKftU5 ... re=related

See the things in motion on the backdrop? If you focus on one area, you see that the images are repetitive, which gives the impression that it is on some sort of a loop. Can you honestly tell me that there is no way this could be done with a video projection device? Can you also tell me that you see no way that an untrained observer might make this assumption? To me, it looked like a looped video projection. I apologize that I am not an expert on such things, but I still don't see why I should be expected to be.

>I don't need to put anything anywhere as your posts do that already.

Well, if you claim I said something that I didn't, I don't think that qualifies as me putting anything anywhere.

> guess though, that it can be expected from someone who uses the word "video" deliberately when they admit that all along they were referring to lighting.

This is almost clever. In my initial post I MEANT "video" because that is how I THOUGHT, at that time, that they did this. Later, when you pointed out it was a lighting effect, I posted that I used the word "video" too loosely. It was after when you turned it into a debate on whether I saw anything at all. You also claimed that this effect was done by single beam of light being split. Could You explain how a split beam of light is causing the effect on the video above?

>You must need the sympathy really badly.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to make this personal, or throwing (lame)insults, but I'm really trying to take the high road here. Once you start using ad hominem arguments, it really just shoots down you credibility.

[SKULLBOY]

>I already replied to his comment.

No, you didn't. He directly addressed the issue about your wording. You glossed over it and merely re - iterated your postion and tried to lay the blame elsewhere, as well. You're really out of your league.

I didn't think my wording needed to be addressed for, what, the tenth time?

[A_MichaelUK]

>Okay? I didn't realize we needed evidence.

Whether we need it or not is irrelevant. I pointed out that your first post on the matter (which I accept you eventually retracted) is there for all to see, as is the fact that you had to be challenged twice (by myself and mattcoddington) before you adjusted your position. Actually, mattcoddington made the point about lighting after that, as well and instead of quietly accepting the information, you got very, very defensive, very, very quickly.

> Can you honestly tell me that there is no way this could be done with a video projection device?

No, I can't. However, you need to be equally honest and tell me whether or not you have seen that effect used at other rock concerts, because if you have, then you would surely know this is a standard feature of automated lighting systems. You started by telling us you saw "video", then that you saw "images". We eventually established that what you saw were not "images" but shapes". I've seen them maybe hundred times at different concerts (I admit I had to have my memory jogged on that in relation to Alice Cooper concerts). You've then spent your subsequent posts arguing that what you saw is the same as what recoop and ElectedPlus described when in fact, they're very different. I actually care more about that then weather or not you saw what you saw. That's what you don't seem to realise.

> Can you also tell me that you see no way that an untrained observer might make this assumption?

We're way past that. This is also about you saying that what you saw was the equivalent to that which recoop and ElectedPlus described. That's very misleading. Imagine a fan going to see the show and expecting to see some spectacular effect being used during "Vengeance Is Mine" (because you said that's what happens) and being disappointed that there was no such effect. There's enough misinformation out there when Alice Cooper is discussed, without you or anyone else adding to it.

> I apologize that I am not an expert on such things, but I still don't see why I should be expected to be.

I don't think anyone said anything even close to that, but I would be somewhat surprised if you genuinely have not seen that effect used before at other concerts.

> It was after when you turned it into a debate on whether I saw anything at all.

That's correct, because you said you saw "images", which caused further confusion and would be misleading to someone who had not yet seen the show.

>You also claimed that this effect was done by single beam of light being split. Could You explain how a split beam of light is causing the effect on the video above?

Yes. You can manipulate a beam of light (or in this case, many beams of lights) by using a 'Go Between' and / or with computer technology.

> Once you start using ad hominem arguments, it really just shoots down you credibility.

You need to find out what "ad hominem" means. There were no personal attacks. I attacked your posts.

[SKULLBOY]

>I pointed out that your first post on the matter (which I accept you eventually retracted) is there for all to see, as is the fact that you had to be challenged twice (by myself and mattcoddington) before you adjusted your position.

I thought Matt as well as you were referring a different effect. Once it was cleared up, I clarified.

>as well and instead of quietly accepting the information, you got very, very defensive, very, very quickly.

I certainly wasn't defensive because you were calling me a liar or accusing me of using chemical enhancement, right?

>No, I can't. However, you need to be equally honest and tell me whether or not you have seen that effect used at other rock concerts, because if you have, then you would surely know this is a standard feature of automated lighting systems.

I can honestly say that this is the first time that I was ever aware of this effect.

>We eventually established that what you saw were not "images" but shapes".

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but if you see a shape it is an image.

>You've then spent your subsequent posts arguing that what you saw is the same as what recoop and ElectedPlus described when in fact, they're very different.

This is false information. I never once said anything of the sort. In fact, I have never even used their names in any of my posts.

>Imagine a fan going to see the show and expecting to see some spectacular effect being used during "Vengeance Is Mine" (because you said that's what happens) and being disappointed that there was no such effect.

Again, putting words in my mouth. At no time did I ever type the word "spectacular" or any such synonyms when describing what I saw. I have pointed this out numerous times, even after pointing out that it was a simple effect. Besides, what fan is going to go just for this (not to mention, what are the chances that a real fan would leave an Alice show disappointed--especially for lack of something like this?).

>Yes. You can manipulate a beam of light (or in this case, many beams of lights) by using a 'Go Between' and / or with computer technology.

Thank you for the information. However, when you brought this up you told me that it was a beam of light being broken up. Which is it?

>You need to find out what "ad hominem" means. There were no personal attacks. I attacked your posts.

I do know what it means. You have insulted me (of course I can't say where, because you'll get defensive) and my words. When you insult the art, you are insulting the artist's abilities, and hence, the artist (think of the transitive property).

[A_MichaelUK]

>I thought Matt as well as you were referring a different effect. Once it was cleared up, I clarified.

I don't think either of us referred to anything. I'm pretty sure we've only referred to what you saw.

>I certainly wasn't defensive because you were calling me a liar or accusing me of using chemical enhancement, right?

That was in a private message. I'm referring to your posts on the board.

>I can honestly say that this is the first time that I was ever aware of this effect.

Finally, we have some progress. Imagine how different this debate would have been if you had said that in your reply to my first question. I might also add that if I went to a concert and saw that the shapes you referred to were a result of some kind of video technology, I would be extremely disappointed. That would be an extremely dull and inefficient use of that technology.

>I hate to be the one to tell you this, but if you see a shape it is an image.

Technically, you're correct, but again, the issue is that you were comparing the shapes you saw to that which recoop and ElectedPlus were referring to and again, they're very different. I'll remind you that mattcoddington was also confused by your reference to "images".

>This is false information. I never once said anything of the sort.

In reply to ElectedPlus you wrote: "Keep in mind that there is video on the backdrop during "Vengeance". " Later, when pressed, you gave a fuller description: "they were images projected on a screen and moving around in a pattern looking much similar to live bacteria with a pinkish color, suspended in liquid, viewed under a microscope,". If you "never once said anything of the sort", how is it that the two quotes above even exist? In your reply to ElectedPlus (who was following on from what recoop said), you made a comparison. If you weren't, there was no reason to reply to ElectedPlus in the way that you did. There would have been no reason to tell him what you saw.

>In fact, I have never even used their names in any of my posts.

I never said you did.

>Again, putting words in my mouth. At no time did I ever type the word "spectacular"

Use your common sense. I was being sarcastic. Whether or not it was spectacular is not the issue. The issue is that what you saw stood out enough for you to mention it in the reply you gave. Why would you mention it, if it had not?

>just for this (not to mention, what are the chances that a real fan would leave an Alice show disappointed--especially for lack of something like this?).

You're not the first person to give out misinformation on this sort of thing. It has a cumulative effect. Also, go back and read what WickedYoungMan wrote.

>Thank you for the information. However, when you brought this up you told me that it was a beam of light being broken up. Which is it?

If you break up a beam of light, it's the same as manipulating it. You're changing it. Don't play with semantics - you're out of your league. Go and look up what a 'Go Between' is and you will find more information on this.

>I do know what it means. You have insulted me (of course I can't say where, because you'll get defensive) and my words.

Show me where I made a personal attack on you on this board. There have been no attacks on your character, appearance, morality, values or integrity as a person - only on your posts.

>When you insult the art, you are insulting the artist's abilities, and hence, the artist (think of the transitive property).

Are you saying your posts are "art"?!

[SKULLBOY]

>I don't think either of us referred to anything. I'm pretty sure we've only referred to what you saw.

You referred to my post regarding what I saw.

>That was in a private message. I'm referring to your posts on the board.

To be honest with you, I'm not keeping track of what was posted where, that is just too time consuming. Besides, I never said where you said it, only that you said it.

>Finally, we have some progress. Imagine how different this debate would have been if you had said that in your reply to my first question.

Okay, So when you asked your first question: "come no - one else who was at the shows mentioned it?!" My reply should have been: "I can honestly say that this is the first time that I was ever aware of this effect." And that would have resolved everything, right?

>I might also add that if I went to a concert and saw that the shapes you referred to were a result of some kind of video technology, I would be extremely disappointed. That would be an extremely dull and inefficient use of that technology.

Personally, I wouldn't care either way. I rarely take into account if equipment is used to its full potential. Why should it be?

>I'll remind you that mattcoddington was also confused by your reference to "images".

So, when he said: "nope, no images. just good old fashion stage lights.”, and you just recently agreed with me that these are images, you don't think that maybe I thought he was referring to something else?

"Keep in mind that there is video on the backdrop during "Vengeance." and ""they were images projected on a screen and moving around in a pattern looking much similar to live bacteria with a pinkish color, suspended in liquid, viewed under a microscope," translate as "What I saw was exactly what ElectedPlus and recoop are referring to when they talk about video images at Rob Zombie and Marilyn Manson shows". Can you tell me at which shows those two artists used the images that I described in detail? We may have a copyright lawsuit in the making!

>I was being sarcastic.

I see. You can be sarcastic, and I can't mistake it as literal, but when I misuse a word it's a major sin. Hmmm . . . Hypocrisy?

>The issue is that what you saw stood out enough for you to mention it in the reply you gave. Why would you mention it, if it had not?

So things are only worth mentioning on here if someone finds them spectacular or if they really stand out? If so, you are going to be a very busy person.

>If you break up a beam of light, it's the same as manipulating it. You're changing it. Don't play with semantics - you're out of your league. Go and look up what a 'Go Between' is and you will find more information on this.

Out of my league? Okay, let's discuss physics. I can talk all day about electromagnetism. I've studied this pretty extensively in Analytical Chemistry and Physics. Now the fun will begin! I'd suggest not discussing it on the board, though, as I don't feel this is the proper place for discussing science.

>Are you saying your posts are "art"?!

Are you unaware that writing is an art? Everytime someone puts words on paper (or elsewhere) they are creating art. Drawing, music, painting, writing, etc. are all artforms.

[mattcoddington]

Yes. You can manipulate a beam of light (or in this case, many beams of lights) by using a 'Go Between'

more commonly referred to as a 'gobo.'

[Robbie]

Having looked at the link to "vengeance" on youtube it looks like a gobo to me.To clarify for anyone less familiar with intelligent lighting systems and without teaching anyone "to suck eggs" when viewed from the front through haze / smoke machines the beam of light is broken up and the image of the gobo isn't apparent. When it strikes a background or the floor then you can see the image / shapes.

[A_MichaelUK]

>You referred to my post regarding what I saw.

You just contradicted yourself. You wrote:
"I thought Matt as well as you were referring a different effect." Now you say we were referring to your post. Which is it?

>To be honest with you, I'm not keeping track of what was posted where,

That explains a lot.

>Besides, I never said where you said it, only that you said it.

If the people reading and taking part in this discussion are unaware of our private discussion, it is not relevant to bring it up, which is what you did. It's also kind of unfair.

> My reply should have been: "I can honestly say that this is the first time that I was ever aware of this effect." And that would have resolved everything, right?

Yes. Absolutely.

>Personally, I wouldn't care either way. I rarely take into account if equipment is used to its full potential. Why should it be?

Because of the comparison you inferred between what recoop and ElectedPlus described and what you saw.

> you don't think that maybe I thought he was referring to something else?

No, especially when you later posted the link with the lighting in question. It became obvious to me it was the same thing.

>Can you tell me at which shows those two artists used the images that I described in detail? We may have a copyright lawsuit in the making!

No, "we" don't. I said you implied the *effect* is the same. To paraphrase:
Recoop and ElectedPlus: it would be great if Alice used video like Rob Zombie and Marilyn Manson do.
Skullboy: remember Alice used video during "Vengeance Is Mine".

Are you telling me you made no comparison at all? If not, why even reply to that which ElectedPlus wrote? I'm still waiting for an answer to that. Earlier, you wrote:
"I was merely pointing out in my post that there was a bit of something on a screen on the stage." "A bit of something" is very different to what recoop and ElectedPlus were describing. Why would you make or infer that comparison. That's the part that's misleading.

>I see. You can be sarcastic, and I can't mistake it as literal, but when I misuse a word it's a major sin. Hmmm . . . Hypocrisy?

Possibly. It's a question of tone. I didn't detect any sarcasm or irony in your post under discussion. I'm sorry you didn't pick up on my sarcasm. I must try harder.

>So things are only worth mentioning on here if someone finds them spectacular or if they really stand out? If so, you are going to be a very busy person.

Actually, I think the opposite would be true. For one thing, there would have been one less post - the one with which you replied to the statement that ElectedPlus made.

>Out of my league? Okay, let's discuss physics.

WHO SAID ANYTHING about "physics"?! I said you are out of your league in relation to semantics!

>Are you unaware that writing is an art?

Technically, it is, but again, though, you missed the sarcasm. You still haven't explained why you think there have been ad hominem attacks. Also, it occured to me that our private discussion is the same (almost word for word) as the posts on the board. Let's stick to one only. I'll let you choose.

[A_MichaelUK]

>more commonly referred to as a 'gobo.'

That is correct.

[SKULLBOY]

>You just contradicted yourself. You wrote:
"I thought Matt as well as you were referring a different effect." Now you say we were referring to your post. Which is it?

You are one to talk about contradiction. Regardless, this doesn't even make sense. That WAS my post which was referring to the effect. If I wasn't referring to the effect in my post, where exactly did you get the above quote from? You're really reaching here.

>That explains a lot.

Yes it does. Between the high number of posts here and the high number of PMs regarding this same topic, I really don't take the time to see where what was said. Maybe you'd like to explain to me why you commented here AND PM'd me. Why the redundancy? Can't you just pick one?

>If the people reading and taking part in this discussion are unaware of our private discussion, it is not relevant to bring it up, which is what you did. It's also kind of unfair.

Not unfair at all. I have nothing to hide.

>Yes. Absolutely.

So you expect everyone to put this amendment after any post of that type? "Hey, I saw one of the band member's shoe was untied: this is the first time I ever saw a musicians shoe untied while performing onstage." Nah, omit needless words.

>No, especially when you later posted the link with the lighting in question. It became obvious to me it was the same thing.

Now that's an interesting point. If something is obvious to YOU, it should be obvious to everyone. Yet if something is obvious to ME it shouldn't be.

>Are you telling me you made no comparison at all?

Yes, a comparison to the visual effects being projected onto a screen. Tell me, have you BEEN to a Zombie or Manson show? Zombie uses simple images as well as video. Manson (the three songs I saw before I left) only used simple still photos on a screen. To me these gobo images you refer to are more complex than a simple photo.

>Why would you make or infer that comparison.

First, I can compare anything I want. Second, I've seen far less relevant comparisons on this board.

>That's the part that's misleading.

Not misleading at all. If anyone wanted clarification they could have asked.

>Possibly. It's a question of tone. I didn't detect any sarcasm or irony in your post under discussion. I'm sorry you didn't pick up on my sarcasm. I must try harder.

>I never said I was being sarcastic. Is it really that hard to interpret words on scrteen? Here, tell me where I said I was being sarcastic: "I see. You can be sarcastic, and I can't mistake it as literal, but when I misuse a word it's a major sin. Hmmm . . . Hypocrisy?"

>WHO SAID ANYTHING about "physics"?! I said you are out of your league in relation to semantics!

See, that is a bit of semantics there. When you said "If you break up a beam of light, it's the same as manipulating it. You're changing it. Don't play with semantics - you're out of your league." When referring to semantics, you are referring to the preceding sentences. I will discuss either.

>Technically, it is, but again, though, you missed the sarcasm. You still haven't explained why you think there have been ad hominem attacks.

I can't. Because I may have to bring up PMs, and to you that is "unfair". I don't want to hurt your feelings.

>Also, it occured to me that our private discussion is the same (almost word for word) as the posts on the board.

That's funny (I'm referring to my earlier comment).

>That Let's stick to one only. I'll let you choose.

I think it's a silly debate altogether.

[A_MichaelUK]

>You are one to talk about contradiction.
Do explain.

>That WAS my post which was referring to the effect.

Yes, I know. I thought I said that.

>If I wasn't referring to the effect in my post, where exactly did you get the above quote from? You're really reaching here.

You already admitted you don't keep track of what was posted, so let me remind you of what you wrote:
"I thought Matt as well as you were referring a different effect." " I already told you neither mattcoddington or I referred to anything other that what YOU described. So I'm going to ask you again. What was the "different effect" you thought we were referring to?

>Yes it does. Between the high number of posts here and the high number of PMs regarding this same topic, I really don't take the time to see where what was said.

That explains a lot.

> Maybe you'd like to explain to me why you commented here AND PM'd me.

To give you the option of choosing one or the other.

> Why the redundancy?

Why reply if it's reduntant? Why not tell me to stick to one or the other?

> Can't you just pick one?

I thought of that before you did.

>Not unfair at all. I have nothing to hide.

It kind of is. I would never have made the accusation you refer to in public. I made it in private. You chose to make it public (which is rather cowardly and impolite and by the way, THAT is a personal attack).

> you expect everyone to put this amendment after any post of that type?

No, I "expect" people not to become demented when they are legitimately challenged on a public forum.

>Now that's an interesting point. If something is obvious to YOU, it should be obvious to everyone. Yet if something is obvious to ME it shouldn't be.

The last sentence doesn't make sense. Would you be kind enough to explain what you mean? The point I was making what that the effect you described has been around for decades and the principle behind it was around before the light bulb was even invented, so I as extraordinarily surprised to read that it was the first time you had seen it. Have you ever seen any psychedelic light shows? Have you ever made shapes with your hand which were projected onto a wall by a candle? Was the Alice Cooper show you referred to the first rock concert you had ever been to?

>Yes, a comparison to the visual effects being projected onto a screen.

But before, you were saying you DIDN'T make a comparison.

>Tell me, have you BEEN to a Zombie or Manson show?

No, but I've seen more footage and stills than I should have. Does that count?

>To me these gobo images you refer to are more complex than a simple photo.

Thanks for proving my point. You just made the comparison I was referring to.

>First, I can compare anything I want.

Earlier, you said you didn't.

> Second, I've seen far less relevant comparisons on this board.

Are you able to give examples?

>Not misleading at all. If anyone wanted clarification they could have asked.
I asked and I think mattcoddington did, too.


>I never said I was being sarcastic.

That's what I'm saying. I had to assume that when you used the word "video", that's what you meant. Why would I not? What else was I supposed to do? How was I supposed to know that when you used the word "video" you didn't mean it "too literally"?! I assume you're not going to deny saying that.

>See, that is a bit of semantics there. When you said "If you break up a beam of light, it's the same as manipulating it. You're changing it. Don't play with semantics - you're out of your league." When referring to semantics, you are referring to the preceding sentences. I will discuss either.

I really don't understand what you mean. Do explain. NOBODY mentioned your knowledge of physics until you did. I never said ANYTHING about your knowledge of physics. Why accuse me of doing that when I didn't?

>I can't. Because I may have to bring up PMs, and to you that is "unfair". I don't want to hurt your feelings.

I know you're a pretty intelligent person, but that a very stupid thing to say. Here's why: you don't have to "bring up PMs" - if you're going to accuse me (on this board) of personal attacks, then you can only refer to personal attacks made on this board. If you want to accuse me of personal attacks in private messages, do it to me in private or report my private messages to the owner of this site. To refer publicly without my consent to something that may or may not have happened in private, is a cowardly thing to do.

>I think it's a silly debate altogether.

Why have you been replying then?

[SKULLBOY]

>Do explain.

I already have, at least twice.

>Yes, I know. I thought I said that.

Then why did you say it wasn't?

>So I'm going to ask you again. What was the "different effect" you thought we were referring to?

If you really want to know, go back and read where I have addressed this a half dozen times.

>You already admitted you don't keep track of what was posted, so let me remind you of what you wrote:

And yet another perfect case of putting words in my mouth. I said: "To be honest with you, I'm not keeping track of what was posted where, that is just too time consuming." You interpret that as "you don't keep track of what was posted,".

>Why reply if it's reduntant? Why not tell me to stick to one or the other?

Can't you decide for yourself? Besides, there are a few issues that are being discussed separately, am I supposed to pick one?

"It kind of is. I would never have made the accusation you refer to in public. I made it in private. You chose to make it public (which is rather cowardly and impolite and by the way, THAT is a personal attack).

It's not an accusation. I have a copy in writing. Not cowardly at all. To me it would seem cowardly to say something in private, but deny it in public. As I already said I have nothing to hide. How is it a personal attack?

>Demented? Who? What about obsessive?

>The point I was making what that the effect you described has been around for decades

And video has only been around for a couple of years?

>But before, you were saying you DIDN'T make a comparison.

Ah, semantics again. I was making a comparison to the effect, not the technology. I have stated this several times.

>No, but I've seen more footage and stills than I should have. Does that count?

It should, but apparently it doesn't. (By the way, I like the implication here. Personally, I don't mind Zombie, but Manson irritates me.)

>Thanks for proving my point. You just made the comparison I was referring to.

Odd. Okay, but first you said it was simple lighting, not video. Now you say it's complex lighting not video. Is it simple or complex?

>I asked and I think mattcoddington did, too.

Saying that I am wrong is not the same as asking for clarification. If you recall, I gave clarification without you asking.

>I assume you're not going to deny saying that.

Saying "video"? Why would I deny it. As I've explained to death, the first time I used it I was being literal, as I thought at the time that it was the correct term.

>I really don't understand what you mean. Do explain. NOBODY mentioned your knowledge of physics until you did.

Your little lesson on light manipulation.

>If you want to accuse me of personal attacks in private messages, do it to me in private or report my private messages to the owner of this site.

It wasn't an accusation. As for reporting them, I would never do that. You can say what you want, it won't hurt my feelings. I was pointing out to you that once you start to throw insults, you lose credibility. I was trying to help your reputation.

>I know you're a pretty intelligent person,

Thank you. The feeling is mutual.

>but that a very stupid thing to say.

>Not at all. You asked me to provide the information, but I feel I can't as I would have to bring up PMs. Since you already posted that this makes you uncomfortable (or however) I am in a Catch 22. I truly don't want to offend you, so I am respecting your wishes.

>Why have you been replying then?

Do you really have to ask? Would you let it go if someone on here was posting that you said things that you never really said? We both know the answer to that one.

[SKULLBOY]

Also, it occured to me that our private discussion is the same (almost word for word) as the posts on the board. Let's stick to one only. I'll let you choose.

You are correct. I feel sorry for anyone that stumbles upon our ramblings here (although I doubt that there are many that committed to the cause!). Let's switch over exclusively to PM. Thank you.

Good day, folks!