Toqer Goes to the City Counsel of San Jose

[c. staley]

Holier than thou? Smug? Baiting? Calm down. First of all, I wasn't "talking" to you. I was "talking" to Chip. Chip seems perfectly capable of conversing with me and defending his statements. He accused Thunder of bluffing. I didn't even go into detail, I merely stated that it isn't a bluff. Chip then refuted by statement without any information and made another random statement about a random mfr. and loving the idea of a lawsuit and blah blah blah... you read it.

And read it, I have. However, you need to read it again, because I never "accused Thunder" of anything. However, if he believes (and apparently you do too) because he has been told something different, then what he has been told (and believes) IS in fact, a bluff. No other "information" is necessary.

And no need to berate the ladies for speaking up. If you wanted to have a conversation with ONLY me, there is a wonderful option call "private messaging" and you know how that works. Otherwise, you post in public, you will get public answers. No different than Thunder jumping in to answer a question not asked of him and that happens all the time.

Second, I asked in both posts: "Wouldn't you like to know" the answer? Not one of you could simply state the rational response which would merely be: "Yes, we would like to know".

Because it's bait, and you know it's bait. You're attempting to elicit the response you want rather than either keeping quiet or just stating what you want others to (apparently) beg you first to divulge. So is it "holier than thou" and "smug?" Absolutely. So either keep quiet or spit it out. To take the position of "I know something you don't.... wanna know?" Is as baiting as a teenage "knock, knock" joke. You want discussion or to play games?

I've noticed that you add a lot of emotional words to your posts, especially when you are defending Chip. You also have a habit of telling me how I feel or what I must think about something. I never said that the information was "earth-shattering" or even IMPORTANT. I stated that Thunder's allusion was not a bluff. I never intended to "smack down" anyone. This thread is not about SC's methodology.

Apparently, it's "important" enough for to you to play "wanna know? ask me nicely" games. If it wasn't important, you'd simply state it and be done with it. You got something to say? Say it. Or don't. But to whine about others for calling you out on it when you posted it in a public forum is your mistake, not theirs.

How can I have a meaningful dialog with someone who is NOT conversing WITH ME, but jumping in and taking pot-shots at my conversation with someone else?

I am probably never going to behave the way you would like me to. Get over it. I have.

If you don't want pot shots, take it to private messaging.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Steve, as previously requested, it would be easier for all if you quoted a post, then responded outside the quote, as others do. I don't know why you refuse to do so.

Anyway:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by JoeChartreuse
ME:1) I'm concerned about venues skipping on karaoke because the want their businesses to run smoothly. No waves. I'm also concerned about my friends.

1) THUNDER'S REPLY: If karaoke is making them money no business stops doing it because of the threat of a lawsuit because they are running an illegal host

ME: Of the two confirmed contacts that I know of in NJ, one was a legit KJ that I've known for some time, and I have seen the disc library. This KJ has enough moral fiber not to accede to demands from a vendor. Unfortunately, this KJ's spouse is in a position that could be affected by any negative publicity, so the KJ didn't see fighting it as worth the possible damage. Result: A LEGIT hangs it up for spousal love. A good person. Too bad.

2) THUNDER'S REPLY: Sounds like he the first one was planning on getting out anyway, since being confirmed legit would have had no legal ramifications at all. To fold up a legit business (if it was making good money) only because you were to foolish to think about it for five seconds just makes him look well.......... foolish!

ME: The second was a multi-rigger that I don't know well, and have no idea whether he was legit or not. What I DO know is that he is still in business, as are most, if not all those contacted by SC are- and no raise in the fee either.

No dent in PIRACY - now or ever.

3) THUNDER'S REPLY: Give it time!

ME: 2) Interesting comment. Care to expound on it?

4) See below for THUNDER'S REPLY
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) The reply was non-sequitor. No one brought up venues stopping due to illegal hosting- so why did you???


2) Please explain how it sounds like the first one was planning to get out anyway. Especially because that wasn't the case. Re-read the information. Your reasoning?

3) How much time? So far, I think we've hit at least the 2 year mark, and in the case of SC, there has been not even the slightest dent made, either in raised fees or pirates shutting down.

So I ask again- How about a time frame?


4) Thunder's reply to expounding on his comment regarding other brands: None, which makes his statement one to be discounted.

 

[KJSandman]

Okay. I got it. You don't believe the statitistics.

Why go before a group? To make a statement. Is it possible the situation is less dire than he's making it out to be? Certainly. Is it possible that the style of the delivery was intended to elicit concern?

Take the little old man out of it. Take the quantity and price of the songs out of it.

Let's just say that I'm trying to make a living legally while there are others out there who are doing what I'm doing illegally. My industry is particularly vulnerable to this type of illegal activity and the number of illegal operators seems to be increasing. There are several different types of illegal activity that collectively have an impact on the market and therefore on my own business. These illegal activities range from the duplication and distribution of hard-drives filled with counterfeit files, to the production of commercial karaoke shows with no legal karaoke being possessed by the producers of the shows.

These illegal activities continue to threaten and do harm not only to viable businesses and and karaoke entertainment operations but to the image of our industry as a whole.

This situation has become reality in many areas of the U.S. (including San Jose). It is my belief that many if not most people are unaware of this illegal activity and it's effects on ourselves and our businesses. It is my belief that by drawing your attention to this issue, you may find a reason to investigate and verify what I've told you. It is my desire that the result of your investigation and subsequent actions is to stop this problem from growing and ultimately eliminate this type of illegal competition.



How's that?

 

[KJSandman]

Frankly, everyone here should be able to comment publicly without being subjected to pot-shots.

If you're acting like equals.

Now you've accused me of berating "the ladies". I want to be on record as NOT referring to Diafel & Birdofsong in that manner. I did not scold them or punish them.

I may have been unclear, but I am really trying to say, please participate in the conversation instead of running in from the sidelines and commenting on the attitude or perceived transgression when someone is communicating directly with someone else.

I am also tired of wasting keystrokes denying your portrayal of my attitude or intent.

Since I've begun conversing with you again, I've accepted that your style of communication irritates me, but I've decided to accept that I can't change that. I'm done bickering over how you say what you say.

I'm still looking for substance and facts. I am stating that sincerely. I have previously seen substance and obtained facts during our communication and I have every reason to believe that it may happen again.

 

[Big Joe]

Okay. I got it. You don't believe the statitistics.

I'd simply prefer someone actually provide some concrete evidence, or quit using numbers.

Why go before a group? To make a statement. Is it possible the situation is less dire than he's making it out to be? Certainly. Is it possible that the style of the delivery was intended to elicit concern?

I don't see the need to skew the numbers. Again, if the end justifies the means to you, should there be any reasonable expectation of truth or fairness at all?

Take the little old man out of it. Take the quantity and price of the songs out of it.

I'll watch it again, and take all that out. I see a guy with a cousin named Dave who is a member of an organization he doesn't want to name, and he is unhappy with his night job.

Let's just say that I'm trying to make a living legally while there are others out there who are doing what I'm doing illegally. My industry is particularly vulnerable to this type of illegal activity and the number of illegal operators seems to be increasing. There are several different types of illegal activity that collectively have an impact on the market and therefore on my own business. These illegal activities range from the duplication and distribution of hard-drives filled with counterfeit files, to the production of commercial karaoke shows with no legal karaoke being possessed by the producers of the shows.

OK. Let's say I'm in the exact same profession, only in my area, those that came before me did a very good job of policing their territory, didn't join with the pirates years ago, and did a very good job educating the local venues. What may be necessesary in another area to clean up the mess may wind up destroying my area, and put the same people you think you're helping out of work here.

These illegal activities continue to threaten and do harm not only to viable businesses and and karaoke entertainment operations but to the image of our industry as a whole.

I have the exact same opinion of the actions of SC.

This situation has become reality in many areas of the U.S. (including San Jose). It is my belief that many if not most people are unaware of this illegal activity and it's effects on ourselves and our businesses. It is my belief that by drawing your attention to this issue, you may find a reason to investigate and verify what I've told you. It is my desire that the result of your investigation and subsequent actions is to stop this problem from growing and ultimately eliminate this type of illegal competition.

I will respectfully leave the investigating to the investigators. I did my due dilligence before I got started. I bought my stuff, as did my colleagues. It is in fact tragic that what can be construed as help to some, may very well put others out of business. But I didn't start the problem, and I don't contribute to it. The manufacturers should have been on this years ago, they weren't, and now it may be too late for some. At the end of the day I'm gonna be looking out for my best interests. If that conflicts with theirs, that's too bad.

How's that?

You tell me.

 

[Birdofsong]

Holier than thou? Smug? Baiting? Calm down. First of all, I wasn't "talking" to you. I was "talking" to Chip. Chip seems perfectly capable of conversing with me and defending his statements. He accused Thunder of bluffing. I didn't even go into detail, I merely stated that it isn't a bluff. Chip then refuted by statement without any information and made another random statement about a random mfr. and loving the idea of a lawsuit and blah blah blah... you read it.

Second, I asked in both posts: "Wouldn't you like to know" the answer? Not one of you could simply state the rational response which would merely be: "Yes, we would like to know".

I've noticed that you add a lot of emotional words to your posts, especially when you are defending Chip. You also have a habit of telling me how I feel or what I must think about something. I never said that the information was "earth-shattering" or even IMPORTANT. I stated that Thunder's allusion was not a bluff. I never intended to "smack down" anyone. This thread is not about SC's methodology. How can I have a meaningful dialog with someone who is NOT conversing WITH ME, but jumping in and taking pot-shots at my conversation with someone else?

I am probably never going to behave the way you would like me to. Get over it. I have.

And again, you've given us no information. Is that only for Chip and only then if he asks nicely?

I am well aware that Chip is a big boy and can respond for himself. However, I saw what I felt was an entire day of posts from you equitable to schoolyard taunts, and felt compelled to respond. If two of us saw that at the same time, don't you think there might be something to it? I hadn't even read Diafel's post when I responded.

Just a few short days ago, you posted a very large statement here about posting with respect and integrity. Where exactly does "Whatcha gonna do when they come for YOU" fit into that?

Nobody took "pot-shots at you" without provocation. My post was simply in response to your attitude. The games were getting tiring. If you can't see you were playing them, there's nothing I can do about that.

Now, if you're waiting for a sincere request...yes, I would really like to know what information you have, Sandman. Please share with the group.

 

[Chartbusterette]

Has it occurred to you that: One Win = Game ON!

Oh yeah, and thanks Sandman! We are ready! If you want to fight it, be prepared to lay out 6 digits to fight a Federal Copyright and Trademark suit, not to mention about 2 years of your life of discovery, depositions, mediation, etc., etc. And, by the way, if it goes that far, it will not be the normal settlement numbers. It will be the full amount that is allowed by law, per song, per violation. Better add 6 more digits.

We have no qualms about going the distance. We are prepared and ready to set Precedent. We have been there and done that, therefore we educated and ready.

 

[Chartbusterette]

.

You may not be aware of it, but Chartbuster has retained an employee who has experience working for the Attorney General (I can't remember which state) and who is very knowledgeable and up-to-date on IP law and the current state of change afoot among the various levels of law enforcement and the judiciary. Chartbuster is coming next.

Thanks Sandman. Paula is from the State Attorney General's Office of Ohio. Their office has long been honored for years in their high standards and their long history of taking action. Most states go to that office when they want advice on any particular issue. We are lucky to have her and lucky that she moved to Tennessee due to her husband's relocation. If anyone would like to speak to her, please feel free to contact her at any time.

 

[Guest]

Steve, as previously requested, it would be easier for all if you quoted a post, then responded outside the quote, as others do. I don't know why you refuse to do so.

Anyway:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by JoeChartreuse
ME:1) I'm concerned about venues skipping on karaoke because the want their businesses to run smoothly. No waves. I'm also concerned about my friends.

1) THUNDER'S REPLY: If karaoke is making them money no business stops doing it because of the threat of a lawsuit because they are running an illegal host

ME: Of the two confirmed contacts that I know of in NJ, one was a legit KJ that I've known for some time, and I have seen the disc library. This KJ has enough moral fiber not to accede to demands from a vendor. Unfortunately, this KJ's spouse is in a position that could be affected by any negative publicity, so the KJ didn't see fighting it as worth the possible damage. Result: A LEGIT hangs it up for spousal love. A good person. Too bad.

2) THUNDER'S REPLY: Sounds like he the first one was planning on getting out anyway, since being confirmed legit would have had no legal ramifications at all. To fold up a legit business (if it was making good money) only because you were to foolish to think about it for five seconds just makes him look well.......... foolish!

ME: The second was a multi-rigger that I don't know well, and have no idea whether he was legit or not. What I DO know is that he is still in business, as are most, if not all those contacted by SC are- and no raise in the fee either.

No dent in PIRACY - now or ever.

3) THUNDER'S REPLY: Give it time!

ME: 2) Interesting comment. Care to expound on it?

4) See below for THUNDER'S REPLY
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) The reply was non-sequitor. No one brought up venues stopping due to illegal hosting- so why did you???

Joe, I know you are not that one track minded, so I ask you, Why are the venues stopping karaoke as you put it?

Originally Posted by JoeChartreuse
ME:1) I'm concerned about venues skipping on karaoke because the want their businesses to run smoothly. No waves. I'm also concerned about my friends.

2) Please explain how it sounds like the first one was planning to get out anyway. Especially because that wasn't the case. Re-read the information. Your reasoning?

First then you must explain what they were contacts of and about, your information is incomplete and non-sequitor! I obviously can't give you a reasonable answer if you can't give me complete information. I could make the assumption as to what you were refering to but I wouldn't want to be chastised again.

3) How much time? So far, I think we've hit at least the 2 year mark, and in the case of SC, there has been not even the slightest dent made, either in raised fees or pirates shutting down.

So I ask again- How about a time frame?

I am sorry Joe, but aren't you bringing the subject of Sound Choice and pirates into this here? If you want everyone else to be in sequence then you must keep your own post in order and not mention the subjects that you are chastising me for bringing up.

To answer the question............ two years is nothing in a Federal Civil case, try 6 years, in a State Civil case in which I am a (pro se) plaintiff we are now at 12 years and the Janurary 2011 trial date was just cancelled by the court because of a murder trial, so we still don't know when it will go to trial.

4) Thunder's reply to expounding on his comment regarding other brands: None, which makes his statement one to be discounted.

Joe, I would appreciate it if you would stop with the BS of trying to make it look like I am not answering your questions or being non-sequitor when I am answering exactly what you posted, it looks so petty!

 

[Guest]

The video is dated 11/16/2010. It would appear that he is talking about making a purchase in the present day. Do you hear it differently?

Yes $35,000 worth!

Several great deals as a matter of fact. I'm actually two years into buying discs. You're not still paying $2.22 per track are you?

Yet for the same amount of music at your listed price you would only have a little over $9000 in your music @ 50,000 tracks, I would say you are getting much better deals than the KJ you are complaining about. In fact as you stated you are paying 18 cents a song and he is averaging $0.71 per song, looks to me like he has a lot more invested than you do!

 

[Birdofsong]

Quote Thunder: "To answer the question............ two years is nothing in a Federal Civil case, try 6 years, in a State Civil case in which I am a (pro se) plaintiff we are now at 12 years and the Janurary 2011 trial date was just cancelled by the court because of a murder trial, so we still don't know when it will go to trial." End quote

Seriously, Thunder, if that is truly the case in your case, that is not the norm at all. While it's true that it may take more than 2 years, the wheels of justice don't tend to move quite as slowly as you are overstating. 4 years, maybe, for a federal case like this. Out of all the cases I've dealt with in my full-time legal job in the last 7 1/2 years, I'd say there are maybe 5 that went longer than 3 years, and that was only in the case where appeals were filed.

 

[KJSandman]

And again, you've given us no information. Is that only for Chip and only then if he asks nicely?

No, Birdofsong, it is not only for Chip if he asks nicely. It is for anyone who asks nicely.

I am well aware that Chip is a big boy and can respond for himself.

You are aware of it, but you don't seem to respect it.

However, I saw what I felt was an entire day of posts from you equitable to schoolyard taunts, and felt compelled to respond. If two of us saw that at the same time, don't you think there might be something to it? I hadn't even read Diafel's post when I responded.

Again, we're dealing with your feelings here. If you look at the posts that you are referring to, they are statements of fact. Chip accused Thunder of bluffing. I didn't tell Chip how that made me feel. I told him that it is not a bluff. Chip refuted my statement by restating that it is a bluff. I refuted Chip's statement by stating that I had knowledge of what Thunder was alluding to and therefore am honestly stating that it is not a bluff. Let's talk about the word bluff for a moment. It essentially means to deceive or to mislead someone into believing that they are in an inferior position to gain the advantage without actually possessing the superior position. We can all relate bluffing to playing Poker right? So if I am standing behind Thunder and I can see his cards, I know whether or not he is bluffing. If Chip asks me if Thunder is bluffing, I can say yes or no without identifying the cards Thunder holds. It's Chip's choice to believe me or not. So, what you actually witnessed is a trio of grown men playing a game of Poker. You've also reminded me of exactly why men like to play poker with other men.

Do I think there's "something to it" because Diafel and yourself posted similar reactions? Hardly. The two of you seem to have similar opinions and styles when posting in other threads as well. I've already stated my observation regarding your tendency to post reactionary statements regarding the style of other's communication without contributing to the actual conversation that is occurring. I find it annoying, but I can't do anything about it, so who cares?

Just a few short days ago, you posted a very large statement here about posting with respect and integrity. Where exactly does "Whatcha gonna do when they come for YOU" fit into that?

That is a lyric to a song. It fits in context of the conversation about dropping brands from your library. What are you going to do when CB contacts you regarding the, shall we say "quasi-legal", act of transferring / counterfeiting / displaying their trademark? There is no implicit disrespect or lack of integrity in that question. The song is "Bad Boys" by Inner Circle.

Nobody took "pot-shots at you" without provocation. My post was simply in response to your attitude. The games were getting tiring. If you can't see you were playing them, there's nothing I can do about that.

Your response to your interpretation of my attitude was "pot-shots". Your feelings about my attitude are completely irrelevant to the issue's being discussed. Your persistent attempts to monitor and modify my behavior have surpassed tiring and have become banal. I already have a mommy, and even she can't tell me how to talk. I ask you again, to get over it.


If you want to engage me with regard to the issue we are discussing then you have made a good start by asking this:

Now, if you're waiting for a sincere request...yes, I would really like to know what information you have, Sandman. Please share with the group.

The information I have is this:

Thunder is alluding to the fact that CB is preparing to take action against illegal karaoke. You may or may not be expecting that. He's not bluffing. He's also alluding to the fact that CB revealed the fact that they now own the licensing and rights associated with Sweet Georgia Brown. If you do not own a legal copy of SGB's CD+G and you use their product as part of a show you could be found to be in violation of those rights and/or to be infringing upon that trademark as well. Again, he's not bluffing when he states that action may come from somewhere you wouldn't expect. Things are changing quickly and they're gaining momentum. That's not a bluff. My cards are on the table.

 

[Big Joe]

Yet for the same amount of music at your listed price you would only have a little over $9000 in your music @ 50,000 tracks, I would say you are getting much better deals than the KJ you are complaining about. In fact as you stated you are paying 18 cents a song and he is averaging $0.71 per song, looks to me like he has a lot more invested than you do!

I wish I knew what you were talking about???:confusedpill:

 

[c. staley]

That's it? That's all? Then you were both bluffing. You seriously believe there's licensing involved with SGB?
Other than compulsory?

Look up the term "unclean hands "

 

[RealityCheck]

Look up the term "unclean hands "

I think the phrase that might come into play would be "fruit of the poisonous tree" since SGB had all sorts of legal "issues" with what they produced, and was it or wasn't properly licensed at the time it was issued and reissued past it's acceptable dates for production and sale. It's transferring to Magic Tracks and many others will be called into it as well. SGB will be a slippery slope to hang a hat on.

 

[KJSandman]

I don't believe anything other than the facts as they have been presented here.

I don't have the facts about the licensing issues from SGB. It is a fact that Chartbuster now owns "the catalog" and the inherent rights that go with it.

Again, you accuse me of bluffing? To what end? How have I deceived you or misled you? How has the hand been won or lost based on that information?

 

[c. staley]

I don't believe anything other than the facts as they have been presented here.

I don't have the facts about the licensing issues from SGB. It is a fact that Chartbuster now owns "the catalog" and the inherent rights that go with it.

Again, you accuse me of bluffing? To what end? How have I deceived you or misled you? How has the hand been won or lost based on that information?

Let me rephrase then: "you are believing a bluff."

 

[jclaydon]

I don't believe anything other than the facts as they have been presented here.

I don't have the facts about the licensing issues from SGB. It is a fact that Chartbuster now owns "the catalog" and the inherent rights that go with it.

Again, you accuse me of bluffing? To what end? How have I deceived you or misled you? How has the hand been won or lost based on that information?

Do you happen to know if chartbuster will accept the yellow and gold discs as acceptable since a lot of people bought those in good faith?

*technically they were counterfeit copies of the original redish brown discs*

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe, I would appreciate it if you would stop with the BS of trying to make it look like I am not answering your questions or being non-sequitor when I am answering exactly what you posted, it looks so petty!

Sorry, but it's not me. Your exact replies are quoted and posted- and had either nothing to do with the original statements, or no reply at all in the case of Expounding on your statement. Nothing was changed or hidden.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe, I would appreciate it if you would stop with the BS of trying to make it look like I am not answering your questions or being non-sequitor when I am answering exactly what you posted, it looks so petty!

And again, you reply within the quote after being asked by several here not to- for what reason? Is there a way that this could be made easier for you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ME: 1) The reply was non-sequitor. No one brought up venues stopping due to illegal hosting- so why did you???

THUNDER'S REPLY:Joe, I know you are not that one track minded, so I ask you, Why are the venues stopping karaoke as you put it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChartreuse
ME: A)) I'm concerned about venues skipping on karaoke because the want their businesses to run smoothly. No waves. I'm also concerned about my friends.

B)) Please explain how it sounds like the first one was planning to get out anyway. Especially because that wasn't the case. Re-read the information. Your reasoning?

THUNDER'S REPLY:First then you must explain what they were contacts of and about, your information is incomplete and non-sequitor! I obviously can't give you a reasonable answer if you can't give me complete information. I could make the assumption as to what you were refering to but I wouldn't want to be chastised again.

ME: 3) How much time? So far, I think we've hit at least the 2 year mark, and in the case of SC, there has been not even the slightest dent made, either in raised fees or pirates shutting down.

So I ask again- How about a time frame?

THUNDER'S REPLY: I am sorry Joe, but aren't you bringing the subject of Sound Choice and pirates into this here? If you want everyone else to be in sequence then you must keep your own post in order and not mention the subjects that you are chastising me for bringing up.

To answer the question............ two years is nothing in a Federal Civil case, try 6 years, in a State Civil case in which I am a (pro se) plaintiff we are now at 12 years and the Janurary 2011 trial date was just cancelled by the court because of a murder trial, so we still don't know when it will go to trial.

4) Thunder's reply to expounding on his comment regarding other brands: NONE, Which makes his statement one to be discounted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Thunder, you brought up illegal hosting in a venue- I did not do so in the original post, as shown. Non-sequitor #1.I asked you to explain why you did. You haven't done that, but now decided to say FIRST I should explain contact that I never said happened- read the post again. Non-sequitor #2. The Venue problems are due to public knowledge, as previously stated- not contacts.


2) I asked about a time frame. THIS time you gave me one- finally. As long as 12 years, and even THAT would depend on a SUCCESSFUL strategy. SC's isn't, and it's not a successful business strategy for them either. If continued, I certainly don't see them around in 2022.

On the other hand, Chartbuster or others may have a more successful strategy, and one that may beat your clock. Time will tell.


3) You STILL haven't Expounded on your statement regarding other brands.

First let say that if you don't want me to take note of non-sequitors and non-answers, feel free to reply, and reply in connection to the statements as posted. You aside, another point.


Just as you haven't expounded on the "other brands" statement, others are playing " I Spy" as well. Yet I doubt there is any big secret. Why?

It has been posted that the details of this subject were learned at the meeting.

Suppose I had been able to get away and accept the kind invitations from you folks and made it to NC.

Do you believe Kurt, Debi, and Norbert would have made me wait outside, after making the same efforts to get there as you, and also being willing to be the only dissenting soul?

I don't, for 3 reasons:

The first two are practical: 1) How would it look to those who came down there, and 2) How would it look on the forum if I came back and reported that I was being excluded.

That's the practical, but there's another:

Those who have met Kurt speak of him as a gentleman in person, and I have also heard nothing but good things about Debi and Norbert.

Therefore, I simply don't believe they would be so rude that they would do that. DO YOU?

That being said, I would have been privy to the same info, and I'm fairly certain that everyone here ( including CB and SC) knows that I would have shared it.

So it's not a matter of secrecy, at least on the part of the mfrs., but what I consider an " I Spy" game by a few posters.