U2 basher will not give up despite e-mails

[STING2]

Montreal Gazette: Part 1 - Bono-basher won't bend
http://www.montrealgazette.com
March 2, 2002
From The Montreal Gazette:

This Bono-basher won't bend: Questioning effectiveness and motives
of U2 frontman's good deeds raises readers' ire

JUAN RODRIGUEZ

Everybody - show-biz types, tech and media moguls, CEOs, politicians -
loves to hate critics, those proverbial nattering nabobs of negativity.
Attacking rock star Bono for doing Good Global Deeds after Sept. 11
is a recipe for disaster, in terribly poor taste in these sensitive, traumatic,
need-to-heal - and war-mongering - times. So why do it? "What kind of
creep are you, anyway?"

"I hope you get paid a lot, because who would want to do your job
anyway?" quizzed one of dozens of E-mailers responding to my Bono
piece that was published Feb. 9. True, these were fans, when all is said
and done, and hell hath no fury like a band's fans scorned. Thus I was
called jaded, jealous, sad, frustrated, cynical, severely limited, sellout,
disgusting, mean-spirited, bitter ("turned my stomach"), "coward and
a bastard," a disgrace.

"Basically, I have two words for you: You suck." "I don't know what
type of human you are, but I know I hate those like you." "It should be you
dying of AIDS in Africa, sir, not some poor child who's never known envy."
Critics expect such barbs. But the tenor of many of the 80 letters was
that "critics" need not apply for the patriot games people play these days.
So much of the self-image of U2's fans is invested in Bono's do-goodism:
"rock star saves the day!," to paraphrase Time magazine's U.S. cover
story this week. Incredulity greets the notion that he's really rather
ineffectual.

The self-righteousness of the rage - how dare you - contrasts with the
torpid and supine reaction to the post 9/11 suspension of liberties (and free
speech) and wholesale surveillance of the U.S. citizenry.

Any critic worth his or her salt considers it part of the job to rain on
parades, fly in the face of conventional "wisdom," not trust a thing - least
of all human nature - and not give a damn what the readers think.

The critic IS a "killjoy" or "downer," as nasty as he wants to be and,
as Bart Simpson says, "proud of it." It's a dirty job, but somebody has
to do it (particularly when most record reviews read like company spew).

These days, the critic's role is extra dodgy: you could get arrested
anywhere for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. As a critic, it was
my duty to question how Bono's do-goodism jibes with U.S. patriotism
and corporate citizenship.

Hey, maybe Bono's slick. But suggest that his new corporate and political
pals might be even slicker - playing him like a violin to increase their street
cred - and that Bono drifts surrealistically through history, as obsequious
as Zelig or as clueless as Forrest Gump, and it's as if you're giving aid and
comfort to the enemy.

True, I paused while reviewing reams of material on Bono's Good Deeds:
give the guy a break, he's doing his bit for the human race. "The only thing
worse than a rock star," he quipped at a Harvard commencement address
last year, "is a rock star with a conscience. I've seen great minds and prolific
imaginations disappear up their own ass, strung out on their own self-
importance. I am one of them."

This is fine postmodern, ironic nudge-wink, yet Bono suspends disbelief
and skepticism, and so are we encouraged to. "Innocence is much more
powerful than experience," Bono told Gear last month. That's something
a critic could not in good conscience say.

Get with the program, let Bono do the talking. "Grow up" and "get real,"
advised readers, for whom Bono was beyond adolescent rebellious rock
cliche, selflessly sharing his time with these "iffy characters." While
demonstrators are arrested or gassed, Bono is fighting some rear-guard action,
softening up the leaders and barons and titans and captains of industry,
putting a happy face on anti-corporate dissent. How cunning of the pop star!

How crappy of the critic for not climbing on board. It's blasphemous to
suggest that Bono might be doing more harm than good in what boils down
to a battle of symbolic gestures. He's propping up an illusion, spread by
millions of U2 fans, that much is being done regarding Africa and "Third
World Debt" (nice slogan). According to many sources, precious little
(and inadequate) is closer to the truth.

Symbols last a lifetime. Bono is now forever the guy who spent the better
part of a year flashing the Stars and Stripes on stage (and DVD): Sept. 11
turns out to have played as both prophesy and profiteering, a show-biz
shtick that goes back to vaudeville. He comes on as just another
America-firster, which is the first thing the world can do without. Before
800 million global viewers, he cast his lot with a country that waved its
large middle finger in the face of the international community on the
Kyoto agreement on global warming, only a month before terror struck.

(Continued)

[STING2]

Montreal Gazette: Part 2 - Bono-basher won't bend
http://www.montrealgazette.com
March 2, 2002
But surely the U.S. deserves, if I read Bono right, the rally-'round-the-flag
treatment from the international community in its hour of need. Even
rappers who routinely lambasted the U.S. as racist now drape themselves
in the Stars and Stripes. Ultimately, we're all Americans on this bus.

Well, no. The world's critics - everyday citizens, really - express enough
independently formed complaints of U.S. arrogance and monolithic
lead-footedness to make one take note. A poll conducted before the
attacks showed European public opinion way ahead of governments,
between 70 and 85 per cent of citizens thinking the U.S. "does what's only
in its own interests." The vast divergence of opinion on U.S. foreign policy
around the world is something the U.S. tries to conceal from its citizens.

So what's it all about, Bono? Does he want to pull the U.S. by the lapel
into the big world by pampering its pain, hobnobbing with bigwigs, playing
the "system"? Does he distance himself from the activists behind the
barricades by embracing the so-called Heartland Values - based more often than
not on blithe brutal ignorance of the world at large? The heartland's airports
and other public spaces bleed red, white and blue, patrolled by uniformed
protectors. Land of the free? I beg to differ.

These are queasy questions critics ask. (Even if it's only for the sake of
asking them.) And, I darkly wondered out loud, was there something else at
play? Much of U2's cred - commercial currency - comes from the band's
pre-eminent position as rock do-gooders, hitched on to the U.S. vision of
good vs. evil. What if U2 wanted a lock on its status as America's Band -
sort of a hip Hootie and the Blowfish? Bono always was a sucker for U.S.
icons - now he is one.

The Elevation Tour waltzed into America's heart with militaristically precise
bombast (capped by U2's four Grammy wins this week). Is it so out of
bounds to mention the Benjamins? So thought many readers: Ugh, how
could you!

This is where the critic becomes cast as an "evil-doer" (in Bush-speak).
"Perhaps if critics like you did not exist," one reader reasoned, "more
do-gooders would not have the stigma of 'selling out' mixed up with
changing the world by any means necessary." By any means necessary:
war-speak and peace-talk as hallmarks of the 9/11 era.

Shut up, and be part of the solution, not part of the problem, ad nauseam.
"Why don't you get out of your La-Z Boy and go do something significant
in the world, Dude." It's the "let Bono do it" passive aggression. Don't
rock the boat. Meanwhile, "surveillance is in the saddle," William Safire says
in the New York Times. "So far, the reaction has been a most un-American
docility."

"Look at the glass half full, not half empty," one reader advised. Well, I
like my truth a little, as Tina Turner put it, "rough," ripe, and rock'n'roll. I
like a little anarchy in the stew, and oh-so mature U2 fans can squawk all
they want about "growing up." We need some punk 'tude now; Bono's
patriotic piffle doesn't rate.

My invocation of Jerry Lee Lewis wailing Whole Lotta Shakin Goin' On
hit sour notes: how dare I mention this notorious alleged wife-killer and
crib-papa in the same breath as primo Nobel Peace Prize material Bono.
Oops, I did it again!

[STING2]

I did not see an E-Mail address posted and can't seem to remember it from last time. If anyone has it or know what it is, post it here!

[Jayhawk]

I hate posting this entire message because it's incredibly lame, but I bet it's the same guy. I found this on alt.music.u2

Search Result 2
From: HighwayHome.com (highwayhome@sympatico.ca)
Subject: U2 Faced
Newsgroups: alt.music.u2
View: Complete Thread (5 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-10-12 06:08:24 PST


It has been almost one year since U2 released ATCLYB, the album which was
SUPPOSED to save rock and roll and give the music industry a fresh new
direction. Being burdened with saving the rock music industry is quite a
monumental task, even for the best band in the world. In this article, we
will explore the facts and give an objective overview as to what U2 has done
- both positive and negative - to save rock and roll from extinction.

U2's Positive Rock Accomplishments

1) U2 releases a rock album titled All That You Can't Leave Behind. Don't
laugh. This may not seem like such a big deal, however, it is still a rock
related accomplishment since, thanks to the major labels, there are not that
many rock albums being released these days.

2) To shamelessly promote their new album, U2 pays tribute to former rock
stars Mike Hutchence, Joey Ramone, The Clash and The Beatles. Even though
these artists have a snowball's chance in hell to make it back to the
industry, U2 promotes them like they are just one album away from returning
to glory.

3) U2 gives promising rock musicians a boost by dedicating the song 'Desire'
to them. Considering the shitty music being pumped out by the major labels
these days, these promising future rock stars will require a little bit more
than just desire to make it. U2 should be well aware of this since their
label is in the business of manufacuturing pop stars who cannot sing, dance
or identify any musical instrument related to a four piece band.

U2's Negative Rock Accomplishments

1) At the expense of their genuine rock fans, U2 goes out of their way to
market themselves to a bunch of teeny boppers whose musical knowledge is
limited to lip singing, tacky costumes and redundant dance moves. These
kids wouldn't know a guitar if someone took it and smashed it over their
heads.

2) U2 pricing their concert tickets out of the reach of the authentic grass
roots rock fan. Hey U2, in case you didn't know, real rock fans do not live
in the suburbs, they do not wear Gucci, they do not drive daddy's 50,000
dollar car and they certainly cannot afford your astronomical ticket prices.
Most real rock fans (and people for that matter) work two or three jobs just
to make ends meet. Just go to any U2 concert and look around at the fans.
Since when did these fake plastic people become "rock" fans? The answer is
they never became rock fans.

3) U2 using supporting acts like PJ Harvey, Nelly Furtado, The
Stereophonics, Garage and No Doubt to open their concerts. Are these solid
rock bands or elevator music artists who have been carefully selected in
order not to upstage an aging rock outfit with diminishing skills? How
about using an opening rock act from the 80's who can use a boost at this
time in their career? Bad idea because they may steal the show from U2.

4) U2 appearing in media outlets who only cover pop, hip hop and other
non-rock related artists. MTV, TeenHollywood, Much Music and the extinct
FarmClub are a few examples and reasons why rock is dying. Do these
organizations really know how to properly promote rock music? If you don't
even know what rock music is, how the fuck are you supposed to promote it?

5) U2 showing absolutely no support to the rock or alternative music
industry. Talking a bunch of shit and doing nothing except looking out for
your own skin is not providing support. When was the last time U2
contributed out of the kindness of their hearts something of value to the
industry? Everything they have done only relates to THEIR wallets.

6) U2 going for the big bucks and signing with a label whose apathy towards
rock music only rivals their own apathy. Certainly, this is a marriage made
in heaven. U2 could have signed with a smaller label for less money which
would have given them more freedom to support the industry, however, when
you sell out, why not sell out BIG?

7) U2 exploiting their older authentic "rock fans" and treating them like
shit. This does not need to be discussed any further.

8) U2 keeping silent on the recent developments in the digital music
environment. As the major labels are going out of their way to screw music
fans (overpriced CDs, copy protected CDs, a mass shut down of music on the
internet and a lack of quality rock music), major artists like U2 sit idly
by and watch helplessly. Actually, U2 has participated in the campaign by
screwing over their own fans. Do you know why Boston is not on the current
leg of the tour?

9) U2 not touring Latin America and Australia because there is not enough
money in it for them. However, U2 has no problem selling these poorer
countries their albums and taking money from these fans. Back in the late
70's, it cost Pink Floyd one million bucks per show to stage The Wall
concerts in arenas, not stadiums. Considering the enormous expense for
their shows, the concert tour did not do well financially. Pink Floyd
sacrificed for their fans, something U2 knows nothing about with their
stripped down (another word for low budget) show. How else do you explain
the lousy, drowned out sound quality at their concerts? Another explanation
may be to cover up for Bono's "delicate" voice.

10) U2 performing at tacky award shows. If you're a genuine rock band, you
tell these self-serving award shows to go fuck themselves and not even show
up to pick up your useless piece of fake metal (if retired bands like Lynyrd
Skynyrd can get a Grammy, there is absolutely no credibility to such
awards?). But when your tongue is so far up your label's ass that you can't
see or think straight, blowing off the award show is definitely out of the
question.

11) U2 mentioning at tacky award shows that rock music can rub shoulders
with HipHop, Rap and KiddyPop. Nice try, but no cigar. U2's current brand
of "rock" music is designed for clueless kids and housewives who need to go
on a diet. You think a real rock fan who has lived through the glory days
of rock music is buying all this double talk?

12) U2 censoring their non-rock setlist (removal of "Bullet The Blue Sky")
to kiss ass for whatever reason. This move is not surprising since U2 is
now controlled by the ignorant masses. How pathetic and wimpy can you get?

13) U2's live tour being promoted by radio censorship kings Clear Channel.
Let's telephone all of the Clear Channel stations and request "Bullet The
Blue Sky". Never mind, they're too busy playing classics like "God Bless
America".

Conclusion

So why is U2 and the media playing it like they are these saviors of rock
when, in fact, they are just as responsible for rock's downfall as are the
money hungry major labels? U2 "saving rock" headlines make excellent PR and
reading material geared towards readers who don't know jack shit about rock
- or any other type of music of substance for that matter.

U2 has no interest in saving rock music because this will only create more
competition for them. Remember, this is an aging band who will be lucky to
put out another mediocre rock album. If by some miracle the rock industry
picks up and returns to its previous glory, U2 will not be able to compete
with the younger talent out there. Therefore, U2 will be fired from their
job as the best rock band in the world and they will finally be out of luck.

On the other hand, if things remain constant, U2 can put out any type of
filler music which will be hailed by mainstream media as a great rock album.
When you have no frame of comparison, even the lousiest of rock music seems
great. Especially if it is marketed to ignorant fans who are more than
happy to eat up any type of shit you serve them.

As an example, have you heard the new Stone Temple Pilots album? Hey Scott,
as if you didn't know, your music was a lot better when you weren't so
straight and sober. The new STP album makes a great frisby for my dog to
retreat.

And isn't U2's thought process consistent with U2's label, who have gone out
of their way to stifle technology and attempt to monopolize the music
industry by the use of lawsuits and the buying out of their competition (did
they ever get screwed on that mp3.com deal or what?)?

When you leave the marketing of rock music up to a bunch of bozos who only
have their own self interests in mind, the result is a dying industry. It
is actually quite amusing to watch these culturally deprived so called music
pros tripping over their own feet trying to market something they know
nothing about.

What improvements has the rock industry made since U2 released their album?
If anything, things have become more grave and critical for the rock music
industry. When was the last time you saw a real rock concert, heard a real
rock song on the radio or went to a real rock club?

Can't wait to read the next bullshit pointless article of how rock music's
demise has been over exaggerated. At least now we know who is behind these
marvelous works of fiction.

PS: If we can pick up a ticket for 10 dollars from a desparate scalper
after the U2 show starts tonight in Montreal, we'll review it. Since the
show opens with "Beautiful Day" (which genius thought up this original
opening?), getting there for the beginning is not necessary.

If we are unable to pick up a ticket, just read any review from the first
time around. Subtract an impact opening song and "Bullet The Blue Sky" and
you will have the concert in a nutshell. And don't forget to add the sleep
inducing "What's Going On".


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


[This message has been edited by Jayhawk (edited 03-02-2002).]

[unforgettableFOXfire]

I couldnt read through all of that drivel without getting pissed off... They dont give the fans one damn shred of credibility. Point 2 of that second guy's negative impact on rock... Where the hell does he get off saying that rock and roll fans are practically living on the street? Both those guys need to get their heads our of each other's asses and get off their damn pedistal. Oh look at me Im an all mighty critic and I can say whatever the hell I want because I have 'credentials' for being on the 'cutting edge' and 'keeping it real' and not sucumbing to the pop-culture 'propaganda'. *Gags repeatedly*. I guess they dont realise that there are actually some intelligent people out there, who do think for themselves, do have good taste, do have knowledge of musical culture and background. There are a hell of a lot of people out there with no spine who like what society tells them to like. I discovered U2 for myself in grade 9 or 10, not from the media, not from some corporate dirtbag telling me what to like, I listened to Joshua Tree and from there started my own collection. Sure, my tastes in music arent great, but you cant really go wrong with Iggy Pop, The Clash, U2, Tom Petty, Tom Cochrane, Eric Clapton... Theres music, and theres crap. Just like theres people who make a difference in this world, and there are people who sit back green with envy at other people's success and somehow try to justify how 'bad' that person is because *gasp* they might be doing some good in the world instead of sitting around bitching about things. Thats all I have to say for now... well... *gag again*... ok now Im done.

[ladywithspinninghead]

Hmmm, well I agree wholeheartedly with his take on the U.S. (first article) but the guy really needs to let up on Bono!! Jaysus H., you'd think Bono was the driving force behind U.S. foreign policy by the way he writes!

Has he never heard Bullet the Blue Sky?!?

[david]

Did anyone email the guy who made the list and set him straight? he sounded like a dumbass.

and I don't get this at all:
6) U2 going for the big bucks and signing with a label whose apathy towards rock music only rivals their own apathy. Certainly, this is a marriage made in heaven. U2 could have signed with a smaller label for less money which would have given them more freedom to support the industry, however, when you sell out, why not sell out BIG?

They were on Island from 1980 until 1999 right? Then they went with Interscope records due to some merger right? I don't get that guy at all.

------------------
The more of these I drink the more Bono makes sense.. - Bean from the KROQ Breakfast with U2.

[lady lemonade]

[quote]Originally posted by Jayhawk:

2) U2 pricing their concert tickets out of the reach of the authentic grass
roots rock fan. Hey U2, in case you didn't know, real rock fans do not live
in the suburbs, they do not wear Gucci, they do not drive daddy's 50,000
dollar car and they certainly cannot afford your astronomical ticket prices.
Most real rock fans (and people for that matter) work two or three jobs just
to make ends meet. Just go to any U2 concert and look around at the fans.
Since when did these fake plastic people become "rock" fans? The answer is
they never became rock fans.

Like Bono said, the best tickets in the house were 45$. I'm a poor college student and even I managed to go. You can almost always afford to see your favorite band if you want it, it all has to do with your priorities...

3) U2 using supporting acts like PJ Harvey, Nelly Furtado, The
Stereophonics, Garage and No Doubt to open their concerts. Are these solid
rock bands or elevator music artists who have been carefully selected in
order not to upstage an aging rock outfit with diminishing skills? How
about using an opening rock act from the 80's who can use a boost at this
time in their career? Bad idea because they may steal the show from U2.

So we are to understand that U2 should support old bands who haven't produced anything innovative in years instead of younger talents that try keeping the music scene alive? If these old bands are so talented than why would they need a boost from U2 in the first place? Yeah, I'm sure the boys are really worried about being upstaged by Foreigner or Motley Crue...

5) U2 showing absolutely no support to the rock or alternative music
industry. Talking a bunch of shit and doing nothing except looking out for
your own skin is not providing support. When was the last time U2
contributed out of the kindness of their hearts something of value to the
industry? Everything they have done only relates to THEIR wallets.

Okay, so first he blames them supporting up hot up an coming acts instead of old 80s bands. An now they're not doing enough for the alternative music scene? Whatever.

7) U2 exploiting their older authentic "rock fans" and treating them like
shit. This does not need to be discussed any further.

Isn't ATYCLB supposed to be U2's return to its rock roots and leaving behind the more experimental approach? How are older fans being exploited? As a fan of the more experimental U2, I kinda of felt cheated by the new album...

9) U2 not touring Latin America and Australia because there is not enough
money in it for them. However, U2 has no problem selling these poorer
countries their albums and taking money from these fans. Back in the late
70's, it cost Pink Floyd one million bucks per show to stage The Wall
concerts in arenas, not stadiums. Considering the enormous expense for
their shows, the concert tour did not do well financially. Pink Floyd
sacrificed for their fans, something U2 knows nothing about with their
stripped down (another word for low budget) show. How else do you explain
the lousy, drowned out sound quality at their concerts? Another explanation
may be to cover up for Bono's "delicate" voice.

Anyone who knows a little bit about U2 knows how out of there way they went to put out a great show at reasonable cost during Zoo tv and Popmart. The ZooTv tour only almost turned out no profit and they brought Popmart to many out of the way countries such as Chile and Israel.

12) U2 censoring their non-rock setlist (removal of "Bullet The Blue Sky")
to kiss ass for whatever reason. This move is not surprising since U2 is
now controlled by the ignorant masses. How pathetic and wimpy can you get?

Removal of BTBS? they actually played it at the October Montreal show so I dunno what this guy is talking about...

When was the last time you saw a real rock concert, heard a real
rock song on the radio or went to a real rock club?

October 12th 2001, U2, Elevation, Montreal.

PS: If we can pick up a ticket for 10 dollars from a desparate scalper
after the U2 show starts tonight in Montreal, we'll review it. Since the
show opens with "Beautiful Day" (which genius thought up this original
opening?), getting there for the beginning is not necessary.

If we are unable to pick up a ticket, just read any review from the first
time around. Subtract an impact opening song and "Bullet The Blue Sky" and
you will have the concert in a nutshell. And don't forget to add the sleep
inducing "What's Going On".

What's kinda funny is that they opened the show with Elevation (not BD, the guy must have read the reviews from ND) and they did play BTBS (and a kick-a** version I might add). Oh, and I didn't bother answering his comments coz they're mostly bitter, laughable, criticism of a talentless hack...

[This message has been edited by lady lemonade (edited 03-02-2002).]

[doctorwho]

There are a lot of artists/bands out there that I'm not very partial to; however, I don't feel this need to them. Still, if I were this petty, I would at least attempt to get my facts correct as this would strengthen my attacks.

The spiteful diatribes posted above are so error-filled that it weakens any potentail validity. One finds him/herself unable to agree with any of the above arguments simply because one notices that the statements (such as changing record labels to "sell out" and become "rich") are just wrong.

It's these types of arguments that annoy me the most. I "get" that there are many people who dislike U2 and/or Bono - and I'm fine with that. After all, as I wrote above, there are quite a few artists I don't like. But if one feels compelled to disparage others, at least get the information correct - otherwise it's only the author that comes across looking like a moron, as the authors of the above drivel did.

[Popmartijn]

Originally posted by david:
Did anyone email the guy who made the list and set him straight? he sounded like a dumbass.

Ah, don't pay attention to HighwayHomo. He's the resident troll on alt.fan.u2 and alt.music.u2. Whenever you see one post of him, you can automatically skip it. He's always posting drivel like this (or I assume as I haven't read the post by Jayhawk, I skipped as soon as I saw HighwayHome). He was also on Interference a while back (I don't know if he's banned now or just lying low). I guess his nickname here was something like SphinxMontreal. Anyway, he apparently has a stinkin' club in Montreal (also called Sphinx IIRC) so when U2 came to Montreal he tried to lure many U2 fans in coming to this club.

Why am I posting all this? The bottom line is that you just have to ignore him and his pseudo-journalist crap (he also posts to alt.journalism).

C ya!

Marty


------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle

[sue4u2]

He really admires U2 and is fighting with his other personality over the issue. First of all most people understand you can't tour with no money - continue to loose money and no label will touch you. He even mentions he going to the concert if he can find a $10 ticket. Pleaseeeeeeeeee, the guy was there front and center. (excuse the presumption it's a male) His wife/or what ever probably calls out Bono's name during sex.!!! I say go put on one of the many U2 cd's you really do own and chill out. You can't really believe anything you have said really makes a difference to real U2/music fans It's a Beautiful Day

[kingofsorrow]

the fact is that guy's like this and Henry Rollins are very aware of the fact that they will never be remembered, whereas a man like bono will be.
i have friends who were around in the 60's&70's(i wasn't born yet) and they tell me all the time that they find it amusing that some dickwad or the other would talk shit about guy's like John Lennon or Jim Morrison, but look at now, they're both hailed as poet's and looked upon as semi-divine. where are the loser's who put them down. hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm. no one knows or even cares.
when you guy's get old and look back at your life, one of the things that will stand out in your mind and heart is your love for U2. so fuck the naysayers.

[KhanadaRhodes]

who cares.

[Hallelujah Here She Comes]

do we really need to rehash this?

[STING2]

Wow, this is from almost a year ago. I think I had almost forgotten about it. Kind of funny the reaction this guy had to all the E-mails he recieved.

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by STING2
Wow, this is from almost a year ago. I think I had almost forgotten about it. Kind of funny the reaction this guy had to all the E-mails he recieved.

that's why i said "who cares."

if you want me to close this since it's an old discussion, i will. it's your thread so i'll leave it up to you.

[verte76]

I don't give a damn about losers like this guy. Yuck!