reviewer wanted 4 zinethug.com
Marc Parker
I need a new zine reviewer for my site, maybe two. Who's interested? I
pay 50 cents to a buck per review, upon publication, and let ya keep
the zines. (Seriously, don't send them back.)
To be considered, send an e-mail to azma...@yahoo.com explaining why
I should choose you. Maybe include a writing sample, too. Individuals
with sarcastic, mean streaks are strongly encouraged to apply.
TomHendricks474
I'm curious. For years I have been advocating a processing fee for reviews - to
support the reviewers, the review zine, dump add pressure and all the rest. It
really makes it fair for all.
I don't know if you are charging the person sending you the work, but I wonder
why you chose to pay your reviewers.
Tom Hendricks, Musea zine ed.
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com"
www.hunkasaurus.com ( "30" - CD now available)
Hunkasaurus & His Pet Dog Guitar
Musea Review Service (see Musea)
Dan
-dan
Marc Parker
That idea of yours has always struck me as delusional, if not
altogether slimy.
The reason why I pay reviewers a whopping five to ten bucks per update
of my site is because I expect good writing in return. Going through
too many zines at once can be a chore. It's not much, but the cash I
send is my way of saying thanks.
Plus, it's just a web site that I produce, so the cost to me isn't all
that great. Why not pay, if I can afford it?
ignatz topo
> I don't know if you are charging the
> person sending you the work, but I wonder
> why you chose to pay your reviewers.
Man, you just don't get it, do you?
One pays writers to get good work from them. If one can't pay
writers, one lets them know up front.
One doesn't charge reviewees, because it creates a conflict of
interest. It is then in your best interest to continue to receive new
material to review -- and money from repeat reviewees -- so you are
less inclined to write a bad review.
iggy topo
TomHendricks474
>interest. It is then in your best interest to continue to receive new
>material to review -- and money from repeat reviewees -- so you are
>less inclined to write a bad review.
No its the other way around - by
getting paid a slight salary you don't burn out, and you don't kowtow to
anyone.
It liberates not obligates.
This is from experience.
Tom Hendricks, Musea zine ed.
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com"
http://www.hunkasaurus.com ( "30" - CD now available)
TomHendricks474
>That idea of yours has always struck me as delusional, if not
>altogether slimy.
No its more fair than any other.
>The reason why I pay reviewers a whopping five to ten bucks per update
>of my site is because I expect good writing in return. Going through
>too many zines at once can be a chore. It's not much, but the cash I
>send is my way of saying thanks.
From experience, I can tell you, that you will burn out fast enough.
Try asking other free review outlets.
>
>Plus, it's just a web site that I produce, so the cost to me isn't all
>that great. Why not pay, if I can afford it?
>
Fair enough - good luck.
I'll dump a 100 back issues of Musea in an envelope and send them to you. Can
you do them in about a week?
bob
>
> No its the other way around - by
> getting paid a slight salary you don't burn out, and you don't kowtow to
> anyone.
> It liberates not obligates.
> This is from experience.
Welcome to the paradox which is "Tom's Review Delusion".
Tom seriously believes that a person can be impartial in reviewing if
you reverse the flow of money. The honest truth of it is: when money
enters the equation, you intrinsically become beholden to your paying
audience: Whether the audience is defined as 1) the zine/music
creators who give you money for a review, 2) advertisers who support
your review ventures, or 3) the zine/music-buying public who purchases
a subscription to your printed/online review material.
Once you take money from any or all of these audiences, you have to be
sensitive to what they are expecting from a review organization. A
zine/music creator will want a good review (no one in their right mind
would pay for a bad review). An advertiser would want you to review
publications/music that would lend themselves to their
business/product (heck, they may even want you to give a good review
of the product/service that they THEMSELVES are hocking). And lastly,
your adoring, paying public would want you to only review things that
they are interested in (either a mailed piece or an online site).
No matter what way you turn this Rubic's Cube, if there's money
involved, you instantly have a responsibility to something other than
your own, bloated ego.
So, you see, Tom's main idea is fundamentally flawed, but that's okay,
since Tom is fundamentally flawed himself. So it all works on in the
end.
Save your breath.
Bob
**who shamelessly kowtows to anyone with a shiny nickel for me**
TomHendricks474
>
>Tom seriously believes that a person can be impartial in reviewing if
>you reverse the flow of money. The honest truth of it is: when money
>enters the equation, you intrinsically become beholden to your paying
>audience:
If you have advertisers you do.
But a little from each favors none.
Whether the audience is defined as 1) the zine/music
>creators who give you money for a review, 2) advertisers who support
>your review ventures, or 3) the zine/music-buying public who purchases
>a subscription to your printed/online review material.
>
>Once you take money from any or all of these audiences, you have to be
>sensitive to what they are expecting from a review organization.
No, they know that before they submit.
A
>zine/music creator will want a good review (no one in their right mind
>would pay for a bad review). An advertiser would want you to review
>publications/music that would lend themselves to their
>business/product (heck, they may even want you to give a good review
>of the product/service that they THEMSELVES are hocking). And lastly,
>your adoring, paying public would want you to only review things that
>they are interested in (either a mailed piece or an online site).
>
>No matter what way you turn this Rubic's Cube, if there's money
>involved, you instantly have a responsibility to something other than
>your own, bloated ego.
In reality this isn't so and a small fee doesn't influence anything.
It's like saying that a single stamp (a processing fee ) gives your letter
priority over other letters.
The reality is that it is the most fair.
Ps you're a jerk too.
Marc Parker
> >The reason why I pay reviewers a whopping five to ten bucks per update
> >of my site is because I expect good writing in return. Going through
> >too many zines at once can be a chore. It's not much, but the cash I
> >send is my way of saying thanks.
Then Tom wrote this:
> From experience, I can tell you, that you will burn out fast enough.
> Try asking other free review outlets.
I've been maintaining my web site for going on two years. Before that,
I reviewed for Zine World, Amusing Yourself to Death, and my own zine.
Of course I get burnt out sometimes. That's why I have other people
reviewing for me. Rather than the condescension, Tom, maybe you could
offer explanation of how charging three bucks per review is supposed
to alleviate this fatigue.
More from Hendricks:
> I'll dump a 100 back issues of Musea in an envelope and send them to you. Can
> you do them in about a week?
Again, what does this have to do with charging people for a write-up?
Of course I'm not going to review one hundred out-of-date zines. And
you know what? Neither would you. Here is a quote from _your_ zine,
pal, issue #131, back page, under the heading "Musea Reviews":
"IMPORTANT: Every work gets 30 MINUTES. That means we'll review one
song, not a CD, one poem not a chapbook, one chapter not a novel, one
act not a play, one painting not an exhibit, ones clothes design not a
line of clothes, etc. Thats enough. That'll get the word out without
boring the readers."
This is what your $3 buys you, folks.
The Inner Swine
it.
L
J
In article <c57bdf31.04102...@posting.google.com>,
azma...@yahoo.com says...
--
------------------
The Inner Swine
www.innerswine.com
bob
>
> For years I have been advocating a processing fee for reviews - to
> support the reviewers, the review zine, dump add pressure and all the rest. It
> really makes it fair for all.
>
The following is absent of any sarcasm, name-calling, or humor. I just
wanted Tom (and anyone else interested in the subject) to read
something emotionally uncharged, but still just as potentially
potent....
What Tom perceives as a solid argument, charging creators a fee to
review their creations, does little to do with a logical basis for his
conclusion and more to do with what he perceives to be a justified
process.
What Tom's arguing, whether he realizes it or not, is that by
modifying the flow of money in a review/reviewer agreement, he can
create a more ethical review situation. The core problem with that
train of thought, though, is that you can have any type of completely
ethical review process when money is involved at ANY point.
Let's quickly look at the possible "money flows" in generating review
content:
(1) From the zine buying public to the zine reviewer (either as a
subscription or a one-time purchase of said reviews; example:
Xerography Debt, etc.).
(2) From advertisers to the zine reviewer (in the form of advertising
to support a printed/online presence of reviews).
(3) From the zine publisher to the zine reviewer (as Tom suggests).
Each one of these three scenarios come with their own level of ethical
issues when it comes to providing review content:
In #1, the zine reviewer, by charging his/her reading public to view
review content, makes himself/herself accountable to said reading
public. In that vein, the reading public will only continue to read
such content, presumably, if it meets their expectations; so a
Xerography Debt reader could be "turned off" by an issue filled with
negative reviews, and therefore eventually end the reader/reviewer
relationship. By charging readers for access to review content, the
reviewer has to accept the fact that if he/she starts reviewing items
that are not of interest to his/her audience, or if reviews are not of
the caliber or style in which the reader expects, readership could be
lost. This creates the ethical dilemma of "readership expectation",
but it's an accepted one in most of today's periodicals, even though
it can affect content of a publication on the most basic levels.
In scenario #2, a zine reviewer accepts advertising from various
businesses, or even other zines/distros, to cover publication costs.
In this process, the obvious ethical issue arises when these
advertisers expect the zine reviewer to tailor reviews to benefit them
– whether it be a favorable review of a zine that the advertiser
produces or distros, or if specific types of content is reviewed that
would be more relevant to the business being advertised (for example,
a record store owner asking that more music zines or CDs be reviewed
in a publication to increase the number of music lovers in the
review-zine's readership). This creates the ethical dilemma of
"advertiser expectation", and though it can be more drastic and more
damaging to a publication's ethical standing in the eyes of its
readership, it's an accepted practice in most of today's periodicals.
The last scenario, #3, is that a reviewer takes a payment from another
publisher for a guaranteed review. In this process, the ethical issue
arises because now the responsibility of the zine reviewer shifts away
from the reading public (as in situation #1) and away from advertisers
(in situation #2) and now falls squarely to the very same publication
that is being reviewed. This brings a marked conflict of interest to
light. The relationship has gone from a neutral one, to an overt
business agreement, essentially creating the extreme ethical dilemma
of "zine publisher expectation".
This is why Tom's argument could not based in logic – he's neglected
to look at the basic factors involved in ethical reviewing and the
effect of money in all cases. His logic is flawed and his conclusions
are invalid.
PS – ZineThug.com should be given a bronze statue somewhere, just on
the fact that Marc pays his writers. And, no, Tom, paying a writer to
perform a job does not create any ethical issues. That would be like
saying paying someone to deliver a pizza would create an ethical issue
because the delivery person isn't delivering the pizza out of a sense
of self-fulfillment, he/she is only doing it for the money. Writing is
a job – some do it for free, but most of us would like to get rewarded
for our efforts.
TomHendricks474
>wanted Tom (and anyone else interested in the subject) to read
>something emotionally uncharged, but still just as potentially
>potent....
>
>What Tom perceives as a solid argument, charging creators a fee to
>review their creations, does little to do with a logical basis for his
>conclusion and more to do with what he perceives to be a justified
>process.
>
>What Tom's arguing, whether he realizes it or not, is that by
>modifying the flow of money in a review/reviewer agreement, he can
>create a more ethical review situation. The core problem with that
>train of thought, though, is that you can have any type of completely
>ethical review process when money is involved at ANY point.
So you choose the most fair one possible.
>
>Let's quickly look at the possible "money flows" in generating review
>content:
>
>(1) From the zine buying public to the zine reviewer (either as a
>subscription or a one-time purchase of said reviews; example:
>Xerography Debt, etc.).
>(2) From advertisers to the zine reviewer (in the form of advertising
>to support a printed/online presence of reviews).
>(3) From the zine publisher to the zine reviewer (as Tom suggests).
>
>Each one of these three scenarios come with their own level of ethical
>issues when it comes to providing review content:
>
>In #1, the zine reviewer, by charging his/her reading public to view
>review content, makes himself/herself accountable to said reading
>public. In that vein, the reading public will only continue to read
>such content, presumably, if it meets their expectations; so a
>Xerography Debt reader could be "turned off" by an issue filled with
>negative reviews, and therefore eventually end the reader/reviewer
>relationship. By charging readers for access to review content, the
>reviewer has to accept the fact that if he/she starts reviewing items
>that are not of interest to his/her audience, or if reviews are not of
>the caliber or style in which the reader expects, readership could be
>lost. This creates the ethical dilemma of "readership expectation",
>but it's an accepted one in most of today's periodicals, even though
>it can affect content of a publication on the most basic levels.
You are missing a key problem. Whether the readership is up or down the
material to be reviewed keeps coming in.
This sets up low money points where work is high.
In the end it seldom works well - either burn out of staff
(and you didn't mention if the staff is getting paid here or not) - or burn out
of editor. OR in the case of Xeroxgraphy Debt - not all submitted zines are
reviewed.
Thus some other source of revenue needed to supplement this - is often a
necessity. And
Not all zines get a guaranteed review.
>
>In scenario #2, a zine reviewer accepts advertising from various
>businesses, or even other zines/distros, to cover publication costs.
>In this process, the obvious ethical issue arises when these
>advertisers expect the zine reviewer to tailor reviews to benefit them
>– whether it be a favorable review of a zine that the advertiser
>produces or distros, or if specific types of content is reviewed that
>would be more relevant to the business being advertised (for example,
>a record store owner asking that more music zines or CDs be reviewed
>in a publication to increase the number of music lovers in the
>review-zine's readership). This creates the ethical dilemma of
>"advertiser expectation", and though it can be more drastic and more
>damaging to a publication's ethical standing in the eyes of its
>readership, it's an accepted practice in most of today's periodicals.
Again you have revenue problems - the ad dollars seldom
give enough to cover reviews of all the submissions.
Also ad pressure influences what is reviewed (review the most popular - sell
the most and give best dollar for our ads - or review our zine - we advertise
with you - you owe us that or we'll pull our ads.
>
>The last scenario, #3, is that a reviewer takes a payment from another
>publisher for a guaranteed review. In this process, the ethical issue
>arises because now the responsibility of the zine reviewer shifts away
>from the reading public (as in situation #1) and away from advertisers
>(in situation #2) and now falls squarely to the very same publication
>that is being reviewed. This brings a marked conflict of interest to
>light. The relationship has gone from a neutral one, to an overt
>business agreement, essentially creating the extreme ethical dilemma
>of "zine publisher expectation".
In the real world - I can upset or loose any single
zine or artists work with a bad review - and not loose
but one small part of my revenue.
In the real world that small processing fee keeps out the amateurs - and keeps
someone from sending in 100 copies in one package - all for free guaranteed
reviews.
In the real world that compensates me for my time (right now its about 1.50 an
hour- so I'm making a forturne LOL)
And keeps a reasonably stable review service that
a. is compensated all the time
b. has no ad pressure, no reader pressure,
You'll note that I've done 40+ and the concernts you have
have just not happened.
What I consistently get is something like - I've never received such a full
review before.
I'm proud I can do that for them. Often a free review is
worth nothing too.
>
>This is why Tom's argument could not based in logic – he's neglected
>to look at the basic factors involved in ethical reviewing and the
>effect of money in all cases. His logic is flawed and his conclusions
>are invalid.
>
>Bob
>www.njghost.com
>
>PS – ZineThug.com should be given a bronze statue somewhere, just on
>the fact that Marc pays his writers. And, no, Tom, paying a writer to
>perform a job does not create any ethical issues. That would be like
>saying paying someone to deliver a pizza would create an ethical issue
>because the delivery person isn't delivering the pizza out of a sense
>of self-fulfillment, he/she is only doing it for the money. Writing is
>a job – some do it for free, but most of us would like to get rewarded
>for our efforts.
>
Tom Hendricks, Musea zine ed.
TomHendricks474
>Can
>> you do them in about a week?
>
>Again, what does this have to do with charging people for a write-up?
>Of course I'm not going to review one hundred out-of-date zines. And
>you know what? Neither would you. Here is a quote from _your_ zine,
>pal, issue #131, back page, under the heading "Musea Reviews":
>
>"IMPORTANT: Every work gets 30 MINUTES. That means we'll review one
>song, not a CD, one poem not a chapbook, one chapter not a novel, one
>act not a play, one painting not an exhibit, ones clothes design not a
>line of clothes, etc. Thats enough. That'll get the word out without
>boring the readers."
>
>This is what your $3 buys you, folks.
That's right - so freeloaders won't be taking advantage
of me - IF they want reviews - they can meet me half way for my time.
What their $3 gets is a very good deal as most tell me
after they get their review.
Have you looked at the 40 samples on my website?
Tell me which one isn't fair or accurate! or better
than spending $3 x 20 mailouts just in postage, looking for a review somewhere
else.
If people can get a better deal somewhere else - then
do it.
Oscar Crosshatch
You're right, of course, but you must've missed the last dozen-odd
times anyone debated Tom's dumb, ethically shaky pay-to-play review
concept with him. Or the times anyone got into it regarding his
oft-mentioned aversion to "bands." It never ends. Tom's got his own
ideas, and he's welcome to them. He's a legendary renegade in his own
mind. He's unusual enough to kick up some dust, but don't let him bait
you.
~E
azma...@yahoo.com (Marc Parker) wrote in message news:<c57bdf31.04102...@posting.google.com>...
Dan
but he will defend it too the bitter end. Giving him a logical spelled out
argument just doesn't matter. And that's what' so fucking funny about it.
-dan
TomHendricks474
and just as predictable.
How about a quick retort.
Troll responds
HERE:
bob
> You are missing a key problem. Whether the readership is up or down the
> material to be reviewed keeps coming in.
> This sets up low money points where work is high.
> In the end it seldom works well - either burn out of staff
> (and you didn't mention if the staff is getting paid here or not) - or burn out
> of editor. OR in the case of Xeroxgraphy Debt - not all submitted zines are
> reviewed.
Tom, you're missing a key problem -- if readership is DOWN, that means
less and less people are finding your reviews relevant or interesting
or well-written. Burn out doesn't happen because there's too much
work, burn out occurs when you mismanage your time and can't set
limits on your tasks.
I don't want to speak for the XD staff -- but I think a major reason
that not every publication is reviewed isn't because of burn out, it's
because not every publication appeals to the each particular XD
reviewer. And SOME zines don't appeal to anyone.
Just because words are written doesn't mean that people automatically
want to read them. There has to be a writer/reader relationship, and
expectations need to be met -- even if it's the expectation that the
writer will blow away all of my previous expectations of him/her.
>
> In the real world - I can upset or loose any single
> zine or artists work with a bad review - and not loose
> but one small part of my revenue.
A "smart" zinester would pre-read your past reviews and say, "humm, he
seems to really trash my type of zine... I better save my money." Even
if the perception in incorrect, and, say, you LOVE punk zines written
by 14 year old boys, that 14 year old punk reads 3 bad reviews that
you've given to others and doesn't submit to you.
It's not the zines you HAVE reviewed, it's the zines you will NEVER
get the chance to review because of your previous reviews.... there
are those pesky expectations again.
> In the real world that small processing fee keeps out the amateurs - and keeps
> someone from sending in 100 copies in one package - all for free guaranteed
> reviews.
Tom, only you have 100 back issues that you would send to someone. And
aren't we all amateurs? That's a VERY pompous stance you've taken.
>
> You'll note that I've done 40+ and the concernts you have
> have just not happened.
As illustrated above, they have, but let's move on..
> What I consistently get is something like - I've never received such a full
> review before.
> I'm proud I can do that for them. Often a free review is
> worth nothing too.
Free reviews are the backbone of zinedome. Without them, discussion
about new zines would cease. Hurrah to Zine World, New Page News, XD,
Zine Thug, Slug and Lettuce, MRR, and all the rest who review zines.
Good or bad, a free review is an impartial (in theory) review.
Last point: Tom, you seem to take great pleasure in completely
reviewing a publication, and you claim that people respond with
complementing you on the quality and length of your review. Let me
offer this option to you: What if you stop calling your service a
"review service" and start calling what you do "Zine Consulting"? You
obviously put a lot of time into what you do, and if people are
willing to pay you for your review/critique services, what you are
really performing is a consulting service, where you advise a zine
writer what's good and what's bad about their publication. Take it one
step further and advise them about changes you feel would be in their
best interest and you would become a full-blown consultant.
The ethical issues would melt away, as would your critics. You could
still "publish" your work, but you would present it as a case study,
and not a review (with the zine publisher's consent, of course).
How's that sound?
TomHendricks474
>less and less people are finding your reviews relevant or interesting
>or well-written.
No its just something that happens. At my theater some shows do more biz than
others, some years people spend more, some seasons people buy presents.
>Burn out doesn't happen because there's too much
>work, burn out occurs when you mismanage your time and can't set
>limits on your tasks.
Have you done this? You wouldn't say that if you have.
>Just because words are written doesn't mean that people automatically
>want to read them
Your opinion is not everyones.
What you dislike and screen out may be a great work. Most new and innovative
work is not well received. Screening out zines behind closed doors is not MORE
fair to anyone.
Dan
TomHendricks474
>> Troll boy, you're thick as a brick
>> and just as predictable.
>> How about a quick retort.
>> Troll responds
>> HERE:
My mistake - troll top posts.
See above.
bob
> >Tom, you're missing a key problem -- if readership is DOWN, that means
> >less and less people are finding your reviews relevant or interesting
> >or well-written.
>
> No its just something that happens. At my theater some shows do more biz than
> others, some years people spend more, some seasons people buy presents.
Nothing "just happens" - that's kidergarden bullshit. What shows they
see, what amount of money they spend, and what times they decide to
buy presents are based upon their EXPECTATIONS. People have
expectations about WHEN they see a movie, expectations about how much
money they can afford to spend on any one item and when they spend
money. The same logic applies to what people CHOOSE to read or
subscribe to.
You obviously have very little business sense, and don't understand
some basic concepts of market demand. Not that I'm trying to demean
you in any way, it's just that your strengths aren't in this area –
but sadly, this is a major area that needs to be included in this
discussion to have it make any real-world sense.
> >Burn out doesn't happen because there's too much
> >work, burn out occurs when you mismanage your time and can't set
> >limits on your tasks.
>
> Have you done this? You wouldn't say that if you have.
I have done this. Not for zine reviews, but for a few other projects,
both professional and personal. I usually can spot when I'm reaching
burnout (apathy to the project, depression, exhaustion, etc) and I can
re-balance my workload to prevent it or at least postpone it.
Again, since you are working at a movie theater, I'm not sure as to
what level of business pressures you have been exposed to. Other than
producing tons of zines, which carries its own self-inflicted
pressure, your ability to discuss this issue of burnout is in
question.
Anyone can be burned-out on anything that they mismanage or over-do,
but our discussion involved the transfer of money for a zine review,
which places it into the realm of business, not hobby.
> >Just because words are written doesn't mean that people automatically
> >want to read them
>
> Your opinion is not everyones.
True, but then again, YOUR opinion is not everyone's. So how does that
make a strong point either way?
> What you dislike and screen out may be a great work. Most new and innovative
> work is not well received.
I have no intention of reviewing ANYTHING. If I'm asked to review
something, and it's something I find interesting, I'll review it. Just
like if I find a zine interesting, I'll buy it. That's the way the
free market system is supposed to work.
> Screening out zines behind closed doors is not MORE
> fair to anyone.
I have no intention of screening out zines. For the most part, I say
zines should be dragged into the light of day, into the mass market
and available to everyone, not just the underground zine cliques that
exist today. I'm for the free trade of opinion and paper off of web
sites or zine racks or bookstore shelves. But what I'm against is your
half-baked idea of pay-to-play zine reviews.
Lastly, I call on the members of the ULA to openly reject Tom's
unethical stance and practice of eliciting money for reviews. If the
ULA truly wants to be taken as a serious entity, it needs to address
issues of unethical activity that does not assist the zine community
in any way, but actually hurts it, and is possibly fraudulent from its
conception.
Would any of you stand for the NYTimes book section demanding that
Wild Bill Black Olive shell out $300 for a review of one of his books?
I doubt it -- you would be yelping and howling at the injustice, but
this is exactly what Tom is doing, just on a smaller scale.
TomHendricks474
unethical stance and practice of eliciting money for reviews. If the
ULA truly wants to be taken as a serious entity, it needs to address
issues of unethical activity that does not assist the zine community
in any way, but actually hurts it, and is possibly fraudulent from its
conception.
Would any of you stand for the NYTimes book section demanding that
Wild Bill Black Olive shell out $300 for a review of one of his books?
I doubt it -- you would be yelping and howling at the injustice, but
this is exactly what Tom is doing, just on a smaller scale.
Bob
www.njghost.com
>>
I think what you're doing is less ethical. Ban you.
bob
>
> Would any of you stand for the NYTimes book section demanding that
> Wild Bill Black Olive shell out $300 for a review of one of his books?
> I doubt it -- you would be yelping and howling at the injustice, but
> this is exactly what Tom is doing, just on a smaller scale.
>
> Bob
>
> >>
>
> Tom Hendricks, Musea zine ed.
Such a sparkling, outstanding whit. How could such a wondrous
intellect not been scooped up by the institutions of higher learning
as of yet?
I bow to you, sir, if only to stave off possible Carpal Tunnel
Syndrome.