Gene's ownership of WMS art
azarca...@cox.net
Lonnie in. I knew about the Lonnie thing a long time ago when he was
shopping around for a partner to split the $30k printer. Frankly I
didnt believe what I heard was true back then and I was shocked when
someone emailed me the auction link for CV decals. Think what you will.
If I did kiss up to Gene one would think I would have made something
newer than 6 months ago back in Sept 2004. I average one project a
month. In fact, most of you know there have been agreements back in
October to make 7 new projects, including FH pf's. Yet I havent done
any of them. Im with you guys when you speak out against the Bearcave
operation and the fact that Gene needs to gear up and get more new and
repro parts to the market.
What is most interesting is what I read from a few people how they know
the terms of Gene's agreement and what he does or doesn't own. When
Gene first called me to stop my illegal practices I called his bluff.
He provided me with a contract showing his rights of ownership. It was
then we decided to try to work together instead of against one another.
A battle I couldn't win anyways. Bob Sokol from twobits.com did the
same thing to everyone with his Namco license.
Now I'm not going to release my contracts with Gene for public viewing,
but Gene has given me permission to publicly show part of his contract
with WMS showing ownership of the art. Im only showing 2 paragraphs
because the others show some very private information and financials
that isn't anyones business anyways.
Here ya go:
http://members.aol.com/azarcadegames/agreement.jpg
You guys can say what you want about it, decipher it, twist it, read
into it, I dont mind. I started the thread and you guys can finish it.
Those that want to call Paramount, Universal, WMS etc... go right
ahead.
Best,
Darin Jacobs
Bally Tim
Does anyone know?
Tim
omahapinball
rights for new artwork to IPB. Feel free to call skywalker ranch and verify
this.
<azarca...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1110254883.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
scott
Extremely vague to me. Usually in most contracts they are usually
broken down to exact extremely descriptive definitions so there is no
questions about it. Not only could you argue what physical artwork is
, it seems you could argue what specific product is transfered to his
ownership, and that it is in fact copyrighted material that is
transferred.
but Im not a lawyer but just a guy who hires them from time to time.
I would of think williams would of made more money keeping the rights,
and charging 10% - 20% for companies like lonnie and bearcave, etc, etc
to use their material with the obligation that they could halt
everything at anytime if they wanted to get back in the industry.
bogart
"physical artwork" in that list of assets as being a quantity of
physical pieces already produced. Perhaps a pile of playfields or a
stack of translites, not the rights for all artwork of all machines ever
produced by Williams. I would think the phrasing "physical" especially
limits it to what's been produced, what can be touched, not Intellectual
Property.
bogart
--
bogart
www.pinrestore.com
dmp65
"physical" items such a tooling, production equipment, "physical"
artwork ( which means it's already been produced), etc. It makes no
mention of artwork design, existing licenses, or copyrighted material.
If a photographer takes photos at a wedding, he may sell you a physical
print, but he still retains the rights to the actual photos that the
prints were made from. I'll bet Williams still holds rights to all
their designs.
I'm so sick of these people (Gene, IPB), I can't even begin to tell
you. Every hobby has guys like him, and they never give back, just take
and take.
As far as I'm concerned, they can all go to hell.
What we really need is a pinball black market where people with drive
and passion can share their creations with the masses, and Gene can
keep his "rights" for all the physical inventory he purchased.
Dave
Mr Pinball Australia
After that anyone can obtain a license to do this if you pay enough money to
WMS.
The only problem is all the tooling was transfered?? So you would have to
start again.
Regards
Wayne Gillard
Mr Pinball Australia Pty Ltd
4/993 North Road
Murrumbeena, Victoria, Australia 3163
Tel: 613-9579-0466
Fax: 613-9579-0422
Website: www.mrpinball.com.au
Email: sa...@mrpinball.com.au
"bogart" <pinre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3Z9Xd.4240$cN6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Cliffy
integrity is your middle name ;)
--
Cliffy - CARGPB2
A passion for pinball!
http://www.passionforpinball.com
Mr Pinball Australia
According to Trademarks office WMS owns the following
WEG PINBALL MARKS
a.. ATTACK FROM MARS®
b.. BANZAI RUN®
c.. BLACK KNIGHT®
d.. BLACK ROSET
e.. CACTUS CANYON®
f.. CHAMPIONSHIP LINK®
g.. CIRQUS VOLTAIRE®
h.. COMET®
i.. DCS SOUND SYSTEMT
j.. DINERT
k.. DOTMATION®
l.. DR. DUDET
m.. EARTHSHAKERT
n.. EIGHT BALL DELUXET
o.. F-14 TOMCAT®
p.. FAST BREAK®
q.. FIRE®
r.. FIREPOWER®
s.. FISH TALEST
t.. FUN HOUSET
u.. FUNHOUSET
v.. GRAND LIZARD®
w.. HIGH SPEED®
x.. HIGH SPEED GETAWAYT
y.. JACK-BOT®
z.. JOKERZT
aa.. JUNK YARDT
ab.. MAGNA-FLIPT
ac.. MAGNA-SAVE®
ad.. MEDIEVAL MADNESS®
ae.. MONSTER BASH®
af.. MULTI-BALLT
ag.. NO GOOD GOLFERST
ah.. PARTY ZONET
ai.. PIN BOT®
aj.. PINBALL 2000®
ak.. POLICE FORCET
al.. RADICAL! T
am.. REVENGE FROM MARS®
an.. RIVERBOAT GAMBLERT
ao.. ROAD KINGS®
ap.. ROAD SHOW®
aq.. SAFECRACKER®
ar.. SLAM RAMP®
as.. SLUGFESTT
at.. SPACE STATION®
au.. SWORDS OF FURY®
av.. TALES OF THE ARABIAN NIGHTS®
aw.. TAXI®
ax.. THE CHAMPION PUB®
ay.. THE GAME SHOWT
az.. THE GETAWAY®
ba.. THE MACHINE BRIDE OF PINBOTT
bb.. THEATRE OF MAGIC®
bc.. TOKEN-PIN®
bd.. WHIRLWHEELT
be.. WHIRLWINDT
bf.. WHITE WATERT
bg.. WHODUNNIT®
Regards
Wayne Gillard
Mr Pinball Australia Pty Ltd
4/993 North Road
Murrumbeena, Victoria, Australia 3163
Tel: 613-9579-0466
Fax: 613-9579-0422
Website: www.mrpinball.com.au
Email: sa...@mrpinball.com.au
"Bally Tim" <rkand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110255427.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Trinity
The ideas and concepts contained in a work cannot be copyright. For instance
in our example of a holiday photograph someone is not prevented from
photographing the same subject. So, those who independently develop and
create a similar work are not breaking copyright as long as they do so
without 'copying'.
This was taken from a legal advice website, there were many intresting
things on copyright and physical ownership. It almost sounds like you can
copy or reproduce artwork as long as it was changed in some way. Can't you
just put a small logo of your company on it. The web site said you would
have to prove ownership if you wanted to stop someone from making money off
your artwork, meaning you are the original conceptual designer or you bought
it from the original ower and have to show you own the individual property
rights to that specific image, patent # or some legal document describing
that specific image. There was too much to post, just my thoughts.
<azarca...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1110254883.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Cliffy
hell. You make me sick to my stomach. I've tried to help you and gave
you every chance to show some civility. You have none. You're the only
one who's ever made me feel like just signing off of rgp. You contribute
NOTHING but vitriol and extreme hyperbole. You pretend to know
everything yet the very words you spew show you know absolutely nothing.
Yes, little "g", there is a difference between brown nosing and having
a buddies back. I wonder if there's even one who will ever have your
back. Then again, no I don't. I think the fact is obvious.
gpc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Cliffy,
>
> What does Darin know about contracts?
>
> That contract doesn't give Gene the right to remake Addams side art,
> does it?
>
> Let's have some intelligent commentary verses just who can brown nose
> the other guy the best
>
> my views ...
>
> Gary
someotherguy
telling Lonnie at a show that it was OK he was doing some decals, and that
Lonnie wasn't served with a cease & desist letter on the spot.. What do people
think, that Gene carries a lawyer around with him, and they just fill in the
blanks for the offender's name and the offending product, and hand out a letter
while you wait? Of course he's going to soft-pedal the issue until he can get
back to the office to get busy on proper legal methods of dealing with it,
whether that be a cease & desist letter, or further action. Why should a player
show you his cards? I'm not defending Gene OR Lonnie here - just saying, when
the guy is basically your competition, why would you EXPECT him to be honest
with you?
Richard
Fred Kemper
In _this_document, I see nothing concerning anything
made after the fact. In other words, anything NEW you
wish to make, would have to be licensed/permissions
from WMS yet.
Looks to me all he got was "leftovers", if you will.
I am not challenging it, it's just my observation in regards
to the link that was posted.
--
Fred
TX
CARGPB#8
******************
"dmp65" <dave...@hotmail.com> wrote in part of message news:1110256803....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
martin
license holder lawyers knew what they were doing, and that they
licensed the art for a limited run of machines and reasonable
reproduction for spares purposes. The art is of limited value other
than on a pinball machine, so these contracts might include a royalty
cap after so many machines were produced. The contract would also have
specified the rights to reproduce the art for spares purposes for a
number of years.
So Williams probably has the right to reproduce the artwork. The
tooling for the artwork went to IPB, and they should be able to
reproduce it under the Williams license (assuming smart lawyers). IPB
implicitly picked up the rights for Williams themes when they got the
tooling.
What is interesting is that the snippet that we see here does not pass
copyrights to IPB, just the right to make copies. So if push came to
shove came to the courts, it would be Williams chasing the victim.But a
threat from IPB is important enough to listen to.
Apples
interest in who owns what rights and has what licences. What is
important is having good folks making quality parts at reasonable
prices. At the end of the day, when you're searching for XXX decal /
custom part / whatever, that's really the primary concern.
On the other side of the coin, those lucky few who can make a living
off of their hobby are well within their rights to protect their
livelihood. How could a company compete with lone individuals doing
similar or imitation products and under-cutting their prices?
It's a tough situation regardless.
pinster
relationship where both parties can benefit? That he could make artwork
without Gene's permission (WMS permission is another matter) is fairly
evident in the contract snipet he posted. It clearly refers to physical
artwork only- not any rights or trademarks.
From Gene's reputation, I have no doubt that he would use whatever money he
might need to combat anyone stepping ON WHAT HE BELIEVES are his exclusive
rights. His past actions have proven punitive, petty and ego driven. Had
Darin wanted, he could have obtained an attorney and chased Gene away. But
why should he spend good money as long as Gene has backed off and they have
reached some sort of an agreement?
Now if Darin stops benefiting from that agreement, or it is otherwise
nullified/expired- then Darin can, and should, continue to do whatever he
wishes- until such time that WMS cares or Gene is finally successful in
obtaining those copyrights or trademarks that he assumed he already had.
I doubt that Darin has actually contacted an intellectual property or
trademark attorney (not just a general practice guy)- if he had, I bet he
would be doing whatever he damn well pleases. And so would Lonnie.
A few years ago I had some plastic sets repro'd for a WMS title- I think
I'll start ramping up again just to see if I can snag one of these
"letters". I'd know what to do with it.
I think the pinball "hobby", as well as operators, would be well served by
all of us just doing what we do- getting whatever products need to be made
into the hands that need them. And Gary's right about one (underscore)
thing- Ebay pulls the plug on everything. Darin and everyone involved, after
a bit of time, would do fine by just selling on the groups, journals,
dedicated websites such as the excellent
http://pinball.allyoucaneatstores.com/home.php -
not on ebay.
Scott Wilmoth
Otherwise why state "physical" in the contract?
--
Scott
(Maryland)
"bogart" <pinre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3Z9Xd.4240$cN6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
pin...@gmail.com
enforce any trademarks or copyrights!! PERIOD! wms YES and I dont
belive they care to pursue it .
martin
be providing spares for a period of up to 20 years. The contract would
likely have had such a provision to cover translites, playfields and
plastic. It is when they are sold that matters, more so than when they
are made.
As the license holder, I would be more concerned about translites than
cabinets.
The whole affair is irritating.We need people who make spares to keep
our machines nice. I don't know why it is important to IPB to keep CV
decals off the market. If we saw IPB repros, I could understand. Maybe
we will luck out. And I am glad that Darin came to an accommodation -
pretty clear that we would not have MM decals otherwise.
Brian
<gpc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110259465....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> No one is answering the question
>
> Do you think the Addams license had an end date?
>
> Do you think that date has passed?
>
> If so, how does Gene remake side art with Addams stuff all over it?
>
> It is a damn good question
>
> Give it a shot Troll crowd ...
>
> my views, my questions ...
>
> Gary
>
John Arriola
I interpret this to mean that he owns any existing physical artwork in the
warehouse ONLY.
This says nothing about reproducing anything. He bought the original molds
and dies only. Perhaps there are other paragraphs in this contract that
spells out the right to exclusively reproduce any and all Williams pinball
related items, but I have to wonder the way this is worded.
--
John Arriola
<azarca...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1110254883.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jackjet
term "physical artwork". There are probably plenty of attorneys who would
have no problem arguing either side.
I did a little research and found a few case law examples between the
difference between "physical artwork" and other copyright ownership
interest.
One federal case that seens to be on point was:
In Re Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. 254 B.R. 817.
This was a case concerning the rights to the Marvel comics characters
"Blade" "Deacon Frost" and seventy three other characters. The "Blade" and
"Deacon Frost" characters were in he process of being licenced to New Line
Cinema Corporation for use in the movie production of "Blade". A dispute
arose between the artist, Martin Wolfman, and Marvel Comics Group over the
ownership of the characters.
In the opinion, the court recogniged a clear distinction between "physical
artwork" and other rights including copyright, trademark, and other rights.
Even though Marvel returned original artwork to the artists, the artists did
not own or have other rights to the characters they created. The court then
cited U.S. copyright law that "only the copyright proprietor (here, Marvel)
may license the copyright use of the artwork including the right to publicly
exhibit the same."
The artists could not even publicly display their original artwork without
written permission from Marvel.
It would appear that "Physical Artwork" is only the tangible physical
property. It is certainly debatable whether Williams actually transferred
anything other than that.
-Jack
gregb...@hotmail.com
let me say this
Darin just keep doing what you have been doing,
myself and my fishtales thanks you
l don't care if you do decals on your own
or if you and IPB do them together either way
we all end up with a couple of nice looking games
what a great year so far 3 month's in and l have seen Cliffy slagged
and now Darin could the year get much worse
next some one will say gary's a nice guy - yea like that could
happen.
Atlf...@aol.com
little value. Darin has done the right thing by working with Gene.
Unless, we have access to all the legal documents then speculation is
worthless. It is safe to say that Gene has a relatively strong
position, and given Wayne's comments that Williams does indeed hold a
future interest in it's games.
And Jack, that Marvel comparison, is impressive. As an attorney, I
would suggest that you have hit the nail on the head.
Probably the CV cab artwork itself has not been properly protected, but
the trade name use CV is clearly within the domain of Gene and/or
Williams. And without proper permission, then any use of such would be
prohibited.
The bottom line is that everyone is frustrated with the fact that
Gene wants to be the wholesaler, middleman, and retailer. Gene could
make so much more money with less risk by making more money off
hundreds of items at the licensing/wholesale level, instead of
capturing all the profit off a dozen items as they proceed through the
stream of commerce.
Brian
atlfun
bmill...@yahoo.com
Jackjet wrote:
> I am not an attorney, but I believe that there may be some ambiguity
in the
> term "physical artwork". There are probably plenty of attorneys who
would
> have no problem arguing either side.
I am an attorney and, unfortunately, we do have an amazing (and
bewildering) capacity to argue either side of most issues (probably
this one too).
> One federal case that seens to be on point was:
> In Re Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. 254 B.R. 817.
> In the opinion, the court recogniged a clear distinction between
"physical
> artwork" and other rights including copyright, trademark, and other
rights.
> It is certainly debatable (what) Williams actually transferred...
IMO, the tiny excerpt from contract that has been posted is not enough
for casual observers here to know the answers, as there could be plenty
of other clauses, attachments, etc. in the contract that define what
the "physical artwork" consists of and what assets and rights have been
sold or transferred. We can't really know the answer to these issues
without seeing the entire sales and licensing agreements. Further,
neither Williams nor Gene (or any other interested parties) are under
any 'obligation' to show Gene's contract to the group. One sure way to
find out - start making and selling and advertising LOTS of stuff and
see what happens. Who wants to go first??? Seriously, (now just
curious...) has Williams taken an official public stance on
reproduction side art or plastics, etc.? Which ones? What has Gene
stated publically what he is entitled to produce and/or what he has
exclusive rights to? Is it entire reproduction games, all Williams'
games, just 'some' games/art, which ones, etc... (sorry, I don't know
the history of this dispute). Has anyone been given a cease and desist
letter concerning stuff made before/after certain dates? (Ex., items
for early 1980s games vs. 1990s?) Etc.. Cheers.
Craig Tiano
On 7 Mar 2005 20:08:03 -0800, azarca...@cox.net wrote:
The snippet provided is obviously from the last purchase by Gene,
which was the stuff in the warehouse that Williams sold to him in
2003. The sale was for the physical assets (tooling, art, prototypes,
etc...). The original prospectus for the sale included all the
intellectual property, including, but not limited to, trademarks,
patents, software, cad files, and all the ownership rights to the art.
They pulled back on the intellectual property, since the sale price
was insufficient (they originally wanted $1-$2mil, Gene reported
offered $200-$250K). If the only part of the agreement that mentions
the artwork is the part you've included, Gene pulled one over on you,
as he doesn't "own" the art.
Gene does, however, have a license to reproduce Bally/Williams parts
which was signed in 2000. While he doesn't "own" the art, he has an
exclusive on reproducing it for a limited time (Wayne says Oct 2005,
which sounds about right).
Craig
J. Weaver Jr.
IANAL either, but that's the way I read it, too.
As an analogy, think of someone selling you 100 copies of a poster; you
can do what you want with _those copies_, but that doesn't give you the
right to print off another 100 once those are gone. -JW
Donnie Barnes
end date, nor what it was. If WMS was smart, even if it does have an end
date it is *very* far out into the future.
I've been told at one time by people who used to deal with this stuff at
WMS that the rights to build whole machines based on a theme didn't exist
for a tremendously long time, but the right to do replacement parts did.
You're just going off the deep end with no information (yet again) and
wondering why people aren't arguing with you. Because we don't know, and
you don't either.
I do know that companies *do* vigorously protect their copyrights even with
legal action if necessary, and will do so against the *smallest* of
infringements. Look at Namco shutting down individual eBay auctions. Look
at TwoBit going after other vendors. It happens.
--Donnie
On Tue, 08 Mar, gpc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Let me go one step further
>
> I bet the license has expired, but Gene knows damn well the Addams
> people could care less about the stupid side art
>
> so he makes it ...
>
> but if he can make, I bet you could find 1000 lawyers who would say you
> could make it as well
>
> Gene bought parts, pre-made parts ....
>
> On the licensed stuff I bet technically he has to go back to the
> licensee just like anyone else would (if the licenses have expired
> which most probably have)
>
> but no one cares, so Gene keep printing and please print more
>
> I am all about Gene printing as much of it as he can
>
> my views all
>
> Gary
>
--
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com 879. V.
pinballjim
those TAF pfs or Kiss backglasses. I'd collapse laughing if all this
dust kicking resulted in him getting bit in the ass over making those.
The best part about all this is that NOBODY CARES! Honestly, how many
TAF sideart sets do you think they sold? 50? 100? Those $400 Kiss
backglasses sure weren't selling at the Texas show I went to.
Manic
has one and he's not worth wiping off your shoe. The killfile
is great as you rarely see his prattling...
"Cliffy" <cri...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:feKdnbwbXeP...@comcast.com...
> Here's the difference, dork. I *know* Darin. I *trust* Darin. You? Go to
> hell. You make me sick to my stomach. I've tried to help you and gave
> you every chance to show some civility. You have none. You're the only
> one who's ever made me feel like just signing off of rgp. You contribute
> NOTHING but vitriol and extreme hyperbole. You pretend to know
> everything yet the very words you spew show you know absolutely nothing.
> Yes, little "g", there is a difference between brown nosing and having
> a buddies back. I wonder if there's even one who will ever have your
> back. Then again, no I don't. I think the fact is obvious.
>
> gpc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Cliffy,
> >
> > What does Darin know about contracts?
> >
> > That contract doesn't give Gene the right to remake Addams side art,
> > does it?
> >
> > Let's have some intelligent commentary verses just who can brown nose
> > the other guy the best
> >
> > my views ...
> >
> > Gary
> >
>
> --
> Cliffy - CARGPB2
> A passion for pinball!
> http://www.passionforpinball.com
Wolffy
in Gurnee? That's explains a lot... :)
-wolffy
azarca...@cox.net wrote:
> Despite my detractors words, I don't kiss up to Gene and I didn't turn
> Lonnie in. I knew about the Lonnie thing a long time ago when he was
> shopping around for a partner to split the $30k printer. Frankly I
> didnt believe what I heard was true back then and I was shocked when
> someone emailed me the auction link for CV decals. Think what you will.
>
> If I did kiss up to Gene one would think I would have made something
> newer than 6 months ago back in Sept 2004. I average one project a
> month. In fact, most of you know there have been agreements back in
> October to make 7 new projects, including FH pf's. Yet I havent done
> any of them. Im with you guys when you speak out against the Bearcave
> operation and the fact that Gene needs to gear up and get more new and
> repro parts to the market.
>
> What is most interesting is what I read from a few people how they know
> the terms of Gene's agreement and what he does or doesn't own. When
> Gene first called me to stop my illegal practices I called his bluff.
> He provided me with a contract showing his rights of ownership. It was
> then we decided to try to work together instead of against one another.
> A battle I couldn't win anyways. Bob Sokol from twobits.com did the
> same thing to everyone with his Namco license.
>
> Now I'm not going to release my contracts with Gene for public viewing,
> but Gene has given me permission to publicly show part of his contract
> with WMS showing ownership of the art. Im only showing 2 paragraphs
> because the others show some very private information and financials
> that isn't anyones business anyways.
>
> Here ya go:
>
> http://members.aol.com/azarcadegames/agreement.jpg
>
> You guys can say what you want about it, decipher it, twist it, read
> into it, I dont mind. I started the thread and you guys can finish it.
>
> Those that want to call Paramount, Universal, WMS etc... go right
> ahead.
>
> Best,
> Darin Jacobs
>
> www.phoenixarcade.com
>
Kenbo
<manicmusic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'd ignore the troll/village idiot Cliffy... every group eventually
>has one and he's not worth wiping off your shoe. The killfile
>is great as you rarely see his prattling...
The fact that there are fifty responses to every one of his posts
shows that he is quite effective as a troll. Killfiles work wonders
for battling trolls.
[...]
Manic
"Kenbo" <Ke...@NOqsolvJUNKMAIL.com> wrote in message
news:8umr21hq8thv8ih4d...@4ax.com...
I DO recommend the killfile - it's like earplugs when you are near
a misbehaving child. And speaking of that I just can't blame my
rgp brethren for responding to the pest. It's just human nature
for adults to try to respond to a kid throwing a tantrum ;-)
I suspect he truly must be unemployable so I don't see the troll going
away anytime soon...
flippy
The contract is talking about tools needed to produce parts.
A silkscreen for cabinet or playfield art could be considered the tool
to manufacture those parts. In the digital age, the computer art files,
I would think, are an extension of that. The tools necessary to manufacture
the parts.
The second paragraph transfers the rights, but does not specify what
those rights are. One would assume those are the rights to use the tools
to manufacture parts. Why buy a tool if you can't use it to make parts.
<azarca...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1110254883.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kirb
>silenced
Dude, get it right- YOU are the troll and belong to the Troll crowd. I
have no idea what a troll-basm is, but since it has troll in it, that
would be you. Love how this single one word gets you so agitated that
you must use it in every post trying to use the whole "I'm rubber and
you're glue" schoolyard BS. Thanks for making my day.
Congrats on pissing off Cliffy, the single NICEST person on this group.
You are a real class act.
>It's tough to get it so perfect, but I do it every now and then
>Gary
Now you are even bagging on yourself. Brilliant!
Welcome to the club!
Kirb
Scott Wilmoth
they're written on? ;)
--
Scott
(Maryland)
"Wolffy" <sendnospa...@gaspar.net> wrote in message
news:Rd-dnQcxrcZ...@speakeasy.net...
harry williamson
Rick Swanson
> Anyone else catch that the materials were located on "Swanson" Court in
> Gurnee? That's explains a lot... :)
>
Rick Swanson
Morristown, TN