ryyannon

In re-reading Flav's post, it would appear that there's more than meets the eye than after a quick first read of the situation: we have flav, a disgruntled customer and apparently a highly critical 'respected modder' - unnamed, but whose name - after a minute's reflection, should be clear to most. Exactly who did or said what to whom is a little harder (at least for me) to figure out, but I'm disturbed by the opacity (meaning lack of clarity) - not in Flav's rather complicated story - but on the part of the other two protagonists. If someone has opinions as strong as the ones which were described, and now that the issue is squarely in front of us, might it not be better to voice them politely and in public in front of the other members of the forum? I'm not certain that I subscribe to the idea of 'not naming names' to keep the peace: situations like these create a lot negative energy and tension - particularly since the other side of the story seems to be hidden - or at least not stated clearly and openly by those concerned. Under those conditions, it's difficult to come to any sort of a conclusion - other than running off in various directions depending on one's own loyalties, friendships, affinities, etc. Everyone screws up from time to time, and with an activity as delicate as modding (not to mention the 'mission impossible' pieces that some people send in the expectation of receiving a finished product that can't possibly meet their expectations given the condition of the original) there's always room for disappointment - not to mention, as I already have - just not being able to do a satisfactory job. When this has happened, Flav appears to have demonstrated an exception level of fairness - even going as far as replacing whole watches. We are often reminded by other - and influential - members that RWG is a place where issues pertaining to quality, pricing and fair practices can and should be able to be discussed publicly. In this situation, this would have the merit of allowing the all people actually involved to express their points of view - and perhaps to work the issues out peacefully in front of their peers - meaning ourselves, the unfortunate and often clueless spectators of these psychodramas.

I think you need to name names here: something doesn't sound right relative to the customer's side of the story. He tried to blackmail you by 'outing' out on the forum in order to receive free services - I'd like to see his justifications in writing here for such an aggressive and uncompromising attitude. Sorry this had to happen to you - I've never heard anything but good things about your work, so I think that the burden of proof is on your anonymous client. He should come forward after a performance like that: in a certain way, he's put you out of business (even if it's your own decision) and this affects both you and the numerous members of the forum who were perfectly satisfied with your work. This member owes it to the forum to state his case - and perhaps to rethink it and little more logically and fairly in your favor.

Open wide, Reg.... http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?en...usalem&only

Image removed at the request of Miss Understood.

Under my bed, hiding from the GAF. Can't be too careful these days.

I appreciate your appreciation, Kruz! That way of dealing was typical of a certain number of elegant 'old timers' who were in it for the pleasure rather than the fever of acquisition and nickle-and-dimeing other members. Of course it takes all kinds, but even with the monumental flame-wars between some of the strong and clashing personalities that were around then, those were certainly kinder, gentler days

The last time I owned a Watchmaster vintage Pam, I let it go to another member for the same very reasonable price I paid when I had acquired it from it's former gentleman-collector-owner who had passed it on to me in the generous spirit of sharing a good and rare thing. I could have asked for and got the double, but my feeling was - to somewhat badly paraphrase the Patek slogan - that 'you never actually own a Watchmaster, you just look after it for the next generation.' What horseshit, but a great slogan nonetheless. I've never regretted that sale, but as certan particularly well-informed members here know, I'm a hopeless moron with a flawed sense of moral integrity. Whatever. It's my rep-utation, and I'll do as I like with it. p.s: I'd love to add that I more than made up for the potential killing I could have made on the Watchmaster by selling a bunch of low-end Silix pieces for more than twice what I paid for them to unsuspecting noobs, but I've kept all my Silix watches: great value for little money.

Positive, healing thoughts and the very best wishes for you and your family, Ken...

Every post, undoubtedly! http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/barsclubs/features/883/

What incredible will you have! I rather doubt I would have made it out of Alaska. On the other hand, I'm no longer in my late 'teens/early twenties anymore Good cycling just the same, and may my wishes bring you no rain!

It's best I don't reply to that. But just remember, even if you can't always win, be brave in the attempt, mein freund!

You're lucky I like you, Slaya. Now be a good boy and play with your watches.... Schnell, sugar-teats.

Gen or rep?

Coconut Grove 'hippies' (huh?) with expensive yachts sounds totally grotesque: I probably wouldn't have let them in either.

She did, but somewhat before you hit the scene. When her place was on the Boulevard de Montparnasse in Paris, it was more a question of who you were than what you were worth that determined your entry into Regine's - known as New Jimmy's at that time. Which is not to say that she was running a Salvation Army Mission either: there was great wealth, but not just. An experience and an atmosphere the Yups who came of age in the eighties would never know. Which is just as well, since the majority would never would have made it past the doorman: it was that select.

A sematic technicality, if I understand what you're saying. So - and despite the fact that it's a false problem - how would you have worded the puzzle so that the terms would have appeared semantically coherent? If you please, O Great Salmon...

Wait a minute here....

That is a good article. As for: "...some 19th century advertisements are the epitome of fine art now, and other are....just advertisements" you have to admit that they were often done by real artists - as in many of the Art Nouveau-era advertising posters... As for the rest, well - as you said, gotta keep it short around here...wouldn't want to go against the Boss's wishes

That's it: it's like a photo of a person as compared to the person him/herself. Flavin was an immense pioneer and a very low-profile dude. He was doing his thing before anyone understood it and years before people got the idea that you could throw a pile bricks on a gallery floor and call it minimalist art. He's a Breguet in a world of Swatches. His stuff is privately and museum-collected all over the planet - in terms of the bottom-line definition of art, it's the real thing - meaning the whole (experience) is much more than the sum of its parts. Lecture mode/off.

Damned if I know, but I've loved his work from the start: you really have to experience it to appreciate it...

Too late.... http://www.lacma.org/art/podcasts/player_m...e=FLAVINFIN.mov

Hey Kruzer00, lighten up - ok? http://www.lacma.org/art/podcasts/player_m...e=FLAVINFIN.mov

The S.T.E. is having (another) N.D.E

And to think I actually lived through all that [censored] in NYC - Only to live through even more [censored] on RWG...