posted on September 24, 2000 09:53:49 PM new
Hello goldie,
From your response, I'm not at all sure you followed the drift on my previous post, but since you asked...
Who do I think should authenticate the painting ? Strictly from what I've read here, the Van Gogh Museum sounds good to me.
Do I believe or can I prove this document (I assume you mean the Rewald letter) is a fake ? Doesn't matter. The burden is on the seller to prove it genuine to the satisfaction of potential buyers. This has apparently NOT been done (so far), as evinced by the lack of bids. This circumstance would tend to indicate that whatever experts are out there and aware of this item fall into the doubters' camp.
Would the owner take a chance of posting a forged document? Don't know the owner. Some people would do much worse for $2+ million.
Not sure how educated my opinion is on this matter, but I hope it's at least somewhat logical.
edit: Thanks, Michelle. I would hate to be blamed for locking up this one for a day.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.
[ edited by cathammer on Sep 24, 2000 09:59 PM ]
posted on September 24, 2000 10:05:23 PM new
To Moderator Michelle G
I noticed that anyone defending this painting
is always warned or kicked off the site. Why
is that? You allow all the acqusations of fake and forgery (accusing someone of a criminal act) thats all right as long as it is against one of your competitors. The fact that someone advertised another auction other than your fascist Auction Watch. You censor everyone that has a right to supposedly speak on thus free chat. Does the American public need to cowtow to your auction site? Speak slander and libel only,
besmirch their reputation, but dont tell them they might have foot growing out of their mouth!
This is the last time I am warning your auction site (Auction Watch.com) Because you will probably through me off too.
I will see all of your shriveled up tits in Court. Especially that #*!@ from Penscola
who thinks she can go around destroying other peoples reputations. You can tell it to a judge or jury, whichever you prefer.
Auction Watch has a vested interest in seeing a fledgeling company like OldandSold
lose their reputation. Well since your company has so much money, lets see how much they will to spend on your god damn defense.
Of course like the Nazi's said "I am only doing my job". Will be your defense. As for the rest of you,see how fast Auction Watch gives up your names in court. We will take that 4 acres and turn it into a pig farm like it is.
posted on September 24, 2000 10:18:34 PM newleglegle
The only posters warned or suspended are those who have breached the AuctionWatch Community Guidelines. Perhaps if the rash of newly registered posters had bothered to read the CGs they agreed to abide by when registering before posting, they would still have their posting privileges.
And you are quite correct, your comments have crossed the line by threatening members of the AuctionWatch Community and have resulted in the suspension of your posting privileges. if you wish to appeal this suspension, please email [email protected]
Everyone
I suggest those of you who are new to AW or are lurking and intend to make your debut in this thread, acquaint yourself with the Community Guidelines before posting. If the CGs continue to be breached, this thread will be locked.
posted on September 24, 2000 10:18:55 PM new
Who wants to take a guess: On which end of the legal system might a certain friend of ours ever have been ?
Let me plead in advance against his removal; this thread could use more laughs.
edit: Rats, not fast enough!
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.
[ edited by cathammer on Sep 24, 2000 10:20 PM ]
posted on September 24, 2000 11:00:24 PM new
Sacre Bleu! OAS has lost it's crack legal team. Their desperation has hit Himalayan proportions. I assume there next "legal manuver" will be to contact Jeff Gilhooey and his band of cohorts. Cathammer, be wary of Samoans carrying lead pipes.
posted on September 24, 2000 11:28:20 PM new
You know, in all honesty, I doubt VERY much that any of the interested parties would want to "take this to court." If they did, then this "Van Gogh", ALL the involved parties and their $finances$ would have to undergo some serious evaluation, certainly garnering more scrutiny than on this mere message board
My opinion, and I'm sure that of many others, is plummenting for OldandSold if this is the position of those associated with the site. Is there a voice of reason and thoughtfulness there?
By the way, nice turn at being the "whipping boy/girl" cathammer Love the comic too!
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 24, 2000 11:29 PM ]
posted on September 24, 2000 11:49:03 PM new
Aw SHUCKS, MichelleG Moderator, you've gone and BANNED ANOTHER ONE!!! Who does that leave for us to debate---only flowblue2?
And just when things were really getting all fired up here (i.e."I will see all of your shriveled up tits in Court. Especially that #*!@ from Penscola who thinks she can go around destroying other peoples reputations." I wonder HOW THEY KNOW what our chests look like---think it's their "physic" powers at work again??? (Sorry 'bout repeating that, HCQ....I may be a "Nazi" with "shriveled up tits" , but at least they didn't call ME the "#*!@ from Penscola" with a "pig farm". Guess I got off easy this time....)
OK, since we're down to just flowblue2, I'll repeat the challenge I offered to you last night, WHICH YOU HAVE COMPLETELY IGNORED in all your posts today:
Let's cut to the chase.
Lagoldie claims this painting was exibited at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam in March of 1990. Right? It would then be a very simple matter for the painting's owner to contact them again, refresh their memories as to which painting this is that they exhibited (you could just direct them to OldAndSold's home page), and ask them to provide their FREE authentication as a Van Gogh painting....or an acknowledgement that they even EXHIBITED this painting as a Van Gogh.
I personally guarantee that everyone here on this thread will CEASE TO QUESTION your honesty, your intelligence, your integrity, and the validity of your claims about this painting if and when you possess a valid authentication from the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam stating that the "Yellow Roses" for sale on OldAndSold Antiques Auction is a genuine Van Gogh painting.
Not only that, but I guarantee that the Van Gogh Museum will be interested in purchasing it from you (in all your aliases) should they determine that it IS INDEED a true Van Gogh painting.
You have my OATH on it. The same OATH I'll use in court when you sue me (and all the other posters here) for libel and slander (that IS what you're going to sue us for, isn't it?). Or was it OldAndSold suing Auction Watch??? I'm having a hard time keeping all the pending lawsuits straight.....
posted on September 25, 2000 04:07:00 AM newThis is the last time I am warning your auction site (Auction Watch.com) Because you will probably through me off too.
I will see all of your shriveled up tits in Court. Especially that #*!@ from Penscola who thinks she can go around destroying other peoples reputations. You can tell it to a judge or jury, whichever you prefer.
Auction Watch has a vested interest in seeing a fledgeling company like OldandSold lose their reputation. Well since your company has so much money, lets see how much they will to spend on your god damn defense.
Of course like the Nazi's said "I am only doing my job". Will be your defense. As for the rest of you,see how fast Auction Watch gives up your names in court. We will take that 4 acres and turn it into a pig farm like it is
I vote this the best post in this thread.
Apparently our big-ticket lawyer uses the same spelling and grammatical rules as lagoldie et al.
PLEASE, moderators, don't boot these characters - and above all, don't lock this thread - which would remove the discussion of this issue from the public eye, which is exactly what the seller wants.
Anyway, we may need the defenders' expert opinions later this week....
Stay tuned, folks.....
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 25, 2000 04:11 AM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 04:40:01 AM newlagoldie -
You say: "What has given you the right to give the opinions you have set forth on multiple subjects, to numerous to even try to list."
Well, last time I looked, the right to assembly and freedom of speech were still in the constitution And AW has provided us this lovely BB system on which to do so. Isn't democracy wonderful?
Also YOU INVITED OUR OPINIONS ON THE AUCTION ... although you did not get the expected response, which one assumes was that we would flock to OAS with our own van Gogh listings and help build OAS's business. But the listing was so bloated with hyperbole and wild assumptions that the temptation to poke a few holes in it was irresistible. And here we are, several hunderd posts, a few cancelled registrations and half dozen sock-puppets later.
You say: "This form of open speculation could lead to great legal problems, if the owner of the painting or anyone of the conservators wished to further pursue legal action.You are tarnishing reputations of not only the living but the dead."
EITHER SERVE PAPERS OR STOP THREATENING LEGAL ACTION ... e-mail me at hotmail.com (same user ID) for the address at which to serve the papers, and note that the legal action has to take place in AZ, where I live and where the heinous crime of my discussing this picture has taken place.
************
If the lab reports are 100% correct, it is obvious to any literate person that the seller's description of the painting in the auction listing is wildly exaggerated. AND AS I HAVE SAID SEVERAL TIMES ... IT'S NOT THE LAB WORK, IT IS THE FANCIFUL EXAGGERATION BY THE SELLER. He does a "loaves and fishes" on the 4 letters faintly visible in the x-rays or infra-red, and turns them into an entire inscription. It could as easily have been "SOUVENIER of Niagra Falls" as "Souvenier of Mauve".
And given his tendency to exaggerate, and the blatantly falsified (or sloppily researched) provenance, he has proven himself to be unreliable as a source of information.
You say:"Fact, The document that authenticates Yellow Roses is posted on OAS, this document was written and signed by Mr. John Rewald."
No. OAS has a digital image of a document PURPORTEDLY BY John Rewald, but it is so amazingly easy to alter digital images that it is not worth the pixels it is using on my monitor.
*********
You say: "Would this owner take the chance at posting a forged document on an Internet site for millions to see?"
In my opinion, yes, he is foolish or deluded enough to do it. In my opimion, he is running a large-scale scam or he is totally and pathologically convinced he has a genuine Van gogh. In either case, I believe that he will do anything to back up his beliefs, including concocting or altering documents.
And note that stating beliefs and opinions is not and can never be considered slander or libel. I think the painting's seller is doing a grave disservice to OAS.
*********
As for my credentials, I am an scientifically trained, educated person with the ability to READ documents, then compare the contents of the documents and draw conclusions from the similarities and differences. The differences between what the auction listing claims and what its supporting documentation reports clearly shows the writer of the listing is making claims that cannot be supported by the evidence they present.
*********
leglegl -
You say ... "I will see all of your shriveled up tits in Court."
As I said to goldie ... EITHER SERVE PAPERS OR STOP THREATENING LEGAL ACTION ... e-mail me at hotmail.com for the address at which to serve the papers. My C-cups and I will be there
Before you leap at the prospect, I suggest you look up barratry in a law dictionary.
posted on September 25, 2000 05:43:32 AM newLAGOLDIE
I quote, from myself:
It would seem that you are more interested in attacking the credentials of others, which is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand
Let me rephrase that, as I fear you did not get the jist of it:
OUR credentials are irrelevant. The only "credentials" that anyone in the public needs is to be a potential buyer. The moment that painting and it's story and all supporting documents hit the internet, it became open for anyone and everyone to see and express an opinion on.
You say:
What has given you the right to give the opinions you have set forth on multiple subjects, to numerous to even try to list
See above answer to this question. To reiterate, in case you didn't get it the first time around.. we have the right because we are ALL potential bidders.
For a buyer, to place a bid on an auction, without doing any homework, is foolhardy. This goes for any auction, but it especially goes for an auction that has a buyers premium that he will NOT get back if the item in question is not as it is represented. The buyer will also be out money for the "reauthentication". Sure, the buyer would probably get 2 mil back but he will be out all associated costs. And that is a big hunk of money starting at 100K.
Since you seem to be a betting woman, I would take this particular bet. NO ONE, with a spare 100K is going to just throw it away without doing homework first!
posted on September 25, 2000 06:03:02 AM new
The "Rewald letter" is interesting for another reason - how it and the TOS affects the consummation of the sale.
Let's say this painting actually gets a bidder. High bidder sends out his expert to examine the painting. When expert says "Junk!", seller whips out the "Rewald letter" and says "Your penny-ante expert is disputing a source as august as Rewald? See you in court, Buddy."
High bidder then has 3 choices:
(1) Swallow the "Rewald letter" and fork over the $2M to avoid the embarrassing publicity of being shown he's a dunce;
(2) Eat his own expert's fees, walk away from the deal, call the seller's bluff and say "Sue me"; or
(3) File suit against seller to recover his costs.
My guess is that, since he clearly expected nobody to check up on any of his "provenance" in the first place, seller's banking on #1.
posted on September 25, 2000 07:22:14 AM new
Well, the obvious answer could be someone by the name Vincent Arles. Or, for all I know, it could be my great grandfather, who's name was Vincent and is reported to have been in that region in that time period. Oh, BTW, my great grandfather was also a painter, perhaps not one of the great impressionist, but he was a painter. Note: He also signed his paintings "vincent" and the location of where he was when he painted it, and the year that he painted it.
I answered your question, now you answer mine:
Who created an elaborate story to go along with the painting, without any concrete proof?
Who exaggerated the PROVEN findings of the scientific community of "SOUV" to "Souvenir de Mauve Vincent and Theo"?
Oh, that's right, those are some of the questions that YOU refuse to acknowledge and answer.
Rosiebud
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me
posted on September 25, 2000 07:30:37 AM new flowblue2 -
It's NOT the technical reports ... it is the totally erroneus conclusions the seller draws from them that are under fire. And the letter from Rewald is a digital image suceptible to editing, so it is not acceptable without a certified document examiner having examined the orignial of the letter and authenticating it.
As for calling references ... I tried to call John Rewald, but the psychic hotline said he was out for the day.
You ask rosie ... "You state that the painting is from the 1800's. Can you answer me this question. Who is signing a painting "Vincent, Arles 88" in the 1800's?"
Several of van gogh's friends painted works in imitation of his pictures during his lifetime, and even signed some of them ... Dr. Gachet made copies of some after his death, and Wacker and others made outright forgeries as soon as the prices rose.
FYI - Dating by pigment analysis is not precise. It can only establish a "not earlier than" date if a pigment or binder of a known date of introduction is detected. The paints detected were available in the 1880s, were STILL available in the early 1900s, and can even be found today for those who like to mix their own paints (although relatively recent paints have modern contaminants that are detectable).
None of the pigments detected was able to rule out the 1888 date, but none can confirm it either. It is just "consistent with the supposed date of the signature".
There is no comma ... it is Vincent Arles 88, which could just as easily be a man named VINCENT ARLES! The name ARLES is a French surname, from which Montana named the town "Arlee" (mangled the guy's name, but then they screwed up a lot of names).
posted on September 25, 2000 07:45:48 AM new
Moderator
You have certainly looked the other way to many obvious innuendoes, that were clearly slanderous to the owner of YR, and to OAS. True I may have crossed the line a bit, but with my statements you do not have to read between the lines.They are direct. Do you think calling a person a forger would not consist of being a slanderous statement? Do you believe one speculating that OAS would posted documents that are known to be forgeries, would not consist as slander? Do you believe attempting to discredit the credentials and good reputations of the professional conservators that have given analysis on this painting would not consist of slander? AW have chosen to let this form of slander prevail. Please check with your legal representitives,and have them review this thread. Then please answer my questions. Answer one last question, I assume AW feels they are protected due to their Community Guidelines, are your posters protected under these Community Guidelines? I can answer that for you. but I would like you to give them that answer. One more, how will your boss feel about this thread getting so out of line, that legal action could be filed against AW and its posters? I just wonder were the blame will fall?My questions are direct, no innuendoes. Please answer them in a direct manner.
posted on September 25, 2000 07:57:26 AM new
For those of you who suggested that the owner of "Yellow Roses" would have selected a major auction house like Sotheby's or Christie's, and not an obscure venue such as OLDANDSOLD, implying that OLDANDSOLD is not so reputable, might be interested in the report found in The New York Times Saturday. NEW YORK _ Sotheby's and Christie's auction houses have reached a tentative agreement to pay $512 million to settle claims they conspired to manipulate prices they were paid by sellers and buyers. The auction houses are each responsible for $256 million of the settlement, the newspaper reported. The settlement comes after a three-year Justice Department investigation. Sotheby's and Christie's who control 95 percent of the $4 billion worldwide auction market, stifled competition by colluding on business practices. So one might make their own conclusions as to whether or not the suggestions given by chat users were wise or valid. The owner of "Yellow Roses" has presented the information he has on OLDANDSOLD and carefully spelled out the conditions of the sale. I would think it would be up to those who might have an interest to review the presentation and decide whether or not they wish to participate. They know the cost. They have the owner's information. They can refuse the sale and OLDANDSOLD will receive no commission of any kind should they do so. Now, I am wondering how many of us who were not part of the litigation involving these oh so wonderful, reputable auction houses were taken advantage of. I suspect there are many that are only now hearing about the use of these unlawful practices. I would surmise that all of the information and suggestions given on these chat boards is not reliable or valid. I do question the hostility and outright slandering of individuals and their reputations. I am totally disappointed to see that Auction Watch allows such behaviour to exist on their site.
posted on September 25, 2000 07:59:14 AM newDo you believe attempting to discredit the credentials and good reputations of the professional conservators that have given analysis on this painting would not consist of slander?
HAHA, that's rich! Ya know why? What do you think happens in a court of law when someone is called as an expert witness? They have to prove their credentials and it's up to the opposing team to discredit them. So by your question/statement, this would mean that anyone who questions the credentials of a professional is committing slander. Please becareful if you decide to hire a contractor and you go through his credentials with a fine tooth comb. You MUST hire him based solely upon what he says and not what any other documented source says.
[ edited by rosiebud on Sep 25, 2000 08:02 AM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 08:06:30 AM new
All,
The seller is under no obligation to provide the posters here with any information about the painting, especially with so many of you posting insulting remarks. There is no serious interest among any of us to buy the painting. Whoever does have an interest in this painting will do their homework....and will draw their own conclusions.
Hart Cottage Quilts, I agree with Flow Blue. Since you are at the center of this storm, I would like to see you call Scott Haskins and ask him the questions which were asked of you. This is your challenge. Why not phone him and get factual information which you can bring to the table? Web searches only provide one piece of the puzzle, and should be confirmed. Please, you have been asked several times to call him. So far, you have not made the effort. We would all like to hear the answers to these questions come from him, personally.
Please, everyone step back and try to be objective.
posted on September 25, 2000 08:29:13 AM new
Why should anybody believe anything Haskins says?
He's amended his 1988 FACL report to report other observations that are supposed to jibe with the seller's claims.
His own website doctors not only the number of years ACL/FACL has been in business under his "direction," but how many years it's been in business under any name at all.
He's got close associations with at least one of the other "experts" on this job.
His "reknown" consists of doing conservation work at BYU and at ACL (which went under in less than 2 years), being president/VP of a small-time arts organization (which immediately ran into trouble with the IRS regarding its tax-exempt claims), teaching a night-school course in how to take care of your family heirlooms, and publishing a vanity-press book on the same subject.
This is not someone with ANY published experience in authentication. He restores paintings (primarily murals and frescoes) for his own company. Period.
This is not somebody with a track record of veracity, even regarding how long he says his own company's been in business.
This is somebody who, from his amended report of last week, either missed an important observation in 1988 or unquestioningly accepts as authentic the sudden appearance of an inscription on the painting's frame, and from there leaps to a conclusion regarding the owner that is not borne out by ANY other source.
IOW, other than what appears in his 1988 report, nothing Haskins has to say can be accorded any weight whatsoever.
Why should I waste my dime?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 25, 2000 08:31 AM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 09:08:59 AM new
THESHAR, If one had an authentic Van Gogh, now would be the most opportune time to list with Sotheby's/Christies. Why? Because corporations are never more honest and aboveboard as when they have just been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
"hostility and outright slandering of individuals and their reputations. I am totally disappointed to see that Auction Watch allows such behaviour to exist on their site."
Ask any of the 5 or so of your fellow employees who have been uncerimoniously tossed out on their keisters into the nearest convenient gutter by the ever vigilant AW Moderators -- if indeed AW allows "such behavior."
I am also curious that studied opinions, cogently expressed, regarding the validity of the Yellow Roses painting, is in your eyes deemed to be "hostility and outright slandering" yet "shriveled teats" doesn't merit the same rebuke from you.
posted on September 25, 2000 09:36:17 AM new
Now here's something interesting.
The "LACMA receipt" is dated 5/12/87.
Twilley's report is dated 3/25/88.
Twilley's report notes a "microscopy sample -by conservator Scott Haskins - letter of June 23, 1987"(page 1, paragraph 3)
Haskins's FACL report is dated 5/6/88.
If as the receipt indicates, the painting was indeed in LACMA's hands from 5/87-3/88, how did Haskins do a microscopy sample in 6/87? Did LACMA call up the "reknowned" FACL (which had been in business for barely a year), and say "Hey, this analysis is too complicated for LACMA! Scott, we need your expertise!" and drop off the painting at FACL?
Where's the 6/87 Haskins letter and pigment analysis Twilley describes?
Why, if Haskins had already examined the painting in 6/87, did he do ANOTHER examination in 5/88?
Hmm. Let's use the dates on those reports, McCrone's analysis, tightwad and lagoldie's statements and the Rewald letter to track the painting:
LACMA received it 5/12/87, but the next month (6/87), the painting went to Haskins for a pigment analysis. LACMA returned the painting to the owner in 1/88, at which time he wrote out a check to LACMA for its analysis - apparently paying in advance, since Twilley's pigment analysis is dated 2 months later (3/88). Two months after that (5/88), the painting's back in Haskins's hands for his examination in anticipation for a 10/88 sale - which apparently never occurred.
In 1/90 Twilley's and Haskins's reports were sent to Rewald, who unequivocally - and apparently without ever having examined the painting in person - authenticated it on 2/12/90.
Yet despite Rewald's imprimatur, it was found necessary for the painting to be examined by McCrone before 3/23/90. It then traveled to Amsterdam for an exhibition at the Van Gogh Museum in which nobody can demonstrate it appeared and where, although the painting was right in the Museum's own hands, the owner neglected to have it authenticated at no cost.
We don't know when Bright performed his brush-stroke analysis.
The painting - and "Sunflowers and Oleander," in whose "authentication" McCrone and Bright also figure - then shows up in 1996 as part of Bright's patent application. In 1997 Bright claims he owns the painting and is trying to sell it to buy...."Sunflowers and Oleander" - which its "authenticators" claim ALSO has an (undecipherable) inscription on it and the date "88." Apparently the $9M sale by Bright didn't go through, because he didn't buy "Sunflowers and Oleander" and "Yellow Roses is again on the auction block.
More similarities between "Yellow Roses" and "Sunflowers" shortly...
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 25, 2000 09:44 AM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 10:02:40 AM new
posted on September 25, 2000 07:22:14 AM new By rosiebud.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, the obvious answer could be someone by the name Vincent Arles. Or, for all I know, it could be my great grandfather, who's name was Vincent and is reported to have been in that region in that time period. Oh, BTW, my great grandfather was also a painter, perhaps not one of the great impressionist, but he was a painter. Note: He also signed his paintings "vincent" and the location of where he was when he painted it, and the year that he painted it."
Fact----Until you can show prove, other then your opinion. The YR has been authenticated by one of the foremost art authenticators in the world, along with three conservators scientific evidence. My opinion is substantiated with factual documents. Your opinions are just that your opinion. They are derived from what you THINK may be the truth. That does not cut it. Stick to facts, unless you can disprove the factual documents with factual documents.We don't need what could have happened or what probably happened. This statement is to all involved in this thread. Keep to facts.
Oh by the way rosiebud,you forgot to cap, the V in Vincent, you would not want your fellow posters to think you illiterate?
posted on September 25, 2000 10:20:23 AM new
LAGOLDIE, I have said, time and time again, that this is my opinion. I am entitled to voice my opinion. My opinion is based upon the documents and the embellished story that have been provided by the seller. I can not help the fact that the seller decided to embellish upon his story, thus making almost all aspects of it suspicious. Unfortunately, the evidence that has been cited, from disinterested parties, tends to substaniate my opinions. But once again, that is in my opinion.
As to your little side note about my use of caps in the word "vincent". It was written the exact same way that my great grandfather signed most of his. I would not wish offer misinformation about the work that my great grandfather did.
posted on September 25, 2000 10:21:56 AM new
posted on September 25, 2000 07:59:14 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In responce to rosiebuds statement.
"HAHA, that's rich! Ya know why? What do you think happens in a court of law when someone is called as an expert witness? They have to prove their credentials and it's up to the opposing team to discredit them. So by your question/statement, this would mean that anyone who questions the credentials of a professional is committing slander. Please becareful if you decide to hire a contractor and you go through his credentials with a fine tooth comb. You MUST hire him based solely upon what he says and not what any other documented source says"
Responce,
Yes, the opposing team may attempt to discredit a witness. With facts, and only facts. The court would not allow hearsay or a witnesses personal opinion of what could be or may be. An expert witnesses give their opinion based on their experience and education on a given subject. Their credentials can be questioned, the difference with this forum the experts that are being discredited are not able to answer questions. They are openly being discredited without benefit of defense. I might add for the world to see. This is slander.Rosiebud the truth shall set you free!
