posted on September 25, 2000 08:34:30 PM new
I have been sitting here thinking how do I respond all these last battery of posts? You know what just hit me, you are a handful of people posting on a chat line. Some of you have posted thousands of times. You continue to go over and over the same information in this thread. Give your opinions to each other. It has been a month and it is pretty much the same people posting, as I said going over and over the same stuff.I do not have to answer your questions, that is my prerogative. Just as you don't have to answer mine. Why don't you just continue to make observations and speculate on what is fact and what you see as fiction, just as you have done from the beginning of this thread. I will stay out of this until I have something new to say. I am getting bored with going over the same information. I will
wait for something new and exciting happen. I have a feeling it won't be long until this thread will be shifting to legal matters, and dumping the Van Gogh conversation.
I believe I have caught on to the game. If no one comes in to give an objective opinion, I suppose you will get tired of hashing this same information over and over or won't you? This all seems very strange to me? I mean to get serious for a moment. What do you derive from spending so much of your life on the computer, debating one subject to the next? Wouldn't it be better to start living your lives away from the computer? What good is having all of this trivial knowledge at your finger tips, If your lives are consumed by the computer?Do you really need all of this knowledge in trivial subjects? To the point of it consuming your lives?
I will call it a day, I will be back when there is something new to talk about. I am sure something is right around the corner.
[ edited by lagoldie on Sep 25, 2000 08:41 PM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 08:39:10 PM new
Geez. First Rewald has a heart attack while visiting the owner of "Yellow Roses," and then Pickvance has a heart attack while preparing to visit "Sunflowers and Oleander"?
Somebody call Stephen King. Maybe it's something in those pigments we know only Van Gogh used.
So Pickvance never gave an opinion on "Sunflowers"? Huh. The 7/97 court document filed regarding the sale of "Sunflowers and Oleander" notes Pickvance opined in 3/97 that the painting was not authentic. It also stipulates that Pickvance is to be paid out of the sale proceeds. For something he didn't do? Greedy SOB
As far as the take going completely to Mary Rudolph (the elderly former owner of "Sunflowers", court papers filed state otherwise:
From the sale proceeds, $40K was taken off the top to settle the bankruptcy of Frank Pellandrini, the then-owner; then storage charges and Pickvance's fee had to be paid - say another $5,000. We're now down to $280K (your math) or $175K (newspaper math).
Of the remainder, court papers stipulate that Mary Rudolph was to get only 65% - $182K or $113.75K, depending on who's doing the counting.
Funny what you can find if you read court documents:
posted on September 25, 2000 08:39:33 PM new
This thread is not very useful anymore. It is very bizarre. I dont understand any of the logic that people are presenting. All I see is Hart Cottage Quilts do web search to discredit people. That is their basic motive. I dont understand trying to draw all these links between the paintings. Hopefully it will make sense someday.
I have really lost my faith in this message board.
posted on September 25, 2000 08:43:30 PM new
Moderator,
I find the wording which Hart Cottage Quilts uses very insulting.
"Geez. First Rewald has a heart attack while visiting the owner of "Yellow Roses," and then Pickvance has a heart attack while preparing to visit "Sunflowers and Oleander"?
Somebody call Stephen King. Maybe it's something in those pigments we know only Van Gogh used."
This is thread is not an intelligent conversation. It is just a bunch of individuals insulting each other. Back and forth.
What a great message board AuctionWatch has provided us.
posted on September 25, 2000 08:46:31 PM newthe tension in the air is very high
I suppose it would seem that way if you're walking a tightrope of fiction. No wonder you've lost your faith in this board. And so soon, so soon! Sigh.
OTOH, if you have your feet firmly planted on the solid ground of fact, and spend your time not in bloviating but in performing pretty simple web searches that easily discredit ludicrous statements others have made, the air feels just fine....
posted on September 25, 2000 08:52:57 PM new
Moderator,
This is exactly what I find very insulting.
Hart Cottage quilts make comments such as these - "I suppose it would seem that way if you're walking a tightrope of fiction. No wonder you've lost your faith in this board. And so soon, so soon! Sigh."
posted on September 25, 2000 09:04:01 PM newIf no one comes in to give an objective opinion, I suppose you will get tired of hashing this same information over and over or won't you?
We welcome objective opinions.
Objective: without bias or prejudice; detached; impersonal
It doesn't mean "only those opinions that agree with what I say". Nor does that infer that those actually involved with the auction throw daggers at the reasonable questioning of basic information concerning an auction manipulatively "announced" here (albeit, with unexpectedly penetrating questions thus resulting).
As for rehashing information, I believe new information as well as people and connections are being explored progressively here. And there's so much more to uncover. But that digresses from the main issue which has so neatly been dodged by "disinterested" posters. The thinly-conceived provenence with all its faults (no possible Helen Henderson Chain-"Maggie" Brown connection, for example), and the suspect "jumps" to conclusions based on wishful thinking more than what the experts' reports actually say. And, most significantly, the continually "evolving" auction description of events, stories, people and documents in reaction to questions posed here.
The even larger issues are the inherent foibles and pitfalls of online auctions, especially by those intent on deception, a reality dealt with by each of us whether we are purchasing a collectable comic book, fine china or an expensive work of art. Whether the word is accurate or not, "self-policing" comes to mind. Reading the threads here on a regular basis, it is obvious that the type of scrutiny undertaken here is no different than in many other instances where questions arise concerning the way an item is listed. Only difference is this thread is grinding on, through sheer willpower and in no small part due to comments that stir up more questions than they answer.
I've got the Minoans and Mycenaeans to teach at 9:30 a.m. Nite all!
posted on September 25, 2000 09:12:17 PM new
iceblink,
Please take your moderation questions to the Moderator's corner.
I have deleted your post that appears to be a copy of a legal document. It is okay to provide a link to such things or short excerpts only. I don't know if the information is proprietary or not, but I will err on the side of caution. I'm sure you will understand.
posted on September 25, 2000 09:12:47 PM new
Oh, one final thing. Posting documents in their entirety or in any part should note the SPECIFIC location in which they acquired them; it's called documenting facts and most posters do that. Also, the links to these "newly" posted bits of information have been posted previously so it is really repetitive.
P.S. Speaking of Stephen King, did you see that, ironically, the guy who hit him with the minivan was found dead today in his home...early 40s, no apparent reason for death. Karma?
edited because I was "self-policing" my bitchiness tonight Nite Joice!
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 25, 2000 09:14 PM ]
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 25, 2000 09:15 PM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 10:00:54 PM new
Hmmmm... it seems that flowblue, lagoldie, and iceblink are making intimations that they are fatigued of amusing the heathens and must now move on from this tiresome debate...
Of course, that would have nothing to do with the fact that it is very late in the 4th quarter and their team is behind 87-0...
Nah...
Seems to be yet another example of the classic and time-honored "Wahhh... I'm taking my ball and going home... and I'm gonna tell my Mommy on you..." debating gambit.
posted on September 25, 2000 11:05:12 PM new
Drat, they've caught onto our game. Yes, IKnowEverything, the moderators have spent every waking hour jetting back and forth across the nation assuming the personalities of the participants from AW. Please forgive them as they were put up to it by that infamous master criminal, Ramona the Pig.
They are relieved to hear that they have been uncovered and at long last relieved of their torture. Yuur team are all to well aware of the rigors of adopting separate personalites, as it has indeed proved to be your hallmark. You must also grudingly admit that the degree of difficulty on the AW side was much higher due to the fact that we managed somehow to come up with different personas that conversed utilizing a wide spectrum of grammatical and syntaxual styles. It was almost like these were quite distinct and totally unconnected personages. Quite an achivement considering that none of us "great unwashed" had the advantage of being an "expert."
HCQ, I'm sure that all those people who you have assisted with your tireless legwork and sharing of your encyclopedic knowledge of all thing fabric do NOT consider you mean and evil. My wife is a Linen Lady and we find your posts quite the education and we thank you.
Well, the auction will be mercifully soon over so the OAS team must now retire to their lair and work on their "We're victims of a vast conspiracy" stance. Time must be set aside also to practice their opening arguments in court...
"Members of the jury, we will prove that the AW posters engaged in outrageous and malicious SLANDER... (mutter, mutter) uhhhhh... LIBEL... (what? okay, are you sure?...) yes, SLIBEL. It's SLIBEL I say...."
posted on September 26, 2000 03:38:13 AM new
Hart Cottage Quilts - Maybe some of your post are intelligent. But I find your tone very insulting. You are egging these people on with comments such as this:
"Geez. First Rewald has a heart attack while visiting the owner of "Yellow Roses," and then Pickvance has a heart attack while preparing to visit 'Sunflowers and Oleander'?
Somebody call Stephen King. Maybe it's something in those pigments we know only Van Gogh used."
posted on September 26, 2000 04:07:02 AM new
Cooltom --- You are not so cool Cooltom. Not one of our employees has been tossed off AW. "THESHAR, If one had an authentic Van Gogh, now would be the most opportune time to list with Sotheby's/Christie's. Why? Because corporations are never more honest and aboveboard as when the are caught in the cookie jar." This suggestion sickens me as much as watching people who buy into the new "natural tobacco ads" from the tobacco corporations that formerly laced the tobacco with nicotine and are now making nice nice by offering a clean product to these poor sad folks who had trusted them in the beginning. The sad matter of fact is that they step up and trust them all over again. I would never trust these auction houses again after hearing what they have been up to in the past years. Many associates of mine in the business have had their doubts for years. You might buy in Cooltom, but not me. "Ask any of the 5 or so of your fellow employees who have been uncerimoniously tossed out on their keisteres into the nearest convient gutter , vigilant AW Moderators - if indeed AW allows such behavior." NOT ONE OF OUR EMPLOYEES HAS BEEN TOSSED OFF. Once again a user on this chat filled with experts is totally off the mark. Once again false claims are made without consideration to the individuals involved. If a case is made and the owner of "Yellow Roses" goes to court, you will see that your instincts are wrong and your suggestions about our employees are without any factual basis. "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. "OPINIONS COGENTLY EXPRESSED" ---- calling a person a forger and worse!!! Granted I wouldn't have used "shriveled teats," but if I had been called such vile names , I too might have gotten to the point where I blew my cool, Cooltom. I also bet that had it been you, Cooltom would no longer be an appropriate user id for thee. OPINIONS COGENTLY EXPRESSED!! You don't honestly concur that calling a person a forger could be deemed "cogently expressed opinion." WHAT I SEE is a SMALL group of individuals "full of self" playing a nasty GAME at the expense of others with no regard for decency, who hide behind the secrecy of a user id, to be as nasty as the human condition will allow. One thing for certain, this new technology is allowing all of us to see the bowels of mankind. COOLTOM, you are not cool and your facts are not cool and you motives are not cool and the game you play with your friends on this site is positively not cool.
Violation of copyright, and all that. Please do your moderatorly duties and delete it.
The Shar -
What is it with the OAS people, the owner's sock puppets, and their inability to handle the vigorous dissent and discourse that is typical of the internet chat boards. This continual hinting at lawsuits is pathetic ... like in the real world, EITHER SUE OR SHUT UP ABOUT IT!
"if I had been called such vile names , I too might have gotten to the point where I blew my cool".
I have not seen anything vile yet. A bit of nose-thumbing disrespect, and an adamant insistence on calling the fanciful auction listing into question.
[/b]HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE LAB REPORTS, HISTORICAL FACTS, AND THE AUCTION LISTING?[/B]
We have the miraculous creation of an entire inscription out of four letters faintly visible in an underpainting.
We have "owned by the famous Molly Brown" proudly and prominently on the OAS front-page blurb ... based on a pencilled inscription on the frame. Unfortunately, the famous Mrs. Brown was legally known as Margaret and commonly known as Maggie until the Broadway musical renamed her "Molly" well after her death. If the inscription is not a later addition, it must refer to a different Molly Brown.
posted on September 26, 2000 04:49:03 AM new
CoolTom ---- In my haste I forgot to say that we on OLDANDSOLD stand behind our users. Because the owner of "Yellow Roses" had family recollections as a basis for his provenance, and facts he recovered some years ago which backed up this family provenance, gave these rememberances in good faith and was wrong, the users on AW found a pawn to use to play a new game. It is honestly possible that the Chains could have told his gramdmother that they gave the paintings to Molly as a gift. People do such things all of the time. The owner does have other information in his files which he has collected over a period of many, many years. He does actually keep finding new references, though it is hard for you to believe I am sure. It is not hard for me to believe as I have files on family that I have been collecting for years and they are massive and it is difficult to go back and sort through. However, taking all of this into consideration, when the users on this chat saw this vulnerability, they systematically and viciously attacked the entire provenance. It does look to me as if this really isn't a chat, but rather a feeding frenzy for ego boosting and verbal retort. You all should remember that this is not a game and that there are real people behind these user ids, people who are not perfect, people like you.
posted on September 26, 2000 05:16:47 AM new
ABACAXI What don't you understand? Vile - Forging Forging - Vile Page 16 AW HCQ Sept. 23, 2000 08:49:39AM If I had more time this morning I would go back and pick out all of the other terms. I will save that for later.
posted on September 26, 2000 05:19:58 AM newiceblink
I have deleted a post from last night as it reproduced a copyright article in it's entirity. It's OK to provide a link to the article or provide a brief summation but you cannot post the entire article.
abacaxi
EITHER SUE OR SHUT UP ABOUT IT!
It's close to crossing the line. Please remember to address the issue at hand, not the individual.
posted on September 26, 2000 05:28:43 AM new
TheShar -
"systematically and viciously attacked the entire provenance"
Systematically? yes. Viciously? Hardly. I would say it's been sarcastically with an occasional venture into snidely and irreverently. Even the various sock puppets who are created to post derogatory comments about the personal lives and physical attributes of those with the temerity to question the absolute accuracy of that fairy-tale of a listing description are noe even vicious ... just bombastic and bloviating.
Now, as OAS admits the provenance was based on family legend and the loathsome creatures at AW have shown that Chain died (and was unavailable to be the giver) before Maggie Brown arrived in Denver, and have shown that she was not known as "Molly" until the theatre renamed her, and even the owner has retracted his claim of ownership (at least in the listing) .... why does OAS still have the "formerly owned by Molly Brown of the Titanic" so prominently on teir front page?
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE LAB REPORTS, HISTORICAL FACTS, AND THE AUCTION LISTING?
Just answer, please. I am not attacking you, or the owner, just the discrepancies that are obvious to anyone who can read the lab reports and do the basic "contrast and compare" exercises we all learned in English class.
**********
Edited to correct my UBB errors.
AND:
Michelle:
... Sorry bout that.
AND edited again because my repartee had a toe across the line Michelle drew in the sand.
[ edited by abacaxi on Sep 26, 2000 05:39 AM ]
[ edited by abacaxi on Sep 26, 2000 05:45 AM ]
posted on September 26, 2000 05:33:13 AM new
THESHAR:
Unfortunately, once something is posted, for the public to view, it can and will come under scrutiny. If dates, times, and other information provided, do not add up then the person who wrote/posted the article/auction/documents/etc loses credibility. I believe that is exactly what has happened in this case.
The seller has lost credibility due to the everchanging provenance that is posted on the OAS site. It is also, entirely possible, that OAS lost credibility because they allowed these changes and additions to take place in a highly publicized auction. OAS may have also lost credibility because they continue to post a supposition on the front page of their site, concerning this auction.
It is, entirely possible, that the seller in question, has a ton of documents, at his disposal, to prove his every word within the auction. However, he has not made those documents public. Without accurate, documented information the public is allowed to draw conclusions from what information and documentation is available.
Unfortunately, in this case, the opinion of this public is that the entire auction is suspect.
posted on September 26, 2000 06:11:35 AM new
Ah heck ... I cant resist yet another mindless, vicious attack on the hapless painting. Care to comment TheShar? Goldie?
LISTING (as of 9/26/99):
"It was in Arles where he was taken with brilliant yellows and vibrant reds. His work expressed his most passionate feelings."
OBSERVABLE from the listing photo:
The picture is a very ordinary still life of roses with no brilliant or vibrant anythings, and shows none of the vehement brushwork that is characteristic of Vincent's work in Arles.
LISTING (as of 9/26/99):
""I believe this painting was purchased by Helen Henderson Chain in Arles, France ... (some bio data on Chain snipped) ... She was a neighbor of the legendary 'Unsinkable Molly Brown' of Titantic fame."
FACT:
The "neighbor" statement has been shown to be chronologically impossible, as Chain died before Brown came to Denver, yet the seller persists in perpetuating the misconception that Chain and Brown were in the same place at the same time. And OAS continues to prominently advertise the painting as "previously owned by Molly Brown" on their front page despite the lack of evidence in the listing (a picture of the painting in situ in Molly'sDenver home woulf be nice, or some sort of estate inventory ... but even the letter form the museum in Denver has been deleted from the list of "evidence".
LISTING (as of 9/26/99):
""Under the 'Yellow Roses' is a painting of Yellow Irises with a dedication to Anton Mauve, signed 'Souvenir de Mauve Vincent and Theo 1888'. This shows up in X-ray and in Infra-red."
FACT:
The lab analyses do not show this inscription, only "SOUV" and what might be other writing, yet the seller persists in presenting the non-existent inscription as if the whole thing shows in the x-ray and infra-red analyses.
The analysis does show one or two underpaintings, but it is a long way from having TWO van Goghs under there. The painting Vincent was working on when he discusses the possibility of presenting it with 'Souvenir de Mauve Vincent and Theo 1888' on it was an orchard scene, not a still life.
LISTING (as of 9/26/99):
"See the following letters from the prestigious McCrone Research Institute, and the L.A. County Museum of Art, in the additional reference area to the left.
FACT -
The L.A. County Museum of Art did not analyse the painting. It was done privately, using their equipment, by one of their staff. Yet the seller persists in pretending that the MUSEUM was involved (instead of just their lab equipment). And I have repeatedly said that the analyses merely show the presence of OLD PAINT, not who applied the old paint.
LISTING (as of 9/26/99):
We will be offering another painting of an artist who is equally as important, which was one of several purchased by the owner's Grandmother. Please review the infra-red to the left which exhibits a sticker from Chain and Hardy's, the bookstore owned by Helen Henderson Chain. It adds to the body of evidence. On "the back of the same painting is writing and a serial number from Ambroise Vollard, the art dealer from Paris who knew most of the impressionist artists." Look for this painting to be offered next month.
FACT:
This has nothing to do with the supposed Van Gogh at all. The sticker is on the back of a frame of another painting if I read this correctly. And the writing on the back of one painting does little to prove the authenticity of another.
[ edited by abacaxi on Sep 26, 2000 06:24 AM ]
posted on September 26, 2000 06:36:19 AM new
I've been following this utterly absorbing thread with much interest, disbelief and a whole belly full of laughter. When the photo of the Van Gogh necktie was posted, I just about blew a serious gut. Many thanks for that laugh, although some of the legal threatenings have come close.
What I want to offer is this: My cousin is leaving for Amsterdam on October 1, he will be spending 10 days there. I asked him if a stop at the Van Gogh museum was on his agenda and he said definitely. I have directed him to this thread, and he has read it completely. What I would like to know is that if there is a catalog, literature, listings, etc. that he could pick up that may be helpful to anyone here. Perhaps he could get a contact name or anything that someone could use, if interested, just holler.
Of course, I would hope to find something other than golden boy Scott Haskin's oh-so-important and much publicized phone number.
posted on September 26, 2000 06:44:12 AM new
If what you say is true, theshar, then the seller could have silenced all debate in the first week merely by adding all this documentation he's supposedly collected to his auction listing. But he chose how to represent the item. His credibility game to win or throw away.
Instead, OAS and the seller continued to market as fact - with no disclaimers - oral history proven to be untrue, misattributed analyses, and conclusions where seller's own experts had reached none. By the time the "Rewald letter" was produced - in the final quarter of the game, and by its composition demonstrating that Rewald was a close cousin of several of seller's defenders - OAS and the seller had, all by themselves, so damaged their credibility that it's no surprise at all that the letter was received with hoots of derision.
Don't get me wrong. I don't expect an auction site with 5M listings to personally review and verify every auction listing. Even though OAS has only 800 listings, I don't demand it, if only because to accurately verify the listings, the site would have to personally inspect every item, and then every item listed could be construed as having the site's guarantee of authenticity, which would end up in a legal mess. This is part of the reasoning behind ebay's "only a venue" stance.
But OAS has actively participated in the "Yellow Roses" auction. It prominently featured this auction on its own home page for its own benefit. Although it knew early in the game that seller's claims contradicted not just historical fact, but seller's own knowledge (seller's email to me, admitting his Brown story was untrue, was read by your own agent), OAS both allowed the listing to remain unedited for most of the auction and still makes seller's unsubstantiated claims on its own home page! No matter how much he dragged his feet, at least the seller eventually deleted the baldest of the Brown claims from his listing. OAS hasn't even done that much - leaving it in the bizarre position of making claims about the item that go even farther than those the seller now makes.
Yet rather than step back from the auction and state publicly (i.e., not only on its TOS page) "Hey, we're only a venue," a party identifying herself as an OAS principal goes on a rampage here attempting to defend the site and the seller, playing the victim and hinting at theories that the entire thread is a plot concocted to discredit OAS. (It's doing fine on its own, I think.)
So why should we care? What does it have to do with anybody outside OAS - with the online auction business in general?
A critical component of online auctions is the bidding public's willingness to trust that an auction listing's description contains the complete and unvarnished truth. Bidders can't walk up to the item and handle it or even look at it in person before the auction. They can't look in the seller's eye. They MUST feel confident in placing reasonable trust in the seller and the site - that the genuine Rookwood vase isn't a repro, that the Depression glass bowl doesn't have a chip, that the dress is indeed new and never worn. Without that trust, online auctions are doomed to failure, because nobody will bid.
Look over the threads on just this message board. "The listing said leather - it's plastic!" "She said it was a designer original - it's a knockoff!" "He didn't mention the big crack in the lid!" "MIP? This shirt reeks of BO!" There's a terrible problem with credibility in the sports-collectible arena; sellers are even forging certificates of authenticity. When a seller posts on AW "I just found a flaw/made a mistake in my listing - what do I do?" he is invariably told: DISCLOSE IT NOW. EDIT YOUR LISTING TO REFLECT THE TRUTH. Why do other sellers care? Because the honesty of one seller affects the reputation of all.
What do OAS's actions say about its policies? If OAS will not only continue to allow a high-profile, high-ticket auction with known, obvious inaccuracies to run, but persists in featuring it on its home page AND permits its employees to publicly defend the seller and the site, how can bidders expect anything listed on the site to be as described? If it doesn't care about whether a $2M item is accurately described, how could it possibly care about a $50 doodad? What does it place foremost - its reputation, or its balance sheet? Let me clue you in here: Your balance sheet depends on your reputation.
OAS has had a range of ways to at least protect its own reputation. It could have demanded seller clean up his listing or face cancellation of the auction. It could told the seller it had to cancel the auction because it had become too controversial. It could have let the auction run, but removed it from its home page. It could merely have stated publicly that OAS is "only a venue" and that each bidder is on his own (although that stance might conflict with OAS marketing itself as a site carrying "quality antiques". Instead, it's chosen to brazen out the whole affair. I think that speaks more eloquently about the site than any message posted here.
posted on September 26, 2000 06:47:02 AM new
truesmom -
Specifically, I would like to know if the picture presented as "Yellow Roses" was exhibited in the museum in 1990 as one of its supporters claims. Download and print a copy of it from the oldandsold.com site and print it out for him.
It would show up in the museum records and they would have an exhibition catalog or at least some photos and reciepts for its arrival and its shipping back to the owner. Owner identity is unimportant ... In just want to know if the picture was ever at the museum.
Also, do they know when/if brush-print analysis was accepted by Rewald as a means of authentication?. It's a controversial method. Bright's patent application is from 1996, and Rewald's supposed letter mentions using the brush-prints to confirm the painting as a van Gogh in 1990.
posted on September 26, 2000 07:11:51 AM new
I just received a very kind email from Sabine Rewald. She is the late John Rewald's daughter-in-law; she is also a curator (I believe of the Modern Art collection) at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. As such, she is familiar with both Rewald's "personal" and "professional" writing styles, his command of English, and the form in which he provided authentications.
I had talked with her Sunday and, at her request, forwarded the "Rewald Letter" URL to her at her museum email address.
Ms. Rewald thanked me for bringing the letter to her attention, described it unequivocally as "fraudulent", and stated her intention to bring this "fake" to the attention of OAS.
If anyone would like me to forward her email to you (with headers, so you can check its authenticity), please let me know at [email protected]
I think I would like to invite Haskins here...
edited to fix my email address
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 26, 2000 07:20 AM ]
Nite Joice!