Karaoke Forums

Some of those long posts are like American Pie sang back to back: no matter how well it is sang half the crowd will head for the Johns

_________________
I can neither confirm nor deny ever having or knowing anything about nothing.... mrscott

This is more like Alices Restaurant Jian.    We are trying to have a discussion with Officer Obie.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

And Kellyoke: The manufacturers only buy the rights to press a certain number of each song. Once they reach that limit, they have to renegotiate the number and pay to press more or discontinue the disc. Some discs just aren't worth renegotiating because of the lack of sales for that disc. Also, many artists are fed up with the karaoke industry because their royalties aren't being paid because of infringers and they pull their rights. In which case, the manufacturers have to discontinue their discs. I would be more apt not to trust a company that NEVER discontinues any discs.

And Steven Kaplan: I will not profess to KNOW what Jian meant by the American Pie statement, but it sounded to me that Jian thinks I have made good arguments (no matter how well it is sung) but even then it's been "sung" to death. I've read back to other threads and posts and, it seems that, no matter WHAT argument or proof is given, people are going to be illegal if they WANT to be illegal so they can try to get something for nothing. The only catch to that is, if they get caught, the price could go up for them. If YOU personally created something or manufactured something, YOU would want your just compensation. If someone infringed on your rights to that compensation, you would sue them. SC, Stellar, and all of the other manufacturers AND the original publishers of the songs DESERVE the money being denied them by illegal karaoke companies. Whether it is $10,000.00 or $.10, it is THEIR money and we have no right to tell them they are not entitled to it.

Okay...since you are obviously bored, TTowntenor:
ILLEGAL multi riggers!!!!! ILLEGAL downloaders!!!! Have you not been reading the posts? We are not talking about the people who are doing things the LEGAL way. We never said that anyone doing ANYTHING LEGALLY was doing something wrong. WE are a multi rig company, but WE use the original discs. There are other multi rig companies out there who are using original discs. THEY and WE and anyone using original discs are NOT ILLEGAL. Got that? Are ya caught up now?

This is interesting Unhinged, because it gets into another VERY intricate area.  While some are definately stating what you say to be the case, I disagree with that as the criteria for Fair Use.  ..My own feelings are that, (and there are differences granted) a company telling me I can't use the music on their product because beyond ____, they arbitrarily decide I should be forced to buy more from them so they can stay fat and happy based upon my misfortune, or they might claim I have no right to use what is on their product due to THEM wishing to get more business, does not mean they actually have a right to do so, How is "fair use" established for the individual buying music ?   What makes THEIR company privvy to do this in the scope of "playing time", "number of uses" and nature of play regarding "OTHERS music", they pay a fee. And, I in return pay the company I order the music from "a fee".  What sum of money constitutes "Fair Use" ? What is too great a markup ?  Unreasonable profit margin in such a setting ?    It's just going to be totally arbitrary ?  If-so, too many loopholes for me to believe any music media containing another individuals (many individuals) content may be assessed with an arbitrary value, which becomes established and deemed  "Legal" by a distributor. despite the fact that I initially pay them. Are they capitalizing on something that SHOULD really be "free use" after I pay a nominal fee ?  Just because somebody tells me something is "ILLEGAL" why should I not question it ?  

This is how I believe.  I buy ANY hardware, playback device,  perhaps even a radio, it dies after 8 years. NO LAW prevents me from rebuilding it, having it refurbished, or doing ANYTHING to restore it.  Nothing says "When this radio reaches the end of it's planned lifespan, the user must get rid of the item and purchase a new radio from our store".  Now while I understand that many say "You own the CD, but not the music", WHY should analog format be an exception via "Jukebox" ruling if this is so ? the music is music regardless of playback format.  Is it illegal for me to put an FM radio into loudspeakers at a party and play a concert if I am getting paid for supplying the radio and loudspeakers ?  Perhaps it is...  Thing is,  assuming such, certain things get to be too close to the "big bros" type scenerio, if they benefit the huge business person attempting to dictate implicit rules to me that aren't actually established law.  The ones that benefit from this are the biggest and wealthiest, and it MIGHT very well be a form of GREED and nothing more. Their benefits are disproportionate to what this SHOULD cost the little guy (which if given freedoms, it will be the shirt off've his back.) just for the reasons that they are greedy ?  What money should a small business person have to pay to constitute "FAIR USE" ? of an item ?   This should not be so arbitrary IMHO.

How do you establish fair use compensation for music ?  based upon amount of play ?   Based upon life of media playing music ?  or optimally should all in certain markets just pay a certain nominal fee, based upon category of use they fall into ? and from that point on reep the rewards of using any and all formats, copies etc ?  Personally, I feel people buying the originals are paying a considerable markup, and for what ?  To whom ?   I believe when you pay decent money for the original the device AND music should be yours to keep alive as long as you so choose. BUT, this is just my opinion.  

If I buy a television, pay $1000 for it, and it dies in 3 years and I have the ability to fix it what right does the company that sold me the television actually have to tell me  YOU MUST PURCHASE A NEW TELEVISION, OTHERWISE YOU ARE ROBBING PRODUCERS AND ARTISTS AS WELL AS MATSUSHITA ELECTRONICS FOR NOT RECEIVING YOUR MONEY FOR NEW PARTS ?

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

"Just compensation" is ?    How is this fairly established Revenge Karaoke ?  Because the manus arbitrarily make a decision this means it SHOULD be so ?  Or is JUST or FAIR compensation in actuality what you pay for the original ONCE ?  How do you determine what is truly FAIR compensation to a company that is using OTHERS music to begin with Revenge Karaoke ?  A company that has very high markup ?  In essence WHO get's hurt ?  THE SMALL GUY is affected disproportionately if the only choices are back up (with your own media),  or pay 50,000 dollars more.   This is not reasonable to me !  Hence I believe this steps on MY actual rights to fair use !

What you are stating is that WHATEVER sum of monetary reimbursement the manus deem reasonable and whatever terms they implicitly state IS fair use barring each and every exception.  What they state MUST be absolutely fair use, because they have calculated this based upon what actual criteria that's neutrally or FAIRLY established ? After-all, I DO have the right to "Fair Use", so tell me Revenge Karaoke (since you have all the answers) WHAT determines actual "Fair Use" ?  It CAN'T be fair assuming it's so arbitrary. Reality is Fair Use is subjective law,  Company policy is based on THEIR desire for gains based solely upon their whim.  It's based upon THEIR greed, and not "true" fairness.  I totally disagree with your generalities since actual fair use law negates their arbitrary discretion to begin with, and it's quite ambiguous.

But what if there's no compromise ?   It's format shift, back up, or spend rediculously high sums of money that for a (specific individuals) use WOULD NOT be deemed as :fair and just compensation: in a court of law,  the sum of money they are paying is disproportionately high, in essence they are getting RAPED by the manufacturers.    This isn't a possibility you'd ever consider ?

Pave paradise, and put up a parking lot making sure there are meters so the government benefits ?   The state will now tax me a "Utility Tax" each time I smile and I'm happy ?  WHat is excessive and what isn't ?  This has not yet been fairly established.

You give huge business TOO much control Revenge Karaoke.  They aren't "god".

My point being, that illegal does not always mean wrong !

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

But I buy all of my discs as well but choose to use a computer for playback off of the hard drive...there is no other difference in the respect that you buy all your discs & I buy all my discs, i'm really sorry that your company mishandles your discs to the point that you make it financially beneficial for the manus by needing to continually replace your discs.  But you need to stop pushing the issue that someone like me (and I use that in general for everyone in my situation ie BUYING their discs but using the computer) is part of the problem...we aren't!  Illegal yes, costing the manus or harming the indsutry, no!

_________________
[shadow=deepskyblue]I'm impressed, I've never met such a small mind inside such a big head before.[/shadow]

You are admitting that "Fair Use" is monetary compensation Revenge Karaoke,  OK then tell me  "How much should a small KJ pay the Manus for fair use" ?  If your answer is "It depends", you are confirming that you agree with the subjective nature and allowances given to Fair Use defense,  If you tell me a reasonable and specific amount I might be able to relate, otherwise YOU DON'T KNOW.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

Actually, the United States Government is responsible for the copyright law. Sound Choice didn't write it. SC is not telling you what is and is not fair use, the GOVERNMENT is. SC is just using the law to get their fair and just compensation. And fair and just compensation IS EXACTLY whatever the manufacturer says it is.

If I create something (ESPECIALLY if I have already paid someone else THEIR fair and just compensation so that I CAN use their product to create it) I will set the price I want. Now, here is the catch: You either pay it or you don't. If you pay it, you are welcome to use my product in the manner in which it was meant to be used and ONLY in the manner in which it was meant to be used (and can we stay on the copyright issue and not have some halfwit say that they can use their discs as shooting pigeons and that THAT is not the way the product was MEANT to be used. This is a "for instance" to explain the infringement issue. If you don't understand even that much, you are not smart enough to be reading this anyway.) If you abuse the privilege to use my product, the right to use it will be taken from you or I will sue you to get the proper amount you owe me for having infringed on my rights. It's not rape. No one said you HAD to buy my product in the first place. You can go milk cows or weave baskets for a living for all I care. You don't HAVE to run karaoke. But, if you ARE running karaoke, then you have to ABIDE BY THE LAWS GOVERNING IT. And if a manufacturer says you may not rip their songs into your computer, and the government backs them up (go ahead and say "fair use" is murky or ambiguous. It's clear if you actually read it. Karaoke is for COMMERCIAL use, "fair use" does NOT cover karaoke and there is no other way to portray it if you are running shows for money or compensation. Argue it all you want, but it's NOT hard to understand) then WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS ILLEGAL and if you want to use SC discs then you have to pay SC's price.
SC sets a price based on how much discs cost to produce and the profit they want to make. They have all the right in the world to do that and you have every right in the world not to buy their discs. I am sorry the law doesn't meet with your standards, but it IS the law and, like I said before: If you want to change it, call your congressman, go to Washington and BE a congressman and try to change it, but don't break it just because you do not agree with it. You are only hurting the industry. If you have such disregard for the industry, find another job.

And, you don't think the manufacturers should be able to decide what fair and just compensation is? Okay. Fine. Then go into your next show and ask the manager, or whatever, how much they WANT to pay for your show. You think you are supplying a quality product, right? You set the prices for your shows. If they want your show, they pay what you ask. How would you feel if, at the end of a five hour show, the bar handed you $5 and said thanks. Would you accept that? What if that is all the compensation THEY THINK you should have? It isn't up to the consumer how much they are paying for a product (otherwise, I wouldn't be paying three bucks for gas). It's up to YOU how much you think your product is worth. And it is up to the manufacturers how much they think THEIR product is worth. And I have to say, SC, at least, is right. They set a price higher than most of the other manufacturers, but we all swear by (at least we all did) SC and buy more of their discs than others. So, obviously, up until you can't cheat them, their prices were fine with you and fair. There are laws governing SC just as there are laws governing us. They can't press more songs than they pay for and we can't upload their product to our computers. They gave us fair warning. They have been telling us for YEARS not to do it. Just because you CHOOSE not to listen doesn't make what you are doing legal. AND...again...if you are so sure that you are in the right, tell SC what you are doing and that you have no intentions of stopping and how to find you and see what a court says. YOU can set the precidence! You can become part of case law since that seems to be SO important to everyone. I never knew that the law wasn't the law until there was a case about it. I was always taught that there are laws and you are supposed to abide by them. So, does that mean if I find a unique, never before done way to kill someone that I won't be doing anything wrong because there isn't another case like it so there really isn't a law against it?? No wait. There IS a law against murder....just as there is a law against copyright infringement.

OMG...are you reading what is being posted? "FAIR USE" is part of the U.S. Copyright Laws. The manufacturers didn't write them, can't change them and must abide by them, as do we. The argument of "fair use" was that illegal KJs, who are ripping karaoke music into their computers and burning multiple copies and many other infringements on the manufacturer's copyrights, were trying to use the "fair use" clause of the copyright laws to justify what they are doing. Only "fair use" doesn't apply to karaoke because KARAOKE IS A COMMERCIAL VENTURE and there is no question about that. You run shows for money or other valuable compensation. FAIR AND JUST COMPENSATION is paying the manufacturers for their product no matter how much they ask. If you want to use their product, you have to pay what they want. You can't PAY for karaoke to be "FAIR USE." You can't pay ANYBODY and have karaoke be included in "fair use."

And TTowntenor: PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE PORTION OF THIS POST SO I DO NOT HAVE TO SAY IT AGAIN: IF YOU HAVE YOUR ORIGINAL DISCS AT YOUR SHOWS AND YOU ARE USING THEM FOR EACH AND EVERY SONG (as you claim you are) THEN WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS PROBABLY NOT ILLEGAL. When people in this thread say illegal computer KJs, I mean people who are NOT using their originals for whatever reason and most of the others mean people who are downloading the songs for free and don't even HAVE the originals. OKAY?

Oh...and Steven Kaplan, one more thing...just a question, really: I am wondering if you are in some weird and not understood way, trying to insult me by calling me Revenge Karaoke and not Revenge Entertainment. Cause, if you are, it's not working. We are both and we LOVE karaoke, so it's not any kind of insult. If it would make it easier for you, you can refer to me as RE or RK and won't have to type out the word Entertainment every time you are talking to me. I would have gone with Revenge Karaoke, but When I filled out the thing when I signed up, it asked the name of my company and that's Revenge Entertainment. When we run shows, we go by whichever people want to call us. The checks cash just the same.[/quote]

Only a fool would buy a house for $150,000 and then refuse to buy Insurance to protect that Investment!!!!!

Only a fool would buy a $80,000 sports car and not Buy Insurance to protect that Investment!!!!


Only a fool would go into business and not have a way to protect that Investment!!!


Only a fool would think that we do not have the right to protect our Investments!!!!


To Invest large amounts of money into karaoke disk, and not have some way to protect that Investment is simply foolish!!!!!

Any manu or Government or Person or Group...who think we should not protect our Investments or even have the right to do so....Are either Greedy!!!! or are a bunch of communist or are Ignorant mule headed Crooks themselves!!!!

I don't give a Rats Arse what Anyone says!!!! or what the Law says!!!! or what the Government says!!!!!   .....I will protect my Investments be it karaoke or other wise!!

NO ONE!!!! AND I MEAN NO ONE!!! CAN EVER TELL ME THAT I CANNOT PROTECT MY INVESTMENTS!!!!! I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE OR WHO YOU THINK YOU ARE!!!

Nuff Said!!!!!!!  LMAO  LMAO  LMAO  LMAO  LMAO  LMAO

Never a problem. As far as favorites on here... I don't keep track. I don't hate you or dislike you... a debate is a debate. You're one of the first on here to at least acknowledge the other side on the occasional ;point.

You mentioned that SC and CB are the only two that you know that replace broken or damaged discs... Sing To The World not only guarantees their discs, but is the ONLY company I know to guarantee their CUSTOMS! Not even SC or CB will do that!

You don't know what you are talking about Revenge Entertainment.  You're like a screeching Parrot regurgitating words and phrases you lack the capacity to understand.  I'm going to go out back, sit on the patio and squabble with the rocks.     You state the "United States Government" is responsible for Copyright Law,  a few sentences later you state "The manufacturers can set arbitrary terms", and the KJ has no options but to go with that, yet you also state that for the KJ "Fair Use" has not yet been established. So ALL you state is the KJ is a puppet that MUST do whatever either the Government or Manufactures wish for him to do, or not KJ at all..  That is a nonsensical rant. THAT Also has nothing to do with Fair Use    That's what Fair Use is supposed to balance !

You feel at liberty to play self-acclaimed judge and jury and tell individuals how great you are, and how wrong they are without any true knowledge and criteria of how guilt is established regarding Copyright Infringement in the case of a KJ.  You just get a power kick out've this, sitting on your high horse.  Yet your rant is foolish and flawed. You can't substantiate ANYTHING you state with fact, or example.

Fair Use is a DOCTRINE found WITHIN United States Copyright Law.  It falls into , but there are MORE doctrines which protect the holder of purchased Copyrighted material as well that ALSO come into play here,  You have no clue about these however . The Copyright Act allows ONLY five rights to the holder of Copyrighted work and in such instances when viewed case by case, the holder of the copyrighted material does not require the prior permission of the Copyright Owner.  There's NO general law that *ALL* users
are bound by in ALL circumstances.  This MUST be viewed case by case.  You refuse to understand this, however that's actually factual. You have no right to call anybody guilty, without knowing details of their individual use.  Possibly breaking a current Law, but this does not mean they are wrong, or actually ARE in fact breaking ANY laws.  You can't get this thru your thick head however. You think you know-it-all, you clearly haven't a clue.   There are 5 factors that MUST be viewed case by case, and certain area Civil Codes also come into play when viewing how the Copyright holder is conducting themselves in the following areas.

the right to prepare derivative works based upon work in certain or specific cases.
the right to reproduction of the copyrighted work in certain specific cases
the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly in certain specific cases
the right to distribution of copies of the work to the public in certain cases as well.  
the right to display the copyrighted work publicly in specific cases.

"Fair Use" is only ONE of many doctrines found within copyright and trademark law that LIMITS the rights of the Copyright holder. NONE of this is clearly defined or carved in stone.  For even private use a person must understand the Audio Home  recording act of the 1970's amended in 1992. There are exclusions on EVEN private use. For commercial use, the 1998 Digital Millennium act must be taken into consideration and understood, the Jukebox act, size of venue, times of work, proportion of monetary loss to various individuals and MANY MANY intricate factors.  But I'm going around in circles with you repeating myself because you haven't a clue what constitutes "Guilty of Copyright Infringement".  You have taken it upon yourself to play Judge and Jury, without understanding circumstance, reason, intent also will be weighed heavily before ANYBODY can be found Guilty !  A person can be INNOCENT of copyright infringement EVEN if violating what appears to be portions of Copyright law because exception is nebulous. Scare tactics are deliberately thrown in, but are not necessarily "law".

The Fair Use defense is ENTIRELY different, and can be used in ALL areas of Copyright Law. It's an extremely broad CASE by CASE defense because of problems that arise out of instances such as the following which MAY not be fair in MANY cases such as compulsory licenses that allow third parties to copy, perform, or distribute certain types of works without the copyright owners permission, in exchange for which the third parties must pay a predetermined royalty amount.  So What constitutes FAIR and PREDETERMINED amount a small KJ SHOULD pay, Revenge K&E ?  Please tell me ?   On one hand, you feign having a clue as to what you are talking about, however on the other you are telling me if an individual gets hit two times due to theft within two weeks this individual paying $100,000 for the same usage rights as the person who hasn't become a victim of theft once that has paid out only $33,000 for a set of originals is "FAIR USE" of playback material ?   If-so, Why ?   You HONESTLY believe if the government and manufacturer dictates terms two KJ's are both being treated fairly regarding COPYRIGHT LAW when one has had to dole out 3X as much for a library due to incontrollable circumstance which disproportionately hits him in the pocket book ? and your justification for this is merely "Yes,  It's how I understand the law to read", so I will never challenge it because if it's the law it's ALWAYS fair ?   Even if not fair I should abide by it in this particular case ?   That's foolish.
What is a fair and predetermined amount the small KJ should have to pay for fair use of copyrighted materials, and under what set of conditions Revenge K&E ?

Your content thus-far has been squabble without substance. Drivel without regard for actual law and common sense.  You believe you have the ability to determine what is legal and what is not legal, you don't.  Your posts just display your inability to reason, and need to show-off how proud of yourself you are. Just paragraph after paragraph of blatant unfounded conceit, without capacity to understand actual law.  When asked to think for yourself, you clearly show inability to do-so.

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

revenge is a dish best served cold not with a shake or two of hormones and evening primrose

_________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel... Because those that matter... Don't mind...And those that mind... Don't matter."

Okay....Steven Kaplan...when you have spoken with a copyright lawyer (You can call your local bar association and ask them for copyright lawyers' numbers. Be prepared to pay, though. Lawyers don't do their jobs for free any more than the manufacturers do.) so that YOU understand the copyright law and fair use, even on an elementary level, THEN we can continue this. Until then, I seem to be having a battle of wits with an unarmed man. How unfair of me!
Since you have no relevant points to make that make any sense or do not, in fact, BACK the statements that I have been making, and you are not going to listen to anyone but yourself, I am done talking to you after this post. Rant all you want. Have a nice day and talk to me when you have something intelligent to say that has something to do with anything I might have ACTUALLY SAID (as in...I never said, "The manufacturers can set arbitrary terms." What I said was: The manufacturers can put a price on what they manufacture and we must pay that price -yes, yes, before anyone says they buy on eBay, stick with the thread here- or not use their product. I further stated that, if you don't want to pay the price they set and follow the laws regarding that product, you are well within your rights not to BUY that product. And, if you use the product in such a way that it violates the manufacturer's copyrights, they have the right to sue you and recoup the money they lost because of you. It couldn't be any clearer. But YOU still seem to be having a problem understanding it).
It is, quite obviously, YOU who is a "screaching (that's spelled with 2 E's by the way) Parrot regurgitating words and phrases you lack the capacity to understand." You also seem to lack the capacity to understand anything anyone ELSE is saying, too.

REALLY read copyright laws and the "fair use" clause all the way to the end. Look up the words you can't understand and really, ask a lawyer to explain it if you still don't get it.

As for you insulting me - If there is a subject that you actually KNOW a lot about and I don't, then you can insult me and act high and mighty if I choose to make absurd arguments about it. Have you ever heard the phrase, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?" Well...you have pretty much removed any doubt I might have had about you. And if you don't like it - tough tunas. I am done trying to explain it to you. Use your computer karaoke. Hopefully you will get caught (especially if I can find out where your shows are and alert SC and Stellar) and then a judge can explain it to you. I DARE you to argue with him/her the way you've been arguing here. But I URGE you, no, I BEG you, to use the same arguments you've used here. Judges always seem so bored and annoyed. I think they need a good laugh.

MorganLeFey  - your comment about revenge being best served cold - hmmmm... yes... interesting... also really not relevant to the discussion. But cute. And my hormones are fine, thank you. Are you female? Don't you ever have views on issues, feel passionate about something and even get angry at stupid, annoying people without being hormonal? How sad for you if you don't. Hmmm...or is it you just don't like intelligent women, huh? Feel threatened, do you? And what would you have tried to insult me with if I were a man?

And a special post to dreamer1962.

There is this thing they have called INSURANCE. It protects your investments. No, it won't replace a disc that has been discontinued, but, as I asked before, would ONE disc really kill anyone's shows. Are your shows really that bad? I could probably get rid of all my discs except for the original Foundation series and I would still have great shows. I try to get as many new songs as I can because I care about my customers. I want to hear them sing new stuff as well as old. But our shows would, in no way, suffer because I am missing ONE disc. If we don't happen to have a song, the customers usually go out and buy it and bring the song with them the next week. (Granted, we have the advantage of having TWO really great distributors in the same town so our customers don't have to wait for shipping) Only ONE person has ever left my show because I didn't have something he wanted to sing. But he was a competing KJ and, as it turns out, the song he wanted was never MADE on karaoke and HE didn't have it either. So, needless to say, I wasn't too upset for not having his song.

I DO, however, have insurance, because I have known too many KJs that have had discs stolen or broken, and insurance is a good idea. It's a little expensive because we are a mobile service, but, in the long run, it's worth it. You are right, though. It WOULD be stupid not to protect one's investment. It would also be stupid to knowingly break the law and risk losing one's investment and one's freedom. But many of you are doing it anyway. Just a thought.

Another pearl of wisdom from the interminable source of great drivel  :worship:  :worship:



Don't feel sorry for me, even without arms I can still pick a pencil up with my mouth and type a page faster (using just the end of the pencil) than you can gather a thought  (considering your particular deficit)


Yes,  backing such a paucity of sophistication is something I'm unable to do  :worship:


Yes,  A few of us were just PM'ing one another regarding this exact metaphor earlier today.  It seems you are familiar with it after-all.  :hug:



Yeah,  I'm despondent.  I now see the light,  I feel like such a miscreant after reading your prodigious disquisition filled with such a wealth of implausibility.  Somebody hold me !



Given your natural gifted inability to curtail superfluous spew, it's ashame such talent didn't pick a better suited name such as "Montazuma's Revenge".

_________________
Northeast United States runner up for the "Singing Hall of Shame".

silly girl, many men here know to their chagrin that I am a non-gender specific insulter, just ask around
As to intelligent women, I applaud intelligence in both genders...if I have a discriminatory bone in my body it is toward fools and zealots. The jury is out on one, but you are definately the latter

_________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel... Because those that matter... Don't mind...And those that mind... Don't matter."

Might want to look up that word. Call me an enthusiast or an enthusiastic supporter. Zealot means something else. Infact, if I were a zealot, I would have no other interests and it just so happens I am interested in not talking to someone without something relevant to say. Have a great day! (But...at least you called me girl. Haven't been called that in a couple of years. I usually get ma'am now. Thanks!)

Revenge Entertainment,

I’m really curious, why did you pick that name?  

This is a genuine question, not meant to be a slight in any way, or even a suggestion that I don’t think it’s a good name; I’m simply curious.  

Forgive me if it’s already been asked/answered.  I’ve been following this thread, but I may have missed a few lines.

_________________
Hate is like taking poison, hoping the other guy gets sick