Edward

I agree on all points.

As an attorney, I realize that you are tehnically correct regarding the use of the word "Esquire". Nevertheless, I think that people pay a lot more attention to complaints received from attorneys. Your rights should not depend on having earned such a designation, but problems seem to get resolved much more quickly if you have. That said, I agree with Chaney that Ebay is unlikely to give much more than a slap on the wrist to PowerSeller UniversalMusicGroup. IF this is your best chance, then I wouldn't hold your breath. As Ron and kulu se ma both pointed out, the Evans set was sold many times (exactly 15) for $99.99 by UniversalMusicGroup over the past couple of weeks, strongly undercutting any prospective defense of unilateral mistake. I think that the best chance Daniel and Weizen have is to hound UniversalMusicGroup through every possible channel of communication. Kurt at customer service does not seem able and/or inclined to lift a finger for your cause. Brad, I hope that you get your set - please keep us updated.

The following website provides a pretty good summation of the concept of "mistake" as it applies in California: MISTAKE Whatever conclusions you may draw from browsing this site, I submit the fact that (at least in the case of Daniel and hopefully also Weizen) Universal actually accepted funds (despite the fact that these funds were later returned) is significant and distinguishes it from Donovan (noted in the previously mentioned website). It has been a while since I have really studied contract law, but I do not see how, in these particular situations, Universal can back out of its contracts after accepting payment in full (and hence complete performance) from the other parties to the transactions. I think that it would be a different matter entirely if Universal had refused to accept payment after the auctions had ended. At any rate, anyone who successfully made payment to Universal for this set should pursue the matter vigorously despite receipt of notification similar to what Daniel received. In my experience, it seems to help a lot if you follow your name with "Esq." in any correspondence that is sent. I do not see why someone who is not a lawyer could not follow this tactic - I doubt that the bluff would be called.

Thanks for the tip!!! I can't gripe about shelling out ~$110.00 for an 18-CD set (with a soon to be rusting box!)

I think that you missed Ron's earlier point about elasticity of demand. The demand for oil is fairly inelastic since it has few substitutes. My hat's off to you, though, for arguing about basic economic principles with somebody who earned an economics degree from Wharton. I agree with Dmitry's assessment below: Some people (not necessarily anyone participating in this thread) appear to have some fanciful notion that no one should have to pay much more than original list price for a Mosaic, no matter how long it has been OOP. I recall someone once visiting the old BNBB seeking advice about how to best dispose of numerous Mosaic sets left to his mother by his father. Despite his revelation that his mother had few assets, many board members were urging him to sell the sets at "reasonable" prices. Unbelievable - I really wish that I had said something. There was a moral responsiblity there, but it was for the son to fetch the highest price possible for those Mosaics.

Ditto!!! I envy you Aftab - those are great photos!

I hope that you have a great day, Jeff, and I wish you all the best in the coming year. I sorely miss bumping into you at record stores - Orange County has not been the same since you left.

Those of you who are interested in completing their Sony SACD collection might like to take advantage of the sale currently underway at the Sony Music Store. A search for "SACD" reveals SACD's being sold for $10.98 each and double-disc SACD sets selling for $19.98 each. Shipping is free on orders totaling over $25.00 - I haven't placed an order yet, so I do not know in which states sales taxes are levied. CD's are also on sale: $11.98 discs for $8.98, $13.98 discs for $9.98, and $29.98 sets for $19.98. Larger, multi-disc sets also appear to be on sale.

Happy Birthday, Moose! Over the last few days I hope that you received everything that you wanted.

I'm with you, Kevin! I wish all of you a merry Christmas and all the best in the coming year.

Late, try here: Bill Evans SACD reviews I have close to 100 SACD's, about a 1/4 of them being either Bob Dylan or Rolling Stones ABKCO reissues. The original Rolling Stones ABKCO releases had been around for some time, and I was more than willing to shell out a little cash for hybrids with much improved sound. Indeed, Tower has sold these reissues for $9.99 each at least twice during the past year or so. Hell, if EMI were to ever reissue the Beatles catalog on hybrids for $18.99 list, I would gobble them up. As it is, Beatles CD's currently list for $18.99 even though they are early generation masters. Sony-Columbia would have done well to sell their Bob Dylan hybrids for a few dollars less and forgo the CD-only remastered series. I lot of people were looking forward to Dylan's catalog being remastered, but now there seems to be little reason for anyone other than the committed to purchase the more expensive hybrids. I well understand the sentiment of those reluctant to purchase the same albums yet again on the SACD format. Fortunately, I have been able to purchase a number of SACD's (particularly Fantasy jazz and classical releases) that I never owned before on another format.

Thank you all very much. I wish that I had overslept, Catesta - I have not been getting enough sleep lately and I have no one to blame but myself. I was able to take the day off, though, and so it has been far better than last year when I had to work all day and then attend an evening class and take an examination. I have not made time to listen to much music lately, but I did play Van Cliburn's 1958 performance of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 (on SACD) this afternoon and I am looking forward to digging into the Nuggets boxed set (finally! - what a great gift) over the weekend.

I believe that the only factor that has not been addressed is how easy/difficult it would be for your wife to find a good job in Seattle. Of course, if she is the one who is determined to move back to the PNW come rain or come shine, then I suppose that it is not much of an issue - she should find something sooner or later. Unfortunately, I have not lived in either city (in retrospect, I wish I had gone to law school at Penn). I agree with Johnny, though, that Seattle seems a much easier place to raise a family. I also agree with PHILLYQ that there are tremendous advantages to raising children in the proximity of an extended family. Moreover, spending time with your parents will become increasingly more important as they grow older. I did not vote, but if I were you, I would take the job offer in Seattle and try to push back the start date as close to June as possible. If you are correct about the legal market in Seattle being very tight (and I have no reason to doubt you), then you may end up kicking yourself a few years down the line for not taking what appears to be a great opportunity to relocate now.

Bruce, Yeah, I suppose that you are right. I guess that the bad music of the 70's has left a stronger impression on me than the bad music of the 80's. After a little thought, it is clear that there ARE a hell of a lot of great rock albums that were made in the 1970's. My top 10 rock albums of the 80's does not quite match up to my top 10 rock albums of the 70's. My favorite album on the Rolling Stones list is Reckoning, one of my favorite albums of all time.

Really? I think that the music made in the 80's was pretty strong overall. In comparison, most of the music popular from 1973-1978 seems really weak, save for the works of a few. I also cannot say that I have been too impressed with much of the pop music made after the early 1990's.

I can give an immediate explanation. No problem. God distinguishes between nations and individuals when it comes to sin and the punishment thereof. There is also a distinction between the penalty after death administered to each individual, and a penalty on earth imposed on a person - which might be made to carry over to his descendants, for certain crimes/sins. Each individual must bear the punishment, after his death, for his own sin, unless he got saved while still on earth by accepting Jesus as Saviour, of course. Thus (Ezekiel 18:20) the son does not bear the punishment for his Dad's sin: namely being judged as an individual after death and cast into the lake of fire, preceded by a spell in hell. No-one will ever be sent to hell and the lake of fire for another's sins. Then, the scripture in Deuteronomy 24:16 says that no-one is given the earthly death penalty by the country's authorities for a crime committed by another. And we know that no-one ever is (at least, not in a just society). When it comes to nations, God says, in those Exodus verses, that his punishment of the nation in question will sometimes carry on for several generations. Thus, people born later will suffer because of what their ancestors have done. (It's a bit like the comment that rain falls on the just and the unjust.) This suffering is only on earth, not after death. So there is a big difference between the two types of punishment. An example of the national judgment is the Jews in captivity in Babylon, living in a foreign land under the control of the Chaldeans. These Jews had children who were born in captivity, and these children suffered because of the earlier sins of the fathers, even though they were not personally to blame. Another, contemporary, example would be a child born in an impoverished country that is suffering from prolonged drought. God has brought on the drought as a judgment on that nation for its evil false religions (that's why it happens), but the new-born child is not individually to blame, at least, not at first. Another point about this punshment for several generations is that God, being God, knows what each of us will do in the future. Thus, if an individual, or nation, is going to be only evil in the future, then God sometimes makes them suffer right from birth. So, you see, there is a logical explanation of these apparently contradictory scriptures. If one approaches the Bible with a humble heart, not looking for errors, then an explanation will be found. Sometimes the answer is not easy to find, but one can ask God to reveal the answer. When I first saw that king who was 22 and 42 at the same time (!!), I did not know the explanation. But I did not think there was an error. I just wanted to know how this could be explained. I asked my then pastor, who did not know the answer at first. But he did find me an answer, and I will post it "in a future broadcast", as Robert Stack used to say. You provide a strong, yet ultimately unconvincing argument. The problem is that you somehow seem to overlook the fact that when your God metes out punishment to nations, he must, almost inevitably, cause the death of individuals. If your God visits something such as a flood, famine, or drought upon a nation, inevitably people will perish. Accordingly, in such instances people ARE put to death for the inequities of their ancestors. I offer also Isaiah 14:21, which reads: Prepare slaughter for his children for the inequity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. Your claim that God knows what people will do in the future and so sometimes makes evil people suffer right from birth seems to have much more in common with a philosophy based on predetermination/fatalism than Christianity. If God is omniscient and knows all that will transpire in the future, then what exactly is the point of it all? For indeed, it has already then been determined who will go to heaven and who will go to hell, etc., etc. and there is NOTHING that anyone can do to change matters. Actually, I do believe in predetermination. I believe that based upon who an individual is and all of the stimuli that a person encounters, it is inevitable that he/she will act in a particular way at any given point in time. The only variable for which I might allow is chaos, but chaos theory is beyond the scope of this discussion (and something of which I am not sufficiently versed). Still, the bottom line is that depending upon who you are you either are going to believe and subscribe to Christianity or you are not. To think that a god would doom a person to some sort of hell for his/her religious convictions (insofar as those convictions respect the rights of others) is beyond me. There is much to be said for living a just and virtuous life - one does not need Christianity or any other religion to do so. Tell me, Shrdlu, have you ever studied philosophy as an academic discipline? Now, when I refer to philosophy, I do not simply mean to the differences between Christianity and the world's other religions. I mean epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and ethics. If you had, I doubt that you would display so little compassion for those with different beliefs as well as so much arrogance in the primacy of your faith. I really do not have anything against any religion (including Christianity) insofar as that religion preaches tolerance of those with different beliefs. That said, I am extremely wary of organized religion. As for contradictions in the Bible, as I stated before, I know plenty of Christians who accept that such errors exist with unshaken faith because they realize that the Bible can NOT be the literal word of God. Your suggestion that people approach the Bible with a humble heart not looking for errors is ridiculous. There are many Christian theologists who seek inconsistencies in the Bible with an open mind because they are interested in the TRUTH. As Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." You started this thread, Shrdlu, so if you are interested in its vitality why don't you being by explaining all of the contradictions presented in the two websites to which 7/4 and I provided links? I, though, have to agree with CS500 that there are far more interesting things to read.

Contradictions in the Bible My favorite contradiction involves the following: Are we punished for our parents' sins? Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9) Exodus 34:6-7 " . . . The Lord God, merciful and gracious, . . . that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation." I Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, . . ." vs. Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." There is just no way to logically reconcile these statements. I have had more than one argument with a Christian extremist regarding this contradiction, yet I have never received anything approaching a reasonable explanation. I think that, yet again, Jim has nailed it on the head. I know plenty of Christians who, with unshaken faith, acknowledge such contradictions because they realize that the Bible cannot be the literal word of God.

I recently talked to an old friend at Rykodisc, and the Concord purchase of Fantasy is not a done deal yet. Concord offered a lot for the purchase of Fantasy, probably far more than the company is worth.

How do you get the CCR box for $38? Is that before postage costs? Right now, my offer is "Unlimited $5.99 w/FREE SHIPPING on all purchases over $30!" The box is something like $35.99 already, so all that was tacked on was sales tax! Bummer about Rockin' the Boat. Hey, that's the kind of offer I want. Hey, I'm with you Tjazz. Does anyone know which code may be used to take advantage of this offer? Thanks!

You may not have to wait. Twice I have pre-ordered a set and included an existing set in the same order, and in each instance Mosaic, despite instructions to the contrary, shipped the currently available set immediately. Both times Mosaic charged me only for the combined, reduced shipping rate.

Happy birthday, Lon! I wish you the best in the coming year.

Sammy Cahn is definitely worthy of consideration and, as far as rock music is concerned, so is Bruce Springsteen. If I could choose only three, though, my list would mirror wolff's.

I also highly recommend both of these titles, which are an absolute steal at $10 a piece. Sinatra is in excellent voice on these recordings, and there are a number of titles contained on "Perfectly Frank" that he never commercially recorded, namely: This Can't Be Love, Love Me Or Leave Me, I'll String Along With You, You Took Advantage Of Me, Just You Just Me, Them There Eyes, Somebody Loves Me, I'm In The Mood For Love, S'Wonderful, Under A Blanket Of Blue, Sometimes I'm Happy, Don't Blame Me, Thou Swell, I'm Confessin', Out Of Nowhere, Between The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea, Tenderly, You Must Have Been A Beautiful Baby, Hands Across The Table, and If I Could Be With You. I am not sure if "FS After Hours" contains any songs not commercially recorded by Sinatra.

I forgot to add that Phil Jackson was not exactly an angel. Yes, he did guide Shaq and Kobe to three NBA Championships (something they had been unable to do together before Jackson's arrival), but a reliable source inside the Lakers claims that Jackson wanted a ridiculous amount of control when he first arrived in Los Angeles (for instance, he wanted both Chick Hearn and Lawrence Tanter, the long-time Lakers public address announcer, replaced). Apparently, Dr. Buss drew the line. Yes, I know that this is only hearsay, but I am positive that Phil Jackson had everything to do with Jerry West's departure. Mitch Kupchak has been left trying to fill the shoes of someone who was a giant both on and off of the court.

Now I certainly can respect that (as opposed to the rantings of one who does not have a favorite team, who does not know diddley-shit about basketball, and who is a Lakers-hater just for the sake of being one - I have met quite a few people like this.) I so miss the days when I could watch Magic, Kareem, Worthy and company play three or four times per week. Shaq has a bad work ethic, Kobe is arrogant, and they both want(ed) obscene amounts of money. Yes, I suppose it is natural to want whatever the market will bear, but both of these guys claim that they want to win and it is hard to do that when you have one or two players on a team making so much money. Moreover, to put things in perspective, players like Magic and Kareem never made nearly as much as Shaq and Kobe - the value of the U.S. dollar has not declined that much over the past 15 years. Of course, some of this has to do with players now sharing a larger portion of the profits than they used to, but I think that a few players have now completely lost their perspective. Money is not everything, especially not when you are already making millions of dollars per year for playing the game that you are supposed to love as well as who knows how many more millions in endorsement contracts. Shaq and Kobe's best chance of winning in the short-term was to stay together. Only time will tell how good/bad this trade was for the Lakers and Miami. Much depends on how well Shaq stays in shape. Since his contract is due to expire after next season, I can see him taking great pains to enjoy a banner season, but it is difficult to predict how he will perform a few years down the line. I agree that Malone should join the Spurs if he wants to win a championship. Joining Miami would also improve his chances, but not nearly as much. It should be interesting to watch a Spurs-Pistons final next June.