|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
100.40.104.113
One of the many events that cumulatively served to nudge me a little closer to the exit chute from TAS-Land each time, was that after I designated a Shahinian loudspeaker for a TAS award (Editor's Choice? Golden Nostril? I forget)--I also forget which loudspeaker, it might have been the Compass or the Arc--I received a phone call from Vasken Shahinian.
He said, "Hey, John! Thanks for the award!"
I played dumb and said that as far as I knew, I was not supposed to discuss future content with manufacturers, and, why did he think that he was getting an award?
His reply was, a TAS ad rep phoned and told he him was in line for an award, and wanted to know how big an ad Shahinian wanted to buy. Vasken laughed and said they had never bought one ad anywhere, and never would.
In the event, my words of praise did run in the print issue. And, of course, that was more than 15 years ago.
jm
Follow Ups:
I always wanted an awards show televised after 60 Minutes which gives awards for people who have the most awards - they can come on stage pushing their designer wheel barrow and give a five minute breathless speech on how so many awards have changed their life!
I always adored Jack for using his Oscar as a door stop! Anything ever written about someone is lining a bird cage the next morning. Critics think they are the lamp posts of culture - and we all know what dogs think of lamp posts!
...of the "classfull" Recommended Components . Just my opinion.
"Somebody was always controlling who got a chance and who didn't. - Charles Bukowski
First, we have to goad/shame you into a serious expenditure then we have to make sure you don't try to return it.
Think of all the great movies that didn't win a major Oscar.
Of all the (mostly forgotten) literary hacks who did win the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Of all the artisanal hi-fi that doesn't even get a glance from self-important critics and that would never make the cover of any hi-fi rag, let alone win a coveted acrylic award purchased from Staples.
Awards? Phooey!
I have to tell you, Sam, re Nobel "hacks" -- there's some great (and relatively forgotten) literature in there. Go into just about any used book store, and see how many copies of Independent People (Haldor Laxness) you can find there with uncut pages. The copy you read will become one of your best friends.
Jeremy
JM
Why Thank You, John, for reminding me. I bought and was enthralled by that one too (cheat sheet reminds me a little of the explanation of the names in one edition of "War and Peace") in 1969, for about $0.25 at a used book store run by a proud communist. I bought most of Thomas Mann and most of Thomas Hardy from him too, at similar prices. He had some difficulty with his belief system, though; the last time I saw him, he had been beset by a customer who wanted to be given the books for no pay and who told him that he was no communist so long as he was charging. The guy wanted me (sic! -- just the last person in the store, I guess) to reassure him that it was ok if he took the quarters to feed himself.
For a number of years, used book stores and Beethoven string quartets (I know, but what are you going to do?) fairly possessed me.
Best,
Jeremy
In the 1960s, when the paperback editions of Narcissus and Goldmund, and Steppenwolf, and The Glass Bead Game were high-school and undergrad fashion accessories, Miles Davis reportedly had a live-in girlfriend who loved Hermann Hesse. So Miles tried reading one of the novels, I don't know which, but obviously the best candidate is Glass Bead Game. The upshot was his ultimatum:
"Either he goes, or you both can go!"
Proiceless.
jm
I did not now that, and what a great story! He seems to have understood at least some aspect of Hesse's essence. I wonder what exactly he disliked?
I shall report your story to my main jazz man, my younger son. Even if apocryphal, it should be repeated everywhere!
Thanks,
Jeremy
The Making of Kind of Blue : Miles Davis and His Masterpiece
By Eric Nisenson.
St. Martin's Press (New York, 2000). Hardcover, 236 pages. 8.5" by 6". ISBN: 031228408X. $22.95.
NB, a very controversial book that many love to hate.
Can be had for all of 1 cent plus shipping these days.
jm
I enjoyed it, but whether it is accurate or not I would leave that to others. One man's take, and maybe nothing more. still worth reading if a fan of Miles, KOB, and his work.
One should also read JMR's Phile article No 34. The Fifth Element in their archives. Worth printing out and saving.
Jim Tavegia
(nt)
It was in the 1st issue of Stereophile and the article was about how to write an audio ad. The gist was the worse the product the more you claimed it did because a wise customer won't buy the product in the 1st place so you might as well claim the ridiculous and hope to get the buyer who doesn't know what he is doing.
The best part is that he wrote some fake ads. And he told me that he didn't have any company in mind. And yet he still got some letters asking why he had picked on those companies.
> It was in the 1st issue of Stereophile and the article was about how to
> write an audio ad.
This article is reprinted on Stereophile's website (see link below). It was
written by Lucius Wordburger, a nom de plume for J. Gordon Holt, who, in
his words, wished to remain anonymous.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Impeccable...unimpeachable -- J. Gordon Holt FOR PRESIDENT!!
Vbr,
Sam
.
You have to make up for it somehow? It is why people raise their voices to make a point, when no one agrees with them.
Jim Tavegia
(nt)
Ads are like a penis.....oh darn I don't have a completion for that start....dang!
E
T
John, you can never ignore the opportunity of a marketing guy to make every effort to make what he believes to be an EASY SALE! And in our Nation's Capitol we have taken that simple idea to a whole new level.
Kind of a sad state of affairs, but our humanness if often our worst enemy. The fact you shared that with us says volumes. I'm not sure we needed reminding that the demise of man is all around us.
Love your writing as you always challenge me with great insight. Always look forward to more of your recordings and I keep checking your site occasionally for something new.
Jim Tavegia
> you can never ignore the opportunity of a marketing guy to make every
> effort to make what he believes to be an EASY SALE!
This exactly the point, Jim. That when an aggressive effort to sell ads
occurs after the creation of editorial content, that's normal. There is
no causal connection between what products are chosen to be written about
and what is written about them and the subsequent ad sales effort.
But what the critics of Stereophile keep harping on about, despite any
evidence to the contrary, is that there _is_ a causal connection, that
my editorial decisions are affected by the sale of advertising. That just
doesn't happen.
In fact, there have been occasions over the past 29 years that I have
been Stereophile's editor where I have risked my continued employment
by refusing to compromise on this matter when ordered to do so by some
of the less-enlightened publishers to whom I have reported. Which is why
I find such accusations so galling.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
(nt)
All Arthur Salvatore revealed in his criticism of Stereophile's "Recommended
Components" is that he doesn't understand statistics. He assumes that the
products chosen for review followed a Gaussian distribution (bell curve)
centered on a mean level of performance.
As I have repeatedly explained in both the magazine and on this forum,
this is not correct: our selection process strongly favors better-sounding
components, much like New York City's rating of restaurant public health
safety is dominated by A-rated establishments. (See the graph in the linked
story below.)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Below is the actual article concerning this issue posted on my website. Decide yourself whether the "statistics" present a "problem" or not.
As also can be seen, despite Atkinson's deliberately misleading assertion, there is more than one "scenario" in which I do NOT use a "bell curve".
The bottom line is obvious to anyone with an independent and mature mind; in no area of serious reviewing, no matter what prior precautions are taken, is it reasonably and LEGITIMATELY possible to find 60+ CONSECUTIVE "anythings" that are worthy of "recommendation" to your readers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A helpful member of Vinyl Asylum posted a revelatory and devastating message on March 28, 2003 (Message 198755). This is the relevant part:
"(Stereophile) went through 18 straight issues in 2001 and 2002 wherein every component they reviewed (yes, every last one) made (their) recommended components (list). In 1989, 70% earned recommendation. I wrote them a letter on this which was never published."
An Analysis of this Important Revelation
I have checked out the number of reviews in 2001 and 2002. The smallest number for any "18 straight issues" was 60. The highest was 69. Let's give Stereophile a real "break", and go with "only" 60 (the minimum). So, what are the odds of 60 components, in a row, being honestly "recommended"?
That depends on the odds of any single component honestly making the RCL. First, using traditional and scientific "Bell Curves", only around 10% (10/100) of audio components (or any "consumer product") are defined as being "excellent". Accordingly, that would mean that if chosen randomly, the odds of 60 consecutive components being "excellent" would be the number "10" to the power of "60" (that is 10 with 60 zeros!).
That's an impossibly (and damningly) large number, which ends any doubt. However, let's now assume that the sample of reviewed components was NOT "random". In short, we're going to give John Atkinson every possible benefit of the doubt. Here are two more "scenarios":
Scenario 1
Let's give John Atkinson a second real "break". We will assume that Atkinson is a true "genius" at "prejudging" components, so only the models with the best chance to make the RCL were reviewed. Accordingly, we will concede that Atkinson has the capability to eliminate 80% of the initial pool of 100 beforehand. Thus, only 20 (100-80) components are still left in the pool, instead of 100, thus greatly increasing the success rate.
This means that 80 of the initial 90 "non-excellent" audio components are now removed from the pool (that's 88.9% of them). (Actually, in "real-life", I know of no audiophile, no matter how experienced, including myself, with this much audio foresight.) Still, this unprecedented ability will now increase the odds of success all the way up to 10/20 or 50%, instead of (the purely random) 10% (10/100).
So, to summarize, we're going from the initial "success rate" of 10% to 50%, just like "flipping a coin". Now, what are the odds of honestly flipping a coin "heads" or "tails" 60 times in a row:
More than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1
That's One Quintillion; or a Billion Billion. This is also an astronomical number which is beyond any practical use in the human world.
In short, it's Impossible, even if Atkinson is a genius, to have 60 consecutive components recommended when the process is honest.
Scenario 2
Let's give John Atkinson a third real "break". In fact, we're going to go beyond even being "open minded". Let's now assume that Atkinson is even above a genius, and is actually a (secret) "Superhuman", with powers of foresight far greater than anyone who has ever lived on this earth (like "Clark Kent"). We will increase the 50% success rate even further: Up to 75%. So...
What are the odds now of 60 consecutive components honestly making the RCL with even a "Superhuman" prejudging the components and a success rate of 75%?
More than 31,000,000 to 1
Accordingly, "the bottom line" concerning the Stereophile RCL is simple, obvious and incontestable:
The Stereophile Recommended Component List is a Total Fraud
But the components are graded class A+ through E, so presumably only the A's would be claimed as "excellent"? I've always looked at the list as a loose ranking of (nearly) all the components that Stereophile has tested over the last three years.
Daniel
> I've always looked at the list as a loose ranking of (nearly) all the
> components that Stereophile has tested over the last three years.
In essence, that's what it is, though it does include comments based on
longer-term experience with some products, such as those the reviewer has
purchased or has on formal long-term loan.
To address Mr. Salvatore's point, that there are too many products in the
list, the late J. Gordon Holt once made the same point at a Stereophile
writers' conference. So we went through the then-current list and I asked
Gordon which products we should omit, given his feeling that there were
too many. At the end of that exercise, he had to admit that there weren't
any that deserved to be dropped.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I disagree with this methodology. The selling price of the component has serious relevance and must be taken into account.
"Excellent" should mean the top 10% performers within any particular component/price category, such as amplifiers in the $ 1,000 range, or speakers in the $ 5,000 range.
Audiophiles are looking for exceptional value/performance in each range, the upper 10%, and audio magazines are supposed to assist them in this quest, which is why they subscribe in the first place.
However, the one exception would be "Class A", which is "the best". That explicit definition should always limit the number to a handful, at most, even if there were hundreds of qualifying components, so it would be even less than 10% in this one instance.
In general, before something is legitimately "recommended", there should be something "exceptional" about its performance, either for its selling price or in absolute terms.
Finding 60+ consecutive exceptional audio components (or any product) is not feasible with any legitimately critical reviewing method currently known to me. That is why it has only happened in a commercial audio magazine and no where else to my knowledge.
of every component reviewed (BTW, I'm pretty sure I've read at least a couple of JA's measurement sections wherein he wrote that he could NOT recommend the DUT). And, the list does include a "$$$" for components considered to deliver exceptional performance for the price.
""Excellent" should mean the top 10% performers within any particular component/price category"
Meh, most audiophiles are on a budget and will look for the best-sounding product they can afford. The RCL lists the relative (and subjective) rating, regardless of price and gives you the price right after the product name. As I see it, the RCL helps you define your short list of products to audition for yourself. I suspect most readers are plenty smart enough to figure it out for themselves (ie, I think your proposed scheme of ranking within certain price points would be LESS helpful). YMMV.
Everyone has an opinion about RCL and I think his conclusion is the poorest assessment yet. Fraud is a terrible accusation in this instance. Who are the victims?
I like Salvatore's ideas about ranking, and would prefer that approach to Stereophile's, and I understand that manufacturers might prefer Stereophile's. But I think it would be very difficult to argue that Stereophile's doesn't come with full disclosure, no fraud. No fraudster ever took that much time and effort to spell out the selection process. It's not difficult to believe Sam Tellig when he says JA runs a straight ship.
Daniel
...quite a few sub-topics in a stream of conscientiousness."No fraudster ever took that much time and effort to spell out the selection process."
Still entertaining the parameters for fraud?
Edits: 05/12/15
if your point is that my statement "No fraudster ever took that much time and effort to spell out the selection process" is not factually correct, you're probably right, fraudsters do work hard for their money.
My point is that contrary to Salvatore's, it is not tenable to claim the Stereophile RCL is a fraud. I regard my conclusion as being stronger than my arguments.
Best regards,
Daniel
when harry asked and got the go-ahead to accept advertising.
...regards...tr
The fact of the matter is that audiophiles are not willing to bear the cost of publishing a magazine that does not carry advertising.
And why should they?
Nobody is that good. At the end of the day it is only one person's formative experiences and personal preferences.
I am not offended when someone does not agree with me on matters of sound or music.
jm
NT
we may have naive to the idea, at least i was, that we would now be vulnerable to commercial pressures. live and learn.
...regards...tr
15 years ago? C'mon....be glad you found another job lol
From a tonearm designer who did not like getting phone calls.
BTW, unfriend me.
And exactly whom are you carrying water for???????
jm
Tonearms? Carrying water? And enemas??? You must be having a bad dream. Call me in the morning when you're feeling better.
Unfriend you?????? lol This is your buddy Sue.
Sexist response indeed!
Shame on you. :-)
I have no friends now. He was the only one.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/7/79173.html
Yeah, I thought what Schroder had to say was relevant to a general discussion of ads/reviews, no innuendo about S'phile intended. If you had checked out my other posts relating to Spreeza's rap you'd have realized I was on S'phile's side regarding this issue. Below is a link to Schroder's whole post on Vinyl.Guess you weren't satisfied with making an ass of yourself with Sue.
Edits: 05/02/15
so there is at least an even chance that he was not even speaking of magazines in the US. In fact today I doubt if the US market is anywhere near half if even a third of the worlds market for audio products.
And as a guy who can't keep up with the demand for his hand-made tonearms, his point should be well taken.
So people connect dots, even with lots of ocean between them.
jm
The idea that awards enlighten and offer guidance to consumers is risible.
Awards appear in the ads that manufacturers place in the magazines which bestowed the awards in the first place. The whole process is a sham.
Anyway, hooray for Armenian Americans. Smart enough not to advertise.
Well, IMHO, even though the Shahinians are lovely people, they are not the only people I know (many of whom are performing musicians) who suffer from the "If I build it they will come" school of thought. Conducting well or playing a concerto well is a given, thousands of people can do those things. The jobs go to people with great people skills who nurture their careers as fervently as they strive to improve their art. IMHO Itzhak Perlman could have made a great businessperson or a great politician.
Getting back to audio, I myself think that it is tragic that Shahinian has no US dealer base. Building great loudspeakers, on its own, is not enough. And I have to think that the Shahinian historical anti-marketing posture is in some respect at least partly responsible for that. Dealers cannot do all the selling themselves. Customers need education and customers need their good impressions validated. Ads--good ads--can help educate and validate, and help drive showroom traffic. (Well, at least in the old days.)
I think as many companies have failed because of not advertising (and I think one must conclude that at present Shahinian is not successful in the US) as from advertising with poor ads, or buying too many ads while having not enough dealers (e.g., Timbre Technologies).
Ads are NOT just payoffs to the magazine, and ad copy is not always mere self-congratulation. Ads at best are educational in that they connect the product's benefits with the prospect's needs.
One of the most effective ads in history is Ogilvy's Rolls-Royce ad. Everybody remembers the grabby headline, but most people don't remember that the guts of the ad was 13 factual statements of Features, Functions, and Benefits. "This is what's in it for you."
Instead of running a product shot with a couple of unsupported self-serving conclusions, audio manufacturers would do well to use Ogilvy's Rolls ad as a template.
Do you disagree?
ATB,
John
PS: Yes, you once could buy a Rolls-Royce for $13,995. LBJ and Nixon and Ford and Carter fixed that! (Asbestos cassock and surplice on...)
The internet is a form of advertising now - you can go to a company website (which didn't exist when the Rolls was being sold) so the ONLY way you could see stereo or car advertising were in their respective magazines or other magazines - Bose in GQ or whatever.
Rolls had the attitude that "If you want the best you will fine us." The non advertising advertising of "prestige."
We're so good we don't need to sully ourselves by begging people to look us up.
Companies can tell their stories now via their websites and can list their 19 point plan as to why their stuff is the best. They don;t need to do it via the stone age method of running a print ad. Anyone reading a print magazine is also likely reading forums and other free online reviews.
You can bet that when someone reads Art's review of XYZ speaker that reader will go on the net and read other reviews of it and then ask about it on forums - AND go to the company website.
Print magazines are dinosaurs that ruin the environment.
First of all, I don't think you know enough about the history of advertising to be able to comprehend David Ogilvy's achievements, and so your dismissal of his genius I find rankling.
When Ogilvy undertook that assignment, Rolls-Royce was not at all doing well in the United States, because its products were perceived to be out of step with modern needs. Rolls-Royce cars were perceived as being huge, heavy, finicky cars that needed a chauffeur to drive them while the owner or owners sat in the back.
Ogilvy's achievement was to re-brand Rolls Royce as a car for affluent (but not mega-rich owner-drivers). His list of bulleted points, and the genius art direction of showing a housewife with young daughters out picking up some groceries, convinced people to take a second look and perhaps a test drive, because "No chauffeur required."
I know what the Internet is and how it works. I see dozens of banner ads a day for audio companies and I click on fewer than 1%--because a banner ad cannot tell me why I should be interested. And most audio-company web sites suck.
In the medium of a print ad, a company (if it has people who know what they are doing) can get attention in a positive way, create interest, and move the prospect to the next step. But a genius ad writer will already have the sale made by the time the prospect has finished reading the ad.
The ONLY ad I have ever seen that does it all as right as anyone else has done it right was the two-page ad for the book "Get Better Sound."
I think that one reason why so many audio-product ads fail as ads is that audio-company people (I have noticed) often are so fixated on their own skill-sets that they literally are incapable of imagining that there are skills they cannot pick up in 10 or 15 minutes, or that there exist people who will always be better than they are at--anything. I think I can usually tell when an audio company head writes his own ads.
jm
I can't speak to the Rolls ad because I probably wasn't born when that ad came out - but Rolls went tits up either way so whatever they were doing wasn't working in the end.I have never seen a single advertisement from anyone on anything that has made may say "I have to buy that" or "I have to try that" In fact certain ads have the opposite effect to the point where I swear to myself I will NEVER try or buy the product. Usually due to the frequency of them. I watch MLB highlights on MLB.com and between every 30 second clip there was an ad for an energy drink - nope if I see it I will keep on walking. So annoying.
Which isn't to say that some ads aren't clever or memorable but the ad itself usually doesn't stick - I remember Mikey Likes It - but I could not tell you what it was that Mikey likes. And if I don't like the food the ad isn't going to make me buy it.
The Rolls ad it seems to me shifted erroneous notions of what Rolls Royce was selling - big deal. What is an audio advert in Stereophile going to do to change people's mind - "hey the sound of our speakers is better because we use space age yadda yadda cabinetry and our tweeter is pistonic blah blah blah.
Yeah that BS works on some readers I suppose and at the prices of some gear you don't have to convince too many.
As for what makes a good website - well I took a course and I agree with you. A lot of them stink but it still depends on WHO is looking. For instance all Audio Equipment websites that play music when I go to the site is automatically garbage to me. Any screen that comes up and I have to press "Skip Intro" is automatically a pile of dog poop to me. But some of these guys have paid someone money to create all that - it's not "the standard package" so in some school somewhere it was taught that having an intro was a good.
Personally I like things that are dead simple to use and easy as possible to find things. I use classic mode looking at audiopasylum and to me this is BY FAR the best layout of any audio forum by a mile. Classic mode AA.
I go to a site I want to see what it sells, what is the company philosophy. A single one page print ad can't do that for audio. Sure the Rolls ad is good - takes preconceived notions and says no this car is affordable - no it's actually smaller than you think, no you can drive it yourself etc.
Show me 5 audio equipment adverts that will make me rush out to buy or even try the gear and I will change my mind. I find car ads a lot more "professional" for the most part - probably because they spend more on their marketing that the top 5 loudspeaker companies spend on total production combined.
Edits: 05/04/15
If you really want to reach your audience you could do what MBL did a few years ago with their video of the frustrated music lover who thought he had a defective disc due to the sound of the conductor's baton being broken at the end of the performance. NO, just a very revealing audio system. I thought that was very creative and if I had the money.....I would own MBL. Just to watch the owner use the gear was impressive in how smoothly it operated. You often need time to really tell your story.
Jim Tavegia
jm
It may be, but at those prices it had better be more than just audio bling I would hope. What I did find somewhat funny is to complain about CD sound quality...haven't many been there and done that. Or, the old cd to SACD trickery.
Regards,
Jim
Jim Tavegia
.
Most Silver Clouds were "standard steel bodied." However, some were sent out to coachbuilders for special bodied and or exteriors; there were even a few convertibles made. Special bodies and drop-tops go for a lot more.
A pristine Silver Cloud III that was bought new by Cary Grant and had always been pampered and was owned by a club-member collector recently changed hands for $235,000.
However, there are cornfield and barn-find parts-only cars you can have all day every day under $5000. See image above.
Throwing out the wrecks (the worst of the bad) and the special jobs and the celebrity-owned, hardly ever saw a rainy day examples (the best of the best), my take on values (I am a former accredited automotive journalist) is that the bulk of the US market for a currently collector-car-registered, safe-to-drive, no urgent issues Silver Cloud is $25,000 to $50,000--which is what they were at about 25 years ago, so they have been a wasting asset when you take into account storage maintenance and insurance!
Why?
Because the generation that was 19 when they were new is no longer buying new toys, they are anxiously looking after their own health and their investment portfolios. A Silver Cloud is not a collector car you can use as a daily driver--you have to fast-forward to 1980s or 1990s Rollses to get that.
I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but I think that "Enzo-era" Ferraris have hit their peak--at least the bread-and-butter cars. Why? For the same reason I cite above, and over and above that, while China may be the biggest market for Ferraris, it is the biggest market for Ferraris with automatic transmissions. Who buys a Ferrari in China and why? It's either a rich guy who is usually driven somewhere, so he can't drive stick, or he buys it for his mistress, and she sure can't drive stick!
So, buying an ordinary Ferrari 330GT in the US and hoping to flip it in China for a huge profit is not a great business model.
Once upon a time, pre-WWII Packards and Duesenbergs were the hot collector cars. But nearly everyone who wanted one when they were new is: Dead.
What a young man loved when he was 19 drives the market, and when that stops, the market dies.
JM
OMG John has hit the nail on the head with this post.
Another 25 years for vintage audio. As those who lusted in the 70s and 80s start to die off the market for vintage audio of that era should fall like AOL stock in the broadband era.
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
Who wants Klipschorns?
They are so 1950s.
jm
> > 13 factual statements of Features, Functions, and Benefits.
I believe it was 19 statements in all, one of which was, "People who feel
diffident about driving a Rolls-Royce can buy a Bentley." (for $300 less).
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick every day.
—Leonard Cohen
The ad has 13 numbered paragraphs.
jm
I'll try, as well.
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick every day.
—Leonard Cohen
instead:
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick every day.
—Leonard Cohen
I had not seen the double-truck before!
Let me try a different image.
JM
nt
you maybe overestimating a notable percentage of consumers, at least a wee bit.....
Edits: 05/01/15
.
"Somebody was always controlling who got a chance and who didn't. - Charles Bukowski
... and had this crush on a local Armenian chick.
I should have asked her out.
I like Armenians.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: