Richard Rae & The curious case of the Mike Royer light-boxed artworks . . .

[Terry Doyle]

Terry...I have a CAF GALLERY....I do lots of trade deals with lots of people, some work out and some don't suit either party...with respect I suggest we have are been through this...so it's just part of "dealing".

 

But now YOU need to answer WHY you are charging/offering original art at three times the market price.

 

...people who live in glass houses and all that I guess...at least my mistake was an honest one between Joan and I...BUT YOU well..."you" are just upset that I was not going to take your deal...your coats not so white now that the truth is out.

 

You keep avoiding the question . . .

 

What mouth-watering artwork is that you possess that I'm supposed to be oh so envious of?

 

A nice EC cover, perhaps . . . have you got any of those?

 

A nice twice-up Marvel superhero cover from the 1960s, perhaps . . . got any of those?

 

A nice Atlas (1950s Marvel) twice-up cover?

 

Some nice Frank Hampson DAN DARE covers?

 

Anyone who has taken the time to look at my gallery will know that I've now consolidated my collection down to a core group of cherished favourites (and my tastes are usually very specific).

 

And what I've collected in the past is mostly out of your league.

 

You make these wild accusations, then fail to follow up on them.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, D*i*c*k, but there is absolutely nothing in your collection that holds any interest for me.

 

As to pricing artwork . . .

 

My period of selling ended months ago.

 

A lot of artwork sold and I achieved my monetary aims.

 

If you're a bottom-feeder, or need to cheat people out of their artworks to build up your own collection (as is obviously the case with you, D*i*c*k), then I guess any high-end prices seem like an awful lot of money to you.

 

Considering I ceased selling art months ago (as was pointed out to you when you attached a stupid comment to my CAF Tales to Astonish # 98 cover), why do you keep harping on about high prices?

 

You want to deflect attention from your own crooked dealings or something?

 

Or is it your green-eyed envy of me?

[Terry Doyle]

Very interesting to see that you've now re-invented yourself.

 

All this business about you (now) wanting to hear views on this forum about how your Royer original artworks should be described is totally contrived.

 

All this was highlighted to you during the month of July, 2010.

 

As I kept all the correspondence I had going with you and Glen Gold, I've done a cut-and-paste job of our three-way-bout of e-mails for the benefit of fellow contributors to this thread.

 

It makes for a l-o-n-g read, but everything is in sequential order . . .

 

E-Mail from Glen Gold dated 26 July 2010:

 

From: Glen Gold

 

Email: ledocq@earthlink.net

 

Comments:

 

Terry, a few years ago, you (rightfully) complained about the watermark on my Kirby Red Skull sketch. I took it off. Guess what? Some guy has had Royer do a lightboxed version an d he's being cavalier about telling anyone there are no pencils underneath. (Richard Rae -- look him up.) I made a comment, which he seems to have deleted, about it being lightboxed. Moral of the story? I'm going to watermark the hell out of every Kirby pencil I post. Just FYI. I'm sure this depresses you, too.

 

I subsequently sent Richard Rae a short note, via his CAF about the above (I do not have a copy of my message to Richard, but next up is his response):

 

 

E-mail from Riochard Rae dated Jul 26 2010:

 

Subject: Email from ComicArtFans.com regarding your Gallery From: Richard Rae

 

Email: kerrypocock@optusnet.com.au

 

Comments:

 

Hi Terry, thank you for your comment regarding my RED SKULL Kirby/Royer, yes Mike was kind enough to light box the pencil art, at Mike's age now he just about light boxs everything he does...I have two other drawings by Mike-KAZAR and Cap America if your interested in some kind of trade for something you have?, just let me know and I'll send scans...you really have some great art. thanks again, Richard in Australia

 

From: Terry Doyle [mailto:terencedoyle@fsmail.net]

 

Sent: Wednesday, 28 July 2010 1:10 AM

 

To: kerrypocock@optusnet.com.au

 

Subject: RE: Email from ComicArtFans.com regarding your Gallery

 

Hi Richard

 

This is a bit of a hornet's nest . . .

 

I remember when Glen Gold first posted the penciled image of the Red Skull on his CAF Gallery. It had a big watermark running across the central image. I left a comment complaining about the obtrusive watermark. Glen e-mailed me and advised me that he was worried about someone coming along, lifting the scanned image - and having it inked.

 

I take it that's exactly what you did with Glen's Red Skull (after he had relented and removed the watermark) and Tom Horvitz's Dr Doom pencil images?

 

As a matter of common courtesy, it would have been nice for those two guys (who purchased the art and took the time and trouble to upload scannned images for the benefit of the art collecting community) to have been approached first before any images were lifted (if that's what you did?).

 

I don't think Glen or Tom would have had any major issues about Mike Royer lightboxing Kirby's pencils. However, it is important that the artwork is clearly labelled as such (Royer inks over a lightboxed copy of Kirby pencils).

 

Prior to any comment/s being added to your Royer pieces, it would have been easy to have mistaken those pieces as Kirby (you listed the art as Kirby pencils/Royer inks).

 

A distinction needed to be made. Collectors mistakingly believing Royer lightboxed art to contain Kirby pencils would certainly be prepared to pay a lot of money to purchase.

 

Did Royer provide any sort of notation on the back of those two copies, saying that they were lightboxed versions?

 

Glad you like my collection, Richard. I've been more interested in selling art over trading it these past ten months (I'm in the process of selling my house, as I want to re-locate to another area in a bigger house).

 

Best

 

Terry

 

From Richard Rae Message Received: Jul 27 2010, 07:45 PM

 

Subject: reply from Richard re: Kirby/Royer

 

Hi Terry

 

I take your points...Tom personally sent me photo copies of the Doom pencil art, an inked version of it by another artist already existed but I had Mike do the one I have.

 

In regards to the Red Skull...I’m of the understanding that it is a published portfolio piece...in any event I did not printout a copy of Glen’s Red Skull image after he had relented and removed the watermark...and on that Terry you have my word.

 

Both drawings are listed for publication in the near future...when they are I will not be going into technical credits for them...they will simply be Kirby/Royer drawings...it’s important to accept that an inker does more than just “trace” pencil art whether it is light boxed or not, an inker “finishes” the drawing and makes appropriate changers to the pencil art to make it work...for example Mike changed much on the Doom drawing, even Doom’s eyes.

 

Kirby was a great artist however not everything he drew was great...a lot of credit has to go to his inkers for fixing his pencil art...if an artist was to just light box “trace” one of Kirby’s drawings it would most likely look like ...the Doom and Skull originals I have are not Kirby drawings nor are they just Royer drawings...they are original Kirby/Royer drawings...where “both” artists took part in creating the final image...however that final image was achieved.

 

Terry I’m into creating art whether that art is drawn by myself or other artists, I’m into the final finished product...I’m not a dealer in original art so in regards to the art being worth more if Kirby pencils are underneath the inking or not does not concern me...if I had to pick either the pencil drawing by Kirby of Doom or the finished inked drawing of Doom to have framed in my house then I’d pick the finished inked drawing because it simply looks better...and it does...

 

I hope this info helps.

 

Kindest regards

 

Richard

 

From Terry Doyle Message Received: Jul 28 2010, 03:12 PM

 

Subject: RE: reply from Richard re: Kirby/Royer

 

Hi Richard

 

 

Thanks for your detailed response.

 

I'll start off this reply by quoting a recent exchange of views (on this topic) between a collector named Chris Wong and Greg Theakston (who, as you know, inked Kirby):

 

CW: I think it's actually pretty easy to figure out this problem. I think the "line" of questioning is, did the original artist, Kirby, in this case, actually physically draw on the page in the first place. If that's the case, then it doesn't matter if the pencils were inked over and then later erased - that was part of the process and the piece of art is clearly by Kirby and whomever inked it.

 

GT: I inked Jack's pencils a few times, and your comment is correct. Being there is a different thing.

 

CW: However, in the case of lightboxing or inking from blue lines, the original penciler never physically drew on the page of art in question, therefore, that piece of artwork was only drawn by the person who inked it.

 

GT: Yes.

 

 

On the subject of inkers 'fixing' Kirby's pencils . . . with very few exceptions, most Kirby inkers are not regarded too highly for their own efforts at creating penciled art. For example, Royer's solo efforts are not really very memorable are they?

 

Same with Chic Stone, Vinnie Colletta and a whole slew of others.

 

Kirby's pencils are usually quite detailed and provide 'all the information' the inker needs to tighten up the work for publication purposes (the india ink, applied to the pencils, is there to ensure clarity for the printing process). The pencils are not meant to be 'polished' pieces of art. The polishing-up is really part of the inker's craft.

 

As suggested by the quotes at the top of this reply, I consider it wrong for your Royer lightboxed (inked) images to be classed as Kirby/Royer drawings. That might be acceptable for publication purposes, but as you've been listing these pieces in CAF - it's a different ball-game. CAF is all about original art. Royer lightboxing Kirby is not Kirby/Royer original art. Kirby's hand is not present in Royer's art (other than as a lightboxed image he applied his inks to).

 

I do believe that if you are presenting these drawing in your CAF Gallery, it is essential that you cleearly state what the art is. Kirby pencils and Royer inks is misleading. And there is no date to indicate when the art was produced (if the Royer lightboxed art was created in 2010, it doesn't take a genius to work out that Jack was no longer with us at this time).

 

You mention in your CAF overview that you are not a dealer . . . yet you go on to state that you like to trade art, etc. Also you have pieces for direct sale. I'd say that you are in actual fact 'dealing' in art - even if only on a small-scale. I 'deal' in art myself (even if I've been a collector of the stuff for over a quarter-of-a-century).

 

The worry here, not just by myself (lots of other people have picked up on this), is that someone might come along and mistake your Royer pieces as being genuine Kirby pencils. Had you got a tempting offer for any of those pieces (prior to comments being attached questionning what the art actually comprises of), would you have been so keen on highlighting the fact that Jack never physically touched the Royer finishes?

 

Given the choice between Kirby's pencils or Royer's inks (even if for display purposes) . . . I'd pick the Kirby pencils every time.

 

PLEASE, Richard . . . amend your CAF descriptions to fully disclose how Royer worked on those drawings.

 

Best

 

Terry

 

From Richard Rae. Date: Jul 28 2010, 08:10 PM

 

Subject: RE: reply from Richard re: Kirby/Royer

 

Hi Terry

 

With respect I believe you are making to much out of this and I ask you to “stop”

Below is my recent reply to Glen, who now is happy.*

 

Regards

 

Richard

 

* I have edited Richard’s reply down to those paragraphs that are relevant

 

Hi Glen

 

. . . Within each issue I’ll write an article about my favourite artist and include assorted examples of their work...so when I write about Kirby I’ll include the Skull and Doom drawings along with the MOB page etc...of cause also including appropriate copyright ownership to the suitable parties...the idea is to introduce young readers to many classic comic artists...plus basically it’s just fun to do.

 

Keep in mind: once I use the art I have then it will all be sold, remember I’m not a “real” collector of original comic art...my guess is I’ll just keep about a dozen originals for my personal pleasure...but the rest go’s...so I like your idea regarding placing a note on the back of the original art that says there is no Kirby pencils under Royer’s inks...that’s no problem at all and sounds smart.

 

Some original art I have at the moment I have had great scans made so I can sell those originals now...for example the Red Skull inked drawing...I already have suitable scans to use in the article so if you wish you can just buy it off me or trade some other art you have for it...I’m easy...I’ll most likely keep the Dr. Doom...plus Royer did two other Kirby/Royer drawings for me, one of KAZAR and the other of Captain America.

 

Kindest regards

 

Richard in Australia

 

From: Glen Gold Sent: Wednesday, 28 July 2010 12:39 PM

 

To: Richard Rae

 

Subject: Re: The RED SKULL Jack Kirby/Mike Royer

 

Hey there, Richard --

 

Thanks for writing, and thanks for writing such a reasoned, thoughtful response. We may not agree in every aspect, but I can certainly understand where you're coming from. Inkers do a lot of interpretation that is crucial. I'm assuming that if Colletta were alive, you wouldn't be drafting him to work on your projects : )

 

I have a question for you -- as someone who is from the third generation of collectors (my dad collects pocket watches and my grandfather first editions of novels), I've seen many times a person's desires subverted unintentionally. If I understand you right, you aren't selling these, and are never going to sell them. In which case, it doesn't matter whether the pencils are on there or not for your purposes. However: for posterity, if you just stick a label on the frame, or write on the back, or something that indicates there are no Kirby pencils on the piece of paper you own, then your heirs and descendants won't get screwed by estate taxes, dealers, collectors, etc.

 

Does that make any sense? I don't think it impacts your feelings about the art, and it clarifies things for those of us who do -- unfortunately or otherwise -- assign value to things.

 

Best

 

Glen Gold

 

 

 

 

At this point I would like to remind readers (who have stuck with all this to-and fro-ing) of the three-way e-mail correspondence I had going with Glen Gold and D*i*c*k Rae of last year.

 

As D*i*c*k has never attempted to challenge any of this correspondence (remembering that if anything that gets posted doesn't meet with his liking, he simply denies things), it's going to be a little to late in the day for him to deny anything now.

 

Besides, Glen Gold sometimes posts on these forums . . . and I'm sure Glen will confirm the accuracy of the above if, like me, he kept copies of our correspondence.

 

I would like to extract the following exchanges, from the above, between myself and D*i*c*k Rae:

 

 

Email: kerrypocock@optusnet.com.au

 

Comments:

 

Hi Terry, thank you for your comment regarding my RED SKULL Kirby/Royer, yes Mike was kind enough to light box the pencil art, at Mike's age now he just about light boxs everything he does...I have two other drawings by Mike-KAZAR and Cap America if your interested in some kind of trade for something you have?, just let me know and I'll send scans...you really have some great art. thanks again, Richard in Australia

 

And my reply:

 

Hi Richard

 

Glad you like my collection, Richard. I've been more interested in selling art over trading it these past ten months (I'm in the process of selling my house, as I want to re-locate to another area in a bigger house).

 

Best

 

Terry

 

The above (quoted) correspondence has been edited-down to those parts relating to D*i*c*k's claims (he now makes) that I'm supposed to be angry about some artwork that I wanted desparately from him

 

If nothing else, this should prove that he's very good at shooting himself in the foot.

 

Who is it that really wanted to trade artwork, D*i*c*k?

 

And I'll give you a clue . . . it wasn't me.

[Terry Doyle]

And now a word from your legion of supporter/s . . .

 

 

"C'mon, D*i*c*k, honey. Get back into bed. You can play with Terry and the boys later. Get some rest . . . "

[Terry Doyle]

 

...it might be interesting to know that this original complaint from Terry (directly to me and not public) came soon after I declined a trade deal with him regarding some of my other original art that possibly left a bad taste in his mouth and got him a little off-side with me...did this have something to do with his attack on me...?...possibly, I don’t know but it’s a freaky coincidence at best.

 

Kindest regards

 

Richard .

 

Maybe it was this 'gem' of a cover that I'm supposed to have wanted so desparately from you?

 

[Terry Doyle]

Yes...I guess it is insane to go up against bullies koollectable...but some of us have to have the balls...

 

And some of have to go up against lying scumbag thieves . . .

[Pirate]

it's not helping that you are continuously posting about it, we get the hint and everyone is on your side. You're starting to come across as a mess now

[arzach42]

Troll....

 

Ignore...

I sure hope you don't mean me, I've never trolled anybody in my life.

 

Nope....Rae = Troll = Baiter = now has nothing better to do because no one will trade him valuable art for his c.r.a.p.

[Terry Doyle]

it's not helping that you are continuously posting about it, we get the hint and everyone is on your side. You're starting to come across as a mess now

 

Fair point, Pirate. (thumbs u

 

It's not helping that D*i*c*k's started to make daft stories up that need to be answered.

 

But I guess that's just a ploy . . . anything to deflect attention away.

[glenbru]

Terry's doing a fine job.

 

It's important to repeat the truth once Richard continues to spew nonsense.

[Mr.Rae]

Very interesting comment you have made....

 

"There's nothing unethical about asking any price you want for art. If it seems high, yet somebody buys it, there's your market value"...

 

I of cause agree...I did a great deal with some Kirby/Royer light boxed art...yet I guess it's ok for you Terry to be the only person on Earth to get extreamly high prices for the art you have BUT when I do a great deal you yell and jump up and down...a double standard I think is the point I'm making.

 

Has anyone noticed that Terry and a few others in this chat-room get more and more worked up as they continue there spurts of typing...I suggest you guys agree to not drink and type...now Terry...it's time for you to start answering a few questions...when your ready just let us all know.

[Mr.Rae]

Subject 1: Quotation from Terry re: page #1 – “After some further comments were added to his CAF Royer light-box jobs (effectively complaining about the misleading nature of the pieces), Richard finally re-uploaded the artworks (wiping the negative comments in the process) and amended his descriptions to reflect the fact that Jack Kirby’s hand was not present in the Mike Royer pieces.)

 

Now when Terry contacted me he was quite...let’s say “insistent” that light-boxed art was not “real” art, and while I firmly disagreed with his view I decided to give him the benefit that he deserved for being in the collecting business for so many years and I changed my descriptions...it might be interesting to know that this original complaint from Terry (directly to me and not public) came soon after I declined a trade deal with him regarding some of my other original art that possibly left a bad taste in his mouth and got him a little off-side with me...did this have something to do with his attack on me...?...possibly, I don’t know but it’s a freaky coincidence at best.

 

So even Terry agreed that I complied with his description wishes...and now after so many pages in this chat-room it looks like we have finally “all” agreed on how best to describe light-boxed art, and once again I’m happy to comply with collectors who possibly know far more than I.

 

Subject 2: Quotation from the Joan email also shown on page #1 – “...he didn’t mention that the pieces were not actually penciled by Kirby until the art was on the way to my house...” the simple fact is that I was hardly home during this trade deal with Joan, that she was pushing and in truth so was I, as soon as I was allowed out of hospital I continued “immediately” correspondence personally and filled in any extra details that I had felt had not been covered extensively or had simply been overlooked by both Joan and I in previous emails.

 

Next quotation from the Joan email shown on page #1 – “...I let it go because I was guilty for not asking enough about what I was acquiring...” This is true, but in truth we were both guilty of not spending enough time on the details of this trade...so here is Joan saying that she is guilty and here is me saying “no” it was both of us...I could have said “fine you said you’re guilty so I’m off any hook BUT I DIDN’T.

 

Next quotation from the Joan email shown on page #1 - “...but as I said, I feel 50% responsible..” Now she feels less guilty but has fallen into how I’m seeing this AND FOR THE FIRST TIME I MIGHT AD...she never complained to me directly about our trade deal once, so up until Terry used her words against me as some kind of weaponed in this chat-room I had no idea Joan was not completely satisfied with our trade deal...it was really quite a shock.

 

At any point from Joan receiving the art from me we could have made an immediate trade-reversal...problem easily fixed...but I knew NOTHING of this or ANY problem until the next year when she had either sold or traded off what art I had sent her and I’m reading her letter in this chat-room.

 

Then Terry is calling me names and accusing me of ripping “people” off...good grief I figured it was some dumb joke.

 

Terry had me so focused that this was the greatest disaster that has ever happened in the world that I did something that I will never do again...I not only caved into his bullying but I executed to solve a deal “publicly” and this sadly eventually put a stop to any chance of fixing Joan’s problem.

 

I treated the matter as a matter of “urgency” as more and more rude, unfair and uncalled for comments were listed in this chat-room...pressuring me to fix the problem or be branded a crook...I treated these accusations as a matter of priority and I insisted that Joan did as well...in hindsight I should have simply fixed everything “privately” with Joan via emails over a number of weeks BUT “some” of you guys just kept attacking and making fun what I coincided to be a very serious situation.

 

Finally I realised that if I had worked the problem out with Joan then Terry would just claim some kind of victory that he had all this power to force a crook to reverse a trade deal that he had absolutely nothing to do with in the first place, or if I didn’t work out the problem with Joan then he would just keep calling me a crook...either way I was still being branded a crook...so with no way to clear the matter up and as Joan did not wish to enter into negotiations to do a reverse trade (something that I was more than happy to do) then the complaint was dropped by me and only kept alive by “some” in this chat-room who are happy to condemn but not willing to admit any responsibility.

 

So put simply...that is the Joan saga.

 

Humanly poor judgement on both our parts BUT no criminal action.

 

I hope this helps...NOW my question to YOU Terry: how would YOU have done the Joan deal IF it was you...under the very same conditions I and Joan were in?...well...

 

Kindest regards

 

Richard

 

 

[seanfingh]

I ripped some people off by pawning off Kirby/Royer light boxed art as having been worked on by Jack Kirby when it was never touched by Jack Kirby.

 

I fixed that for you.

[Mr.Rae]

No problem seanfingh...your just one more person in this chat-room that are editing what I have really said...Terry has really done a full-on job changing my other emails...

[Mr.Rae]

NOW my question to YOU Terry is how would YOU have done the Joan deal IF it was you...under the very same conditions I and Joan were in at the time?...well...it's a fair question.

 

 

[comix4fun]

Very interesting comment you have made....

 

"There's nothing unethical about asking any price you want for art. If it seems high, yet somebody buys it, there's your market value"...

 

I of cause agree...I did a great deal with some Kirby/Royer light boxed art...yet I guess it's ok for you Terry to be the only person on Earth to get extreamly high prices for the art you have BUT when I do a great deal you yell and jump up and down...a double standard I think is the point I'm making.

 

Has anyone noticed that Terry and a few others in this chat-room get more and more worked up as they continue there spurts of typing...I suggest you guys agree to not drink and type...now Terry...it's time for you to start answering a few questions...when your ready just let us all know.

 

 

It's not the spurts of typing that get us worked up. It's the excitement of conversing with someone who purports to publish works that include the written word but is barely literate himself.

 

You "of cause" can't help but see the irony in that, write?

 

The problem is, your asking prices are correct for KIRBY artwork, which is what you tried to pass your ROYER pieces off as.

 

The difference between you and Terry (amongst other things) is that his prices are for correctly identified pieces of art that people can take or leave if they so choose, and your pieces were intentionally obfuscated ( go look it up) as to attribution so as to induce (again...look it up) potential victims customers to engage in a deal with you given incorrect facts creating a valuation based on a deception and material omission.

 

I know you will just copy and paste something and this will be lost on you, but it won't be lost on all the potential "marks" out there in the marketplace that should be giving you a wide berth.

 

[Mr.Rae]

The problem is, your asking prices are correct for KIRBY artwork, which is what you tried to pass your ROYER pieces off as.

 

Sorry comix4fun but this statement is just not true...wright!

[comix4fun]

The problem is, your asking prices are correct for KIRBY artwork, which is what you tried to pass your ROYER pieces off as.

 

Sorry comix4fun but this statement is just not true...wright!

 

 

 

When you call a piece a "Kirby/Royer Original" as you have several times in the past and in your deals with Joan and several others who have posted here that is EXACTLY what you've done.

 

Only in your conical cranium does it mean anything else.

 

The problem is, when the ENTIRE HOBBY operates on particular set of attributions, definitions and disclosures of credit, and you refuse to follow along in an effort to confuse your trading partners and gain an advantage through faulty disclosure you have committed a grievous wrong, one that you can't talk your way out of.

 

If you were interested in honest money you would have given an honest and full disclosure.

 

You wanted the long cash on the short portfolio. Lots of people compromise themselves in exchange for cash, you aren't original.

 

 

Case in point on your Colan Captain America piece you write the description this way:

 

This is NOT a light-box drawing...it's inked right on Gene's art ( how cool )... It's Colans pencils under the inks (not light-box).

 

This piece along with a description was posted 14 months ago.

 

If it were true that you didn't feel the need to disclose which pieces were lightboxed because you thought it was all artwork and part of the process then WHY do you go to such great pains to post when a piece ISN'T Lightboxed?

 

You knew full well the difference between the pieces and what the attribution would do to the value in the trades you were perpetrating. That's why you only made a habit of full and proactive disclosure ONLY when it BENEFITED YOU and at no other time.

 

No amount of copied and pasted horse hockey is going to get you out of this. Give Joan her artwork back, Pay Rich what you owe him, Give Brian his books or his cash back, stop preying on this hobby, you aren't going unnoticed anymore.

 

[Mr.Rae]

...comix4fun...and at the same time I'll get pigs to fly.

 

Let's take you directions one at a time shall we...(1) how can I reverse the trade deal with Joan when she no longer has the art I traded to her?...well?

[Tony S]

...comix4fun...and at the same time I'll get pigs to fly.

 

Let's take you directions one at a time shall we...(1) how can I reverse the trade deal with Joan when she no longer has the art I traded to her?...well?

 

Perhaps I'll post up a longer comment later. I've been reading this thread since nearly the beginning. But the answer to this question of Mr. Rae's is too simple and quick to pass on posting a reply.

 

You do not (and cannot) "reverse" the trade deal. You compensate Joan and any others for the excessive value assigned to your material given in trade. In plain english - you write them a check.

 

Tony

[Mac Man]

Wow... what a fascinating train wreck of a thread.