I was under the impression that Dave R Fuller performed on all of these tracks.
I mean they always had his name plastered all over them, right?
john bodega
Thread
Posts in chronological order
GratefulFan
The argument from the perspective of QPL is completely understandable. Yes, this is their intellectual product that was never supposed to have left the studio door or wherever else it came from, and they resent it and I get it. For anybody who sees this as the only perspective or the best perspective it's inarguable that any one of us who seek or enjoy these kinds of materials are doing so with a certain self interest that is in direct opposition to the perceived interests of the people we mean to honour with our passion for their history and creative process.
But it also must be noted that it's clear by now that unlike some of their contemporaries the remaining members of Queen have little connection to or sympathy for the value of this stuff to dedicated fans. Being too close to something is just another way to have poor perspective. Every career has advantages and disadvantages and while I will likely never have occasion to fret that someone has stolen my half finished web application and is selling it on eBay, neither will I ever be in the position to register such a complaint from atop my millions at my estate in the country.
The reality is that people who accept their wealth or influence from what are effectively direct and often adulatory relationships with the public have a few tolls to pay. There will always be public demands on their private arenas that range from egregious to completely predictable and ultimately reasonable. The public interest in hearing these bits of musical history seems to me to fall in the latter category. The unofficial circulation of these works is a bit like ignoring Charles Dickens' last wishes and interring him in Poet's Corner and publishing things he didn't want published posthumously anyway. On the one hand it's a rather blatant disregard for his rights and autonomy and deadness, but on the other hand it serves what can be argued to be a greater public purpose. Queen being largely alive certainly have legal and procedural mechanisms to fight these things if they choose, but when there is a product and a demand and shifting means, prohibitionist endeavours rarely amount to much more than obstacle courses that will draw certain personalities that in part simply relish a challenge.
Criticize Fuller all you like but on one level he is the only one who is acknowledging and facing the potential consequences of his circumstances and decisions in an undissembled way. Queen want to be protected from the consequences of their great achievements and popularity just because and without ever offering their own solution. The collectors really take the cake, while telling the rest of us to eat it, by spinning capitalist arguments while simultaneously attempting to exempt themselves from the rules that govern the accumulation and use of power in business under cover of howls of outrage about nebulous concepts like trust and broken gentleman's agreements. They are at one level protectionist monopolists who seem to have invested their time and money and expertise under the expectation that any buffeting of their insular hobby by a changing world or changing market forces would simply be universally accepted as an outrage. Did they think they were investing in Canada Savings Bonds or the like? Nobody invests without risk. It is the collectors that failed to creatively anticipate and respond to the effect of mushrooming demand and the free sharing mentality of a generation raised on the internet and they are now paying a price of sorts. Everybody from Jim Beach down is responsible for the gap that David Fuller has stepped into.
Seeking financial compensation for the work of somebody else obviously presents ethical and moral problems. I don't want to minimize that in any way. I'm going to say that again: I don't want to minimize that in any way. But neither is it completely that simple. The philosophy of bringing rare music in a reasonably timely manner to a wider populace is certainly new and revolutionary given current elite practices. It presents some logistical challenges and in a country where the pursuit of individuals has moved to the dot com players it may be most prudent and reliable to attempt your coup as an individual rather than leveraging a product like rapidshare etc. If you're going to do it as an individual you need some buffer between you and a few thousand people who would be happy to inundate one man with requests for his free stuff. Willingness to pay also guarantees a certain respect for the product that I don't find completely unappealing. And as splicksplack noted there are so few among us that wouldn't buy it again if officially released that any financial loss arguments are simply dead in the water.
Bottom line is if you want to hear Queen rarities and are comfortable justifying that, contact David Fuller. He seems to be your only shot right now, and possibly ever.
But it also must be noted that it's clear by now that unlike some of their contemporaries the remaining members of Queen have little connection to or sympathy for the value of this stuff to dedicated fans. Being too close to something is just another way to have poor perspective. Every career has advantages and disadvantages and while I will likely never have occasion to fret that someone has stolen my half finished web application and is selling it on eBay, neither will I ever be in the position to register such a complaint from atop my millions at my estate in the country.
The reality is that people who accept their wealth or influence from what are effectively direct and often adulatory relationships with the public have a few tolls to pay. There will always be public demands on their private arenas that range from egregious to completely predictable and ultimately reasonable. The public interest in hearing these bits of musical history seems to me to fall in the latter category. The unofficial circulation of these works is a bit like ignoring Charles Dickens' last wishes and interring him in Poet's Corner and publishing things he didn't want published posthumously anyway. On the one hand it's a rather blatant disregard for his rights and autonomy and deadness, but on the other hand it serves what can be argued to be a greater public purpose. Queen being largely alive certainly have legal and procedural mechanisms to fight these things if they choose, but when there is a product and a demand and shifting means, prohibitionist endeavours rarely amount to much more than obstacle courses that will draw certain personalities that in part simply relish a challenge.
Criticize Fuller all you like but on one level he is the only one who is acknowledging and facing the potential consequences of his circumstances and decisions in an undissembled way. Queen want to be protected from the consequences of their great achievements and popularity just because and without ever offering their own solution. The collectors really take the cake, while telling the rest of us to eat it, by spinning capitalist arguments while simultaneously attempting to exempt themselves from the rules that govern the accumulation and use of power in business under cover of howls of outrage about nebulous concepts like trust and broken gentleman's agreements. They are at one level protectionist monopolists who seem to have invested their time and money and expertise under the expectation that any buffeting of their insular hobby by a changing world or changing market forces would simply be universally accepted as an outrage. Did they think they were investing in Canada Savings Bonds or the like? Nobody invests without risk. It is the collectors that failed to creatively anticipate and respond to the effect of mushrooming demand and the free sharing mentality of a generation raised on the internet and they are now paying a price of sorts. Everybody from Jim Beach down is responsible for the gap that David Fuller has stepped into.
Seeking financial compensation for the work of somebody else obviously presents ethical and moral problems. I don't want to minimize that in any way. I'm going to say that again: I don't want to minimize that in any way. But neither is it completely that simple. The philosophy of bringing rare music in a reasonably timely manner to a wider populace is certainly new and revolutionary given current elite practices. It presents some logistical challenges and in a country where the pursuit of individuals has moved to the dot com players it may be most prudent and reliable to attempt your coup as an individual rather than leveraging a product like rapidshare etc. If you're going to do it as an individual you need some buffer between you and a few thousand people who would be happy to inundate one man with requests for his free stuff. Willingness to pay also guarantees a certain respect for the product that I don't find completely unappealing. And as splicksplack noted there are so few among us that wouldn't buy it again if officially released that any financial loss arguments are simply dead in the water.
Bottom line is if you want to hear Queen rarities and are comfortable justifying that, contact David Fuller. He seems to be your only shot right now, and possibly ever.
Kacio
Mr. Brooks, for me, this is ridiculous. Because Queen will NEVER publish ANTHOLOGY OF DEMOS AND UNKNOWN/UNRELEASED RECORDING.
This is a mockery on you!
In your archives for sure is a lot of good recordings, but you don't want to do anything about it. Many legendary bands publish the great unknown recordings, and for me as the Queen Fan is a shame.
This is a mockery on you!
In your archives for sure is a lot of good recordings, but you don't want to do anything about it. Many legendary bands publish the great unknown recordings, and for me as the Queen Fan is a shame.
dowens
Glad people seem to agree with me on the issue of releasing the demo's, out-takes, etc. Honestly, this website has kept my interest (and in many ways rekindled my interest) in Queen for the past 4-5 years. Fuller SHOULD NOT be selling this stuff, but as was mentioned by splicksplack, release this stuff! What would it hurt? If it's a financial issue, just donate all of the proceeds to the box sets to the Phoenix Trust Fund???
Fireplace
Just out of interest Greg, why ask the people here where David R. Fuller got his recordings from? Wouldn't asking HIM be the more logical choice?
GratefulFan
[QUOTE] [b]dowens wrote:[/b]
Glad people seem to agree with me on the issue of releasing the demo's, out-takes, etc. Honestly, this website has kept my interest (and in many ways rekindled my interest) in Queen for the past 4-5 years. Fuller SHOULD NOT be selling this stuff, but as was mentioned by splicksplack, release this stuff! What would it hurt? If it's a financial issue, just donate all of the proceeds to the box sets to the Phoenix Trust Fund???[/QUOTE]
It seems to have been made very clear though that they simply don't want the stuff 'out there'. Releasing it would seem a rather poor solution for that. It's an argument if they want to have control as the lesser of two evils, but the tack they seem to be on now is to sweep it all up.
Glad people seem to agree with me on the issue of releasing the demo's, out-takes, etc. Honestly, this website has kept my interest (and in many ways rekindled my interest) in Queen for the past 4-5 years. Fuller SHOULD NOT be selling this stuff, but as was mentioned by splicksplack, release this stuff! What would it hurt? If it's a financial issue, just donate all of the proceeds to the box sets to the Phoenix Trust Fund???[/QUOTE]
It seems to have been made very clear though that they simply don't want the stuff 'out there'. Releasing it would seem a rather poor solution for that. It's an argument if they want to have control as the lesser of two evils, but the tack they seem to be on now is to sweep it all up.
dowens
I mean, it's up to Brian and Roger whether to release stuff or not, it belongs to them. I get that. I just don't understand the reasoning.
It would make perfect sense if Queen were still making albums (and I mean the original line-up). But that stopped over 20 years ago. The last box set (FM Solo Collection) was released 13 years ago. I don't understand the reasoning to release a fantastic Freddie Mercury box set, but not a Queen set? Of course, there was hope in 2011 with the bonus discs on the remasters.
Other bands, probably more iconic than Queen, seem to be fine with letting their fans have access to such things. Why not Queen? If Brian and Roger wonder why in the world they should release it, I say go ahead, it wouldn't hurt anything. Money really isn't a problem for them and as I said, donate the proceeds to a charity. May seem far-fetched, but I just don't see the risk factor in releasing the stuff. You could only make the die-hard Queen fans happy, which should be a priority for QPL.
It would make perfect sense if Queen were still making albums (and I mean the original line-up). But that stopped over 20 years ago. The last box set (FM Solo Collection) was released 13 years ago. I don't understand the reasoning to release a fantastic Freddie Mercury box set, but not a Queen set? Of course, there was hope in 2011 with the bonus discs on the remasters.
Other bands, probably more iconic than Queen, seem to be fine with letting their fans have access to such things. Why not Queen? If Brian and Roger wonder why in the world they should release it, I say go ahead, it wouldn't hurt anything. Money really isn't a problem for them and as I said, donate the proceeds to a charity. May seem far-fetched, but I just don't see the risk factor in releasing the stuff. You could only make the die-hard Queen fans happy, which should be a priority for QPL.
cobohall
Is it possible that QPL aren't as concerned with this seller as much as GB is? How did Fuller get these recordings? Through fellow fans, right? Is it possible that some of them originally came from GB and eventually to Fuller and now GB is a bit concerned QPL might put the pieces together? Just asking.
People have been selling bootlegs for years, suddenly QPL are concerned? Seems odd.
People have been selling bootlegs for years, suddenly QPL are concerned? Seems odd.
GratefulFan
[QUOTE] [b]dowens wrote:[/b]
I mean, it's up to Brian and Roger whether to release stuff or not, it belongs to them. I get that. I just don't understand the reasoning.
It would make perfect sense if Queen were still making albums (and I mean the original line-up). But that stopped over 20 years ago. The last box set (FM Solo Collection) was released 13 years ago. I don't understand the reasoning to release a fantastic Freddie Mercury box set, but not a Queen set? Of course, there was hope in 2011 with the bonus discs on the remasters.
Other bands, probably more iconic than Queen, seem to be fine with letting their fans have access to such things. Why not Queen? If Brian and Roger wonder why in the world they should release it, I say go ahead, it wouldn't hurt anything. Money really isn't a problem for them and as I said, donate the proceeds to a charity. May seem far-fetched, but I just don't see the risk factor in releasing the stuff. You could only make the die-hard Queen fans happy, which should be a priority for QPL.[/QUOTE]
Like everybody else I certainly would love to have this stuff properly and respectfully compiled and released. I don't see any downside for the band either, other than the fact that it would demand time on a project there is clearly little enthusiasm for. Brian is stubborn and somewhat rigid and seems to be unable to connect to the fan desire for this stuff. Roger's past statements seem to indicate that he sees any future anthology project as something some record company obligation might make them do but for which he has little enthusiasm for personally, saying "it just sounds like a lot of work to me".
With no release guaranteed, ever, there seems to me to be more value in deciding if you can make the ethics fit in calling 1-800-DFULLER than there is in advocating for an official release nobody with any power seems to want.
I mean, it's up to Brian and Roger whether to release stuff or not, it belongs to them. I get that. I just don't understand the reasoning.
It would make perfect sense if Queen were still making albums (and I mean the original line-up). But that stopped over 20 years ago. The last box set (FM Solo Collection) was released 13 years ago. I don't understand the reasoning to release a fantastic Freddie Mercury box set, but not a Queen set? Of course, there was hope in 2011 with the bonus discs on the remasters.
Other bands, probably more iconic than Queen, seem to be fine with letting their fans have access to such things. Why not Queen? If Brian and Roger wonder why in the world they should release it, I say go ahead, it wouldn't hurt anything. Money really isn't a problem for them and as I said, donate the proceeds to a charity. May seem far-fetched, but I just don't see the risk factor in releasing the stuff. You could only make the die-hard Queen fans happy, which should be a priority for QPL.[/QUOTE]
Like everybody else I certainly would love to have this stuff properly and respectfully compiled and released. I don't see any downside for the band either, other than the fact that it would demand time on a project there is clearly little enthusiasm for. Brian is stubborn and somewhat rigid and seems to be unable to connect to the fan desire for this stuff. Roger's past statements seem to indicate that he sees any future anthology project as something some record company obligation might make them do but for which he has little enthusiasm for personally, saying "it just sounds like a lot of work to me".
With no release guaranteed, ever, there seems to me to be more value in deciding if you can make the ethics fit in calling 1-800-DFULLER than there is in advocating for an official release nobody with any power seems to want.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
Bottom line is if you want to hear Queen rarities and are comfortable justifying that, contact David Fuller. He seems to be your only shot right now, and possibly ever.[/QUOTE]
He has but a mere few scraps.
But on second thought, since you're the expert - yes, Fuller is the only person who has ever been keen to share anything of value to the collecting community. Everyone bet all their chips on double zero. One spin only.
[QUOTE]Everybody from Jim Beach down is responsible for the gap that David Fuller has stepped into.[/QUOTE]
You could not be more wrong. Plenty of Queen rarities come from acetates that were made years before Jim Beach was their manager. And they were legally acquired.
Seriously - you need to stop writing novels about topics you know nothing about. You are so, so, so completely wrong.
Bottom line is if you want to hear Queen rarities and are comfortable justifying that, contact David Fuller. He seems to be your only shot right now, and possibly ever.[/QUOTE]
He has but a mere few scraps.
But on second thought, since you're the expert - yes, Fuller is the only person who has ever been keen to share anything of value to the collecting community. Everyone bet all their chips on double zero. One spin only.
[QUOTE]Everybody from Jim Beach down is responsible for the gap that David Fuller has stepped into.[/QUOTE]
You could not be more wrong. Plenty of Queen rarities come from acetates that were made years before Jim Beach was their manager. And they were legally acquired.
Seriously - you need to stop writing novels about topics you know nothing about. You are so, so, so completely wrong.
GratefulFan
I don't doubt for a moment that collectors take immense pleasure and pride in sharing when it eventually winds around to that. But the process is slow and arbitrary and irritatingly self righteous. That Dave has a well more than I do is all I know. And how is it that he robbed JSS to the very quick of his bleeding soul, gutting both Fanthology's vast riches and your very reason to go on if he only has "mere scraps"? Can you really have it both ways?
GratefulFan
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
Bottom line is if you want to hear Queen rarities and are comfortable justifying that, contact David Fuller. He seems to be your only shot right now, and possibly ever.[/QUOTE]
He has but a mere few scraps.
But on second thought, since you're the expert - yes, Fuller is the only person who has ever been keen to share anything of value to the collecting community. Everyone bet all their chips on double zero. One spin only.
[QUOTE]Everybody from Jim Beach down is responsible for the gap that David Fuller has stepped into.[/QUOTE]
You could not be more wrong. Plenty of Queen rarities come from acetates that were made years before Jim Beach was their manager. And they were legally acquired.
Seriously - you need to stop writing novels about topics you know nothing about. You are so, so, so completely wrong.[/QUOTE]
Oh go take a flying leap and stop splitting hairs. And try to keep a post stable long enough so I know what the hell I'm supposed to be replying to. Clearly at this point I mean Queen management right down to collectors have made decisions that have created the space for David Fuller, which has nothing to do with when acetates were created or acquired. Go stuff your cheeks with some more rarities and don't worry about my long posts. My brain works in a given way and that is how I express myself. Maybe my lack of pithiness is partly gender related but either way I'm stuck with it. You don't have to be.
[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
Bottom line is if you want to hear Queen rarities and are comfortable justifying that, contact David Fuller. He seems to be your only shot right now, and possibly ever.[/QUOTE]
He has but a mere few scraps.
But on second thought, since you're the expert - yes, Fuller is the only person who has ever been keen to share anything of value to the collecting community. Everyone bet all their chips on double zero. One spin only.
[QUOTE]Everybody from Jim Beach down is responsible for the gap that David Fuller has stepped into.[/QUOTE]
You could not be more wrong. Plenty of Queen rarities come from acetates that were made years before Jim Beach was their manager. And they were legally acquired.
Seriously - you need to stop writing novels about topics you know nothing about. You are so, so, so completely wrong.[/QUOTE]
Oh go take a flying leap and stop splitting hairs. And try to keep a post stable long enough so I know what the hell I'm supposed to be replying to. Clearly at this point I mean Queen management right down to collectors have made decisions that have created the space for David Fuller, which has nothing to do with when acetates were created or acquired. Go stuff your cheeks with some more rarities and don't worry about my long posts. My brain works in a given way and that is how I express myself. Maybe my lack of pithiness is partly gender related but either way I'm stuck with it. You don't have to be.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
I don't doubt for a moment that collectors take immense pleasure and pride in sharing when it eventually winds around to that. But the process is slow and arbitrary and irritatingly self righteous. That Dave has a well more than I do is all I know. And how is it that he robbed JSS to the very quick of his bleeding soul, gutting both Fanthology's vast riches and your very reason to go on if he only has "mere scraps"? Can you really have it both ways?[/QUOTE]
You make the assumptions that:
a) everything was shared in there
and
b) nothing has emerged since his timely exit
Please continue with your never-ending well-informed relevance.
I don't doubt for a moment that collectors take immense pleasure and pride in sharing when it eventually winds around to that. But the process is slow and arbitrary and irritatingly self righteous. That Dave has a well more than I do is all I know. And how is it that he robbed JSS to the very quick of his bleeding soul, gutting both Fanthology's vast riches and your very reason to go on if he only has "mere scraps"? Can you really have it both ways?[/QUOTE]
You make the assumptions that:
a) everything was shared in there
and
b) nothing has emerged since his timely exit
Please continue with your never-ending well-informed relevance.
GratefulFan
I am not assuming anything. I'm pointing out that apparently JSS was robbed of scraps. Thanks for that clarification that I think we can all appreciate.
John S Stuart
[QUOTE](Un)GratefulFan; Please let me pull you up on a few your points:
[b]First:[/b] Please play fair and do not put words into my mouth. You are of course free to quote me at will, but please do not cite me as saying (or assume that you can interpret what I am saying to suit your own ends). If I did not say it - please do not assume some other unreasonable meaning on my behalf. I find your "cutting to the quick" comment not only melodramatic but innacurate to the most ridiculous extreme.
[b]Second:[/b] "Everybody from Jim Beach down is responsible for the gap that David Fuller has stepped into." Are you being serious?
If I am a cocaine dealer; you would still argue it was the Prime Minister's, The Home Secretary's, or the Chief of Police's responsibility for "the gap I step into"? Is there no such thing as criminal or indeed personal responsibility in that fairy tale world you live in? What a really ill-thought out and half-baked counter argument you present. Fankly; I think better of you than this... "the gap David Fuller has stepped into..." as if a) that was a noble enough cause... and b) you have just justified every crime ever committed as (paraphrased): "someone else's fault". Maybe you are correct. Maybe there is a gap in the market, but does that make Fuller's actions any more justified or legal (rehtorically); Nor does it make it [b][i]his[/i][/b] right to "fill it" with material he [i]does not own or have the rights to disseminate.[/i] For such an excellent mind, you certainly have a very skewed vision of the real world we live in.
[b]Finally;[/b] [i]Please do not paint Mr Fuller as some sort of victimised Communistic altruistic Robin Hood, who is playing Santa Claus to the masses.[/i] If he really was philanthropically inclinded he could have quietly divided his ill-gotten booty without any fuss or fanfare and in quiet anonymity, but, David Fuller is only interested in David Fuller and in the glorification of his own reputation. He has only "shared" this for the "fame", the "glory" the one-upmanship, the massaging of that giant ego of his, the "Copyright of David R Fuller stunt" and now finally - the money. Oh so noble indeed... yet no one gives a damn about him now, and he hasn't even tasted his full fifteen minutes yet...
It all sounds a bit megalomaniacal to me (but perhaps I am wrong; perhaps he really was the fifth member of Queen and has the right to wave to the masses in his home made videos and overcharging for inferior lossy copies). [i]The bottom line is David has [b]lied, cheated and stolen[/b] for his [b]own[/b] [b]personal[/b] ends;[/i] [b]not [/b]for the good of Queen fans in general or the betterment of the Queen community, [b]not[/b] for Queenzone, and certainly [b]not[/b] for you. But let's forget all that, because this is not about you or me; and somewhere in your smoke and mirrors routine [b][i]you keep evading the fact that David Fuller's actions are illegal.[/i][/b] It is for those actions that he must stand up and face his own consequences for - which is something you just cannot seem (or want to) take onboard, and thrown every silly little excuse to defend him.
This story is not about David and Goliath, it is about a small-time crook who has only acted from his own greedy selfish ends. Everything else is just more smoke and even more mirrors... and shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
[b]First:[/b] Please play fair and do not put words into my mouth. You are of course free to quote me at will, but please do not cite me as saying (or assume that you can interpret what I am saying to suit your own ends). If I did not say it - please do not assume some other unreasonable meaning on my behalf. I find your "cutting to the quick" comment not only melodramatic but innacurate to the most ridiculous extreme.
[b]Second:[/b] "Everybody from Jim Beach down is responsible for the gap that David Fuller has stepped into." Are you being serious?
If I am a cocaine dealer; you would still argue it was the Prime Minister's, The Home Secretary's, or the Chief of Police's responsibility for "the gap I step into"? Is there no such thing as criminal or indeed personal responsibility in that fairy tale world you live in? What a really ill-thought out and half-baked counter argument you present. Fankly; I think better of you than this... "the gap David Fuller has stepped into..." as if a) that was a noble enough cause... and b) you have just justified every crime ever committed as (paraphrased): "someone else's fault". Maybe you are correct. Maybe there is a gap in the market, but does that make Fuller's actions any more justified or legal (rehtorically); Nor does it make it [b][i]his[/i][/b] right to "fill it" with material he [i]does not own or have the rights to disseminate.[/i] For such an excellent mind, you certainly have a very skewed vision of the real world we live in.
[b]Finally;[/b] [i]Please do not paint Mr Fuller as some sort of victimised Communistic altruistic Robin Hood, who is playing Santa Claus to the masses.[/i] If he really was philanthropically inclinded he could have quietly divided his ill-gotten booty without any fuss or fanfare and in quiet anonymity, but, David Fuller is only interested in David Fuller and in the glorification of his own reputation. He has only "shared" this for the "fame", the "glory" the one-upmanship, the massaging of that giant ego of his, the "Copyright of David R Fuller stunt" and now finally - the money. Oh so noble indeed... yet no one gives a damn about him now, and he hasn't even tasted his full fifteen minutes yet...
It all sounds a bit megalomaniacal to me (but perhaps I am wrong; perhaps he really was the fifth member of Queen and has the right to wave to the masses in his home made videos and overcharging for inferior lossy copies). [i]The bottom line is David has [b]lied, cheated and stolen[/b] for his [b]own[/b] [b]personal[/b] ends;[/i] [b]not [/b]for the good of Queen fans in general or the betterment of the Queen community, [b]not[/b] for Queenzone, and certainly [b]not[/b] for you. But let's forget all that, because this is not about you or me; and somewhere in your smoke and mirrors routine [b][i]you keep evading the fact that David Fuller's actions are illegal.[/i][/b] It is for those actions that he must stand up and face his own consequences for - which is something you just cannot seem (or want to) take onboard, and thrown every silly little excuse to defend him.
This story is not about David and Goliath, it is about a small-time crook who has only acted from his own greedy selfish ends. Everything else is just more smoke and even more mirrors... and shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
[/QUOTE]