Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
monart

Intro To Monart Pon & Concerto Of Deliverance

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I remember something like that too, but I cannot now recall the details. I know that Peikoff once initiated legal action against a band for their use of the name "Atlas Shrugged," thereby upholding the estate of Ayn Rand.

I think the band he went after was a Washington DC band called The Fountainhead that put out an album called "The Voice of Reason." I've got both the cassette and LP. You are right that the name is a pretty deliberate moral violation unlike the use of Anthem by Rush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the band he went after was a Washington DC band called The Fountainhead that put out an album called "The Voice of Reason." I've got both the cassette and LP. You are right that the name is a pretty deliberate moral violation unlike the use of Anthem by Rush.

That may be, but the band I had in mind was named Atlas Shrugged and they were from Bellingham, Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the band he went after was a Washington DC band called The Fountainhead that put out an album called "The Voice of Reason." I've got both the cassette and LP. You are right that the name is a pretty deliberate moral violation unlike the use of Anthem by Rush.

That may be, but the band I had in mind was named Atlas Shrugged and they were from Bellingham, Washington.

Thanks Stephen. I had not heard of the band you mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've reviewed the criticisms against me and, in particular, against my producing the album Concerto of Deliverance for my pleasure and then presenting it to other Rand admirers for their own enjoyment. I've thought very carefully about this project from the beginning and, not only did I conclude that it's a *moral* thing to do, but a *glorious*, benevolent act as well. But, to be open-minded about this, I'm intrigued by the possibility that the critics here may have discerned a principle I'm not aware of.

So I examined their arguments as stated in their posts, with the view that, even if I could not find a clear and consistent principle in their presentation, perhaps I could deduce a principle from the concrete examples they gave. The issue raised is important, not only to the “moral” status of the album Concerto of Deliverance, but also, in general, to how anyone should properly use and benefit from the work of Ayn Rand.

In response to my first post introducing myself and presenting the new album Concerto of Deliverance -- giving a summary of and links to who I am, why and how the music was produced, and what it might sound like -- there were these following replies.

Stephen Speicher condemns me as being "irrational", a "liar", an "intellectual and ethical fraud", who "immorally sought to reap benefit from the good name of Ayn Rand” and “selling his immoral product", which is "a clear violation of the property rights of Ayn Rand".

Don Watkins III expressed "disgust... that he/the musician he hired had the gall to call their project 'The Concerto of Deliverance'. Morally, that is a violation of Rand's intellectual property rights. It is the attempt to confer the benefits she made possible on someone who has no right to them. For anyone who professes admiration for Rand to use her in this way is sickening.”

My reply to these criticisms included the following:

"Far from being ‘a clear violation of the property rights of Ayn Rand’, the album Concerto of Deliverance is a tribute to her achievement and, among other aims, a way to draw new readers to her works (which it is already doing). And I put my severance pay and savings, and my love and dedication to objectivism, to produce it. (Does anyone here expect me to give it out for free, other than the samples and insightful articles on the website?)

"The US copyright laws says this: "Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks." See US Copyright Office <http://www.loc.gov/copyright/> And there is no registered trademark for "Concerto of Deliverance".

"As to my using and benefiting from Rand's works: don't all objectivists do? Is someone who makes a movie of Anthem (now in the public domain) being immoral? Is someone who names their children after characters in Rand's novels being immoral? Is calling a website or organization "Objectivist" being immoral? Is applying objectivism in one life and career, and making money from that being immoral? If it is, then we should all refrain from deriving any benefit from her, put her works in a vault, and make them taboo."

Following my rebuttal, Don Watkins III then wrote:

"You're dropping context. We all benefit from Rand's work. That is no crime. The issue is trying to take from Rand benefits to which we are not entitled. The music you commissioned [sic, even if it lived up to Rand's description of Halley's work, is aquiring [sic] an audience *simply* by using a title given value by Ayn Rand. It would have been fine had you called it something else, and said, "Inspired by Rand's description of Halley's Concerto of Deliverence [sic]." But to *call* it "Concerto of Deliverence [sic]" is intellectual fraud."

And Brian wrote, "Monart may, and possibly should, have the legal right to call his song what he wishes, but not the moral right. I don't think anyone should call their peiece [sic] of music the Concerto of Deliverance. In everyone's minds it is a great masterpiece that we cannot hear but it selfcontained [sic] in Rand's novel. We each see it as something beautiful in our own way. And I think it should remain that way. It's something too precious to have someone try and bring it to reality."

Collectively, the critics’ statements make this claim: that I am “immoral” and a “fraud” in producing and presenting an album called “Concerto of Deliverance”, because, in doing so, I am “violating (morally)” Rand’s “intellectual property rights”, and “reaping benefit” from what she created to which I wasn’t “entitled”.

What were the reasons given to justify this claim of “moral violation and fraud”? I read and re-read the critics’ posts, but I could not find any. All that was stated was the repeated assertion of their claim, and comparisons of this Concerto of Deliverance album with other cases of people, in their projects, using words associated with Rand’s work. There were also appeals to Rand’s (presumably posthumous) “disapproval” of such things as this album.

Even though the reason and principle upon which I am being charged with “immorality and fraud” is not given, I will analyze their claim, nonetheless, and try to discern its meaning and validity.

First, the part of the claim pertaining to “violation of intellectual property rights”: As I have posted earlier, referring to the copyright laws, I did not violate her property rights, intellectual or other kinds. In response, then, the qualification, “moral” violation was insisted, without explaining what that means. Now, it is the case, that a violation of rights is an act committed in a socio-political context which integrally involves the use of force or fraud. But no such an act was committed by me or the composer.

I certainly did not use force. Nor, did I use fraud -- as in, e.g., taking credit for, and pretending that the name and meaning of, “Concerto of Deliverance”, was of my own making. No, I do not; I clearly attribute the title to its source. Indeed, the title is a commemoration and a tribute to her work, as is clearly stated in the album booklet and the information on the website. So other than charges of forceful and fraudulent, i.e., legal, violation, what is “moral” violation?

Now, I can understand cases where I can be immoral in producing the album, but which has nothing to do with Rand’s property rights, as in: if my wife or my daughters need life-saving and expensive medical treatment, but I take our remaining dollars and put it into this album -- *then* I’d be immoral, in sacrificing their higher value. But that wasn’t the case. So in what way am I being immoral (and in alleged “violation” of Rand’s property, or even in disrespect of her eminence)?

The second part of the claim, that I’m benefiting from Rand’s work to which I have no right and am not entitled, is also difficult to make sense of. That’s why, in my previous post, I listed several kinds of ways in which someone could use and benefit from Rand’s work -- ways which, if they were “immoral” and should not be done, then her work should be made taboo. Then, the critics insisted on the qualification of “no right and not entitled to”, a qualification which doesn’t make the charge of immorality any clearer. I’m definitely not taking any of part of Rand’s work that I’m not “entitled to” or given “rights” to. I’m obviously not taking or copying a piece of music that Rand composed and calling it my property. So in what way am I using her work that I’m not entitled to?

Don Watkins III gives a slight elaboration: The album “is aquiring [sic] an audience *simply* by using a title given value by Ayn Rand”. I don’t know what Watkins III means by “audience”, but if he believes that an audience is created that easily, he should produce an album called “Anthem”, or “Fountainhead”, or another “Concerto of Deliverance (once it becomes “moral” for him to do it). Without the genius required to create the music, the title will no more “acquire” an audience, than Clinton will acquire a following, wearing a T-shirt that says, “I am John Galt”.

“The Concerto of Deliverance”, as a literary reference, is the title of Chapter VI, Part III, in Atlas Shrugged, and, within the story, is the name given by Richard Halley’s friends to his Fifth Concerto. The description by Ayn Rand of what the music sounded like to Dagny (when she first heard it whistled on the train during the scene that introduced her) is repeated when the music is described when played in the Valley near the end of the story.

The title of the album I’m presenting is not “The Concerto of Deliverance”, indicating a supreme or ultimate or sui generic status. It is also *not* a depiction of Richard Halley’s Fifth Concerto. It is: “Concerto of Deliverance” -- implying that it is *a*: “Concerto of Deliverance”, an original work inspired by a contemplation of Rand’s description of such music. The composer, John Mills-Cockell, with literary guidance from the commissioner and executive producer, created this, his longest, most expansive work as his musical offering of the themes in Rand’s passage. This was the original commission, as shown in the numerous postings and updates on the web during the past two years, and now on the album’s website.

I will quote, below, from the last pages of the album booklet, as indications of the relationship between the executive-producer, the composer, and Ayn Rand, in regards to the emergence of this album “Concerto of Deliverance”.

Finally, a comment on Brian’s insistence that Rand’s description of the Concerto of Deliverance “is too precious to have someone try and bring it to reality”. If this is true, does that mean that *any* ideal depicted in Rand’s art (or formulated in her philosophy) too “precious” to bring into reality? If not, why then is only the Concerto of Deliverance is too precious? There is something wrong with this attitude, something which hold dreamers back from being real, something which I referred to in the Zarlenga poem I posted previously: “Soar aloft in the Night Sky…Afraid to face the dawn.”

- Monart

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[From the album booklet for Concerto of Deliverance http://www.starshipaurora.com/albuminfo.html ]

Monart Pon -Executive Producer

Monart Pon immigrated to Canada from China when a boy. Here he found three of his passions: astronautics, philosophy, and music. He enjoys a diverse collection of music, including Dvorak, Debussy, Gershwin, Stivell, Elvis, and many, many others. He has a Master’s in the philosophy of astronautics and advocates the rational, libertarian advancement towards living in Space. <http://www.starshipaurora.com> Monart first heard John Mills-Cockell’s "Tillicum" & "December Angel" and first read Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, 30 years ago, and since then, wanted to hear a "Concerto of Deliverance" as created by his favorite composer. This album represents, for him, that desire achieved.

-------

The Music of John Mills-Cockell

John Mills-Cockell's music cuts across genres and breaks the bounds of traditional styles and instrumentation, melding together both familiar and newly synthesized sonorities. His musicality spans a wide range of styles and themes, embracing the dramatic and deep, the light and simple, the wistful and enchanted, the defiant and the triumphant, the joyous and the sad -- all imbued with freshness, equanimity, and integrity. A fountainhead of genius in our times, John Mills-Cockell’s sunlit music ennobles and sets fire to the soul.

John Mills-Cockell demonstrates his incomparable mastery of the New Music, when he creates -- with superb clarity, intensity, sincerity, confidence, and grace -- such profoundly moving and philosophical themes as those of "deliverance". His music can challenge, comfort, and cheer one's relentless movement towards the realization of life's beauty and happiness. It's that powerful. An unusual musical adventure of discovery, remembrance, and arrival -- this Concerto of Deliverance.

- Monart Pon, a fan

Email: [email protected]

------

About Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

Ayn Rand is a celebrated champion of free thought, free trade, individual rights, and romantic heroism. She wrote:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." [‘About the Author’, Atlas Shrugged]

"At the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man's nature and of life's potential...the sense that one's life is important, that great achievements are within one's capacity, and that great things lie ahead." [‘Introduction’, The Fountainhead]

"She sat listening to the music. It was a symphony of triumph. The notes flowed up, they spoke of rising and they were the rising itself, they were the essence and the form of upward motion, they seemed to embody every human act and thought that had ascent as its motive. It was a sunburst of sound, breaking out of hiding and spreading open. It had the freedom of release and the tension of purpose. It swept space clean, and left nothing but the joy of an unobstructed effort. Only a faint echo within the sounds spoke of that from which the music had escaped, but spoke in laughing astonishment at the discovery that there was no ugliness or pain, and there never had had to be. It was the song of an immense deliverance."[‘Concerto of Deliverance’, Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Important typo corrections to my previous post:

---

Following my rebuttal, Don Watkins III then wrote:

"You're dropping context. We all benefit from Rand's work. That is no crime. The issue is trying to take from Rand benefits to which we are not entitled. The music you commissioned [sic,...

---

It should have been typed as:

"You're dropping context. We all benefit from Rand's work. That is no crime. The issue is trying to take from Rand benefits to which we are not entitled. The music you comissioned [sic]...

===

And Brian wrote, "Monart may, and possibly should, have the legal right to call his song what he wishes, but not the moral right. I don't think anyone should call their peiece [sic] ...

---

It should have been typed as:

And Brian wrote, "Monart may, and possibly should, have the legal right to call his song what he wishes, but not the moral right. I don't think anyone should call their peice [sic]...

===

I also apologize for any typos and other grammar mistakes in my post. (English is not my first language.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For readers: This is to say that I will not be responding to Monart's latest post nor any of his future posts. His latest response was so dishonest that to do so would be to grant him a sanction he does not deserve. However, if anyone is interested in these issues and has any questions concerning my position, please feel free to email me privately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For readers: This is to say that I will not be responding to Monart's latest post nor any of his future posts.  His latest response was so dishonest that to do so would be to grant him a sanction he does not deserve.  However, if anyone is interested in these issues and has any questions concerning my position, please feel free to email me privately.

That's an overly familiar (and easy to utter) phrase, "not to give sanction", often used to avoid facing real arguments. Also, observe that Don Watkins III, sensing that someone may pick out this maneuver, offers a "private" consultation -- presumably where he would not have to display his mentality in public. "They soar aloft in the night sky...afraid to face the dawn."

-Monart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to my first post introducing myself and presenting the new album Concerto of Deliverance -- giving a summary of  and links to who I am, why and how the music was produced, and what it might sound like -- there were these following replies.

Stephen Speicher condemns me as being "irrational", a "liar", an "intellectual and ethical fraud" ...

And you continue to lie and further demonstrate just how much of a dishonest fraud you are. You claim that my quoted response was made to your "first post introducing myself and presenting the new album." That fact of the matter is that the words that you quote were made days later in response to further posts that you wrote that, in fact, contained your lies and the evidence of your fraud.

I realize that you would like to portray yourself as a poor little innocent "neo-objectivist" who wandered in here and for no reason was viciously attacked by these traditionalist Objectivsts. The fact is, what you are, what you say, and what you do, is an affront to the philosophy and the personnage of Ayn Rand, so go back to that ethereal world where you and your cohorts flitter about. I actually do wish that your bizarre starship auroa had a chance of becoming a reality, for then we could rid this good Earth of a lot of you vermin all at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To add to all that I've posted here so far, and for the benefit of the non-posting readers here, I offer the following as a point of reflection on what's going on here.

And since you keep coming back, I'll offer something for your benefit. I haven't participated in this thread at all and I don't plan to get more involved than this: I may have been silent thus far but don't think that makes you a friend of mine, brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you continue to lie and further demonstrate just how much of a dishonest fraud you are. You claim that my quoted response was made to your "first post introducing myself and presenting the new album." That fact of the matter is that the words that you quote were made days later in response to further posts that you wrote that, in fact, contained your lies and the evidence of your fraud.

To be temporally precise: Stephen Speicher did not call me -- "irrational", a "liar", an "intellectual and ethical fraud", etc.,-- not immediately after my introductory post. He did that after I answered, in my next post, Betsy Speicher's questions about "objectivist astronautics" and "neo objectivists". His condemnation was, nonetheless, an expression of his opinion about my involvement with Concerto of Deliverance (and my other works), the album of which was the context in which I quote him in my post today.

Observe that Stephen Speicher still has given no real arguments to support his condemnation of me or to invalidate my extended analysis of his and other detractors' claim. Observe also that he, like Don Watkins III, is only trying to dismiss my arguments with ineffective intimidation. Observe, finally, that the thumbnail graphic by Stephen Speicher's name, of an astronomical scene -- when combined with his disdain for Starship Aurora" and for my objectivist astronautics degree -- may indicate that he, too, "soars aloft in the night sky...afraid to face the dawn.

-Monart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Observe that Stephen Speicher still has given no real arguments to support his condemnation of me or to invalidate my extended analysis of his and other detractors' claim.

If you were not trying to exploit values created by Ayn Rand that you have no right to, you would (1) Change the name of the "Concerto" and (2) take all references to Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged off the album jacket.

Then people would evaluate the music on its own merits instead of seeing it as an attempt to cash in on someone else's accomplishments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you were not trying to exploit values created by Ayn Rand that you have no right to, you would (1) Change the name of the "Concerto" and (2) take all references to Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged off the album jacket.

Then people would evaluate the music on its own merits instead of seeing it as an attempt to cash in on someone else's accomplishments.

Observe that Betsy Speicher, too, didn't seem to have read my post, analyzing and refuting hers and others' claim; otherwise, she would not keep restating the claim without giving the grounds for it.

Observe that Betsy Speicher's conditions of proof for showing I'm not "exploiting" Rand assumes that which she and the others still need to prove.

Observe that these people are regarding their claim as if it were an axiom, a self-evident, unquestionable axiom, requiring no proof, and any attempt to disprove it, "proves" that the disprover is "dishonest and immoral". But their claim is obviously not an axiom, but they do regard it as an unqestionable stand that must be upheld regardless of proof or reason.

-Monart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Observe, finally, that the thumbnail graphic by Stephen Speicher's name, of an astronomical scene -- when combined with his disdain for Starship Aurora ...

My "astronomical scene" is an image of something real, while your "Starship Aurora" is a libertarian fantasy all in your mind. You even chose the constitution from "Minerva," which, if anyone here does not know that hilarious story ...

In the early 1970s a group of libertarian cuckoo birds got together to establish a libertarian-styled haven in the southern Pacific ocean. They wanted thirty-thousand dedicated souls to populate the Republic of Minerva, which came equipped with a libertarian constitution and all. They even minted coins. But then along came King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV of Tonga and his crew in a nice little boat, and the King reclaimed the land in the name of Tonga. The Republic of Minerva was no more.

But, no fear, another cuckoo bird has come along, and now the Minerva constitution will be part of Monart's "Starship Aurora" project to bring "neo-objectivist" life to the great cosmos in the sky. But this time, instead of the King of Tonga, maybe the Klingons will come along and send the nutcases back to their asylum.

Monart, you are nutball, plain and simple. Go back to your "neo-objectivist" brood and write your little ethereal poems to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Stephen Speicher's latest post, observe that he continues to show rancor and use ridicule to divert attention away from the fact that he hasn't demonstrated any reasoning for his charge that I'm "immorally violating Rand's intellectual property rights". Nor has he supported his charge that I'm a "liar" and a "fraud".

My "astronomical scene" is an image of something real, while your "Starship Aurora" is a libertarian fantasy all in your mind. You even chose the constitution from "Minerva," ...

Stephen Speicher should be told that independent minds can read for themselves and don't need Speicher's telling of the alleged connection between "Starship Aurora" and the "Minerva Constitution". It is *not* the constitution of Starship Aurora, which is only a philosophy and art organization. SA was never involved in the Minerva project or any political project. A copy of that constitution is posted on the website for historical reasons, and as an example of how a modern, limited government constitution may or may not be written.

What is the point of Stephen Speicher's mis-representation about this? The pattern of his posts indicate that it's another distraction and a continuing attempt to defame my character, presuming falsely to know who I really am.

Monart, you are nutball, plain and simple. Go back to your "neo-objectivist" brood and write your little ethereal poems to each other.

In all other moderated forums, such repeated insults substituting for reasons, like those being posted by Stephen Speicher, would have been clear grounds for deletion and unsubscription long before this. But observe that this forum is different, it seems some are exempt from the posting policy.

Meanwhile, Stephen Speicher should know that his posts are making his reputation even worse.

-Monart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the band he went after was a Washington DC band called The Fountainhead that put out an album called "The Voice of Reason." I've got both the cassette and LP. You are right that the name is a pretty deliberate moral violation unlike the use of Anthem by Rush.

There is a half-famous pop band from Ireland that is called The Fountainhead and who has released an album called 'The Voice of Reason' (I think it was called so) (maybe it was released also in Washington ...?). They were on the same label as the more known China Crises and maybe U2 at one point (I first heard about them through and Objectivist who liked them (I don't)).

I guess it is difficult to protect oneself against young people taking names in this fashion without much thought. In a sense it is a good sign so many unthinking people just cannot come up with anything else -- a sign of the impact Ayn Rand is having around the world.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all other moderated forums, such repeated insults substituting for reasons, like those being posted by Stephen Speicher, would have been clear grounds for deletion and unsubscription long before this.

Exactly! On a forum where the content is screened before it gets posted, you and the pathetic garbage that you spew would never be seen. But here you get to post your "neo-objectivist" crap and demonstrate your disdain for the philosophy of Objectivism and its creator. To "reason" with the likes of you would be obscene. The only choice is to ignore a cuckoo bird like you, or ridicule you. Up to now it has been entertaining doing the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...To "reason" with the likes of you would be obscene. The only choice is to ignore a cuckoo bird like you, or ridicule you. Up to now it has been entertaining doing the latter.

That's the only reason I've let this thread continue, is because your posts are entertaining, Stephen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the only reason I've let this thread continue, is because your posts are entertaining, Stephen.

Unfortunately, I never learn my lesson with characters like these. It is just like the old Neo-techers, where even ridiculing them lends more credence to them then they deserve. Taking Objectivism to the galactic business centers of the universe ... oy vey!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess it is difficult to protect oneself against young people taking names in this fashion without much thought. In a sense it is a good sign so many unthinking people just cannot come up with anything else -- a sign of the impact Ayn Rand is having around the world.

I think you are quite right about that, i.e., the impact of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Maybe soon we will have the action figures in the local Toys R Us. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are quite right about that, i.e., the impact of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Maybe soon we will have the action figures in the local Toys R Us.  :D

I've always envisioned an Ayn Rand video game. Level one will have her escaping from Russia, and if you make her harm an innocent person rather than a commie, the screen will go black: "I'm sorrry. You've initiated force. Please try again."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A review of the album, "Concerto of Deliverance", is just published at Atlasphere. See announcement below. Other earlier reviews are at

http://www.starshipaurora.com/cd_comment_01.html

http://www.starshipaurora.com/cd_comment_02.html

http://www.starshipaurora.com/cd_comment_03.html

----

August 12, 2004

A new feature column has just been published at the Atlasphere:

John Mills-Cockell’s Concerto of Deliverance (Review)

by Douglas Wagoner

Far from a traditional concerto, John Mills-Cockell's Concerto of Deliverance (commissioned by Monart Pon) is perhaps best viewed as an idiosyncratic concept album inspired by Rand's work.

Go here to read the full article:

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/04081...deliverance.php

___________________________________________________

The Atlasphere http://www.TheAtlasphere.com

Connecting Admirers of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all other moderated forums, such repeated insults substituting for reasons, like those being posted by Stephen Speicher, would have been clear grounds for deletion and unsubscription long before this.

Exactly! On a forum where the content is screened before it gets posted, you and the pathetic garbage that you spew would never be seen. But here you get to post your "neo-objectivist" crap and demonstrate your disdain for the philosophy of Objectivism and its creator. To "reason" with the likes of you would be obscene. The only choice is to ignore a cuckoo bird like you, or ridicule you. Up to now it has been entertaining doing the latter.

Where, in this thread, did Stepen Speicher ever "reason"?. All his posts were attempts at *diversion* from reasoning -- using ineffective and unfunny insults, slurrs, intimidation, etc., that do no credit to his already disrespectable reputation. Not once yet has he answered the rebuttals in my post "The 'Immorality' of a Concerto of Deliverance", or in my other post. His just asserting that he doesn't care to, isn't a reasonable answer. He's better off being silent.

-Monart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...