DeBoer Photography wrote:
As far as getting a book, that is a good start for LEARNING without arguing back to people who are trying to teach.

I've stated before in a past posting that online forums are not the best avenue for "teaching" or "learning" when the "student" shares the same "stage" as the "teacher."

If you truly want to learn, go to school for this stuff.

Regards,

Denoy

I'm not necessarily "learning" but rather attempting to empathize with the many rantings of photogs on this issue.  Perhaps I am not the only one that has "misinterpreted" someone's posts.

DeBoer Photography wrote:
I think you mis-read my posting entirely.  I don't even have a clue as to whether or not you "have a problem with paying."  I've not followed your postings and was trying to answer your question.

You take a number like "50" off the top of your head and you still don't understand why I asked you what you need "50" images for.  If you are shooting for a composite, you only need about 4-5 TOTAL...and if you are putting together a starter portfolio, about 10 good images should do.

As far as getting a book, that is a good start for LEARNING without arguing back to people who are trying to teach.

I've stated before in a past posting that online forums are not the best avenue for "teaching" or "learning" when the "student" shares the same "stage" as the "teacher."

If you truly want to learn, go to school for this stuff.

Regards,

Denoy

I apologize if I "mis-read" your post. . .I took from it what I thought the writer attempted to convey.  Perhaps a little clarity was needed.

Now am I correct in understanding that you feel I am "arguing"  or is it misinterpretation again???  Although. . .that's what you said, so I don't see how.  BTW, I'm not arguing. . .I'm "asking".  In order to "argue" one must have some level of input. . .I lack that on this topic.

XposurePhoto wrote:
OK..to sum it all up..it is called "OVERHEAD" for some the overhead is heavier than for others...but if this is ALL you are doing as some of us then it is even worst doing TFP's...why?... Keep in mind, this is not a true number, it is JUST an example

If your Monthly overhead is lets say 8k... (Your pay, Studio, Marketing, rental fees, internet, etc...) that means that based on a 5 day work week - 4 week month - your daily overhead is $400.00, so you will need to make at least $400.00 to break even and to make a profit you will have to make alot more than that, that is why some photographers day rates starts at 1k+ because must of us do not shoot every day, and if one day you did not work then that means that you are -$400.00, now, if I have a TFP shoot and have to edit the images, meet the model prior the shoot buy coffee, etc. then shoot her and meet her latter to give images, etc. I am basically ussing 1 - 2 billable days for free so I just lost from $400-800, and if my camera breaks, or drop a lens, etc. during that free shoot I have lost even more, which ussually hapends when you don't have an assistant that can help you with equipment and

XP

If your monthly overhead is 8K or whatever, and you can't pay for your overhead the first week of the month, then you are in the WRONG business!!! 

DeBoer Photography wrote:

Hamza wrote:
How professional can a Photog be if he even has to mention how much he spends???
If Photography is your Profession, stop complaining you little bitches!!!
Spend what you must, it's BUSINESS!!!

Don't you just love people who jump in without reading the OP?

Ever hear Helmut Newton complain about cost?  How about Avedon?  Herb Ritts?  Annie Libowitz?  Didn't think so...

XposurePhoto wrote:
Hamza...DUDE!!!! get a chill pill!

READ everything before you type, I am trying to asnwer a real question, I did not mentioned it was my overhead nor that I could not pay my overhead, as a matter of fact I mentioned that it was not even a real number, JUST a sample to show the OP what we ment by overhead, etc. Someone making an income in other areas may have the time and $$$ to spend into TFP's because it is not affectiong their bottom line, they do not have to worry about having high quality product because it is not going to affect their customer base...it is all relative to what our individual main focuss is, business or pleassure!

If you CHOOSE to shoot TFP, quality should be as if you were getting paid. 
Photography and Video is my business, that's it!  I still have time to shoot TFP/CD/DVD.
Does it effect my bottom line?  Hell no!
If I wasn't shooting TFP/CD/DVD on the days I did, I'd be sitting at home watching TV or something useless.  TFP/CD/DVD for the Professional should be looked at like practice, or experimentation.  I'd rather shoot than sit on my ass, whether I get paid to or not.

XposurePhoto wrote:
Hamza..again, Take a chill pill and read the OP (OP = Original Post) carefully...you are taking this a bit too personnal for no reason...to each their own, we are answering a real question, you are going off on a diferent topic...read each of the posts before you come back and attack, there is no reason for that!

XP

Dude, that's been answered...
What does it cost for me to do a TFP Shoot?
The cost of batteries?  The cost of gas for me to get to my office from my home?  How about the cost of Insurance for me to keep my business going on a daily basis?  How about my health insurance costs, because without it I would not be healthy?  How about the $2.25 I spend on the toll to get to my office?  How about the cost of wear and tear to my equipment and car for the day?  How about the cost of oh I don't know the bagal in the morning so I don't pass out for not eating? 

The problem is that you don't understand.  When someone asks what it truly costs you, there are a million answers depending on how you look at it.  If you spent $100,000.00 on your education is that included?

The actual cost is: how much actual cash you spend that day!  ie. Food, Batteries, Gas, Film, etc.  The cost of the camera and education, whether you shoot that day or not, it's paid for.  The cost to maintain your business, it's not going to change if you shoot that day or stay home.  Then again if you stayed home, and say ordered take-out, went to a movie, etc...  you'd probably have spent the same if not more than if you decided to shoot TFP.

Personal, I am not taking this personal, I just can't stand stupidity.  For someone and there are many on MM that complains that TFP costs them too much it's a simple answer.  Do Not Do It!  Stop your bitching and complaining.  It is what it is.  If you are an MUA and you want to shoot TFP, don't expect a kit fee.  If you are a model and want to shoot TFP, don't expect gas money.  If you are a Photographer and want to shoot TFP, don't expect anything. 

Be lucky others believe in you enough to give up thier time to collaborate with you.

BeccaAnnPhotoGal wrote:
If you think about costs for a photographer, it all depends on what types of cameras they use, and the fact that some photographers use more than one camera for a shoot. Cameras can cost anywhere from $5-$5,000 from my understanding, depending on if you want the crappy disposable or if you want a professional-quality camera that will get a crisp clean image.

[...]

Backdrops cost anywhere from $30-$90 I think. I'm just estimating from what I have seen on a website or two.

That's a pretty decent summary. A few quibbles that don't affect the overall summary:

Cameras can cost anywhere from $0.25-$35,000+ if the higher-end digital systems are included. (Most photographers using the higher priced gear won't be working with novice models, though.)

Backdrops cost anywhere from free to $2000+ Seamless paper is cheap--$30-$40 a roll, and is usually good for a half-dozen shoots or more. Portrait-style muslins can be had for under $100, and as high as $2500 (20x20 from Les Brandt: $2200. 12x20 from  Photo Showcase: $1500), while canvas is usually higher. They're long-lasting, but not entirely permanent.

And, of course, ongoing maintenance, upkeep, insurance, and the like on the equipment, even if no upgrades are done. Flashtubes burn out or break ($100-$300 each), permits cost money, scouting locations either costs time or time+money if using a location scout,  studio time costs money (or is a continuing overhead expense), equipment rental for specialty items, etc. All of which gets lumped into the "overhead" category for businesses, and into the "painful expense"
category for hobbyists.

Hamza wrote:
How professional can a Photog be if he even has to mention how much he spends???

I'd consider mentioning the costs as being courteous, given that the original post asked that question specifically. I tend to associate courtesy with professional behavior, which makes an answer which mentions how much is spent to be professional.

Whether it's a business expense, overhead, hobby expense, or anything else, the expense exists. That it can be written off as part of the cost of doing business is fine, but it doesn't make it disappear.

Jayne Jones wrote:
Say you take 250 shots. . .on average. . .how much time will it take to produce say 50 good images?

Getting 50 decent images out of 250 is not unrealistic, it should only take the amount of time it takes to shoot them.

Jayne Jones wrote:
And how much would that really cost you?

Nothing.

DeBoer Photography wrote:
BTW, why do you need 50 "good" images?

That's just a number, 50 so called 'Good Images' are nothing compared to ONE great one.

The thing is, if you were to not shoot TFP on Saturday, you would still have had to pay for your camera, insurance, education, rent, utilities, etc...  So when asked and this is for the slow people, How much does it Actually Cost you?  The answer is...

When asked what it costs to drive to DC from NYC, would you take into consideration the wear and tear of your car?  The actual hours it takes you to drive?  The cost of depreciation for the vehicle?  The cost of Insurance?  The cost of maintenance for said car?  Or would you figure out what it costs in gas and maybe tolls? 

I guess you can call your actual expenses expendable items.

Hamza wrote:
When asked what it costs to drive to DC from NYC, would you take into consideration the wear and tear of your car?  The actual hours it takes you to drive?  The cost of depreciation for the vehicle?  The cost of Insurance?  The cost of maintenance for said car?  Or would you figure out what it costs in gas and maybe tolls?

Depends on the person asking: accountant, IRS, or a buddy who wants to share "expenses".

The total variable expense does include wear and tear, a small delta for insurance (higher mileage leads to rare increases), maintenance delta for the same reason, gas, tolls, and other direct costs.

Depreciation would be more of a fixed expense, though arguably a variable, as it's somewhat related to mileage.

Counting only the obvious gas+tolls+misc expenses is bad business practice for tax and accounting purposes.

Counting all the costs is a way to alienate friends.

The original question was a bit vague, but it seemed to be trying to get a better handle on the photographers' side of the business--so business answers make more sense to me.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Depends on the person asking: accountant, IRS, or a buddy who wants to share "expenses".

The total variable expense does include wear and tear, a small delta for insurance (higher mileage leads to rare increases), maintenance delta for the same reason, gas, tolls, and other direct costs.

Depreciation would be more of a fixed expense, though arguably a variable, as it's somewhat related to mileage.

Counting only the obvious gas+tolls+misc expenses is bad business practice for tax and accounting purposes.

Counting all the costs is a way to alienate friends.

The original question was a bit vague, but it seemed to be trying to get a better handle on the photographers' side of the business--so business answers make more sense to me.

Kevin, but what does it TRULY cost you?  If you were to stay home on Saturday instead of shooting someone TFP, what would the cost be if you decided to shoot TFP?  Reality is Nothing but expendables.  Would you spend anything more than if you just let your gear sit there and do nothing?  Not by much...

Now if the question comes up as to What's it worth... that's a whole other story...

I guess what I'm not getting is why the "investment" costs (i.e. school, cameras, lenses, studio rent, lighting lessons-school, etc.) are spoken of like they repeat themselves as an "out of pocket" expense every time a photog has a shoot.  That's all I'm asking about.

Why are not the training and equipment necessary to be a successful photog (as opposed to just a GWC) also "one time" costs?

The cost of equipment i.e. cameras, lighting , modifiers etc. are not "one time" costs to a working pro. They have to be depreciated over the lifespan of the equipment and factored into every shoot as expenses. Equipment has a limited working lifespan and the cost of replacment, upkeep and maintenance determine a large percentage of the cost of every shoot. Any photographer that doesn't consider these costs doen't stay in business very long. With the advent of digital the working life of a camera tends to be shorter due to technilogical advances. Consider a Canon 1Ds at $8000.00, typical lenses $1500 -$5000 each. etc. depreciated over a 3-5 year period. Add in workstations for editing, software (photoshop alone runs $700 with upgrades typically every year or two), file storage, archival storage, memory cards etc. Disposable goods eg: paper for printing, upwards of $2.00 a sheet, flash tubes around $150 per strobe, modeling lamp bulbs, and all the other little items.
  Now we add electricity, phone, insurance, advertising, office supplies, the list goes on. And every once in awhile we like to think we can charge for our Time and Talent. Professional photos do not just come from the camera. Substantial time is required for editing, color adjustment and so forth. If you are getting an offer for tfp from a talented, well equipped photographer you are getting all of the above plus many thousands of hours of experience, research, education (schooling or self discipline) and passion.

Hamza wrote:
Ever hear Helmut Newton complain about cost?  How about Avedon?  Herb Ritts?  Annie Libowitz?  Didn't think so...

Since none of us were contemporaries with any of these people, nor did anyone sit down and talk with them on a daily basis, I doubt we can say.  I can say I've never met a photographer that *didn't* complain about costs at one point or another in their career.

Did you personally know these people early in their career?  When they had little to no money coming in?

Helmut Newton was son of a wealthy garment factory owner...then married an actress...he wasn't hurting for money ever...and probably never had to worry about a business model

Richard Avedon probably complained about costs once or twice in his career...  Maybe while he was working for the Merchant Marines using a Roeli to take ID photos...more than likely he complained a lot between the time that he left the merchant marines and then was picked up by Harper's Bazaar while he shot ads for a local department store.

Herb Ritts?  Probably complained a bit while he was building his career at night while working days selling furniture in his family's shop...then again his family was very successful and he counted as friends actors such as Richard Gere....so he probably had quite the bit of support from the family...he probably never had to think about a business plan, but he did know how to since his first degree was in economics.

Annie Leibovitz didn't start shooting professionally until her 30's.  She probably complained a lot back then before she got picked up for Rolling Stone.  She's still alive though, so maybe you could interview her and find out if she ever struggled with money.

benson wrote:

Wow you don't understand modeling do you?!!?

Probably not, All i know is that models I work with spend on about $50 on 3-4 outfits for a shoot (gotta love local thrift stores).

I think James broke dwn photog cost very nicely and i dont see why the conversation has progressed past that. I do think his numbers are a little high, but he is using better equipment then me. New wardrobe per shoot is nice, but most girls I know have enough wardrobe in there closet to last  20 TFP shoot after which point why are you still doing TFP. My remarks werent aimed a professional models just starting models. Starting models have very little cost, starting photog have enourmous cost that baffle the mind and make it very hard for any of us to make to breaking even much less making money. And all along there is a nonstop stream of newbie model threads devoted to why should I do TFP instead of the photog paying me or why should I pay him.


Either way, like I said James ended and intellectual discuss on the subject with detailed analysis and I thank him for it.


Martin IV

www.martincoatesiv.com

benson wrote:
Wow you don't understand modeling do you?!!?

MartinCoatesIV wrote:
Probably not, All i know is that models I work with spend on about $50 on 3-4 outfits for a shoot (gotta love local thrift stores).

I think James broke dwn photog cost very nicely and i dont see why the conversation has progressed past that. I do think his numbers are a little high, but he is using better equipment then me. New wardrobe per shoot is nice, but most girls I know have enough wardrobe in there closet to last  20 TFP shoot after which point why are you still doing TFP. My remarks werent aimed a professional models just starting models. Starting models have very little cost, starting photog have enourmous cost that baffle the mind and make it very hard for any of us to make to breaking even much less making money. And all along there is a nonstop stream of newbie model threads devoted to why should I do TFP instead of the photog paying me or why should I pay him.


Either way, like I said James ended and intellectual discuss on the subject with detailed analysis and I thank him for it.


Martin IV

www.martincoatesiv.com

See two posts up.

Jayne Jones wrote:
I just can't entertain the thought that photogs run out and buy $100K plus in equipment the day of the shoot, then take all that stuff back, and then run out and buy it again for the next shoot.  So to say that those count. . .is somewhat silly, if not just splitting hairs.  If you want credit for your education/training. . .models should get credit for that too (including gym time and grocery store bills for that matter).  That's all I'm saying.  That's all the post was "intended" to show.


Jayne

That last statement suggests that the intention was to bait to make a larger point....

Anyway, I suspect many professional photographers must address the leasing or purchase cost of the place of business, not residence. The explanation can stop there for that class of photographer.  Even when doing TFP they incur daily maintenance expenses for the studio.  In this form it's no different than any other business.  I would further suggest that your mechanic is charging for property costs in addition to parts & labour, otherwise the venture would fail.

With respect to equipment I believe that it was the original post that raised the possibility of disposable lenses or cameras.  Obviously, that's not the case but from my observations hardware and software acquisition is an ongoing process (for many), be it in the form of a new camera body (not unusual), new lenses (not unusual), or upgrades in computing resources and software.

Edit1: Now, if your definition of a photographer is one who lives and shoots out home and potentially other freely accessible locations then your assessment may be correct with some restrictions.   Specifically, if equipment is defined as camera and perhaps a couple lenses then the primary costs will be time for the shoot and post-processing.  Though countlesss impressive images within such a framework have been generated I hazzard a guess that the 'standard' for modeling as a whole is something different.

Jayne Jones wrote:
When a mechanic fixes your car, he charges you (at least in the midwest) for parts and labor (labor = time to install parts).  He's not charging you for the $40K he spent on his education, the $80K he spent on tools, the $20K he spends in rent, yadda yadda yadda. . .nope.  Just parts and labor and tax.  Period.

Not to argue, but why do you think a mechanic's labor charges are $65/hour?

That is because the national labor union for mechanics has done all the same math that I have (except with a mechanic's equipment and schooling costs rather than a photographer's), broken it down to a 40 hour week, and divided up the costs and added them to a reasonable $10-$15/hour pay for the Mechanic.

Jayne Jones wrote:
I just can't entertain the thought that photogs run out and buy $100K plus in equipment the day of the shoot, then take all that stuff back, and then run out and buy it again for the next shoot.  So to say that those count. . .is somewhat silly, if not just splitting hairs.  If you want credit for your education/training. . .models should get credit for that too (including gym time and grocery store bills for that matter).  That's all I'm saying.  That's all the post was "intended" to show.


Jayne

alexsee wrote:
That last statement suggests that the intention was to bait to make a larger point....

Anyway, I suspect many professional photographers must address the leasing or purchase cost of the place of business, not residence. The explanation can stop there for that class of photographer.  Even when doing TFP they incur daily maintenance expenses for the studio.  In this form it's no different than any other business.  I would further suggest that your mechanic is charging for property costs in addition to parts & labour, otherwise the venture would fail.

With respect to equipment I believe that it was the original post that raised the possibility of disposable lenses or cameras.  Obviously, that's not the case but from my observations hardware and software acquisition is an ongoing process (for many), be it in the form of a new camera body (not unusual), new lenses (not unusual), or upgrades in computing resources and software.

Nope.  Can't in the state of Missouri.  Good ol' MO legislation.

Jayne Jones wrote:

Jayne Jones wrote:
I just can't entertain the thought that photogs run out and buy $100K plus in equipment the day of the shoot, then take all that stuff back, and then run out and buy it again for the next shoot.  So to say that those count. . .is somewhat silly, if not just splitting hairs.  If you want credit for your education/training. . .models should get credit for that too (including gym time and grocery store bills for that matter).  That's all I'm saying.  That's all the post was "intended" to show.


Jayne

Nope.  Can't in the state of Missouri.  Good ol' MO legislation.

It is an overhead cost that *must* be covered one way or the other for the business to remain viable.  In the case of your mechanic his expenses would also include new tools/equipment, electricity, phone, heating, licensing, and training among other items.  The income is divided into maintenance costs and the remainder for daily existence.

alexsee wrote:
It is an overhead cost that *must* be covered one way or the other for the business to remain viable.  In the case of your mechanic his expenses would also include new tools/equipment, electricity, phone, heating, licensing, and training among other items.  The income is divided into maintenance costs and the remainder for daily existence.

Well. . .I'm sure that overall, the amount of business said mechanic does eventually pays for that overhead.  I'm positive all revenues aren't "profit" but such is true with any business.  But either way. . .when you get the bill. . .$20 of that bill isn't for his lights that he used while he fixed your car, $30 wasn't for the sandwich he ate while he was on the phone ordering your parts, $10 wasn't for the coke he bought to wash said sandwich down.  I think you get my drift.  Otherwise, one would be attempting to make all of their "profits" off of one sale.  That is poor business sense.

In essence, the overhead costs you speak of, are spread out over the month/year what have you and as Hamza said. . .eventually paid.  No matter how frequently you "upgraded" equipment. . .you would take enough pictures and be paid for enough jobs to eventually cover those costs.  They are not costs that are re-assessed with each individual shoot.  Everyone knows this.  Even the dumb new girl: me.

DGImages wrote:
Hmmmm...actually the expenses never end  With digital, newer and better camera bodies and lenses are comming out at an alarming rate.  Membership dues to professional organizations cost money too.  Don't forget studio rental costs.  Lab fees for prints as well.  Lets also not forget, updating Adobe Photoshop with each new version. (those crafty bastards).  There is also my liability insurance and equipment insurance.  Not only do I subscribe to numerous photograhy magazines, but I subscribe to numerous fashion and glamour magazines as well...gotta see whats going on in the industry.  My damn receptionist costs money too...she refuses to accept APFP. (APFP...Answer Phones for Prints)  I guess if you divide this up into a cost per day kinda thing, it would show that it does cost a couple of bucks every day to be a photographer, and a few more to actually take some photographs as one...and if I'm actually lucky enough to get some keepers worth printing...a few more.

Holy crap...I need an accountant....I think I'm going broke!


David

I love your humor Dave.

DGImages wrote:
Why thank you my dear.  I need a good sense of humour.  'Cause when my wife finds out I'm not in bed, but on the computer....again....she's gonna make me eat my camera.


David

I think you need to snuggle up to wifie.  Cameras don't taste so good so I hear.

Jayne Jones wrote:

Well. . .I'm sure that overall, the amount of business said mechanic does eventually pays for that overhead.  I'm positive all revenues aren't "profit" but such is true with any business.  But either way. . .when you get the bill. . .$20 of that bill isn't for his lights that he used while he fixed your car, $30 wasn't for the sandwich he ate while he was on the phone ordering your parts, $10 wasn't for the coke he bought to wash said sandwich down.  I think you get my drift.  Otherwise, one would be attempting to make all of their "profits" off of one sale.  That is poor business sense.

In essence, the overhead costs you speak of, are spread out over the month/year what have you and as Hamza said. . .eventually paid.  They are not costs that are re-assessed with each individual shoot.  Everyone knows this.  Even the dumb new girl: me.

The aggregate maintenance cost is factored into the hourly invoice.  As noted above an estimate of maintenance cost is divided by expected hours per year plus true wage.  In reality most people work with weekly or monthly expenses then bill above those costs to continue living.   You fail to recognize that many costs do in fact recur.  Even if the place of business is owned outright, and property isn't cheap, one must pay the associated tax every year.

Your model of a photographer is of an individual with limited equipment without a business address.  It is only under those circumstances that you could be correct.

I'm done.

Jayne Jones wrote:
In essence, the overhead costs you speak of, are spread out over the month/year what have you and as Hamza said. . .eventually paid.  No matter how frequently you "upgraded" equipment. . .you would take enough pictures and be paid for enough jobs to eventually cover those costs.  They are not costs that are re-assessed with each individual shoot.  Everyone knows this.  Even the dumb new girl: me.

Which is what I did for you.

I answered your question directly.  Hamza did not.

I am very insulted that you asked a question, got the answer to the question, and are now turning the answer around as though I lied to you or over inflated something.  I have no reason to do that, and go on and become a photographer if you doubt the validity of any of my numbers.

No a mechanic doesn't take and factor $50 for the wrench and $10 for his lunch etc...but that's only because it was all done for him...there is a book that mechanics all across the entire country must abide by...it was made by the mechanic's union in conjunction with the vehicle manufacturers.  It estimates how many hours a job will take (rather generously I might add) and it determines the current per hour rate allowed to be charged in labor for that job.

When you go to the mechanic he charges you whatever that book says to charge...no matter how long in actual labor it takes him...

If he his an independent mechanic 100% of the labor $$s go to him, and he takes the money for the building, the equipment, the computer, the electric, and everything else out of that.

If he is a mechanic working for a larger retailer, he only gets about $15/hour and the rest of the $65/hour goes to the retailer.

You're correct when you say you don't know much.

If the mechanic's labor charges did not include estimated overhead, he would go out of business...end of story.

Luckily for mechanics all the work of estimating overhead has been done for them by a national union and they don't have to worry about it.

Jayne Jones wrote:
Well. . .I'm sure that overall, the amount of business said mechanic does eventually pays for that overhead.  I'm positive all revenues aren't "profit" but such is true with any business.  But either way. . .when you get the bill. . .$20 of that bill isn't for his lights that he used while he fixed your car, $30 wasn't for the sandwich he ate while he was on the phone ordering your parts, $10 wasn't for the coke he bought to wash said sandwich down.  I think you get my drift.  Otherwise, one would be attempting to make all of their "profits" off of one sale.  That is poor business sense.

In essence, the overhead costs you speak of, are spread out over the month/year what have you and as Hamza said. . .eventually paid.  They are not costs that are re-assessed with each individual shoot.  Everyone knows this.  Even the dumb new girl: me.

alexsee wrote:
The aggregate maintenance cost is factored into the hourly invoice.  As noted above an estimate of maintenance cost is divided by expected hours per year plus true wage.  In reality most people work with weekly or monthly expenses then bill above those costs to continue living.   You fail to recognize that many costs do in fact recur.  Even if the place of business is owned outright, and property isn't cheap, one must pay the associated tax every year.

Your model of a photographer is of an individual with limited equipment without a business address.  It is only under those circumstances that you could be correct.

I'm done.

You should be.  Several of your highly respected peers disagree with you.  See above/previous posts.  Goodnight.

Chuck Holliday wrote:
another thread gone bad/ugly because everybody wants to have the last word or feels as if theyre the king of zamunda, lol.

they should re-name the forums the battlezone, hahaha

Well as the Queen of Popamouwou, I do know the King of Zamunda.