Saatchi art warehouse up in smoke

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 05:07 (twenty-two years ago)

i just read about this!

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 05:08 (twenty-two years ago)

oh wow!

― ipsofacto (ipsofacto), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 05:15 (twenty-two years ago)

why doesnt saachi have better accounting software ? should he not know what is in his warehouses, b/w this and the near tate musuem dying a sad death its been a rather bad year for him

― anthony, Wednesday, 26 May 2004 05:33 (twenty-two years ago)

i think the issue isn't that they don't know what's in there anthony, but theat they don't know if anything's survived. but the radio reports this morning suggest it's unlikely that anything has :-(

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 05:38 (twenty-two years ago)

They'd been moving items to other warehouses on the same estate recently, so that's where the confusion arises.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 05:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Well finally someone other than the YBA's might get a fucking look-in with them.

― ipsofacto (ipsofacto), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 05:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Who would you suggest, ipso?

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm even more pleased now that I went to see the Sensations exhibition when it was on.

So, how sure are we that this isn't some enormous Bill Drummond stunt?

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Saatchi is well known for picking up artists at cut rates, inflating the prices, then dumping the artwork, like he's a rogue trader dealing with stock shares.

It would not surprise me one iota if it turned out to be an insurance scam.

HSA independently reached the same conclusion, ha ha, but he did so with a great deal more glee and derision.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Damien Hirst says "The fire was a work of art"

xpost - i had suspected some kind of scam too.

― hmmm (hmmm), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Kate that wouldn't be a rogue trader, that would just be a trader.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:16 (twenty-two years ago)

My opinion of art dealers has changed somewhat more for the worse since being involved with a practising artist. Saatchi's behaviour is the rule rather than the exception.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Collectors, as much as as dealers.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, and yes. I wasn't saying that the way the art world goes on was a good thing, simply that he's not rogue. Sadly.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Shoulder-surfing someone's Metro on the Tube earlier, I noted that they're referring to Tracy E's excellent applique work (now gone the way of the dodo) as a 'sex tent'. Bless 'em. She may be wacky, but I don't think she's actually boffed (for example) the various relatives that feature in the piece. Ho hum how amazing that the ambiguity of the title has passed such a fine body of journalists and publishers by completely.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:28 (twenty-two years ago)

I honestly doubt it was an insurance scam, especially due to the profile and value of the artwork destroyed, and it not all just being saatchi's in there (reports are of other Museums and Buckingham Palace having works stored there).

Arson I would not rule out, mind. And I would completely agree with Kate regarding the workings of art dealers and exhibition organisers being dispicable.

This is a fitting end to a lot of YBA artworks though, to my mind.

― ___ (___), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Really? Why?

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Nobody in the art world wants to pay for anything, ever, but most of my friends who actually have an ongoing relationship with a gallery here are not getting ripped off by their dealers. When they sell a work they split 50-50 with the dealer and it's fine. It's not like having an agent or a manager, it's a much more encompassing relationship - the gallerist does a lot of work and spends a lot of money to get their cut.

It's dumb, dumb, dumb to suggest that Momart (an extremely respected art storage company) are insurance scammers.

Tracey Emin crashed my friend's book launch last night and did not bother speaking to my friend - rude cow - she just stuck to her three useless artworld rentamates in the corner until the freebies ran out. She didn't look like she'd lost anything in a fire, or if she had, she looked like she didn't give a shit.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:40 (twenty-two years ago)

God I love ignorant YBA generalizations combined with schadenfreude, it makes me feel we live in educated times.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 07:43 (twenty-two years ago)

The Chapman brothers are making it very public that they don't give a shit, from what I can see.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 08:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, the cash is in the bank innit. I don't think Los Chapmans are the maternal type re: their works.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 08:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Dinos Chapman said "We can just make it again - its only art."

When it was suggested to him that Tracey Emin's famous tent was destroyed in the blaze, he said "that would be nice."

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 08:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes but Matt they have their naughty boy punker schtick to live up to, remember.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 08:18 (twenty-two years ago)

"Ooooh Dinos we're so transgressive."
"Yes Jake, we are. Doesn't it feel nice?"

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 08:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Not suggesting that Momart are insurance scammers, but yes, I can definitely see Saatchi pulling an insurance scam to dispose of a load of troublesome art he can no longer dump on the art market.

He's a businessman at the end of the day.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 08:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, HSA's attitude towards Saatchi and yBa's is questionable, but that doesn't negate Saatchi being not entirely above board.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 08:24 (twenty-two years ago)

My song 'Everyone I Have Ever Slept With' is now the only existing artwork with that title. Hurrah!

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 08:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Given that fact, is there some Momus-Momart connection we're missing here?

― NickB (NickB), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 08:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I am the Erostratus of YBA.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 08:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Oi, those pesky mp3 links are interfering with my Throbbing Gristle.

― NickB (NickB), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 08:34 (twenty-two years ago)

The 'big' pieces stored at Momart are some of the more valuable works owned by Saatchi - not the piddling bought-for-5k New Neurotic Realism tripeola that goes to the secondary market 18 months after purchase. Like it or not the reports are talking about serious pieces here.

The social death that can happen to someone who sells something on the secondary market that they ought not to have is really not worth it to most nerdly collectors, as they have to buy their social life from the art world in the first place.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 08:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Without sounding too much like the pinefox: I don't really understand that last sentence, though I would like to, it sounds interesting. What's the secondary market?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 09:24 (twenty-two years ago)

With any fashionable movement there are always chancers who produce cynical pieces based on what they perceive the fad-followers want to buy. I am sure that several YBA pieces fall into this category.

(or Tim, are you arguing that ALL art is, by its very definition, precious?)

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 09:31 (twenty-two years ago)

By asking "why?" I'm not sure I'm arguing anything, Barry.

Name names please. What deserves burning?

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 09:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Re: the fucking idiot Chapmans: if this was anything significant they'd never be so flip. 'Oh, it's only an epic poem, I can write it again; oh, it's only a film I can shoot it again.'

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 09:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Inferring? Suggesting, then. Are you suggesting that all art is inherently precious?

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 09:51 (twenty-two years ago)

He's questioning the statement that fire is a natural end for a lot of YBA. It hardly seems like Tim's is the statement that most urgently needs expanding on.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 09:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Enrique: sometimes significant things don't last forever, sometimes it's better not to cry over spilt paint and I think it's good that artists aren't worried about their art not being immortal art.

Barry, why are you so determined to read complex inferences into the words "really? why?"?

I was asking a question: what deserves to be burned and why? But since you ask, no I don't think everything which is called 'art' is inherently precious. I also think there has been a lot of unseemly smiggering about this from people who are unsympathetic to the art and the art world. The destruction of pieces which many people find / have found exciting / inspiring is not something to be celebrated, surely? (x-post obv).

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:02 (twenty-two years ago)

There's a difference between art being immortal and it lasting out the decade!

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Your point appeared to be qualitative rather than quantitative, Enrique.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Also: smiggering!

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:10 (twenty-two years ago)

The Chapmans are right. Their art is exactly the kind that can just be "made again". Isn't that part of the point of it?

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Are you suggesting that all art is inherently precious?

I thought he was just calling people out on ill-informed pontification, personally.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:14 (twenty-two years ago)

If my point was not quantitative, your bringing up immortality was irrelevant: yeah it is IMO no great loss, an opinion I would keep to myself only the Chapmans' comment was so stupid I couldn't contain myself.

Obviously they were 'making a point', but it was totally banal. Disposability of art=so 1964.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:15 (twenty-two years ago)

The non-disposability of art = so the Romantic age

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:19 (twenty-two years ago)

=1981

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:20 (twenty-two years ago)

The secondary market:

Say you're a collector and have purchased a piece of yBa from the artist's gallery. If you as the collector take it to Sotheby's and sell the piece on yourself, you have entered the secondary market. The only person who does not suffer for doing this is Elton John, because when he has one of his yard sales at least he turns over the cash to AIDS research.

Gallerists like to maintain value for their artists and one of the ways they do this is by selling to particular collectors. If the collector sells on the work to somewhere obscure, or not to a museum, that's a bad thing for the artist, especially if the collector sells that bit too soon and adversely affects prices. There are many, many collectors who have more oomph in the market than Saatchi and these are the ones even more actively courted by gallerists.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Non-disposability of art = so 1864. So what? So x-post...

I can't see why my point about immortality was irrelevant, because you seemed to be saying that disposability = insignificance.

Do you really want artists to be deadly serious about their Great Works all the time? Or are you simply going to hate on the Chapmans whatever they say?

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Suzy: the collector who sells only suffers if s/he sells at a loss though, right?

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 142 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

... anyway don't drag me into this!

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 27 May 2004 09:32 (twenty-two years ago)

should have been ", of course"

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 27 May 2004 09:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah jed, my point being that, as you will see upthread and on other threads, that for me (and others) "the whole thing" is actually much more than a big marketing exercise so "of course", which implies that this is something we must all agree on, is misplaced. But I mean go ahead, I've no real appetite for defending this work all over again, so knock yourself out. Please name names though.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 27 May 2004 09:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Nothing wrong with artists being mates. Of course I realise a bitchy and competitive art scene makes a better soap opera for the tabloid-minded than what we've actually got in London, but I rather like the idea of these people from diverse and often extremely working-class backgrounds making art with *whatever they could find*. I can't say I've ever heard any of them diss another artist for ripping them off, and all of them aren't afraid to muck in.

― suzy (suzy), Thursday, 27 May 2004 09:39 (twenty-two years ago)

dada you dragged yourself into this.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 27 May 2004 09:41 (twenty-two years ago)

... and dragged myself back out again Julio.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 27 May 2004 09:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Tim, what did you like about "hymn"?

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 27 May 2004 09:43 (twenty-two years ago)

even scare quotes can't protect the notion of a ""genuine artist"" from collapsing upon further inspection. and i'm not sure that 'preyed upon' desbribes how the art-viewing public feels when they've been engaged by a work that they don't know has been 'done before', only 'better' or 'more authentically' (or simply first).

― m. (mitchlnw), Thursday, 27 May 2004 09:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I liked that it was a huge version of something familiar, recognition and strangeness together feeling potent. I found it a beautiful thing in and of itself: its shape and its colours I found pleasing. It looked plasticky and I found it interesting and thought-provoking to be looking at something of monumental size which looked almost throwaway (knowing also that it's a bronze, anything but throwaway).

The subject itself is interesting, human bones and guts and musculature, and this was like a pop-art reading of human biology (which itself bounces off the context of Hirst's famous dead animal work). Most of Hirst's stuff touches on mortality and the fragile flesh and seeing a huge metallic fragile flesh was kind of exciting.

It really, genuinely made me gasp when I saw it, and I'd already seen pictures of it in the papers.

There you go. Low quality art reviews by the yard, I got 'em.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 27 May 2004 09:54 (twenty-two years ago)

So the fact that it was a large-scale identical facsimile of a previously existing non-artwork didn't matter to you?

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:09 (twenty-two years ago)

No. If anything it enhanced my enjoyment, as you'll see above.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:10 (twenty-two years ago)

BUT IT WASN'T HIS IDEA. This really, really bothers me.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:15 (twenty-two years ago)

it was his idea to supersize it though

― chris (chris), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Art! For Robots! By Robots!

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark, I've explained to you in clear and rather embarrassing terms what that piece did for me, I've never once asked you to like it, I can't really do much more. Maybe if you think of it as a cover version?

I should add that issues of craft and 'originality' aren't important to me.

x-post the robots thing sounds good.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:20 (twenty-two years ago)

You're not immune to craft, surely. It's craft that produces light-looking bronze.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Chris OTM. I suppose Markelby must also dislike this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1315000/images/_1316230_warhol_300.jpg

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:22 (twenty-two years ago)

I appreciate that it exists but it doesn't get me excited, Andrew. I don't generally get a thrill from seeing something beautifully made (or a tricky guitar solo...).

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha - just noticed that the latest script I have to read is called "Brit4rt" - it will no doubt feel the full force of my emotionally stunted luddism ;)

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:29 (twenty-two years ago)

But a tricky guitar solo can thrill you in a way that's only possible because it's tricky?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:33 (twenty-two years ago)

look at him! he's played that guitar so long his fingers are bleeding1 His fingers are suffering for his art!

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:34 (twenty-two years ago)

"For sale, half a cow, slightly fire damaged"

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:42 (twenty-two years ago)

AF: that's the point, that tricky thing leaves me cold.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:42 (twenty-two years ago)

"For sale, half a cow, slightly fire damaged"

http://peter.wreck.org/pictures/europe/oxf_kebabvan.jpg

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha ha, classic!

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:45 (twenty-two years ago)

TH: you are the one who raised 'ENC'. Or perhaps someone else did. I didn't, anyway. I have no great wish to talk in ENC terms. I defended the possibility on the other thread because I thought the term was being utterly slammed when I think it probably has some significance: ie. it seems to express a feeling that seems to be not simply empty. But I am not waving a flag for the term, or seeking to elaborate it any further.

Other questions of the rights and wrongs of responses to the fire (about which I don't know much) may be a separate issue. This is just an ENC clarification. All employees may now re-enter the building. Thank you for your patience.

― the firefox, Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:50 (twenty-two years ago)

(PF: Mark used the phrase first, and I explained my strong reaction was due to ENC being a particular bugbear for me.)

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 27 May 2004 10:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Farrell: why don't you want to sound like the pinefox?

Nipper: remember - don't smoke.

― the firefox, Thursday, 27 May 2004 11:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Your style or stylings entertain some at the expense of clarity to most, and making myself clear is something I have trouble with at the best of times.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 27 May 2004 11:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I know that not all of the pieces that burned are owned by Saatchi, but this is making me wonder something. Are many of these works well-known because they're owned by Saatchi? If not, how did so many of the most famous works of contemporary British art end up in one man's collection? Does he just pay more than anyone else?

― Dickerson Pike (Dickerson Pike), Thursday, 27 May 2004 11:45 (twenty-two years ago)

AF: I don't know what you mean. I think I am among the clearest writers on ilx.

― the bluefox, Thursday, 27 May 2004 11:47 (twenty-two years ago)

pardon?

― chris (chris), Thursday, 27 May 2004 11:47 (twenty-two years ago)

pinefoxes be exfoliatin'

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 27 May 2004 11:48 (twenty-two years ago)

(x-post around boys being boys)

No, Saatchi's's like the Jesuits. Get 'em at 7k and they're yours for life.

― suzy (suzy), Thursday, 27 May 2004 11:48 (twenty-two years ago)

So many of these pieces are well-known because they're in Saatchi's collection? It makes sense on this side of the Atlantic, because of the notoriety from the "Sensations" exhibition half a decade ago (cf. Giuliani's grandstanding horseshit about Ofili's Madonna), but there?

― Dickerson Pike (Dickerson Pike), Thursday, 27 May 2004 11:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Giuliani's horseshit about Ofili's elephant shit, hmm, paradoxical.

― suzy (suzy), Thursday, 27 May 2004 11:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Being slightly vulgar about this, at least this'll release X million pounds that presumably will be ploughed back in to purchasing new art. And surely it must be a little liberating to have so much history burnt away? Chance for a new start (at least as far as the established names go)? I wonder how symbollic a moment this might be...

Can anyone explain something to me? This is from the Windy-pedant...

Robert Read, an art underwriter with Robert Hiscox, Europe's leading insurer of fine art, said it was the worst single loss in Britain since £100m of art was destroyed in 1991.

What happened in 1991?

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 27 May 2004 12:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah, yes the Tate gallery right?

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 27 May 2004 12:15 (twenty-two years ago)

i am still wondering how much of this was owned by the Palace...some of the initial news writing said that some of it was, which means that we might have lost things that weren't about Saachi, unless QEII has started buying The Concept of time in the Mind of Someone Living, or what ever the fuck the hirst shark was.

― anthony, Thursday, 27 May 2004 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Anthony: see Nick's quote from Mark S upthread: http://ilx.wh3rd.net/postmarkread.php?msgid=4670005

This warehouse was apparently between 5 and 10% of MOMART's space, so it's quite possible they store HRH's stuff without it having been affected in this fire.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 27 May 2004 15:49 (twenty-two years ago)

In what ways are boys being boys?

― the firefox, Thursday, 27 May 2004 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

so bets on which one of them will be first to sell the burnt stuff as an entirely new bit of art then?

Tracey emin - "Camp Fire"
Damien Hirst - "Flamaldehyde"
etc.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 27 May 2004 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

household name french artist=orlan.

now try one for america, yBa wouldnt of existed as a movement w/o the adman

― anthony, Thursday, 27 May 2004 16:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Tim (way upthread) *great* description/explanation of what you like about Hymn.

― Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Thursday, 27 May 2004 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)

well well, fresh from the heritage grape vine, apparently the store was just a bog standard non-art store, for vehicles, paint etc. that had been used as an overspill to where artworks had been moved from the all singing all dancing store in hackney, without authorisation or even informing owners.

There was a WWII war memorial inside, from a post office building, which had been passed onto another museum with a view to finally putting it on exhibition. It'll be interesting to see what the heat's done to the stone and brass...

― Vicky (Vicky), Friday, 28 May 2004 09:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Seems quite a few people weren't informed of the change in storage units...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1226659,00.html

― Vicky (Vicky), Friday, 28 May 2004 09:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Tim, I was just reading the godawful article in the Standrad about this one wman's grief at the end of Friends, and it reminded me (genuinely, not taking the piss at all) of the joy you mention at seeing these artworks. Do you think that such a similar reaction to something so blatantly low-middlebrow is as valid as your reaction to great art?

― Markelby (Mark C), Friday, 28 May 2004 15:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah!

Except I don't really know what great art is, obv.

Her grief = my joy is a bit harsh on me maybe...

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 28 May 2004 15:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha, point taken. It was her celebration of what Fiends meant to her that reminded me of how you explained your artlove yesterday.

― Markelby (Mark C), Friday, 28 May 2004 15:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Sinkah's comments on the wedge are every bit as good as you'd expect: http://www.freakytrigger.co.uk/wedge/2004_05_01_wedge_archive.html#108574193228968966

In those terms, I guess what I'm saying is the gleee at destruction feels to me like someone trying to close down discussion and arugument. this is bad => I'm happy it can't resonate. I can understand if someone reading this thread felt like I was trying to close discussion down*, and I apologise if I gave that impression (which maybe what MarkH was getting at upthread), that wasn't what I was after.

I'm against knee-jerk respect and knee-jerk disrespect for stuff, and the around-stuff conversation** is crucial to me. (NB this is a central plank of geezaethetics).

*Calling it 'Fiends'? You beast!

**Even if I'm talking to myself.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 28 May 2004 15:43 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.