Track Listing for Flaming Star & Christmas Album

[rjm]

I didn't want people to know too many things about me or certain things about me.

Not unwise. There is a small, lunatic faction of "fans" out there who go out of their way to post detailed, personal information about FECC forum members who they deem to have "slighted" them in some way... on a frickin' internet discussion forum.

An internet discussion forum!

No sh*t, they actually do this and think it's okay and normal.

Some of these people are married with kids, if you can believe it!

It's like all rational thought goes out the window when the computer is switched on.

Well, I had a couple of incidents, but really, the most upsetting was a guy who unfriended me over there on Facebook because I simply refused to insult and get into a fight with someone here. He said he'd "had enough." He wasn't even here anymore, and it was pretty much by his own choosing. But he lurked here, and watched me, and decided that I should get into a fight with someone, just to . . . please him? That blew my mind. I really thought the guy was done with the forum and respected my right to continue to participate. I didn't know he was lurking about, watching me, judging me. That was upsetting.

And something else - earlier, but let bygones be bygones about that. Also connected to Facebook. Oil and water, you know?

rjm

[The Pirate]

As for the Doc, as far as I'm aware he hasn't actually said he's annoyed, or commented on the review at all. And yet everyone feels the need to rush around and come to his rescue, which is all a little bit pathetic really.

I can only speak for myself when I say that rather than being interested in defending somebody I was more concerned with the way that the comments ruined the review. If I was going to rush to anybody's defence then it wouldn't be somebody that as far as I can tell doesn't need any help doing it. Maybe it's because I am a member here and know about the 'bad blood' between the two of them, maybe if I'd no idea what FECC was then I would have read that and merely been bemused at the rather obvious personal attacks, but as it is I read it and I thought it cheapened it beyond redemption. And I do believe that actually, if I wasn't a member here, I would have read that and thought it was a crap review simply because of the snide comments. I don't know whether I'd have bothered looking past them to the rest of the article.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that I would have felt exactly the same regardless of who was on the receiving end.

[poormadpeter]

I can only speak for myself when I say that rather than being interested in defending somebody I was more concerned with the way that the comments ruined the review...

Ok, putting the naming of the person in question aside, were any of the statements about the liner notes untrue in any way? No.
Were any of the opinions about the standard of the liner notes overblown or exaggerated? No.

[Mister Moon]

I will never understand why some intelligent people in this world choose to permanently act as others' spokesmen.

It's so degrading to all concerned, even to the outside observers.

[The Pirate]

Were any of the opinions about the standard of the liner notes overblown or exaggerated? No.

Yeah, a bit. But it's not about what was said, it's about how and why it was said. Like I say, maybe the reaction from somebody who doesn't frequent FECC would be different, although I think it was obvious that there was 'something going on', but certainly to me it spoiled the review. Hey, it's not the end of the world, it's a record review, but on a forum of any kind these things always tend to appear way more important than they really are.

[Matthew]

Were any of the opinions about the standard of the liner notes overblown or exaggerated? No.

Actually, for sure. They are clearly tainted by the reviewer's apparent hatred of the author.

[poormadpeter]

Were any of the opinions about the standard of the liner notes overblown or exaggerated? No.

Actually, for sure. They are clearly tainted by the reviewer's apparent hatred of the author.

If you didn't know about that hatred in advance, you may well have read that review in a very different way. Being privy to such information beforehand may well taint the way you read a review. In the end, it's a review. As I've said before, if you put your name on something and publish it, then you have to take the good with the bad - some are going to love it, some are going to hate it; some are going to like you, some are going to hate you. You either put up or shut up. Either way, I see no exaggeration in the review at all. It's a mundane FTD release with virtually nothing new in it, and with bog-standard liner notes that are, as I said earlier, serviceable but little more.

[Matthew]

Well, I had a couple of incidents, but really, the most upsetting was a guy who unfriended me over there on Facebook because I simply refused to insult and get into a fight with someone here. He said he'd "had enough." He wasn't even here anymore, and it was pretty much by his own choosing. But he lurked here, and watched me, and decided that I should get into a fight with someone, just to . . . please him? That blew my mind. I really thought the guy was done with the forum and respected my right to continue to participate. I didn't know he was lurking about, watching me, judging me. That was upsetting.

Beggar's belief, doesn't it? And these people with clear health issues that need addressing are not helped when the more stable amongst us encourage such things under the guise of a product review.

[mike edwards66]

Shane, either you are missing the point, or being a tad disingenuous. Such behaviour is the preserve of losers, bad-losers. Such behaviour is not to be applauded or granted complicit-legitimization.

This is where you're wrong..........Now, if it is such a big deal.........why would the man in question refer to me by my real name instead of my handle?

That's good-natured banter, Shane. You're an intelligent fella, you knew that.



The review on EIN has an agenda. Again, you're an intelligent fella, you knew that. The reviewer himself said it, on here. He prefers to "get personal" away from FECC:

I prefer to NOT get personal on this MB (it is against FECC guidelines)

[mysterytrainrideson]

I didn't want people to know too many things about me or certain things about me.

Not unwise. There is a small, lunatic faction of "fans" out there who go out of their way to post detailed, personal information about FECC forum members who they deem to have "slighted" them in some way... on a frickin' internet discussion forum.

An internet discussion forum!

No sh*t, they actually do this and think it's okay and normal.

Some of these people are married with kids, if you can believe it!

It's like all rational thought goes out the window when the computer is switched on.

I agree.

All personal details should not be discussed on an Elvis forum...Christ, we're here to talk about Elvis, not people's personal issues. Some people choose to say something about their personal issues, I find that unpleasant too.

[Matthew]

It's a mundane FTD release with virtually nothing new in it, and with bog-standard liner notes that are, as I said earlier, serviceable but little more.

The pristine remastering of recordings from Elvis' zenith years overcome the lack of new material for me. What else could they put on it?

They could have chosen to simply not cover this title at all. They opted to put it out. Up to you whether you buy it or not.

The liner notes achieve what they intend to do. The quality of the notes do not warrant the sheer disdain that Piers decided to lay upon them, the singular reason being because of who the author is, nothing else. The irony is the reviewer has a hard time taking it, when the shoe is on the other foot and his own writings are being critiqued.

The forum handle of the writer is never published in the booklet. The reviewer has no right to try and connect the dots for readers, it is not his place. It is solely designed to add fuel to a flame. "Journalists" should be above such antics.

The crazy thing is that a lack of a few count-ins seem to render this release useless to at least one FTD customer.

The intro of White Christmas is not "missing", the count-in and finger snaps where never originally part of the intro. The single finger snap that appears over the piano intro is actually a mistake from Elvis, nothing more. He should have either continued snapping his fingers over the intro, or not snapped at that point at all.

Sony tried to filter it out on Complete Masters, here it appears as originally released (and rightfully so). It's such a tiny little thing that it's never been a big deal, for most people.

[mysterytrainrideson]

Piers decided to lay upon them, the singular reason being because of who the author is

It's quite sad how the Doc is treated, there's really no need for it. There are a lot worse people on this forum that deserve some verbal stick.

A little while ago someone posted all my facebook info over on the "Monkey Forum" for everyone to see just because I said something in favour of the Doc. I contacted the mods and they took it down. But why such behaviour?

[Matthew]

A little while ago someone posted all my facebook info over on the "Monkey Forum" for everyone to see just because I said something in favour of the Doc. I contacted the mods and they took it down. But why such behaviour?

Because some of them are internet stalkers who are trying to establish a hold of power over people by threatening their privacy and families.

Like I said earlier, they are not beyond posting actual home addresses in spite. Family members are named, in spite. It's a sad power play.

Heaven forbid one of these deranged lunatic fans out there on one of these Elvis hate forums takes things beyond the realm of their keyboard. People's safety is put at risk.

The acts of these few men are far, far worse than anything they complain about. And some of them are family men for goodness sake, with children of their own!

Yet here is Piers fanning the flame.

There is absolutely nothing to be proud of with such behaviour.

[Mister Moon]

I've said this several times, and I will repeat it : all available count-ins should have been included in the FTD release of 1957's "Elvis' Christmas Album", especially taking into account the lack of alternate takes from those sessions.

[Matthew]

I've said this several times, and I will repeat it : all available count-ins should have been included in the FTD release of 1957's "Elvis' Christmas Album", especially taking into account the lack of alternate takes from those sessions.

Maybe, but placed where? Within the running of the actual album itself? Doesn't that ruin the flow of the album? It's not like were talking one song here, like Reconsider Baby.

Should the album have appeared twice on the release, just so the count-ins could have appeared?

The same guy mastered Elvis Is Back! and Elvis' Christmas Album. Has anyone reached out to Sebastian and posed the question? Perhaps there is a legitimate reason for their absence.

Look, I am in the camp that would argue their inclusion probably should have happened, but their absence certainly doesn't consign the release to the rubbish bin. It certainly isn't akin to the glaring Merry Christmas Baby cock-up on FTD's other Christmas Classic Album release, is it?

[Mister Moon]

I've said this several times, and I will repeat it : all available count-ins should have been included in the FTD release of 1957's "Elvis' Christmas Album", especially taking into account the lack of alternate takes from those sessions.

Maybe, but placed where? Within the running of the actual album itself? Doesn't that ruin the flow of the album? It's not like were talking one song here, like Reconsider Baby.

Should the album have appeared twice on the release, just so the count-ins could have appeared?

The same guy mastered Elvis Is Back! and Elvis' Christmas Album. Has anyone reached out to Sebastian and posed the question? Perhaps there is a legitimate reason for their absence.

Look, I am in the camp that would argue their inclusion probably should have happened, but their absence certainly doesn't consign the release to the rubbish bin. It certainly isn't akin to the glaring Merry Christmas Baby cock-up on FTD's other Christmas Classic Album release, is it?

Yes, I think they should have been placed within the running of the actual album. I don't think that would have ruined anything, as it's clear that the average FTD buyer already has the stuff several times over, in different formats.

Regarding the FTD issue of "Elvis Is Back!", it not only included the count-in to "Reconsider Baby" within the actual album, but also the short false start to "I Gotta Know" in the "singles" section. I appreciated those additions a lot, as I did with the count-in to "All Shook Up" in the "Loving You" FTD.

This is hardly essential stuff, but a lot of collectors like these small things, and FTD is a collector's label after all. Not taking into account these details is bizarre, to say the least - of course, this doesn't compare to the "Merry Christmas Baby" affair, I agree.

[Matthew]

Regarding the FTD issue of "Elvis Is Back!", it not only included the count-in to "Reconsider Baby" within the actual album, but also the short false start to "I Gotta Know" in the "singles" section. I appreciated those additions a lot, as I did with the count-in to "All Shook Up" in the "Loving You" FTD.

It annoyed the heck out of me at the time that the long false start for I Gotta Know did not have a separate track apart from the master. It meant I had to cut out the master myself for digital compiling and listening elsewhere.

How many songs on Elvis' Christmas Album have known count-ins? I cannot recall.

[poormadpeter]

It's a mundane FTD release with virtually nothing new in it, and with bog-standard liner notes that are, as I said earlier, serviceable but little more.

The pristine remastering of recordings from Elvis' zenith years overcome the lack of new material for me. What else could they put on it?

They could have chosen to simply not cover this title at all. They opted to put it out. Up to you whether you buy it or not.

The liner notes achieve what they intend to do. The quality of the notes do not warrant the sheer disdain that Piers decided to lay upon them, the singular reason being because of who the author is, nothing else. The irony is the reviewer has a hard time taking it, when the shoe is on the other foot and his own writings are being critiqued.

The forum handle of the writer is never published in the booklet. The reviewer has no right to try and connect the dots for readers, it is not his place. It is solely designed to add fuel to a flame. "Journalists" should be above such antics.

The crazy thing is that a lack of a few count-ins seem to render this release useless to at least one FTD customer.

The intro of White Christmas is not "missing", the count-in and finger snaps where never originally part of the intro. The single finger snap that appears over the piano intro is actually a mistake from Elvis, nothing more. He should have either continued snapping his fingers over the intro, or not snapped at that point at all.

Sony tried to filter it out on Complete Masters, here it appears as originally released (and rightfully so). It's such a tiny little thing that it's never been a big deal, for most people.

As for what they could have used to fill out the CD that would have been new - as stated yonks ago on here, the radio show from 1967 was the obvious candidate. No, there's nothing new musically on it, but it still would have been nice to have as it hasn't been released officially. What's more, Elvis's spoken introduction to I'll Be Home For Christmas recorded for the show has only ever been released officially tagged onto Silent Night. This could have been an opportunity to put that right as well. There's also little doubt that, at some point, there will be a "Binaural '57" FTD, in which fans will buy the binaural stuff once again!

As for the liner notes, I never said that they liner notes didn't do what they were intended to do, but to suggest that they are treated with "disdain" is another example of one side of a battle making exaggerations to combat the exaggerations they are accusing the other side of.

The facts of the case are that Piers is correct in saying that liner notes normally don't have a long list of the qualifications of the writer afterwards, and that the qualifications listed are, to say the least, a little strange - surely most people who write liner notes for Elvis releases are "rock 'n' roll fans." It's a bit like someone writing a book on TV and saying "I watch TV" on the back cover as proof of their qualifications. Well, duh!

Also very odd is that the man in question has, on this board, got very annoyed when I said that he had called himself an "Elvis scholar":

poormadpeter wrote:
Says the man who calls himself an Elvis scholar!!!!

Although this is yet another off-topic put-down from you, since it is also a lie, I will address it.
Show me an example of where I have ever called myself "an Elvis scholar." And include the link so we may read it for ourselves.
When your latest lie is brought to bear, be a man and post your sincere apology.
We'll be waiting.
http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=83706&p=1303262&hilit=scholar#p1303262

And now, it's written after his name in some liner notes as a qualification? Really and truly, someone needs to make up their mind.

No, I'm not sure why it makes any difference whether the recording date of My Wish Came True is mentioned or not, but other than that nothing that Piers says is really out of line. And, even if it was, as I said earlier, if you can't take someone criticising your work, don't release it - and if you don't want people to give you a personal bashing (if you insist on this being a personal bashing) then you shouldn't act the way the man in question does on this forum at times. What goes around comes around. It's the way things work.

And let's put things in a bit of context here: when Ultimate Elvis came out, which Piers co-authored, did he baulk at the fact that I had made criticisms of the books on here, and called it "awkward" "haphazard" and "a mess"? No, he messaged me and asked if he could use what I had written as a review on the EIN website!

[Matthew]

Who cares, really? Well, obviously Piers and you.

Blame the producers of the release. Maybe the nutters should go ahead and list Ernst and Roger's home addresses on the web, name family members and go all creepy about it, in a power play to hold something (it's called bullying by the way, didn't you write a book on such a subject?) over the person they've taken an issue with.

Ernst and Roger didn't have to reproduce the credit line if they didn't want to.

One man's tongue-in-cheek gesture is another man's "I'll show him!"

Piers holds a grudge, and that is outworked in that shoddy piece called a review. He crossed a line like others before him making it personal, listing information he has no right to list. He should have just shrugged it off, be a man about it. Instead he would run into the arms of the crazy collective who cheer on such things. Ugh.

I'm surprised you continue to defend this but have at it. There's nothing you can write that can reasonably excuse it and I've said all I need to say about it. Clearly it's a futile matter. The guys involved are going to pointlessly continue to go about their ways, cheering each other on in order to bring some semblance of meaning and joy to their internet lives.

[poormadpeter]

Who cares, really? Well, obviously Piers and you.

Blame the producers of the release. Maybe the nutters should go ahead and list Ernst and Roger's home addresses on the web, name family members and go all creepy about it, in a power play to hold something (it's called bullying by the way, didn't you write a book on such a subject?) over the person they've taken an issue with.

Ernst and Roger didn't have to reproduce the credit line if they didn't want to.

One man's tongue-in-cheek gesture is another man's "I'll show him!"

Piers holds a grudge, and that is outworked in that shoddy piece called a review. He crossed a line like others before him making it personal, listing information he has no right to list. He should have just shrugged it off, be a man about it. Instead he would run into the arms of the crazy collective who cheer on such things. Ugh.

I'm surprised you continue to defend this but have at it. There's nothing you can write that can reasonably excuse it and I've said all I need to say about it. Clearly it's a futile matter. The guys involved are going to pointlessly continue to go about their ways, cheering each other on in order to bring some semblance of meaning and joy to their internet lives.

Really and truly, the suggestion of the person in question being bullied is just laughable, considering how he has behaved on here. And you know that as well as anyone; you're not blind or daft.

The fact that you write "the guys involved are going to pointlessly continue to go about their ways, cheering each other on in order to bring some semblance of meaning and joy to their internet lives" is also rather ironic, bearing in mind that the same thing can be said about the writer of the liner notes and his followers on here. The double standard you are presenting is laughable and ridiculous - and anyone who has kicked around here for more than a few months will know that.

As for me "defending" things, I'm not defending anyone particularly. What is ridiculous is that a few lines that make a few critical comments about some liner notes have been blown out of all proportion, particularly by yourself. It wouldn't be so bad if you had actually countered the comments by suggesting how the notes in question are better than Piers suggests in his review, but you haven't. Nor have you said that, actually, writers in the past have listed their qualifications underneath their names on liner notes. You suggest they are "tongue in cheek" but, ironically, the only way anyone would even think that is by realising who the FECC alter ego of the writer was in the first place, and by being privy to his "humour".

[Mike Windgren]

Hi there!! .

I've said this several times, and I will repeat it : all available count-ins should have been included in the FTD release of 1957's "Elvis' Christmas Album", especially taking into account the lack of alternate takes from those sessions.

Maybe, but placed where? Within the running of the actual album itself? Doesn't that ruin the flow of the album? It's not like were talking one song here, like Reconsider Baby.

Should the album have appeared twice on the release, just so the count-ins could have appeared?

The same guy mastered Elvis Is Back! and Elvis' Christmas Album. Has anyone reached out to Sebastian and posed the question? Perhaps there is a legitimate reason for their absence.

Look, I am in the camp that would argue their inclusion probably should have happened, but their absence certainly doesn't consign the release to the rubbish bin. It certainly isn't akin to the glaring Merry Christmas Baby cock-up on FTD's other Christmas Classic Album release, is it?

Yes, I think they should have been placed within the running of the actual album. I don't think that would have ruined anything, as it's clear that the average FTD buyer already has the stuff several times over, in different formats.

Regarding the FTD issue of "Elvis Is Back!", it not only included the count-in to "Reconsider Baby" within the actual album, but also the short false start to "I Gotta Know" in the "singles" section. I appreciated those additions a lot, as I did with the count-in to "All Shook Up" in the "Loving You" FTD.

This is hardly essential stuff, but a lot of collectors like these small things, and FTD is a collector's label after all. Not taking into account these details is bizarre, to say the least - of course, this doesn't compare to the "Merry Christmas Baby" affair, I agree.

FTD also omitted Elvis pre-chat & the counts-in on Don´t as included on the original 1991 USA cd "Elvis Sings Leiber & Stoller"! . Bye for now .

http://www22.zippyshare.com/v/BUDgVt5z/file.html


RCA/BMG 3026-2-R Elvis Sings Leiber & Stoller cd.

[mysterytrainrideson]

Who cares, really? Well, obviously Piers and you.

Blame the producers of the release. Maybe the nutters should go ahead and list Ernst and Roger's home addresses on the web, name family members and go all creepy about it, in a power play to hold something (it's called bullying by the way, didn't you write a book on such a subject?) over the person they've taken an issue with.

Ernst and Roger didn't have to reproduce the credit line if they didn't want to.

One man's tongue-in-cheek gesture is another man's "I'll show him!"

Piers holds a grudge, and that is outworked in that shoddy piece called a review. He crossed a line like others before him making it personal, listing information he has no right to list. He should have just shrugged it off, be a man about it. Instead he would run into the arms of the crazy collective who cheer on such things. Ugh.

I'm surprised you continue to defend this but have at it. There's nothing you can write that can reasonably excuse it and I've said all I need to say about it. Clearly it's a futile matter. The guys involved are going to pointlessly continue to go about their ways, cheering each other on in order to bring some semblance of meaning and joy to their internet lives.

Really and truly, the suggestion of the person in question being bullied is just laughable, considering how he has behaved on here. And you know that as well as anyone; you're not blind or daft.

The fact that you write "the guys involved are going to pointlessly continue to go about their ways, cheering each other on in order to bring some semblance of meaning and joy to their internet lives" is also rather ironic, bearing in mind that the same thing can be said about the writer of the liner notes and his followers on here. The double standard you are presenting is laughable and ridiculous - and anyone who has kicked around here for more than a few months will know that.

As for me "defending" things, I'm not defending anyone particularly. What is ridiculous is that a few lines that make a few critical comments about some liner notes have been blown out of all proportion, particularly by yourself. It wouldn't be so bad if you had actually countered the comments by suggesting how the notes in question are better than Piers suggests in his review, but you haven't. Nor have you said that, actually, writers in the past have listed their qualifications underneath their names on liner notes. You suggest they are "tongue in cheek" but, ironically, the only way anyone would even think that is by realising who the FECC alter ego of the writer was in the first place, and by being privy to his "humour".

The only thing that's "over blown" on here, is You, and you still continue to harass, pester and try to continue baiting people into arguments. It's quite clear you've always had an agenda with Doc, your history shows that and that is why your sticking up for Piers. In many ways your the worst member on here...

[poormadpeter]

The only thing that's "over blown" on here, is You, and you still continue to harass, pester and try to continue baiting people into arguments. It's quite clear you've always had an agenda with Doc, your history shows that and that is why your sticking up for Piers. In many ways your the worst member on here...

But thankfully not the worst member when it comes to grammar and spelling.

[Matthew]

Really and truly, the suggestion of the person in question being bullied is just laughable, considering how he has behaved on here. And you know that as well as anyone; you're not blind or daft.

The fact that you write "the guys involved are going to pointlessly continue to go about their ways, cheering each other on in order to bring some semblance of meaning and joy to their internet lives" is also rather ironic, bearing in mind that the same thing can be said about the writer of the liner notes and his followers on here. The double standard you are presenting is laughable and ridiculous - and anyone who has kicked around here for more than a few months will know that.

As for me "defending" things, I'm not defending anyone particularly. What is ridiculous is that a few lines that make a few critical comments about some liner notes have been blown out of all proportion, particularly by yourself. It wouldn't be so bad if you had actually countered the comments by suggesting how the notes in question are better than Piers suggests in his review, but you haven't. Nor have you said that, actually, writers in the past have listed their qualifications underneath their names on liner notes. You suggest they are "tongue in cheek" but, ironically, the only way anyone would even think that is by realising who the FECC alter ego of the writer was in the first place, and by being privy to his "humour".

Unbelievable.

Have at it, you're willfully ignoring the deeper issue here, peoples right to privacy and the unhinged dynamic that walk all over that as a power play in the small Elvis forum world that you yourself have kept company with elsewhere. You know it stinks, I cannot imagine you of all people thinking otherwise.

Bullying is bullying. Posting home addresses online is bullying. Posting the names of family members online is bullying. Pulling family photographs found from digital cyber stalking, digitally defacing them and posting them online with grotesque taglines is bullying. Making personal threats out of such information is bullying.

It doesn't matter what the target in question wrote before on FECC, or what they do elsewhere. Really, it doesn't. When a line is crossed that it gravitates to such disturbing behaviour there is a problem that should be discouraged, not applauded or excused.

I've recall reading things like "I know where he works, I've seen him, but I've not gone up to him" responded with "I would, you should!"

Good grief! What deranged people!

Do you not see how this stuff is disturbing? That it should be trampled down? I seem to recall you having a scare last year in this vein, that you had to file a police report over so it deeply surprises me how blasé you're being about such things. What Piers did is minor in comparison, but it sits under the same ultimate umbrella, and stems from the same distasteful core.

The review should have focused on the product at hand, with an unbiased mind not bent on oneupmanship and revenge. It didn't (and this has been confirmed to me separately).

Whatever, I've said my piece and I'm not arguing with you anymore about it.

I'm am sorry you've decided to use this issue as an excuse to seemingly argue for the sake of arguing again, considering the delicacy of the real issue at play.

Go for gold.

[mysterytrainrideson]

Really and truly, the suggestion of the person in question being bullied is just laughable, considering how he has behaved on here. And you know that as well as anyone; you're not blind or daft.

The fact that you write "the guys involved are going to pointlessly continue to go about their ways, cheering each other on in order to bring some semblance of meaning and joy to their internet lives" is also rather ironic, bearing in mind that the same thing can be said about the writer of the liner notes and his followers on here. The double standard you are presenting is laughable and ridiculous - and anyone who has kicked around here for more than a few months will know that.

As for me "defending" things, I'm not defending anyone particularly. What is ridiculous is that a few lines that make a few critical comments about some liner notes have been blown out of all proportion, particularly by yourself. It wouldn't be so bad if you had actually countered the comments by suggesting how the notes in question are better than Piers suggests in his review, but you haven't. Nor have you said that, actually, writers in the past have listed their qualifications underneath their names on liner notes. You suggest they are "tongue in cheek" but, ironically, the only way anyone would even think that is by realising who the FECC alter ego of the writer was in the first place, and by being privy to his "humour".

That it should be trampled down? I seem to recall you having a scare last year in this vein, that you had to file a police report over so it deeply surprises me how blasé you're being about such things.

This shows me what a selfish person PMP is...no consideration for others only himself....