Many a slip from Barker's lip

"John Eggeling" <todmordenbooks RemoveThis @ndirect.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b211ce25.0308020938.732c213f@posting.google.com...
 > "Chris Barker" <hauntedriver RemoveThis @waitrose.com> wrote in message
news:<fvWdnXNIUq2p47uiXTWJhw RemoveThis @brightview.com>...
 >
 > "John Eggeling at Todmorden Books. . . . .who had been GL's business
 > partner for many years - told me all manner of stories about some
 > dodgy bookdealing practises. Of course, I have no way of knowing
 > whether these two people were telling the truth - after all, RR had
 > cause to be miffed by GL, and JE fell out badly with him when they
 > split and went their separate ways"
 >
 > Barker, I detest having anything to do with you, as I made quite clear
 > several years ago when I washed my hands of you, but I can not let
 > this go answered. I strongly object to the words you have put in my
 > mouth and even more to the inference that I was ever on such a level
 > of intimacy with you. I suffered your e-mails and phone calls for a
 > while and that was all.
 >
 > About George Locke. I have never related "all manner of stories about
 > some dodgy bookdealing practise" to anyone, let alone you. Although I
 > may dislike Locke's avarice and his ethical stance, or more precisely
 > his lack of one, I would never accuse him of employing "dodgy
 > bookdealing practises". And as for me falling out "badly with him when
 > we split", that was not the case either. George is well known for
 > cutting off his nose to spite his face; the last time he fell out with
 > me was over a rare three-decker interplanetary novel that I advised
 > another dealer about, and the time before that was when I was proof
 > reader for a an edition of "Driff's Guide to Booksellers" that made
 > comments about George that he took exception to.
 >
 > With regard to George Locke, I admire him for his wealth of knowledge
 > but prefer to keep him at distance. With regard to you, I have no
 > respect whatsoever and I would prefer to have even further distance
 > between us. Goodbye, and don't give and cuase to be in contact with
 > you again. OK?
 >
 > John Eggeling

Eggeling:

Yes, I recall quite clearly our parting of ways. I recall in particular that
I called to order a book, which you then failed to send; followed by one or
two further chasing calls, which also failed to yield the book. You then
sent a stupid and childish email. Fair enough if you never had the book, or
sold it twice over in error, but there are more reasonable ways of dealing
with things.

But with regard to George Locke, you most certainly *did* cite some examples
of behaviour which you viewed as both rogueish and amusing. For example, you
said you witnessed him carefully steaming the bookplates from books owned by
somebody famous - dull books and reprints - which he then inserted into more
valuable books, by way of adding to their overall value.

Perhaps in your Pelan-inspired fury (don't let this horrid man manipulate
you too) you have not had time to reflect upon the disclosures you made
during the course of several telephone conversations. Perhaps it has also
slipped your mind that you were so eager to acquire a copy of ASHES that I
had, that it was *you* who initially bombarded me with attention?

I suggest you withdraw back into your shell or else be prepared for fullest
disclosure. You cited many similar examples along the lines of the bookplate
issue mentioned above, knowledge that presumably only you and George are
privy to. I would be more than happy to forward these to GL - and let him
decide whether or not you have been telling tales outside of school.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip 

"Chris Barker" <hauntedriver DeleteThis @waitrose.com> wrote
 > Eggeling:
 > I suggest you withdraw back into your shell or else be prepared for fullest
 > disclosure. You cited many similar examples along the lines of the bookplate
 > issue mentioned above, knowledge that presumably only you and George are
 > privy to. I would be more than happy to forward these to GL - and let him
 > decide whether or not you have been telling tales outside of school.

What a creep this Barker bloke is. You'd feel sorry for him if it
wasn't for the sheer vindictive spite dripping from everything he
writes (most of which is pure invention). He fights with just about
everybody in the known universe (except Reggie Oliver apparently, and
how long can that last?) and you can't help but wonder how his family
members put up with it.

With his distinct lack of friends he must have lots of time to
scribble away at his Ghastly Shit-Shat webpage, which is no doubt what
he'll be doing tonight, inventing some nonsense about Mr. Eggeling,
like the little boy with a piece of chalk behind the bike shed...

DJA<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip 

 > "Chris Barker" <hauntedriver.RemoveThis@waitrose.com> wrote
  > > Eggeling:
  > > I suggest you withdraw back into your shell or else be prepared for
fullest
  > > disclosure. You cited many similar examples along the lines of the
bookplate
  > > issue mentioned above, knowledge that presumably only you and George are
  > > privy to. I would be more than happy to forward these to GL - and let
him
  > > decide whether or not you have been telling tales outside of school.
 >

(6) Blackmail too? What an extensive repertory you possess. Of course, a)
E-mails are easily faked and I doubt Mr. Locke would take your word for
anything, b) even if you did have something on Mr. Eggeling, he retains
full rights to whatever he has written in private correspondence, and c) any
hold you may have thought you possessed with this threat has now been
vitiated by your spilling it publicly on this board.

Sinking lower, ever lower. Will you ever stop digging, Mr. Barker?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip 

"woolrich" <grand_guignol13.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b4c9e85.0308021416.553c433e@posting.google.com...
 > todmordenbooks.DeleteThis@ndirect.co.uk (John Eggeling) wrote in message
news:<b211ce25.0308020938.732c213f.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>...
  > > "Chris Barker" <hauntedriver.DeleteThis@waitrose.com> wrote in message
news:<fvWdnXNIUq2p47uiXTWJhw.DeleteThis@brightview.com>...
  > >
  > > "John Eggeling at Todmorden Books. . . . .who had been GL's business
  > > partner for many years - told me all manner of stories about some
  > > dodgy bookdealing practises. Of course, I have no way of knowing
  > > whether these two people were telling the truth - after all, RR had
  > > cause to be miffed by GL, and JE fell out badly with him when they
  > > split and went their separate ways"
  > >
  > > Barker, I detest having anything to do with you, as I made quite clear
  > > several years ago when I washed my hands of you, but I can not let
  > > this go answered. I strongly object to the words you have put in my
  > > mouth and even more to the inference that I was ever on such a level
  > > of intimacy with you. I suffered your e-mails and phone calls for a
  > > while and that was all.
  > >
  > > About George Locke. I have never related "all manner of stories about
  > > some dodgy bookdealing practise" to anyone, let alone you. Although I
  > > may dislike Locke's avarice and his ethical stance, or more precisely
  > > his lack of one, I would never accuse him of employing "dodgy
  > > bookdealing practises". And as for me falling out "badly with him when
  > > we split", that was not the case either. George is well known for
  > > cutting off his nose to spite his face; the last time he fell out with
  > > me was over a rare three-decker interplanetary novel that I advised
  > > another dealer about, and the time before that was when I was proof
  > > reader for a an edition of "Driff's Guide to Booksellers" that made
  > > comments about George that he took exception to.
  > >
  > > With regard to George Locke, I admire him for his wealth of knowledge
  > > but prefer to keep him at distance. With regard to you, I have no
  > > respect whatsoever and I would prefer to have even further distance
  > > between us. Goodbye, and don't give and cuase to be in contact with
  > > you again. OK?
  > >
  > > John Eggeling
 >
 >
 > This group's latest exploits have started to resemble the third act of
 > a Marx Brothers' film, and this must be the funniest plot twist yet. I
 > didn't laugh at Mr. Eggeling's indignation, just at the timing after
 > the latest Barkerian tirade. Dr. Christopher Z. Barkenbush makes a
 > longwinded speech concerning maladies of the appendix, and the medical
 > expert he's been citing suddenly storms down from the medical
 > auditorium's rafter bleachers and points out that Dr. Barkenbush has
 > been pointing at the patient's head for the past 30 minutes...
 >
 >
 > BTW, from Mr. Eggeling's post here, I'm starting to think that Mr.
 > Geo. Locke may have a defamation suit that's actionable against Mr.
 > Barker, especially as he may have libelled Locke's professionalism &
 > honesty as bookseller and dealer. Guess it's time for Eggeling and
 > Locke to get on the phone with *their* solicitors. This should give
 > friend Barker's hardworking solicitor a rest for a few days at least.
 >
 > Once again, I must hang my head in exasperation, as Chris Barker, who
 > could have a friendly working relationship with many of these people,
 > goes on another tragic-comic rampage. Can I be forgiven for yet having
 > some hope for the fellow & some praise for his good qualities? No one
 > need answer that rhetorical question.


I would refer the most learned weapons inspector to my very recent response
to Eggeling's bizarre post. I can assure him that I *never* engage the enemy
unless I am completely sure of my ground.

But I agree, it is amusing to note with what frequency a variety of
sock-puppets and real people are coerced / enticed / misled into suddenly
turning up on a.b.g.f. to slap my face with a glove and demand satisfaction.
I often feel like an exhausted Victorian prizefighter at a travelling fair,
forced to take on all comers. Dare I suggest that the majority of these
wanna-be contenders are primed with beer and malice by Messrs Pelan and
Roden, by way of avenging themselves for the perceived small press slights
that I have inflicted?

Who's next? The neighbour with the cat I chase? The girl at school I jilted
from the tuck shop counter? Is there anyone that JP and CR won't dig up /
reanimate / incite / pay to come online and validate their campaign of
persecution?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip 

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 23:48:03 +0100, "Chris Barker"
<hauntedriver.DeleteThis@waitrose.com> wrote:


 >
 >Who's next? The neighbour with the cat I chase? The girl at school I jilted
 >from the tuck shop counter? Is there anyone that JP and CR won't dig up /
 >reanimate / incite / pay to come online and validate their campaign of
 >persecution?
 >
Just for the record, Barker, because you have it completely wrong, as
usual: I have never met, never corresponded with, never spoken to,
never e-mail Mr Eggling. You're really not worth inciting anyone to do
anything over. However, given his feelings about you, he's quite
obviously a pretty sensible guy.

Ladies and Gentleman, once more the Mad Hatter of Besthorpe judges the
weather by looking at his watch, and speaks through his anus.

Christopher<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip 

 >
 > Who's next? The neighbour with the cat I chase? The girl at school I
jilted
 > from the tuck shop counter? Is there anyone that JP and CR won't dig up /
 > reanimate / incite / pay to come online and validate their campaign of
 > persecution?
 >

Poor put-upon fellow! I am surprised you have not yet added the "t" from
Christopher when signing your name.

Let me see---

(1) you posted defamatory statements against George Locke on this site
(again), and when people on this site questioned not only your claims, but
your ethics in making them,

(2) you cited statements made by two others as proof of your claims, at the
same time

(3) implying that what you might be saying of Locke might be nothing more
than hearsay since neither of these two gentlemen--and I use this term
intentionally--might be telling the truth. It apparently never occurred to
you that even IF someone had told you these things for which you had no
other proof, it was irresponsible and might be considered malicious in a
court of law.

(4) Now, one of the people you "quoted" states that not only did he never
tell you any of the things you claim he said, but that you were never in a
position to hear such things from him.

And how do you respond to having one of your alleged sources come forward to
call you a liar--that your defamation of a business rival with hearsay based
on information you claim he gave you was baseless?

(5) You cry your innocence by claiming the person you have already maligned
and misquoted only came forward, because he was a puppet of someone else.

In other words, even though you libeled George Locke by putting words into
the mouth of someone who has now come forward to call you a liar, you want
us to believe it is all someone else's fault. How is this so?

Did someone else misquote what you wrote about George Locke? No.
Did anyone but you imply that your "sources" might be liars, but repeat what
they supposedly told you about George Locke anyway? No.
Has anyone else here misquoted one business rival in order to attack
another? No.Did someone else post damaging hearsay about your business
rival? No.

How is this anyone's fault but your own?

Do you honestly expect anyone here to believe that no one would possibly
wish to clear his name of accusations you made against them of being
malicious, slanderous gossips of dubious honesty unless someone else put
them up to it? It boggles the mind! This is a new low.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip 

grand_guignol13.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com, that naughty little tease, wrote:

 >: todmordenbooks.TakeThisOut@ndirect.co.uk (John Eggeling) wrote in message
 >: > "Chris Barker" <hauntedriver.TakeThisOut@waitrose.com> wrote in message
 >: >
 >: > "John Eggeling at Todmorden Books. . . . .who had been GL's business
 >: > partner for many years - told me all manner of stories about some
 >: > dodgy book dealing practices. Of course, I have no way of knowing
.......
 >: > respect whatsoever and I would prefer to have even further distance
 >: > between us. Goodbye, and don't give and cause to be in contact with
 >: > you again. OK?
 >: >
 >: > John Eggeling
 >:

 >: No one need answer that rhetorical question.
(As a Professional Editor and Qualified Bookbinder, I feel justified
in moving this bit up from end of message)
Well .... it's too bloody hot to go out and sit drinking cheap
Scotch in the front yard today, so I may as well kill time by answering
it anyway.
Especially as you don't have a very good record in responding to
emails! Only kidding, only kidding! I know, you're a busy man,
and I don't take it personal that you shun me like a leper. Sob,
sniff, gulp.
But I'd still like a second set of these CDs, should you ever find
a spare moment.

 >: This group's latest exploits have started to resemble the third act of
 >: a Marx Brothers' film, and this must be the funniest plot twist yet. I

It reminded me more of a couple of ageing
prima donnas having a little tiff backstage, and getting a tiny bit emotional.
I guess I'll never fully understand how these folks get any small
pressings done, the amount of time and research they put into their
little squabbles.
Are they all suffering from agoraphobia or acute shyness and
consequently confined to stay indoors 24 hours a day, crouched in
front of their computers?
(I *think* that's a rhetorical question).
........
 >: honesty as bookseller and dealer. Guess it's time for Eggeling and
 >: Locked to get on the phone with *their* solicitors. This should give
 >: friend Barker's hardworking solicitor a rest for a few days at least.
 >:
"Only a fool and his lawyer go to court". Actually, I think most
judges and or juries would fall about laughing if these clowns ever
did present their self-absorbed nonsense to a court of law.

 >: Once again, I must hang my head in exasperation, as Chris Barker, who
 >: could have a friendly working relationship with many of these people,
 >: goes on another tragic-comic rampage. Can I be forgiven for yet having
 >: some hope for the fellow & some praise for his good qualities? No one
 >:
Of *course* I forgive you, with all my heart I do ...!
Personally, I've nothing against young Mr. B, except maybe he clogs
up this n/group with his curious fixation that the entire world is
lined up, just waiting to get at him.
Happily, my KILL file has removed that annoyance, along with his
Cruel Tormentors.

Hmmm ... 1900 hours: I'll just mosey out and have me a set in the
front yard: show these Texans that we british Can Take It, what?
--
Ian Ft Worth, TX, USA
Official Town Drunk.
(e-mail Replies must include the word daemonics in Subject line)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip 

 > Especially as you don't have a very good record in responding to
 > emails! Only kidding, only kidding! I know, you're a busy man,
 > and I don't take it personal that you shun me like a leper. Sob,
 > sniff, gulp.


Well, I sense a well of ironic humor there, with all the pathos, but I
do probably owe you an apology, Ian. My wife & I packed up and went
off to headhunter land, then I returned to be violently ill for about
a week, and found the slush pile from hell had settled on my desk like
ravens on a hanged condemned, swaying in the breeze.

(Thank "Gaspard de la Nuit" for that fanciful simile.)

I didn't intend to run off & leave you waiting by the electronic
mailbox...but what a month it's been, really!

 > But I'd still like a second set of these CDs, should you ever find
 > a spare moment.


I was expecting to hear from your pal over the sea, but, if you want
them sent to your address, that's fine with me. I may have
misunderstood.


 > It reminded me more of a couple of ageing
 > prima donnas having a little tiff backstage, and getting a tiny bit emotional.


Yeah, I should cite Chaplin (the prima donna) and Keaton (the
sideswiped innocent bystander) in LIMELIGHT and not the Marxes in
their prime...


 > "Only a fool and his lawyer go to court". Actually, I think most
 > judges and or juries would fall about laughing if these clowns ever
 > did present their self-absorbed nonsense to a court of law.


I'd give almost anything within reason to have a video tape of
highlights of that court appearance by friend Barker. They need lots
of closeups of the judge's expressions, I think.


 > Of *course* I forgive you, with all my heart I do ...!
 > Personally, I've nothing against young Mr. B, except maybe he clogs
 > up this n/group with his curious fixation that the entire world is
 > lined up, just waiting to get at him.
 > Happily, my KILL file has removed that annoyance, along with his
 > Cruel Tormentors.

Kill, baby, kill.

I must be highly naive when it comes to my daydreams of Mr. Barker's
improving his behavior. Sometimes, I actually sort of take a sadistic
glee in reading these incessant diatribes, but I can understand why
you're less enamored with the entire deal. I once held that attitude,
until I realized it would *never* stop on this board, and it all
started to become amusing from that point.



 >
 > Hmmm ... 1900 hours: I'll just mosey out and have me a set in the
 > front yard: show these Texans that we british Can Take It, what?


The only thing that will really impress them is setting up a whole
steer barbecue pit in the front yard. Then, you will have bested them
on their own terms. Fill in the same for the South, but substitute
one prime slab of pork of several dozen pounds.

Too bad, I am medically on a restricted diet and can't eat most of the
best cuisine from either region!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip 

Deeply wounded by the slings & arrows of outrageous ghostly fortune,
friend Barker opined:

"Dare I suggest that the majority of these wanna-be contenders are
primed with beer and malice by Messrs Pelan and Roden, by way of
avenging themselves for the perceived small press slights that I have
inflicted?"

Homer Simpson voice: Mmmmmm, beer and malice!

Oh, if only someone would try to woo me with either, and maybe a few
small press books and barbecue coupons! ...But, I'm too
inconsequential in the larger scheme of things, I fear. That's why
I've settled into the role of court jester here so comfortably.


 >
 > Who's next? The neighbour with the cat I chase? The girl at school I jilted
 > from the tuck shop counter? Is there anyone that JP and CR won't dig up /
 > reanimate / incite / pay to come online and validate their campaign of
 > persecution?


My studied opinion's that you're the one who threw the firecrackers in
the hornet's nest this time, and not the other tribe. Sorry, but
that's how I'm calling it. My suggestions, unsolicted, are:

(1) Take down the "wall of shame" (aka "Ghostly Chat") from your
website--it just makes you look petty and vindictive.

(2) Be happy you have a reputative seller like David Wynn on the case
for distributing Reggie Oliver's book on your maiden voyage. You could
do much, much worse, and he moves a lot of books through mail order.

(3) Cease hostilities with Christopher Roden, John Pelan, and company
and go about your business. You're looking the worst in the present
encounter, and the same argumentative points get hammered home again
and again with all the subtlety of a 600-ton metal press being run by
a trained chimp besotted on cheap Russian bathtub vodka. You're not
gaining any ground or fans.

(4) Never threaten to sue anyone or seek legal redress unless you
really mean it or it's pending. You start to resemble a single-minded
Moliere character in some forgotten play ("The Litigious Old
Buzzard").

Get up, brush yourself, and recall that Oscar Wilde once called living
well the best revenge.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip 

"(2) Be happy you have a reputative seller like David Wynn on the case
for distributing Reggie Oliver's book on your maiden voyage. You could
do much, much worse, and he moves a lot of books through mail order."

Of course, I meant "reputable," but it's almost 6 in the morning here,
and I'm still stirring about. My brain's sluggish as anything.
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip 

"Ian" <sum1.RemoveThis@flash.net> upset the applecart by saying something amusing:

 > It reminded me more of a couple of ageing
 > prima donnas having a little tiff backstage, and getting a tiny bit
emotional.
 > I guess I'll never fully understand how these folks get any small
 > pressings done, the amount of time and research they put into their
 > little squabbles.

 > (Clipped)

 > Hmmm ... 1900 hours: I'll just mosey out and have me a set in the
 > front yard: show these Texans that we british Can Take It, what?
 > --
 > Ian Ft Worth, TX, USA
 > Official Town Drunk.
 > (e-mail Replies must include the word daemonics in Subject line)


Nice one Centurion! Like it, like it.

If you can make sane interjections like that drinking cheap Scotch, God
knows what insights we might expect were you to switch to Laphroaig or
Talisker.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip 

Jim:

Longwinded lists aside, the only thing that this exchange has shown is how
bitter and prejudiced this forum really is. A small cabal has decided that
is morally acceptable to savage people in the genre they don't like, and
that same cabal flies into a delusional rage whenever someone they do like
(or rather, work with) comes in for critical analysis.

In raising the GL issue, I sought to highlight a) the sheer hypocrisy of
Pelan's attacks on Peter Haining (or at least, the indecency of attacking a
fellow collegaue who has no right of redress, something that the cabal has
been wingeing about in another argument); and b) the hypocrisy in Ray
Russell's working with someone he has frequently criticised.

It seems that you are quite happy to sit back silently and permit JP and CR
to pour evidence-free innuendo-laden poison onto my publishing / bookdealing
/ writing reputation, but you affect lofty high principles on the issue when
I cite specific examples in relation to someone else. If JP had not insisted
on attacking friends of mine, whilst loudly trumpetting that his friends -
in this case, GL - were 'holier-than-thou', then this discussion would not
have started.

I repeat: this line of discussion trails back to previous discussions, and
at its core is the simple fact that your cabal want the freedom to attack
people you don't like, but resent anyone speaking up for them, or
highlighting your hypocrisy in supporting others of less integrity than the
ones you seek to do down.

End of thread.
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip 

"Jim Rockhill" <jrock.TakeThisOut@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:E8Ccna2z7skzHbGiXTWJkQ@locallink.net...
 >
  > > "Chris Barker" <hauntedriver.TakeThisOut@waitrose.com> wrote
   > > > Eggeling:
   > > > I suggest you withdraw back into your shell or else be prepared for
 > fullest
   > > > disclosure. You cited many similar examples along the lines of the
 > bookplate
   > > > issue mentioned above, knowledge that presumably only you and George
are
   > > > privy to. I would be more than happy to forward these to GL - and let
 > him
   > > > decide whether or not you have been telling tales outside of school.
  > >
 >
 > (6) Blackmail too? What an extensive repertory you possess. Of course, a)
 > E-mails are easily faked and I doubt Mr. Locke would take your word for
 > anything, b) even if you did have something on Mr. Eggeling, he retains
 > full rights to whatever he has written in private correspondence, and c)
any
 > hold you may have thought you possessed with this threat has now been
 > vitiated by your spilling it publicly on this board.
 >
 > Sinking lower, ever lower. Will you ever stop digging, Mr. Barker?
 >
 >

More pertinently, will you ever stop gossiping and pontificating? By your
own admission in another newsgroup, you post about 20 messages per day. Get
a life - or stop prying into those of others.

What blackmail? There is no blackmail. The man accused me of lying in an
abusive post laden (oops - I forgot - invective or abuse directed towards me
appears invisible to you, doesn't it?). I respond that I am telling the
truth, and quote an example to prove it, by way of refreshing his memory. I
advise that if he is still suffering from memory loss, I will happily
forward on his other comments to GL - the only man who can validate this
issue, as you certainly can't - and let it be resolved that way.

What 'lie?' What 'blackmail?' There is none, or at least, it exists only in
your fevered imagination. You know very little about this situation, yet
once again you seek to take the moral high road. You have no idea what JE
and I once discussed, you weren't there. If JE told me things that only JE
and GL know, I *must* be telling the truth.

The world is always ready to redeem a sinner, but a saint quickly becomes a
bore. You I fear are rapidly becoming a bore.

The only three people entitled to comment on this thread are myself, JE and
GL. Personally speaking, I don't mind Woolrich, Ian or Todd chipping in with
an amusing comment because they are unheavy and unbiased, but when the
occupants of The Inner Room wrench hold of the bone (yourself, JAS, JP, CR
and DA), things start veering off into the realms of twisted fantasy.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Many a slip from Barker's lip