I wrote back on September 28th about how Dr. Roger Pielke Senior and Dr. Bob Carter had been invited to present their views on climate science, then after the organizers found out what might be discussed, redacted the invitations to these scientists.
We also recently saw another example of how a “great debate” on climate had been staged by a Hollywood heavyweight, director James Cameron, who backed out of a debate with Climate Depot’s Marc Morano at the last minute, after Morano was already in the air and en-route to the debate. He’s now been dubbed “Titanic chicken of the sea” for saying things like James Cameron boldly slammed global warming skeptics as “swine” on the day he was supposed to be debating them. “I think they’re swine” Also see: Director James Cameron Unleashed: Calls for gun fight with global warming skeptics: ‘I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads’ then not having the guts to actually follow through with a debate that he set up in the first place. All bark, no bite.
After all that…. guess what?
I was invited by Chico State University to the Great Debate Oct 28th in the City council Chambers on the topic of the Proposition 23, delay of California Prop32, the “global warming law”. I accepted with a caveat, but due to that caveat I’ve now joined the club of the “disinvited”. My crime? Wanting to show some slides to go along with my oral presentation.
I figured this would be OK because when the city sustainability committee presented their “Climate Action Plan” they got to use their own slide show, but silly me, apparently science slide shows are only for those who believe, not those who want to challenge the belief.
This started way back when I was critical of our local city council and the city sustainability committee’s Climate Action Plan which is heavily opinionated by people from the sustainability cabal of our local university. I was criticized for my stance by sustainability guru Dr. Mark Stemen who said I was ducking debate:
“There are a series of debates scheduled on AB 32/ Prop 23. Do you want to crawl out and play? Or is it too scary in public?”
As I explained to Professor Stemen then, one of the reasons I don’t do a lot of public debate is that I have an 85% hearing loss, and it makes following a live interchange difficult, sometimes impossible. When I was on the local school board, having public meetings in the very same council chambers, the only way I could follow dialog was with a hearing assistance device. It was difficult, and sometimes embarrassing, but I did my public duty the best I could.
I do better when I give a presentation, interaction where I have to hear others and respond on the fly is tough. Most people don’t understand that a hearing loss requires using a lot of brainpower to pull meaning from context when you can’t hear well. This means forming a rebuttal can be tough when you have to think on the fly.
So when this invitation showed up in my inbox…
Name: Thia Wolf
Email: cwolf@xxxxxx
Website: http://www.csuchico.edu/fye/greatdebate
Dear Mr. Watts:
I am writing to ask if you would be interested in participating as a debate team member in the “Main Event” community debate in City Council Chambers on October 28. The debate subject is “AB 32: To Suspend or Not to Suspend?” We are working to put together three-person teams on each side. Teams will meet with the CSU, Chico debate team for tips on debate strategies. This meeting can be virtual. At present, Larry Wahl has confirmed he will be on the team. We are hoping you will be the second member and a business person concerned about AB 32 will be third.
Please let me know if this is of interest to you. The debate is webcast live and may also be televised. We emphasize civil discourse. I would like to send you the general invitation and more information if you are interested. Many thanks for considering this.
thia wolf
cwolf@xxxxxx
Director, First-Year Experience Program
Time: Friday October 1, 2010 at 9:38 am
IP Address: 132.241.36.200
….I had to give it some serious thought. I read the letter carefully, and looked over the website link she gave. I asked initially if she’d be able to control the venue, since the last time I spoke at the podium in the city council chambers on an environmental issue, I was heckled, called names, and shouted at. The venue can be ugly. She said she could help control the debate, and I responded to her assurances with:
On 10/5/10 1:17 PM, “Anthony Watts” wrote:
Dear Ms. Wolf,
Thank you. I’ve looked at the materials provided, and unfortunately I cannot determine:
1. Where the event you are inviting me to would be held (in Council main chamber or in a side room)
2. What time it would be held and the duration.
3. The actual format, length of presentations, etc.
Given my hearing disability, the only possible venue for me is the main chamber. There is a hearing assistance system there, and I can bring my best headphones to plug into the receivers used.
Also, given that disability, I likely won’t be able to pick up well on others presentations and make rebuttals, the only circumstances that I would consider participating would be to be able to provide a slide show while I speak. This would allow me to make a strong factually based presentation without relying on hearing skills to rebut others.
This can easily be accomplished by connecting my laptop to the VGA port on the left side desk. I did this when I was on the school board, and the scan converter made it also transmit to the cable TV channel.
To be fair, others should be able to present a short slide show if they wish. I certainly encourage it, and it would keep the debate factually grounded. I’ll make my laptop available to anyone who wishes to put a PowerPoint presentation on it and help them test it beforehand. Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards, Anthony Watts
She responded with:
From: “Wolf, Thia”
Date: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:26 PM
To: “Anthony Watts”
Cc: “Peterson, Sue”; “Justus, Zachary”
Subject: Re: Invitation to the Great Debate
Dear Mr. Watts:
Thank you for getting back to me! I am forwarding this information to the Communication Studies faculty who organize the evening event. I feel they are best positioned to decide if they can incorporate this technology into the evening debate.
The event is in the main Council Chambers. The format has been developed by the debate experts in Communication, so they can go over this with you. The Main Event starts at 6:30. Again, the faculty should be able to give you a good estimate of how long the student debate will take, prior to the community member debate.
I have copied the two lead faculty members for this project on this email. I am sure they will confer before getting back to you, so please give them a day to do so.
I appreciate your willingness to consider participating.
Thank you,
thia
I thought the response was rather odd, because virtually every city council meeting has a slide show, and there’s a system in place to make it happen and broadcast the slide show live to the town for anyone who wants to use it. There’s really no “technology to incorporate”. Besides, neither the Great Debate Invitation sent to me, the letter Great Debate Letter AB 32 nor the web site had any caveats against using a slide show.
This is the response I got back:
From: “Wolf, Thia”
Date: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 10:43 AM
To: “Anthony Watts”
Cc: “Peterson, Sue” ; “John Rucker”; “Justus, Zachary”
Subject: Re: Invitation to the Great Debate
Dear Mr. Watts:
There is agreement that we are happy to make sure the the hearing assistance system is working well in Chambers before the debate so that you will have the benefit of its use. The debate does not, however, include visuals.
That would require a different format from the one we use. It is possible to place you in the debate team line-up so that rebuttal is NOT your responsibility–for instance, you could open the debate for your team.
Please let us know if you feel you can participate under these conditions.
Best,
thia
I was puzzled. Why could we not use visuals? This made no sense, especially since the room is set up for it, and the Climate Action Plan people made a slideshow when they pitched it to the city council and the public. So why can’t I? I sent this reply:
From: “Anthony Watts”
Date: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:13 AM
To: “Wolf, Thia”
Cc: “Peterson, Sue” ; “John Rucker” ; “Justus, Zachary”
Subject: Re: Invitation to the Great Debate
Hello Ms. Wolf,
Thank you for your reply.
I spent my whole adult life making and presenting visuals to help people understand scientific points on television, and now via blogging and scientific literature. You are inviting me to participate because of who I am and what I do. To deny me the ability to practice my craft, combined with my hearing disability, puts me at an extreme disadvantage compared to others there. I don’t work from a script, I don’t use a teleprompter, and I never have. I wouldn’t write a script or statement for this either. The visuals are my guide for the oration. I gave hour long talks in Australia this past June all over the continent and never once gave a prepared statement.
This is a technical argument that I would be making about climate and CO2, which is the root of the issue for Prop 23 and the GHG law. It is impossible to convey it without some visuals. People can’t see science in their heads.
Without visuals, my presence is pointless. In this day and age of visuals, especially when there is easy and ready presentation access at the city council chambers, I find your argument against using them weak and quite frankly, a cop out, especially when the same opportunity can easily be shared by others. This is sad, and out of touch with today’s reality, because the Prop 23 battle is being fought on television with visuals and
innuendo, I would think you’d welcome factual debate with visuals, unless of course the point of this debate is not about facts, but about feelings.
To deny visuals in a public debate is in my opinion, a sad commentary on CSUC’s program. Even in a court of law the prosecution and the defense are allowed visuals. How else would they explain forensic science to a jury? Get with the times!
Given the disadvantages I will face, and unless there is some sort of accommodation for me to present at least some visuals, I see no other option but to decline your invitation.
I await your reconsideration.
Best Regards, Anthony Watts
The reply I got back was pretty curt:
From: Wolf, Thia
Date: Thursday, October 07, 2010 8:50 AM
To: Anthony Watts
Cc: Peterson, Sue ; Justus, Zachary ; John Rucker
Subject: Great Debate
Dear Mr. Watts:
The Great Debate is meant to provide space for citizens to practice an older discourse form. There are various kinds of presentations during the day, some of them technologized, but we are invoking a traditional style of civil exchange in the evening. We do thank you for considering our invitation, and we regret that the format is not to your liking. We are committed, however, to a traditional debate format for the “main event” debates.
Best,
thia
thia wolf
First-Year Experience Program, director
California State University, Chico
“Let your voice be heard.”
(530) 898-xxxx
Wow, some debates get “technologized” but mine can’t be?
I sent this in reply:
From: Anthony Watts
Date: Thursday, October 07, 2010 1:07 PM
To: Wolf, Thia
Cc: Peterson, Sue ; Justus, Zachary ; John Rucker
Subject: Re: Great Debate
Dear Ms. Wolf,
Thank you for your cordial reply. I’m sorry to say this, but I’m going to respectfully call BS on your position.
In your invitation to me,
Name: Thia Wolf
Email: cwolf@xxxxxx
Website: http://www.csuchico.edu/fye/greatdebate
Dear Mr. Watts:
I am writing to ask if you would be interested in participating as a debate team member in the “Main Event” community debate in City Council Chambers on October 28. The debate subject is “AB 32: To Suspend or Not to Suspend?” We are working to put together three-person teams on each side. Teams will meet with the CSU, Chico debate team for tips on debate strategies. This meeting can be virtual. At present, Larry Wahl has confirmed he will be on the team. We are hoping you will be the second member and a business person concerned about AB 32 will be third.
Please let me know if this is of interest to you. The debate is webcast live and may also be televised. We emphasize civil discourse. I would like to send you the general invitation and more information if you are interested. Many thanks for considering this.
thia wolf
cwolf@xxxxx
Director, First-Year Experience Program
You make no caveats on presentation style of any kind. You also highlight the webcast nature of it and the televised nature of it.
Let’s recap: You invite a television person, me, and then deny him his normal tools while at the same time promoting the television and webcast nature of the entire event.
My work has been television for years, and now on the web. I operate the most visited climate science blog on the planet, now with 57 million visits. So yes, I’m fluent with both TV and web presentation. In fact I built, designed, and donated the first live webcast system for the city council chambers in 2005.
So to deny me the tools of that venue that I am fluent in using, while promoting the venue using the same tools you deny me, is a paradox. Do you see how incongruent your position is? I think you’d lose that debate.
I’m going into what I see as a hostile environment, at a disadvantage due to my hearing disability, only asking to present some slides as is normal for my work on television and web, and yet your tagline proudly says:
“Let your voice be heard.”
Well I’m sure trying, but they won’t let me use TV tools on a public TV program. As they say in the news business: “That won’t play well in Peoria”. I urge you one last time to reconsider.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards, Anthony Watts
Yes my response was a little strong, but really, how can a couple of slides cause any trouble? Especially when other portions of the day long venue get to use slide shows? I asked them to reconsider in my last sentence, surely, they’d come to their senses? But days passed, nothing. So I sent this:
From: Anthony Watts
Date: Monday, October 11, 2010 11:01 AM
To: Wolf, Thia
Subject: Re: Great Debate
Hello Ms. Wolf,
It has been four days since I sent my last message and I have received no reply from you. So that I’m not bothering you anymore please clarify. My presentation is not welcome and there will be no further response.
Is that correct? Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards, Anthony Watts
And this is the response I got back:
From: Wolf, Thia
Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 7:02 AM
To: Anthony Watts
Cc: Justus, Zachary ; Peterson, Sue ; John Rucker
Subject: Re: Great Debate
Dear Mr. Watts,
I am sorry for the delay in my response. We do not want visuals during the debate, but we thank you for your input.
thia
So I’m thinking to myself, “I’ll give it some time. Maybe they’ll reconsider.”.
But here it is, the day before the “Great Debate” and I’m still waiting. [Update: I checked the program just after writing this to see that I’m truly disinvited, see graphic below -Anthony]
Given that today’s debates are fought visually in electronic media, it would have been an opportunity for CSUC students to practice debate as it is done in the real world today, rather than the debate structure of times gone by, such as the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debate of 1858.
I suppose if you want to debate in the style of that period using only words to describe technological and science issues, more power to you, but really, this is the 21st century.
Here’s an example of how the Prop 23 debate is being waged in California on television:
The kid with the inhaler is a nice touch, don’t you think? No science here, AB32 it’s about limiting CO2, not particulates! And I used to think the Lung Association was a straight shooter.
They are off my list of charities now.
Anthony they only want vioces heard nothing visual as it might actually start to change a few minds. Sad really some ther might actually learn about real science!
Yup, this is a common pattern. Several years before he died, Michael Crichton made an open offer to debate any and all “scientists”, with the proviso that BOTH sides must be allowed to use charts and graphics. He got PBS interviewer Charlie Rose to offer his show as venue, but none of the “scientists” ever took up the Rose/Crichton offer.
Ms Wolf: “We are hoping you will be the second member and a business person concerned about AB 32 will be third.”
I wonder who that business person will be?
Ancient debate forms. Do you have to wear a toga and sandals?
Although I sympathise, I don’t think it entirely unreasonable that no visuals is a debating rule. There are many debating chambers all over the world where these aren’t allowed. Do they use them in the House of Commons, or at the Oxford Union? I don’t think they do.
I’m with meeting organizers — they esptablish the rules. Can you imagine boxing match where one of participans complaints about his opponent physical advantage and asks if he is allowed bringing a hammer to level the playing field?
Thia probably got a talking to. She seems a little naive. Anthony Watts is extremely knowledgeable, can’t have that in Chico. People might actually think for themselves.
Something else is bothersome about this: why does one party get to select the debate teams for both sides? That is stacking the deck.
Each side should choose their own debate team. Hey, if they let me pick all the participants, I’d be able to predict the outcome of the debate with 100% certainty.
Seriously, Anthony, you didn’t really believe that you’d be given anything in the way of a ‘fair’ shake, did you?
Well, even if you did, your perceptions have now been ‘corrected,’ : This whole matter is one of deception.
They wanted you to debate in the ‘old-style’ fashion if only that in order to communicate with the minds of others, you need to ‘connect.’
Face it: You aren’t likely to ‘connect’ with someone whose mind is already made up.
Old saying: You can’t talk someone out of something he wasn’t talked into to begin with. Translation: Self-deception is the worst sort of deception.
The use of illustration to get a point across to someone is often helpful in making that point, especially when other facts are to be presented as well which will help in a corollary way.
Lincoln and Douglas were the essence of two blind men describing an elephant to the crowds in each his own way. Who could evoke more emotion? Lincoln’s elephant was more ‘pretty.’
You have words, and your opposition has words. Which will be able to effectively persuade the listener?
Science is seldom fully understood by the many, and being deprived of the ability to present the facts as they are in a readily perceivable way, is the essence of nothing less than appealing to the emotions of the crowd.
Debates are –in the absence of positive evidence– the essence of the art of ‘whose emotions are more convincing’, i.e., appealing to the subjective.
The opposition is appealing to the subjective, i.e., the frozen teddy bear, et al.
Perhaps it is well that you didn’t attend, as people will come to understand that you didn’t want to soil your reputation with the sundry, the superfluous, and the emotional.
If science is anything, it is entirely impersonal, isolated, and the essence of the distilled: It contains nothing of the impurities referred to as ’emotion.’
But then you see? The whole reason of depriving you of your ability to communicate with facts, is to deny you any voice at all.
tegiri:
To use your hammer analogy, he’s not asking to have a hammer and the other side to have none, he offered to have everyone be allowed to use the technology and even offered his own computer to run the presentation for anyone who wanted to do one.
“The Great Debate is meant to provide space for citizens to practice an older discourse form.”
They mean like fire, throwing rocks and clubs and screaming???
Reply to Mark:
“So, the organizers of the event are making this like a classic debate; no props, just words. It seems fair to me.”
Well yes, if that had been stated beforehand. But it wasn’t. I received a generic invitation to debate with no caveats on the presentation style of any kind.
“With the advent of smart phones and tablet computers, someday we may be able to show visuals to support our points in casual conversation, but at present that is not the case.”
Need I remind you Mark, that before my hearing went down to the point it is, I attended a public debate at CSUC, sitting right next to you, and doing a slide show along with others who also gave slide shows. Your argument of “someday” is really rather silly. In fact the organizer of that debate gave me serious kudos for how I presented, saying “it was the best presentation he’d ever seen in all the time he’d organized debates at CSUC”.
And finally: “It seems fair”.
Perhaps you missed this part of my letter, to ensure fairness to all:
To be fair, others should be able to present a short slide show if they wish. I certainly encourage it, and it would keep the debate factually grounded. I’ll make my laptop available to anyone who wishes to put a PowerPoint presentation on it and help them test it beforehand. .
I couldn’t make it any fairer. Yet CSUC organizers couldn’t bring themselves to do it.
There was no valid reason for this. I’m taking all the risks. I decided to face once again being heckled, called names, and perhaps look stupid if I misheard something and spoke out of turn.
It is sad really, to disinvite somebody because of disagreement with how they would give a speech, after no limits were placed in the invitation. I could holler about discrimination, free speech and all that. But I’m not going to play those games.
Instead, I’ve sent a note to the CSUC provost, and offered equal space here should CSUC wish to respond.
In fairness, I think this may have been a simple misunderstanding blown out of proportion. This is not the same situation as the Cameron-Moreno debacle, where no debate was held and Cameron came up with a lame excuse about being above debating Moreno.
I have no problem with the idea that there is value in students learning oratory arts, which could even include Q&A and on-your-feed responses to questions. If that is the format they use and have traditionally used, then fine, I don’t think a valid complaint can be made. Indeed, it might be the case that they wanted Anthony to present, but — to them — it seemed he was demanding changes to their long-standing format. Any complaint by Anthony would be much stronger if it turns out someone else uses visual aids tomorrow night, or if they have permitted it in the past.
At the end of the day, Anthony thought this was a great chance for people to get into the science of the issue, which needs some visuals. In fact, it seems, this is a debate experience, which happens to be using Prop 23 as a topic. They are less interested in a detailed scientific educational experience on the issues, as they are in the debating experience. Nothing inherently wrong with that — just unfortunate that it didn’t coincide with what Anthony does best or the approach he would have preferred to take.
REPLY: If they made it clear in the invitation and all of the materials they sent me with the invitation that it was an older format, no visuals, just oratory only, then I would have declined right away. But they put it in a room where visuals are the norm, put it on live TV, and webcast it, while inviting a TV person to that venue. It seems unreasonable to me to expect that I would not get to use the tools of my trade to help my disadvantage. If they want to teach, that’s for the classroom, if they want to put it on live public TV, that’s a whole different animal. – Anthony
I agree with what Mark said. If the debate format has long been oral discourse only, then you can lament that the format is not conducive to getting your ideas across but it’s not necessary or proper to take a further step and assume that you are being singled out unfairly.
I think the tone of the emails deteriorating was mostly due to misplaced indignation on your part over something that was beyond Ms Wolf’s control.
REPLY: See my previous reply in another comment above. -Anthony
If Obama was speaking < I assure you the teleprompters would be welcome. Of course the audience would be actors.
Anthony,
It was the same format as last year.
It is regrettable that they were not clear about the format in the invitation but not changing their format to accommodate you is not discrimination.
If you like, I would offer you a spot at the conference the following week to make a presentation of any sort you wish, and if we can agree, I will be happy to advertise it from the Great Debate stage. We welcome your participation.
I understand your disappointment about the Great Debate, and I am disappointed we will not have the opportunity to spar, but please be honest.
Dr, Thia Wolf did nothing wrong.
Mark
REPLY: Mark, there you go again, calling me dishonest. The last time we sparred here you called me a liar. If you expect any headway, stop that sort of thing. Ms. Wolf made no caveats, I’d never heard of this before I got the email. – Anthony
I should add that statements that Anthony is being denied his voice are over the top. Look, he was invited, but unfortunately his desired approach did not fit their format. They filled in the slot with someone else. Yes, perhaps they will not be as good as Anthony, but the skeptic position is being given equal time — at least on paper and in the debate time itself, if not in spirit (which we can’t ascertain on this little information). The science — which Anthony is so keen to convey — is secondary. First and foremost, this is a debate experience and the organizers want a good debate experience for the kids, and they want it in a particular format — that is their call.
Is it unfortunate that Anthony was not able to participate? Sure. Did he get disinvited? That is much less clear — from the emails one could just as easily argue that Anthony refused to agree to the debate format guidelines. Could all this have been turned into something positive? Yes, by handling it behind the scenes with the school, Anthony very well may have been able to get himself scheduled for another event that allowed for visual aids.
Hopefully the email exchange and this post hasn’t poisoned the well against a possible future relationship with the school.
REPLY: See my reply upstream. – Anthony
The e-mails looked to me as if Ms. Wolf was extending a legimate invitation to Mr. Watts to be part of a previously decided upon debate structure. I suspect they have held other debates with the same format and as such no implication of trying to stack the deck should be inferred.
In fact, I take the existence of the debate to be a hopeful sign. I suspect that as little as a year ago it would not have occured to the Chico State Debate team that CAGW was a legitimate debate topic. After all the science was settled. So the mere existence of the debate says that the science is, prima facie, not settled. Where is the negative in that?
Especially when they tried to invite our eminent host. They clearly weren’t trying to get nut cases on the skeptic side.
Wonder if another of the first year experience programs at CSU is a math contest with slide rulers?
With all due respect to Ms. Wolf, seems like a better approach to engaging first year students would be with a format that is in keeping with the 21st, not the 19th, century.
The “Great Debate” = An Epic Fail
Assuming there are no legal repercussions attached if two adults duke it out at high noon in a consenting manner, isn’t this a great idea? Isn’t there a capable gunslinger around? I mean, it is an open invite, isn’t it? Or will there be an un-invite in the last minute again?! 😉
Duke C. says:
October 27, 2010 at 1:39 pm
“The founders of the Chico Great Debate are dedicated to restoring civility, reason, and rhetorical argument into our public forums. Seeking to reinvigorate the public sphere as a healthy site of democratic practice, this project presents contentious issues in an arena that follows orderly rules of speaking and listening. We aim to “lead by example” and ignite a revived interest in our national tradition of constructive, civil discourse and argument.”
========================================================
It looks like they are well-intentioned, a little self-important and a bit silly people who have this nice idea about promoting civil debate.
And they are so very, very fond of their cute, little idea about their format.
Let’s face it, they are not interested in serious scientific debate, which as you point out cannot be done without visuals.
At the same time, it doesn’t look to me like they disinvited you for your opinions; it’s just that they are doing their little exercise in civil debate, while you are interested meaningful debate.
Personally, I would expect them to jump at the chance of having you do a real scientific presentation on climate – maybe offering you another venue or format.
But at least I applaud them for promoting civil debate.
As another who has hearing loss, I hate meetings, and noisy crowds (Too many years flying and working on four-engine Douglas propliners, ). But this stinks to high heaven.
One other thing, have you looked into the Bell Method of lip reading, lost art, as sign language has taken over, but had a Granma who was partially deaf,due to being struck
by lighting avoiding a Kansas tornado, she learned it effectively, and could carry a conversation with most anyone…
Even a whispered:”hey, she hid the cookie jar under the cookstove”…
Greg Redeker says:
October 27, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Duly noted, and thanks for the clarification.
However, I still don’t feel that this invite-disinvite raises to the level of some sort of conspiracy.
Anthony jumped the gun with his criticism, IMO.
REPLY: Whoa, I never said anything about conspiracy, only that they shoddily handled what could have been a win-win situation had they not been so entrenched. – Anthony
If Dr. Wolf is a Professor, then this was not out of her control.
Watts asked for a reasonable accomodation to a well recognized disability.
He specified his need for this reasonable accomodation from the start.
As we keep hearing about in other reports (such as the one from SciAm0 considerable pressure is brought to bear by AGW true believers to squelch voices of dissent.
This is just a sorry example where an academic did what she knew was wrong and would not have been allowed if whe was diong this in a formal setting.
The idea that this was an ‘old format’ was obvious fabricated tripe to rationalize her position.
Anthony,
I think Ms Wolf was playing this in the background as she emailed you:
With apologies to Meat Loaf.
I love that song . . .
John
If you are certain you will not participate Anthony, perhaps you can help find a worthy stand in. Someone who hears well and does this kind of venue on the fly.