MichaelSaulnier

HNGD!! I've been considering a Traditional myself, in the same color. Did you have to play a number of this model to find one you liked? I'm tempted to order one, but I hesitate, knowing how much Gibsons can vary from one guitar to the next. :thu: I think few people would argue that if you played 10 or 20 LP's, that all would be "the same". So ordering online is a bit of a gamble. Sometimes the differences are subtle enough that unless you are comparing, you don't realize... one feels much better in your hand, or has a better top, or sounds different or "better" to you than the others. That being said, there have been many people who have ordered online, or bought one used online that have received them, and been very happy. What's your personality? The "pickier" you are, the more you need to go try a bunch! M

There are articles in "Playboy"? Since when? M

The offers are coming in. All are for less than I asked for. CL and the fishy responses are a real turn off. At the moment, one offer for a discount price for 2 of my Am Std Strats might work. Things change. Hey... WE can make lowball offers just as easily as your neighbors! Post a list of your stuff on the SPAM list, and watch the trade offers, and nowhere near your list price offers come pourin' in! (excuse me if you've already done this!) M

Store is not illegal. Offers are low. They are counting on many uninformed, or lazy people who are willing to sell for much less than what it's worth. They can flip for a profit. They're regularly hitting CL all across the country. Again, nothing illegal, but not a smart selling decision. M

I was in my local GC the other day. I see a guy walk in with a clean looking Vetta I amp. I know what it means when someone comes in with something like that... they're trying to get GC to buy it. I see him talking with the night manager, who has to go off and check on something... maybe look at e-bay auctions, whatever. They offer they guy a low price for it. As soon as he's free of the salespeople, I go up to him, introduce myself, and inquire about the amp. He tells me he doesn't want to sell for that, but needs some quick cash. I offer $50 more than the GC guy, and since he had not finalized the deal with GC, he says "sure", and meets me outside. I give him the cash, and we're both pretty happy. I did get the amp for less than what it would be "worth" if I wanted to take my time and sell it... he did get more than what he was offered by GC. I don't feel like I "stole" it from him, I be he doesn't either. I do feel like I was at the right place at the right time. M

My brother is parting with his 1963 Fender Jaguar. No, this is NOT a reissue... it's the real thing! He's asking $3,800 for it, but would entertain offers. No trades, he's looking for cash. This was owned by a family friend, and he got it about a decade ago. The guitar sat in a garage, unplayed for decades... a true closet classic. Lots more pics... PM me. M

As you probably know, the quality of the recording isn't all that great... but it was an ok song... I thought it was interesting that the female vocalist was shoegazing when she wasn't singing... I can't recall seeing a shoegazer vocalist before. Couldn't really make out any of the vocals, probably due to the poor recording. The crowd seemed to be moving and plenty of folks were there... Got any actual recordings you can post? M

+1 for The Riffer Smooth trade transaction. All as promised. Excellent packing and shipping care. M

I've had both American made and MIM strats and teles and have found that both can be fun to play and sound good! My #1 however has no MIM counterpart... so if I wanted this guitar... I had to get the American version. I liked it the best, it played and sounded the best to me... so that's what I got! Simple. M

Here's a 1997 Jimmie Vaughn strat, Sold... M

Here's a 2000 / 2001 Nashville Tele. New Lower Price... It's in excellent condition without any dings or dents. I've never played this out, and it's lived in its case for most of its life. All the Nashville Tele features: * Two "tex-mex" neck and bridge tele pups and a "tex-mex" strat pickup in the middle. * 5-way pickup switch * Artic white with rosewood fretboard on maple neck * Vintage bridge * Medium jumbo frets This is "like-new" condition, plays and sounds just as you would expect from a new one. MIM. No mods. Comes with Fender hard shell case. Price lowered to $549 obo + shipping. PM for more info or pics. M

FYI- per the serial that is a '96. Beautiful guitar... Thanks, I verified on Fender's website and have changed my post... it turns out Fender only introduced it in 1997... so this must be from the first production year. Just goes to show you how long some inventory can hang around. I originally bought this new from my local GC on the same day I bought the Nashville Tele I'm advertising above. The tele's serial number puts it as a 2000 /2001 model, and I wrongly assumed, (without verifying) that they were both from the same year. Somehow GC must have had this JV strat in their inventory for quite some time before I bought it. M

Here's a 1997 Jimmie Vaughn strat Deleted and Moved for lower price. M

2000 /2001 Nashville Tele Deleted and Moved for lower price

Here's another try for my Guild Blues 90. Sold. M

Guild Blues 90. SOLD M

+1 for ashtray. Very smooth transaction. Good communication! Fast payment. M

Come up where I'm at and you can see the reality of it. Recent studies show that Ohio has lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs. And in my case, I got replaced by somebody for $3 less an hour. Now, I don't have a job. There isn't any jobs in this area. I can't pay my bills. I can't even afford to put food on my table. I will soon be gone from cyberspace for some indefinite period of time, because groceries are more important than this. Once the current billing cycle ends, bye bye stranger. So, from where I'm sitting, the whole mess is going right down the toilet. I work in the staffing business... Here's a few tips that can help in your search. - Don't be shy about your search. Let everyone you know, know what you do, and that you're looking... about 45% of new jobs come from people referring other people. - If you have a problem with your former boss, get someone else, even a co-worker to write a recommendation for you. You do the writing, truthfully telling what you brought to the job, and have the other person sign it... preferably on letterhead, but if not... ok. - Be positive about your previous job in interviews. In this economy it's no sin to be laid off. But in interviews, don't say ANYTHING negative about your former employer. Try to think of the positive things you learned or did during the job, and talk about those with any interviewer. Few people want to hear interviewees complain... it's easy to assume they will complain about that job too. - If you get an interview, do some homework. Find reasons WHY you're attracted to that job... not "I need a job". People like people who are excited about working there... but only if they have a "good" reason. The more you know and can talk about why you're excited to be there... the more likely it is that they will like you. - Attitude is EVERYTHING. It's easy to get down when you're out of work, but accept that you DO have a job... it's GETTING A NEW JOB. Treat it that way. Get started early each day, have a plan, work hard at it, don't give up. - If you have to take a job for less than you like, keep looking. Don't just settle into a bad job, but do what you have to for yourself and your family. - Use on-line resources. There's a great website... www.indeed.com. This site consolidates all the major job boards and craigslist in one place. So you can search all the jobs, everyday, easily. It even lets you set up a profile, so new jobs come to you. Don't forget to look back a few weeks, if companies hired someone who didn't work out, they may still be looking. - Talk to recruiters. Depending what you do, there are probably recruiters who specialize in it. Find them, and see if they have something you may be qualified for. But remember, recruiters help jobs find people, not the other way around... so don't expect them to "market" you much... on the other hand, if they know you're looking, and a job surfaces... you may get a call. Good luck with your search. Let me know if you have questions about any of this. M

Well, not to worry. Barack is SURE to take care of everything. M

I thought Craig solved the GW problem about 2 pages ago? Didn't it work? M

I liked what he said at the end of the presentation - that this is good news!!! yet it was met with silence and indifference. It's amazing that everyone seems to want a warming planet with catastrophe and rising sea levels. John, you see this conflicts with the power grab that's happening over "carbon control". I don't know if you saw the link to the proposed bill in the US House that creates a major NEW GOVERNMENT AGENCY that will have the power to levy "carbon tax" on companies. SO... why is this a concern. Well, if you're in the business of creating energy, or do manufacturing... you'll need to have politico's in your pocket to support legislation that favors your view on how this would work... and make sure YOUR firm doesn't get the shaft. So you'll have to contribute to the politico's and their party in order to get and keep their ear. Now if it turns out that CO2 emissions AREN'T causing global warming... the whole bill and therefore the influence and control would get a big "NEVER MIND". That would NOT be a favored outcome. M

But don't you see the issue here? They other people who did the same and had the opposite point of view are also leading scientists and not crackpots. If the fact that a leading, non-crackpot scientist says something, then global warming would have to be true, since plenty of them take that position. The only difference with this guy is that he's saying what you want to believe, so you assume he's correct and that the other scientists, just as competent, who take the opposite approach are not. But that's an arbitrary choice. So it makes no sense for you to point me at that video and claim that it has to be true because he's competent and a leading scientist. That doesn't make him unique in any way. Neither of us are in a position to say whether his arguments are true or false, since we are not climate scientists. I'm not saying he's correct. I'm pointing out that he was called to testify before congress as one of the leading researchers in the field. And that there is NEW INFORMATION they have learned that leads HIM to conclude that the case for CO2 emissions causing global warming may be flawed. If you take a minute and watch his testimony, you'll see he states when he shared this NEW INFORMATION with other scientists at a seminar on the subject, he didn't get "serious objections" to his conclusions. Which I take as the OTHER SCIENTISTS didn't object. If what he says is true, then he needs to convinece other climate scientists. Hey, we may agree on this point... Do you think we have to wait for ALL the other scientists to agree, a simple majority, only ones who have reviewed this NEW INFORMATION, only specialists in this field with equal credentials or what? Why don't you just watch the vid and see whether his testimony makes YOU wonder about the credibility of the case for CO2 emissions and global warming? C'mon, humor me. M

As promised, here are the solutions. 1. Make sure everyone has enough money to live. 2. Go to somewhere that's not La Jolla. You're welcome! If the Aliens land first in La Jolla... They're not going anywhere for a while. Have you every tried getting a seat at an oceanside restaurant? It takes forever. Plus, there's no parking, so the valets will have all their spacecraft. M

Again, it doesn't matter if someone posted something. That doesn't mean anything. Show me where it's being accepted by the broad consensus of climate scientists. I could post a video saying whatever I want. It doesn't mean much though unless it's accepted by those peers, not just seen by them. If it's upsetting the belief system, reference those comments by the other scientists whose beliefs it's changed. I can see you're not really interested in hearing what this guy says... But it's not just a vid of the guy speculating... or as you put it... a video of a guy saying whatever he wants. He's testifying before a congressional committee. In front of the whole world. He shares his insights from his leadership position at NASA... about policy decisions at high levels in government. That was pre-oriented toward the belief that CO2 emmissions were to be regulated... before the science was done... that he personally observed. He's a credible scientist, in fact one of the LEADING scientists studying this subject. He's not just "a guy". That's WHY he was testifying before congress. They don't just let crackpots wander up to the mic... But I understand you prefer to wait until "the consensus" is that GW isn't caused by CO2 emmissions. You let me know when everyone's on board. M

This all reminds me of what "deep throat" said to Bob Woodward as he was investigating Watergate... "Follow the money". I wonder where the "money" in the global warming panic goes? M