the russ

I would venture to say you have a severe case of headstock-itus. Easy to get, difficult to cure. Meaning it is all in the head. Owning both Epis and Gibsons, from a "feel" perspective, there really isn't much difference. Epi's tend to be lighter, not always though. My Epi LP Custom feels no different than most other 60s neck LPs and in fact is about the same weight. Blindfolded, unless you were really familiar with neck profiles, you could not tell which was which. Tone wise, the Gibson will sound fuller for sure and that is where the difference comes in. With electronics upgrades, the difference blurs even more. The real test is when you can actually play them side by side and feel and hear the difference. It's the only way to make an honest and truth grounded opinion. And cheap, just a word for the trollish who don't know how to express themselves - a First Act from Wal-Mart feels cheap. Intro level Ibanez RGs feel cheap meaning less substantial, poor quality finish out, flimsy harware, etc. Epi LP Standards really are far from feeling cheap -- and don't own one. They don't feel cheap and they really do sound pretty good stock these days. your Epi custom has the same neck profile has a 1960's slim taper profile or a 60's standard neck? Those aren't thin necks on the Custom, so I'm assuming you're talking about the latter. The frets are totally different, dude. I could tell in 2 seconds if I was playing a USA Gibson or a MIC/MIK Epiphone simply by running my hand across the fretboard. I much prefer the taller Gibson frets to the low, rounded Epi frets. Not to mention the difference in feel between poly and nitro on the neck. To say one couldn't tell with the difference with their eyes closed is simply incorrect.

Let's run with that. What eveidence do you have to back that claim? Why would American workers put more care in their work than a Korean or Chinese worker? Is it genetic? What about a Korean American or Chinese American working in a Gibson plant? Do they put less care in their work than a full blooded American worker (whatever that is)? I live in a town with a big GM plant and honestly, the workers there have very little work ethic. I have friends that work there and have been told some amazing stories. Many American workers today care more about the pay rate, benefits, and personal time than the actual work. 50 years ago that wasn't true but it is becoming a sad fact of life today. I love my country but the American work ethic is not close to what it used to be. I would not be suprised at all that many countries have passed us by in that department. i said "care" not "love". less time per guitar is spent building MIC or MIK guitars, and this is by design of the assembly process. also, the workers are almost always less highly trained than those working in the Gibson USA plant.

I meant as compared with previously. I don't want to bring up the whole "Gibson QA sucks" thing in this thread, or it will reach critical mass and explode... that's what i thought you meant. i see this in Fender and ESP overseas guitars more than any other brand, actually.

Opinions? Oh I don't mind opinions, even if I don't agree. But don't diss things some people love. Say what you think. Just try not being an ass. people are free to love them all they want. I love Epi Casinos, actually. But they also look and feel slightly cheap, and I think those same issues come out more on the LP models. the Japan and USA Epi's are much better guitars. if someone is offended by that, o well.

They don't suck, but they aren't gibsons either. Like more and more MIC and MIK guitars these days, they are built with more care, but in most cases, the hardware and electronics (as well as wood) will likely be inferior to what you'd find on a gibson. i trust you're not trying to say that MIC or MIK guitars are built with more care than a standard USA Gibson? I think you'd agree with me that that's not true.

you guys get all pissed off when i express my opinions on Epiphone guitars. "he called the {censored} poop!"

And to me, it felt really cheap. Is there something wrong with me? nope, it's the guitar

Originally posted by Roccaforte Amps We lost the vietnam war? when diplomacy had failed a greatly frustrated Nixon concluded that only force could persuade Hanoi that negotiating with the United States was preferable to continuing the war. The President ordered his military commanders to mine Haiphong Harbor and to initiate a sustained air campaign in the Hanoi-Haiphong region. Beginning on December 18 and continuing for 11 days, American bombing attacked all significant military targets in the region. Even though the targets were military, the aim was psychological

Originally posted by Roccaforte Amps The US liberated Afganistan from the Taliban,Viet Nam, Iraq from Saddam Hussein, German occupied France, German occupied Europe. And after the war we spoke of Soviet-occupied Hungary, Czechoslovakia, eastern Europe. Its history, and it doesn't lie. Uh, we lost Vietnam, bud. Vietnam to this day is still a Communist (read: State Capitalist) government. You also can't count the velvet revolution as one of our "liberations" because Eastern Europe liberated themselves. We just happened to have an arms race. So you've basically got World War Two (in which there were MANY allies, including some that suffered more losses, financially and physically, than we did in the liberation effort {let's not forget the Soviet Union in their efforts here, as they are the ones who "liberated" Eastern Europe from Axis occupation}), Korea?, Afghanistan (which we "liberated" from the power our own insurgence against the Soviets helped put into place) and Iraq. Any other American Liberation success stories you'd like to spin? The United States has been a part of several genuinely humanitarian military campaigns in the 20th century, but to say we're some steadfastly benevolent military liberators that act alone and always alone is totally wrong, if you're trying to characterize it like that. We've had significant help from our allies in all but the most contentious of major military operations (Vietnam, Iraq II).

Originally posted by PlayboyChris Considering that by the time we take Canada dissenters like you will be silenced and confined to detention camps, it absolutely will be a cakewalk. You have no idea how true that rings.

Originally posted by Chubtone Oh don't woory, we won't be knockin'. We will probably send a neighborhood watch group from Lansing, Michigan to take over Canada. Do you think they can accomplish this on their lunch hour, or should they take a half day off? oh yeah.. it'll be a cakewalk.. just like Iraq.

Originally posted by PlayboyChris When your country is a frozen wasteland with a penchant for wimpery that no nation in its right mind would want to take possession of, there's no need for national defense because there's nothing to defend. Actually, Canada's GDP is huge on the world scale (top 10) and it has quite a bit of arable land and natural resources, not to mention major cities, tourist destinations, shipping passages, etc.. You're exposing your ignorance if you're trying to say Canada literally has no reason for national defense. Also - penchant for wimpery? starting no wars and declining to join the U.S. in Vietnam and Gulf War part deux = penchant for wimpery. i'd bet a dollar you yourself are wimp, PlayboyChris. to my knowledge, you didn't fight in Vietnam or Iraq either.

Originally posted by SkidMarx if you are talking to me, since when have you been interestd in facts and logic? If you were interested in facts and l;ogic you'd acknowledge that Arab scum have been killing in the name of Allah for decades. Noone cared, so long as it was just Jews and an occassional Marine or two. Then 9/11 happened. Game on. I don't know what pissant country you are from, probably an old world superpower like France that is pissed off that you aren't at the top of the food cghain anymore. But wherever you are from just do me one favor. When you have your own 9/11, don't look to America to bail your stupid ass out. Have a {censored}ty day. Love, Skid. The American government had been killing in the name of "fighting Communism" for far longer than that, both directly and via proxy wars. Killing is killing regardless of who does it and in what name. I'm just pointing that out. We are far from innocent in the killing game. Furthermore, what does that last line mean? Why would any country need "bailed out" because of three buildings destroyed and a very small proportion of their population hurt or killed? For instance, Russia has been battling Chechan terrorism for years and haven't called anyone for help. In fact, they opposed our invasion of Iraq as well. We haven't exactly been "bailing out" terror-wracked countries in this "post 9/11" world, Skid, except for the ones we invaded.

Originally posted by SkidMarx success will be measured 30-40-50 years from now. What tyou represent is modern America's impatience and penchant for immediate gratification. It will be many, many years before we see any fruit born as a result of this effort to rid the world of Islamic fundamentalist freaks. So don't be so quick to judge. ME? Excuse me, you're the one calling for immediate, radical action against a temporary, unpopular ruling power in Iran. Better turn that finger around, pal. "Immediate gratification" my foot. I never said anything about the current state of success or failure in Iraq. I was pointing out that there are HUGE costs paid for this war by both the Americans and the Iraqis, and that the deposition of two men, two INDIVIDUALS, does not justify this war and their deaths are only the most superficial of measures. Two men are dead or out of power. How that affects the daily lives of millions of Iraqis is as of yet uncertain.

Originally posted by PlayboyChris Saddam, imprisoned. Zarqawi, dead. Not too shabby. if those are your measures of success in Iraq, then i'd have to say your perspective on that whole matter is pretty {censored}ing warped.