Re: [microsound] Re: General Warning: Forced Exposure

[Brandon Smith <gozravp@xxxxxxxxx>]

I see Andrei's point in that there are other ways to
go about dealing with the rather serious situation
concerning LK, however, I also believe that such
tactics, when used as a last resort, should not be
ruled out.  I read that LK open letter and, assuming
that everything they wrote was truthful, I believe
that they were completely in the right to bring the
situation to the public's attention. It is not that
the sum of money owed justified such means, but rather
the attitude and tone of Forced Exposure's response to
LK's inquiry. I mean, perhaps the telephone
conversation wasn't as cold as LK made it out to be,
but that sort of treatment in a professional setting
is entirely uncalled for.  If I were treated in such
an unprofessional manner, you better believe I would
do the same thing.  I'm a patient person and would
generally avoid public confrontation, but I can't
tolerate that kind of behavior.   If Forced Exposure
runs a business practice in this manner (and judging
by the number of responses backing these criticisms,
they don't seem to be a very reputable operation) I
see it as a public service that others are warning us.
 Perhaps someone on this list was considering
distributing through FE.  Now maybe they'll do a bit
more research.  Seriously, there isn't exactly an
"ethical business council" for the distribution of
off-center electronic music, is there?   This is the
best we can manage as far as I can tell.  Of course it
would also be wrong to take warning entirely at face
value.  Just know to look into it, thats all...  Oh
well.  I hope everything works out......everyone... 
And sorry about the loss.


--- Bill Ashline <bashline@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> From: Lucky Kitchen underwoodwork@xxxxxxxxx
>