# Site trolling



## TeT (Sep 28, 2014)

Do Canon owners traditionally go to other camera fanatic sites ie... nikonrumor or fujiforums or sonyfans whatever they might be... and troll and deride those members for their equipments faults and shortcomings.

You cannot ask a question on this site anymore without someone saying go buy a sony because Canon sucks...

Is this what Canon owners did when the Nikon was an inferior product? is this our payback?

It is really bad right now... what gives?

You would think that Nikon . Sony owners would haunt there side of the interwebs...

*** this is not a post about capabilities of camera manufactures and their individual products ****
please restrain yourselves


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 28, 2014)

Some misguided individuals think that they can post anything they want and are protected by the US constitution. One even threatened to write his congressman  

Things on a Rumor site get pretty hectic around the time of new camera announcements, there are lots of people who have read spec sheets and make their decisions based on them. There are some that do rigged tests, underexposing 4 or 5 stops to show that a extremely poor photographer can recover his work. They do not show what happens to overexposed photos because Canon is generally better at recovering from overexposures.

Just ignore them, or report it to the mods.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 28, 2014)

TeT said:


> Do Canon owners traditionally go to other camera fanatic sites ie... nikonrumor or fujiforums or sonyfans whatever they might be... and troll and deride those members for their equipments faults and shortcomings.
> 
> You cannot ask a question on this site anymore without someone saying go buy a sony because Canon sucks...
> 
> ...



Many of those bringing up the Canon sensor at low ISO are actually long time, even decades long time, Canon users.

It would cost Canon a lot of money to move to a modern fabrication plant. Unless they see tons beyond of concern and become afraid that sales will eventually be hurt, they won't bother and the sensors will remain as they are for years to come. And sure that is good enough and more, for tons of photos, but it would be nice to get that extra bit for when you need it (depending what you shoot you can come across such scenarios easily enough too; although once again, you can, of course take literally billions of photos with the sensors as they are and have it work out as well as you could ever hope for in regards to what the sensor did at least hah). So all the complaining and pointing out, at the end of the, day might be good, for Canon users.

You can tell from their interviews that they just don't feel like spending the money, so nothing less than people going on and on and then starting to buy other stuff and suggest other stuff will prod them into action. And yeah you can get other stuff, but Canon does some stuff very well, so it would be ideal to all they do well plus the sensors and not have to wait another decade.


----------



## Click (Sep 28, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Just ignore them, or report it to the mods.



+1

That's what I did.


----------



## TeT (Sep 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Many of those bringing up the Canon sensor at low ISO are actually long time, even decades long time, Canon users....



I recognize some of the canon user posts....

If you see an interesting looking thread recently, it will quite possibly be dead/blown up after the 3rd or 4th response. gets old...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 29, 2014)

There are fan boys on all the sites as there are complainers on all the sites. 

There is not a camera made today that some won't be fan boys of and others will consistantly complain about (sometimes they are the same person!)

I do believe that the term "Troll" is being mis/over used on these sites. Sometimes it seems that if someone has a different opinon, they are too quickly labeled a troll. It is a good ad hominem attack.

The important thing to remember is that if someone posts something you disagree with, you DO NOT have to reply. 

On the Internets Tubes, no one ever wins an argument... but a lot of people lose one.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 2, 2014)

TeT said:


> You cannot ask a question on this site anymore without someone saying go buy a sony because Canon sucks...



Actually ... go buy a FUJIFILM. ;D



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Many of those bringing up the Canon sensor at low ISO are actually long time, even decades long time, Canon users.



Actually ... almost any issue with Canon is usually the result of a decades long "friendship" being broken up by Canon's decisions to go into another direction than that particular user.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It would cost Canon a lot of money ... So all the complaining and pointing out, at the end of the, day might be good, for Canon users.
> 
> You can tell from their interviews that they just don't feel like spending the money, so nothing less than people going on and on and then starting to buy other stuff and suggest other stuff will prod them into action. And yeah you can get other stuff, but Canon does some stuff very well, so it would be ideal to all they do well plus the sensors and not have to wait another decade.



It's us against the shareholders ... and the shareholders will always win. This means that the only way to actually get Canon off its duff is to spend our dinero elsewhere AND then tell Canon why we did so (and on what). As more and more consumer do the same, Canon's revenue will fall, the shareholders will become itchy and Canon will start making the products WE want to get their greedy paws on our dinero again so as to increase profits and thus please the shareholders. Apparently we have not yet hit that point on their fiscal graph.



AcutancePhotography said:


> I do believe that the term "Troll" is being mis/over used on these sites. Sometimes it seems that if someone has a different opinon, they are too quickly labeled a troll. It is a good ad hominem attack.



I wholeheartedly agree!


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 2, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> There are fan boys on all the sites as there are complainers on all the sites.



I find the level of perceived trolling very low in comparison to other Internet photog forums, and the user interaction very nice and considerate in comparison to other tech forums. The one problem that it's a rumor site without rumors as Canon isn't doing much revolutionary, so speculation always revolves around the same points.

As for threads spiraling down toward off-topic (dynamic range) discussion, this is an effect of a higher level of user self-governance instead invasive moderation. As it happens, I like this *much* better than zealous mods "cleaning up" threads and watching for off topic posts to sanction.

Simply participating in the picture or postprocessing/technique threads shifts away the focus from the dr rumors, so it's not a big deal for me.


----------



## SwampYankee (Oct 2, 2014)

I think there is a genuine concern that Canon sensors are no long competitive and are a generation or two behind Sony and Nikon (same sensor). There is some minor gripping about this and that feature or mirroless offerings but the real complaint is the sensor. When Canon had the best sensors (a long run) the Nikon fan sites were awash with similar complaints on their sites and the fanboys saying things like "12MP is all you ever need". Same thing you are seeing now on this site. The fanboys are saying things like "18MP is all you need". "I would never buy a camera with than many mega pixels", or "It's the glass, yeah, thats why I stay with Canon" ignoring the fact that Nikon has equally fine glass and Sony shooters have access to better stuff. If Canon catches up the same old fanboys will be lining up to buy the best stuff and crowing about how important the big sensors are.


----------



## fragilesi (Oct 2, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> I think there is a genuine concern that Canon sensors are no long competitive and are a generation or two behind Sony and Nikon (same sensor). There is some minor gripping about this and that feature or mirroless offerings but the real complaint is the sensor. When Canon had the best sensors (a long run) the Nikon fan sites were awash with similar complaints on their sites and the fanboys saying things like "12MP is all you ever need". Same thing you are seeing now on this site. The fanboys are saying things like "18MP is all you need". "I would never buy a camera with than many mega pixels", or "It's the glass, yeah, thats why I stay with Canon" ignoring the fact that Nikon has equally fine glass and Sony shooters have access to better stuff. If Canon catches up the same old fanboys will be lining up to buy the best stuff and crowing about how important the big sensors are.



I've seen much worse trolling on many other sites. But this sensor thing is something a bit different. I get the technical arguments about the differences between Canon and other manufacturers on this point by the way.

But this has become a sustained campaign to raise this difference above all others. That's the part I don't get. I'm seeing plenty of people saying they are on the verge of switching. Just do it, see how it goes but please stop banging on about the fact that you want to. If you feel strongly write to Canon, write to photography magazines, buy a different system. Just let the rest of us discuss our cameras without forever going on about one difference with one component of one part of what makes a picture.

Please. 

And have as many threads as you like about it, just let other threads discuss the subjects they were meant to be about. OR start a thread about how much better your new Sony or Nikon is . . . not many of those about oddly.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 2, 2014)

The thing with rumours forums is that I would say IMO most of the users are more interested in the tech than actually getting out into the field. Discussing tech is what the forum is for, agonising over the tech. Unfortunately some take it personally that Canon doesn't make a camera specifically for them, whereas with Sony, they are trying to pull as much market share as possible, so are being more daring with products that are for niche markets, but completely ignoring their main SLR customer base! The need for better lenses! Do the sales of the A series cover the cost of R&D and then enough to create more dedicated lenses?

Canon users complain about DR and are envious of Sonys sensors, but go over to Sonyalpharumors and there are more upset people over there envious of Canons vast lenses! Also the poor AF speed with adapters meaning they can't swap their system for pro use. Sony are doing very little with native lenses and also in their DSLR range where Canon trounce them in every aspect bar DR and resolution.

Nikon and Canon are always leapfrogging themselves. First MP, then low light, then DR, now a combination of the 3. Nikon have IMO shot themselves in the foot by taking the Sony tech, positive in the short term not so much in the long term. By ignoring their own R&D if anything happens to Sony where are they going to get their sensors from? Can Nikon afford to buy the sensor tech and facilities if Sony decided to cut the photo sector of the business like they did with the computer sector? Especially when Nikon are struggling with profit compared to Canon. Whats to say Canon won't outbid them just to put the nail in the coffin for Nikon? Although Sony is now making more money by selling sensors they are selling less cameras because the Nikon DSLRs are far better than the Sony equivalent… its all a pretty unstable equation if you ask me.

Mirrorless is where Sony are innovating but IMO its just bodies the lenses aren't up to scratch. The 24-70mm F4 doesn't deserve to be warring a Zeiss badge. The 50mm and 35mm ok great performers, but slow again for primes and the 70-200mm is expensive looks redic, is slow and is a tiny range, the average photographer needs more than 200mm. The 70-200mm is perfect for events but not so much for a do it all tele like a 70-300mm. If it had been a 2.8 it would have made more sense releasing it first. 

Maybe Canon are just biding their time a little, see how these products are received and see what the actual figures are.

There are thousands of users on this site. There are a group of people that always post images and a large percentage that don't and won't get anywhere near the cameras shutter life. Many buy the best cameras on the market designed for professionals to brag and have the best, thats fine, if these people didn't exist the prosumer market wouldn't exist and it would be difficult to run a company just on sales from pros. Pros don't generally swap a whole system for small gains. The amateurs are the target and they are the ones that spend the serious money as a whole group, lower cost but huge numbers. Not the pro who spends 10-15k on a kit because pro numbers are dwindled compared to amateurs upgrading the camera every 2-3 years.

I don't know if you people know many pros? But the pros I know are tight, they only spend money on gear when they absolutely have to because buying a lens for 1-4k it takes a lot of profit to justify. Bodies are justifiable as they are much cheaper and do actively improve. There are very few pros who would be willing to swap a system for small gains, they like their gear and swear by it, acknowledge flaws and deal with them through skill.

Its like many items, cars for example, 90% of cars today are made to break the law in terms of speed all will do over 70mph, but people agonise about hp, 0-60, mid range torque etc and these things in general driving make no difference in how you get from a-b unless you break the law, but are nice to have. Im a self confessed car bloke and have a high performance car that is too quick for the road but I love it, I don't need it but I wanted it, and its the same for cameras some people NEED and others WANT.

These cars are expensive so they are babied and left in the garage and become garage queens, they aren't used then they get a mediocre price for them when they trade in and feel worse because it was never used to its potential. Some people use them to track instead, used and abused and as long as it performs and the smiles are there they generally don't care. Same with cameras, I use my gear and through use and event situations it gets banged and scratched but to me its a tool and I bought it to earn money and don't expect to sell it to fund another, my skill does that. I actually prefer the used look to my cameras, detours theirs. Whereas some may buy a camera and use it very sparingly for certain occasions and clean and care for it and enjoy having it. Thats fine too. 

Thats the way the world works and it would be a boring place if we were all the same.

Many of posts I read quoting that the Canon sensors can't recover shadows of 5 stops, well no it cant. Frankly its a big ask to expect, 5 stops is the difference between day and complete darkness. IMO it is interesting to see, but is it useful? For many pros no, because you would never shoot like that or ever rely on pushing the tech to its absolute limits. The limit is there IMO for a last resort and not to be relied on because you are a poor photographer, if that is the case and people are paying for your services it is unethical and it gives the rest of us a bad name. 

If there is a high contrast situation then bracketing is a simple solution it adds 30 seconds to your workflow by creating 32bit TIFF files camera raw can read. Simple. Of corse not all situations lend themselves to HDR, moving subjects, portraits etc but there is enough latitude to sort these problems, if there isn't then the only option is move yourself into a place where there is better light, front lit another angle etc or if it is a portrait then add light with flash and diffusion.

That is the skill of photography controlling the light. What you are doing in post by pulling shadows and reducing highlights is the same thing but relying on the camera to be able to simulate.

Yes its easier from one raw file and what the Sony cameras can do is incredible, but for most good photographers its not a deal breaker. Now would I be complaining if I had that latitude? Certainly not and pushing the boundaries is what I expect from a successful company. Do I expect more? Yes its nearly 3 years so I expect the next iteration to be better. But at the same time I'm not looking at other systems enviously, thinking of swapping my pro gear for it! I have said many times that I'm constantly impressed with my 5DMKIII, I shoot demanding event situations and it never ever fails me. What does fail me every once and a while is my mistakes but I am human therefore I AM ALLOUD TO!! 

In fact I'm about to go traveling on a photo tour for 5 months across south, central and north America. I was tempted to buy the A7 for its size and IQ as its as good as my 5DMKIII with a little better latitude half the size and 1/3 the weight. Again full of compromise the glass is slow, there is nothing past 200mm no wide angle and the cost for the body 24-70 F4 and 70-200mm F4 was £3000!! Im shooting everything from wildlife in the amazon, portraits and landscape and generally documenting the trip and the A series it just doesn't cut it for a camera that can do everything, its ok as a run and gun documentary camera but its not suited to most situations like the 5D. Really disappointing as the size would be perfect. Yes even more disappointing that Canon doesn't have an equivalent mirrorless option. I have said for ages stick the 20.2 or 23mp sensor of the 5 or 6D in a small body and it will sell like hot cakes. So it is frustrating, and i love the 5DMKIII but carrying 4kgs of camera equipment not including any of my supplies 14,000 miles isn't exactly ideal, but the compromise is worth it because I know it will serve me well for every situation, weight is something I will just have to deal with.

There are a few people that require the extremes of the scale. But the aim of any camera is to give useable quality across a range of moonlight -3EV and bright sunlight. There is always a compromise and there are always ways around problems. This is where your skill comes in to solve the problem and be able to work quickly under pressure. 

The difference between a pro and an amateur, needs and wants its a complex equation.


----------



## lo lite (Oct 2, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> As for threads spiraling down toward off-topic (dynamic range) discussion, this is an effect of a higher level of user self-governance instead invasive moderation. As it happens, I like this *much* better than zealous mods "cleaning up" threads and watching for off topic posts to sanction.



As some of you might know there are several rules or laws (not legal ones) of internet discussions which originate from the usenet: http://www.digital-rights.net/?p=2788 Usually, a certain behavior which was observed regularly was later promulgated by someone as a "law". Best known example is the infamous godwin's law.

So I hereby proclaim a new one. I call it the Canon Rumors' law:

_“As an online camera discussion grows longer, the probability of involving dynamic range approaches one.”_

 ;D 8)


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 2, 2014)

tomscott said:


> The thing with rumours forums is that I would say IMO most of the users are more interested in the tech than actually getting out into the field. Discussing tech is what the forum is for, agonising over the tech.



I am pretty sure the forum is moving forward, when I entered CR ~3 years back my impression was it was mostly about showing off your L equipment in your tag line and rating negative karma to anyone saying anything critical about our favorite brand. In the recent time, there has been much more expansion and the opening of a busy postprocessing and technique section, so I'm confident I won't be annoyed by CR in the future that easily.


----------



## pierlux (Oct 2, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I find the level of perceived trolling very low in comparison to other Internet photog forums, and the user interaction very nice and considerate in comparison to other tech forums.


This is the correct picture. It's up to all of us to keep things going this way. The simple fact that we have acknowledged a negative trend in recent times and are discussing about it is encouraging. Fortunately, it appears we are a mature and responsible community, thanks also to the excellent work of the mods.



Marsu42 said:


> The one problem that it's a rumor site without rumors as Canon isn't doing much revolutionary, so speculation always revolves around the same points.


Another fair comment, although I think DPAF for one (and all that can possibly stem from it in the future) is revolutionary. Moreover, as far as leaks are concerned, even Apple look like a cullender compared to Canon. Life is so much easier on nikonrumors, fujirumors etc.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 2, 2014)

pierlux said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > The one problem that it's a rumor site without rumors as Canon isn't doing much revolutionary, so speculation always revolves around the same points.
> ...



"Revolutionary" isn't necessarily beneficial, I'm in favor of Canon equipment "just working" as long as they cut back their over-crippling beyond the understandable need for product separation. Look at Sony, if your brand keeps changing lens mounts obsoleting all your equipment, you've certainly got something to discuss


----------



## tomscott (Oct 2, 2014)

Evolution is just as important as revolution. Evolution is where Canon wins, their product is so refined, it just works and works well! There isn't much scope to innovate in the market.

Mirroless is an evolution, currently nobody has made an innovative mirrorless camera. They are full of compromise and rushed to market to be first. They are just smaller cameras with a bigger sensors, EVFs are interesting but they still dont compare to optical, the hybrid VFs are more interesting I think. There are inherent problems with making something smaller. You can't get away from the fact that making high quality, fast glass makes a heavy large product. Putting these lenses on a small body compromises the ergonomics.

Make the body too small you are limiting your ability to create lenses that are comparable in quality and price to the DSLR counterparts, miniaturising reduces quality and costs more. Leica lenses are the exception in size but they don't have AF or any modern tech that we are used to and are very expensive.


----------



## David Hull (Oct 2, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> I think there is a genuine concern that Canon sensors are no long competitive and are a generation or two behind Sony and Nikon (same sensor). There is some minor gripping about this and that feature or mirroless offerings but the real complaint is the sensor. When Canon had the best sensors (a long run) the Nikon fan sites were awash with similar complaints on their sites and the fanboys saying things like "12MP is all you ever need". Same thing you are seeing now on this site. The fanboys are saying things like "18MP is all you need". "I would never buy a camera with than many mega pixels", or "It's the glass, yeah, thats why I stay with Canon" ignoring the fact that Nikon has equally fine glass and Sony shooters have access to better stuff. If Canon catches up the same old fanboys will be lining up to buy the best stuff and crowing about how important the big sensors are.


I think some of the Canon commenters should feel a bit vindicated by the fact that Nikon just dialed back the MP in their latest FF camera to 24. They must have had some reason for doing that. It wasn't to save money as the sensor will be the same parts cost. I suspect that there were plenty of Nikon users that really had no use for 36 MP. I think they wanted to put something closer to the 5DIII.


----------



## AmselAdans (Oct 2, 2014)

lo lite said:


> I call it the Canon Rumors' law or — if you like — the Jrista's law
> _“As an online camera discussion grows longer, the probability of involving dynamic range approaches one.”_



made my day  
as there is no need to get personal, and jrista is not the only one constantly picking on this topic (despite earning awards for the most lengthy postings ever), I think Canon Rumor's law ("CR's law" has a quite good sound) fits best.


----------



## SwampYankee (Oct 2, 2014)

David Hull said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is a genuine concern that Canon sensors are no long competitive and are a generation or two behind Sony and Nikon (same sensor). There is some minor gripping about this and that feature or mirroless offerings but the real complaint is the sensor. When Canon had the best sensors (a long run) the Nikon fan sites were awash with similar complaints on their sites and the fanboys saying things like "12MP is all you ever need". Same thing you are seeing now on this site. The fanboys are saying things like "18MP is all you need". "I would never buy a camera with than many mega pixels", or "It's the glass, yeah, thats why I stay with Canon" ignoring the fact that Nikon has equally fine glass and Sony shooters have access to better stuff. If Canon catches up the same old fanboys will be lining up to buy the best stuff and crowing about how important the big sensors are.
> ...



Nikon dialed back nothing. Did they take their 36mp sensor off the market?????? They used a cheaper (but better than Canon) sensor so they would not compete against the 820D. They built a camera at a price point (cheaper than Canon, more MP) so as not to cannibalize a market they already serve. Nikon gives their customers a choice of FF sensors "36mm? yeah, we have that..... will 24 do? Sure, we have that too". Canon (18, or 20 or 22....want more? we don't have it and you don't need it....BTW we have better glass). I will not stop saying it. The most important component of a camera is the sensor. Canon sensors are not as good as Nikon and Sony sensors. CANON!! WE WANT BETTER SENSORS!!!! WE WANT WHAT NIKON AND SONY HAVE!!!!


----------



## TeT (Oct 2, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > SwampYankee said:
> ...


----------



## lo lite (Oct 2, 2014)

AmselAdans said:


> lo lite said:
> 
> 
> > I call it the Canon Rumors' law or — if you like — the Jrista's law
> ...



O.k. valid objection. I'll remove the personal reference in my post. Let it be CR's law.


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 2, 2014)

Very well said, Bravo!





AcutancePhotography said:


> There are fan boys on all the sites as there are complainers on all the sites.
> 
> There is not a camera made today that some won't be fan boys of and others will consistantly complain about (sometimes they are the same person!)
> 
> ...


----------



## David Hull (Oct 2, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > SwampYankee said:
> ...


That 24 MP sensor isn't any cheaper than the 36 MP one -- same technology, same wafer cost, same yield, same number of die per wafer -- that's how it works. They put a 24 MP camera on the market because there was demand for better performance in terms of something other than the MP number. I expect that a sufficient number of Nikon users wanted smaller file size and the 62% higher firing rate that comes with it.

As for your last comment, that about sums it up as far as I am concerned. We want it because Nikon and Sony have it. Nothing to do with better photography or any semblance of real practical need. It is all about feature envy from what I can tell. Here is a clue for you: As long as all you do is bellyache on camera forums, Canon needs to take no action. Nikon and Sony apparently make what you want so sell all your stuff and go buy what they make. If more of you mindless whiners did that (instead of all the mindless whining and forum trolling), you would [probably see more action from Canon -- money talks.


----------



## fragilesi (Oct 2, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> The most important component of a camera is the sensor. Canon sensors are not as good as Nikon and Sony sensors. CANON!! WE WANT BETTER SENSORS!!!! WE WANT WHAT NIKON AND SONY HAVE!!!!



Sensor is most important - matter for debate.

And you don't want what Nikon and Sony have you want what you have with Canon augmented with one component from Nikon / Sony.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 2, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> You can tell from their interviews that they just don't feel like spending the money, so nothing less than people going on and on and then starting to buy other stuff and suggest other stuff will prod them into action.



You are deluding yourself if you think for a second that Canon isn't spending money on sensors because they don't feel it is important, merely based on that interview by Mr. M. I am certain the bottleneck is that either they haven't developed a better sensor (in terms of DR) yet and it is a work in progress, or they haven't been able to find a way to produce it profitably, and/or they haven't been able to form a collaboration as Nikon has (or decided not to). 
It is a question of capability, not intent. 
Knowing the resources Canon has at its disposal, I will also speculate it is only a matter of time until we see some great stuff coming out. But only time can confirm that.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 2, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> It is a question of capability, not intent.



Maybe the patent game backfired on Canon and now they may not use that great sensor they just developed?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 2, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > It is a question of capability, not intent.
> ...



You mean the Intellectual ventures thing? It's not a biggie- they are patent trolls- they bother everybody and basically want the money.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 2, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Just a side note: patent assertion entities, AKA "patent trolls", are no minor issue. They're enough of a problem that they filed so many patent infringement complaints with the Southern District of Florida's relatively new patent law pilot program that the program was shut down.

I'm interested in the case referenced though. I was reading the '081 patent and the memorandum order and I wasn't following the court's reasoning. It seemed that they were focused on a silicide being inadvertently formed during manufacture despite it not being a part of Canon's "L34" manufacture process and a single mention of the term "Ti Silicide" in the manual for the Canon process.

I couldn't find a PDF of the final order though. If anybody knows a link for that I'd appreciate it. Normally I have Westlaw and Lexis Nexis access, but right now I don't. I was hoping the RECAP archive would have it, but nope.


----------

