Possibly my last post anywhere...

Mattykins said:
Since you clearly have established you can make a film for cheap...why don't you do it?

We have industry professionals, industry beginners, hobbyists, and amateur film makers all weighing in here. The general consensus is that films (read: movies) cost money and a good deal of it.

If you can do it cheap - then do it and prove us all wrong. I don't really see why you are wasting [our] time. The general group has one idea, and you have a different one. Take what we say as personal attack if you really want to. Because us telling you [when you asked our opinion] how [we think/know] things are despite you [phar] not liking what we are saying clearly constitutes as "...insulting, disparaging, [and] even offensive..."

Like I said, if you are educated and have evaluated your costs, do it, post it here, and tell us your underdog story. (No sarcasm intended)
Click to expand...

I am doing it, or trying to. I am sorry to waste your time, but the truth is I am not offended at all. I am really trying to understand the rationals. My comments are clarifications and attempts to probe deeper for an answer. I'm a jerk, I know that, but if I didn't really want to know I wouldn't have asked. I have no problem stating my opinion and am sorry if I offended anyone. I started learning about film and movie making in high school at HSPVA- the high school for the performing and visual arts. I continued learning about editing in college and just started making a run at this about 5 years ago. I am 30+ now and am just starting to branch out and see what's feasible. I trust the advice and admonishments I get here and thought this question would get the best response from this group.

I can not be offended by responses I asked for... I can only learn and either change my position, or understand the counter point to make a better decision later. I will do my best to do it, post it, and tell my story, but truthfully I am a nobody even if I am able to do it well because there is always another, better story around the corner...

Again I apologize for insulting anyone here and hope I haven't quelled the discussion.

Thanks.
 
pharpsied,

Good luck with your film. Make a thread here, keep is in the loop, show us how you're doing it. Bottom line is, if people were making awesome films left right and centre with uner $100k, then we'd be seeing it. Most under $100k features I've seen are not that great. (But not because of the budget - because they're about things nobody cares about, or they're terrible to look at, etc.) The thing about Rodriguez's story, is he was a package ready to go. He was ready to make something bigger with a budget. Kind of like when a major record label looks for a new artist, they want a complete package, something they can sell, or someone that has already done a lot of work for themselves and has shown they can get people to come to their shows, etc. Become a walking dollar bill, you'll get found.

Theoretically, if you have a nice camera, some lights, a few actors and a great script, a good attention to detail, knowledge on how to light things, an eye for clothing, production design, etc. Then you could be a one man crew, shoot a film for next to nothing (under a few $k), become sucessful with this film and launch yourself to the world. But the film better be f**king great. And that's where the majority of people fail. Not in the budget, they fail in the script, they fail in the production design, the acting, the direction, etc. If you can pull it off, then do it.

There are so many ways you could walk in the door. Do you want to put a star in your movie and try and sell it that way? Do you want to break sundance and try get in that way? Do you want to create a cult masterpiece and get people talking?

Make a good film and the people will come!
 
Last edited:
ChrisHurn said:
Theoretically, if you have a nice camera, some lights, a few actors and a great script, a good attention to detail, knowledge on how to light things, an eye for clothing, production design, etc. Then you could be a one man crew, shoot a film for next to nothing (under a few $k), become sucessful with this film and launch yourself to the world. But the film better be f**king great. And that's where the majority of people fail. Not in the budget, they fail in the script, they fail in the production design, the acting, the direction, etc. If you can pull it off, then do it.

Make a good film and the people will come!
Click to expand...

This is the very thing I am looking for. A reason why it would work and a reason why it wouldn't. From here I can postulate, reason a way to do it if I need to while understanding why it doesn't or hasn't worked before.

I never planned to make a 1K dollar feature, that's really, really dumb, but I wanted to know why 100K was better than 20 or 30 or 50.
 
in my experience, the key to a successful nano-budget production is simple by design, but challenging to execute. First, shape your production to use ONLY the resources available to you at no cost – locations, props, cast, gear. And second, to avoid the all too common occurrence of people backing out or flaking on you, elevate your cast and crew's creative contribution beyond the conventional model so that they are truly invested in the picture. Do not bring on a DP for you to direct, bring on a DP and encourage him or her to make it their own. Do not cast an actor to just play a character, encourage them to define and re-shape it. Do not bring in an editor to push some buttons on your behalf, give them space and encourage them to discover the film in the material you shot. Since you can't pay them, give these volunteers a true sense of creative ownership. Give them the experience of TRUE collaboration.

We've proposed a panel for the SXSW conference on exactly this topic. You can vote for it here... linky.
 
It's obviously hard enough to make a good film for millions of dollars, let alone less, haha.

I think you can make a good movie for $100K if you know what you're doing, or just over. The feature I want to shoot in about 9 months has a budget of $125K, but I also own a fair amount of equipment that'll be used for "free" to the shoot, so the budget may be closer to $150K from that perspective.

When you look at most indie features, they just look awful. There's no reason this should be the case, though. It doesn't cost a lot of money to make something look good. It does cost money, but it's not rocket science. I think there are just a lot of amateurs who don't care to take the time to make something look great. But you can use dollies, jibs, pro cameras (RED, etc.), whatever, on a $100K budget or so.
 
JonathanLB said:
When you look at most indie features, they just look awful. There's no reason this should be the case, though. It doesn't cost a lot of money to make something look good. It does cost money, but it's not rocket science. I think there are just a lot of amateurs who don't care to take the time to make something look great. But you can use dollies, jibs, pro cameras (RED, etc.), whatever, on a $100K budget or so.
Click to expand...

Interesting!

So do larger budgets equal quality, or do larger budgets equal more time to get better quality?

Or do people unconsciously work to the potential (inherent or intrinsic value) of what ever monetary value is set on a thing?
 
Well larger budgets seem to be associated with more professional efforts. I just think there are too many people whose attitude is, "I'm going to make this film no matter what," and they think this is admirable. I, however, do not. Raising $100K is not that difficult at all. You can hire a sales agent for a few months even and likely raise a lot more than that. I interviewed several people who raised $1-1.5M for local companies here making indie films. So why would you shoot your film "no matter what" even though you can only afford a tripod and 2 lights? It's just stupidity. It's stubbornness without reason. It's good to be passionate and driven and not take no for an answer, but only when you have a real vision, a professional vision, not when you're just ignoring everyone else's advice and saying, "Oh well however everyone else does it, I don't need to do it that way."

I want to see movies that look professional and won't tolerate anything else besides that. I don't care how hard you "tried." You better have great lighting, great cinematography, and great production design. I can easier forgive mediocre acting and a mediocre script, because at least your film is professional, it just isn't very good, which is the same problem most Hollywood films have. Their scripts aren't always that good either. But at least they always look good. I can't forgive amateur efforts.

It's like when a player on my baseball team goes up there to bat. I can tolerate a good at-bat where he fought through 6-7 pitches and then struck out, or hit a long fly ball. I can't tolerate striking out on 3 pitches when 2 were in the dirt. That's not acceptable. The results are the same, but the effort is not there.

A film that looks and sounds professional but has a lame story still sucks, but at least it's a decent try rather than some indie crap where they think it's ok because it's indie that it totally blows in look and sound. I don't see how that's acceptable. It's just NOT that difficult! If you can't make pro work you should never, ever be doing a feature, you should be doing shorts still.
 
I like those points Zak, about actors and crew owning their roles, that's really good.

Maybe a good idea would be to sit down and watch a whole slab of low budget indie features and work out what's good and bad. I think a lot of the time you get these feature films where the budget is around $100k, and for some reason, lots of the shots have white walls, or crappy locations, and the justification is usually "Oh, we couldn't afford a production designer" and "we couldn't get the locations we wanted". Which is total BS, IMO. If you can't get it, then don't use it, and don't try to recreate it. Use something else instead. Know your budget. And know the crew too. Don't have a crew that come on and just want their meal and the cash. You need crazy mother fuc*kers working on the film. The kind that will go home and come up with 100 ideas for the next shooting day. They haven't worked on 100 films, they probably don't care about their "crew meal". These people are worth gold. Every single person on your crew needs to be busy, working, all the time, and needs to care about the script. Even, and especially the sound guy. 5 insane passionate people with incredible talent and drive is worth more than 20 film heads who just want to work their way up in the "industry", or whatever. To truly max out a hollywood looking budget on a very low budget, you have to act like a top director. Even further, you have to be a top director. People might look at you strange and say, 'hey man, this is just a low budget film...'
kick those people off your team, you need visionaires to work with. If you're not a "Hollywood director". you won't get into Hollywood. You don't simply get "found" and then things happen. You get found when you're ready to play with the big guns. Become what it is you want to be.

I have learned NEVER to shoot a single frame until I believe 100% in the shot. No more "Oh, this is just a little transition scene, it doesn't need to look that good". None of it. Every single frame needs to be carfully picked out, and that's how you can max out your budget with next to no cash. It is not the overall package you need to look at. It's every single frame. And that's painful work. But when you put everything together, you're looking at something thats worth a lot more money for nothing. Don't have a production designer? Then that's your job, or better yet - bring someone who has an eye for that kind of thing to help out. But seriously, sometimes it is literally as simple as bringing a lamp into the foreground, out of focus. (if you'e shooting a desk for example). And things in the background.

I've learned to look at the frame and say, hey - what's needed here? I look at my background and I see it's boring, I think about something I could put there that wouldn't draw attention to itself, but enhance production value. Putting things in the foreground is something I RARELY ever see in low budget films. And it's not a budget thing! It's just a matter of using your filmhead, and saying, what do Hollywood films have that I don't? This includes actors as well, you hardly notice it sometimes but so often in high budget productions you have people walking close up and out of focus across the frame, for example if it's in a street. Low budget features rarely ever have this, and really, you could just get a few friends or one of the crew members to quicky walk across for this shot, or whatever. The actors need to be part of the location, not seperate to it.

As Zak said, "use ONLY the resources available to you at no cost ". This is how you make your films look awesome.

I think you can squeeze so much out of your budget with your eyes. Rarely is costume good in low budget films. And I'm not talking period pieces or anything, like a straight up drama with "normal" clothes. The difference between two types of jeans or shirts or whatever, the difference between coat and no coat is huge. Picking outfits that are right for the character but also look good on screen is not an expensive thing to do. It's more knowing what goes well with what, choosing appropriate styles and colours. What about makeup? go find a makeup school student and stick them in your film. You will find someone willing to work for free - money saved. That person needs experience, you're giving it to them, so it's not really "free", anyway. Makeup is also absent from a lot of extra low budget films, so use this to your advantage. And hair too. Even if it's just making it look right for the shot with a little water, spray or gel. You can do a lot of that yourself for the basic stuff. Actors in low budget productions look too clean. No makeup, no hair, just boring. Make them look like movie stars and your frame will increase in production value, making your film look more expensive.

We could talk all day about this, but at the end of the day, you need to have some sort of vision for the project, and stick to it.

Audiences are forgiving for low budget films, often they go in with low expectations, so if you blow their minds, the film will look better than it really is. But this also means that your story is going to stick out big time. And I'd say this is probably the biggest fail for most movies. The story. Nobody usually cares about the characters. Too many indie features are about nothing. But not "nothing" as in, internal conflicts and important desicisions and change...I mean nothing as in walking down to the shop and talking about polaroids nothing. Boring. Audience will yawn.

Indie films can get away with characters that a Hollywood film couldn't. So why not use those characters? Really crazy, wild characters that are interesting to listen to and help tell a good story is what we need to see. Then you max out your production values using the things you have. If you don't have swords, don't write them into your script unless you can get them cheap.

We are on the verge of another generation of films. Films made at home are looking awesome. You can literally now create Hollywood effects in your room. After effects, 3ds max etc AND the training is all readily available for good prices. There are composers everywhere, and the sound is getting better and better as sample libraries increase in quality. ...USE THIS!!!! If more directors dropped their idea of using Acid pro to make their "soundtrack" their films would look better because music (or the absense of it!) is so much more important than most people realize, in film. There are learning materials for every aspect of making a movie online, in books, in dvd's, it's all there.

RR made El mariachi like 15 years ago. That was cool at the time. NOW what someone needs to do is do exactly this - Make el mariachi BUT with hollywood effects, stylish visuals, good sound, a hollywood level soundtrack, etc. etc. and all for under $100k and in a bedroom. A bigger step up. The modern "El mariachi". A powerful film. Something that will WOW the audiences.

And it can be done. It has not been done really, to the extent of what El mariachi did in the 90's. We're in a new generation, the expectations for the look of your film are so, so so so much higher, but the technology is there to match. Somebody is going to do it, why not one of us?

Sure, there's been a bunch of low budget action films without incredible stories. There's been a bunch of good stories without good conviction. But nobody has recreated the experience of a hollywood masterpiece in their bedroom for an extremely low budget yet. And someone will. And that person will become the next big hot thing. One of us could be that person. The person with the most passion and drive will take it. If you have something to fall back on, it won't be you. You have to live film, or die, nothing else.
 
Last edited:
People who are good at what they do are more likely to charge. You have to pay them to get them. If you don't, you run the risk of them not showing up, not being serious about the project and not being very good. There's a cost.

If you're doing it right, you need insurance and filming permits.

Equipment always costs, you already know that.

Catering can add up.

Travel. The right locations. Set dressing items and materials. Wardrobe. Editors. The script might cost. Props is needed. Sound stages if needed. Housing if shooting on location. It goes on like this. There are a lot of costs, and every dollar you don't have is a corner cut. Which is fine... but after enough corners get cut, the film loses some of the professionalism and loses some of its ability to be distributed. Especially note that actors which some bankable experience have a huge part in the commercial success of the product. Speaking of which, since this is aiming for commercial success you need a legal department. And maybe an accountant, since that's a lot to take care of by yourself, especially since most filmmakers aren't great at it. Money can dry up quick after that.

Can you do these things on a low budget? Of course. But it doesn't take long to realize, once you're actually doing it, why that isn't as fun. And at some point the film suffers. I think Rodriguez was mentioned at the top of this thread. The thing people tend to gloss over is that El Mariachi sucked by today's standards, considering where technology has gone. I would not consider it acceptable quality for my own work. The budget shows, and in most cases always will. Throwing more money at the project doesn't fix everything, there are diminishing returns, but it can certainly help a lot.
 
Pharpseid, of course I wasn't trying to be insulting, and I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt on that.

We get many, many, many comments like the above, and I was trying to establish that you can enter it with one of two attitudes: as a hobby, or as a living. As a hobby, making your cash expenditures back and working nights and weekends, is fine -- and it's probably how the vast majority of the forum members operate. Most have higher aspirations, of course, but the realities of day jobs, etc., mean that they operate in that "cash out/cash in = a good thing" mode.

You didn't seem to be approaching it from that perspective, you seemed to be approaching it from the business perspective. Yet you used the "sell it for a grand, you broke even" motto, and those two things don't fit together.

So, yes, what I wrote did come across as personalized, but it really wasn't -- I usually only weigh in on these topics when I've seen the tenth or twentieth person ask something similar, and then my answers are (in my head) aimed at all of them, but that's not really fair to the o.p.

So, I apologize for sounding harsher than I meant. I was just trying to point out the realities of the situation, and if you've got your feet firmly on the ground and know what you're getting into, then go right ahead and we look forward to seeing what you come up with.
 
I think it's important to make a distinction between a director getting a 1st feature off and someone wanting to maintain business. BIG difference. FOLLOWING cost 6K and made 40K(US), hardly a living, but it paved the way for Christopher Nolan to make Memento, then Batman, etc. A first feature is almost more of a calling card for a director than a business plan. If you make a first feature for pennies then make your money back or lose money (you just spent penny's remember) and it leads to a second feature with a decent budget and a third feature with a hollywood budget - that's a win. The only lose - lose scenario on a first feature (unless you spent a million on it) is to make no money and have it open no doors.

No one is talking about making 10 features for $10K and only breaking even on every one of them.

People are talking about taking the reigns and showcasing their talent and getting it done once, for the first time, not spitting them out in a row to make money.

Our recent shorts (almost 20 pages) cost 7K. At that rate we'd shoot a feature for $28k. We'd want to kill ourselves if we shot at the same scale for that long, but if we had a concept like FOLLOWING it would be cake.
 
I think some will agree with you Ryan but are stuck doing the script out of necessity. They've never made a feature, are doing everything else themselves. No one is exactly throwing 1st rate scripts at them for free or next to nothing.
 
Ok some good things being discussed. That super long post on page 3 was fantastic, for instance, and very true.

I have never went wrong with my filmmaking since I started realizing that you hire professionals to get professional results. And I've used my own judgment on where to cut corners -- I always am annoyed at having to cut corners, it's never something you do just to be "cute" or because you somehow WANT to do more yourself. No. It's done because your budget is just not good enough to afford it all. On Winded, which has now been to 17 festivals and won 2 Best Music Video awards, we didn't have the luxury of a production designer for the story shots. I felt this was acceptable because the studio we chose was adequately production designed already in the larger sense of having beds, chairs, bar stools, etc. It lacked the details, and I had the time to carefully select what I wanted, the alcohol bottles, the bar glasses, etc. myself. It's not rocket science to do production design on a small scale like that. It's much more about the time you're willing to put in. I did, however, have several PAs (2) and several set dressers (both friends, working for free, everyone else was professional on that set) to help with placement so I could just focus on directing. I also skimped on wardrobe and made the actor and actress bring a fair selection of clothing, from which I chose their wardrobe for each shot. It worked out fine, I don't think it hurt the shoot. But those were basically the only shortcuts we took; we had a crew of almost 20, from 1st A.D. and UPM to DP, B camera, 1st A.C., P2 media manager, etc. So you can afford to take a few shortcuts but you better know where you can take them on the project.

On Ignis Fatuus, which has been to 6 festivals and has 1 win, I knew we needed a 1st A.D. and 2nd A.D. for crowd control, we had a lot of free extras (friends of the band and fans), but we didn't have the money for wardrobe, production design, or even makeup. Luckily the band had a friend who was a makeup artist, and she brought another friend who was an assistant, the two of them then did the extras and the band took care of themselves. The band also made their own awesome uniforms, that was part of the concept, and they put in a TON of work on production design and wardrobe, all done before the shoot as part of our concept. So they were able to save a lot of money by being great at this stuff anyway. The lead singer is a true craftsman. That is rare, in my experience, usually the band won't do much and you shouldn't rely on them. So it's all about knowing the project and where you can maybe afford to get some "unprofessional" labor, some hobbyists who can do a great job, etc.

One thing I would say on a feature, which I've never shot I admit, but it's a concern of mine based on my experience... be careful about wearing too many hats. Even if you have an amazing script, if you want to be a great director and show it, you can't be wearing 5 hats on the set. You just cannot do it. Your sole focus needs to be on the actors and their performances, with of course attention paid to the shot itself and what you think of it visually, but if you have everyone else doing a great job, you're going to be pretty much golden. If your DP is great, he's going to know even more about the way the shot looks and making sure it's great than you will if you're a first time director. So then it's a matter of making sure, hopefully before the shoot, that you're on the same page. Your production designer is going to have an eye on how things look inside of the frame. Your locations are going to be sweet because you planned well or had a great producer to help you out with getting them, etc.

If you think about it, how many Hollywood films still don't have very good directing and yet these directors were often surrounded by every position imaginable and free to do just the directing part of the job? So you have to be a truly once-in-a-generation talent to do 5 jobs at once and have them all be amazing and your film turn out great. So even if it's indie work, I caution, you really need to surround yourself with good people who will free you to do your job -- direct!

---

Barry, Jack's point is what I was going to write as well. On my first feature, would I like to make my money back? Yes, I would. And I think I can. While I've heard a lot of negativity on this forum (and believe sometimes that's natural), both my DP and my UPM have worked on numerous feature films, dozens between them both, almost always $100K to $500K budgets, and neither of them express the "reality" that has been dealt here over and over again that it's nearly impossible to make your money back. In fact the UPM says for a $150K feature, it's almost a slam dunk to make your money back at least. The DP says for that range, "it has to suck not to make its money back." These are people who do this every day and who have done countless features, all with similar results. So the whole negativity I've seen here, I have for so long thought, well, people on DVXUser are smart filmmakers, I should listen to them, etc., but I feel I would never do anything if I listened to people here -- no offense. That negative reality doesn't seem to be the case in the type of circles I'm working in, and I don't believe that because someone made a crappy indie film for $100K and didn't make their money back that it means somehow it's impossible. I think I understand the risks fully, and I'll take my chances, because if I had listened to people who told me this or that was impossible, I would never have gotten anything done in my life. Everything great I have accomplished has been "impossible" to most people, so I have to conclude that sometimes it's better to just do it, as Nike says, than think about it too much.

What I was specifically wanting to say, though, which Jack addressed, is that you don't intend for every feature film to have the same outcome. If I direct a first feature for $150K and let's say I spend $175K including my marketing and advertising, submitting to festivals, etc. If I sold the film for $75,000 and took a loss on it, but that project opened doors for me and got me a second project or got me representation for the other scripts I have written, etc., then it would be worthwhile despite the loss. So if I made my money back exactly, and put in all of this time "for free," that would actually be great in my book because it would be a big boon to my career. In any business pursuit, you have to spend money before you can make it. I'm in business for myself, paying an employee, paying a lot of money for insurance, storage, equipment, etc., all because I believe that in time it will pay off and I'll make money. But that doesn't start immediately.

---

Ryan -- I'm going to sound like a hypocrite maybe, but I totally agree with you. Unfortunately that's one of the biggest problems with all indie projects, short films, feature films, you name it. Most people cannot write. Or they think they can, but they can't. And at the same time, nobody can tell you that you can't do something, blah blah etc, so you have to try it for yourself. But the issue is most people don't put in the time to learn how a script really comes together, and they are not critical enough evaluating their own writing. They also don't workshop it properly. I'm working on my feature script for the one I want to shoot, but meanwhile I'm finishing a second script I wrote and outlining a third, all because that process helps me see each one of them better, and focus on making them each their best. When I am happy personally with the first script, I have my actor and actress for that project lined up (B listers will fill the other roles, I hope, at least a few), and then we are going to workshop the script for several drafts just over e-mail and whatnot. After that, I want to do a reading on camera just so we can see how the lines sound, how it all plays out and comes together, etc. There will be a lot of people involved in making sure we feel we have a very strong script before we are ever prepping to shoot it. It's pretty tough to make a good film out of a bad script! So yes, I think most people should find a friend who is a good writer or find a good script somehow, but most people will not do that. I guess they have to learn the hard way they just don't have it. I started writing professionally when I was 17, and published several books, so writing has always been something I love, but screenwriting is still relatively new to me. I took a class in college in 2005 on screenwriting, and I've taken another since then, but mostly just practicing myself, a lot of reading to filter out ideas, etc.
 
Don't live in the past for comparisons, those will never happen again, sorry to say it... The business has changed so much it'll take most people 5 years to understand what is going on.

Don't expect much from foreign money ever again, the market is diluted beyond belief and will be worse very soon.

100,000 indie movies are looking for dist right now, heck, I think 7k or 8k were submitted to sundance last year alone.

Studios are squeezing out indies and dist companies like there is no tomorrow. Call it the
Wal-Mart effect if you want, it's just the way it is.

Media business model has changed big time. Friends who have produced feature movies (all in theaters) are getting out of the biz (a lot of them, very successful people) If you want to make money sell the dream, sell cameras, open up a directing school just don't expect to make much money from making indie movies, expect to lose your ass.

I was told that by someone who knows someone who robbed someone, he is now producing $800M worth of movies for a major studio.
 
Sorry, had to say something...

EDIT: Forgot about the 1 in 1m people like Faith who come along and is close to pulling off something good, unique and different. Dunno if she will get a dist deal (it's tuff out there) but I'll bet she gets 5x on her money self dist if she does go that route.
 
Last edited:
Robert Rodriguez filmed El Mariachi on a $7,000 and he had it WAY harder than we all do today with modern technology. If you watch his interviews or read his book, he had to make so many tough choices and just refuse to spend money, because he simply didn't have it. Now, I'm not going to say we're all capable of what Robert Rodriguez is doing, but the "not having money" excuse is old. All the means of production in filmmaking today are more accessible, easier to use, and cheaper. There is absolutely not a single reason in the universe that we shouldn't all be out giving 100% of the time to make it in the industry.
 
Last edited:
Finnegan said:
Robert Rodriguez filmed El Mariachi on a $7,000 and he had it WAY harder than we all do today with modern technology.
Click to expand...

Yea right, 100,000 indie movies were competing with it... Read my above post. Competition will kill you faster than anything. It'll work once, maybe twice, Blair Witch didn't even work twice btw.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
1. Pharpseid, of course I wasn't trying to be insulting, and I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt on that.


2. You didn't seem to be approaching it from that perspective, you seemed to be approaching it from the business perspective. Yet you used the "sell it for a grand, you broke even" motto, and those two things don't fit together.
Click to expand...

1. Thank you for not taking offense at my reply, but understanding what I was attempting to say!

2. You are absolutely right. I have to be careful of things like that, those dubious assertions. Sometimes, in trying to make a point, we can go further than we really need to go- thanks for checking me on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top