Metallica ? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: July 05 2009 at 15:59

Claude, after so many posts, I only have to say something.

As long as I don't insult anybody (And I haven't done it), I will give my opinions and arguments.

I stand on everything I said.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 05 2009 at 16:00

Transgressor View Drop Down

Forum Newbie

Joined: July 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12

Posted: July 05 2009 at 16:12

x debrewguy

Yes, I know that not so many people know the technical metal movement of the '80. Only who is keen on technical metal knows these things so it's obvious that for many people Metallica (a really really really famous band) are innovators also for techno-thrash metal because a lot of them knows only and justice for all...and maybe other who knows also Megadeth mentioned them together with the san francisco band.

It's the same thing for people that thinks that Dream Theater invented prog metal. That it's not true. But a lot people knows only them.

By now, I'm thinking about some presentations for other bands....maybe!
I don't think that the add of "prog related" section to the site is a good think. But it's only my opinion...

P.S. I can recommend some band to you, but it depends on your musical tastes... Wink

Tony R

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979

Posted: July 05 2009 at 16:25

Who joins a Prog Rock site just to discuss Metallica and Metal?

Confused

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: July 05 2009 at 17:19

Ahem...

JJLehto wrote:

3 prog-ish albums does not a prog-related band make.

True, but 5 utterly progressive (including 3 pure Prog Metal albums a Prog Metal band easily makes.

Transgressor wrote:

So: Rust in Peace is a prog-thrash album more than every album Metallica did.

No, it isn't.

It's a good album, but Megadeth never got into the purely progressive way of writing that Metallica did on albums 2-4.

I'll re-listen, but Megadeth are a technical metal band, not a progressive metal band.

Tech is not the same as prog.

Transgressor wrote:

The question is: why Metallica and not Megadeth or Coroner (or others more proggy and more important for techincal and prog metal music than Metallica)?

Coroner were never as progressive as Metallica - and I cannot think of any band as progressive or more important for prog metal than Metallica.

Can you provide good examples of how Coroner are important to Progressive Metal?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Metallica was added because of preasure of a group of members against the opinion of the vast majority, this poll proves it, that ended convincing the owner who was against the inclusion.

Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

No - Metallica were added because they are fundamentally crucial to the development of progressive metal, as much as the Beatles were to Progressive Rock.

They changed the possibilities of the Metal genre that much.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ So Metallica are prog after all? Tongue

By the contrary, they are a non Prog band added with the excuse that Prog Related is not Prog, if they were Prog, the Prog Metal Team would had added Metallica.

Iván

On the contrary, they were probably the first Prog Metal band. They are not simply Prog related, they are Prog. By every definition.

JJLehto wrote:

Especially when they started as thrash metal, and that was their intent.

Really - I don't ever remember seeing them saying that - can you point me to an article where they said that?

They always wanted to push the envelope (which they did), hence Cliff Burton was the bassist of choice, not Ron McGoverney.

They wanted someone who could think coherently about pushing musical boundaries, which is why Dave Mustaine was fired from the band. (Nothing against Dave or his phenomenal abilities, just bluntly stating what actually happened).

JJLehto wrote:

So because Lars says it, that makes it true?

Actually, no - if you listen to the music, it is true!

JJLehto wrote:

Besides Kill 'em All was open E riffing for 5 minutes, with crazy solos of course.

Some tracks have passages of open E riffing, it's true, but not the whole album - that is a fallacy!

You could say the same about many Hawkwind albums, but you'll never see Hawkwind being disputed on this forum.

JJLehto wrote:

Thus, proving my point Metallica is a thrash metal band, that was their intent NOT to be progressive.

Sorry - I don't follow the logic.

How is that point proven?

Please explain, and use musical examples so that your logic may be followed more clearly.

JJLehto wrote:

However, since they are on this site Megadeth MUST be as well. Someone also mentioned Coroner.
These should be added, since Metallica is.

Not at all, unless both bands can be proven to have been as significantly Progressive Metal as Metallica. Which I doubt - but would be very interested to read the arguments, as I like both bands.

debrewguy wrote:

And Master of Puppets & And Justice for All are prog.

And Ride The Lightning - and parts of Kill 'Em All too.

debrewguy wrote:

Again, COMMERCIAL SUCCESS is the easiest & biggest reason when it comes to such groups being slammed as not prog. Because everyone thinks they know the music.

Isn't it wierd how commercial success hasn't affected Genesis, Yes, Tull or especially Pink Floyd's standing as Prog Rock groups?

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: July 05 2009 at 17:30

Hey, feel free to use my posts as examples but I'm officially done with this thread.
Not that I'm angry but I've heard sufficient explanation's from the mods/collabs

I still don't really agree...but I DO see why Metallica has been included, I really do see their points.
Besides, debating is fun...but pretty pointless since they are on.

So don't worry guys, no more trouble from me Wink

Edited by JJLehto - July 05 2009 at 17:42

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: July 05 2009 at 17:35

Now THIS needs its very own reply...

Transgressor wrote:

debrewguy wrote:

And Master of Puppets & And Justice for All are prog.

Ah-ehm...NO!!!

Ah-ehm.... YES!!!

Transgressor wrote:

There are only some prog influences in ...and justice for all (and we can count maybe master of puppets)
In techincal metal Metallica were followers not leaders. (I consider Master and justice two metal masterpiece eh...so it's not about likes and dislikes)

Can you be more specific - "Prog Influences" - what do you mean?

Both albums are so intensely influential that they don't need to have Prog influences - indeed, surely if you're influenced by a Prog Band, that pretty much denies the possibility of your band being Prog!

Transgressor wrote:

Here is a list in cronological order of the most important album of the eighties about prog and technical metal (I've focused on technical thrash listing to see that techno thrash was a movement that doesn't belong to or start with Metallica)

1985
"Killing is my business..."- Megadeth (thrash with tech elements and prog elements)
"Energetic Disassembly" WatchTower (the first techincal metal album)
"The Spectre within"- Fates Warning (Heavy/Power with prog elements)

Hang on - you've forgotten about all the thrash that existed before 1985 - these albums did not come out of a vacuum!

Killing Is My Business was released TWO YEARS after Kill 'Em All, yet features some of the same riffs.

It is obviously more rock/metal based than "pure metal" based, and is more technically aligned than Kill 'Em All, which is a perfect blend of technicality (considering it was released so much earlier) and developing riffs more closely aligned with King Crimson than Judas Priest or Black Sabbath.

The Fates Warning album I'm not sure about - I heard a couple of tracks from it, and it's not very progressive.

Watchtower I've reviewed - it's not Prog, it's pure tech, which is something different.

Transgressor wrote:

1986
"Baptism under fire "- Juggernaut (prog-thrash)
"Peace Sells..." Megadeth (thrash with tech elements and prog elements)
"Awaken the Guardian"- Fates Warning (Heavy/Power with more and more prog elements)
"Somewhere in time"- Iron Maiden (Heavy with some prog elements)
"Rage for Order" Queensryche (Heavy that has influenced prog)
(Master of puppets)

Hang on - What are all these Prog elements?

Master of Puppets doesn't just have elements, it drips Prog - it out-Progs Prog - it is one of the Proggiest Prog Metal albums I have EVER heard.

There's stuff on "Master..." that you still hear being recycled by other bands - and Dream Theater are only one of the bands that were HIGHLY influenced by that one album.

Trying to think of a successful band that has been as strongly influenced by any of the other albums... Nope.

Transgressor wrote:

1987
"RIP"- Coroner (thrash with high tech elements)
"Killing Technology"- Voivod (thrash with high tech elements)
"Mekong Delta- Mekong Delta (prog-thrash)
"Trouble within"- Juggernaut (prog-thrash)
"Into THe Pandemonium" Celtic Frost (it was called Avantgarde Metal)

OK, the big mistake you're making is equating tech with Prog - it's not the same thing.

Celtic Frost I'd agree with - that's one quirky album, and I love it.

BUT

Despite the varied styles on that album, it's not as inherently Proggy as Master Of Puppets - or Ride The Lightning, come to that.

Transgressor wrote:

I have also to think about
"The ultra violence" (1987)- "frolic through the park" (1988) by Death Angel;

Man - you can't be serious!

Transgressor wrote:

TEstament's "Practice what you preach" (1989), and maybe also Anthrax's "Persistence of time" (1990); "Twisted into form" (1990) by Forbidden .......

Testament?

Anthrax? (You're making me laugh!)

Sorry, but the entire list here is made up of albums that are either technical, or only partially Prog (ie, Prog-Related, which is what Queensryche arguably are).

Metallica's first 5 albums changed heavy metal forever - especially their 3rd and 4th albums (with a large consideration to the 5th, no matter how standard it is now).

Metallica were pure, aggressive leaders - but they were also humble followers - they knew the music they liked, and they played it.

More often than not, they played it better than the people who originally wrote it - but always gave full credit and support to those bands.

Yes, back in the day, Metallica were a seriously good (and PROGRESSIVE) band.

Edited by Certif1ed - July 05 2009 at 17:37

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: July 05 2009 at 18:06

Certif1ed wrote:

On the contrary, they were probably the first Prog Metal band. They are not simply Prog related, they are Prog. By every definition.

Seems a paradox, but I'm sure that if added to Prog Metal, probably all this problems would have been avoided, because the Metal component is so strong in Metallica, that nobody would had questioned the decision of the team.

The rejection of Prog Metal caused this conflict of watching a 100% Metal band, rejected by all the three Prog Metal sub-genres added to PR.

But the Prog Metal team took a decision from the start and that's what they are here for.

Iván

BTW: I like your signature:

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. "

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 05 2009 at 18:07

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: July 05 2009 at 19:41

I added this band so I feel specially compromised when people say that metallica was added just because of sheer pressure put on by a group of members.... sounds like a big ugly mob just swept away with reason and logic and got Metallica into the weak and easy-to-manipulate heads of the Admin team and the site's owner....

By the way, just a useless personal point.... Metallica's been here for a loong time... I still haven't reviewed one SINGLE ALBUM.... and I have reviewed plenty of albums since they were added.... maybe, just maybe I (as well as the rest of the "add metallica" crew) HONESTLY THOUGH METALLICA BELONGED HERE as honestly as you Ivan believe they didn't? Maybe?? Maybe???

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

The T wrote:

Interesting Ivan... You're supposed to, when controversional additions are done, say your opinion and then let it be... That's what you've said yourself countless times.... Now with Metallica, you keep coming back... you just can't let this one rest, too?

Have you followed this thread T?????? Yes, in my case always, since I added this band and is a band I like and an addition I still want to defend.

I didn't brought Metallica here Obviously since the thread is even called "Metallica?" I'm not saying you did..., it was on discussion long 13 posts and several pages before I dared to join,why did you join if A) you don't care for the bad, and B) "once it's added, I let it be". You didn't said a word about other members having disagreements or about people making statements in favour, but seems that as soon as I give my opinion is wrong if I don't agree with you.Other members don't say "once a band is added I let it be"... also, most people who object to Metallica's inclusion do it from a musical point of view, they're still discussing something that was settled... You, on the other hand, keep bringing back the "group who pressured the owner into changing his mind" argument... You've done it before... And I denounced it back then... And I will keep on doing it... We'll always be boring perople with this Ivan whenever you mention how we machiavelliically made the site owner and admin team fall for our request.

- I have to accept if you disagree with me.No.

- I can accept you insist hundreds of times even after a band is rejected. Yes...

- But I won't accept that you or anybody limit my right to disagree and give my arguments.The band is added. besides, the two arguments that you give are:

"Once an addition is done, I let it be". Why don't you add this to that phrase?: "except with Metallica."

"they are here because of pressure of a group of people that finally convinced the site owner" ... that all your argument... You left the musical discussion LONG AGO....

The T wrote:

We know your arguments and they're valid though I don't agree with them. It's this part that always had problems with:

If you claim your right to disagree....Then allow me the same right...But don't worry, even if you don't allow me that right I will use it.I know you will. And I don't deny you that. You are the one who said "once a band it's added, i let it be"....

The T wrote:

You keep coming back to this point disrespecting the same admins and the SITE OWNER WHO HIMSELF said "GREAT JOB ON THE BIO - GREAT ADDITION"...... Basically you're saying we brainwashed M@x, aren't you saying that?

1.- Isn't it true that M@X was STRONGLY against the inclusion of Metallica? Read this word that you yourself wrote: WAS.... WAS,..... WAS....

Easy Livin Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Site Admin & Moderator Joined: February 21 2004 Location: Scotland Online Status: Offline Posts: 12589	Posted: May 31 2007 at 15:25
	The Admin team considered the addition of Metallca very carefully. In the end, we could not come to a decision we could all agree on, so the matter was referred to M@x for the final say. He has come back with a very definite no. Metallica will not therefore be added. No matter what the decision was, it was always going to be controversial. I'm sure those who were for them being added will respect the final decision, even though they disagree with it.
	The Ultimate Progressive Rock Music Discography, Reviews and Forum. www.ProgArchives.com

2.- Isn't it true that in every single poll most members voted against Metallica??????Yes... but PA is not a democracy. And polls have never decided if a band gets here or not.

3.- Isn't it truth that Metallica was rejected many times?????????Yes, but we're people, we CAN change our minds.... we don't have to always have the same mindset... conservativism in arts is difficult to sustain

4.- Isn't it true that you insisted despite they were rejected by M@X (Read the upper quote)?????Yes.... But the now-infamous 36-page thread WAS NOT STARTED BY ME AND IF YOU CARE TO CHECK IT I STARTED TO ARGUE IN FAVOR OF METALLICA A FEW PAGES INTO THE THREAD...

5.- Isn't it truth that Metallica was added only after a 10 or 13 pages thread started after several rejections??? Yes.... again, by a third member.... who I don't even remember....

You're always right. 5 YES!

But most important:

I NEVER DISRESPECTED THE ADMINISTRATORS OR THE OWNER.I never literally said you did. I said you may think we brainwashed the site owner, which is more an attack to our integrity... But you're a lawyer Ivan, read through my words....

I MAY DISGREE WITH ONE OR MORE OF THEM IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS, BUT THAT ISN'T DISRESPECT, THIS IS A DISCUSSION SITE AND DISAGREEMENT IS NOT EQUAL TO DISRESPECT .............LEARN IT.you better learn that your "lawyer" tone is not ALWAYS PLEASING FOR THE REST OF THE PEOPLE.... we ALL can learn something every day

Then I haven't said a lie or anything false, I stand on what i said.I will not say otherwise.

If you like my opinion, it's ok with me if you don't like it, well it's your problem......not mine..I have no problems with you believing anything you want. Just stop the "metallica was added because pressure of a group" even though "once a band is added I let it be"

The T wrote:

Can you leave this thing be? Will this really hurt you till the end of times? Maybe, just MAYBE, you were wrong and the people supporting the addition were right... just maybe... MAYBE we didn't just use "pressure against the opinion of the vast majority".... Last time I checked, anyway, and you have said that yourself, the owner's opinion mattered more than "the vast majority:...

M@X decided it, I believe it was a mistake, I won't even try to revoke his decision, because it's his site and he decides, I respect his decision but I can disagree, and I'm sure M@X respects my right to disagree with him.Yes he does, i'm sure. Again, I never literally said you disrespected [email protected] just ASKED you if you thought we brainwasehd him... you read it through my words... You always have to read every possible meaning in people's words Ivan.... I understand that. Now whether I meant that or not, only I can know.... But it's baffling how you keep saying you weren't disrespecting nobody.... why does this haunt you so much Ivan?

I have always respected you but please, stop with the "pressure group who convinced the site owner" thing... it is DISRESPECTFUL for a group of people who HONESTLY BELIEVED METALLICA DESERVED TO BE HERE and who got the decision overturned BECAUSE OF THE STRENGTH OF THEIR ARGUMENTS... you should be a defender of arguments Ivan... accept it...

The T wrote:

So, as the owner has spoken, can't we let this thing be? Forget this thing?

Say that to the people that gave their opinions (against or in favour) 13 posts and several pages before I joined this thread. Every now and then you keep bringing the "gropu of people who pressured blah blah blah" argument to the fore... that's why I reply you... other people discuss the subject and let it go.... you keep coming back after an addition that was done long ago.... a biography that took me some time to write.... something I did for the site, again, with no personal interest (I haven't even reviewed a single Metallica album yet, again)....

Try for once to see some error in your ways, too.

Iván Teodoro Gomez de la Torre R.

[/QUOTE]

Edited by The T - July 05 2009 at 20:17

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: July 05 2009 at 19:48

So......all that red and big font was totally necessary.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: July 05 2009 at 19:57

JJLehto wrote:

So......all that red and big font was totally necessary.

Was it the big black font that preceded it?

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: July 05 2009 at 19:59

So guys, why hasn't Slayer been added to the archives yet?

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: July 05 2009 at 20:14

It can be done... give us enough time... none withstands our pressure....

Easy Money View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10617

Posted: July 05 2009 at 20:15

JJLehto wrote:

So guys, why hasn't Slayer been added to the archives yet?

Because you haven't added them yet, ...yeah that's right, you have to work your way up to collab so that you can add any band you like, I like to do it late at night when no one is watching, how do you think all these bands got here: Miles, Hendrix, Funkadelic, Jethro Tull (loved seeing their album cover in the above dadaistic explosion of fonts) Earth Wind and Fire, Led Zeplin, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, The Beach Boys etc, all added by me when no one was looking, ha ha.

The Whistler View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: August 30 2006
Location: LA, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 7113

Posted: July 05 2009 at 20:35

Damn it man...I actually just went and looked for the Beach Boys here...

"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: July 05 2009 at 20:40

Easy Money wrote:

JJLehto wrote:

So guys, why hasn't Slayer been added to the archives yet?

Make me a collab and I'd be glad to Wink

And I was just kidding about Slayer obviously.....but I'm sure if you tried hard enough someone could find an argument for them.

Anyway, I'm done with this Metallica thing, seriously.
But add Megadeth! Wink

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: July 05 2009 at 20:55

JJLehto wrote:

And I was just kidding about Slayer obviously.....but I'm sure if you tried hard enough someone could find an argument for them.

Uh... Hell Awaits IS prog-metal if you ask me, Until Dawn They Sleep, Crypts of Eternity, even the title track, they don't follow the typical verse-chorus pattern of thrash metal. It has a well etched, cohesive atmosphere and speaks feelings of its very own to you and whether those are feelings you find edifying is beside the point; that is not, at least ought not to be, a pre condition to determine how prog they are.

About Rust In Peace, I agree with Mark that it is technical rather than prog but I have found that a lot of bands commonly referred to as prog metal actually play technical metal so I also think Megadeth should be here. By the way, I think Peace Sells is more proggy than RIP, they cover a wider variety of styles in that album.

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: July 05 2009 at 21:15

Well, glad to see more agree about Megadeth.
I dont know so much about RIP but Peace Sells....absolutely!

JLocke

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900

Posted: July 05 2009 at 21:15

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

Why is this even an issue anymore? They are here, now. Drop it, folks.

We should try to make it more obvious to visitors that their being here does not mean that the admins and collabs of PA think that they're a prog band.

Well, the fact that Metallica is in a prog-RELATED section and not a PROG section should be obvious enough. To hell with what other conclusions might be drawn from it.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: July 05 2009 at 21:55

From all your colorful post (which you are entitled to write) I only will point a couple contradiction.

The T wrote:

- I can accept you insist hundreds of times even after a band is rejected. Yes...

According to you I have to accept that you insist hundreds of times if you want for a band addition, even if the owner says no and Easy Livin asks you to respect this position...................But you insist that I have to be silent about what I believe................Learn to accept everybody is entitled to his opinion and to voice it.

Again if you agree with this Ok, if you don't.........It's not my problem, I will use my right to voice my opinion as many times as I feel it's necessary.

If you don't like my arguments.....Go to another post.

T wrote:

you better learn that your "lawyer" tone is not ALWAYS PLEASING FOR THE REST OF THE PEOPLE.... we ALL can learn something every day

I don't give my opinions to please you or anybody, I write them because I believe in them....If this pleases you or not.....Matters very little to me

T wrote:

I never literally said you did. I said you may think we brainwashed the site owner, which is more an attack to our integrity... But you're a lawyer Ivan, read through my words....

Preasure is not brainwashing (You are watching too many spy movies

), better study the meanigs of the words, every post we make, every suggestion we do is a form of preasure in one form opr another, but a 26 pages thread for a band rejected several times is too much in my opinion.

Now I know Metallica are here to stay and believe it or not, doesn't affect me, so this point is over for me, write as many red posts as you want.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 05 2009 at 23:01

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: July 05 2009 at 22:35

Ivan, what you still don't understand is that your disagreeing with Metallica's inclusion is no big deal to me... what pisses me off is how you repeat, every chance you have, that we added the band out of pressure and pushing for it and convincing the owner of something against any logic.... you understand that that could be slightly offensive, don't you? I don't really give a damn whether you think Metallica is prog-related or not, and I'm happy you don't give a damn about my opinion either.... but at least RESPECT THE PEOPLE WHO, ONCE A DECISION WAS MADE, ADDED THE BAND AND THE WORK IT DEMANDED.

Anyway, I known this is not your usual self... your policy is "once an addition is done i let it be"... Curiously, your biggest concern seems not to be the addition, but how it was achieved (pressure, convincing, group, etc etc)...

Poll Question: how do you fel about Metallica being added ?
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
Metallica are a great inclusion to this site	42	[28.77%]
Metallica are a soso inclusion to this site	29	[19.86%]
Metallica are a bad inclusion (what were they thinking)	75	[51.37%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted