A
lot of people have asked why I no longer write for Lake Martin Living. I'd like
to say that I just felt that, after almost 18 years, it was time for a change,
but as is almost always the case, there's more to it than that.
In
mid-March, I learned that the cabin my family has rented from Russell Lands
since 1961 was being torn down, and that there was no guarantee that a
replacement cabin would become available anytime soon. As I searched the area
for a suitable new lake home, it became apparent that I probably would never
find one that was affordable, and so I prepared myself for life without Lake
Martin. I was frustrated and admittedly bitter, and this showed in a couple of
my "Growing Up" columns.
However,
in June, a replacement cabin opened up, and I was thrilled to stake a claim to
it. Once the rest of the family agreed that we would be happy to start our new
lake life at this new place, I wrote a "Growing Up" article saying as
much. Because of LML's two-month deadline, this wasn't printed until August,
2005.
After
two months of admittedly bitter writings, it was nice to write something
positive. (And naturally it was easier to write something positive, since I no
longer had to face life without the lake.) The rest of my life wasn't going so
well, though, and in late July my mother passed away after a month-long illness;
my next "Growing Up" was a tribute to her, and was to be published in
the September LML.
Things
were getting back to normal, when I received this email from the new editor of
Lake Martin Living; the date was August 12:
Friday, August 12, 2005 8:45 AM
Bailey,
I know you haven't heard about this yet, so just wanted to let you know that Ben Russell got his feelings hurt over the last article you wrote. Fred wrote some ideas for "explaining" what you wrote that he would like for you to include in your article. Do you want me to type it up and send it to you? Call me if you have questions or need a better explanation.
Thanks,
Gwen
Friday, August 12, 2005 11:15 AM
Gwen,
Since
I'm not sure what I need to explain, sending something to me might be a good
idea. (I promise to approach the situation with an open mind.)
Bailey
Friday, August 12, 2005 11:47 AM
Bailey,
Thanks
so much, hehe. You know how Ben is, he gets his feelings hurt over something
that shouldn't be. Also, I resigned from RL about 2 1/2 months ago, and I think
they they think LML "stole" me, so there could be some friction there.
i've been working on that myself. I'll send you Fred's recommendation shortly.
Gwen
Four
days later, I received this email:
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:56 AM
Bailey,
Give me a call if you need to after you read this. Let's work together to keep Russell Lands off our back. I'm not sure how you'll want to incorporate this or rewrite this, so let me know if there's anything I can do.
Here's what Fred had written:
Russell Lands has leased their cabins for decades at rates well below what the market would bear.
Expansion and population growth on this lake is not only inevitable but vital to the economy of the surrounding counties and communities. This individual that wants to stop expansion and growth would be saying "I've got my place on this lake and I don't want anyone else to be able to get one." Selfish to say the least.
Russell Lands has done an excellent job of leading and directing the development of Lake Martin. Forty years ago most of the other private properties around this lake were sold off in small lots that resulted in virtual shacks being built that people enjoyed using as fish camps, but actually decreased the value of the property. Today you see most of these smaller lots being bought up three or four at a time and replaced with one home. I'm afraid that the "fish camps" are fading fast. Progress is sad or wonderful depending on how you look at it.
We
are fortunate to have Lake Martin - it is a wonderful asset for us to enjoy.
I
didn't know what to think, nor did I know exactly what they wanted me to do.
Some people say the best thing to do when you're angry is to write a letter
detailing your feelings, and then NOT send it; that's what I did. This is what I
wrote:
Gwen,
Obviously,
my message hasn't been heard. I've never been against expansion or growth; I
just think that both can happen without the beauty of the land being sacrificed.
I think it would be great if everyone who wanted a place on the lake could have
one, as long as two things happened: 1) they treated the lake and the land
surrounding it with reverence and respect, and 2) their house nestled into the
environment, rather than replaced it. The simple fact is that buildings are
never prettier than trees, and lawns are not as healthy for the lake as natural
cover. A tree-lined shore is beautiful, and protected from erosion; a lawn-lined
shore is artificial, and a conduit for fertilizer and pesticides to get dumped
into the lake.
As
far as "property values," I'm one of those strange people that doesn't
judge the value of something or someone by dollars. A cozy cabin tucked into a
quiet slough is always going to be more valuable to me that an ostentatious
showhome a few feet from the neighbor's similar house. I know one costs more,
and would sell for more, but that doesn't make it more valuable to me.
I'm
sorry my little three-bedroom, two bath "fish camp" doesn't meet the
standards of some people; I'm sorrier that their view of the world has so warped
their standards.
And
finally, using logic instead of emotion... "Today you see most of these
smaller lots being bought up three or four at a time and replaced with one
home." So three or four people are losing their place at the lake, so one
person can have one? Now who's being selfish? And the line "Progress is sad
or wonderful depending on how you look at it" would lead one to believe
that you're allowed to look at it however you want; apparently that's not the
case at all.
As
far as keeping Russell Lands off your back, they should be thrilled; LML has
been nothing short of a commercial for the Ridge for a while now. In August,
there were no fewer than three articles about the Ridge, or homes in the Ridge
(four if you count mine.) One of them actually had the nerve to call the Ridge
homes "utilitarian, nothing too fancy" and "homes that reflect
homes of that era (1926.)" My opinions might not be popular, but at least
they're the truth.
I've
been writing for LML for almost 18 years now, and for my efforts I've never
gotten more than a free copy of the magazine. And that never mattered, because I
was getting to say what I wanted to say. If I'm supposed to start writing what
someone else wants me to say, then "someone else" needs to sit down
and figure out what that's worth to them.
That's
what I wrote, but I never sent it; I felt a "cooling off" period was
in order. I still didn't know what I was supposed to do, but I did know that if
I was supposed to write something, I had time to get it right; my next deadline
(which would have been for the November issue) was September 10, more than three
weeks away.
After
"cooling off" for about a week, I re-started the email conversation:
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:30 PM
Gwen,
I'm
still not sure what I'm supposed to do with this, or what is expected of me.
Could you clarify things before I go and do my usual wrong thing? Thanks!
Bailey
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:53 PM
Bailey,
Basically
what happened is that Ben Russell got his panties in a wad about the August
column ... I'm not sure why, because after I read it, I thought it was hilarious
and I was the marketing director at RL for 4 years!
Anyway,
let's do this ...
Forget
about the copy I sent you. The Outlook just messed up worse than anything I've
seen you write so the heat will be on them for a week or so. I suggest just
refraining from any reference to russell cabins or property that Ben could whine
about. I know how he is, so if I think you're stepping on this toes, I'll let
you know.
I'm
sorry all of this has happened, you're the best writer here, and I definitely
don't want to make you mad enough to stop writing for us.
Please
let me know if all of this makes sense.
GWen
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:31 PM
Gwen,
Thanks
for the reply. I have to admit I'm still confused, though apparently you're
confused about the same thing, so I guess I'm in good company. Neither I (nor
anyone who I have talked to) can figure out why Ben would be upset over the
August story. July? Maybe (okay, probably) July, even though I did tone that one
down at Donna's request. But August? When did Ben have his sense of humor
removed?
Heck,
if anything RL ought to start paying me for giving them advertising ideas for
The Ridge. It seems they have taken everything I've said I like in a lakehouse (and
therefore hate about the Ridge) and applied it to The Ridge. Calling those
monstrosities "utilitarian, nothing too fancy" and "homes that
reflect homes of that era (1926)" should get someone charged with false
advertising. (Please note that I am NOT submitting this email for publication in
LML!!!) ;-)
Speaking
of money, I've been writing for LML since 1988; that's almost 18 years, and the
only thing I've ever gotten (or asked for) is a free copy of the magazine. So if
someone wants to start telling me what to write, then someone needs to decide
what that's worth to them. I've seen the rate sheet, so I know what an ad in LML
costs, and therefore understand how much revenue is coming in.
Also
speaking of money, Fred might want to start writing out the check now. Not for
writing for LML, but for me to give him a list of people to avoid. I showed his
"suggestions" to a few people for input, and the "fish camp"
reference did not go over well with many of them. A few in particular were
livid, and I don't blame them; that was an incredibly insulting thing to write.
And
as long as we're on the subject... I have never said that I want development to
stop, just that I think it's happening too fast and, most importantly, that it's
not "good" development, because it harms the lake. Somehow, that makes
me "selfish." Yet, in the same letter that calls me selfish, Fred says
"Today you see most of these smaller lots being bought up three or four at
a time and replaced with one home." So if I'm "selfish", what
word would describe someone who is in favor of four families (or more; some
of those "horrid" "fish camps"-- like mine-- is shared by
two or more families) losing their homes on the lake so one family can have one?
Elitist? Classist? Give me selfish any day of the week.
I
know I'm making your life miserable, but trust me... it could be worse. ;-)
Oh,
what did the Outlook do? It sounds juicy!
Thanks,
Bailey
Later
that day, I got a return email; it
was at this point that things officially "hit the fan," as it were:
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:31 PM
Bailey,
This is what I ended up doing to resolve Ben being mad. I rewrote what Fred wrote to this and added it at the end of your column. I also pulled the Sept. column and replaced it with the column about your mom. I hate making all these drastic changes to you, but we can't afford to have Ben Russell and Tom Lamberth mad at us (or you!) I'm assuming you're still helping take care of your mother-in-law, so when things quiet down for you please give me a call. I've been in newspaper/publishing/marketing a long time and am very mindful of not stepping on toes, especially in a magazine like LML, and with the writers too!
Anyway, here's what I wrote as our "apology/retraction":
We
all know change is inevitable for growth and improvement of our area. Yes, some
changes are sad for those of us who’ve lived on Lake Martin a long time, but
life goes on and we adapt and realize that these changes will improve the
quality of life for everyone.
Years ago when there were very few people living on the lake, property could be
purchased or leased at an astronomically low cost. We all know that today
that’s not the case. But this is a good thing for all of us. Increased lake
property values and more income means local businesses have more customers, our
tax base grows and everyone’s property value increases.
Our area is lucky that a company mindful of slow growth has the most control
over lake property. Slowly and with much thought, Russell Lands has helped
our lake grow and prosper with no thought of ever turning it into a tourist
attraction.
Those buying second homes here are just like us, they want to get away and enjoy
the same quiet, laid-back lifestyle we enjoy here.
This is our assurance that this change and growth is a good thing.
As you can see, I also didn't put "I" anywhere in there, 'cause you're valuable to me and I don't want to make you mad either.
If you get a chance this week, call me at the office - 256.215.5334. I'd love to talk to you in person and let you air whatever you need to, tell you everything that's happened on our end, then hopefully start anew.
Gwen
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:44 PM
Gwen
Well,
you might not have wanted to make me mad, but you did. If those words can
in any way be attributed to me, don't waste your breath asking me to write
anything else for Lake Martin Living. (If you're willing to add a disclaimer
that those are not my thoughts, we can talk about the future.)
Quite
frankly, while I can understand that perspective, I don't believe a great deal
of it. Money is NOT my bottom line, so phrases such as "quality of
life" and "economic growth" do not carry the same weight with me.
Sure, the local economy might boom, but at a cost that does not come close to
being replaced.
(And
the "property values" line? Please. I don't own property on the lake,
because I can't afford it and never will, so an increase in property values does
nothing for me. And even if it did, I value property for what it IS, not what I
can get for it.)
Improvement
of our area? Cutting down trees and replacing them with unnecessarily large
houses and pesticide-fed lawns is not an improvement, not in any way, shape or
form.
"Our
area is lucky that a company mindful of slow growth has the most control over
lake property. Slowly and with much thought, Russell Lands has helped our lake
grow and prosper with no thought of ever turning it into a tourist
attraction."-- I don't see it this way.
I
can't tell you what to print. But I can tell you not to attribute something to
me if I didn't write it. Don't do it directly, nor indirectly. If you want to
tag "Growing Up" with that paragraph I can't stop you, but if it
appears IN ANY WAY to ANY ONE PERSON that those are MY thoughts, or that I share
them or agree with them, not only will I stop writing for LML but I will make
damn sure that everyone who cares knows the reason. You DO NOT have the right to
put words in my mouth, or to take the thoughts of others and pass them off as
mine.
I'll stop now before I say something I can't take back. And talking to me right now is not a good idea.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:47 PM
Bailey,
Sorry, I'm just trying to find a way to resolve this ...
No, I can't tell you what to write or put words in your mouth. Yes, I know I shouldn't have written something for you. Can I change it? Yes. But you have put me into a situation where I have to do something and since I didn't hear from you until deadline, I wasn't sure what else to do.
The other situation you have put me in is now I'm trying to rectify a situation that happened before I even got here. I can't control how mad Ben Russell gets, hell I worked for him. I also can't control the fact that he called my new bosses raising hell. So what does that leave me with? Do I put in a retraction from me apologizing for something I didn't write, edit or even see before it went to press? Help me out here, Bailey. Please give me a solution I can use. Can you write something I can use? That's what I'd rather do.
I hate that we've gotten off to such a rough start. I do wish to continue having your articles, and as much as I love Donna, remember she didn't have a background in print, I do. When I first began writing you wouldn't have recognized it as mine! I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this is not a forum to upset or turn tables but to embrace the joys here, no matter how big or small. And this is a small town with big politics and I repeat, we're not a newspaper, we're a feature/lifestyle magazine.
And please don't get so defensive about the money stuff. I'm a working woman. I didn't come from a wealthy family and manage to take care of my kids on my salary. I'll never even be able to rent a Russell cabin. Heck, we didn't even go to the lake as a kid, we spent time on the river. My point here is that we're not enemies. I'm not "the man," but I need my job and I won't be able to keep it if the LML writers are upseting the people that help pay the bills. That may suck and not be fair, but that's life.
Work with me here Bailey. If we part ways because we don't see eye to eye, let's at least try to have some respect for each other's situation.
Gwen
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:39 PM
Gwen,
I
completely respect your situation; please respect mine. What you are asking me
to do is to say things that I do not agree with, things I do not believe, and if
I don't say them you want to say them for me. Is that fair? Is that right? Is
that even legal?
Of
course, people who know me will know that I never said those things, and they
don't need to hear it from me. People I don't know who have read LML for several
years will also know; I've not been shy about expressing my feelings, after all.
In other words, you'll be telling most of your readers "Don't believe a
word you read in this magazine." Is THAT what you want? Is that what your
bosses want? Is that the kind of magazine businesses will want to advertise in?
Can
I write something to appease them? Maybe; I can try. But keep in mind, as far as
I'm concerned, my deadline for the September issue was July 10; even in the old
days, the deadline would have been August 10. So when you told me you needed me
to write something using Fred's "suggestions," I never considered that
I was under any deadline pressure, because you sent that email on August 16--
almost a full week after the presumed deadline, a full week after I thought I
could write anything that would get printed in OCTOBER, much less September. In
other words, when your boss wants to know why I didn't write an explanation
(don't even think about making me use the word "apology") tell him
it's because I thought I had 25 days to get it done in time for the next
deadline. (A deadline, incidentally, that I did not come up with arbitrarily;
the by-the-tenth-two-months-prior number was given to me by Lake Martin Living,
and no one ever said to me "Oh, by the way, there are new
deadlines now." Changing the rules is fine; expecting people to follow the
new rules without even telling them that new rules exist is not.)
Out
of respect for you, I will try to write something you can use (though I can't
promise anything tonight, especially not something fair and even-handed.) But I
will NOT write anything I do not believe. I will NOT say that I like the Ridge
homes more than I like smaller, nature-friendly cabins. I will NOT say that
"value" and "worth" are synonymous with "dollars."
I do NOT believe that dumping topsoil and pesticides into the lake "will
improve the quality of life for everyone," and I won't say anything to make
anyone believe otherwise. And I WILL use Fred's "suggestions,"
verbatim; if he doesn't like what he actually wrote being printed, ask him how
he thinks I feel about having something I did not write being printed under my
byline.
If
that's not good enough, and you feel you need to apologize for something I
wrote, go ahead. But make sure that people know that it's YOU/LML doing the
apologizing. Last time I checked Americans were still allowed to have an
opinion, even if it's not popular, or not the same opinion as those in power. If
you (on behalf of LML) want to apologize for printing my opinion, that is
your right, and I'll defend your right to do just that. But it is not your right
to apologize on my behalf, and make it seem as if I said something that I don't
believe, and I'll defend my right to my own opinion even harder.
And
if there's no room at Lake Martin Living, or the Lake Martin area, for someone
to have a differing opinion, then I'd just as soon move on anyway. I'm no good
at being a puppet, nor a spokesmodel, nor a talking head, and I'd be no good at
all living under a dictatorship. I'd rather be unpopular than be untrue to
my beliefs, especially now; the last words I spoke to my mother were
"Thanks for always letting me be myself," and I'm not about to start
undoing that part of her legacy now, just a month (almost to the day) after her
death.
I'm
really not trying to make your life difficult, though it's not turning out that
way. But if you step back and look at things objectively, and look at what I'm
asking you to do vs. what others are asking you to do, you might find that it's
not me who is making things difficult after all.
Bailey
Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:59 AM
Bailey,
Yes,
please, write me something. Whatever I can use. I don't want you to lie. What I
would like is for you to write something that's true to yourself and get Ben off
my back. You're an awesome writer, heck, even the emails are well written.
That's how I know you can give me something both of us are happy with. As an
editor I do have the right to ask for that, even if I shouldn't be putting words
in your mouth. And I apologize for that.
Sorry
about the deadline issue as well. Having worked on deadline all my
life, I've discovered they can be changed when necessary. Now is that time.
Writing deadlines haven't changed, just the circumstances for the Sept. issue.
You
have no idea how much I appreciate your candor with me. I have gained new
respect for you sticking to your guns about what you believe. Trust me, I've had
my share of "trouble" when I was voicing my opinion. Just pick up a
local paper from about 15 years ago ... plenty of hate mail to me!
Understand
too that times have changed in respect to what is put into print as well.
Newspapers and magazines just aren't the same forums as they were even when I
was writing. They've become businesses, watching the bottom line. There are a
few publications left that still print what they want, even one or two
here, and if we do part ways, I'd be glad to help you out there. Even The
Advertiser and B'ham News is watered down compared to what it used to be.
Remember how Al Benn used to have everyone in an uproar all the time? I'm not
saying it's right, but it's just one of those things I can't fight. And at the
point in my life where there's clothes and food to buy, utilities and rent, it's
not a battle I can afford to start.
The
people I am working for have a vision of the magazine being a fun, light,
informative read. It's my job to make it that way. Easy? Most of the time. Right
now? (I'm giggling to myself.) No, but I'm a good student. And so far I've
learned a lot.
I
still would like to meet you at some point. I think when all is said and done,
we probably have more in common than you might realize. As a matter of fact, I
think we're bonding right now (giggling again).
Gwen
Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:34 AM
I
didn't get to read this one yesterday, so just wanted to say I completely agree
with the fact that Ben should have been mad about July, not August. I thought
August was hilarious. Too bad the powers that be don't see it that way.
Gwen
I
figured I had made my point: don't write something and attribute it to me. I
still didn't see the need to apologize, but I decided I would anyway, in the
interest of Gwen, LML, and my continuing relation with both. But if I was going
to apologize, it would be in my own words, and not the words of anyone else.
(And what they wrote wasn't really an apology anyway, so much as a PR piece for
Russell Lands.) Here is the "apology" I wrote; I have deleted one name
by request:
Thursday, August 25, 2005 10:39 AM
Gwen,
I
hope this is good enough. If not, so be it.
"It
has come to my attention that the "Growing Up" story of August 2005
has offended Ben Russell. The fact that I wasn't told exactly what was offensive
is not important; it was never my intent to offend anyone, intentionally or not,
and so I am sorry that in some way I did. Mr. Russell was good friends with a
friend of mine, (name withheld by request), and anyone who had (name withheld)
"seal of approval" (for lack of a better term) has mine as well. One
needs to look no farther than Children's Harbor to see the good that Mr. Russell
has accomplished not only here, but statewide. And while I might disagree with
him about some things-- if everyone agreed with everyone, the world would be a
boring, stagnant place-- offending or upsetting him was never my intent."
I'll
be reading the September issue >very< carefully, and I won't be the only
one. Hopefully, though, this is the end of the trouble-making. (Then again,
that's not up to me.)
Thanks,
Bailey
This
is the reply I received:
Thursday, August 25, 2005 12:03 PM
Thanks
so much Bailey!!! Yes, you're right ... lots of people will be reading the Sept.
column very carefully.
And
then, after all of that, LML went ahead and did exactly what I had asked them
not to: they wrote something themselves, and tacked it onto the article about my
mother, as if I had added it myself. If you didn't read it, it was the paragraph
that the editor wrote and sent to me on August 24, at 5:31 PM (if you're
interested in scrolling up a bit to re-read it.)
I
figured that that was that, and that my stint with LML was done. I thought I had
made my self perfectly clear: don't write something, attribute it to me, and
expect me to keep writing for you. So I was surprised when, about a week later,
I received this email:
Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:46
PM
Hey
guys!
Just a reminder that I've begun working on the October issue.
Dave - please let me know if you have for me to come take some pix of your guys.
Bailey - I have your Sundilla and pic in hand.
Thanks so much!!!
Gwen
Obviously,
my message had gone in one ear and out the other, or just been completely
ignored; after all, how dare I do something that the "powers that be"
not approve of, such as quit writing for LML without permission? I considered my
options, and decided that I might not be done with LML after all… but the
choice was theirs:
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 2:09 AM
Gwen,
To
be honest, I've been debating over whether to send you another Growing Up, now
or ever. I can't believe, after all of the talking and discussing, that you did
exactly what I asked you NOT to do... and on the end of a story about my
mother's death. That someone could be so disrespectful and dishonorable is
unfathomable to me; in the future I'll know what to expect, and I'll act
accordingly.
I
should probably demand that you print an apology, and since it is the LML way, I
would get to write it, of course, and you could print it under your picture and
byline as if they were your own words; after all, if it was good enough for me,
it should be good enough for you.
If
I do continue to write for LML, it is with the same agreement that I had with
Gary Burkett: my stories are to be taken as a whole; if they are suitable for
printing then they will be printed as I wrote them; otherwise, don't print them
at all. Being an "editor" does not give you the right to take my work
and delete or add whatever you see fit, in order to make it say the exact
opposite of what I feel.
Of
course, even if you were to make such an agreement, you've given me no reason to
believe that you would keep your word; if you expect me to ever believe you
again, you've got a lot of ground to make up.
Bailey
That
brought no response, so, not knowing the official LML perspective, I sent a
follow-up:
Sunday, September 18, 2005 11:41 AM
Gwen,
Let me know if you are willing to print the following under your picture on the "Editor's Desk" page:
We were wrong.
Last month, we inserted a paragraph
following Bailey Jones' "Growing Up" story. Most of you who have read
Bailey's work over the last 17 years know that he would never write what we
printed, and you're right. We wrote it, and tried to place it in such a way that
would make it appear as if it was something he wrote; we did this in order to
appease one reader, and we did it without Bailey's permission.
We were wrong to do that. We were wrong
to write something and attribute it to Bailey, we were wrong to do that after
promising him that we wouldn't, and to print something like that in a story
about his mother's recent death shows a lack of class that is embarrassing.
If anyone should have been apologizing
last month, it should have been us, the publishers and editor of LML. We didn't
have to print the "Growing Up" story last August, the one that upset
one of our readers so much, but we did. At that point, the burden of
responsibility was on our shoulders, and we should have accepted that burden;
instead, we tried to pass it off to Bailey, and when he rightly refused to
shoulder the blame, we tried to make it look as if he had.
In doing so, we abandoned our ethics
and our morals. It's too late to undo what we did. All we can do now is offer
our sincere apologies to Bailey Jones, and to you, our readers, as well.
We were wrong. We apologize, and we
promise: it will never happen again.
Surprisingly--
not really-- that brought no response, either. So I sent another follow-up:
Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:23
AM
Gwen,
Well,
since it doesn't look like you are even going to grant me the courtesy of a
reply, I'll go ahead and make it official. I will no longer be writing for Lake
Martin Living, effective immediately. Furthermore, you DO NOT have my permission
to print anything I have written in the past. Old stories, new stories, excerpts
from the book-- you MAY NOT print any of them. (And while I know this might put
you under some pressure to re-work the October issue, I also know that I am
giving you plenty of time to do just that.)
Sorry
it had to end this way. Then again, it was out of my hands; this was your
decision.
If
anyone asks, future "Growing Up" stories, in addition to anything else
I have to say-- and I have a lot to say-- can be found in The Plain Talker, and
on a website that will be online shortly.
Bailey