Camsco vs: CDNow

Subject: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Chef
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 10:23 AM

I've bought many CDs from Camsco without questioning their prices and practices. Someone told me, though, that I'd get a better deal at CDNow. So, I decided to compare the prices on what I've decided is my next purchase, the new CD by Jody Stecher.

Camsco = $12.98 CDNow = $12.34

I can understand that a small operation like Camsco needs to charge a little more for the product. The 5% difference would not have made me switch from Camsco to CDNow.

But then I factored in the shipping charges.

Camsco = $4.20 CDNow = $2.99

That is a whopping 40% difference.

It seems to me that Camsco is hiding its true prices within inflated "shipping" charges.

Needless to say, I made the order at CDNow.

I am on a limited budget and have been ordering about one CD a month.

With the difference in shipping charges, I could have had an extra two or three CDs in the past two years if I had known what Camsco was doing.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: MMario
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 10:28 AM

did you ever consider the fact that shipping and handling expenses are higher for a small outfit?

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 10:42 AM

I'm sure Mr. Greenhaus will be along to discuss this, but to me its a simple matter of loyalty to Dick or Sandy Paton for that matter. I understand the financial angle all too well, but if they have it, I'd just as soon buy from them.

"You got to make it off your friends 'cause your enemies won't dela with you.".........Denny Smith, best friend and an honorable businessman explaining why our shop didn't back up to oue pricing.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: dwditty
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 10:45 AM

Believe me, there are no untoward efforts going on at Camsco (or Folk Legacy, for that matter). Just plain folks trying to get great music out at fair prices. If you don't want to shop there, fine. I resent the implication that Camsco is "doing" something, though.

dw

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 10:51 AM

Why would they be higher? The opposite seems more likely to be true--the larger the volume, the more labor intensive--in a small place, the order can be often be taken filled, and shipped by the same person. In a large place, there are people to take the order, fill it, ship, as well as people whose job is to manage the flow of the orders. Anyway, you should check Elderly Instruments when you're shopping for folk and traditional stuff, their prices are generally very low for CD's and tapes, and they do nice little reviews on many of their offerings (shipping and handling costs are low, as well!)

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 10:55 AM

...and the two specialists often have material the "big boys" won't bother with (small labels, short production runs)and you get a great personal service from Sandy and Dick. (AND US prices for CDs, even with postage and the duties that the vigilant UK customs sometimes add on [especially if they recognise a "CD-Now"-type package] are a lot cheaper than over here.
RtS

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: MMario
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 10:59 AM

believe me, they are higher.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: GUEST,Bigchuck at work
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:00 AM

The other point that should be made here is that CAMSCO is a small operation that is trying to maintain a stock of pretty obscure and non-commercial recordings that sell in low numbers without having high volume sellers to help support the operation. I suspect that _much_ of Camsco's catalog is not and would not be available from a mass-market operation such as CDnow. For me the bottom line is that it is worth paying a bit more to insure that the music I love continues to be available. Believe me, CDnow doesn't give a shit about "keeping the music alive"; Dick and Sandy do, and that is enough for me to continue giving them my patronage.
Sandy in Vermont

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Chef
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:02 AM

MMario,

If the shipping charges are higher for a smaller outfit, as you suggest, then why does Folk Legacy charge $3.00? That is only one penny more than CDNow; virtually the same.

I cannot believe that Camsco's shipping charges are 40% higher than Folk Legacy's.

No, it is obvious that Camsco hides its higher prices within its inflated shipping charges while Folk Legacy and CDNow reflect a seemingly more honest cost.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Mbo
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:21 AM

Well folks, I suppose we can't hide it any longer. Yes, Camso's higher shipping prices are financing a planned military coup of The North Pole, where once Santa's Workshop is captured, his elves will be cheap labor, as they use Santa's Sleigh to hand deliver your CD's, and at a lower price, so you don't have to transfer that extra $2.70 from your secret Swiss bank account.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Chef
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:29 AM

dw, I cannot believe that you would excuse the guest's racist views if he'd had the guts to not post anonymously.

When I posted the comparison between Camsco and CDNow, it was certainly not to give that bigot an opening.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Midchuck
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:30 AM

Not only is that kind of racism stupid, but it misses the point that Dick is a BANJO PLAYER. It's much more fun to pick on him for that than for any real or imagined racial or ethnic category.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: dwditty
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:41 AM

Easy, Chef
There is no way I condone Guest's views. I just can't bring myself to be so presumptuous as to think I can control some else's thoughts. What I meant to say is that Guest is a coward for not owning up to his views. Even if I think he is an asshole for expressing them, which I do, I would rather not be in a position to determine what *thoughts* of another are right or wrong, and I appreciate when others don't try to determine which of these my thoughts are. As Frank Zappa said, "Who Are the Brain Police." Your point is well taken, though. My last post was not worded to make the point I was trying to get across.

dw

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:42 AM

Well stroked Meebo. When I read it, I thought I had posted it. .......I'm worrying now about my influence on you.

Cheap shot Guest....You're a gutless wonder. I think dw meant that although we might fight about the remark, we're equally offended by someone without the guts to stand behind it if that really is the belief. just another pissant flamer.

Chef, I think you are looking for a rat under a streetlight. Its hard to perceive "tone" in the written word, but it seems as though you really believe Dick is out to shaft someone.

BTW, I like Elderly too and I often reference them re: instruments and such......but Mudcat gets squat from an Elderly purchase. I also recently found out that BigChuck works in a store which I will post in the Links. I guess I'm just old fashioned, but I like giving my money to people I know when I can.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:46 AM

One major point that noone has posted is that buying from Camsco directly supports the DT and the Mudcat.

Do 2-3 more CD's really make that much difference over the course of two years?

Personally, I'd rather support a friend and spend a bit more than support a large, faceless entity. It is ridiculous and insulting to suggest that Dick Greenhaus is anything but totally honest in his business ops.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: GUEST,Ernie Taylor
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:47 AM

I find that I get very good service from Tower Records. They charge $2.95 for shipping.

Ernie Taylor

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:54 AM

Tower doesn't support Mudcat either.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: dwditty
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:55 AM

Rich Gallagher

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Mbo
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:56 AM

You better not pout, you better now cry
You better watch out, I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: dwditty
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 12:02 PM

Mbo,
You haven't heard Santa Claus is Coming to Town until you've heard Joseph Spence do it.

dw

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Mbo
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 12:03 PM

Hey, do you get your rare music or not? I rest my case.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Mark Clark
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 12:23 PM

GUEST:

The content of your post is painful to the many good people who make this site what it is. It is also offensive to all decent and reverent people. I realize that your expression of hatred probably stems, in some way, from your own pain. In the hope that you would like to lay down your burden of pain, let me recommend Gary Zukov's book "The Seat Of The Soul". I think you'll find the time spent reading it well worth your while.

Peace,

      - Mark

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Naemanson
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 12:28 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen and kids of all ages!

In the center ring, snarling and biting at the crowd is our own resident gutless bigot. Don't stare too long or he'll wither into insubstantiality. Don't get too close or he'll splatter you with his slime.

Notice the green skin, the staring bloodshot eyes, the yellow streak down his back as he lashes out in all directions trying to raise some reaction from the crowd. (Please don't laugh at the beast, kid. See how he shrinks when you do that?)

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is hate personified. Tremble in fear at it for there is nothing you can do about him. (Please stop laughing, kid, you're killing him. And no, that isn't a zipper. This is not a man in a rubber suit, kid. There ain't no man in there at all.)

And now ladies and gentlemen in the ring on your left...

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 12:30 PM

My momma always said if you ignore rude people they will have less cause to speak up.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Naemanson
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 12:59 PM

You're right MT but I couldn't help myself. I generally stay out of these things but I hate bigots. (Uh, oh, does that make me a bigot too?)

Philosophical balance loss! Unable to correlate! Initiate sutdown procedures!

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 01:06 PM

Yeah Naes, I notice you already have gottn the "h" out of there.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: IvanB
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 01:18 PM

'Guest,' although it's true that 'dwditty,' or 'catspaw49,' or 'kat/katlaughing,' etc. can maintain a certain anonymity with their handles, it's also true that because they have joined and selected a handle, I can expect that their posts will always be from the same real-world person. By virtue of that fact, each of us who is a member, as well as those guests who consistently append a unique 'moniker' to the guest appellation, take a certain responsibility for the statements made in our posts. Sure, the responsibility's only 'virtual,' but most of us here are quite sensitive to how we're received on the forum.

With your inflammatory and gutless post as 'Guest,' you do nothing more than make us wary of all who would post as guests, whether they have serious and cogent posts or not. So why don't you and you pea-brain wander on over to a forum where your racist views would get you more strokes, or is it that you just get your jollies by pot-stirring?

And mousethief, although I generally agree with your mother, I believe some things must be spoken out against.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Naemanson
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 01:38 PM

Cannot communicate...
Philosophically out of balance
I hate bigots,
..generalized hatred is bigotry
....therefore I hate myself
......Sinking
........into
..........depression....



helpppp!

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 01:42 PM

A tiple awaits you at the Neil Young Center for the Terminally Screwed. Do we need to send the Insanevac chopper or will you be providing your own transport?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Max
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 02:00 PM

Shipping charges for Camsco are leftover from when Wally McNow ran Camsco. Wally is a good guy, as is dick, so I would certainly not question their integrity. I will check with dick to see if there needs to be a change in policy. This conversation got out of control, but the point remains we lost a sale and therefore support because of it. This just means we'll take a look at the situation.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 02:27 PM

I've placed several orders with CDNOW, and several with Folk-Legacy and with CAMSCO. If I average out the prices and include shipping, the prices come out pretty-much the same. One big difference - CDNOW has to charge me 7.75 percent California sales tax, and CAMSCO and Folk-Legacy do not.
Besides, it's more fun to deal with CAMSCO and Folk-Legacy, and they know the music. If you do order from CDNOW, Amazon, or Barnes & Noble, think about going through our "Support the Mudcat" page so Mudcat will get a percentage.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 03:50 PM

Anybody who doesn't know this, should. The more a business sells, the lower they can afford the prices to be. Higher quantity = lower prices.

I prefer to deal with local owner-operated businesses than Wallmart, even if I'm going to pay an bit more.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 04:08 PM

My only quarrel with Camsco is delay. I ordered a couple CDs about three or four weeks ago, received confirmation emails, but have seen no sign of the merchandise.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: John Hindsill
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:11 PM

Sorry that I got to this thread so late. I think this is the wrong forum for Chef to complain about Camsco shipping policy, or pricing for that matter. If he is unhappy with them, his first complaint should be to them rather than trashing them with innuendo of hidden motive.

Every business charges for product and service based on their various costs-acquisition of product, inventorying same, labor and shipping-plus something for profit.

Not all companies buy at the same price, owing to volume purchasing or lack thereof; not all have the same labor costs, more or fewer employees (or none); rent or no rent. There are many factors.

If the service is generally good, perhaps it is worth an extra buck or two. If that extra supports one of the few entities willing to handle esoteric products, that, too, may be worth it.

Were I the object of Chef's comparison, I would be unhappy. Were I the subject of his innuendo, I would be mightily pissed-off.

John Hindsill

PS-I most always shop independant music stores and book stores when I can. And I never trust e-commerce with my credit card #s.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: thosp
Date: 19 Sep 00 - 11:15 PM

first - i ehco Jeri re the bussiness aspect - when you have a high volume operation you can afford to take a smaller (per unit) profit margine --- also as stated above Camsco & Folk Legasy carry a selection you just can't get at the giant guys - because of limited appeal --- next i have called Dick G at Camsco on various occasions to get cd's for me that nobody (big or little)was carrying and Dick was able to get for me --i.e.Lil Rev --- and ic currently tracking down that Pigmeat collection that was discussed on another thread ---- regards the difference in shipping 4.20 - 2.99=1.21 x 12=14.52 = not quite 1 cd a year when you add in whoevers shipping --- you don't know Dicks' overhead (i.e. dept from recent purchase of Camsco ,rent,advertising etc.) plans to expand (?) and again whatever ----- so all things considered - i suggest you give it more thought -- i will very happily pay an extra dollar (or more) because if Dick and Sandy dissappear -just try and call Amazon or CDNow to get some of the music that many or most Mudcatters are interested in -- it won't happen ---- and i don't mean anything against the big guys -- they are a different opparation ---

peace (Y)thosp

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: bbelle
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 01:06 AM

Has anyone noticed that both Dick and Sandy live in 30 room mansions, teeming with servants and the like? Get real ... so you pay a couple dollars or a few cents more. It's called "L-O-Y-A-L-T-Y" for anyone who can't spell. These two men are a few years older than I (thank g-d someone is!) and have been instrumental in keeping that music alive, than we so love. I cannot stand anyone who quibbles over a buck. And I would rather give that extra buck to a friend than to a megacorp, anyday.

Chef, I noticed your first day of posting was September 18. Jumped right in there didn't you. Gonna tell all us nabobs the errors of our ways. We are gettin' took by the likes of Dick Greenhaus and Sandy Paton. Can you imagine!

Did I miss something above? I kept seeing these references to racist and kept reading up and down the threads. Then I thought that somehow the racist posts had creeped into this one. I feel a little like Ingrid Bergman in "Gaslight."

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 06:49 AM

Jenny,
a forum search lists about five more posts, three from a GUEST, than you can read here. These post must have been deleted. From what I know, how reluctant the Mudcat elves are to delete posts, I fully trust in them that I wouldn't have liked to read these posts anyway.
But I agree that seeing references to posts that do not exist any more makes you feel you cannot read correctly (I also read twice).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 07:42 AM

You are correct Wolfgang, and though we may all abhor censorship, the stuff couldn't even be called vile without giving vile a new meaning.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: bbelle
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 07:43 AM

Wolfgang ... I've read enough hate in the last few months to last me a lifetime, so I don't have the desire to read whatever was written. A reference to the fact that there were deletions would have been nice, though ... it was like everyone else knew something I didn't! Then again "curiosity killed the cat."

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Chef
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 10:24 AM

People like Moonjen have accused me of disloyalty and slander against Camsco and Folk Legacy for pointing out the inflated shipping charges at Camsco.

First of all, leave Folk Legacy out of that. I pointed out that Folk Legacy's charges are virtually the same as CDNow's.

It's been said repeatedly in this thread that small companies like Camsco and Folk Legacy have to charge more for shipping than big companies like CDNow and Tower. Well, Folk Legacy charges the same. It is only Camsco that charges more.

My interpretation is that Camsco is making their price appear competitive with the major outlets and then hiding their true price in the shipping charges.

As for the service, I have waited at least two weeks and as much as several months for deliveries from Camsco. I have ordered more than 25 CDs from them in the past couple of years. On Friday, I made my first order from CDNow. It arrived this morning, only five days later.

With the difference in prices and shipping charges, I have paid about $50.00 more to Camsco than I would have to CDNow. Enough for about three more CDs. On my budget, $50.00 is a lot of money.

BTW, I made the order at CDNow through the link at the website of Sing Out, the folk music magazine. Sing Out says that ordering through that link helps support the magazine. I have been a subscriber to Sing Out since long before Mudcat, or even the internet itself, existed. You have no right to question my loyalty.

Moonjen, I don't think I want to be around judgemental people like you.

GOODBYE MUDCAT!

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 10:51 AM

Chef, it wasn't the fact you asked the question, it was your apparent eagerness to assume Evil Motives, as with the statement "..it is obvious that Camsco hides its higher prices within its inflated shipping charges while Folk Legacy and CDNow reflect a seemingly more honest cost."

Note words "hides" and "more honest." It's not surprising people reacted to your innuendo.

Bye.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 10:55 AM

Chef: don't let the door hit you in the butt.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: GUEST,Mudcat member, not a guest
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 01:08 PM

For the record, I am a member of Mudcat. I deleted my cookie so that I could make this post without having some people come down on me personally.

This experience with Camsco happened two or three years ago, when it was still Wally Macnow's operation.

In the past, I had purchased quite a few cd's from Camsco. Sometimes delivery took a long time, but I never questioned the prices.

I was at the Champlain folk festival in Vermont where Wally had a Camsco booth selling cd's. and I saw he had the amazing box set of nine cd's on Bear Family, Songs For Political Action. The price was $350.00. Wally told me that his cost was over $300.00 and that he couldn't afford to sell it for less.

As much as I knew I'd have to have it. I decided to wait to buy it.

When I got home, I checked CDnow and their price was $212.00. WIth shipping it was a little less than $220.00.

Then I checked the website for Bear Family Records. Their price was in Deutche marks, but when the conversion was done to U.S. dollars, I was able to order the set and have it shipped to me for $192.00.

If I as an ordinary consumer could get it from the manufacturer for less than $200.00, why would it cost a dealer more than $300.00. My conclusion was that Wally was not being straight with me. Since then, I have not bought from Camsco.

Now, I know that Dick now owns Camsco, not Wally. But, I would like to know why it costs him $4.20 to take a cd, put it in a box and mail it, but, it only costs Sandy $3.00 to do the same thing?

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: GUEST,The Phantom Lurker
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 01:17 PM

No matter what the "tone" or "implications" or "innuendoes" of Chef's original message, he has a valid point and a legitimate complaint. Responses that focus on his "tone", "implications", or "innuendoes" raise those issues simply as a smokescreen to avoid addressing that valid point. Such responses turn the Mudcat exchanges into a game of "Mother May I". The respondent says "Since you didn't ask the question or raise the issue with exactly the right phrasing it is OK for me to ignore your point and jump all over you."

No one who has lurked Mudcat for any length of time would be the least bit surprised at the royal reaming that Chef got. Everything from his shoe size to her ancestry was called into question. But that's how Mudcat insiders normally deal with outsiders who say the wrong thing.

For all the touchy-feely, warm and fuzzy, good vibrations, sanctimonious talk that goes on a Mudcat, one really needs a pretty thick skin to be able to stick with this forum. For all the nice things that are said to newbies, they'd better know their place.

But.... All that is just fine with me! When I can no longer stand the heat, I'll leave the Mudcat kitchen.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Ferrara
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 01:28 PM

Chef, don't know if you're still reading this....

I have known Dick Greenhaus (aka Camsco Records as of this date) for about 25 years and he is absolutely NOT a money-hungry person. He has refused since Day 1 to allow any kind of fee for use of DigiTrad or membership in the Mudcat Cafe.

He is also not the kind of person to carefully calculate his shipping charges to surreptitiously raise the price of his merchandise. He bought Camsco for love not profit, this I know... he talked it over with me and a lot of other people to be sure they didn't feel it would be a conflict of interest. He ain't gettin' rich on it. Wally wasn't gettin' rich on it either, and he was no longer willing to do so much work for so little money.

Dick (and maybe Susan Friedman as well) make up the entire staff of Camsco. That means that shipping CD's cuts into his time, there is no smooth shipping department whose job it is to get the stuff out. It also means that shipping may be late.

The thing is, nobody ever said that Camsco was cheaper than anyone else. It's just better, in the sense that Dick is dedicated to keeping the music alive. He handles a lot of requests every month that don't get him a penny: for example, referring people to obscure overseas labels if he can't get what they want as cheaply as they can order it themselves.

All those referrals, and his skill in finding the almost-lost music that people are searching for, are worth something. Some people are interested in contributing to that; some need to watch their budgets and find the least expensive source they can. It shouldn't be a value judgment either way.

I suspect from what Max said above, that the discrepancy in shipping fees was inadvertent. Or maybe it just reflects the fact that there's no inexpensive hired help to do the job.

In either case, it was the implication that the higher shipping fees are a scam of some kind, that ruffled a lot of people's feathers. Had you just asked, "What's going on? I can't afford to pay more...", I suspect you would have been spared the grumpy rebuttals that have upset you.

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: thosp
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 01:38 PM

actually i can't believe that all this is about $1.21 --------- again i want to point out that many of the selections available you just can't get from the big companys ----- i have many times (before i found Mudcat)spent monthes looking for certain records/cass/cd's -many times without sucess --- AGAIN i want to point out that Dicks' overhead (especially since it's a recent aquisition for him)is a factor in his pricing -- if he chooses to add it in with the shipping price WHAT'S the problem -- there is Nothing devious about it ---- If you don't like the overall price DON'T BUY IT ----- PBS charges a lot more for easily available CD's -- that can be gotten for less -- and yet many people (including myself) buy from them -- are we all stupid? or have we decided that we want to pay for something more than just the item involved -- and if that means $1.21 so be it ---i pay a lot more than that elsewhere

peace (Y) thosp

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: annamill
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 01:41 PM

Phantom, those of us who know Dick, know there is no way he would cheat his customers. He has been asked repeatedly to charge for the Digital Tradition Database and stands fast. It will be free to all!!

If some of us seem harsh in the dealings with Chef, it's only in defense of a wonderful man. Unfortunately, Chef was a new poster, and doesn't know Dick the way we oldies do and some of us did jump on him as if he was attacking a member of the family. ;-) It's hard to see someone like our Dick Greenhaus who is so generous and kind being hurt and I'm sure this hurt him.

As Max says, if a mistake was carried over from the previous owner, it will be corrected.

Love, annamill

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 01:48 PM

As I have pointed out in other postings, I believe it is necessary to forgive people who at times speak harshly in defense of something that matters to them. This would apply to Camsco, the Mudcat, or ones personal honor. Thick skin is a good accessory when "conversing" with people whom you haven't met on a face-to-face basis. Maybe if we don't immediately assign motives and assume the best intentions instead(and I know what happens at times when you "ass-u-me"), we can stay out of the accusatory mode. Remember that it is easy to mis-speak or mis-represent yourself unintentionally when you're firing off a post. I applaud the removal of the "vile" posting and don't mind at all censorship of that sort by the keepers of the 'Cat. Lord knows they extend us all a lot of leeway.

This is the first time I've heard of Camsco or Folk Legacy (yeah, for an old guy I haven't been around much). Are there links? (I'm also a lazy guy, I guess). I like doing business with nice folks,too, and this being an-open-market-capitalist-type system, I'd like more choices to explore when buying my favorite kind of music.

Peace and relaxation to all,
Bartho

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: dwditty
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 01:58 PM

It seems that those that want CAMSCO's prices to "be in line" should be saying the same thing about our entire economy. Prices for the same item varies all the time-even from the same place. Bought a car recently? I bet you did not get the "best" deal that was ever struck at that dealership. If you want to shop price, and the internet makes that easier than ever, go ahead. You can no doubt find a better price that CDNow. Just because somebody charges a higher price than someone else, they are not automatically guilty of some devious scheme to get your $1.21. Hey, maybe Dick is just not as good a business man as the folks at CDNow (and from the standpoint of having access to music that we want, not just what sells in big volume, that is a *good* thing), and it costs him more to get the deal done. Maybe when the whole staff is away (recent trip to England), shipments are delayed. If these things bother you, go ahead and shop where you get satisfaction. Just please don't insinuate that anyone that does not price goods and services to your standards is out to rip you off. Chef,If you PM me address, I will send you the $50 it has cost you to do business with CAMSCO, and we can all move on to shop where and when we want.

dw

Subject: RE: Camsco vs: CDNow
From: bbelle
Date: 20 Sep 00 - 02:05 PM

dw ... would you send it to me, instead? Dick and Sandy, both, have a ton of cd's I'd like to have ... just PM me the draft