Mr. David Piekarczyk: I have tried to be reasonable and fair with you from the outset. Fairness and reason are obviously lost on you. You have seen fit to be a problematic customer from the very beginning and I have tolerated and bent over backwards in order to deal with you. 1.) It was you who sent me a nimda 32 virus embedded in your jpg file which you sent directly to my personal computer despite my repeated requests to the contrary, and nearly destroyed my pc, along with the work of several other fractalists whose work was waitng to be printed. Even though I had specifically asked people not to send files to me directly to my personal PC, yet you insisted in sending the virus infect file toto my personal PC anyway and destroyed my PC. Even then I still gave you the benefit of doubt, and assumed that you had inadvertently, accidentally, and innocently passed the virus on to me. 2.) I sent you an accurate, beautiful, pristine, mint, perfect quality virginal print of your image file via USPS Priority Mail Insured, Confirmed Delivery. If you had actually received a print that was so badly damaged as the print I now have in my possession, why did you not describe the damage as damage that had occurred in transit? If you had been honest with me and had accurately described the damage as "damaged in transit", we would have been able to file the proper claim with the USPS. Instead you proceeded to claim that there had been production flaws, and printing errors that you claimed were my fault and needed rectifying. I have quite clearly stated that I will redo any print that is not properly produced and where the fault lies with me, so I quite promptly & honorably asked you to return the print to me for examination and possible replacement. Since you now have sent the print to me by UPS, we have lost our opportunity to make a claim with the USPS, as they will quite rightly claim that the damage may have occured elsewhere. 2.) Upon my examination of the undamaged parts of the print and careful comparison with the jpg that you sent me, I could see no production flaws or printing errors. It was as good a rendition of your jpg as any that I have supplied to other fractalists. I was however shocked at the amount of manhandling, violent damage and abuse that the print had received. Both the print and the wrapping paper had been scratched, scuffed, marked, abused. and soiled on both sides!. In some places the inks had been completely scraped off the paper. There is no way I would ever have sent you a print so badly damaged. 3.) I know I supplied to you a perfect print, wrapped in protective paper, and sealed in a rigid heavy duty cardboard mailing tube. The print was either damaged in transit, or it was damaged after it was delivered to you. 4.) I'm not going to waste too much of my time debating your possible inner hidden intentions & motives; be it buyers remorse, self-destructive malice, or just plain & simple dishonesty. The one fact is clear; you have completely bungled any honest chance for a legitmate claim that would justify my replacing your print gratis. 5.) Had you accurately, clearly, and honestly described the damage, as it really was, any legitimate claim for "damaged in transit" could have been quickly handled by the USPS, and I would have promptly printed up your replacement print as soon as I received the claim processing receipt from the USPS. 6.) If you had a legitimate claim on the grounds of faulty workmanship on my part, then where did all the "violent" physical damage, abuse, and soiling come from? The "Quality of The Work" notwithstanding, The print should still be in a pristine, mint, virginal, un-abused, unscuffed, unscratched, un-abused, undamaged, and "Brand new" condition. Somehow neither version of your story either makes any sense, adds up, or rings true. Period. 7.) If you want me to redo the print, fine I will redo it. But not gratis. 8.) Please allow me to remind you of my terms and conditions which I posted to you and publicly posted on several mail lists. "All waranties as to workmanship are voided if the print is changed, modified or damaged in any way." 9.) Threatening me will not produce the results that you want. 10.) I am also returning to you your 430 kb file entitled face1.jpg cleaned, disinfected, & minus the Nimda Virus that you saw fit to inflict on me! This hopefully will confirm that we are indeed comparing apples to apples, and that you did not mistakeningly send me the wrong file. Please rememebr that I repeatedly told you that your file should be at least 700Kb-1meg at the very minimum, yet despite everything I still produced excellent reults. You will notice in your image file there are indeed a multitude of "light beige" to "white" horizontal and vertical areas where there would be extremely fine & light deposits of ink in an exact rendition of the original image. Despite the obvious physical damge has been inflicted to the print by "persons unknown". The print I sent you was an excellent and accurate rendition of that image file. T G Parker