55 Comments

The logo and website feels a bit harsh on the eye. Doesn't really want to make me smile. I look forward to seeing some of the content though.
V
2010-10-19 09:31:32

I like it, its clearly celebrating the RGB values which is why it is so deliciously vibrant, its designed to be purely digital so why not.
AJ.
2010-10-19 10:27:13

Wouldn't it be amazing if somebody decided to celebrate the creative talents of London by actually paying people for their work? yep, I'm a bitter Freebielancer.
Jules
2010-10-19 10:31:47

I entirely agree with the above comment, a bit anal? Reminds me of something Tomato used to do a few years back.
Geoff Griffiths
2010-10-19 10:34:09

I don't live in London, but I want to contribute. I feel excluded. That does not make me smile.
maartstudent
2010-10-19 10:36:07

At first, I thought this was a story about a campaign to get people in London to smile. Whenever I go there, I always smile like a loon, trying to encourage people to smile back. But I guess London will always be an unfriendly place.
Katy
2010-10-19 10:53:01

What makes me smile is to see someone else smile. All these modern art impressions make me wonder what they're suppose to be/mean - they certainly don't make me smile :(
Dawn White
2010-10-19 11:03:46

I think the logo is doing exactly what it needs to do: wake us up a bit! I think it looks great and it's a great concept in general too. And as for getting paid (?) surely the point of this particular initiative is to do something as graphic designers and animators that is a little more useful to the general public than pushing type around our computer screen.

I love it!
Marc Hardman
2010-10-19 11:05:33

Good idea. I personally feel we are behind some cities when it comes to art.
If its only for the artists of the UK, then good, its about time we looked after our own. Too many galleries etc taking money off the UK Arts Councils for International artists and projects.
Justingreen19
2010-10-19 11:48:23

I do not think that London is "behind" other cities when it comes to art. However the tube is a really grey and dull place, plus some of the ads downthere is really horrible especially all the musical ads with Pamela Anderson or whoever it is showcased downthere.

The screens are not being exploited good enough and by my point of niew I think it is a good opportunity to get your work out there and show what you are capable of both as a graduate but also as a freelancer. It's only 20 seconds of video you have to show and it can be everything as soon as it sticks to the brief. You can only benefit from this if you are lucky to have your things shown on the screen.
Steven Bussey
2010-10-19 12:20:42

Looks like an ad for a 1960’s Bubble Chair ?
Twiggy
2010-10-19 12:55:01

Ah, so they want free 20 second fillers between interminable adverts. Something to con the poor commuter into thinking they aren't being totally ad-mobbed at every opportunity. No thanks.
Doctor Black
2010-10-19 13:37:44

All I get from this is jarring semi circles burnt into my retinas.

The idea's pleasant enough, if a little dry.

I'm surprised art galleries haven't thought up a similar idea, using clips from their film archives/exhibitions instead.
M-rk
2010-10-19 13:46:51

Hey--calling all ‘creative types’ why work for a pittance when you could work for free!

Working for free is fun, sexy, and cool! And your work which will have to be bland and light hearted as we cannot afford to offend anyone will be seen by lots of people and Lord Alan Sugar will have to get the tube one day because his butler will be off sick and he will see your work and track you down and he will pay you a million pounds so he can use your artwork on his drivers get well card. I know you’ve been involved in other crowd-sourcing techniques, where you are used as resource and are lucky if you even receive a generic rejection email in which we fail to spell your name correctly, or you possibly spent two weeks researching, designing, and finalising the new Gap logo only to be told the whole thing was a gimmick, no not a gimmick, er that Gap had listened to the people and reverted to logo 1.0, but we are not like that.

So while it is true that I am getting paid lots of mullah to come up with new ways of convincing ‘creative types’ to do work for free, thats because I am not a ‘creative type’. You see us lesser beings need payment because we merely ‘work’, but you ‘creative types’ your different, you cannot help yourselves and so we simply milk you... I mean help you reach a wider audience and change the world for the better and not simply make-up empty statements that seek to extract services, time, effort, energy, expertise for free. We do not ask technicians, engineers, PR, marketing, or even the catering to work for free as we know they would tell us to F*** O**, but if we patronise you enough and surround you with myths you like to believe about yourselves we have found we can get you to do just about anything.
Victoria
2010-10-19 14:21:00

Victoria, great post :-) Its true, why should designers work for free it's nuts!!! How much did the logo cost to be cocked up - I mean designed, its so harsh. Was the logo done for free? Must be :-)

Ok, so the content that will make the idea a success (or not) is the only thing that has not been paid for..

I say BOYCOT this if you supprt the design world!
Steptoe
2010-10-19 15:25:06

Lighten up! I like it. Tubes are boring, and it's hard enough to get good work noticed. If you're lucky enough to be a successful and experienced creative type, well, bully for you. If not, maybe this is a nice way to turn your tinkering into something more.

Either way, as a tube passenger, will certainly make a change from having crap adverts for mobile phones and musicals shone into my retinas - would much rather see what the less (rather unnecessarily) catty and vituperative people can do.
Jack
2010-10-19 15:34:33

The smile logo made me smile, I think it's great, why are some people so negative about other peoples work?
The SfL idea is great also, something that is not an advert to look at on the tube has to be a good idea.
Lori
2010-10-19 15:53:21

Well said Victoria.
Doctor Black
2010-10-19 16:46:22

God what a miserable, bitter bunch [deleted by moderator] you are. Smile are not asking you to WORK for free, they're calling out to truly creative people who happen to do stuff in their spare time, outside of their PAYING job to submit work in order to help make the Tubes a happier place. It's a not for profit project and, who knows, could make a few people... smile?



BOYCOTT it? Dear god what is the matter with people?



Mercenary, money grubbing, self serving [deleted by moderator] need not apply I guess.



MattGC
2010-10-19 17:00:00

Well the logo is a bit crap, about the same effort as the 2012 one. But it is a good idea, the tube is the worst thing about London so why not make it better. Established creatives already get paid, so this would be a fun spare time thing, people who dont get paid yet might end up getting paid when someone sees their work, win for the paid guys, win for the unpaid guys, win for the commuters, win, win, win.

Heres some shameless self promotion from a guy who gets paid every now and again - http://www.alihamish.com/www.alihamish.blogspot.com. check it.
Ali
2010-10-19 17:51:50

I think it's a pretty ace logo, would make a nice t-shirt
Masha
2010-10-19 18:08:51

The smile logo made me smile, I think it's great, why are some people so negative about other peoples work?
The SfL idea is great also, something that is not an advert to look at on the tube has to be a good idea.
Lori
2010-10-19 19:07:00

I work (for money!) in animation and motion graphics, and I really can't see why people have a problem with this idea. This isn't the old "do this one for free and I promise youll get some paid work later down the line". If you want to get involved you can. If you don't want to, that's fine too.

Personally, I think it's a top idea and I have submitted an animation (which I made over the course of a couple of lunchtimes, instead of my usual wasting time browsing facebook or something). 

The thing is, I really enjoy making animation, and so to potentially get my own work and ideas (with no client interference, or changes, or logos, or lens flares!!!! Etc) broadcast to so many people is well worth a few hours of my time and creativity. I wouldn't be an animator if it was solely about money. 

Boycott it? That's a Little dramatic eh? 
Ryan
2010-10-19 21:01:24

Is it a terrible idea?

No. It’s a great idea, and it’s being put into practice (which, if you have ever tried to do something of this scale, you will appreciate is very difficult).

Should you get involved?

I don’t care if every designer in the UK got involved and it was a swinging success and everyone in London was made 11% happier.

Neither do I care if every designer in the UK got involved and they thought it was a swinging success but everyone else in London hated it and was made 98% unhappier because there was nowhere left in London that was devoid of graphics of some sort or another, as if London had not already reached a critical semiotic saturation point.

What is my question then?

It is this—What are the effects of such crowd sourcing tactics on our own and others perception of graphic design?

I would begin to answer by suggesting that it devalues our practice. The public neither understand, appreciate, nor value graphic design already. Even clients, who have a history of working with designers, often demand things outside of our remit or impose impossible work schedules or seek to pay greatly reduced fees.

http://www.youthedesigner.com/2007/11/30/20-horrible-habits-of-clients/

We should ask—Why are there no crowd-sourced doctors, pilots, newsreaders, traffic wardens, funeral directors? Simple. In order to do their job you will need to be suitably trained.

Furthermore, a lack of value in any practice will impact on the course available at universities (which if you read the recent Browne report you will know that the arts and humanities (e.g. graphic design) are massively threatened “The government to be given scope to withdraw public funding from all but ‘priority’ subjects, with teaching funding for the arts and humanities likely to be axed”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/12/browne-review-at-a-glance

“Why should anyone pay to go to university to learn graphic design–there‘s no skill in it, my 12 year-old son Johnny did a logo for SfL on his computer in 5 minutes. Those that still want to do it can upload to the free crowd-sourcing opportunities in their spare-time”

This attitude suggests that ‘anyone’ can be a creative, no need for potential students to commit to the economically daunting prospect of further education, no need for the government to commit funding for courses in superficial surface decoration, or for practitioners to commit to years of developing ones practice. Forgo all social, economical, and governmental backing and this practice does not exist except as a hobby. We have minimal value in both social, and governmental spheres and some of us have been using the economic platform to try and convince those other areas of our worth (See ADF’s attempt to take the dominance of economic practice and direct it towards the social sphere). With the advent of crowd-sourcing, even the ground upon which we stand is destabilised.

Moreover, I hate the way it uses people as a resource. While competitions may appear to operate under the same conditions, they are very different entities that have an extensive history and are backed by an industry that seek to highlight designs value. With crowd-sourcing this is all gone. With crowd-sourcing you either make it or you don’t and that’s it. It’s okay to have work rejected if there is a clear rationale for the decision. We may disagree with a clients decision to reject our work and think they are idiots who have failed to understand our creative genius but at least we have minimal feedback and direct contact. People are not objects but affective beings and need to be treated as such for their to be an ethical dimension to our practice.

Finally, when you see the appalling work that gets selected you will wonder where on earth the stated criteria went and what the real agenda was.

http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2008/march/coversourcing-the-winner

All the best
Albert
2010-10-19 21:35:39

I think this is supposed to be a showcase for your talents and an opportunity for you to share your creativity with others. It's been created by designers for other creatives and isn't a commercial company looking to make bucks out of your work. Take it for what it is, an attempt to make the daily grind a little nicer for your fellow humans and an opportunity to show what you can do.
JS
2010-10-19 21:47:04

“I think this is supposed to be a showcase for your talents and an opportunity for you to share your creativity with others”

Yes, that is the ‘what’ but what about the method it employs to achieve that goal, what about the ‘how’? Crowd-sourcing is a very problematic means for achieving this laudable goal, as both Albert and Victoria have suggested.
Edward
2010-10-20 01:03:09

Surely the tube is a horrible place because it has no air-conditioning, it’s a confusing warren, it’s claustrophobic and underground, and most importantly it is a very strange closed and aggressive social space in which people refuse to converse or even to make eye contact—and that’s even if they know each other. So entrenched is it that there are numerous devices and techniques employed for avoiding contact with others; reading the adverts opposite if you failed to pick up a ‘free’ newspaper; listening to headphones incredibly loudly; constantly shifting your gaze.

This project will add another place where human interaction can be avoided–like the music in lifts that eases the uncomfortable silence but simultaneously signals that we’re so inept at being social we need music to hide it. Similarly, projecting images and animations (no matter how interesting they may be) on the wall opposite will not alleviate this social flaw but merely heighten it.

In that sense it reminds me of a scene from Apocalypse Now, where Captain Willard voices his thoughts on the absurd actions of a platoon that is sitting on a beech in Vietnam that’s under attack: “They choppered in t-bones and beer and turned the LZ into a beach party. The more they tried to make it just like home, the more they made everybody miss it.”
Milius
2010-10-20 01:39:15

People in London have two agendas.
The Worker Agenda and The Tourists Agenda.

The Worker hates everyone as they stop her from reaching her goal–getting somewhere fast avoiding as many people as possible. Her enemies are other Workers, but mostly The Tourists who love everything and want to take it all in at a slow pace, and the Workers think it acceptable to be incredibly rude to the Tourists for failing to understand even the most ridiculous and absurd underground etiquette (N.B. Stand on the right on the escalators unless you want to have your head verbally kicked in).

Sort that out and the project will work. Otherwise the tube stays the same but now contains even more visual information.
Stewart P
2010-10-20 01:42:29

As a semi-tame northerner I feel excluded from this so really don't care.
Ken Walker
2010-10-20 09:11:01

When something new and creative such as this is introduced it obviously opens up debate and differing views.

I choose to believe that smile for london can be a very positive project. Firstly, it is worth noting that this is not for profit. Much like the creators have invested time for free, others can too if they want to contribute. Nobody is being manipulated or forced.

This is an innovative use of space that enables people to communicate through art. It is true that London is at saturation point with adverts on walls, roadsides and pretty much all other space. However, it is also true that the underground is a grim and unfriendly place. I would rather see an interesting 20 second exhibition than look at the rats on the tracks, Also, although we have been convinced that a complete lack of social interaction in this environment is the norm it is possible that this art might give people something to discuss.

And if we do that, it might just go some way to shifting commuters out of a negative slump and realise that embracing something - art, other people or anything else for that matter - is not such a terrible thing.
Lee
2010-10-20 12:43:28

Thank you for creating this debate. We weren't expecting this and it has highlighted a need for us to be clearer about our aims and motives. So here goes - hopefully this will answer some of the questions and statements made earlier:

Firstly, it's open to all. We talk about celebrating 'London' talent, because we didn't think people outside of London would be that fussed with what was happening on the London Underground. Clearly that's not the case, and so we stand pleasantly corrected.

The 'crowd sourcing/work for free' discussion is an important one. We don't want you to 'work' for free. The point of the call for submissions is to open up the digital screens, not just to well-known creators, but also the students and professionals who would like to see their work up there and otherwise wouldn't get the chance to. We could have just asked our friends for pieces. But then that would be biased. And so we opened up the call for Submissions so anyone interested and inclined could send their work in. We're not asking to necessarily create pieces especially for Smile from scratch, but to adapt existing pieces to fit the format.

Now, this next bit is important: we're not making any money on this. And we have put a lot of unpaid hours (months, in fact) into getting Smile to this stage. We have no funding or investment and so sadly can't offer any money for commissions to bring the idea to life. CBSO are lending us the screen time after we managed to convince them that this was an idea that might help enrich an aspect of London.

Alex and I have been working on this because of our faith that it is a good, positive idea. That showing inspiring motion work in the mornings might cheer up people on their way into work. It will also hopefully highlight the wealth of talent out there too.

The two-week flagship in January is a trial to see if using the screens for creative exhibitions is a good idea. We think it is. And so will use the two weeks to get gather investors and funders so that once this becomes permanent (we hope and trust it will) we can actually commission some work for the showcases.

In terms of de-valuing practice, I can't see how willingly submitting a piece that already exists for a potential broadcast is going to bring down graphic design, university education and society as a whole. I can, however, see why you might not want to do anything you're not immediately getting cash money for - and totally respect that. I just hope that, now you know a little more about our motives, you can also respect where we are coming from with this.

Right now, we're working on this for free. People who believe in the idea and want to see it happen have given their time for free. And if creatives out there potentially want to see their work up on the screens, here is the opportunity, but we can't pay you at this point in time. We'd love to pay you - and ourselves - but we can't yet.

What we do need, though, is as much support as we can get from people who share our goals. Submission is a form of support with the potential of seeing your work in a unique space with a massive audience.

On a final note, we love our logo ;)
jo
2010-10-20 13:21:00

I'm not really sure this qualifies as crowdsourcing. Smile for London isn't making any money off of it, the only result of it being a success will be that it gets to continue. At worst, it's guilty of using "social networking" in order to create a buzz--but that's fairly common practice these days. To the people who are upset about this: what would they rather SfL had done?
Jordan
2010-10-20 13:34:10

Like Jo (from Smile for London), I'm slightly taken aback at the 'debate' going on here.

Why anyone has mentioned crowdsourcing in relation to this post is a complete mystery. This project has nothing to do with crowdsourcing – see definition here if you're unclear as to what, exactly, crowdsourcing is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing

Smile for London is setting itself up as a channel for showcasing creative work. When we at Creative Review suggest people send us their work for possible inclusion in the magazine or on the blog, are we crowdsourcing?

Smile for London is, very obviously, trying to do two things:

1) Do creative types a favour by showcasing their work and therefore promoting their skills and name.

2) Do everyone on the tube platform a favour by screening work during rush hour that is bright, fun, cheery and non-commercial.

How any bone fide creatives can find this concept offensive is deeply mysterious. Any initiative to bring good work and new talent to the fore, on any channel, gets our support here at CR towers!
 Gavin Lucas
2010-10-20 14:08:00

I just have to chip in here… I met Jo and Alex back in February when they were already working on the Smile For London Project, something — like Jo already said — they have put a massive amount of time and money in themselves to get this thing going, doing the rounds speaking and pitching the idea to all relevant parties to see this project come to fruition.

I've been working with them (time permitting) since then on a Smile related project, and even a blind man can see that they're doing this not to make money, but to do something interesting, and push creative design to a public stage.
If Smile works, its a platform to stage similar initiatives, and who doesn't want that?

I'm with Jo (obviously) and Gavin on this one.
Tom Muller
2010-10-20 14:37:04

ps - One thing that just really got my back up was "Albert" taking issue with the fact that anyone can be creative or enjoy creativity outside their day job.

I'm a writer. I get paid to do it full time. I often do little bits and bobs for free outside my work. And when someone who is a traffic warden or house wife or soldier or whatever wants to write and asks me how to go about it, one thing I would never DREAM of doing is taking that sort of attitude. It's...well actually it's just a bit mean spirited.

They aren't watering down my craft or threatening my credibility or launching an insidious attack on the foundations of the media world. They don't need to get forced to get qualifications or complete set course modules or spend years in client-facing environments before putting pen to paper. What they do need, however, is encouragement, a forum, to know what it feels like to have your work "out there", to have a chance to do something that isn't rewriting old press releases.

Surely there's an equivalent here? If you don't want to get involved, then don't. It's as simple as that. But it's incredibly dispiriting to read this sort of invective. No wonder the Underground needs a bit of cheering up.

Jack
jack
2010-10-20 14:41:03

jo and Gavin Lucas,



Thanks for your comments, but I would suggest you are not being critically reflexive. Your reasoning emerges from assumptions about creativity and its organisation which blinds you to the validity of the criticisms posted.

‘Bright, fun, and cheery’ are not neutral values, but ideological ideals. Leaving these unexamined will mean we continue to produce well intentioned, but ultimately flawed designs. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Albert King
2010-10-20 14:49:00

While you lot have been whinging, I've already done mine! I'm off to the pub now..
James
2010-10-20 14:55:25

Nothing wrong with giving a different creative outlet, or trying to brighten up the tube, but at least be honest that really its because CBS Outdoor cant sell the ad space down there anymore cos its all on the net
sarah
2010-10-20 14:57:40

Gavin

“Crowdsourcing is the act of outsourcing tasks, traditionally performed by an employee or contractor, to a large group of people or community (a crowd), through an open call.”

How does this project not comply with that definition?
Alfred King
2010-10-20 15:04:49

While you lot have been whinging, I've already done mine! I'm off to the pub now..
James
2010-10-20 15:07:47

Albert, if you don't want to take part, don't. But, please stop being such a [deleted by moderator].
Vivo
2010-10-20 15:19:00

Vivo,

Enact on your own advice before preaching to others.
Albert King
2010-10-20 15:41:55

It's going to take two seconds for some Graphic Designer to steal an idea from one of those animations and then post it virally with the After Effects blur and wobble on YouTube.
Wombo
2010-10-20 15:50:54

blah blah blah blah blah!!!
Tony
2010-10-20 18:03:00

Why are designers so hostile towards debate, critique, argument, disagreement. Everytime someone voices an idea that questions or counters a post they are met with a volley of unproductive, unthoughtful, infantile noise making as witnessed above. I regularly work and converse with other disciplines and never meet such dissmissive responses in person or on blogs.
Kieran
2010-10-20 18:21:53

Creatives are the future! I take my hat off to Jo and Alex for creating this wonderful opportunity for people to make and share their masterpieces with a huge audience. Short film is a powerful medium and should be celebrated and supported.
Smile for London is positive and exciting - it's another way of bringing us together.

THANK YOU Jo and Alex. Keep doing what you're doing....it's important for the future of film!

BIG LOVE
xjulia
Julia
2010-10-21 14:18:13

Love this project! Is everyone feeling the winter blues already? Wow - Bah humbug!! I think it would be great to help make people smile with some creative content, on what can otherwise be a very miserable dark, cold, post party tube ride to work...

Creative brain already engaged!

Love the logo too!
Petra Tiziani
2010-10-21 17:46:23

Albert King is a [deleted by moderator]
Max
2010-10-22 14:00:07

albert brings to the table much needed contemplation of the situation. such that is common in the graphic design industry, private or public sector.

neither ill intentions nor non-profit deter the fact that in the end, the 'willingly volunteered' artworks will be used to promote Smile For London. the very entity whose purpose is self-serving, regardless the intention. if it were a nameless collaboration where the names of the creatives whose work is being used is advertised instead, then well, that's a different kettle of tea.

by the way, @jack - writing is unlike designing. you can't compare the two as if they are similar in skills to acquire to do well. one requires you to put sentences together and the other... well.
bob
2010-10-25 01:12:30

“It’s not enough to have a brilliant idea and design a great product or campaign if you’re not, every step of the way, figuring out the touch points to evaluate and then testing them to make sure it’s going to fly and be owned by the community. It takes patience and skill and diplomacy. This is what we have to start teaching our students”

http://changeobserver.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=21068
Albert King
2010-10-27 14:40:04

Albert - perhaps you could get in touch with the creators of Smile and contribute to the process if you feel so strongly about it .....just a thought.

I also think that "there‘s no skill in it, my 12 year-old son Johnny did a logo for Smile for London on his computer in 5 minutes." is an unnecessarily vicious comment that is about as far from constructive criticism as it gets.

I ask to see a link to your portfolio - perhaps then these kind of caustic comments can be judged in context? It would also be interesting to see if you yourself succeed in "figuring out the touch points to evaluate and then testing them to make sure it’s going to fly and be owned by the community"

And finally - you ask others to stop preaching? My goodness - please take a good look in the mirror.
Natalie
2010-10-28 16:18:22

Amazing logo!!! You can tell its effective by all the graphic designers and illustrators who have posted bitter "i could have done it better then that" comments.
It is exactly what a logo should be, elegant and bold and inspiring comment, and like all great ideas, something you wished you had thought of yourself.
Sarah
2010-10-29 00:53:08

Natalie–Thanks for your comments. Here’s my response;

Point 1: I have got in touch with Smile indirectly via my comments on this blog (see jo’s (unreflexive) response above). I prefer the ‘public’ nature of blogs to the private email, as it offers an opportunity for the community at large to reflect upon others thoughts.

Point 2: I think you may have misread that comment. I was pointing to the fact that if we accept such crowd-sourcing tactics that we will be contributing to the devaluation of ‘creativity’, such as design. That is because the public at large and other professions will see that ‘we’ do things for free because we cannot stop being creative. This, I would argue, will lead to the perception (that is already widespread) that creativity is of no value. The Browne report makes it quite clear that this is an ideological argument spearheaded by economists and liberal agendas.

Point 3: Let’s assume for sack of argument that my folio is ‘rubbish’, that I cannot design for toffee—would that dismiss the points I made? Is it necessary to be a ‘master’ before being able to speak? I do not have to prove my self, just present reasonable arguments. My line of reasoning is trying to convince others that there are some issues we would need to think a lot more critically about.

Point 4: I have not told others what to do (preaching). Indeed, I made a point of stating that I did not care if people got involved or not—i am not interested in stopping this initiative, but with contributing to how we think about how we go about producing such ideas, and measuring their effectiveness. I have argued that there are areas that have not been discussed that I think are worthy of contemplation. As Kieran pointed out, not many in the so-called creative community are willing to engage with this model as they accept the ideology that this is not something of value.
Albert King
2010-10-30 09:27:22

not sure if anyone commenting above has noticed art on the underground programme but its worth a look at the website to see a comprehensive archive of projects plus whats on. http://art.tfl.gov.uk
tamsin dillon
2011-02-25 15:00:59

not sure if anyone commenting above has noticed art on the underground programme but its worth a look at the website to see a comprehensive archive of projects plus whats on. http://art.tfl.gov.uk
tamsin dillon
2011-02-25 16:27:51

Tell us what you think

Your comment: What happens with my feedback?

What happens with my feedback?

We no longer require you to register and have a password in order to comment, simply fill in the form below. All comments are moderated so you may experience a short delay before your comment appears. CR encourages comments to be short and to the point. As a general rule, they should not run longer than the original post. Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.

Name: (required)

Title:

e-Mail: (required)

URL