Well, doubly dangerous, guess you know now characterizing our position and offer to "help you work it out" as "a voice in the wind"(that's how you so glibly put it) was a mistake-- a major one huh?
Don't make it again, follow our advice: make a public offer to "take it back" because of "all the controversy surrounding it" and you have some chance of looking completely different than how reality would, in truth, describe you.
Sure you can refuse to face the facts but no matter how thick or thin you slice it every other scenario makes you look either stupid, dishonest or both... and that's not exactly a win-win situation, is it.
So take it back publicly, it's your only move, dennis, you have no choice.
There is no doubt anyone who has read even 1/4 of what is written here could think otherwise, and there have been a goodly number we know of who don't.
No dennis taking advantage of gluckman's need to leave something great behind by pawning off your genre copy as a period piece was greedy and foolish. We're sure even you knew so. We're also sure you and unnamed others, who we have also exposed, have gotten away with an untold number of similar instances of gross over-dating in private sales. Luckilythis one was public and the truth came out. LACMA now knows well and clear and you, dear dennis, are just waiting for the other shoe to drop.
But then again, dd, you are still the icoc prez, rug advertising sales-ace and authority, aren't you?