OK friends - first of all, SpiritMarch you don't have to track me down. My email address is rf@rickfoster.net. I look forward to hearing from you.

Secondly, some people are questioning my choice of the verb "to suck" when describing the album. I could choose many other verbs as many of you have suggested, and I am quite aware of what the average person assumes "suck" means. I stand by my original statement: #23 sucks.

Third, the question of marketability has arisen. Since when has The Church even considered "pop" songs? The answer lies in the fact that after

Starfish, with Milkyway and Arista, they came out with a great album, in fact I love every song on GAF except Monday Morning, but Arista said it wasn't "poppish" enough. So, The Church said "fuck you, this is our album we are releasing". Then they were dropped, but did The Church care? of course not. That is what makes them great. They don't care about having a #1 and craving to the industry moguls.

I do question, though, their choice of venues sometimes. Was anyone out their at the Charley Goodnights show in Raleigh, North Carolina 1999 GAF tour? It was a terrible place, but I liked the show. At one point Kilbey said something like this: " there are supposed to be lights and such surrounding us which creates a certain feeling, but here we cannot do that."

Sorry, I lost track of what I was talking about -I'm getting drunk and stoned and listening to #23 and I still don't like it.

Flame on!