Friday, November 17, 2017

so, i got my first print with the new ink done, and it actually seems to be a little more accurate than the official ink.

so, i'm not worried about quality.

but, i'm a little concerned about leakage, and will have to keep an eye on it.

right now, it seems fine. let's hope i can at least get through the month with it.

and, i'll have to keep track of the exact number of pages i print, as well. even if i only get the same 50 i got last time, i'm paying $20 this time instead of $100, so, it's down into a more reasonable price. and, if i get 100, it's closer to what i initially budgeted for. so, as long as it doesn't leak, this is probably a permanent solution.

the main black ink is supposedly out, too, after something like 30 pages. that's laughable - there must be ink left in the cartridge. so, i guess i'm putting all these cartridges aside for later, to figure out how to get the remaining ink out of them.

right now, i'm going to eat and get back to inri061. 60 is now ready to ship. i could potentially get this out on sunday.

the mail woman left my ink in the box.

she shouldn't have done that. but, ok.

i'll be trying to print the back of inri060 soon.
yeah, my ink's in windsor. but, my mailwoman just always leaves the slip. that's fine, i can get it tomorrow.

getting it today wouldn't help much, as i'm going to need another for 61. but, it looks like i'm expanding this to a third disc by adding some further orchestral reworkings, a percussion mix and maybe a drone mix, to start with. i got the string mix done this morning, and i'm happy with it, but it's bed time.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

my ink might be here tomorrow, actually. have to keep an eye on that. if so, i could ship as early as saturday. if not, it's looking like it will probably be tuesday.

i wanted to ship more today, but i was only able to get inri058 out. that's the 4 cd set. it's shipped.

my drop by odsp was a little underwhelming, but only in the sense of it not being at all formal. i had to write a request by hand. i'll probably type something up before tuesday. i know this is all discretionary, but the situation is rather ridiculous; i can't afford to pay a mover, so if i can't move the furniture then i'll have to leave it here and then go to charity to get more furniture. and, i'd guess that the owners of this place will probably end up donating this furniture to charity. that would be kind of outrageously stupid, right? in the end, the city ends up paying for the moving costs, anyways. but, i know better than to expect pristine logic from the city.

i updated my accounting to reflect the price i actually paid for ink over the last two years, and it makes less of a difference than i thought, overall - my profit decreased from $42 to $34, and sean's went from $6 to $4.50. it's disappointing, but not catastrophic. most of the records i've sold don't have sean on them; i'm actually splitting things 50/50. but, if i get 50 pages out of $20 ink, it's closer to the profit margin i expected.

the actual truth is that i still haven't covered start-up costs.

i'm otherwise fed and am in or the weekend, so i'm going to shower and get to work on inri061. i'm hoping this is the last stretch before i get to the compilations next week.
so, i'm about to get back to work for a few hours over night, but what did i do today?

i gave odsp a call when i woke up this afternoon and realized that i'm going to have to go in and talk to somebody tomorrow. my worker's not in this week. but, i need to get the forms running. and, i need to do that before i call about utilities and estimating moving costs. if i can just get the forms tomorrow and bring them in on tuesday, i'll be happy with that.

after the saga of serving the appeal last week, which was largely a consequence of not being able to find the right tube for my bicycle, i had to make sure i got the thing right, so i went down to the local bicycle store and grilled him on what i needed. with my rain jacket, i maybe seemed a little like the spanish inquisition - but i called ahead, so he had what i needed there when i got there. he talked me into buying a tire. i didn't need a lot of convincing, because i'm going to need a new tire eventually anyways, right? or, to put it another way: i can always use a spare tire.

we can all always use a spare tire.

they should put that on the side of the space shuttles. it's maybe the closest thing to a universal human truth that i've ever fucking seen. really.

anyways.

what was the problem with the tube i got at canadian tire last week - not once, but twice? see, i showed it to the guy and he said my tire must have some glass in it because it's ripped. that's why i bought a tire.

we can all always use a spare tire.

but, i think it actually ripped on the rim, because it didn't fit right. the first one just inflated into it. and the second one felt like i was riding a balloon animal for a few seconds before it popped.  it just didn't fit. that's all there is to it.

i actually got the technically correct correct tubes, this time. see, i'd been hacking out a 28-32 for i don't know how long. the tubes that burst were 23-28, and they were floppy. i should have actually been using 38s the whole time. imagine that. hrmmn.

after a brief stop at the grocery store (with the tire around my neck), i went home and fixed the tire - and fixed it is, yes. i took it out for a spin to make sure. i'm good to go.

so, at the end of the ordeal, i ended up spending a total of about $70 and i got a working bike pump, a spare tire and a spare tube out of it, in addition to getting the thing working. about $15 of that disappeared on bad tubes. but, i learned something from it.

i didn't sit down to eat until close to 9:00, and i had to do dishes and clean up in here after all of that. but i'm ready to finish the cover art for the second mp3 disc and get back to the rest of it after that.

i might be able to print in grey scale, but i have to wait until the ink gets here before i can print the rest of the covers. so, i'm going to go ahead and make the actual discs, and then see if i can print greyscale on them or not. either way, everything should be ready to go when the ink gets here.

and, i should be able to get around and do some things on my bicycle in the morning.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

so, i bought some cheap ink.

it's high yield for $20. the last package i bought was normal yield for $80. so, this could be less than 1/5th of the price.

i know that there are risks involved with this. i'm feeling like i need to take them.

it should be here before wednesday. and, the truth is that i won't be totally done by then, anyways.

so, i'll hold off on jacking up the price, for now. let's see what i get out of this.

it's 7:00. wow. lol.
i may have less ink in there than i thought.

i think it's worse than that.

1) the size of the cartridges is steadily decreasing.
2) they base their metrics on very minimal coverage, and cover art tends to be very ink heavy. if they say you get 500 pages at 5% coverage and i'm printing at 50% coverage, each page i'm printing is 10 pages in the metrics. so, i'm only getting 50 pages, but it's fifty pages at ten times the metric - and there's your 500 pages.

i'm going to look for something more efficient. but, i think the reality is just that the price of ink is extremely high, and if you want a package like this it's going to cost me some money to make it.

again: it's not so so bad, really.

maybe i lowballed the cost.
i still have a lot of extra cash.

maybe i can do some research into a more efficient printer, before i boost these prices too far.

$15 canadian for an lp is still pretty good. and most of my eps are lp length. $12 isn't too bad at all.

but, i have the prices low for a reason. and i don't really want to have the downloads priced differently than the physical media.
no, i just need to boost the price.

singles are now $10.

eps are now $12.

lps are now $15.

that's what it costs.

sorry.
my printer is out of colour ink, already.

that's about 40-50 pages printed, for an $80 cartridge - meaning it costs $2/page. and, if the disc has a front and a back, it's costing me $4-5 in ink per disc.

i had to do the experiment to figure it out. and, these are the results.

they're outrageous...

i can't sell eps for $7 if i'm spending $5 in ink. based on some basic research, i had ballparked $0.15/disc. so, i'm either going to have to find a cheaper source of ink, or i'm going to have to increase the price.

my estimated static costs were $1.75/disc, meaning that i was clearing $5.25 on an ep and $8.25 on an lp. if my static costs are now $6.45/disc, i'd need to charge $12 for an ep and $15 for an lp to balance out the costs.

i think that's unreasonable.

so, i'm going to have to search for a cheaper source of ink.

i know that the printer cartridge is not out. it has a chip in it. but, i have to find a way around it. maybe i can trick the machine into finishing off the cartridge, to start.
the only really feasible path that i have there and back is via bicycle, and it's going to be cold and raining. there's that ten mile strip with no bus service.

if it was in the summer, i'd probably do it. it's part of the reason i got the bike.

but, for tomorrow, i don't think this makes sense.

i missed st. vincent tonight. everything else aside, it's a big venue, and i just don't enjoy big venue shows. i haven't heard the new record yet, but the lead tracks were underwhelming. and, i get the impression that she's intending to tone it down a little. i'd like to hear what she has to offer on the other side of mellowing out a little in the context of something more orchestral, but i'm not going to get too excited about an americana phase. i guess i'm waiting that out. i hope it doesn't take too long. but, i'll give the new record a chance when i get time to, too.

john mclaughlin is tomorrow night and it's tempting but i don't even know if he's actually playing it. the way he's talking about it is that he's hanging out on stage while somebody else is actually playing. and, he's 75 years old - i can't fault him for not being able to play this material, anymore. this is tough guitar work. but, i'm apprehensive about going all the way to ann arbor if he's not even playing. i'm going to try and find some footage. it's possible.

i've just never seen him play, and if this is my last chance then this is my last chance. but, it's a journey there and back, and i need to make sure it's worth it.

purchasing this release does not come with a download.

inri033: written and demoed in multiple stages from 1996-1999. initially constructed in this form in dec, 1999. slightly resequenced in jan, 2014. finalized on sept 19, 2017. lp007.

inri034: written & recorded in the fall of 1999. originally released on inridiculous in december, 1999. split into it's own ep in january, 2014. remastered & finalized on sept 28, 2017.

inri035: initially written and recorded between 1996-1999 and remixed between 2013-2015. initially released as part zero of a three volume set on may 21, 2015. split into it's own release on june 14, 2015. finalized as lp008 on sept 29, 2017.

inri036: written and recorded in late 1999 and early 2000. these versions of these tracks were sequenced without further modification in jan, 2014. remainder of hummer added as a bonus track, and release finalized, on oct 3, 2017.

inri037: recorded in spring, 2000. released, unmodified, in jan, 2014. release finalized on oct 3, 2017.

inri038: written and recorded, 1999-2001. track 3 was reconstructed out of existing sound in june, 2004. initially sequenced in jan, 2014. four new mixes (maximal mix (2017), electronics only mix (2015), single mix for lp010 (2017), full instrumental mix from deny everything (2014)) were added on oct 5, 2017; release subsequently closed.

inri039: this was constructed over a little more than a month: from 7/7-8/20, 2000. it seems to have been recombined into one track around 2007 but has otherwise not been modified since it was completed. first released as an ep in jan 2014. release finalized as symph004 on oct 8, 2017.

inri040: recorded in april, 2000. samples added in oct, 2000. album version reverted to original mix in sept, 2006

inri041: recorded over the space of the year 2000. remixed substantially in 2004, 2006, 2010 and 2014. existing version constructed in jan, 2014. finalized as lp009 on oct 9, 2017.

inri042: this record was recorded over the years 1999 and 2000, but did not take this form until mid september, 2017. the first track list dates to sept 14, 2017. these tracks are technically outtakes, but did not become outtakes until the remastering process removed them from their respective recordings. finalized as lp010 on oct 9, 2017.

inri043: written late 2000 & early 2001. the renders present here are all from either the early months of 2014, the second half of may, 2015 or the 11th/12th of october, 2017. minor instrumentation changes to facilitate a small wind section were implemented in late april, 2014. live guitars were layered into the final version over may 2014. four more mixes were added from may 19-26, 2015. five more mixes were added on oct 11/12, 2017. release finalized on oct 12, 2017.

inri044: written early 2001. drastically rearranged in june, 2014. rendered, arranged and performed over june and july, 2014. remixed and re-rendered several times over late may, 2015 and again over mid oct, 2017. this release cannot formally finalize at this time, but has been put into it's existing state as of oct 15, 2017.

inri045: recorded in the first part of 2001. sequenced as is in january, 2014.

inri046: written in the spring of 2001. lent out for a different project in jan, 2004. reconstructed in the first quarter of 2006, especially over march. the vst mix was added on jan 10, 2015 and the two guitar mixes were added on may 29, 2015. finalized as symph005 on oct 15, 2017.

inri047: written one day in june, 1998. re-created on another day in june, 1999. reimagined on yet another day in june, 2001. a failed remaster occurred at the end of 2013. slightly rearranged and re-rendered at the end of july, 2014. rearranged again at the end of may, 2015 and one last time at the beginning of jan, 2016. expanded and finalized over oct 15-16, 2017.

inri048: written in the summer of 2001. remembered over july, 2014. completed august-september, 2014. expanded and finalized on oct 16, 2017.

inri049: written and recorded in the fall of 2001. compiled on sept 6, 2014. expanded and finalized on oct 20-21, 2017.

inri050: written in the fall of 2001. rendered, remastered and remixed in late september and early october, 2014. the string mix was corrected for clicks on june 1, 2015, but unfortunately left accidentally inverted. this was corrected on oct 21, 2017. the lead track was re-rendered with the clickless string mix on oct 21, 2017. disc finalized on oct 21, 2017.

inri051: created in the fall of 2001. resequenced and rereleased on sept 7, 2014. disc finalized on oct 22, 2017.

inri052: tracks 1, 3 and 8 were written in 2001 and reinterpreted and completed in 2014. tracks 2 and 5 were interpreted and completed in 2001. track 4 was written in 2000 and reinterpreted and recorded in 2001. track 6 was written in 2001 and completed in 2006. track 7 was written in 1998, reinterpreted in 2001 and rendered in 2014. tracks 1-7 were sequenced on sept 9, 2014. final completion date is oct 3, 2014. refinalized as lp011 on oct 22, 2017.

inri053: written late 2001 and early 2002. this file is ripped from a cd-r that was burnt around 2002, as that was the option that would produce the most accurate reproduction of the original composition. republished without modification in 2014. on oct 23, 2017, the poem was added to the disc as an introduction to the track and the disc was subsequently closed and finalized as symph006 and lp012.

inri054: recorded in late 2001 and early 2002. track 6 was constructed in may, 2004 out of files recorded 1999-2001. tracks 1-4 were reconstructed over october, 2014. final mixes were finished on october 18, 2014. disc closed on oct 30, 2017.

inri055: written in early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final fuck boxes mixes were finished on nov 15, 2014. the gentle mix was created and then left stranded on may 24, 2015. the ambient mix and the guitar mix were rendered on nov 1, 2017. disc finalized on nov 1, 2017.

inri056: written & recorded in late 2001 and early 2002 and mixed in early 2002 and late 2014. the final mix was finished on nov 18, 2014. the uncorrupted mix was created on nov 18, 2014 and then cut up into the unstuck mix, but not added to the release until nov 2, 2017. the lorentz factor mix and the separated from mix were rendered on nov 2, 2017. disc finalized on nov 2, 2017.

inri057: written and recorded in late 2001 and early 2002. initially sequenced in may, 2002. released in slightly different forms from 2002-2014. resequenced to mimic the original sequencing on november 8, 2014. except to sequence the record, these files have not been altered since 2002. disc finalized as lp013 on nov 3, 2017.

inri058: written over 2001 and rethought repeatedly over 2002, again in 2007, a third time in 2009 and one last time in late 2014. final mixes were completed over the last week of november and the first week of december, 2014. the concept was rethought on nov 3, 2017, which led to the inclusion of five more mixes (from 2002, 2009, 2014, 2015 and 2017) and an expansion from two cds to four cds. disc finalized as symph007 on nov 12, 2017.

inri059: written and recorded in late 2001 and the first half of 2002. mildly remixed in november, 2014 to make the tracks more presentable; nothing substantial was altered, and no new sound was recorded. final mixes were on november 19, 2014. disc released on physical media and finalized as inri059 on nov 14, 2017.

inri060: written in august, 2002. track one was mildly remixed on dec 12, 2014; two and three were uploaded unmodified. final completion date is dec 12, 2014. disc finalized on nov 14, 2017.

originally created from 1999-2002. this compilation is dated to sept 1, 2002. slowly remastered, reconstituted, compiled, reconstructed, released and finalized from 2013-2017. compilation finalized on nov 14, 2017. as always, please use headphones.
 

credits

released September 1, 2002

j - electric piano, drum & other programming, orchestral & other sequencing, vocal & drum manipulations, classical & acoustic & electric guitars, ebow, digital & analog effects & treatments, electric bass, mandolin, organ, synthesizers, sound design, noise generators, granular synthesis, generative synthesis, generative percussion, light-sound synthesis, cool edit synthesis, sampling, vocals, vocoders, windows 95 sound recorder, flute, drum kit, hammerhead (909 emulator), pick scrapes, found sounds, metronome, digital wave editing, loops, films, tapes, coughs, a broken equalizer, equalization, production, composition.

sean - vocals, lyrics (inri048, inri049, inri053-059), harmonica (inri054, inri057), ring modulator (inri057, inri058)
greg - drum performance sample source (inri056-inri058)
jon - guitar performance (inri048, inri049, inri057)
bob - hammering (inri058)

the various rendered electronic orchestras include acoustic bass, electric bass, synth bass, upright bass, distorted electric guitar, clean electric guitar, steel string acoustic guitar, nylon guitar, guitar effects, banjo, harp, sitar, french horn, tuba, trumpet, trombone, brass ensemble, saxophone, soprano saxophone, orchestra hit, violin, viola, cello, contrabass, pizzicato strings, full string section, piano, synthesizers, synth pad, synthesizer effects, mellotron, organ, bamboo flute, clarinet, flute, piccolo, oboe, english horn, bassoon, voice, music box, tubular bells, bells, clavinet, kalimba, xylophone, glockenspiel, ukelele, theremin, gongs, woodblock, vibraphone, marimba, taiko drums, detuned piano, pc card, drum kit, jazz drum kit, hand drums, melodic toms, orchestral drum kit, drum machines, hammered percussion, synthetic percussion and electronic drum kit. they also include choir.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/mp3-dvd-disc-volume-2

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

this is two conceptually linked outtakes from mid 2002 that document an event that i'm going to be vague and obscure about.

written in august, 2002. track one was mildly remixed on dec 12, 2014; two and three were uploaded unmodified. final completion date is dec 12, 2014. as always, please use headphones.

the lead track appears without vocals on my seventh record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2017).

credits

released August 31, 2002

j - guitar, effects, bass, drum sampling, drum and other programming, digital wave editing, vocals 
something like this would have been the demo brought along on an acoustic tour that never happened. tracks 1-4 would have represented a live set over the summer of 2002, while tracks five and six are otherwise stranded acoustic demos (and may have been played as encores, where possible). the style could be broadly categorized as folk punk, but it also leans heavily towards the emo of the period.

written and recorded in late 2001 and the first half of 2002. mildly remixed in november, 2014 to make the tracks more presentable; nothing substantial was altered, and no new sound was recorded. final mixes were on november 19, 2014. disc released on physical media and finalized as inri059 on nov 14, 2017. as always, please use headphones.

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2017).

credits

released August 1, 2002

j - acoustic guitar, voice (3)
sean - vocals, lyrics 
 
 

Monday, November 13, 2017

and, i have now printed.

that should ship tomorrow....
i haven't printed yet. there's a stench in the other room. i'm hoping it's gone by the time i wake up.

instead, i finished all of the facebook stuff up to inri063 - and i don't expect to add anything to any of these, but we'll see how it unfolds.

this should be a quick run through over the next week or two. and, then i'm caught up.

i'll get back at it when i wake up.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

so, i'm finally done typing up the liner notes on this thing. i did a lot of second guessing, but i'm done with it.

i'm going to need to eat, first.

after that, i'll distribute it over facebook, do the actual liner notes and print it.

it's a civic holiday here tomorrow, so i'll have to wait until tuesday to ship. but it should be ready to go, a least.

tuesday should be a busy day, as i'll need to get groceries & get my bike fixed & call around about utilities & odsp, as well.

59 & 60 will be fast, but it looks like i'm going to have to do an aleph run after 60 so i probably won't get the next package done by tuesday. the next package will be 60 & 62 when it's ready to go, maybe by friday.
there are a few ideas in my discography that i've explored from multiple angles, but nothing else at all like this track, which has been through multiple complete rethinks involving multiple people over the course of sixteen years. as the revisions are so diverse, i think that a comprehensive collection of interpretations is a proper entry within my discography.

in the end, this emerges as my seventh symphony.

the collection is to be arranged chronologically in four discs consisting of two 2xcd sets, with the first two discs consisting of mixes that were meant for inclusion in band projects and the third and fourth consisting of mixes that were created after the track was moved into my own various one-person projects. i've placed the third disc at the front of the sequence to stress the july, 2002 release date.

further discussions of the various incarnations of the tracks appear on the track pages, or are linked out from the track pages. please click through.

written over 2001 and rethought repeatedly over 2002, again in 2007, a third time in 2009 and one last time in late 2014. final mixes were completed over the last week of november and the first week of december, 2014. the concept was rethought on nov 3, 2017, which led to the inclusion of five more mixes and an expansion from two cds to four cds. as always, please use headphones.

the album version of the track (track 9), reconstructed in 2014, appears on my seventh record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa

the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2014, 2017).
 

credits

released July 4, 2002

j - guitars (electric, acoustic, classical), bass, synthesizers, drum programming, orchestral sequencing (12), drum manipulation, vocal manipulation, voice (10), live & digital effects processing, digital wave editing, loops, equalizers, soundscaping, sampling, composition, production, cover art

sean - vocals/lyrics (2,4,7), ring modulator (7-11, 14, 16)
greg - drum performance sample source (5-11)
bob - hammering (3)

the rendered electronic orchestra on track 12 includes tuba, saxophone, flute, clarinet, orchestra hit, piano, violin, viola, cello, contrabass and various full string sections.

numbers refer to the physical tracklisting, rather than the bandcamp ordering.


regarding the vlogs...

yes, i'm still vlogging. the major purpose was to document the music, remember. the rest of it is just incidental.

if we assume that i get my keys on nov 29th, and everything works out properly, i should be done finalizing the discography up until about 2004, by then. i'm going to push through until i get to a point where i need to actually do some more recording. that's about that point - maybe a little later, maybe more like mid 2005. things start to get less linear around 2003 until about 2011. this is periods 3 (trivial group) & 4 (proverbs).

the next thing to do is to catch up on the alter-reality, which is getting a little bit urgent.

in order to get back to editing the hundreds of gigabytes of files i have to edit, i have to fix my main laptop, which fried in an electrical storm at the end of august. that is going to be my editing machine. and, i won't get back to doing that until i've caught up on the discography to a proper point.

i'm also going to be moving, now, so it makes sense to tie the apartment upgrades i was doing to setting up the new apartment. and, this won't be the first thing i do, either. i need bookshelves first, probably.

it probably won't be by january 1st. but it will happen, eventually. and, i might even decide to stagger it a year, in the end. it might be kind of intriguing: alter-reality by 20, vlogs by 1.

Saturday, November 11, 2017

so, the next thing i have to ship is a four cd set and you can imagine that it's not obvious how to do this.

i actually looked at quad cases, but they don't make sense from a booklet perspective. i don't like the slim doubles, because you end up with a flimsy back in the cover art. and, while the sturdier doubles might be a nice way to professionally manufacture these, it would be kind of lame to drop a printer-paper booklet in.

i've decided i'm going to ship these in single cases for now. if i ever get them printed professionally, i'll revisit that. this particular release would make sense as two doubles.

so, i've updated the cover art on my previous two doubles, as well, and will need to make sure i'm creating the right kind of packaging in the future.

inri043:



inri047

Friday, November 10, 2017

so, i'm in for the weekend. i need to recuperate. my legs are still bad. and it's cold out.

the landlord is illegally coming by on a saturday. she claims she's bringing "the new tenant". well, we'll have to film this. if it's not her mom, i could get this process rolling early.

it's actually the end of a long day for me, right now. i think i'm going to eat and shower and go to sleep. but, that means i'll get tomorrow and sunday for music, and could even ship on monday.

i'll need to call both disability and the electric company on monday. i'll need to put up an ad on kijiji for the fridge, too - but pick-up after the 29th, if i get the keys. that's another $100, hopefully. well, it's what i paid for it. and it works. i checked briefly and it seems right for a functional, if old, fridge.

arranging the move will take priority. but, i expect to get caught up by the 29th, at the very latest.
nov 9th: served at 7:00 am.  saw apartment at 11:00 am.
10th:  signed lease at 11:30 am. mailed documents around 1:30 pm.

nov 11th & nov 12th & nov 13th: holidays

14: first day after mail
15: second day after mail
16: third day after mail
17: fourth day after mail

18th & 19th: holidays

20th: fifth day after mail. service effective.
21st: first day after service
22nd: second day after service
23rd: third day after service
24th: fourth day after service

25th & 26th: holidays

27th: fifth day after service
28th: sixth day after service
29th: seventh day after service. date of keys pickup. date of first & last drop-off. potential end of process.
30th: eight day after service.
dec 1st: ninth day after service. date of eviction notice. date landlord can call sheriff. date i will need to file on if i have to file.
file: 61a, 61b, 61c, request for hearing audio, form to wave fees
receive: stay. bring to sheriff.

2nd & 3rd: holidays

4th: 1st day after filing
5th: 2nd
6th: 3rd
7th: 4th
8th: 5th

9th & 10th: holidays

11th: 6th
12th: 7th
13th: 8th
14th: 9th
15th: 10th

16th & 17th: holidays

18th: 11th
19th: 12th
20th: 13th
21st: 14th
22nd: 15th

23rd & 24th & 25th & 26th: holidays

27th: 16th
28th 17th
29th: 18th

30th & 31st & jan 1st: holidays

2nd: 19th
3rd: 20th
4th: 21st
5th: 22nd

6th & 7th: holidays

8th: 23rd
9th: 24th
10th: 25th
11th: 26th
12th: 27th

13th  & 14th: holidays

15th: 28th
16th: 29th. order hearing transcript & file proof of order.
17th: 30th day after filing. 1st day after ordering hearing transcript.
18th: 2nd day after ordering hearing transcript.
19th: 3rd day.

20th & 21st: holidays

22nd: 4th day
23rd: 5th day
24th 6th day
25th: 7th day
26th: 8th day

27th & 28th: holidays

29th: 9th
30th: 10th
31st: 11th
feb 1st: 12th.
2nd:  13th

3rd & 4th: holidays

5th: 14th
6th: 15th
7th: 16th
8th: 17th
9th: 18th

10th & 11th: holidays

12th: 19th
13th: 20th
14th: 21st
15th: 22nd
16th: 23rd

17th & 18th & 19th: holidays

20th:  24th
21st: 25th
22nd: 26th
23rd: 27th

24th & 25th: holidays

26th: 28th
27th: 29th.
28th: 30th
mar 1st: 31st
mar 2nd: 32nd

3rd & 4th: holidays

5th: 33rd day after filing notice of transcript. begin perfection of appeal.  see rule 61.09(3).
6th: 34th
7th: 35th
8th: 36th
9th: 37th

10th & 11th: holidays

12th: 38th
13th: 39th
14th: 40th
15th: 41st
16th: 42nd

17th & 18th: holidays

19th: 43rd
20th: 44th
21st: 45th
22nd: 46th
23rd: 47th

24th & 25th: holidays

26th: 48th
27th: 49th
28th: 50th
29th: 51st

30th & april 1st & 2nd & 3rd: holidays

4th: 52nd. serve perfection documents.
5th: 53rd. mail perfection documents..
6th: 54th. 1st day after.
7th: 55th. 2nd.
8th: 56th. 3rd.

9th & 10th: holidays

9th: 57th. 4th.
10th: 58th. 5th day after.
11th: 59th day after filing notice of transcript. file notice of perfection.
12th: 60th day after filing notice of transcript.

hearing date set for june, maybe? july?

Thursday, November 9, 2017

well, then.

that was an ordeal.

as of approximately 7:00 am this morning, my existing landlord is served with an appeal via giving the documents to her husband via police mediation. the plan was to fix the flat on my bike on the way there, but i couldn't get the right kind of tube and had to leave it locked at a canadian tire overnight. i thought it was a short walk from there; it wasn't. so, i had to stay up all night in a tim horton's and knock on the door repeatedly in the morning.

the walk to the landlord's place to personally serve the originating documents required multiple detours around highways and nature reserves in order to ensure an experience of unbroken suburbia - and minimal threat of attack by coyotes or cougars. or bears, for that matter.


this city is bigger than i thought it was. but, like detroit, it's mostly due to sprawl.

my feet are literally bleeding.

and, as of approximately 6:00 pm this evening, it seems as though i've found a place around the corner from here.

is it better? absolutely.

1) steam heat. so, not as dry.
2) it's $700 + hydro. if i stay here, i'll be paying $680 all inclusive as of april 1st. and the hydro should balance out with the oesp - i don't have or want an a/c and i'll conserve the juice if it's my purse. i don't know if i should expect yearly increases at the next place. if i don't get an increase until early 2019, which i think is likely because they can't increase for a year, it will likely literally balance out - because if i stay here i'll be paying very close to $700 on april 1, 2019. the difference may end up little more than a few months ahead on the inflation.
3) 4th floor means fresh air. no smokers through the windows. no cat shit on the window sill. it's not on a main street. it also probably means no roaches, so i should be able to keep the lights off most of the time. and, it means i'll get the heat rising from the units underneath me, rather than the freon pushing down rom upstairs.
4) it's about the same size, footage wise. the kitchen is smaller, but that doesn't mean anything to me. the stove works, which does. the bedroom is a bit bigger. there's storage space in the walls, which i'm keen on. i'll have to set the space up so the studio merges with the living room, which is a more normal arrangement for me, anyways. it's clear at this point that i won't be having anybody over, anyways.
5) tub, not a shower. better for shaving.
6) a block closer to the tunnel. same distance to convenience stores.

we negotiated a deposit over the phone; i'm going to sign a lease tomorrow. but, i'm going to post-date the check anyways, right? so, i'm thinking that if i can just give her the full first & last post-dated to the 30th then maybe she'll give me the keys early and i can start slowly walking things over. ideally, i'd be able to clear this place out in the next few days and then get some student movers to quickly take the rest out around the 1st. and, then, i don't need to carry through with this.

until i have the keys in my hands, i need to carry on with this process - which means mailing the letter tomorrow afternoon and setting myself up a flow chart of timelines, tonight.

i'm going to need to get to odsp, as well, and figure out what they'll pay for.

and i need to eat.

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

no. i need to serve personally.

they have kids. somebody will be home at 7:00. i presume that mom is living there, right now.

if i can't get it to the landlord, i can give it to an adult member (it might be mom. maybe the husband.) and then mail a second copy of it the next day.

and, i have a week to keep trying...

it's a decent bike ride. nice nights. i'll enjoy it.

showing at 4:00. then, this gets done.

no, i should sleep, and get back to it when i'm fresh.
that wasn't as hard as i thought, after all. i just had to get my head around what i was actually doing, first. it developed quite quickly, after that.

i have my two documents done. now, i  need to get them into the hands of my landlord. i just need to make sure i understand those rules.

i'm also going to need to get some documents down to city hall, including a request for a transcript of the audio from the last court date.

i'm still awake, so i'm going to keep going. first showing today is at 4:00.
step one.

done.

next, i need to get a list of the evidence. then i can serve. tomorrow, maybe...

i was going to drop it off, but i want to double check the rules around mailing. here's the thing: i fully expect them to lie and say they never got it. so, does that matter, really, if i mail it?

what if i use registered mail, or something? a tracking number...

i'll look into it.


Divisional Court, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
TA
Applicant
(Respondent in Appeal)
and
Jason Parent
Respondent
  (Appellant)
Proceeding under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
 NOTICE OF APPEAL
                THE APPELLANT, JASON PARENT, APPEALS to the Divisional Court from the order of Lorraine Mathers (Landlord and Tenant Board) dated Oct 23, 2017 made at London, Ontario.

                THE APPELLANT ASKS that the order be set aside and an order be granted dismissing the application dated Aug 30, 2017 brought by  to terminate the tenancy for landlord’s own use (the n12).
                THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: 
                Main Grounds under s. 83(3)
1.        Mandatory refusal applies to situations which the RTA provides are serious enough to justify refusal - regardless of any other circumstances. If a tenant raises circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3), the Member must decide whether it applies (Forgie v. Widdicombe Place [2002] O.J. No. 2956 (Div. Ct.)). Further, once it is found that subsection (3) applies, the Member must refuse the eviction (Chin v. Hunt (1986), 17 O.A.C. 267 (Divisional Court)).
2.        Several pieces of evidence were presented to the board that raised circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3) (see audio), and yet the board did not decide whether it applies, and did not refuse eviction. The board did not even analyze this evidence at all. Instead, it made it’s decision based entirely on other pieces of evidence and entirely on the question of good faith. This is an error in law, as the board decided not to address a question it was legally required to address, according to Forgie v. Widdicombe Place.
3.        Upon review, the reviewing member (Elizabeth Usprich) claimed that the board had broad discretion, implicitly citing the reasonableness standard of review. However, this is an error in law as the case law suggests that the board does not actually have broad discretion, must rule on the evidence when presented with it and must refuse eviction if necessary. In not upholding the existing precedent, the adjudicator exceeded her bounds and did not respect her jurisdiction.
4.        And, as the board does not have broad discretion under the case law, and the adjudicator must follow the existing precedent, this outcome does not fall into a range of acceptable outcomes. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence, at least. The question of the applicability of 83(3) should consequently be examined on a reasonableness standard of review: the divisional court must do the proper evidentiary analysis that the adjudicator failed to do.
5.        Further, given once again that the board does not have broad discretion under case law, and must follow the existing precedent, the outcome is also simply incorrect, and should be overturned on the correctness standard, as well. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence correctly, or even at all, and as a result of this came to the incorrect legal conclusion.
Specific Errors That Affected the Decision
6.        The adjudicator erred in claiming that “the tenant did not relate the particulars of what happened but only mentioned that she was verbally threatened with eviction”. An analysis of the audio will indicate that the tenant was in fact explicit about the particulars, and related it clearly to the previous case, SWT-01670-17, which was the primary basis of the defence under s. 83. The adjudicator could not have analyzed the relevant evidence under s. 83(3) if she claims it was never presented.
7.        The adjudicator erred in not drawing the obvious inference between the warning left on March 31st and the previous case, SWT-01670-17. This was necessary in order to come to the proper conclusion. The adjudicator simply ignored the context around this evidence, then claimed the tenant never presented it.
8.        The adjudicator erred in deducing that a “written warning and final notice” is not a threat of imminent action, or indicative of an intent to evict.
9.        The adjudicator erred in not properly interpreting the letter left on April 1st as an obvious set-up attempt.
10.     The adjudicator erred in claiming that “I note that there was no evidence in the Tenant’s email describing the events that suggested the Landlord threatened eviction”.
11.     The adjudicator erred in not properly interpreting the emails around the claimed difficulties in electronic payment on august 1st as a clear documentation of a second obvious set-up attempt.
12.     The adjudicator erred in failing to note that the eviction notice presented on August 10th was without cause (for being off of the property), and was a third clear obvious set-up attempt.
13.     The adjudicator erred in failing to note that the eviction notice presented on august 11th was also without cause, and an actual clear admission of retaliatory action – a fourth obvious (if strange.) set-up attempt.
14.     The adjudicator erred in failing to deduce the obvious truth that re-serving already voided n4s is a clear indication of a desire to terminate the tenancy.
15.     The adjudicator erred in stating “Further the two letters the Tenant received gave no indication that the Landlords were seeking termination of the tenancy.”
16.     On review, the member (Elizabeth Usprich) erred in stating “First, if the Tenant did not raise that specific argument at the hearing it should have and could have been and therefore is not properly considered on review”. Forgie provides a clear precedent otherwise: that the adjudicator must interpret any evidence of this nature that exists. Yet, the fact is that the tenant did raise this argument, which can and will be demonstrated via the court audio.
17.     On review, the member (Elizabeth Usprich) erred in stating “The hearing member has broad discretion in issuing her order.”. Again, the precedent in Fergie and Chin is that the refusal is mandatory upon the existence of the relevant evidence
18.     On review, the member (Elizabeth Usprich) erred in stating “Rather it seems that the Tenant is attempting to re-argue his (sic) own position.”. Rather, it seems that the member is unaware of the proper precedent, in context.
General Error
19.     The board also made repeated errors in terms of the concept of a burden of proof, suggesting that it is the tenant’s responsibility to prove that the landlord is not in good faith. This is just a basic error of law as the burden of proof always lies with the party presenting the argument. We can’t have a system where landlords are free to make whatever claim they want, and just dare the tenants to prove them wrong, if they can. That’s really absolutely ridiculous: of course the burden of proof was with the applicant. These strange arguments may indicate a bias on behalf of this adjudicator towards property in general.
                THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE COURT’S JURISDICTION IS: The appeal is from a final order of an adjudicator of an administrative tribunal, namely the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario.
                The appellant requests that this appeal be heard at 245 Windsor Ave, Windsor, Ontario.
getting there...



THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: 
                Main Grounds under s. 83(3)
1.        Mandatory refusal applies to situations which the RTA provides are serious enough to justify refusal - regardless of any other circumstances. If a tenant raises circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3), the Member must decide whether it applies (Forgie v. Widdicombe Place [2002] O.J. No. 2956 (Div. Ct.)). Further, once it is found that subsection (3) applies, the Member must refuse the eviction (Chin v. Hunt (1986), 17 O.A.C. 267 (Divisional Court)).
2.        Several pieces of evidence were presented to the court that raised circumstances which might fall into subsection 83(3) (see audio), and yet the court did not decide whether it applies, and did not refuse eviction. The court did not even admit this evidence at all. Instead, it made it’s decision based entirely on other pieces of evidence and entirely on the question of good faith. This is an error in law, as the court decided not to address a question it was legally required to address.
3.        Upon review, the reviewing member claimed that the court had broad discretion, implicitly citing the reasonableness case of review. However, this is an error in law as the case law suggests that the court does not actually have broad discretion, must rule on the evidence and must refuse eviction if necessary.
4.        And, as the court does not have broad discretion under the case law, this outcome does not fall into a range of acceptable outcomes. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence, at least. This consequently should be re-examined on a reasonableness standard of review.
5.        Further, given once again that the court does not have discretion under case law, the outcome is also simply incorrect, and should be overturned on the correctness standard, as well. The adjudicator erred in not analyzing the evidence correctly, or even at all, and as a result of this came to the incorrect legal conclusion.

this is the meat and potatoes. i'll nitpick a few other things, because i can't bring anything new up after the fact, but this is what i'm focusing on.

i can't challenge the faith ruling. that's up to to the adjudicator - i have to wait until after the fact and sue, then. and had she examined the evidence, i'd have a hard time filling this out. but she was hasty. and maybe didn't take me seriously. and i have a good case for review, i really do.
if i move, it will almost certainly be to toronto.

i have better access to trans doctors, there.

and i have no interest at all in moving back to ottawa.

i'd say 90% likelihood to toronto, vs. 10% likelihood to waterloo. those are the only two serious options, right now.

but, i'm going to need to exhaust my options on appeal, first. that will likely take a long time. i guess if it happens i'll have to put my things in storage and hitchhike down there and live in shelters until i find something.... then i'll have to ship my things from windsor to toronto....
yeah.

seems like that's right.

well, here's the thing - i came here because it was cheap. and, it was cheap because nobody wanted to live here because there aren't any job opportunities.

if the housing situation in windsor is going to stay like this because it's become a magnet for migrants, i might have to migrate somewhere else.

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-year-later-almost-1000-syrians-at-home-in-windsor

you know, i have to wonder if the low vacancy rate here is a consequence of the high number of refugees that were settled here. it's less that prices have gone up and more that vacancy rates have gone down.

i was actually hoping that an influx of refugees would lead to an increase in public housing, but that hasn't happened; instead, vacancy rates have just decreased.

nor, did i expect windsor - which has the highest unemployment rate in the country - to be a prime destination for settlement. why would you put refugees in an area of high unemployment?

well, unless you want to increase rent. but, that's market theory. and, market theory is bullshit. again: the prices really aren't higher, there's just nowhere to move to.

but, these people don't want what i want. they want to generate income. they want fancy houses. they want to send their kids to school. so, they're apparently moving west in large numbers - where they're told there's more economic opportunity.

again: i don't really think that increasing immigration is going to solve the country's economic problems. but, at the least, let's bring in wealthy immigrants. bringing in refugees is just always going to be a net drain.

and, no, it's not their fault. they took an opportunity. blame the government, not the refugees. and, don't even blame the government for bringing them here - blame the government for not investing in them properly, once they did.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

you know, i might be able to win a case on reasonableness, anyways.

i would rather have the court consider correctness.

but, i guess the truth is that they're going to make that choice based on existing case law, and i don't even really get the benefit of a presentation. i'm going to throw all this shit down on the table, and they're the ones that are going to determine the correct standard of review.

reasonableness is supposed to provide for a lot of deference. but, it's not total. it needs to look at whether the ruling falls into a reasonable set of possible outcomes. the idea is that the court can set up a kind of multivalued function, but it's not supposed to pass judgement on the outcome, so long as it falls into the correct range it's defined in the mapping. but, it has to define the mapping, first. and, if i can convince the judge that the legislation is such that this outcome is outside of the proper mapping - because the adjudicator misinterpreted the evidence - then i could conceivably get the court to rule the outcome is unreasonable.

i should make both arguments.

1) the outcome is unreasonable, because the statue provides for minimal discretion.
2) the outcome is incorrect, because the statute provides for minimal discretion.

i guess the point is that the statute provides for minimal discretion, and she misinterpreted the evidence, producing a result that is both incorrect and unreasonable.

yeah.

ok.

i think i've got that clear in my head, now.
this day was less productive than i wanted, but i feel like i'll be awake for a while still.

i did see one place. it was a basement, not an apartment. i need an apartment. i left some messages. i have some showings tomorrow.

i'm hoping to serve on thursday, if i can get the documents in line.

i have 30 business days to serve from the 27th, but i need to get it done with enough time to get the stay to the sheriff.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
"so, what work did you produce on your shift this afternoon?"

"seventeen hamburgers, thirteen fries and twelve milkshakes."

no. that's not work!

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i abuse the language like everybody else, but virtually every job in this economy is neither a job, nor is it work. it is a slave relation that prevents an individual from carrying out meaningful labour, or doing meaningful work. for, every moment that is spent doing forced labour is a moment that is lost in free labour.

and, what drives all of this slavery is the market, under the tyranny of the necessity of rent.

in a capitalist economy, nobody chooses to work to pay rent. rather, we are enslaved to produce a surplus value for the rentier class. we are all prostitutes, so why punish prostitutes? and, that endemic slavery - which most of us don't even acknowledge - prevents us from working on meaningful projects like science, literature and art.

the market allows the ownership class to discard labour it does not feel is valuable. this surplus labour is then left to starve. this is the category i exist within, largely by choice. because i want to spend my time on meaningful work, not on the forced labour that defines our economy.

but, in enlightened societies, the state steps in to stop nature from running it's course.

we need more subsidized housing. that's where i should be. that's what i need. that's what i want.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
it wouldn't make any sense for me to go out in a murder-suicide until i'm done my discography - and, even then, i've still got a lot of writing to do.

see, this is the point you're missing: my rejection of capitalism is not a reflection of my disinterest in meaningful work, but of the wasteful non-work that it forces almost everybody to engage in. capitalism is not work. capitalism is pointless labour, in the absence of meaningful work.

and, i have no interest in family or status; if i had a family (and i did...), i'd reject it (and i did...).

might i kill you all in the end? well, there's some logic in it. but, it's going to be a long time before this presents itself to me as a serious option.

right now, i need to find some place to exist to finish my discography in. i thought it was here. it should have been. but, i can't control who buys the building.

i'm not done here, yet, either. i'm making a good faith effort to find something. but, i'll probably be in this building for another five or six months, at least.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

Monday, November 6, 2017

i may have to make some fancy arguments. and, if this goes on long enough, i may end up writing some case law.

i acknowledge that it would initially seem like the proper standard for review is reasonableness and there should be deference to the body. but, the ruling was incorrect! so, i need a way to get them to rule on the right question.

if an explicit clause written in the legislature is enough to allow for deference, you'd think an explicit clause would likewise be enough to remove it. and, 83(3) is a hard stop.

i need to go back to the fact that the adjudicator didn't mention the documents. she didn't dismiss the evidence. she just ignored it. and, you ought not to do that.

so, how can the court rule in favour of deference when the legislation is written to all but abolish discretion, and the adjudicator clearly applied too much of it, to the point of explicitly excluding imperative evidence? this would be an obvious case for a correctness review, by order of the legislature.

the problem is that i don't have the right case law, and i consequently might not get a good reaction at a lower court. this happens sometimes - a hole in the law exists, and the lower courts can't plug it without the proper ruling coming down from up top. so, the lower courts just keep putting down dumb rulings.

i get the idea behind deference. but, this is exactly the situation where they need to use correctness.

i think i'm getting some sleep.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
so...

i did study the difference between reasonableness and correctness; i did study dunsmuir. this isn't greek. although, having studied mathematics deeply and having dabbled in philosophy....i'm not terrible with greek.

i get the broad idea of what i need to do.

as i've stated repeatedly, i think the ruling was incorrect: that i provided plenty of evidence of the action being retaliatory, that i explicitly mentioned it more than once, including at the end, and that the adjudicator had minimal discretion in ruling under 83(3). she just wasn't paying attention; she'd already made up her mind. and, she done fucked right up, she did, yup. this argument is clear enough in my mind.

Further, subsection 83(3) provides for mandatory relief from eviction in certain situations. If the Board finds that any of clauses (a) to (e) of subsection 83(3) applies, the Board must not grant the application to evict.

what's daunting is the formalities, the pomp, the procedure. because there isn't an instruction manual - or at least i haven't found it yet. and, what i'm going to do wrong here is screw up a technicality...

i was actually glad to see that the precedent is dunsmiur. something familiar. an anchor. 'cause i remember that shit...

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the cold, rational truth is that this woman ignored very good evidence and a very clear law in front of her and instead made the conscientious choice to toss a disabled person out on the street.
it's really the old problem with property, isn't it?

i maintain that the ruling was incorrect relative to the law - that the law recognizes this kind of inequity, and has clauses designed to prevent it. but, if the adjudicator is a bitch, then the adjudicator is a bitch. i'm actually confident i'll eventually win this thing, via enough appeals - but i really hope i'm gone by then.

but, whatever argument you want to make in terms of the value of property (which i'm likely to tear apart...), you're always left with the reality that property really is theft. and, there's not any rational way to deny this: my apartment is quite literally being stolen from me.

the correct answer is to abolish property. and, while the canadian system of property is more feudal and tory than it is anarchist or mutualist, it kind of comes around to the right answer. or, at least it should. at least, it's written to.

again: that's why this woman isn't a judge - she really didn't have the wisdom to balance this well. i quite literally have nowhere to go. she's quite literally tossing me on the street. and, i consequently have no choice but to drag this out.
i guess i had to catch up on some sleep.

then i had to do some grocery shopping, this morning. i shipped 48, 56. six orders left.

i got something to eat this afternoon, and it's been a little slow getting to the next point.

i'm caught up in the listings. there are actually a few more interesting things, but i couldn't get through to anybody. there's some long shot viewings tonight.

but i'm going to have to spent the rest of the night preparing documents, because i intend to serve tomorrow.

Sunday, November 5, 2017

there was a big issue in canada a while back around usage-based-billing, and the activist response was generally to push back against it by throwing around horror stories about paying for heavy data use.

but, i never really cared about what happens to these heavy users, because i'm not one.

if i'm paying $25 for 200 gb, that means i'm paying $0.13/gigabyte - and that if they charged me by usage, my bills would be less than $5/month. the cost per gigabyte would have to increase by over 1000% to get to the price i'm currently paying.

so, my self-interest was always in usage-based billing. and, i'd love to see somebody defy the court and offer that option.
free wifi. how appealing is this, really?

in absolute terms: not at all. i'd far rather have my own internet connection, and i'd far rather it be wired. but, there's some other factors to consider.

my current plan is no longer being offered. it's a 6/2 plan with 200 gb in downloads during peak periods, unlimited downloads after 2:00 am and unlimited uploads altogether. frankly, at $24.95/month, i'm overpaying for usage - because my total monthly usage is closer to 20 gb (and sometimes to 10 gb). october was 9.82. september was 11.09.

because i don't watch porn, i don't need more than 30 gb in usage. an ideal plan would be 50, but that's a big buffer - it's twice what i need. and, i've never been upset about the 6/2. if somebody were to offer me a quarter of the usage for a quarter of the price, i'd take it.

the entry plan for teksavvy in my region is currently 15 mbps, at $35/month + hst. i would just consider a forced upgrade to be a cash grab; i don't want it. but, it means that the value of the free wifi is not $28/month, but $40/month.

what that means is that a $625 apartment is really more like a $585 apartment, if it's offering wifi for free - and that a $750 apartment is more like a $710 one.

of course, i'll need to ask some questions. i wouldn't notice any difference in going from 6 mbps down to 4  mbps down, but i might notice a difference in going from 2 mbps up to 1 mbps up. and, anything slower than that isn't really useable. but, i'd rather get a 4 mbps connection for free than pay for a 15 mbps connection.

it's something else to think about.

i have some showings tomorrow night, and some more on wednesday. some things came up this morning, but i slept all day after an all nighter in detroit. i'll need to make those calls in the morning.

for the rest of the night, i'm going to try to get some work done.

Friday, November 3, 2017

no.

screw it.

this is a 4xcd set, and that's all there is to it.
on second thought, i don't like the idea of having two different versions of the same release.

so, it's going to be two double hybrid eps: a double hybrid double ep. but, note that both of the hybrid double eps can be split into doubles...
and, inri058 is done, too, but it's been created with a unique problem - there's now four full records worth of material attached to it. it's five hours. how's that for crazy, right?

i wasn't expecting bandcamp to even let me do this, but i'm going to be offering it in two and four disc options. the four disc option will be $28 - it's four ep singles. the two disc option would be a double hybrid double ep single and run for $20. the difference would be that the four disc option would give you everything on cd, whereas the two disc option would give you half on cd and the other half as a download only. i have other double hybrid ep singles attached to symphonies 1 & 2 as precedent.

i'm aware that this is nuts. but, i had download only tracks to start with - it was two full discs, plus 35 extra minutes of download only. i've extended the ambient mix and added an ry30 mix, which is another ten minutes. but, it's then an aesthetic problem to have that much as a pure download. one track on each side, and you can let it slide. 45 minutes over three tracks, and there's already a third disc.

then, i'm stuck with a three piece record again, and i don't like these.

it was easy to fill up another disc: 50 minutes of 2002 mixes (these are worthwhile, in truth), 25 more for the 2009 youtube mix (which i felt was overlooked to begin with) and nineteen more for a final drone mix. that;s four discs, full: 77, 75, 75, 79. it's just under five hours...

the way this will work is that the 2xcd version will be the version that's been up since late 2014, plus added downloads between the tracks.

it will make more sense when i show you.
this is the sum total of the completed rabit is wolf studio experiments, which wound through a number of paths on their way to the project's eventual collapse. while there would be further acoustic demos recorded with sean, i ultimately decided to abandon their folky underpinnings and finish all further tracks as electronic, instrumental recordings. a tour ep of the final recordings exists as inri059.

the recording was initially sequenced as a demo in mid may, 2002 but i foolishly deleted the files (i was running low on hard drive space) only to find out that the burn was corrupt and that the result was skipping. i did eventually recompile an ep of material, but it was in a different order and made no attempt to mix the tracks together. in reconstructing the demo, i've decided to recreate the original sequencing. the only difference between this collection and the initial collection is that the last track now includes sean's vocals, whereas it was initially an (eventually rendered incomplete) instrumental recording.

i need to be clear that the decision in sequencing the material this way is unilateral on my behalf. during this period, sean had made it clear that he was not satisfied with the more experimental and electronic tendencies underlying some of the tracks; specifically, he wasn't happy with the first or last tracks on this disc, as he felt they did not represent his vision for the project. on the other hand, i was less interested in purely acoustic music and more interested in electronic music. i was envisioning the project as having a split personality between an acoustic live presentation and an electronic studio presentation. sean argued this would be disorienting; it's less that i disagreed with him and more that i thought that was a good idea. this divergence in vision is one of the factors leading to the project's dissolution.

while i feel this recording stands up on it's own, i've also taken the time over the second half of 2014 to reclaim some of the tracks as my own instrumental works. only tracks two and four exist uniquely as rabit is wolf collaborations; the other four tracks have been resequenced as completed instrumentals in my main recording sequence. please open the track pages for more information.

written and recorded in late 2001 and early 2002. initially sequenced in may, 2002. released in slightly different forms from 2002-2014. resequenced to mimic the original sequencing on november 8, 2014. except to sequence the record, these files have not been altered since 2002. disc finalized as lp013 on nov 3, 2017. as always, please use headphones.

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2017).
 

credits

released June 20, 2002

j - guitars (electric, acoustic, classical), effects, bass, synthesizers, digital piano, electric air reed organ, flute, drum programming, drum manipulations, vocal manipulations, loops, sequencing, sampling, digital wave editing, production, cover art.
sean - vocals, lyrics, harmonica (1), ring modulator (6).

greg - drum performance sample source (5,6)
jon - guitar performance (2) 

Thursday, November 2, 2017

time & psi were partially a rejection of the folk idea in favour of glossy, somewhat experimental pop. i realized that it was reasonable to move in a more commercial direction, but folk wasn't something i understood well, so it was a weird direction for me to be moving in. experimental or psychedelic pop, on the other hand, was something i had a solid grasp on...

time had been initially recorded in the fall and was remixed in late february to integrate a drum part. no original files exist. psi was recorded quickly in early march.

the track, as it existed in rabit, was a conscious pop compromise. i had ideas that weren't explored to keep it poppy and that have been expanded upon in the remixes.

the time machine is added here as a bonus track. it's based on an earlier classical guitar composition that was always meant to be reinterpreted as an idm tune and finally was in early 2014. the thematic overlap makes it relevant, but there is otherwise no connection between the two songs.

i started working on what would become my seventh symphony very shortly after the material on this ep was completed, and it really represents the point where i lost interest in rabit as a concept, under pressure to continue moving in a direction i didn't have any interest in. there are folk and psych versions of the track; sean never caught on to the psych version, and i never had my heart in the folk version. there were final folk demos recorded as late as the fall, but the disconnect was not solvable. the vocal version of the seventh symphony is in some way a corollary of but is ultimately too separate from these files to include here. psi & time, together, consequently comprise what is the fourth and final ("psychedelic pop") phase of rabit is wolf.

written in late 2001 and early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final mix was finished on nov 18, 2014. the uncorrupted mix was created on nov 18, 2014 and then cut up into the unstuck mix, but not added to the release until nov 2, 2017. the lorentz factor mix and the separated from mix were rendered on nov 2, 2017. disc finalized on nov 2, 2017. as always, please use headphones.

the 2014 instrumental version appears on my sixth record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2

the 2002 vocal mix appears on the rabit is wolf demo:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (2002, 2014, 2017).
 

credits

released March 10, 2002

j - electric & acoustic guitars, bass, synthesizers, digital effects & treatments, drum manipulations, programming, digital wave editing, loops, sound design, production, composition.

sean - vocals, lyrics (3,7)
greg - drum performance sample source (1-3, 5-6)

the rendered electronic orchestra on track 5 includes acoustic bass, synth bass, electric bass, brass, orchestra hit, drum machine, electronic drum kit, nylon guitar, electric guitar, synthesizer effects, music box, piano, bells and mellotron. 
also, just to kind of get a point across...

it doesn't cost me anything to go to court.

and, nobody's ever going to collect on any damages, either.

i have better things to do, of course. but, this is of minimal risk to me...
my honest analysis is that the adjudicator - perhaps in both cases - appears to have been driven not by a correct interpretation of the law, but by some "higher" concept of "morality" (which i claim is bullshit), in concluding that my landlord ought to have the right to move her sick mother in.

but, ignoring the question of faith, the court should not be adjudicating morality. and, i'm not driven by higher callings or magical beings. that's a lot of nonsense. rather, i will insist that the law be upheld.
i can be a little more specific.

the tenant alleges in the request for review that the application should have been dismissed pursuant to section 83 of the residential tenancies act, 2006.

this is incomplete - 83(3), precisely.

first, if the tenant did not raise the specific argument at the hearing, it should have and could have been and therefore is not properly considered on review (my emphasis). 

this is kind of a half-truth, as the adjudicator has specific responsibilities under s. 83. you don't get to get away with an error in law because nobody pointed it out before hand; it's still an error in law and still justifies a review. it's true that i can't change my argument in review. but, the law remains the law, regardless.

but, the conditional clause here is false, because i did raise the specific argument at the hearing, which is what i put up for review in the first place. and, i pointed this out in the review body in two different ways. short of presenting audio evidence from the trial - which i will need to do on appeal, apparently - there isn't anything more convincing that i could have done to demonstrate this. but, a request for review is just that. a verbal or written rebuttal of this sort should, in truth, be enough to get back in front of a judge; we then determine whether i did or did not raise the argument at this point by going over the evidence that was presented and by listening to the audio of the tapes.

to claim that if i didn't raise the argument then the review is improper is an almost true statement, granted. but, that's the question we're trying to determine: it's what the review is meant to come to an answer on. i claim i did raise the argument. so, the reviewer is supposed to get us back in front of a judge to figure it out.

her formal argument is in the form of:

1. x ----> y 
2. y

i don't dispute (1). but deducing (2) is a logical error because x has not been demonstrated, which is what the review is supposed to determine.

so, she's assuming the result of the review, rather than conducting it. and, that's misconduct on her behalf.


second, in paragraphs 21 to 23 the hearing member specifically turns her mind to the issue of section 83 and provides a detailed analysis.

see, now the fact that she dropped 83(3) previously is important, as this is a red herring - the discussion in 21 to 23 was about 83(1).


the hearing member has a broad discretion in issuing her order.

in fact, she does not. the case law is quite explicit that the clauses in 83(3) require hard stops. if there is any evidence that the action is being brought in retaliation, the adjudicator must dismiss - and she does not have discretion in balancing or weighing other interests against it. this is the importance of the evidence i've cited, which was ignored. and, it's the importance of this member being selective in the way she wrote her denial.

this board member obviously did not listen to the audio of the trial. she's essentially arguing from a point of ignorance, and making the assumption that the ruling was correct. then, she's producing very shoddy arguments to try and get to that predetermined conclusion.

i have no choice but to appeal.
yeah, i got the denial in.

it was from a different member of the board that wasn't at the hearing.

she actually doesn't even say that i didn't raise the matter - she says that if i didn't raise the matter, then i should have. but, i did raise the matter, and she has no way of knowing if i did or not, without checking the audio. a priori, if she is going to contemplate what might happen if i didn't raise the matter, she should also contemplate what might happen if i did. and, if i did, the adjudicator clearly ignored the point. so, this is a fallacious argument, at best.

then, she claims i have the burden of proof here, which i do, but my only argument would have been to submit the entire audio of the trial, which would be unreasonable. and, i actually cited evidence, which the reviewer clearly didn't consult. this is again a question of misconduct; i put in the review that the judge didn't look at the evidence, and it is dismissed without consulting the evidence. then, they claim i didn't provide a burden of proof. well, you didn't look at the evidence!

she then claims that the hearing member explored the s. 83 in detail over 21-23 - which is true, but it explored the detail of 83(1) and not 83(3), which is the argument presented. this is a red herring.

the denial essentially did not address my request, and did exactly the same thing that i claimed was the problem in the first place: i claimed that the adjudicator didn't address the evidence, and the review then also doesn't address the evidence.

i'm going to have to serve the appeal on monday or tuesday.