Here's the last of Miller's emails to me (I couldn't get this to paste in the other message, I assume because I had filled the available space - sorry <g>):

From: "Robert J. Miller" <rjmgrfx@email.msn.com>
To: <runtam@pacbell.net>
Subject: woof...woof...
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:09:56 -0300

I've read both of your notes. I think we have become like the "dog chasing It's tail", amusing, even funny the first time or two, but pointless.

First, please do not use terms like "stealing" & "crime" in a letter that also references my present auction.

Again you have no proof, again only your opinion that if the chips were returned, it's implied that they were not used. You are wrong about this. I know people who have supplied items to films, the items were used, and then were returned. You say that if there is no screen credit that implies they were not used, You are wrong again. If the item were used, but not clearly visible on screen, it is possible that there was no screen credit. I have no proof that this is the what happened in this case, nor do you have proof that it supports you opinion.

This type of dispute happens frequently in the movie business. I'm surprised that since you are an attorney living and working in CA, you aren't aware of this.

Do you think you need another negative at the moment so close to the other battle scar left by Bookdlr? If it comes, it should be justified.

Its apparent what you and your friends are about.

Unless you have proof that these particular chips were not, could not have been used in the film, please do not e-mail again (unless it's to tell me that I've just won the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes!), if you do and if don't have proof, I will consider that harassment ,because unlike you, I quickly learned not to " waste time arguing with a ... "well, I think you know how the rest of that goes.

So, now, we are clear on this one point. No proof. No e-mail.

Farewell

Robert

P.S. I was certain you would not tell me your address.