> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
> Updated October 16, 2007

> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
> Updated October 16, 2007

> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
> Updated October 16, 2007

> 1. Why do people mountain bike?
> a.      They say that using a bike allows them to get much farther, in
> the same amount of time, than they can by walking. They also maintain
> constant pressure on land managers, to open more and more trails to
> bikes. Of course, all of these trails are already open to them, if
> they choose to walk. They also frequently claim that closing trails to
> bikes "excludes" them from the parks. This could only be true if they
> were unable to walk. Of course, they are able to walk. There's nothing
> inherently wrong with bicycling instead of walking; we all like to
> save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle to replace
> automobile use is obviously beneficial. However, by the same token,
> replacing hiking with mountain biking is obviously not beneficial.
> b.      They are interested in the quantity of nature they can see,
> rather than the quality of their experience. While riding a bike,
> especially over terrain as rough as a trail, one has to be constantly
> paying attention to not crashing. That makes it almost impossible to
> notice much else. By contrast, a hiker feels the ground, hears all the
> sounds and smells all the odors of nature and can stop instantly, if
> he/she finds something interesting. The brain thrives on stimulation.
> A biker has to travel several times as far as a hiker, to get the same
> stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the same token, motorcyclists have to
> travel several times as far as a bicyclist, and an auto user several
> times as far as a motorcyclist, since they are enclosed in a metal
> box.)
> c.      They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a trail,
> especially a trail containing many obstacles, or a trail one is not
> familiar with, is very challenging. (But if mountain biking is the
> high point of your week, as it seems to be for many mountain bikers,
> you must be leading a pretty dull life, off of the bike!)
> d.      They are interested in building mountain biking skills and
> competing with other mountain bikers. The thrill of racing drives
> people to spend more money on their bike, and ride it harder and more
> often. Racing, up to and including the Olympics, drives a lot of
> mountain biking. Of course, it is also extremely harmful to the parks
> and natural areas that are used for practice! It is hard to think of
> any other (legal) use of public lands, other than hunting, that is as
> harmful as mountain biking.
> e.      They want to get to their destination faster (not considering
> that the process of getting there is a major part of the enjoyment).
> Once, when much younger, I was hiking along a very boring trail. The
> thought came to me that if I had a bike, I could get past the boring
> section of the trail, and to the interesting part much faster. But
> about 2 seconds later I realized that if I could do that, so could
> everyone else, and the place would be full of people and ruined. That
> was the end of my (2-second) mountain biking career.

> 2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides the
> attraction for participants, manufacturers and retailers of mountain
> bikes and mountain biking accessories, as well as "adventure" travel
> guides, make a lot of money from promoting mountain biking. Even some
> auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) promote and sponsor mountain biking,
> and try to use its popularity to sell more cars. The tourism industry
> also promotes mountain biking, among other attractions.

> 3. What harm does mountain biking do?
> a.      Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires rip
> into the soil, loosening it and allowing rain to wash it away. They
> also create V-shaped grooves that make walking difficult or even
> dangerous. The mechanical advantage given by the gears and ball
> bearings allow a mountain biker to travel several times as fast as a
> hiker. Given their increased weight (rider plus bike), this results in
> vastly increased momentum, and hence much greater horizontal
> (shearing) forces on the soil. (Witness the skid marks from stops,
> starts, and turns.) According to Newton, every action has an equal and
> opposite reaction. Mountain bikes were built much stronger than other
> bikes, so that they could withstand the greater forces they were
> subject to on rough trails. These same forces, therefore, are being
> applied to the trails! To give a definite number, the winner of a
> 20-mile race here in Briones Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the speed
> limit is 15 MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
> b.      A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally step on small
> animals and plants on the trail. For a mountain biker, it is almost
> impossible to avoid killing countless animals and plants on and under
> the trail. They have to pay attention to controlling the bike, and
> can't afford to look carefully at what is on the trail, especially
> when travelling fast. And even if they happen to see, for example, a
> snake, it is hard for them to stop in time to avoid killing it. A
> hiker, when crossing a creek, will try to avoid getting wet, by
> crossing on stepping stones or logs. Mountain bikers, on the other
> hand, simply ride right through the creek bed, crushing any animals or
> plants that happen to be there. Mountain biking magazines are full of
> photos of mountain bikers throwing up spray, as they barrel through
> creeks. Not only do bikes destroy animals and plants as they ride
> across streams, they ride through streams stirring up sediment. The
> sediment in the water interferes with the oxygen uptake by aquatic
> life, for example, killing fish- and frog eggs. Young fish, insects,
> amphibians, and aquatic microorganisms are extremely sensitive to
> sediment in water.
> c.      Bikes also allow people to travel several times as far as a
> hiker. This translates into several times the impacts, both on the
> trail and on the wildlife (to say nothing of the other trail users).
> Existing parklands are already inadequate to protect the wildlife that
> live there. When they are crisscrossed by mountain bikers and legal or
> illegal trails, their habitat becomes even more inadequate. Mountain
> bikers frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles or more. Have you
> ever tried to walk that far in a day? In other words, allowing bikes
> in a park greatly increases human presence in that park and drives
> wildlife further from the resources that they need to survive,
> including water, food, and mates.
> d.      Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely pass each
> other on narrow trails. Therefore, policies that permit mountain
> biking also result in more habitat destruction, as trails are widened
> by bikers (or by hikers and equestrians jumping out of their way).
> e.      Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying mud, and
> consequently exotic plants, fungi, and other organisms from place to
> place, resulting in the spread of exotic invasive species, such as
> weeds and Sudden Oak Death.
> f.      Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off of the
> trails and hence out of the parks. Even able-bodied hikers and
> equestrians fear for their safety, and don't enjoy sharing the trails
> with bikes. (The mountain bikers claim that they are simply being
> selfish and "unwilling to share", but actually they have no problem
> sharing trails with mountain bikers; it is only their bikes that are a
> problem!)
> g.      Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go anywhere,
> teach children and anyone else who sees them that the rough treatment
> of nature is acceptable. This undoubtedly has a negative effect on
> people's treatment of nature.
> h.      In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers have
> been resorting to extreme measures -- even in some cases putting a
> plastic matrix or other exotic material under the trail (e.g. in
> Pleasanton Ridge Regional Preserve, near Pleasanton, California)! It's
> hard to imagine that this will have a beneficial effect on the park
> and its wildlife....
> i.      Allowing mountain bikes in a park greatly increases the damage
> to the trails, damage from "bootleg" (illegally created) trails, and
> the problems of conflicts between trail users, and hence the cost of
> maintaining the park. Considering how tight park budgets are, we can't
> afford the extra costs of policing, and repairing the damage from,
> mountain biking.
> j.      For the science on mountain biking and its impacts on wildlife
> and people, seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

> 4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental
> impact than hiking. Is that true?
> a.If you read the "studies" that make that claim, you find that they
> don't really compare the impacts of hiking and mountain biking, but
> only the impacts per foot. If, for a moment, we assume that the
> studies are correct in their having equivalent impacts per foot, it
> would still follow that mountain biking has far greater impact per
> person, since mountain bikers typically travel so much farther than
> hikers. Besides overlooking distances travelled, those "studies"
> almost all ignore impacts on wildlife. And they don't study mountain
> biking under normal conditions -- only at a very slow speed. Actually,
> the comparison with hiking is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if
> we planned to allow only one of the two, and were considering which of
> the two is more harmful. In fact, no one is considering banning
> hiking. We are only considering adding mountain biking. Therefore, the
> only relevant question is, "Is mountain biking harmful"? (Of course,
> it is!) There is only one truly scientific study

>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>> Updated October 16, 2007
><snip!>
>I don't ride a mountain bike, but I don't consider an obviously very
>biased and negative diatribe Truth,

>"Mike Vandeman" <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:dkrgo3her3df7jjkfrob98fl1k1enu93rb@4ax.com...
>> alt.mountain-bike is moribund. Maybe turning it into a forum for the
>> TRUTH about mountain biking will save it?

>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>> Updated October 16, 2007

> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>Just some more of Vandeshit, don't waste you time reading it.

>Remember, it is usually a small percentage that ruin it for the rest.
>the ones that rip and tear are a very small percent.

>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>> Updated October 16, 2007

>> 1. Why do people mountain bike?
>> a.      They say that using a bike allows them to get much farther, in
>> the same amount of time, than they can by walking. They also maintain
>> constant pressure on land managers, to open more and more trails to
>> bikes. Of course, all of these trails are already open to them, if
>> they choose to walk. They also frequently claim that closing trails to
>> bikes "excludes" them from the parks. This could only be true if they
>> were unable to walk. Of course, they are able to walk. There's nothing
>> inherently wrong with bicycling instead of walking; we all like to
>> save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle to replace
>> automobile use is obviously beneficial. However, by the same token,
>> replacing hiking with mountain biking is obviously not beneficial.
>> b.      They are interested in the quantity of nature they can see,
>> rather than the quality of their experience. While riding a bike,
>> especially over terrain as rough as a trail, one has to be constantly
>> paying attention to not crashing. That makes it almost impossible to
>> notice much else. By contrast, a hiker feels the ground, hears all the
>> sounds and smells all the odors of nature and can stop instantly, if
>> he/she finds something interesting. The brain thrives on stimulation.
>> A biker has to travel several times as far as a hiker, to get the same
>> stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the same token, motorcyclists have to
>> travel several times as far as a bicyclist, and an auto user several
>> times as far as a motorcyclist, since they are enclosed in a metal
>> box.)
>> c.      They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a trail,
>> especially a trail containing many obstacles, or a trail one is not
>> familiar with, is very challenging. (But if mountain biking is the
>> high point of your week, as it seems to be for many mountain bikers,
>> you must be leading a pretty dull life, off of the bike!)
>> d.      They are interested in building mountain biking skills and
>> competing with other mountain bikers. The thrill of racing drives
>> people to spend more money on their bike, and ride it harder and more
>> often. Racing, up to and including the Olympics, drives a lot of
>> mountain biking. Of course, it is also extremely harmful to the parks
>> and natural areas that are used for practice! It is hard to think of
>> any other (legal) use of public lands, other than hunting, that is as
>> harmful as mountain biking.
>> e.      They want to get to their destination faster (not considering
>> that the process of getting there is a major part of the enjoyment).
>> Once, when much younger, I was hiking along a very boring trail. The
>> thought came to me that if I had a bike, I could get past the boring
>> section of the trail, and to the interesting part much faster. But
>> about 2 seconds later I realized that if I could do that, so could
>> everyone else, and the place would be full of people and ruined. That
>> was the end of my (2-second) mountain biking career.

>> 2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides the
>> attraction for participants, manufacturers and retailers of mountain
>> bikes and mountain biking accessories, as well as "adventure" travel
>> guides, make a lot of money from promoting mountain biking. Even some
>> auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) promote and sponsor mountain biking,
>> and try to use its popularity to sell more cars. The tourism industry
>> also promotes mountain biking, among other attractions.

>> 3. What harm does mountain biking do?
>> a.      Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires rip
>> into the soil, loosening it and allowing rain to wash it away. They
>> also create V-shaped grooves that make walking difficult or even
>> dangerous. The mechanical advantage given by the gears and ball
>> bearings allow a mountain biker to travel several times as fast as a
>> hiker. Given their increased weight (rider plus bike), this results in
>> vastly increased momentum, and hence much greater horizontal
>> (shearing) forces on the soil. (Witness the skid marks from stops,
>> starts, and turns.) According to Newton, every action has an equal and
>> opposite reaction. Mountain bikes were built much stronger than other
>> bikes, so that they could withstand the greater forces they were
>> subject to on rough trails. These same forces, therefore, are being
>> applied to the trails! To give a definite number, the winner of a
>> 20-mile race here in Briones Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the speed
>> limit is 15 MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
>> b.      A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally step on small
>> animals and plants on the trail. For a mountain biker, it is almost
>> impossible to avoid killing countless animals and plants on and under
>> the trail. They have to pay attention to controlling the bike, and
>> can't afford to look carefully at what is on the trail, especially
>> when travelling fast. And even if they happen to see, for example, a
>> snake, it is hard for them to stop in time to avoid killing it. A
>> hiker, when crossing a creek, will try to avoid getting wet, by
>> crossing on stepping stones or logs. Mountain bikers, on the other
>> hand, simply ride right through the creek bed, crushing any animals or
>> plants that happen to be there. Mountain biking magazines are full of
>> photos of mountain bikers throwing up spray, as they barrel through
>> creeks. Not only do bikes destroy animals and plants as they ride
>> across streams, they ride through streams stirring up sediment. The
>> sediment in the water interferes with the oxygen uptake by aquatic
>> life, for example, killing fish- and frog eggs. Young fish, insects,
>> amphibians, and aquatic microorganisms are extremely sensitive to
>> sediment in water.
>> c.      Bikes also allow people to travel several times as far as a
>> hiker. This translates into several times the impacts, both on the
>> trail and on the wildlife (to say nothing of the other trail users).
>> Existing parklands are already inadequate to protect the wildlife that
>> live there. When they are crisscrossed by mountain bikers and legal or
>> illegal trails, their habitat becomes even more inadequate. Mountain
>> bikers frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles or more. Have you
>> ever tried to walk that far in a day? In other words, allowing bikes
>> in a park greatly increases human presence in that park and drives
>> wildlife further from the resources that they need to survive,
>> including water, food, and mates.
>> d.      Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely pass each
>> other on narrow trails. Therefore, policies that permit mountain
>> biking also result in more habitat destruction, as trails are widened
>> by bikers (or by hikers and equestrians jumping out of their way).
>> e.      Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying mud, and
>> consequently exotic plants, fungi, and other organisms from place to
>> place, resulting in the spread of exotic invasive species, such as
>> weeds and Sudden Oak Death.
>> f.      Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off of the
>> trails and hence out of the parks. Even able-bodied hikers and
>> equestrians fear for their safety, and don't enjoy sharing the trails
>> with bikes. (The mountain bikers claim that they are simply being
>> selfish and "unwilling to share", but actually they have no problem
>> sharing trails with mountain bikers; it is only their bikes that are a
>> problem!)
>> g.      Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go anywhere,
>> teach children and anyone else who sees them that the rough treatment
>> of nature is acceptable. This undoubtedly has a negative effect on
>> people's treatment of nature.
>> h.      In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers have
>> been resorting to extreme measures -- even in some cases putting a
>> plastic matrix or other exotic material under the trail (e.g. in
>> Pleasanton Ridge Regional Preserve, near Pleasanton, California)! It's
>> hard to imagine that this will have a beneficial effect on the park
>> and its wildlife....
>> i.      Allowing mountain bikes in a park greatly increases the damage
>> to the trails, damage from "bootleg" (illegally created) trails, and
>> the problems of conflicts between trail users, and hence the cost of
>> maintaining the park. Considering how tight park budgets are, we can't
>> afford the extra costs of policing, and repairing the damage from,
>> mountain biking.
>> j.      For the science on mountain biking and its impacts on wildlife
>> and people, seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

>> 4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental
>> impact than hiking. Is that true?
>> a.If you read the "studies" that make that claim, you find that they
>> don't really compare the impacts of hiking and mountain biking, but
>> only the impacts per foot. If, for a moment, we assume that the
>> studies are correct in their having equivalent impacts per foot, it
>> would still follow that mountain biking has far greater impact per
>> person, since mountain bikers typically travel so much farther than
>> hikers. Besides overlooking distances travelled, those "studies"
>> almost all ignore impacts on wildlife. And they don't study mountain
>> biking under normal conditions -- only at a very slow speed. Actually,
>> the comparison with hiking is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if
>> we planned to allow only one of the two, and were considering which of
>> the two is more harmful.

>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:dkrgo3her3df7jjkfrob98fl1k1enu93rb@4ax.com...
>>> alt.mountain-bike is moribund. Maybe turning it into a forum for the
>>> TRUTH about mountain biking will save it?

>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>> Updated October 16, 2007

>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>>Just some more of Vandeshit, don't waste you time reading it.

> Afraid someone might learn the truth?
> --

> Your message is even worse, because you state an opinion with ZERO
> evidence.

> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>news:dkrgo3her3df7jjkfrob98fl1k1enu93rb@4ax.com...
>>> alt.mountain-bike is moribund. Maybe turning it into a forum for the
>>> TRUTH about mountain biking will save it?

>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>> Updated October 16, 2007

>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>>Just some more of Vandeshit, don't waste you time reading it.

> Afraid someone might learn the truth?

> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!

> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

> To annoy Mike Vandeman?

> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

>"Mike Vandeman" <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:5obio39jabi9na67csh79iv2nom5nk7h2m@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:28:55 -0600, "DI" <di9...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>news:dkrgo3her3df7jjkfrob98fl1k1enu93rb@4ax.com...
>>>> alt.mountain-bike is moribund. Maybe turning it into a forum for the
>>>> TRUTH about mountain biking will save it?

>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>> Updated October 16, 2007

>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>>>Just some more of Vandeshit, don't waste you time reading it.

>> Afraid someone might learn the truth?
>> --

>You wouldn't know the truth, only your Spam.

>"Mike Vandeman" <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:5obio39jabi9na67csh79iv2nom5nk7h2m@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:28:55 -0600, "DI" <di9...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>news:dkrgo3her3df7jjkfrob98fl1k1enu93rb@4ax.com...
>>>> alt.mountain-bike is moribund. Maybe turning it into a forum for the
>>>> TRUTH about mountain biking will save it?

>>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
>>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
>>>> Updated October 16, 2007

>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>>>Just some more of Vandeshit, don't waste you time reading it.

>> Afraid someone might learn the truth?

> Not from anything that you post !!!!

>> Since you provide no specifics, we have ot assume that you CAN'T, and
>> are full of it.
>> --
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande- Hide quoted text -

>> - Show quoted text -

>You're post amuses me...you simpleton.
>Liars figure and Figures lie! So there you have it...

>Like I stated...you do the research. it is out there. You just state
>altered facts. But like all your responses...you just flip out and
>scream...EVERYONE ELSE IS A LIAR EXCEPT ME...and leave it at
>that...because you are a dolt.

>I agree with the pure habitat...offlimits to humans...lets start here
>with the forum and you can start...once you're gone we will all follow
>I am sure...LOL. You twit.

>"Mike Vandeman" <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:ekbio3pvn14f1367k08rbh63gpcm830leh@4ax.com...

>> Your message is even worse, because you state an opinion with ZERO
>> evidence.

>Now there's a pot calling the kettle black ...

>> To annoy Mike Vandeman?

>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

>It would seem that's the primary goal of the entire known universe.
>Mikey's paranoia & megalomania are truly beyond the Earth. But: To the
>topic of this thread: I was not aware that there are even SELDOM-ASKED
>questions about mountain biking.

> >"Mike Vandeman" <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:5obio39jabi9na67csh79iv2nom5nk7h2m@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:28:55 -0600, "DI" <di9...@cox.net> wrote:

> >>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:dkrgo3her3df7jjkfrob98fl1k1enu93rb@4ax.com...
> >>>> alt.mountain-bike is moribund. Maybe turning it into a forum for the
> >>>> TRUTH about mountain biking will save it?

> >>>> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
> >>>> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
> >>>> Updated October 16, 2007

> >>>http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

> >>>Just some more of Vandeshit, don't waste you time reading it.

> >> Afraid someone might learn the truth?
> >> --

> >You wouldn't know the truth, only your Spam.

> It's interesting that (1) my article is BY FAR the most popular
> article in this newsgroup, and (2) NOT ONE mountain biker has had the
> guts to respond with any specific facts or criticisms. You guys are
> nothing but hot air.
> --

>You continue to blurb out NON-specifics as well but say continuously

>---
>As usual, you have nothing SPECIFIC to say, proving that you don't
>have a case. QED
>---

>Interestingly enough...I only responded twice to you but you say as
>usual...because you lie. You LIE.
>Liars Figure...Figures lie.That is you. Read your crappe posts.Nothing
>you say is fact. It is strict and sheer opinions. all opinions with
>figures you make up in your BiPolar mind. Instead of spewing garbage.
>invest the time and effot in providing a service. Are you the jerk
>that stands and protests and screams or the one who educates riders on
>where and how to ride safer environmentally. Don't answer that...We
>all know the question. You're a lying asshole...that's a fact. You're
>posts are not that popular...maybe in your mind. You're number one
>with only yourself. You're self inflated ego is only surpassed by your
>Depakote and Seroquel antipsyche dosages.

>Read my first post. FULL of facts. I was at the Pro and amateur level.
>I told facts about how riders train and ride. I told facts about the
>types of riders you will encounter. It is a fraction retard, not
>majority. I told facts about the industry not being run by auto
>manufacturers...it is a fact. I ran a biz for years. I know from the
>industry standard what drives it and how it isn't flurishing as a biz
>like you say. You just lie...

>You are a liar. I don't even support mountain biking but the fact
>remains, if you're going to make a case. Use facts and approach from a
>healthy view...not a biased stupidity...

>I probably won't respond to you anymore ever..simply because i just
>wasted 5 minutes of my life on you that I won't ever get back and
>simply put...that isn't worth it. Cause you are and always will be an
>Asshole