Bungee Jumping UL
Greg Foster
after I started them collecting ULs for fun and extra credit:
Someone told me a story about Bungee jumping. There was this company
(unknown) who wanted to start jumping off the side of a building. They
They rode the elevator to the 27th floor. They knew they needed a
certain amount of rope for each floor--10 ft.--minus the stretch of
the rope. When the first person jumped off, the company realized
there was no such thing as the 13th floor. . . .
Tracking the story from my informant (Shannon Daniels) to the "someone"
to the unknown and presumably fictional company sounds *really* un-
promising. Has anyone else heard versions of this story?
Greg "Moral: next time, USENET. (Don't even ask about the coins in
his pockets)" Foster
__
"There is no story that is not true." | Greg Foster
--Nigerian (Ibo) proverb, | C52...@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu
quoted in Chinua Achebe's | English Dept, Univ of Missouri
novel _Things Fall Apart_ | Columbia, MO 65201
G. Paul Savage
> Someone told me a story about Bungee jumping. There was this company
> (unknown) who wanted to start jumping off the side of a building. They
> They rode the elevator to the 27th floor. They knew they needed a
> certain amount of rope for each floor--10 ft.--minus the stretch of
> the rope. When the first person jumped off, the company realized
> there was no such thing as the 13th floor. . . .
If you were to bungee jump off a building you would smash into the side of
the building which, IMHO, would lessen the joy of the experience. Of
course, you could be lucky enough to hit a window.
Paul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
paul....@mercury.chem.csiro.au ....................... Australian Science
CSIRO, Division of Chemicals & Polymers ................. Australia's Future
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
bill nelson
: This is a new one on me. One of my students just dealt me the following
: after I started them collecting ULs for fun and extra credit:
:
: Someone told me a story about Bungee jumping. There was this company
: (unknown) who wanted to start jumping off the side of a building. They
: They rode the elevator to the 27th floor. They knew they needed a
: certain amount of rope for each floor--10 ft.--minus the stretch of
: the rope. When the first person jumped off, the company realized
: there was no such thing as the 13th floor. . . .
:
: Tracking the story from my informant (Shannon Daniels) to the "someone"
: to the unknown and presumably fictional company sounds *really* un-
: promising. Has anyone else heard versions of this story?
Look at it this way. You could not bungee jump from a building. Not
unless you were willing to slam into the side of the building - at least
once.
Horacio Maiorino
>C52...@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Greg Foster) writes:
>: This is a new one on me. One of my students just dealt me the following
>: after I started them collecting ULs for fun and extra credit:
>:
>: Someone told me a story about Bungee jumping. There was this
>: (unknown) who wanted to start jumping off the side of a building.
>: They rode the elevator to the 27th floor. They knew they needed a
>: certain amount of rope for each floor--10 ft.--minus the stretch of
>: the rope. When the first person jumped off, the company realized
>: there was no such thing as the 13th floor
If I remember correctly I saw an actual home video of a somthing similar
in one of the latest " FACES of DEATH" videos. only difference was they
number of stories correct, but the height of each storie(sp?) was a foot
less than standard (whatever a standard storie is)
>Look at it this way. You could not bungee jump from a building. Not
>unless you were willing to slam into the side of the building - at least
>once.
The first (and last) jumper didn't slam into the building. He was not as
fortunate where the groud was concerned.
I think the last posting got cut off due to the trailing (.s) after 13th
floor I'm new at this (as if you didn't know).
Brian Scearce
> [no 13th floor, so apartment building bungee jumper does faceplant!]
The one I heard was:
A young man who wants to bungee jump is forbidden to do so by
his girlfriend. A jumper friend steps in and explains all of
the safety protocols, how the guy will be in very little
danger, how the bungee cords are replaced when there's the
least sign of fatigue and so on. The girlfriend finally
relents, and the jumper-to-be heads out to the crane.
On his way to the jumping platform, the elevator cable snaps,
and he falls to his death.
Brian "What about Buns A through F?" Scearce
--
Brian Scearce b...@sector7g.eng.sun.com
The above does not necessarily represent Sun policy.
I'm trying to get someone else to do my delegating for me.
Dan Hoey
> When the first person jumped off, the company realized
> there was no such thing as the 13th floor. . . ..
There was a cartoon a few months back with Bill Clinton jumping off a
bridge, thinking ``Length of bungee cord, 60 feet; amount of stretch,
742%; height of bridge, 449 feet, no wait, make that 439 feet....''
The _really_ funny thing is that the two guesses _both_ end up
way underground, by 56.2 and 66.2 feet, respectively. So it's the
cartoonist who can't do percentages, not the president who can't get
the numbers to add up.
(The actual numbers have been changed to protect my plausible
deniability of having the cartoon with me, but the point's the same.)
Dan ``will proof editorial cartoons for scientific acucracy'' Heoy
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (but will carefully debate the hoox)
ObUL: Nina Hartburg became a porno star because she was brainwashed by
subliminal advertising hidden in the Gerber's Baby Food baby's hair.
[I disclaim! On the off chance there's someone out there actually
named Nina Hartburg, it really _is_ a coincidence, explanation
on request, get away from me with that that tarhook, Missa
Hartley. Remember, there's a Dan Hoey Drive in Dexter,
Michigan, so coincidences really do concatenate. ]
Robin Halligan
>Look at it this way. You could not bungee jump from a building. Not
>unless you were willing to slam into the side of the building - at least
>once.
Bill i saw this on the news so it must be true (Ha Ha)
What they were doing was infact break jumping.
What happens is you tie a lump of rope round yourself and leap off
the building as you get close to the ground the operator apply a breaking
device to the line and you slow to a halt at ground level.
Only this time the halting device didn't work.
SPLAT.
--
sta...@crash.amigans.gen.nz (Robin Halligan)
Amigans Public Access UUCP Node Wanganui New Zealand
I didn't evolve from no big dumb cave man that got ate by the dinosaur
I evolved from the quick little Fuckers that got back to the cave.
Gallagher the comedian.
John Switzer
>C52...@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Greg Foster) writes:
>
>> When the first person jumped off, the company realized
>> there was no such thing as the 13th floor. . . ..
>
>There was a cartoon a few months back with Bill Clinton jumping off a
>bridge, thinking ``Length of bungee cord, 60 feet; amount of stretch,
>742%; height of bridge, 449 feet, no wait, make that 439 feet....''
>
>The _really_ funny thing is that the two guesses _both_ end up
>way underground, by 56.2 and 66.2 feet, respectively. So it's the
>cartoonist who can't do percentages, not the president who can't get
>the numbers to add up.
Perhaps that was the point of the cartoon? Or do you think only you
have a calculator handy?
--
John Switzer | "I'm afraid those things'll harm me,
| 'Cause they sure don't act like Barney.
CompuServe: 74076,1250 | And they think that I'm their dinner, not
Internet: j...@netcom.com | their friend." -- "Jurassic Park", Weird Al
Steven Burnap
: C52...@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Greg Foster) writes:
: > When the first person jumped off, the company realized
: > there was no such thing as the 13th floor. . . ..
: There was a cartoon a few months back with Bill Clinton jumping off a
: bridge, thinking ``Length of bungee cord, 60 feet; amount of stretch,
: 742%; height of bridge, 449 feet, no wait, make that 439 feet....''
: The _really_ funny thing is that the two guesses _both_ end up
: way underground, by 56.2 and 66.2 feet, respectively. So it's the
: cartoonist who can't do percentages, not the president who can't get
: the numbers to add up.
: (The actual numbers have been changed to protect my plausible
: deniability of having the cartoon with me, but the point's the same.)
Another thing that is wrong with the original story (Bungee cord too
long, person goes splat). Given that bungee cords are meant to
stretch a great deal (to 150% of their length or thereabouts), then
the velocity of a person falling will be reduced as the bungee card
stretches. If the cord is too long by only a small amount (say 10 ft),
then their velocity when they hit the ground is not going to be very
high and so they won't go "splat".
Steve
Ted Frank
>
>> When the first person jumped off, the company realized
>> there was no such thing as the 13th floor. . . ..
>
>There was a cartoon a few months back with Bill Clinton jumping off a
>bridge, thinking ``Length of bungee cord, 60 feet; amount of stretch,
>742%; height of bridge, 449 feet, no wait, make that 439 feet....''
>
>The _really_ funny thing is that the two guesses _both_ end up
>way underground, by 56.2 and 66.2 feet, respectively. So it's the
>cartoonist who can't do percentages, not the president who can't get
>the numbers to add up.
>
>(The actual numbers have been changed to protect my plausible
>deniability of having the cartoon with me, but the point's the same.)
The cartoon was by Tom Toles in the New Republic. He had the numbers
right when I did the calculations.
Ted "will be sued by shysters on the slightest provocation" Frank
--
ted frank | "In July, a Pennsylvania man cut off his own leg
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu | when he was trapped by a tree. Quite a dilemma
the u of c law school | to be faced with, Penny." "You got that right,
standard disclaimers | Jay." --exchange between WBBM-TV newsbroadcasters
Dan Hoey
:There was a cartoon a few months back with Bill Clinton jumping off a
:bridge, thinking ``Length of bungee cord, 60 feet; amount of stretch,
:742%; height of bridge, 449 feet, no wait, make that 439 feet....''
:The _really_ funny thing is that the two guesses _both_ end up
:way underground, by 56.2 and 66.2 feet, respectively. So it's the
:cartoonist who can't do percentages, not the president who can't get
:the numbers to add up.
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) answers:
: The cartoon was by Tom Toles in the New Republic. He had the numbers
: right when I did the calculations.
Thanks for the name, but the numbers were indeed wrong. The point is
that when a cord stretches by 742%, you have to multiply the length by
8.42, not 7.42. Toles multiplied by 7.42, and so did you, so of
course you got the same wrong answer.
Problem: A worker uses a Barrel-O'-Bricks^TM to stretch a fifty-foot
iron chain by 0.002%. Does the chain get shorter or longer?
Answer: Read the letter to his boss requesting sick leave.
Problem: John Thomas stretches his four-inch elastic by one hundred
per cent. How long is it now?
Answer: That's not funny.
j...@netcom.com (John Switzer) cavils:
> Perhaps that was the point of the cartoon? Or do you think only you
> have a calculator handy?
I didn't have a calculator, but the numbers were easy enough to
multiply in my head. Tom Toles may have had a calculator, but it
couldn't help him any more than it could help Ted Frank. If you don't
know how to translate words into button pushes, your calculator is a
dumb Nintendo.
Dan "Knows What Button to Push" Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
ObUL: The Bureau of Preconceived Notation is a little-known part of
the Department of Commerce whose function it is to determine
such things as that Noon is 12PM, that 2000 is in the twenty-
first century, and that MIM does not mean what MCMXCIX means.
Instead of issuing regulations (which the populace might take it
upon themselves to flout) they communicate in 200-minute spot
ads that replace carefully chosen words spoken by people on
Tee Vee. The next big standards war concerns whether they will
start reprocessing the video, too, or will define lip-reading to
be use of a Regulated Wartime Munitions Device requiring form
DD-5083-PNTT-HTD (Promise not to tell and Hope to die).
Ted Frank
>:There was a cartoon a few months back with Bill Clinton jumping off a
>:bridge, thinking ``Length of bungee cord, 60 feet; amount of stretch,
>:742%; height of bridge, 449 feet, no wait, make that 439 feet....''
>
>:The _really_ funny thing is that the two guesses _both_ end up
>:way underground, by 56.2 and 66.2 feet, respectively. So it's the
>:cartoonist who can't do percentages, not the president who can't get
>:the numbers to add up.
>
>th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) answers:
>: The cartoon was by Tom Toles in the New Republic. He had the numbers
>: right when I did the calculations.
>
>Thanks for the name, but the numbers were indeed wrong. The point is
>that when a cord stretches by 742%, you have to multiply the length by
>8.42, not 7.42. Toles multiplied by 7.42, and so did you, so of
>course you got the same wrong answer.
Except he didn't say "cord stretches *by* 742%." He said "cord stretches
*to* 742% of original length", or words to that effect.
Only one with a wrong answer here is you, Bubba.
Ted "or is that bubeleh?" Frank
Jonathan Papai
> Only one with a wrong answer here is you, Bubba.
>
> Ted "or is that bubeleh?" Frank
I believe the AFU-approved moniker is "weasel"
Jon "Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr." Papai
Mark Warburton
|> In article <9310071...@aic.nrl.navy.mil> ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (Dan Hoey) writes:
|> >
|> >There was a cartoon a few months back with Bill Clinton jumping off a
|> >bridge, thinking ``Length of bungee cord, 60 feet; amount of stretch,
|> >742%; height of bridge, 449 feet, no wait, make that 439 feet....''
|> >
|> >The _really_ funny thing is that the two guesses _both_ end up
|> >way underground, by 56.2 and 66.2 feet, respectively. So it's the
|> >cartoonist who can't do percentages, not the president who can't get
|> >the numbers to add up.
|> >
|> >(The actual numbers have been changed to protect my plausible
|> >deniability of having the cartoon with me, but the point's the same.)
|>
|> The cartoon was by Tom Toles in the New Republic. He had the numbers
|> right when I did the calculations.
|>
|> Ted "will be sued by shysters on the slightest provocation" Frank
|> --
My hunch is that Dan was trying to say that the cartoonist forgot to add the
original length of bungee cord to the stretch length. Possibly Ted did the
same? This is a common mistake, but hardly an urban legend..
ObUL:
Over the past few days at work, we have had a few warning posts to our local
newsgroup concerning LSD-laced (some with strychnine!) tattoos being sold to
children at local high schools. The source was a worker's wife who received
the warning as a FAX at a clinic where she works. But there are enough folk
here who read AFU that the UL was quickly identified and discarded.
Mark "Get yer FAX straight!" Warburton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Warburton |Any ideas or opinions expressed above
Don't send mail to mar...@bnr.ca! |do not necessarily reflect those of
E-mail: Mark.Wa...@eebbs.isis.org |my employer.
gary l. schroeder
>In article <16C5D24B...@mizzou1.missouri.edu> C52...@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Greg Foster) writes:
>> [no 13th floor, so apartment building bungee jumper does faceplant!]
>The one I heard was:
> A young man who wants to bungee jump is forbidden to do so by
> his girlfriend. A jumper friend steps in and explains all of
> the safety protocols, how the guy will be in very little
> danger, how the bungee cords are replaced when there's the
> least sign of fatigue and so on. The girlfriend finally
> relents, and the jumper-to-be heads out to the crane.
> On his way to the jumping platform, the elevator cable snaps,
> and he falls to his death.
>Brian "What about Buns A through F?" Scearce
Heh. That's nothing. What I wanna know is when is the government going
to release the medical histories of the patients used as human guinea
pigs in the unsuccessful testing of Preparations "A" through "G". How
many had to suffer needlessly in the reckless search for hemorrhoid
relief? How many had to die?
--
--------------
Gary Schroeder
schr...@bnlux1.bnl.gov
Brookhaven National Laboratory
John Switzer
(gary l. schroeder) writes:
>Heh. That's nothing. What I wanna know is when is the government going
>to release the medical histories of the patients used as human guinea
>pigs in the unsuccessful testing of Preparations "A" through "G". How
>many had to suffer needlessly in the reckless search for hemorrhoid
>relief? How many had to die?
Ha! You've got it totally wrong. The guys who did Preparation H are the
same ones who invented the disposable razor, and they had the same
problem with both products - they kept making them too effective. The
Preparations "A" through "G" were not dangerous at all; far from it -
instead they actually cured hemorrhoids permanently! This is bad news
for those who want to market a medicine that gets rid of them. It thus
took them 8 tries before they got a salve that would be good enough to
get rid of hemorrhoids but not good enough to get rid of them forever.
This is the real travesty of justice, if you ask me.
John "and what about the ballpoint pen which never runs out?"
Switzer
D M Procida
A what?
> round yourself and leap off
>the building as you get close to the ground the operator apply a breaking
>device to the line
And nobody tries to stop them from breaking the line?
Daniele "Puzzled by antipodean behaviour and language" Procida
Robin Halligan
>In article <starma...@crash.amigans.gen.nz>,
> sta...@crash.amigans.gen.nz writes:
>>What happens is you tie a lump of rope
>A what?
Sorry i should have said the end of a length of rope.
>> round yourself and leap off
>>the building as you get close to the ground the operator apply a breaking
>>device to the line
>And nobody tries to stop them from breaking the line?
>Daniele "Puzzled by antipodean behaviour and language" Procida
Well you should try reading it in the opposite direction (the coriolis effect)
Dan Hoey
miscalculate and go splat, I mentioned a cartoon on the topic. There
was some disagreement about what, exactly, the cartoon said, so I've
gone to the trouble of looking it up. I found the cartoon in COMIC
RELIEF #54 (Late July, 1993) where it was reprinted from the NEW
REPUBLIC. It's a Toles cartoon entitled ``Bungee Presidency'', and
shows Clinton bungeeing down the valley of the shadow of death while
thinking:
Distance to rocks: 3214 feet, length of cord: 500 feet, percent of
cord expansion: 642% ... or was that 644% ....
As I pointed out (explicitly using different figures, since I didn't
have the cartoon with me then), a 500-foot cord that undergoes an
expansion of 642%-or-was-that-644% will end up being 3710-or-was-
that-3720 feet long--both well into the splat range. Toles presumably
just multiplied by 6.42-owt-6.44 and thought the cord length would be
either 3210-owt-3220 feet, making the humorous point that a 2% error
in Clinton's figures might make a big difference in his plans'
outcome. Instead, it's a not so much a case of a president who can't
keep his numbers straight as a cartoonist who can't do percentages.
The cutest part of this is the marginal note, ``Better stick to
jogging''. Should that be ``jotting''?
For providing motivation to research this question, I would like to
thank th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) who contested my analysis:
> Except he didn't say "cord stretches *by* 742%." He said "cord
> stretches *to* 742% of original length", or words to that effect.
demonstrating that even a noted AFU legal information provider will
occasionally talk though his hat when speaking _ex_camaro_,
> Only one with a wrong answer here is you, Bubba.
and that that calling people names doesn't improve his ferocity.
Dan ``or was that _a_capella_'' Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
ObUL: Lorena Bobbitt's lawyer is going to try to convince the jury
that her clever cleaver work expanded John's Thomas by 10%.
Ted Frank
>shows Clinton bungeeing down the valley of the shadow of death while
>thinking:
>
> Distance to rocks: 3214 feet, length of cord: 500 feet, percent of
> cord expansion: 642% ... or was that 644% ....
>
>thank th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) who contested my analysis:
>
>> Except he didn't say "cord stretches *by* 742%." He said "cord
>> stretches *to* 742% of original length", or words to that effect.
>
>demonstrating that even a noted AFU legal information provider will
>occasionally talk though his hat when speaking _ex_camaro_,
Hey, it's an old hat, what do you expect?
I stand by my statement. It's ambiguous and doesn't say the cord
stretches *by* anything. While less clear than one would want writing
an engineering manual, to say the least, my remembrance of my
interpretation is at least as legitimate as yours, especially
given the fact that all I was disputing was your unreserved
claim that the preposition "by" was present.
--
ted frank | "But I'm not in anyone's .sig"
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu | -- Vicki Robinson
the u of c law school |---------------------------------------------------
kibo number of 0.5 | Standard disclaimers apply
Dan Hoey
bungeeing down the valley of the shadow of death while thinking:
> Distance to rocks: 3214 feet, length of cord: 500 feet, percent of
> cord expansion: 642% ... or was that 644% ....
Amazingly, th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) still argues that
this statement might mean the cord would stretch to 3210 feet or 3220
feet, depending on the percentage:
> I stand by my statement. It's ambiguous and doesn't say the cord
> stretches *by* anything.
There is no ambiguity in the caption. You merely have to consider
what a percent of expansion is. The word ``expansion'' expresses an
increase. An ``expansion of 0%'' or a ``0% expansion'' or (to quote
faithfully) a ``percentage of expansion: 0%'' means no expansion at
all, leaving the initial amount unchanged. Similarly, a 100%
expansion is a doubling of the initial amount, a 200% expansion is a
tripling, and so forth. It is easy to see that a 642% expansion is a
7.42-fold increase in size. I can't believe you can otherwise
competently use the English language and still not understand the
meanings of these words. If you were not so inexplicably wedded to
your (and Toles's) error, you would never argue with this.
> While less clear than one would want writing an engineering manual,
> to say the least, my remembrance of my interpretation is at least as
> legitimate as yours....
I disagree. The problem is not that the writing is unclear, it is
just that you have not read it with care. [It is true that if I read
this in an engineering manual, I would look for corroboration that the
writer of the manual did not make the same error you and Toles made.
But that is because there's a lot of sloppy arithmetic and writing in
engineering manuals.] It is telling that you argue on the strength of
your remembrance of your interpretation. Apparently, your initial
interpretation was based on a careless reading of the text, so you
didn't notice Toles's blunder. When I saw it, I noticed the error,
and so I re-examined it carefully to make sure that the error was one
of his misdenotation rather than my misinterpretation. I still have
not heard anything other than your preposterous claims of ambiguity to
argue against my conclusion.
> ... especially given the fact that all I was disputing was your
> unreserved claim that the preposition "by" was present.
I never claimed that the preposition ``by'' appeared in the caption.
What I do claim is that a ``percentage of expansion'' of 642% happens
to mean the same as an ``642% expansion or an ``expansion by 642%''.
The meaning you argued for, of ``expansion to 642% of the original
size'' means something different, in the same way ``expanding two
meters'' means something different from ``expanding to two meters''.
Dan Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
GratNonUL: A budding young law student's old hat expands 10 percent.
He files suit based on the possibility that a 10 percent expansion may
mean that it became one tenth of its former size, crushing his skull.
Regrettably, we must dismiss the suit because nothing of the sort has
occurred. The hat has merely enlarged to contain a modest increment
in the fatuity of his arguments.
Jonathan Papai
> There is no ambiguity in the caption. You merely have to consider
> what a percent of expansion is. The word ``expansion'' expresses an
> increase. An ``expansion of 0%'' or a ``0% expansion'' or (to quote
> faithfully) a ``percentage of expansion: 0%'' means no expansion at
> all, leaving the initial amount unchanged. Similarly, a 100%
> expansion is a doubling of the initial amount, a 200% expansion is a
> tripling, and so forth. It is easy to see that a 642% expansion is a
> 7.42-fold increase in size.
The above is essentially correct.
For further information on this concept, I suggest:
>> Malvern, Lawrence E , 1916-
>> Introduction to the mechanics of a continuous medium [by] Lawrence E.
>>Malvern. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall [1969] xii, 713 p. illus.
>>24 cm.
>> (Prentice-Hall series in engineering of the physical sciences) Includes
>>bibliographies.
Or maybe this one, if you're just getting started in physico-cartoonology:
>> Mase, George E.
>> Schaum's outline of theory and problems of continuum mechanics, by George E.
>>Mase. New York, McGraw-Hill [1970] 221 p. illus. 28 cm.
>> (Schaum's outline series)
Sorry, I don't have the ISBNs.
Jon "will reference books as often as Derek Tearne does." Papai
--
o
| Member of the trolling hall-of-fame.
|
| \
\___/
No parking EXCEPT FOR BOB
> ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (Dan Hoey) writes:
>
>> There is no ambiguity in the caption. You merely have to consider
>> what a percent of expansion is. The word ``expansion'' expresses an
>> increase. An ``expansion of 0%'' or a ``0% expansion'' or (to quote
>> faithfully) a ``percentage of expansion: 0%'' means no expansion at
>> all, leaving the initial amount unchanged. Similarly, a 100%
>> expansion is a doubling of the initial amount, a 200% expansion is a
>> tripling, and so forth. It is easy to see that a 642% expansion is a
>> 7.42-fold increase in size.
>
>The above is essentially correct.
>Jon "will reference books as often as Derek Tearne does." Papai
>--
> o
> | Member of the trolling hall-of-fame.
> |
> | \
> \___/
Personally, Dan, I thought it was well baited, since, of course, a
642% expansion is, in fact, a 6.42-fold INCREASE. It's also 7.42
times the size of the original, as you imply but INcorrectly state.
But to have a master-troller _agree_ with it, this is too much.
I can no longer sit by and watch who bites, since perhaps no
one will. If you guys planned this together, then at least
I've been hooked by the best...
Bob O`Bob
--