Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 15, 8:32 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2007 06:59:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
>
> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?
>
> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with
> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it.
>
> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the
> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law.
>
> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is
> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed,
> then it is easier to include the rest.


Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite
virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/
details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a
steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet

(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down)


How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

On 15 Mar 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 15, 8:32 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On 15 Mar 2007 06:59:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?
>>
>> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with
>> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it.
>>
>> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the
>> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law.
>>
>> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is
>> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed,
>> then it is easier to include the rest.
>
>
>Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite
>virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/
>details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a
>steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001:
>
>http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet
>
>(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down)
>
>
>How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-)

Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's.

Cyclists clearly are not, as shown by the ever-increasing number of
the MHL's in the USofA.

What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of
them?

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:44:15 -0700, r15757 wrote:

> On Mar 15, 4:38 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

>> Why are fellow cyclists our own worst enemies?

Because we're a community of nerds, without social skills or political
savvy. But at least some of us try.

> I don't know. Ask the Cascade cycling club. Are there any other examples
> anywhere of a cycling club/advocacy organization that is PRO adult MHL?
> What the hell are they thinking?

There are lots. What the hell are they thinking? They're probably just
not thinking.

> Is the goal to get people to ride bikes, to use their bikes for short
> trips to the store, to the bar, to the coffee shop, to work, to parties,
> etc. -- or is the goal to make certain that whoever does these things is
> wearing a helmet, even if it means that far fewer people do it?

Their goal is safety, *as they understand it*, and showing that they're on
the side of safety. Most of them mean well.

Matt O.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 15, 10:29 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mar 15, 8:32 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On 15 Mar 2007 06:59:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>
> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?
>
> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with
> >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it.
>
> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the
> >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law.
>
> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is
> >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed,
> >> then it is easier to include the rest.
>
> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite
> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/
> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a
> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001:
>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet
>
> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down)
>
> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-)
>
> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's.

BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever.

So, cyclists have a choice:

*They can act effectively against MHLs, learning from the effective
tactics used by motorcyclists.

OR

*They can be paranoid, whining, simpering alarmists in the fashion of
"jtaylor".

The choice is clear. ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

On 15 Mar 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 15, 10:29 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On 15 Mar 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Mar 15, 8:32 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> On 15 Mar 2007 06:59:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?
>>
>> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with
>> >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it.
>>
>> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the
>> >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law.
>>
>> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is
>> >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed,
>> >> then it is easier to include the rest.
>>
>> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite
>> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/
>> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a
>> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001:
>>
>> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet
>>
>> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down)
>>
>> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-)
>>
>> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's.
>
>BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever.
>

What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of
them?

 

[di]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 15 Mar 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>>
>
> What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of
> them?

News Flash, J Taylor has just bought stock in Bell. I've never seen
anyone so obsessed in something so trivial.

 

[Wayne Pein]

di wrote:

> News Flash, J Taylor has just bought stock in Bell. I've never seen
> anyone so obsessed in something so trivial.
>
>

MHLs are not trivial.

Where there is bicycling activism, the outgrowth is more regulation.
I think the reality is that it is best for bicyclists to fly under the
radar, learn how to ride well, quit whining about how dangerous it is,
quit begging for segregation, and get on with the business of cycling.

Wayne
We Own the Roads, So Act Like It.

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:55:39 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>On 15 Mar 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 15, 10:29 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On 15 Mar 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >On Mar 15, 8:32 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>> >> On 15 Mar 2007 06:59:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?
>>>
>>> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with
>>> >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it.
>>>
>>> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the
>>> >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law.
>>>
>>> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is
>>> >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed,
>>> >> then it is easier to include the rest.
>>>
>>> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite
>>> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/
>>> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a
>>> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001:
>>>
>>> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet
>>>
>>> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down)
>>>
>>> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-)
>>>
>>> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's.
>>
>>BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever.
>>
>
>What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of
>them?

Sorry, all; I forgot...

"Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 15, 4:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:55:39 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
> >On 15 Mar 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 15, 10:29 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On 15 Mar 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> >On Mar 15, 8:32 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> >> On 15 Mar 2007 06:59:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?
>
> >>> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with
> >>> >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it.
>
> >>> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the
> >>> >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law.
>
> >>> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is
> >>> >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed,
> >>> >> then it is easier to include the rest.
>
> >>> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite
> >>> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/
> >>> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a
> >>> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001:
>
> >>> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet
>
> >>> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down)
>
> >>> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-)
>
> >>> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's.
>
> >>BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever.
>
> >What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of
> >them?
>
> Sorry, all; I forgot...
>
> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL


Oh Goody!!! ) I've been hoping for this!

Please *do* provide a link to the post where I went "on record" as
being "pro-MHL". Please! I want everyone to be able to appreciate the
depths of your sad, humorless obsession.

Go for it, "j"!!!!!!

Go!!!

 

[[email protected]]

On 15 Mar 2007 15:39:09 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 15, 4:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:55:39 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>> >On 15 Mar 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Mar 15, 10:29 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>> On 15 Mar 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>>
>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> >On Mar 15, 8:32 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>> >> On 15 Mar 2007 06:59:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?
>>
>> >>> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with
>> >>> >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it.
>>
>> >>> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the
>> >>> >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law.
>>
>> >>> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is
>> >>> >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed,
>> >>> >> then it is easier to include the rest.
>>
>> >>> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite
>> >>> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/
>> >>> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a
>> >>> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001:
>>
>> >>> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet
>>
>> >>> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down)
>>
>> >>> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-)
>>
>> >>> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's.
>>
>> >>BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever.
>>
>> >What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of
>> >them?
>>
>> Sorry, all; I forgot...
>>
>> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL
>
>
>Oh Goody!!! ) I've been hoping for this!
>
>Please *do* provide a link to the post where I went "on record" as
>being "pro-MHL". Please! I want everyone to be able to appreciate the
>depths of your sad, humorless obsession.
>
>Go for it, "j"!!!!!!
>
>Go!!!

Already done - have you forgotten what you posted already?

Go to dejanews (now google "groups") and search for "Ozark pro-mhl".

Let us know if you have changed you mind and now are not pro--MHL; and
if so, what (if anything) have you done to encourage their repeal.

 

[[email protected]]

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> > I don't know. Ask the Cascade cycling club. Are there any other examples
> > anywhere of a cycling club/advocacy organization that is PRO adult MHL?
> > What the hell are they thinking?
>
> There are lots. What the hell are they thinking? They're probably just
> not thinking.

What're some others, so I can make fun of them too.

 

[di]

"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "di" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 15 Mar 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>>>>
>>>
>>> What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of
>>> them?
>>
>> News Flash, J Taylor has just bought stock in Bell. I've never seen
>> anyone so obsessed in something so trivial.
>
> I have. But at least stamp collecting is quietly unassuming.
>
> The ongoing helmet debate gives me an idea for a dice-&-board game.
> Nobody wins or loses, because the game never ends. It just keeps
> going around and around. People make excuses to make dinner or
> go to the bathroom or feed the cat, and silently slip away into
> the night, carefully closing the screen door behind them.
>
> The last person left gets to be King **** of Turd Hill.
> Gets to wear the crown, 'n everything.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
> --
> Nothing is safe from me.
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Is the crown a bicycle helmet?

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"di" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 15 Mar 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>>>
>>
>> What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of
>> them?
>
> News Flash, J Taylor has just bought stock in Bell. I've never seen
> anyone so obsessed in something so trivial.

I have. But at least stamp collecting is quietly unassuming.

The ongoing helmet debate gives me an idea for a dice-&-board game.
Nobody wins or loses, because the game never ends. It just keeps
going around and around. People make excuses to make dinner or
go to the bathroom or feed the cat, and silently slip away into
the night, carefully closing the screen door behind them.

The last person left gets to be King **** of Turd Hill.
Gets to wear the crown, 'n everything.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[nash]

"di" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "di" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 15 Mar 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of
>>>> them?
>>>
>>> News Flash, J Taylor has just bought stock in Bell. I've never
>>> seen
>>> anyone so obsessed in something so trivial.
>>
>> I have. But at least stamp collecting is quietly unassuming.
>>
>> The ongoing helmet debate gives me an idea for a dice-&-board game.
>> Nobody wins or loses, because the game never ends. It just keeps
>> going around and around. People make excuses to make dinner or
>> go to the bathroom or feed the cat, and silently slip away into
>> the night, carefully closing the screen door behind them.
>>
>> The last person left gets to be King **** of Turd Hill.
>> Gets to wear the crown, 'n everything.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>> --
>> Nothing is safe from me.
>> Above address is just a spam midden.
>> I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
>
> Is the crown a bicycle helmet?
Perfecto Mundo.
or if they choose The Album "No pads, no helmut, ...Just Balls" by Simple
Plan
Otherwise they may not even join in the fun.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <%[email protected]>,
"di" <[email protected]> writes:

>> The ongoing helmet debate gives me an idea for a dice-&-board game.
>> Nobody wins or loses, because the game never ends. It just keeps
>> going around and around. People make excuses to make dinner or
>> go to the bathroom or feed the cat, and silently slip away into
>> the night, carefully closing the screen door behind them.
>>
>> The last person left gets to be King **** of Turd Hill.
>> Gets to wear the crown, 'n everything.

> Is the crown a bicycle helmet?

No, it's just a gold-coloured paper party hat, with
a big, black, block-letter 'D' printed on it.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 15, 4:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2007 15:39:09 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mar 15, 4:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:55:39 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >On 15 Mar 2007 10:55:33 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >>On Mar 15, 10:29 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >>> On 15 Mar 2007 08:50:06 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>> >On Mar 15, 8:32 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >>> >> On 15 Mar 2007 06:59:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> >>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>
> >> >>> >> >> The MHL is California is not an issue for you?
>
> >> >>> >> >Listen, stop trying to equate MHLs for adults with
> >> >>> >> >MHLs for kids. Nobody's buying it.
>
> >> >>> >> An MHL is an MHL - there may be exceptions for some, but for the
> >> >>> >> others (more than 10 million in California) it is still the law.
>
> >> >>> >> And the politicians know that the best way to get a bad law passed is
> >> >>> >> to make it apply first to those who cannot vote; when they are cowed,
> >> >>> >> then it is easier to include the rest.
>
> >> >>> >Gee, it doesn't seem to work that way with motorcycle MHLs; despite
> >> >>> >virtually all states having a "child/minor" motorcycle MHL (ages/
> >> >>> >details vary by state), *universal* motorcycle MHLs have been on a
> >> >>> >steady *decrease*, from a high of 47 states in 1975 to 20 as of 2001:
>
> >> >>> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynjet
>
> >> >>> >(see the graph on the right, about a third of the way down)
>
> >> >>> >How do ya 'splain that, Chicken Little? ;-)
>
> >> >>> Motorcyclists are effective in their oposition to MHL's.
>
> >> >>BINGO!!! The first rational post from "jtaylor" in......forever.
>
> >> >What have YOU done to oppose MHL's - or are you instead in favour of
> >> >them?
>
> >> Sorry, all; I forgot...
>
> >> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL
>
> >Oh Goody!!! ) I've been hoping for this!
>
> >Please *do* provide a link to the post where I went "on record" as
> >being "pro-MHL". Please! I want everyone to be able to appreciate the
> >depths of your sad, humorless obsession.
>
> >Go for it, "j"!!!!!!
>
> >Go!!!
>
> Already done - have you forgotten what you posted already?

Really? Where?

Please, please!!! Post a link *in this thread* directly to the post I
made where I went "on record" as being "pro-MHL". The *original post*,
unedited, unsnipped and in it's original context.

You can do that, can't you, you insane little ninny?
>

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:

> Sorry, all; I forgot...
>
> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL.

So, what? We all have to stone him now?


--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
DougC <[email protected]> writes:

>> Yesterday, when it was dry, I saw a single earthworm on the pavement. This
>> worm might have even been a survivor of getting flooded out the day before.
>> But it was really dry, and even a bit windy, and the poor thing was drying
>> out as it was writhing towards a damp earth that was really no where within
>> its reach. I felt really sorry for this worm, too -- in some ways, worse
>> about this single worm, than I did for all the others I had seen the day
>> before. I thought about if I had flung it onto a wet lawn, if it would have
>> even survived, as it was half-desicated already -- would that have only
>> increased its suffering before death? But I didn't stop -- I just rolled on.
>>
>
> They wouldn't have wanted you to fling them back on the lawns.

They want to be fed to brook/rainbow trout, or
even the opportune cutthroat or steelhead.

Half of them do, anyways.


cheers,
Tom

--
Red Wigglers, the Cadillac of worms.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:47:17 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] writes:
>
>> Sorry, all; I forgot...
>>
>> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL.
>
>So, what? We all have to stone him now?

Goodness no.

Just remember it when reading his posts that attack helmet skeptics;
some of them border on rabid, and it helps to know why.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 16, 6:20 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:47:17 -0800, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] writes:
>
> >> Sorry, all; I forgot...
>
> >> "Ozark" is on record as being in favour of an MHL.
>
> >So, what? We all have to stone him now?
>
> Goodness no.
>
> Just remember it when reading his posts that attack helmet skeptics;
> some of them border on rabid, and it helps to know why.

Yo, "j":

http://preview.tinyurl.com/22mec4


People are gonna start to think you are full 'o' **** if you don't
provide that link, jboy.