Trolling for Mike and Terri

[Peterh]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:38:22 -0500, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>.Mike Vandeman wrote: . .>On 31 Mar 2003 02:06:51 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote: .> .>.On
>30 Mar 2003 22:55:25 GMT, Stephen Baker wrote: .> .>. .>.Our mountain bike group went to court to
>stop development in a forested .>.area that didn't even have trails (and still doesn't years
>later). .> .>IF TRUE, it is obvious .> .To whom is this totally unsupported conclusion obvious? .
>.>that you did it so you could bike there. .> .And you're able to see into the minds of the people
>in Steve's group? . .>If you can't, .>it's only because the owner has more sense than you do. .>
>.You know absolutely nothing of the situation - the owner, Steve's group, .even the piece of land
>in question or the court decision relating to it.
>
>I don't need to. I know what mountain bikers are like: 100% selfish.
>
>
>
>
You mean you don't want to. And I would be cautious in such sweeping generalities as 100% of this ,
that or the other thing....

PH

--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.

 

[Bb]

On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 03:30:39 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:

> Notice that you didn't claim that mountain bikers haven't tried to get access & get trails
> built....

I didn't need to; its someone's personal property so no one has the right to do anything there,
except the owner (and even his rights are restricted). But if it makes you feel better, I'll go
ahead and clarify the facts: No one has tried to get access & get trails built. This has absolutely
NOTHING to do with trails.

Don't fret Mikey, you've been pretending this doesn't exists for years and I haven't been making a
big deal out of it. Go peacefully back to your imaginary world, and back into my killfille.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 03:30:15 GMT, Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Bond .>
<[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .A thought just struck me. .> . .> .You two
are blatantly against mountain biking, fine, have that opinion. .> . .> .However, what do you think
about the situation with "Vietnam" in .> .Massachusetts? In short: Developer goes to buy land that
mountain .> .bikers have trails on. Mountain bikers are unhappy, talk to regional .> .biking
association (NEMBA), and to the town. The town and NEMBA .> .collaborate to raise funds to buy the
land so that the developer can't .> .build massive housing complexes on it. The area becomes
permanently .> .open to mountain biking (because the bike association owns part of it, .> .and
through a deal with the twon), and remains forest, not pavement, .> .lawns, and buildings. .> . .>
.So, maybe, mountain bikers are causing more errosion than hikers would .> .on the trails, even if
it is only the mountain bikers that are .> .maintaining them and the surrounding area, and trying to
minimize .> .environmental impact from ANY trail (via runoff or trail widening). .> .However, if not
for the mountain bikers, there would be a large housing .> .complex with runoff from driveways,
parking lots, roofs, and pesticide .> .from lawns, waste from the houses, and pollution from the
cars and .> .heating of the houses. .> . .> .Now, tell me how you can be against something like
that. Go on. I need .> .a good laugh. .> .> If they really CARED about the land, they wouldn't bike
there. DUH! .>snip< . .Ok, but thats besides the point.

Glad you agree with me.

Respond to just this statement: If .not for mountain bikers, another 300 acres of forested land
would now be .a "developed" complex. Period.

I doubt that the mountain bikers had ANY effect. Selfish people don't inspire a desire to help.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Jonathan Bond]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 03:30:15 GMT, Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Bond .>
> <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .A thought just struck me. .> . .> .You two
> are blatantly against mountain biking, fine, have that opinion. .> . .> .However, what do you
> think about the situation with "Vietnam" in .> .Massachusetts? In short: Developer goes to buy
> land that mountain .> .bikers have trails on. Mountain bikers are unhappy, talk to regional .>
> .biking association (NEMBA), and to the town. The town and NEMBA .> .collaborate to raise funds to
> buy the land so that the developer can't .> .build massive housing complexes on it. The area
> becomes permanently .> .open to mountain biking (because the bike association owns part of it, .>
> .and through a deal with the twon), and remains forest, not pavement, .> .lawns, and buildings. .>
> . .> .So, maybe, mountain bikers are causing more errosion than hikers would .> .on the trails,
> even if it is only the mountain bikers that are .> .maintaining them and the surrounding area, and
> trying to minimize .> .environmental impact from ANY trail (via runoff or trail widening). .>
> .However, if not for the mountain bikers, there would be a large housing .> .complex with runoff
> from driveways, parking lots, roofs, and pesticide .> .from lawns, waste from the houses, and
> pollution from the cars and .> .heating of the houses. .> . .> .Now, tell me how you can be
> against something like that. Go on. I need .> .a good laugh. .> .> If they really CARED about the
> land, they wouldn't bike there. DUH! .>snip< . .Ok, but thats besides the point.
>
> Glad you agree with me.

No, I was saying "whatever, I don't feel like arguing on that point".

> Respond to just this statement: If .not for mountain bikers, another 300 acres of forested land
> would now be .a "developed" complex. Period.
>
> I doubt that the mountain bikers had ANY effect. Selfish people don't inspire a desire to help.

Hehe, hillarious. And with that, its back in the KF for you!

Jon Bond

oh yeah...... PLONK!

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 05:57:08 -0500, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote: . .>On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:48:53 +0100, "Simon"
<[email protected]> .>wrote: .> .>.! .>. .>.Simon....I do what I can to save the planet
whilst retaining my right to .>.have fun. .> .>There's no such right. .> .Prove it!

It's not in the Constitution. QED

.>And what you call "fun" is actually very destructive to .>wildlife and other people. .> .> .>
.That one went right over the top, didn't it? His fun takes place closer .to home than you may
realize. . .PH

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:15:58 +0100, "Simon" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."CandT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .| On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 03:26:57 GMT, Mike
Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: .| .| > .| >There's no such right. And what you call "fun" is
actually very .destructive to .| >wildlife and other people. .| >=== .| He's right you know - only
last week I 'accidentally' wiped out an entire .| species of indigenous worm which - by chance -
ONLY lives in a 1-inch wide .strip .| of the hard-packed soil created by the tyres of MTB's in my
local .trail.... To .| say I was distressed is an understatement, I can tell you. .| .| I tried to
skid to a halt (thus churning up the trail behind me), but only .| succeeded in flinging mud in the
eyes of a small flightless bird, which .looked .| remarkably like a Dodo, that had nested not 6
inches from the edge of the .trail .| (would you believe it!). Blinded, and in shock, the Dodo
stumbled into its .own .| nest - crushing the last remaining tiny eggs - before bumping in to its
.mate, .| and toppling them both off the nearby cliff edge... (Bet they wished they .| weren't
flightless now eh !) .| .| Anyway - during the course of this skid, I crushed the above mentioned
.worms .| into evolutionary oblivion, lost control of the bike, and popped myself .over the .|
bars... .| .| Luckily though, my fall was broken by a patch of delicate seedlings from a .plant .|
that I (..or, I later find out, anyone) hadn't seen in these parts for 20 .years. .| Phew... .| .|
So I guess the moral of this story is - don't ride your MTB around your .local .| trails guys and
girls... That little bit of metal and rubber is far more .| destructive than forest fires, climate
change, pollution, etc that .everyone is .| complaining about. I know that now, and I'm stopping. .|
.| Thanks Mike for showing me the error of my ways. .| .| >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.) .| > .| >http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande .| .| That
sound so cool Mike, maybe then the world will be like the front cover .of .| the Watchtower, with
little different coloured smiling children playing .with .| panda's, and gorillas. Instead of wading
through appallingly badly laid .out, and .| indeed, pointless websites all day... .| .| CandT .
.Classic I love it!

Yeah. It doesn't take much to entertain a mountain biker.

.Simon .

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Joshua Putnam]

In article <[email protected]>,
> Hehe, hillarious. And with that, its back in the KF for you!

An excellent idea. Vandespam hasn't posted any original content in a decade, and there's no point
being just the latest idiot utile to help him keep his stale arguments alive. Let him shill for the
Asphalt Paving Association if he wants, but don't waste time and bandwidth attempting to argue with
him. It just plain doesn't work.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

 

[Westie]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 05:57:08 -0500, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .>On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:48:53 +0100, "Simon"
<[email protected]>
> .>wrote: .> .>.! .>. .>.Simon....I do what I can to save the planet whilst retaining my right
to
> .>.have fun. .> .>There's no such right. .> .Prove it!
>
> It's not in the Constitution. QED

QED, my ****. You assume that everyone is American and that a constitution has anything to
do with it.
--
Westie

>
> .>And what you call "fun" is actually very destructive to .>wildlife and other people. .> .> .>
> .That one went right over the top, didn't it? His fun takes place closer .to home than you may
> realize. . .PH
>
> ===
> 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.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Peterh]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>.>.Simon....I do what I can to save the planet whilst retaining my right to .>.have fun. .>
>.>There's no such right. .> .Prove it!
>
>It's not in the Constitution. QED
>
>
>
>
"We hold these truths to be self -evident......"

Ever read that one?

Your law degree is in serrious need of updating.

PH

--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.

 

[Peterh]

Joshua Putnam wrote:

> Let him shill for the Asphalt Paving Association if he wants, but don't waste time and bandwidth
> attempting to argue with him.
>
>
But puncturing pomposity helps while away a few minutes each day.

PH

--
Reforms come from below; no man with four aces asks for a redeal. anon.

 

[Terri Alvillar]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .A thought just struck me. . .You two are blatantly against mountain biking, fine, have that
> opinion. . .However, what do you think about the situation with "Vietnam" in .Massachusetts? In
> short: Developer goes to buy land that mountain .bikers have trails on. Mountain bikers are
> unhappy, talk to regional .biking association (NEMBA), and to the town. The town and NEMBA
> .collaborate to raise funds to buy the land so that the developer can't .build massive housing
> complexes on it. The area becomes permanently .open to mountain biking (because the bike
> association owns part of it, .and through a deal with the twon), and remains forest, not pavement,
> .lawns, and buildings. . .So, maybe, mountain bikers are causing more errosion than hikers would
> .on the trails, even if it is only the mountain bikers that are .maintaining them and the
> surrounding area, and trying to minimize .environmental impact from ANY trail (via runoff or trail
> widening). .However, if not for the mountain bikers, there would be a large housing .complex with
> runoff from driveways, parking lots, roofs, and pesticide .from lawns, waste from the houses, and
> pollution from the cars and .heating of the houses. . .Now, tell me how you can be against
> something like that. Go on. I need .a good laugh.
>
> If they really CARED about the land, they wouldn't bike there. DUH!
>
> .Jon Bond

To say mountain biking in sensitive areas is preferable to large-scale development is like saying I
only drown kittens not humans. Terri Alvillar http://www.brightpathvideo.com/Marin_County.htm
(Marin Trails)

 

[Terri Alvillar]

Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > .A thought just struck me. . .You two are blatantly against mountain biking, fine, have that
> > opinion. . .However, what do you think about the situation with "Vietnam" in .Massachusetts? In
> > short: Developer goes to buy land that mountain .bikers have trails on. Mountain bikers are
> > unhappy, talk to regional .biking association (NEMBA), and to the town. The town and NEMBA
> > .collaborate to raise funds to buy the land so that the developer can't .build massive housing
> > complexes on it. The area becomes permanently .open to mountain biking (because the bike
> > association owns part of it, .and through a deal with the twon), and remains forest, not
> > pavement, .lawns, and buildings. . .So, maybe, mountain bikers are causing more errosion than
> > hikers would .on the trails, even if it is only the mountain bikers that are .maintaining them
> > and the surrounding area, and trying to minimize .environmental impact from ANY trail (via
> > runoff or trail widening). .However, if not for the mountain bikers, there would be a large
> > housing .complex with runoff from driveways, parking lots, roofs, and pesticide .from lawns,
> > waste from the houses, and pollution from the cars and .heating of the houses. . .Now, tell me
> > how you can be against something like that. Go on. I need .a good laugh.
> >
> > If they really CARED about the land, they wouldn't bike there. DUH! snip<
>
> Ok, but thats besides the point. Respond to just this statement: If not for mountain bikers,
> another 300 acres of forested land would now be a "developed" complex. Period.

To say mountain biking in sensitive areas is preferable to large-scale development is like saying
you only drown kittens instead of humans. Terri Alvillar
http://www.brightpathvideo.com/Marin_County.htm (Marin Trails)

 

[Pete Hickey]

In article <[email protected]>, Terri Alvillar
<[email protected]> wrote:

>To say mountain biking in sensitive areas is preferable to large-scale development is like saying
>you only drown kittens instead of humans.

I don't follow the logic. Kittens are FOOD..... Drowning then tends to make them tough.

--
--
LITTLE KNOWN FACT: Did you know that 90% of North Americans cannot taste the difference between
fried dog and fried cat?

 

[Candt]

>Yeah. It doesn't take much to entertain a mountain biker.
>
>.Simon .
>
>===
>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.)
>
>http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

There was a serious point in there - that it'll take a lot more than one, or even thousands of
MTBer's riding a single trail, to affect the habitat to such an extent as to influence the genetic
diversity or an area.... To claim otherwise, is folly. In fact - in my considered opinion, evolution
only works so successfully because of the obstacles put in its way.

To create your artificially protected habitat would be to create an ecosystem so fragile to external
influence, that the slightest imbalance caused by a random event could cause severe problems...

However - my local officially sponsored trail in the UK is protected forestry land. The simple fact
that the trail is present will keep the land from being developed. And will protect the habitat of
the wildlife for as long as there are MTB riders visiting the place. The more riders, the more
opposition there would be to significant changes to that environment.

You're right though - it doesnt take much to entertain a mountain biker.

CandT

 

[Terri Alvillar]

CandT <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >Yeah. It doesn't take much to entertain a mountain biker.
> >
> >.Simon .
> >
> >===
> >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.)
> >
> >http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
> There was a serious point in there - that it'll take a lot more than one, or even thousands of
> MTBer's riding a single trail, to affect the habitat to such an extent as to influence the genetic
> diversity or an area.... To claim otherwise, is folly. In fact - in my considered opinion,
> evolution only works so successfully because of the obstacles put in its way.
>
> To create your artificially protected habitat would be to create an ecosystem so fragile to
> external influence, that the slightest imbalance caused by a random event could cause severe
> problems...
>
> However - my local officially sponsored trail in the UK is protected forestry land. The simple
> fact that the trail is present will keep the land from being developed. And will protect the
> habitat of the wildlife for as long as there are MTB riders visiting the place. The more riders,
> the more opposition there would be to significant changes to that environment.
>
> You're right though - it doesnt take much to entertain a mountain biker.
>
> CandT

Please provide the name of the agency which is protecting forestry land on account of a mountain
biking trail. Thank you. Terri Alvillar

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 04:57:27 GMT, Jonathan Bond <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 03:30:15 GMT, Jonathan Bond .>
<[email protected]> wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> On
Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Bond .> .> <[email protected]> wrote:
.> .> .> .> .A thought just struck me. .> .> . .> .> .You two are blatantly against mountain
biking, fine, have that opinion. .> .> . .> .> .However, what do you think about the situation
with "Vietnam" in .> .> .Massachusetts? In short: Developer goes to buy land that mountain .> .>
.bikers have trails on. Mountain bikers are unhappy, talk to regional .> .> .biking association
(NEMBA), and to the town. The town and NEMBA .> .> .collaborate to raise funds to buy the land so
that the developer can't .> .> .build massive housing complexes on it. The area becomes
permanently .> .> .open to mountain biking (because the bike association owns part of it, .> .>
.and through a deal with the twon), and remains forest, not pavement, .> .> .lawns, and buildings.
.> .> . .> .> .So, maybe, mountain bikers are causing more errosion than hikers would .> .> .on
the trails, even if it is only the mountain bikers that are .> .> .maintaining them and the
surrounding area, and trying to minimize .> .> .environmental impact from ANY trail (via runoff or
trail widening). .> .> .However, if not for the mountain bikers, there would be a large housing .>
.> .complex with runoff from driveways, parking lots, roofs, and pesticide .> .> .from lawns,
waste from the houses, and pollution from the cars and .> .> .heating of the houses. .> .> . .> .>
.Now, tell me how you can be against something like that. Go on. I need .> .> .a good laugh. .> .>
.> .> If they really CARED about the land, they wouldn't bike there. DUH! .> .>snip< .> . .> .Ok,
but thats besides the point. .> .> Glad you agree with me. . .No, I was saying "whatever, I don't
feel like arguing on that point".

Too late to deny it. You said "Ok".

===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:23:26 -0800, Joshua Putnam <[email protected]> wrote:

.In article <[email protected]>, .> Hehe, hillarious. And with that, its
back in the KF for you! . .An excellent idea. Vandespam hasn't posted any original content in a
.decade, and there's no point being just the latest idiot utile to help .him keep his stale
arguments alive. Let him shill for the Asphalt Paving .Association if he wants, but don't waste time
and bandwidth attempting to .argue with him. It just plain doesn't work.

Especially when you can't possibly refute me....
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 1 Apr 2003 16:33:13 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote:

.On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 03:30:39 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> Notice that you didn't claim that
mountain bikers haven't tried to get .> access & get trails built.... . .I didn't need to; its
someone's personal property so no one has the right .to do anything there, except the owner (and
even his rights are .restricted).

That has never stopped you guys in the PAST!
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:49:55 +1200, "Westie" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 05:57:08 -0500, PeterH
<[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> . .> .>On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:48:53 +0100,
"Simon" .<[email protected]> .> .>wrote: .> .> .> .>.! .> .>. .> .>.Simon....I do what I
can to save the planet whilst retaining my right .to .> .>.have fun. .> .> .> .>There's no such
right. .> .> .> .Prove it! .> .> It's not in the Constitution. QED . .QED, my ****. You assume that
everyone is American and that a constitution .has anything to do with it.

It's a waste of time talking with someone afraid to use his real name.
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Candt]

>
>Please provide the name of the agency which is protecting forestry land on account of a mountain
>biking trail. Thank you. Terri Alvillar

Well, here's a link to the story of the 5 world class MTB centres being opened in a small country
call Wales, part of the UK.

http://www.mtb-wales.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=135

Opened, as you can see, with what equates to about $600,000 US of funding from the Welsh government.
My local trail is the Afan Forest Park. So I suppose, you could say that the British/Welsh
govenrments are sponsoring the trails, via their forestry agencies.

Information on this trail can be found here:

http://www.mbwales.com/afan_forest/index.htm

The Forestry organisation is a Govenrment agency call the Forestry Commission, they can be
found here:

www.forestry.gov.uk

A full report of all forestry surveys since around the turn of the century can be found here

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/pdf.nsf/pdf/niwales.pdf/$FILE/niwales.pdf

Overall trends indicate that there was a large degradation of the forests at around 1940-50 due to
the war effort no doubt, a huge replanting program undertaken in the 50's and 60's, then, after a
lessening of that initial push, a steady ride in the number of trees planted throughout Wales.

The amount of forest we have now in Wales is far higher than in the 40's and 50's, but the total
values fluctuates to a cycle of increases and decreases due to the normal woodland management
I'd assume.

I hope this helps you understand that MTB's here in the UK (from my experience), have nothing but
respect for nature, and as far as is humanly possible, work hand in hand with official agencies to
protect large areas of our country from the urban sprawl. It isnt in our interest to destroy the
forest, or wildlife, or habitat, because in doing so, we would be destroying the very environment
that provides us with the enjoyment, challenge, fresh air, which this sport affords us.

Personally, I have a private and professional interest in the study of evolution, and cannot see any
possible evolutionary consequence of MTBing in an area. The scales are, put simply, too weighted on
the side of nature. The only interaction with environment is physical (ie, non-pollutary), and
nature for the last several billion years, has successfully dealt with phyical influence (forest
fires, meteor strikes, floods, etc), without any lasting damage to nature's family tree. OK, so the
dinosaurs are the contradiction, but to be honest, I don't think that me, pottering around the
forest on a sunny Sunday morning, is going to cause the next ice age.

I hope this helps,

Kind regards,

CandT (Not my real name, obviously, Mr Vandeman, should my points of view therefore be discounted?)