pushing back out during the swing?

[CoachEric]

4) Just to be clear, any increase in the time during which the pole is bent achieved by pushing the left arm is due to the lowering of the COM, not because the vaulter is literally pushing the pole into a bent position. I assume you agree with this?

Equal and opposite reactions. The force of a vaulter pushing themselves away from the pole will have an effect on the shape of a flexible pole. Bear in mind that realignment is a full body motion that is more about changing the shape of the body than pushing on the pole, but yes I do believe the vaulter's bottom arm is affecting pole shape.

To your points regarding available time and vertical velocity:
1. Assuming finite time, it is imperative to maximize pole speed (pole rotation) in the most efficient way possible.
2. Vertical velocity is maximized when the the force vector of the pole on the vaulter is aligned with the force vector of the vaulter on the pole - pole recoil and the "clean" motion of the vaulter. i.e. "covering the pole" in Altius' terms. This means that the vaulter must swing fast while the pole chord remains short to get positioned on top of the bend. Pulling with the bottom arm lengthens the pole chord by initiating pole recoil earlier, and it raises the center of mass of the vaulter.

Please point me to Roman's entry on the topic, because I don't recall if I've seen it.

Sidenote: I do believe that intelligent people can disagree on the intricacies of a technical sport. The benefit of the discourse is personal in most cases, and not in changing others' minds, since that doesn't happen here anyway.

Also, the Dilbert cartoon is on point. Awesome.

[superpipe]

Great posts CoachEric!

[coachjvinson]

Pulling with the bottom arm lengthens the pole chord by initiating pole recoil earlier...

Consider a pull which is in line or closely aligned with the chord...


I would agree that a pull which is not in line with the chord can create a dynamic in which the pole will recoil earlier...


00.02
~V

[CoachEric]

Consider a pull which is in line or closely aligned with the chord...

I assume that when you say "aligned" you would more precisely say "parallel," since the chord of the pole runs from the top hand to the pole tip.

To consider this technical point, I believe that the pole behaves like a lever, where the pole recoil applies upward force and the weight of the vaulter applies downward force on the pole. The fulcrum can be at the pole tip or at any point below the handgrip.

I maintain that greater force can be generated by swinging from a hollow, pressing, extended position than by pulling due to a longer pendulum, but for this example, assume that the force generated by the swing is equal in both scenarios.

Assuming that the previously establihed goal of reducing pole chord length is technically correct, then it is most efficient to apply force at the farthest distance from the fulcrum as possible.

Next consider that the amount of pole between the vaulter's hands also behaves like a lever with a fulcrum somewhere in between the handgrips, independent of the rest of the pole. If this piece of pole was suspended somehow, the weight of the vaulter evenly distributed between the two handgrips would cause the pole piece to remain stationary.

6932744-0-large.jpg (26.71 KiB) Viewed 19840 times

If the vaulter transitioned weight to the bottom hand, the pole piece would tip so that the top hand went up and the bottom hand went down. If on the other hand, the vaulter transitioned weight to the top hand, the pole piece would tip the other way.

Since, when we consider the whole pole as a lever, the top hand is further from the fulcrum than the bottom hand, the technique in which the vaulter applies more tension force from the top hand more effectively shortens the pole chord. And because the pole piece betweeen the vaulter's hands behaves as a lever, then pulling with the bottom arm, in any direction, would ultimately lengthen the pole chord by forcing the pole to unbend (similar to rowing).

I do appreciate the question. I don't know about all of you, but this has forced me to really think about the physics of what's happening.

[PVDaddy]

Keeping the top arm in line with the chord of the pole and top hand pressure throughout the entire swing is the objective. So to say that the pull should be made with only the bottom hand and when you are in line with the chord is a bit of a misnomer. You always should be in line with the chord of the pole from the downswing through inversion. So the timing of the pull is not so much that it take place when you are aligned with it, but when the chord of the pole is at its shortest, just before it begins to uncoil. This takes place at about the time the feet pass the chord, when the vaulter begins to break at the hips. Also this pulling pressure should be made mostly through the top hand, out at the end of the lever. This maintains pressure and bend of the pole and allows for the vaulter to get out ahead of the pole rather then chase it.

[PVDaddy]

I assume that when you say "aligned" you would more precisely say "parallel," since the chord of the pole runs from the top hand to the pole tip.

This is what many of us call the Active-I position.

I maintain that greater force can be generated by swinging from a hollow, pressing, extended position than by pulling due to a longer pendulum, but for this example, assume that the force generated by the swing is equal in both scenarios.

Is this not the point I have been trying to make right along? Also Eric, I want you to consider how by re-extending both arms it lengthens the hollow position (Pendulum) even more by making the body longer (longer levers are more powerful) and allowing a greater range of flexabillity through the arm pits! Therefore a greater range of return and power out of the full body coil into the upswing of the legs and hips!

Also:

Since, when we consider the whole pole as a lever, the top hand is further from the fulcrum than the bottom hand, the technique in which the vaulter applies more tension force from the top hand more effectively shortens the pole chord

This is why most of the pulling effort should be made from the top hand not the botom

[coachjvinson]

Coach Eric,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply; I do need some time to review the materially closely...
I am in the process of collecting some visual files in order to formulate an open ended question which I am trying to understand myself and which is directly related to the current subject matter...

I do appreciate the question. I don't know about all of you, but this has forced me to really think about the physics of what's happening.

I agree entirely and the healthy dialogue forces me to question and support and/or discard my own beliefs and methods...

~V

[PVstudent]

The "cuckoo" in this nest has been fed his last feed of juicy pole vault technique information by me!

The thread and the topic has been well and truly regurgitated upon. The mess the cuckoo has left us is too unbearable for me to stomach!

Even though my feathers have only reached fledgling status, with the regard to growing my understanding of pole vault swing and role of the bottom arm, I am departing before I and my brother and sister species fledglings become totally submerged under the detritus of this loud, large, raucous and overgrown bird has forced the nest to collapse under the weight of cuckoo droppings!

Since some of the contributors on the topic have made excellent comments and raised interesting questions specific to the topic I invite you to join me back on terra firma and free from the lofty esoteric cuckooing in the tree tops.

I am preparing to establish a new thread that will request all contributors to put up their evidence in backing up the claims being made and to accept that part and parcel of the deal will be to define terms and gain explicit support before these terms become embedded in the discussion.

Saying the same things using different words creates confusion, conflict and unnecessary friction which often results in no more than excessive hot air.

The topic of the role of the bottom arm and the pull / push controversy being resolved is too important to the coaching and teaching of pole vaulting technique to be drowned out by loud meaningless noises that have masked the signals of truth that are being broadcast by some readers of PVP.

Apologies to Jane Austen, but let us return to Sense and Sensibility in discussing the role of the bottom arm in modern flexible pole vault technique based on evidence and empirical experience by practitioners and coaches of the Art of Pole Vaulting!

This mere sparrow is off and when my feathers are ready I will show them to you on a different thread.

"Sh..........tttt it's a long way down! Phew ... I've soft landed but thankfully its not on a pile of "Cuckoo Droppings!"

[altius]

PV2020 FOUND THE POST IN WHICH I INDICATED WHY I HAD CHANGED MY OPINION ABOUT WHAT THE LEFT ARM DOES OR DOESNT DO AFTER TAKE OFF. NOTE THAT I AM NOT SHOUTING -SIMPLY TRYING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT I AM STATING NOW AND WHAT I POSTED ON PVP THREE YEARS AGO! SORRY ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THIS POST -I HAVE ADDED SOME OTHER POSTS WHICH FOLLOWED THE ORIGINAL.

IN BTB I FOLLOWED THE PETROVIAN LINE -WHICH MAKES SENSE FROM A BASIC BIOMECHANICAL PERSPECTIVE - BUT HAVE MODIFIED MY VIEWS AS INDICATED BELOW. HOWEVER I MUST STRESS THAT IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE WAY I HELP YOUNGSTERS LEARN TO INVERT FOR I NEVER MENTION A PULL. I JUST LET THEM LEARN THE MOVEMENT PATTERN AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THE TIMING FOR IT THEMSELVES AS SUGGESTED BELOW.

HERE ARE A COUPLE OF QUOTES I FOUND IN A VERY STRANGE NOVEL I HAVE BEEN READING - THEY CAPTURE THE ESSENCE OF WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT HIGH LEVEL SKILLED PERFORMANCE. 1. "Frank had to conclude that he was the jailer of a mute genius (here he meant his body). 2 You had to play 'unconscious, letting unfelt parts of the brain do the calculating". PERHAPS THIS IS WHAT BUBKA WAS TRYING TO EXPRESS WITH HIS AAAAAAAAAAAARH WHEN ROMAN ASKED HIM WHAT HE WAS THINKING ABOUT AFTER HE LEFT THE GROUND.

THIS IS AN AREA THAT HAS BEEN LARGELY IGNORED BECAUSE FEW PEOPLE IN OUR FIELD HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED TO BECOME REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONERS - WHICH IS ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF A GOOD TEACHER EDUCATION COURSE - MOST DO NOT READ OUTSIDE THEIR IMMEDIATE AREA OF INTEREST AND SO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A VAST REALM OF NEW KNOWLEDGE OUT THERE IN THE AREA OF HUMAN LEARNING. THIS SUGGESTS THAT THE OLD MODEL OF COACHES STANDING ON THE SIDE PASSING OUT THEIR INFORMATION -DRESSED UP AS WISDOM - IS JUST THAT - AN OLD MODEL.

WHAT WE REALLY NEED ON POLE VAULT POWER ARE COACHES WHO WILL SHARE WITH US THE WISDOM GAINED FROM ACTUALLY COACHING ATHLETES NOT THOUSANDS OF WORDS OF REGURGITATED INFORMATION.

Re: takeoff angle and beyond
by altius » Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:27 pm
A pretty good analysis Kyle – be interesting to see what pvstudent has to say because this is a complex issue when you begin to analyse it. However I will have a shot at clarifying it – in what I sincerely hope will be my final contribution to technical discussion on pvp. NOTE - I HAD A CONTRACT TO PRODUCE A SECOND EDITON OF MY BOOK ON THE TEACHING OF SPORT -HENCE MY STATEMENT HERE. HOWEVER I FINISHED THAT PROJECT LATE LAST YEAR AND IT WAS PUBLISHED IN APRIL SO - WITH LITTLE ELSE TO DO - I HAVE WANDERED BACK INTO THE MORASS OF PVP.

While high level analysis of this kind is invaluable - what coaches need to know is = what are the implications of this information for helping their athletes to improve, so here is my take - just a thesis –an attempt to arrive at the truth.

Roman argues that since the swing is a vital element of effective technique then we should do everything possible to accelerate that swing - pulling immediately after take off does that. He says that even tho it looks as though the athlete is pushing – because the hand moves away from the shoulder – they can still be pulling.. This is not what our eyes see so it is difficult to accept this even if it is indeed what is happening.

For me it is a question of timing as Kyle implies – but very difficult timing – in milli seconds. Because the hands do drive up through the pole at and after take off – so when does the pull begin. Roman says immediately – he may be right but I believe it is only immediately in your mind because of the reaction time lag. In fact I think there is no point in trying to establish EXACTLY at what point you should begin to pull. Why?

Well I have argued that every vaulter – even young athletes - can and should control everything from the first step until the instant after take off. After that the process becomes autonomous – I have used the term intuitive – as they respond – unconsciously to all of the variables that will influencing what is happening. Just consider the effect of being a fraction under/fraction out – fraction faster/slower at take off etc etc . All these small factors influence what happens after TO so the vaulter is responding intuitively (I define intuition as the distilled essence of past experience). That is why we see variations in Hookers swing – and presumably why Alex does not care what happens there as long is the TO is right and he covers the pole effectively. It is also why we even see minute variations in Bubka’s technique from one jump to the next.

SO – I believe that the answer has been staring me in the face ever since I suggested in BTB1 that we should think of the flexible point as an infinite series of straight poles and that modern technique should in many respects follow the stiff pole model. (I realise that was common knowledge in the 1970s but clearly it had been forgotten in the meantime). Clearly stiff polers did pull to accelerate the swing – which was possibly even more crucial to them than it is now.

However since the timing is so crucial and so fine I don’t think vaulters can learn to do this by THINKING ABOUT IT. They must just learn how to do it. How? One way is through repetitive stiff pole jumps (fifty or more in a session) from 6 steps over a bar that is continually taken up – this is how I recommend you teach young vaulters to invert in BTB – (not by using rock back drills) and I think the same practice –extended to really high bars would do the job for even elite vaulters. This is not a self correcting drill but it is self teaching drill. The vaulter does not think during the jump – there is no time to think once they leave the ground, They do all their thinking -that is imagining where they want to go -high above the bar - before they begin. If the coach - as Roma would I suspect – wants to tell they must pull with the bottom hand/arm well and good. I don’t think it will help.

This practice should be preceded by ten or so jumps to max out grip – that is the auto correcting drill used by Petrov, This ensures that athletes remember that they have to take off strongly before they do anything else.

Another approach is to max out grip height jumping up onto a rope from 6 steps –a polish drill – and then attempt to swing to get the feet as high up the rope as possible. Also possible to begin this standing with the rope in hand and swinging up as high as possible.

Here it is worth remembering that when the human body faces a new challenge it simply responds – it does not need a series of cues from a coach – it just does it. Perhaps Nike will sponsor this post??? Just make sure the athlete has a clear understanding of what the task is – get their feet swinging as high as possible and let them get on with it. I think they will learn to pull with the bottom arm – but they wont know that they are doing it.

I said at the beginning that I intended this to be my final TECHNICAL contribution. Still want to advertise goods and services!! A couple of reasons – I have contributed all I can/ PVP has become a bit like groundhog day with the same topics continually recycled/ my recent diet of humble pie has made my grumpy -and of course I do get tired of having what I consider to be an expert opinion challenged by some folk with VERY limited experience. . PVP is addictive and I have to break the addiction because I have other things to do – including rewriting my teaching games book – so I want to stop. It would help if folk could pm me occasionally and tell me what a great job I am doing by not posting!!!

I do not want any pms on this topic –discuss it amongst yourselfs –rip it apart if you will but do not come back to me on this please.
Top





Re: 6.40 Model?
by altius » Tue May 10, 2011 12:12 am
Suggest you ask Roman about that because he certainly believes that Bubka represented the 6.40 model - and Roman certainly does know him. Also if you read the posts on this topic you might find one where I confirmed my belief -already stated in BTB - that after the vaulter leaves the ground their behaviour is almost completely intuitive - rather than cognitive -so it is possible that even he could not tell you exactly what he did after he had left the ground. In fact it may have varied with every jump depending on all of the preceding elements. Indeed we have his almost hilarious response to Romans question "What do you think about after you leave the ground?' when he replied "The pole vault for me is RUN. TAKE OFF AND THEN AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

My position on the use of the left arm changed when I returned to the notion of pole vaulting simply as stiff pole vaulting on a flexible pole. Indeed I posted a mea culpa on that topic last year to explain my view. As always you can take it or leave it - but you do not have to take it personally. This may indeed remain one of the great uncertainties of the vault for most folk.
Re: 6.40 Model?
by altius » Tue May 10, 2011 11:17 am
If you have tried this and it did not work for you I can understand your opinion - although it might be interesting to discuss how you tried to modify your old method -what drills did you use - and, I suppose - was the rest of your technique up to and including the take off good enough to build on. I am not commenting here, just asking the question.

" I have never seen 1 jump by Bubka that remotely resembles a pull." That may be the problem because when you watch even slow motion film the left hand always appears to be moving away from the shoulder - so how can that be a pull? So instead consider this. Beg borrow or steal a 2.1 copy of the BTB dvd and take a look at the second of the black and white clips of Bubby there. The first focuses on the pre jump take off - remember when nobody believed THAT was possible??? The second clip shows the other element of this technique that Vitali was so proud of - Bubby covering the pole -for he does indeed 'cover' the pole here as well as, or better than, any jump I have ever seen in this clip. No one else has got close to this. And the question you have to ask is - how did he get back fast enough to get into that position??? By his standards it was still not fast enough because in BTB I quote him as saying his aim was to be vertical before the pole started to recoil! Romans answer - and I am inclined to agree with him - is that he was able to do this because he accelerated his swing with an early pull.

I have met Sergey on several occasions and I think it is fair to say that he would regard me as a friend; but I must admit I never thought to discuss this with him - just focussed every time on his notion of the correct take off. I would also admit that I never specifically taught my own athletes to do this. However we did an immense amount of stiff pole jumping which I believe is the key to doing this intuitively - where my definition of intuition is that 'it is the distilled essence of past experience'! But this may remain one of those areas that will not be resolved until we have much more sophisticated sports science available - and another Bubby!

Been writing all day and cant get to sleep at 1.30 in the morning - hence these musings!
Mere knowledge is not the goal - but action. The Torah,Re: 6.40 Model?
by altius » Wed May 11, 2011 9:28 pm
This is just for you benefit 3PO as a student of sports science – it is probably the basis for a PHD! Unfortunately it is not as detailed or useful a response as the first two attempts that got lost!

“it seems the goal is the fastest and longest inversion possible?” ABSOLUTELY This is the guts of the issue.

“We need cues”. NO YOU DON’T. Cues are ok for some skill learning – for youngsters who have no idea what they are doing AND if both parties know EXACTLY what the cues mean. But cues tend to break a movement pattern into segments – when as we know in sports they are usually flowing and integrated. Most importantly they bring a cognitive element that interferes with the intuitive nature of skilled performance – bearing in mind my definition.

Case study; A couple of years ago Roman and I did a coaches clinic in Boone NC under the aegis of vaultman 18. Naturally he wanted to introduce his idea of the an early pull so we went to a rope and he tried to ‘teach’ people what he wanted them to do –using cues. Completely unsuccessful. I simply suggested – with no other information - that folk jumped onto the rope to swing themselves up to get their toes as high up the rope as possible. Success. However this is when I began to move towards Romans position on this issue.
Clearly this needs to be done by folk who have already mastered the basic elements of a good take off and of course can sweep their trail leg long over their head. You don’t want a double tuck and extension up the rope.

This experience confirmed my belief that teachers and coaches often get in the way of progress by giving too much information – instead of ensuring that learners have an absolutely clear idea of what the task is – and letting them get on attempting it.

We need "intuition" that comes from drills. YES INDEED WE DO
Six step straight pole take offs – trying to continually increase grip height. This is an autocorrecting exercise – if you don’t take off effectively you cant increase your grip height and still get through to land feet first on the pad. Straight pole bar clearances with the bar being raised every three jumps –standardize grip height. Straight pole jumping to touch a bungy. Keep prs of all these performances and cross check them. For example great bungy heights and relatively low bar clearances may tell you something very important – what is it?

SO “what are a few things we should be focusing on while doing these drills?” FOCUS ONLY ON COMPLETING WHATEVER THE TASK IS - IE to clear higher and higher bars while maintaining grip height.

I have always tried to base my writing on hard won experience and to avoid too much pure theorizing but in this case I am pushing the envelope out and discussing ideas that I did not consciously apply in my own coaching – although I suspect we did get to the right place through drills – not a deep understanding of this specific issue. Perhaps understanding would have got in the way!

Re: 6.40 Model?
by vault3rb0y » Thu May 12, 2011 12:31 pm
GREAT!!

This is golden wisdom, thank you so much for sharing. I just finished a "philosophy of sport" class that's required where I go to school, and I think I learned more practical information from that small post than I did in the entire class.

If a straight pole vaulter can get their feet on a very high bungee but has a low bar clearance, it seems like that would mean they are not finishing their pull and keeping pressure on the pole through their turn and clearance. They are flopping onto the bar after they get their feet pretty high. This could also be because they lose pole speed and come down on the bar. I'm not totally sure? Maybe they change how they are jumping when a bar goes up, too.
The greater the challenge, the more glorious the triumph

vault3rb0y
PV Maniac

Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: PSU
Expertise: College Coach, Former College Vaulter
Lifetime Best: 5.14m

[coachjvinson]

Consider a pull which is in line or closely aligned with the chord...

I assume that when you say "aligned" you would more precisely say "parallel," since the chord of the pole runs from the top hand to the pole tip.

I assume that when you say "aligned" you would more precisely say "parallel," since the chord of the pole runs from the top hand to the pole tip.

...This is what many of us call the Active-I position.

No, the "Active I" SPACIAL POSITION is certainly NOT the subject matter being discussed currently; do not MISUNDERSTAND ...

This is why most of the pulling effort should be made from the top hand not the botom

PONTIFICATING a "pull" primarily through the top arm/hand is DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE; in my PROFESSIONAL OPINION...

Addressing SAFETY CONCERNS was my primary rational for attempting to respond to your previous posts initially...

00.02
~V

[Tim McMichael]

PV2020 FOUND THE POST IN WHICH I INDICATED WHY I HAD CHANGED MY OPINION ABOUT WHAT THE LEFT ARM DOES OR DOESNT DO AFTER TAKE OFF. NOTE THAT I AM NOT SHOUTING -SIMPLY TRYING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT I AM STATING NOW AND WHAT I POSTED ON PVP THREE YEARS AGO! SORRY ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THIS POST -I HAVE ADDED SOME OTHER POSTS WHICH FOLLOWED THE ORIGINAL.

IN BTB I FOLLOWED THE PETROVIAN LINE -WHICH MAKES SENSE FROM A BASIC BIOMECHANICAL PERSPECTIVE - BUT HAVE MODIFIED MY VIEWS AS INDICATED BELOW. HOWEVER I MUST STRESS THAT IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE WAY I HELP YOUNGSTERS LEARN TO INVERT FOR I NEVER MENTION A PULL. I JUST LET THEM LEARN THE MOVEMENT PATTERN AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THE TIMING FOR IT THEMSELVES AS SUGGESTED BELOW.

HERE ARE A COUPLE OF QUOTES I FOUND IN A VERY STRANGE NOVEL I HAVE BEEN READING - THEY CAPTURE THE ESSENCE OF WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT HIGH LEVEL SKILLED PERFORMANCE. 1. "Frank had to conclude that he was the jailer of a mute genius (here he meant his body). 2 You had to play 'unconscious, letting unfelt parts of the brain do the calculating". PERHAPS THIS IS WHAT BUBKA WAS TRYING TO EXPRESS WITH HIS AAAAAAAAAAAARH WHEN ROMAN ASKED HIM WHAT HE WAS THINKING ABOUT AFTER HE LEFT THE GROUND.

THIS IS AN AREA THAT HAS BEEN LARGELY IGNORED BECAUSE FEW PEOPLE IN OUR FIELD HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED TO BECOME REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONERS - WHICH IS ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF A GOOD TEACHER EDUCATION COURSE - MOST DO NOT READ OUTSIDE THEIR IMMEDIATE AREA OF INTEREST AND SO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A VAST REALM OF NEW KNOWLEDGE OUT THERE IN THE AREA OF HUMAN LEARNING. THIS SUGGESTS THAT THE OLD MODEL OF COACHES STANDING ON THE SIDE PASSING OUT THEIR INFORMATION -DRESSED UP AS WISDOM - IS JUST THAT - AN OLD MODEL.

WHAT WE REALLY NEED ON POLE VAULT POWER ARE COACHES WHO WILL SHARE WITH US THE WISDOM GAINED FROM ACTUALLY COACHING ATHLETES NOT THOUSANDS OF WORDS OF REGURGITATED INFORMATION.

Yes yes yes to this. A thousand times yes.

I would encourage anyone who doubts this to read Harvey Penick's "Little Red Book." Or Miyamoto Musashi's "Book of Five Rings." Both are regarded as among the foremost teaching authorities on difficult and pressure filled skills; golf and sword fighting respectively. The way they teach is completely alien to accepted wisdom and practice in Track and Field. Penick, for instance, taught every lesson while never using a single negative word, not one "don't," or "not," or "shouldn't." It's nearly impossible because it requires so much more understanding and precision. It's so much easier to tell someone what not to do. Large portions of Musashi's book are incomprehensible, yet his methods resulted in winning 60 duels to the death, as well as mastering the arts of painting, poetry, and sculpture. This is where it's at when it comes to improvements in coaching.

[rainbowgirl28]

Well my llama is full. I deleted a number of comments that were nothing more than personal attacks.



This thread is closed.