| |
Main
Date: 07 Mar 2007 21:32:14
From: Robert Chung
Subject: When is a doping test positive?
|
I haven't been following the Landis thing very closely so I was kinda
surprised to learn that the standards for a positive test depend on the lab
doing the testing. From yesterday's on-line chat with Michael Hiltzik at
<http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-landischat707,1,6347094,full.story?coll=la-headlines-sports >
:
"Landis asserts, and I've confirmed this, that the positivity criteria for
CIRMS at Paris and UCLA are different. Keeping in mind that testosterone
breaks down in the body into four metabolites, which can be measured and
their ratios compared to a control group of "clean" subjects (sorry for the
technical mumbo-jumbo), UCLA measures two of these ratios and requires that
both be positive to declare an athlete guilty. Paris measures all four and
requires any one to be positive to declare guilt. These are radically
different approaches. [...] Australia, I believe, also checks two
metabolites and requires both to be positive."
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 07:53:40
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
On 10, 12:27 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> testing positive on ONE metabilite is easier than testing on
> two.
>
> I suppose you're one of those guys who can't see the difference between a
> bicycle and a tricycle.
How about being one of the guys who can't see the difference between a
"metabilite" and a metabolite?
Being the world's (or this ng's) foremost authority on everything
means spelling and word forms, too. IOW, yes you do too have to
bother.
The Nobel winner's name?
--D-y
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 23:07:11
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
Robert Chung wrote:
> I haven't been following the Landis thing very closely so I was kinda
> surprised to learn that the standards for a positive test depend on the lab
> doing the testing. From yesterday's on-line chat with Michael Hiltzik at
> <http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-landischat707,1,6347094,full.story?coll=la-headlines-sports>
> :
>
> "Landis asserts, and I've confirmed this, that the positivity criteria for
> CIRMS at Paris and UCLA are different. Keeping in mind that testosterone
> breaks down in the body into four metabolites, which can be measured and
> their ratios compared to a control group of "clean" subjects (sorry for the
> technical mumbo-jumbo), UCLA measures two of these ratios and requires that
> both be positive to declare an athlete guilty. Paris measures all four and
> requires any one to be positive to declare guilt. These are radically
> different approaches. [...] Australia, I believe, also checks two
> metabolites and requires both to be positive."
>
Here's why that's a non-issue...the WADA standard is that only 1
metabolite out of 4 has to test positive. This is the standard that
LNDD uses, which is the WADA standard listed in their SOPs.
However, the UCLA lab decided on its own to increase the threshold to 2
metabolites. So both labs ARE HARMONIZED on the WADA protocol of 1
metabolite.
Just because UCLA Lab decides to raise the threshold by adding another
metabolite does not mean the LNDD is doing anything wrong.
Labs are free to raise standards from minimum requirments of
harmonization, but never allowed to lower them. So harmonization is
fulfilled with the minimum standard.
What would you people in here do without me? I know - you would just
make up your own fucking answers.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 05:27:23
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
"MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote in message
news:scOdnTIMRfZys2_YnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@ptd.net...
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> I haven't been following the Landis thing very closely so I was kinda
>> surprised to learn that the standards for a positive test depend on the
>> lab doing the testing. From yesterday's on-line chat with Michael Hiltzik
>> at
>> <http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-landischat707,1,6347094,full.story?coll=la-headlines-sports>
>> :
>>
>> "Landis asserts, and I've confirmed this, that the positivity criteria
>> for CIRMS at Paris and UCLA are different. Keeping in mind that
>> testosterone breaks down in the body into four metabolites, which can be
>> measured and their ratios compared to a control group of "clean" subjects
>> (sorry for the technical mumbo-jumbo), UCLA measures two of these ratios
>> and requires that both be positive to declare an athlete guilty. Paris
>> measures all four and requires any one to be positive to declare guilt.
>> These are radically different approaches. [...] Australia, I believe,
>> also checks two metabolites and requires both to be positive."
>>
>
> Here's why that's a non-issue...the WADA standard is that only 1
> metabolite out of 4 has to test positive. This is the standard that LNDD
> uses, which is the WADA standard listed in their SOPs.
>
> However, the UCLA lab decided on its own to increase the threshold to 2
> metabolites. So both labs ARE HARMONIZED on the WADA protocol of 1
> metabolite.
>
> Just because UCLA Lab decides to raise the threshold by adding another
> metabolite does not mean the LNDD is doing anything wrong.
>
> Labs are free to raise standards from minimum requirments of
> harmonization, but never allowed to lower them. So harmonization is
> fulfilled with the minimum standard.
>
> What would you people in here do without me? I know - you would just make
> up your own fucking answers.
You know, someone that actually knew what he was talking about would
instantly see how full of crap you are. Try and understand this one
blockhead - testing positive on ONE metabilite is easier than testing on
two.
I suppose you're one of those guys who can't see the difference between a
bicycle and a tricycle.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2007 01:49:59
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote in message
> news:scOdnTIMRfZys2_YnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@ptd.net...
>
>>Robert Chung wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I haven't been following the Landis thing very closely so I was kinda
>>>surprised to learn that the standards for a positive test depend on the
>>>lab doing the testing. From yesterday's on-line chat with Michael Hiltzik
>>>at
>>><http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-landischat707,1,6347094,full.story?coll=la-headlines-sports>
>>>:
>>>
>>>"Landis asserts, and I've confirmed this, that the positivity criteria
>>>for CIRMS at Paris and UCLA are different. Keeping in mind that
>>>testosterone breaks down in the body into four metabolites, which can be
>>>measured and their ratios compared to a control group of "clean" subjects
>>>(sorry for the technical mumbo-jumbo), UCLA measures two of these ratios
>>>and requires that both be positive to declare an athlete guilty. Paris
>>>measures all four and requires any one to be positive to declare guilt.
>>>These are radically different approaches. [...] Australia, I believe,
>>>also checks two metabolites and requires both to be positive."
>>>
>>
>>Here's why that's a non-issue...the WADA standard is that only 1
>>metabolite out of 4 has to test positive. This is the standard that LNDD
>>uses, which is the WADA standard listed in their SOPs.
>>
>>However, the UCLA lab decided on its own to increase the threshold to 2
>>metabolites. So both labs ARE HARMONIZED on the WADA protocol of 1
>>metabolite.
>>
>>Just because UCLA Lab decides to raise the threshold by adding another
>>metabolite does not mean the LNDD is doing anything wrong.
>>
>>Labs are free to raise standards from minimum requirments of
>>harmonization, but never allowed to lower them. So harmonization is
>>fulfilled with the minimum standard.
>>
>>What would you people in here do without me? I know - you would just make
>>up your own fucking answers.
>
>
> You know, someone that actually knew what he was talking about would
> instantly see how full of crap you are. Try and understand this one
> blockhead - testing positive on ONE metabilite is easier than testing on
> two.
No kidding, dumbass. Read what I wrote. By increasing the standard to
2 metabolites, it means the lab is making it harder to test positive.
Labs are free to make it harder to test positive. Harmonization only
refers to the WADA minimum standard (1 metabolite).
Magilla
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 18:16:27
From: Bret
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
On 9, 6:53 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> Charles wrote:
> > Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?
>
> Ten years ago I hacked the NCNCA web site and inserted a race
> result. Fatty Masters 45+, I didn't put him DFL but pretty
> close. Its still there. Don't tell Casey.
>
> http://www.ncnca.org/road/1997/LivermoreRR_Feb8.html
>
> Bob Schwartz
It looks like I've done more racing in NorCal that Tom has and I live
in CO.
BTW, is the Livermore RR the same course as the Wente Vinyards RR?
Bret
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 09:53:53
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
On 8, 11:29 pm, "Charles" <guyonab...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in messagenews:tIVHh.10477$tD2.8395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> > "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:559t5rF23o9lrU1@mid.individual.net...
> > > dbrower wrote:
>
> > >> Whether it swings the case is unclear.
>
> > > Whether it should swing any case is unclear, because if a test is
> > > conclusive it ought to be conclusive (excluding for the moment the
> > > argument that these tests appear to have modalities of failure that can
> > > make any single test inconclusive).
>
> > For someone who prides themselves in being able to tell who faked data you
> > somehow fall short of the k when it requires a little actual knowledge
> of
> > the subject. Now there's a surprise.
>
> Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?
Hey, that's even a better question than when I asked The Knower if,
per his expertise of all, if he'd ever _won_ a bike race ("sanctioned"
implied).
WELL????
(Not to mention the CV, and the Nobel guy's name, and the language he
spoke...)
"The river runs on..." --D-y
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 00:43:26
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
On 7, 11:43 pm, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> dbrower wrote:
> > Whether it swings the case is unclear.
>
> I have to say I saw a couple of weeks ago that
> you cited a Kunich post and I haven't visited since.
Thanks for the heads up. That basically ensures I'll never go there.
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 13:42:37
From: dbrower
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
On 7, 12:32 pm, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> I haven't been following the Landis thing very closely so I was kinda
> surprised to learn that the standards for a positive test depend on the lab
> doing the testing. From yesterday's on-line chat with Michael Hiltzik at
> <http://www.latimes.com/sports/cycling/la-sp-landischat707,1,634709...>
> :
>
> "Landis asserts, and I've confirmed this, that the positivity criteria for
> CIRMS at Paris and UCLA are different. Keeping in mind that testosterone
> breaks down in the body into four metabolites, which can be measured and
> their ratios compared to a control group of "clean" subjects (sorry for the
> technical mumbo-jumbo), UCLA measures two of these ratios and requires that
> both be positive to declare an athlete guilty. Paris measures all four and
> requires any one to be positive to declare guilt. These are radically
> different approaches. [...] Australia, I believe, also checks two
> metabolites and requires both to be positive."
It certainly raises questions about the efficacy of WADAs
"harmonization" of standards.
Whether is swings the case is unclear. It may be that under the
current version of the rules, Labs have the discretion to use their
own criteria, with no need to justify or rationalize them against
other labs and studies. This goes with the view that "they are
accredited, and they are presumed correct". If an accredited lab
calls a result red that another lab would call green, the athlete may
be cooked, with no recourse, under the rules.
Taking that position would get WADA its "win", but it could cause some
serious questioning of the correctness and legitimacy of the process.
The information about the different positivity criteria has been shown
by Landis' team since November. Most people don't follow the case
closely enough to have noticed the shifting of the sands over time.
-dB
http://trustbut.blogspotcom for Landis news, research, and comment.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 08:43:53
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
dbrower wrote:
> Whether it swings the case is unclear.
Whether it should swing any case is unclear, because if a test is conclusive
it ought to be conclusive (excluding for the moment the argument that these
tests appear to have modalities of failure that can make any single test
inconclusive).
However, conclusive test or not, I would think that whatever the standard it
should be clear and not arbitrary.
> The information about the different positivity criteria has been shown
> by Landis' team since November. Most people don't follow the case
> closely enough to have noticed the shifting of the sands over time.
>
> http://trustbut.blogspotcom for Landis news, research, and comment.
Yeah, I try not to follow it too closely. I've visited your site a few
times, though not regularly. I have to say I saw a couple of weeks ago that
you cited a Kunich post and I haven't visited since.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:11:21
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:559t5rF23o9lrU1@mid.individual.net...
> dbrower wrote:
>
>> Whether it swings the case is unclear.
>
> Whether it should swing any case is unclear, because if a test is
> conclusive it ought to be conclusive (excluding for the moment the
> argument that these tests appear to have modalities of failure that can
> make any single test inconclusive).
For someone who prides themselves in being able to tell who faked data you
somehow fall short of the k when it requires a little actual knowledge of
the subject. Now there's a surprise.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 00:29:35
From: Charles
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:tIVHh.10477$tD2.8395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:559t5rF23o9lrU1@mid.individual.net...
> > dbrower wrote:
> >
> >> Whether it swings the case is unclear.
> >
> > Whether it should swing any case is unclear, because if a test is
> > conclusive it ought to be conclusive (excluding for the moment the
> > argument that these tests appear to have modalities of failure that can
> > make any single test inconclusive).
>
> For someone who prides themselves in being able to tell who faked data you
> somehow fall short of the k when it requires a little actual knowledge
of
> the subject. Now there's a surprise.
>
>
Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 05:23:35
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
"Charles" <guyonabike@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:S9qdnbUs9YwabG3YnZ2dnUVZ_oOknZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:tIVHh.10477$tD2.8395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:559t5rF23o9lrU1@mid.individual.net...
>> > dbrower wrote:
>> >
>> >> Whether it swings the case is unclear.
>> >
>> > Whether it should swing any case is unclear, because if a test is
>> > conclusive it ought to be conclusive (excluding for the moment the
>> > argument that these tests appear to have modalities of failure that can
>> > make any single test inconclusive).
>>
>> For someone who prides themselves in being able to tell who faked data
>> you
>> somehow fall short of the k when it requires a little actual knowledge
>> of
>> the subject. Now there's a surprise.
>
> Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?
I raced for three or four years and then coached my two step-daughters to
national placings including a silver medal at the Jr. Olympics - now exactly
what has that to do with Chung pretending that he can tell faked lab data?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 22:49:39
From: Charles
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
> >
> > Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?
>
> I raced for three or four years and then coached my two step-daughters to
> national placings including a silver medal at the Jr. Olympics - now
exactly
> what has that to do with Chung pretending that he can tell faked lab data?
>
>
Information for a curious mind. I'll race you to the next telephone pole.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 03:40:14
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
"Charles" <guyonabike@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:K5-dnaKoDoCQj2vYnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> > Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?
>>
>> I raced for three or four years and then coached my two step-daughters to
>> national placings including a silver medal at the Jr. Olympics - now
>> exactly what has that to do with Chung pretending that he can tell faked
>> lab
>> data?
>>
> Information for a curious mind. I'll race you to the next telephone pole.
I found that racing made you very much stronger than you ever thought you
could be. But that didn't mean that you could keep up with those who were
physically gifted. You'd see some 19 year old kid come out never having
ridden a race in his life and ride off the front as if it was the easiest
thing in the world. Of course that was the best place for the nitwit since
they were generally a horror in the pack since they hadn't a clue how to
behave around other people at speed.
That's why it offends me to see people here who could never have made it to
Cat 3 without "assistance" telling us about the drug usage of top flight
athletes. Dan Connelly is one fast climbing guy who holds, I think, the
Western Wheelers record up Old La Honda Rd at something like 17 and a half
minutes. I heard things like one of the Pros that was doing the Noon Ride
(Mike McCarthy???) made it up in something like 11 minutes.
Now think about that - Connelly is only a Cat 4 and although he blasted
everyone in every class, he was 60% slower than a Pro who wasn't even in
competition!
That ought to tell you that people who aren't in that class don't have a
very good idea what is possible and what isn't. Most of the talk about drugs
is by people who know absolutely nothing that they haven't read in some
story written by some journalist who doesn't even ride a bike or from
athletes who need some sort of excuses.
Millar said that he only used drugs a couple of times in extremis and yet he
set records all over the place - why is that if everyone is using drugs and
drugs make you so fast?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 04:03:24
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
In article <y2pJh.12138$tD2.2542@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Charles" <guyonabike@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:K5-dnaKoDoCQj2vYnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> >> > Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?
> >>
> >> I raced for three or four years and then coached my two step-daughters to
> >> national placings including a silver medal at the Jr. Olympics - now
> >> exactly what has that to do with Chung pretending that he can tell faked
> >> lab
> >> data?
> >>
> > Information for a curious mind. I'll race you to the next telephone pole.
> Now think about that - Connelly is only a Cat 4 and although he blasted
> everyone in every class, he was 60% slower than a Pro who wasn't even in
> competition!
>
> That ought to tell you that people who aren't in that class don't have a
> very good idea what is possible and what isn't. Most of the talk about drugs
> is by people who know absolutely nothing that they haven't read in some
> story written by some journalist who doesn't even ride a bike or from
> athletes who need some sort of excuses.
>
> Millar said that he only used drugs a couple of times in extremis and yet he
> set records all over the place - why is that if everyone is using drugs and
> drugs make you so fast?
This argument depends on the theory that Millar, a drug user caught
red-handed, was subsequently telling the truth about his drug use.
I'm sure David is a very nice boy and all, and I like him as much as any
TT specialist*, but I think once you're caught with vials of EPO in your
medicine chest, the verity of your statements on your own drug use ought
to be rather suspect.
Only on caffeine right now, but maybe Bailey's later,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 05:22:16
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote in message
news:rcousine-65AAD4.21032412032007@news.telus.net...
> In article <y2pJh.12138$tD2.2542@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Charles" <guyonabike@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:K5-dnaKoDoCQj2vYnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> >> > Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?
>> >>
>> >> I raced for three or four years and then coached my two step-daughters
>> >> to
>> >> national placings including a silver medal at the Jr. Olympics - now
>> >> exactly what has that to do with Chung pretending that he can tell
>> >> faked
>> >> lab
>> >> data?
>> >>
>> > Information for a curious mind. I'll race you to the next telephone
>> > pole.
>
>> Now think about that - Connelly is only a Cat 4 and although he blasted
>> everyone in every class, he was 60% slower than a Pro who wasn't even in
>> competition!
>>
>> That ought to tell you that people who aren't in that class don't have a
>> very good idea what is possible and what isn't. Most of the talk about
>> drugs
>> is by people who know absolutely nothing that they haven't read in some
>> story written by some journalist who doesn't even ride a bike or from
>> athletes who need some sort of excuses.
>>
>> Millar said that he only used drugs a couple of times in extremis and yet
>> he
>> set records all over the place - why is that if everyone is using drugs
>> and
>> drugs make you so fast?
>
> This argument depends on the theory that Millar, a drug user caught
> red-handed, was subsequently telling the truth about his drug use.
>
> I'm sure David is a very nice boy and all, and I like him as much as any
> TT specialist*, but I think once you're caught with vials of EPO in your
> medicine chest, the verity of your statements on your own drug use ought
> to be rather suspect.
Ahh, yes, the excuse that once caught no one can be honest thereafter. What
do you suppose Virenque was on when he won St Flour? After all, by your
judgement he must have been doping still. And what do you suppose Hincapie
was on when he won Pla d'Adet, the toughest stage of the 2005 Tour?
Oh, wait, according to you, anyone not on drugs could only win a short TT.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 01:53:28
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
Charles wrote:
> Tom, Have you ever raced a bicycle in a sanctioned race ?
Ten years ago I hacked the NCNCA web site and inserted a race
result. Fatty Masters 45+, I didn't put him DFL but pretty
close. Its still there. Don't tell Casey.
http://www.ncnca.org/road/1997/LivermoreRR_Feb8.html
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 16:57:29
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> you somehow fall short of the k when it requires a little
> actual knowledge of the subject. Now there's a surprise.
I'm sure comments like this would sting a bit more if they came from someone
who doesn't think co Polo sailed to the North Pole.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 20:15:22
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:55aq3cF247i2lU1@mid.individual.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> you somehow fall short of the k when it requires a little
>> actual knowledge of the subject. Now there's a surprise.
>
> I'm sure comments like this would sting a bit more if they came from
> someone who doesn't think co Polo sailed to the North Pole.
And of course that might bother me if it didn't come from someone who thinks
that the Chinese were too stupid to b intelligent explorers or that their
maps were made up.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 12:42:35
From: Nev Shea
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in
news:559t5rF23o9lrU1@mid.individual.net:
> I have to say I saw a couple of weeks ago
> that you cited a Kunich post and I haven't visited since.
If he can find wisdom in the words of TK, then he'll LOVE this site:
http://members.aol.com/rem547/
Apologies to Bob Schwartz for posting the link he has shared here before.
NS
idea thief
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 00:38:01
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: When is a doping test positive?
|
In article <559t5rF23o9lrU1@mid.individual.net >, "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid>
wrote:
> I have to say I saw a couple of weeks ago that
> you cited a Kunich post and I haven't visited since.
The kiss of death.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
|
