Subject: TORTURE FOR FUN & PROFIT (was self-righteousness)

From: Craig Arfman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 10:07:37 +1300

>>(brett rowley) wrote:
>>Hey people,
>>
>>I'm asking for your help here.  This guy (Craig) has been stirring the
>>pot over in the fishing groups.  He is basically of the opinion that
>>catch and release fishing destroys a fishery, that mortalities
>>associated with same are unacceptable, that sportfishermen are
>>deplorable, and that catch and release fishing should be banned.

>>Brett Rowley
>>Fisheries Biologist
>>Great Lakes Sportfishing Resort and Koi Breeding Farm
>>West Columbia, Texas

 (Alex Bielak) writes:
>
>I think a reply is merited if only because the "animal righters" are going
>to become ever-more of a factor. I have been involved in a series of
>multi-agency studies on catch and release of wild Atlantic salmon. Bruce
Tufts
>and I recently did an article which appeared in the fall issue of Wild
>Steelhead and Atlantic Salmon Magazine

>The bottom line from the salmon work is that in cold water releasesituations
>mortalities are minimal (probably less than 5%, but that in warmer waters
IF
>FISH TAKE then one can expect highter mortalities.

>This was posted by Alex in sci.bio.fisheries.  He gave me permission to
>repost to the fishing groups that Craig has been stirring the pot in.
>It is a partial answer to his post siting outdated and no longer
>significant studies on C&R fishing mortalities.  

Brett, Arguing with a true-believer such as yourself is an impossible 
task, but NOWHERE HAVE YOU PROVEN that the studies are no longer 
significant, AND YOU COMPLETELY OVERLOOK that a review of 132 hooking 
mortality studies (including both recent, and less-recent ones) shows an 
average of 10 percent of fish dying after they are caught and released, 
across species and catch-methods. The 5 percent death rate for salmon 
you quote is consistent with other research and shows that some species 
have higher death rates than others when used by “Sport” fishers for 
recreational torture. C&R advocates often refer to these death-rates as 
"zero-kill".

Hooking mortality research generally involves low-technology such as 
building holding cages, draining ponds to count missing fish and using 
fish hooks, lures and baits. The research does not depend on the next 
generation of particle accelerators, or other such high-technology. 
Therefore there appears no basis for your claim that mortality studies 
conducted during the 1970’s are outdated or insignifigant.

Regarding your accusation of self-righteousness, even pro-C&R fishers
have remarked on the high degree of fanaticism exhibited by some C&R 
advocates. The following quote is from a PRO catch-and-release 
publication (Catch-and-Release Fishing, A Decade of Experience - A 
National Sport Fishing Symposium, Proceedings, 1987) 

 “Among the great diversity that makes up the American angling public, 
“cult” groups can be expected to promote with great enthusiasm their own 
narrow view of regulations (typically, no-kill, barbless files only) THE 
“CULT” MENTALITY IS NOT RECEPTIVE TO NEW INFORMATION OR TO INFORMATION 
NOT SUPPORTING THEIR PRECONCEIVED IDEAS. THEY CAN ALSO BE EXPECTED TO 
HAVE ZEALOUS FAITH IN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THEIR CAUSE, SO THAT ANY 
FACTS OR EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO THE CAUSE IS CONSIDERED AS BLASPHEMY AND 
PIOUSLY IGNORED OR ATTACKED” - Robert Behnke, Catch-And-Release - The 
Last Word p. 296, (capitalisation mine)

This is a pro-C&R fisher writing about other C&R fishers, mind you. 
Perhaps it was fishers like you he was referring to?  Certainly anyone 
who can disregard a summary of ONE-HUNDRED-AND-THIRTY-TWO research 
studies as “not relevant” could be considered as not receptive to new 
ideas.

As you presumably has a large financial stake in running a 
catch-and-release bass-fishing camp, where people can pay money for the 
thrill of fighting an animal that can’t fight back, I can understand why 
you are so adamant that catch-and-release doesn’t kill fish, and that 
those fish it does kill are ACCEPTABLE losses anyway. You are being very 
selective in the research you use to back your position. You quote 
research a completely different species (salmon), and from a cold-water 
fishery, while your bass-camp is located in an area which can be 
expected to have warm water temperatures, and higher mortality for much 
of the year.

There is legislation before congress which imposes restrictions on 
canned hunting, due to public outcry over what many see as senseless and 
cowardly killing in the name of “sport”. It seems somewhat similar to 
your camp where people can pay to stick hooks in the bass interned in 
your ponds and revel in their struggle to escape. Perhaps sometime in 
the future operations such as yours will be facing similar legislation 
as public outcry grows. 

As you may have a large financial committment in your black bass torture 
camp, you may need to consider some alternatives:

Use the ponds to establish underwater day-care centres for basslets with 
working mothers. Although with the new reluctance to see welfare money 
going to unmarried mothers this could be a hard sell. (;]

Or go totally camp and just flaunt it. You could set up watchtowers and 
electric fences, dress some of the staff in jackboots and other staff in 
prisoner’s stripes. Tatoo each bass with an identity number. Award an 
order of something-or-other to the “Conservationist” catch-and-releasing 
the most bass in a single day. And those bass which don’t survive their 
torture sessions could be made into useful items such as lampshades or 
bars of soap. (;]

In any case as someone who most embodies the spirit of Melwood Barry, 
and personifies modern “Sport” fishing, I am awarding you the 1996 
Melwood Barry Perpetual Award: a life time membership in the MGFA. 
(press release follows)

            MINIATURE GAMEFISHING ASSOCIATION ESTABLISHED

NEW YORK - A new organisation for sport fishers has been established 
that will widely expand  recreational angling opportunities, allowing 
anglers to fish indoors in the privacy of their own homes.  Founded by 
Melwood Barry who first popularised this fast-growing sport with his 
book, "Neon Tetras - A Bantamweight Fight", the Miniature Game Fishing 
Association's objectives are to verify world-record claims, sanction 
tournaments, and to promote conservation values. 

MGFA members fish for most popular home aquarium species. MGFA 
regulations specify the line weights, and rod lengths which may be used. 
The use of light lines and a  minimum aquarium size of 600mm x 200mm x 
200 mm is required "to give the fish a sporting chance". 
Catch-and-release fishing is encouraged, "A fish is too valuable to be 
caught only once" Barry explains.

Although scientific research shows that on average 10 percent of the 
fish can be expected to die each time they are caught, Barry contends 
the practice is not wasteful, "Fish die anyway sooner or later, and this 
new sport will provide enormous employment opportunities for tropical 
fish breeders and pet shops".

Responding to allegations by the SPCA that this involved needless 
cruelty to animals, Barry responded, "That's absurd. It's a sport for 
the fish and they love it. Why else would they be wagging their tails 
the whole time?".  - SLF NEWS SERVICE

- Craig Arfman
exposer of posers
deprogrammer of cultists

---

From: [email-masked](brett rowley)
Date: 4 May 1996 02:49:51 GMT

<SNIP>  Everything deleted.

Craig thinks he is funny.  I'm not laughing.  I've about had enough of
his BS, however, I'm still gathering info that disproves all the psuedo
science he has been spouting off in this group.  I spoke with some
officials at the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department about thier
philosophy towards C&R fishing as well as asked for some documentation
>from  more recent studies, especially concerning Largemouth bass.  

Basically, the Department strongly supports catch and release fishing,
to the point that some bass fisheries, and some put and take fisheries
have evolved up to catch and release only.  This is true of the bass
fishery at Gibbons Creek Lake near College Station, Texas, where it has
been very successful at conserving a trophy class fishery as well is
popular with fishermen.  This is also true of the rainbow trout fishery
below Canyon dam, a previous put and take fishery that has evolved into
a trophy catch and release fishery for trout.  They also have catch and
release fishing programs in inner city lakes where children are taught
both the value of fishing and of catch and release.  Thier committment
to catch and release is very strong.  

I was also told that a few individuals associated with the lunatic
fringe were opposed to catch and release fishing, and some to fishing
altogether.  I was assured that these few individuals had no power,
backing, or influence and were not taken seriously.  That fishing was
ever growing in popularity, and catch and release fishing was becoming
the mainstay of sport fisheries.   

I have much more to tend to than arguing with some person that insists
on propogating ignorance, especially when that person represents such
an extreme misinformed minority.  I'll get some more info up sa soon as
I get it.  Meanwhile, I came here to fish and learn how to do it
better, not try and justify something that doesn't require it.

Don't kill your catch.

Brett Rowley

---

From: [email-masked] (Muskie)
Date: 4 May 1996 07:32:54 GMT

1. Whenever you try to make a point with a hitler/nazi analogy,you lose.

 2.Your ranting and ravings are inchoherant, how would YOU know
    what a hooked fish is feeling??

 3. Do you believe the woods and waters are full of talking, cuddly
    characters like bambi, flipper, and thumper?? When you sit in the
    woods, do you pretend the deer and squirrels are talking to you?

 4. If you were savagely attacked by an animal, would you let it chew
    you apart because you didnt want to hurt it??

 5. You and your AR buddies are so far from reality that it makes
    my head spin.
 
 6. When driving in your car, do you cry when a bug splatters
    on the windshield??

 7. Do you believe that there are police animals that stop 
    predators from eating prey? Is the fox a sheriff out for
    justice??

 8.If you answered yes to #7, where is the animal "jail"
   for animals that harm other animals? Does a bass get punished
   for eating a sunfish?  Does the eagle do time for catching
   and eating the perch? 

 9. Billions of years ago, amoebas and other tiny cell creatures
    with no brain ate other cell and animal matter to survive,
    or maybe they enjoyed it, the point is, the earliest life 
    forms had more brains than you. You have evolved into nothing,
    in fact, you have revolved, back to even before animals 
    had brains.

 10. If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you
     are a certifiable lunatic. Congratulations, the amoebas
     evolved farhter than you.

         -Muskie

---

From: Craig Arfman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 21:05:02 +1300

> Christoper Renna says:
> I'm still looking for the "dead and dying fish littering our oceans,
> lakes , and streams"[my paraphrase]. I guess I'll have to go out again
> this weekend for some more "research".
> Christopher Renna

Depends where you look Chris. If one just looks for "floaters", i.e. 
those fish that float to the surface dead, one could conclude that C&R 
mortality is low. To measure post-release mortality accurately, requires 
better methods: keeping fish in a holding pen for observation, tracking 
them using sonic tags, or in some cases draining a pond and counting 
MISSING fish (and yes that has been done). 

So do "Sport" fishers leave the ocean "littered" with dead fish?
Sometimes, yes. The following is from page 95 or the February 1989 issue 
of Sportfishing Magazine "after one major south Florida live-bait 
tournament several years ago, divers reported counting the bodies of 
more than 100 dead sailfish lying on the bottom".

I'm glad that this discussion is taking place, at least it is getting 
some fishers to think about what happens to fish after they are 
released, and hopefully reconsider their actions. BTW I'm impressed you 
took the time to read some of the extracts from the Medway Report, even 
if you don't agree with it.
- Craig Arfman

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Nmi Renna)
Date: 9 May 1996 15:58:05 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Craig Arfman  <[email-masked]> wrote:
[SNIP]
>MISSING fish (and yes that has been done). 

Do floaters make up an insignificant number of dead fish? If not I would
expect to see alot of them. Don't you think? I was not really looking
for an accurate method. I was questioning the diatribe portion of your
post. If mortality is high that should be enough to bolster your side
of the argument. Why resort to the AR propaganda speak?

>more than 100 dead sailfish lying on the bottom".

I am not familiar with sailfish. Are we talking about Marlin? I would like
to know how many dead fish were on the bottom before the tournament started. 

>if you don't agree with it.

The "discussion" will continue. The addition of AR rhetoric and baseless
inuendo is what most of us have problems with. If you were willing to 
suspend that type of nonsense there might be some real discourse.

I always try to read both sides of any issue I'm interested in. But let
me ask you this. What, other than the recommendations section, was there of 
substance with which to agree or disagree in the Medway Report? I couldn't
find anything in the excerpts that said much of anything.

Christopher Renna

---

From: [email-masked] (Don Fortier)
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 22:12:05

While researching Shark info, I came across this group. Hello 
all, but I think you miss the point of "fish torture"...

     Instead of wondering if it is morally correct (poor fishies) 
or naturally correct (food chain), why not just level the field?
Chum the water near Polynesia and you can wrestle Great Whites, who 
are at least prepared to defend themselves. That said, I still need 
to know what kind of weight we're talking about. 
     If you win, how many pounds of shark meat from a medium (3 
meter) or a large (6 meter)...?
     
     Thank you for your assistance....
[email-masked]
(aka [email-masked])

---

From: [email-masked] (Rich Puchalsky)
Date: 7 May 1996 20:29:19 GMT

D. Braun ([email-masked]) wrote:
: I will agree that to needlessly inflict pain and suffering on any
: organism, for the purpose of watching response to physical stimuli can be
: sick---for the human, or it can merely be for scientific inquiry, food
: gathering, or the neccesary biproduct of walking around. In my opinion,
: the only reason to refrain from impacting organisms is if the human does
: it to garner sadistic pleasure---- because it further warps the human.  To
: try to convince people to refrain from eating animal proteen because it
: will reduce the "suffering" in the world is tilting at windmills.  Death
: by natural causes is the exception--- big things eat little things, often
: when they are still alive.

Right, what ecologists are trying to preserve are basically systems of
information.  If humans interfere too suddenly or heavily with these
systems, information can be lost.  And it's basically this information
that generates the resources that we all live on.

Looking at it another way, environmentalists are trying to preserve 
the products of evolution (i.e. current species and ecosystems).  This
information can not be replaced if it's lost (at least as far as human 
society is concerned; evolution happens over very long time-scales).  Part of
this ecosystem process is that animals eat each other; it would be
radically changed if it were otherwise.  

Now, if huamns interfere with an ecosystem to a dramatic extent through
fishing (say, extensive use of lead weights; overfishing of natural stocks;
introduction or overstocking of game fish) than ecologists would want to
have these activities halted.  However, if the fishing appears to be 
sustainable, it's hard to argue against.  After all, humans live off of
the natural world; any food we get takes resources out of an ecosystem
somewhere.

Now, I personally am a vegetarian because it takes less resources to 
produce a certain amount of human food in the form of plants than it does
if you feed plants to animals and eat them.  But sport fishing, as long as
it's sustainable, provides critically needed allies to the environmental
movement in the form of more voters with an interest in keeping semi-
natural areas undeveloped.  One of the strong arguments against logging
in the PNW, for instance, comes from local salmon fishers who are having
salmon runs destroyed by sedimentation.

As for Braun's argument about not encouraging sadistic behavior in humans,
I would agree.  Certainly some of C&R people posting on this thread seem
to have let something go to their heads.  But hunting without this
sadistic attitude seems to be possible; it may be more of a social or
individual mindset than anything else.  Else we would not see all of
this (slighty hokey IMHO) veneration of Native Americans as "in touch
with nature".  If hunting is something you do for food, and not because
you get some kind of sadistic charge out of it, it doesn't have to affect
you in a negative way.  

--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html

---

From: [email-masked] (Rich Puchalsky)
Date: 9 May 1996 18:54:41 GMT

Jeff Houston ([email-masked]) wrote:
: It dont really matter whether they feel any pain or not, a fish is a 
: lower form of life and as such are subject to be eaten by a higher form 
: of life. Such as other fish, ducks, Beaver, Bear, and the list goes on 
: and on. Oh, I almost forgot HUMANS. Of course being an environmental 
: wacko I bet you didnt realize that did you?

Your statement above is ignorant for several reasons.  First of all this
whole concept of "lower" and "higher" forms of life, with lower ones being
subject to being eaten by higher ones, is ecologically meaningless.  
Predation of multi-celled organisms by single celled organisms or viruses
often occurs (i.e. the "lower" form of life eats the "higher" one) and in
general food webs have little relation to huamn judgements about which
animals should be subject to which other ones.  Secondly, an argument that 
one shouldn't fish because of the pain and/or distress that the fish feel is
not an environmental argument, it's an animal rights argument.  The two
arguments are quite different; see previous posts by D. Braun or I on
this thread.

---

From: [email-masked] (Don Baccus)
Date: 10 May 1996 14:32:51 GMT

>: of life.

So white sharks and grizzly bears, each of which occasionally eat humans,
are a higher form of life that we are?

Interesting concept.
--

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <[email-masked]>
  Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
          http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza

---

From: "Larry A. Fisher" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 May 1996 13:32:26 GMT

I don't believe you AR types will ever get it, because you don't want to 
understand the real picture. Animals don't have rights. Let me repeat - 
animals don't have rights. God gave man dominion over all animals to use 
for his benefit. I did not say abuse - I said use. Now if you don't 
believe that then anything else we (hunters and fishermen) could say will 
fall on deaf ears. I already know that is the case, I only respond, 
because I don't believe the AR people should escape scott free for all 
the garbage you profess as moral and legal law. There is no law in the 
United States that makes hunting and fishing illegal. And somehow you 
have all transformed your opinions into "politically correct morality". 
And that's all it is - your opinion! So you don't like hunting and 
fishing - so what! Who appointed you moral judge and jury?

You want to try and interrupt my fishing? Give it a whirl! My bet is that 
most of you will be mighty sorry you ever tangled with us while we're 
engaged in a perfectly legal activity such as fishing. We can't change 
your thinking, but I bet we can change your involvement. I spent 2 years 
in Viet Nam fighting for rights of people everywhere, including my own. 
If any of you think I will stand complacently while you go about your 
"business" you are all very naive. As I have stated before, I don't make 
veiled threats. Any AR types try to disrupt my legally  guaranteed right 
to fish and you will suffer the consequences of your actions.

You want to flame me, go ahead. I can dump your garbage faster than you 
can send it. Besides, I have bigger fish to fry. Pun intended. I might 
return a good fish recipe to you in return!

And Craig Barfman, I know your lurking out there under a rock someplace. 
You say you worked on fishing boats in the US at one time. What are you 
doing now hiding out in New Zealand from US authorities? Not an American? 
Well then, who cares what you think. A US citizen who gave up his 
citizenship? Well then, good riddens.

Larry Fisher

---

From: [email-masked] (Nigel Ling)
Date: 10 May 1996 10:26:40 GMT

Jeff Houston ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Nigel Ling wrote:
: > 
: > That's correct, and there is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that
: > the experience of pain in fish is very different to that of humans.
: > There is also another argument concerning the cerebal cortex of a
: > fish, which obviously is not as well developed as in humans. These
: > sort of factors have to be taken into account when making comparisons
: > of different species.
: > 
: > The view on fish pain amongst experimental psychologists is mixed. However,
: > what they all seem to agree on is that it is not possible to determine
: > whether fish feel pain in the emotional sense that we understand. It is a
: > pity that those who are determined to impose their morality on everyone
: > else cannot at least try and see the other point of view.

: > NigelIt dont really matter whether they feel any pain or not, a fish is a 

Good God, what is about you American fishing fellows? Can one not defend
fishing without someone responding with a gratuitous and misdirected insult?
Perhaps my sentences were too long for you and obscured the meaning. But I can
assure you I am on the side of fishermen (because I am one). And I do think
it's a good idea to counter attacks on fishing with intelligent argument, though
I appreciate this may be difficult for you.

Well, I'm not interested in a flame war with a shoot-from-the-hip, 
hang-em-high American, so you can happily fire off a few more good ol'
American insults without response. How about: Bleeding heart liberal, 
nut-chewing weirdo, asshole, and so on. Asshole's a good one: I imagine
you know that quite well.

Nigel

---

From: Mark Booker <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 May 1996 03:28:41 GMT

RE:  Plan A Fishing Trip! Catch Fish! Save Salmon! Make Money! Have A Blast!!

May 11, 1996

Dear Adventurers:

The Fish of Opportunity has a bounty.  The Northern Squawfish is the target.  The troublesome
Northern Squawfish can eat up to 15 salmon smolts per day.

Bonneville Power Administration will pay a bounty for your catch.  Also they will give you tips
on how to catch more Northern Squawfish.  Sign-up and join in the fun.  Call 1-800-858-9015
reel in the dollars starting April 29, 1996.

We are already late!  Visit the Pacific Northwest for fun and profit!

s/Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!

PS: How could things get better?!

---

From: [email-masked] (Kurt Hertz)
Date: 13 May 1996 20:52:06 GMT

Nigel,
	Some of us did understand what you were trying to say despite
the long sentences :)  However, I missed the rationale for the 
nationalistic characterizations (too many syllables? :)
I believe poor taste crosses many borders.  Ever eaten pub food?

			Peace.

				Kurt
				[email-masked]

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Nigel Ling) writes:
|> Jeff Houston ([email-masked]) wrote:
|> : Nigel Ling wrote:
|> : > 
|> : > That's correct, and there is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that
|> : > the experience of pain in fish is very different to that of humans.
|> : > There is also another argument concerning the cerebal cortex of a
|> : > fish, which obviously is not as well developed as in humans. These
|> : > sort of factors have to be taken into account when making comparisons
|> : > of different species.
|> : > 
|> : > The view on fish pain amongst experimental psychologists is mixed. However,
|> : > what they all seem to agree on is that it is not possible to determine
|> : > whether fish feel pain in the emotional sense that we understand. It is a
|> : > pity that those who are determined to impose their morality on everyone
|> : > else cannot at least try and see the other point of view.
|> 
|> : > NigelIt dont really matter whether they feel any pain or not, a fish is a 
|> : lower form of life and as such are subject to be eaten by a higher form 
|> : of life. Such as other fish, ducks, Beaver, Bear, and the list goes on 
|> : and on. Oh, I almost forgot HUMANS. Of course being an environmental 
|> : wacko I bet you didnt realize that did you?
|> 
|> Good God, what is about you American fishing fellows? Can one not defend
|> fishing without someone responding with a gratuitous and misdirected insult?
|> Perhaps my sentences were too long for you and obscured the meaning. But I can
|> assure you I am on the side of fishermen (because I am one). And I do think
|> it's a good idea to counter attacks on fishing with intelligent argument, though
|> I appreciate this may be difficult for you.
|> 
|> Well, I'm not interested in a flame war with a shoot-from-the-hip, 
|> hang-em-high American, so you can happily fire off a few more good ol'
|> American insults without response. How about: Bleeding heart liberal, 
|> nut-chewing weirdo, asshole, and so on. Asshole's a good one: I imagine
|> you know that quite well.
|> 
|> Nigel
|> 

-- 
		Kurt
		[email-masked]
		(503)685-1925
Kurt Hertz

---

From: [email-masked] (Flip214)
Date: 14 May 1996 09:32:37 -0400

For someone (craig) to say a fish is caused pain by a hook in their mouth
sounds a little crazy to me.  Unless some of these fish are filleting or
baking their meals, some of the things they are eating are every bit as
sharp and more damaging than a single fish hook.  Have you ever seen the
fins on some groupers or mackrels?  I'd take a hook in the mouth before
trying to swallow one of those guys any time.  Craig and others like him
are notorious for crediting fish with human feelings and sensations.  The
fact is they are very different.  Its wrong to do so.  Just as people once
realized that their pet rocks were not really alive, people may realize
that fish are not really humans.  Torture is a term applied by humans, not
fish.  Has a released fish been mentally tramatized by the experience? 
No.  If the fish lives as most of them do, it behaves the same way it did
before.  All a fish does is swim kill, eat, and spawn.  They don't go home
to a computer and write about other fishes.  They're a lot less complex
than you make them.  Quit toturing these poor animals by giving them all
of these complex emotions.  If you wan't to direct your efforts to more
worth while causes like racisim and ethnic killing, I'll promise to be
your biggest supporter but quit wasting so much effort over a fish.
Greg

---

From: Blindeye <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 May 1996 15:28:17 GMT

>Jeff Houston ([email-masked]) wrote:

{snippage of a relatively sane post with one flame at the the end)

>Well, I'm not interested in a flame war with a.....{ignorant stereotypes deleted)   That's funny Nigel....either your sense of irony is overblown, you're deliberately trolling for flames, or your understanding of basic social skills could use some drastic improvement.  Life is too short to waste on steroetypes, even in response to provocation.  

Oh yes, and just in case you were thinking of stabbing at me in the same way that you responded to Jeff Houston - I'm not one of those Yanks you seem to loathe so, even though I live here now. 
>Nigel

-Blindeye